Reading Maan News today, I was struck by a lack of reflection involving commentary and meaning of Ambassador Areikat's statements. Here is what the Ambassador actually said (as reported in the Huffington Post and Daily Caller):
"Well, you know, I think - I still believe, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future. But after the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction I think it would be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated at first."
Now in the Huffington Post and Daily Caller they also reported that Areikat said:
“Listen, again, we have nothing against Jews. This is a political conflict,” he explained. “Once the political issues our resolved, every Palestinian should be welcomed in Israel. Every Israeli should be welcomed in Palestine. But under the current circumstances — an occupation power occupying a people against their will — this is something we are trying to end.”
Later Areikat in an interview with the Huffington Post stated:
In the interview with HuffPost, Areikat reiterated that Israeli soldiers and settlers -- "persons who are amid an occupation, who are in my land illegally" -- would be rejected from the new Palestinian state.
But he added that he would not like to see any restrictions on access to religious or holy sites for any person of any faith or nationality.
When it comes to religious freedom and the right of all to visit respective sites in Israel and Palestine, of course all cities should be open to all religions," he said.
"Jerusalem right now is restricted -- Palestinian Muslims and Christians cannot visit it. Christians, Muslims and Jews must be able to visit their respective sites in both countries. This wasn't even on my mind when we asked the question -- I thought he was talking about settlers staying in Palestine."
Now first of all, Jerusalem is not restricted to Muslims and Christians. That is just plan bullshit. There are occasional restrictions on services at Al-Aqsa (which I actually don't agree with) due to the fact that at times some of the more zealous worshippers have gone up there and dropped rocks down on the heads of those worshipping at the Western Wall (I witnessed when I lived there). As for the City itself, no... that is not true.
But let's break down the Ambassador's words a bit more.
Ok for Gaza there are exactly ZERO Jews. There are no settlers and no Jews that remained in the strip even if they were Palestinian.
For the West Bank there are Approx. 350,000 Jews 99.9% of whom live in settlements and neighborhoods (some of which are over 40 years old). SO.. exactly what Jews would be allowed to stay in a new Palestinian State? I mean is he talking about theoretical Jews that were theoretically born in Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus, East Jerusalem (when it was under Arab control)? I cannot find numbers but my bet is that it would be somewhere between 0-100 with a high probability that it would be closer to 0. I am sure that the three Jews in Ramallah (/snark) will be happy to hear this.
Look at his comments closely, he does not say that Jews should be allowed to LIVE in the new Palestinian State, He says that Jews should be able to VISIT holy sites in the new Palestinian State. Big difference there.
Another key part of this is the phrasing: "Once the conflict is settled...". How vague does one need to be? The fact of the matter is that this conflict won't necessarily be settled once a Palestinian State is established. According to the last winners of the Palestinian Elections (though it should be noted I cannot see this repeating itself) Hamas has stated that the conflict will not be resolved until the all of the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River is Palestinian. A sympathy echoed by the secular "One Staters" and Palestinian Civil society. THEN as Ambassador Areikat says where would the "occupiers" of that land be allowed to live?
Like all international conflicts and resolutions, the devil is in the details.
Well the Tablet Article was from a year ago (though I think that is relevant) but I actually agree with you on this one.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty clear from his commentary and his "retraction" that Jews are not welcome to live in Palestine. I mean, exactly how many Jews live in the P.A. controlled areas? And remember that there is a law on the books in the P.A. stating that selling land to Jews is punishable by death (though in all fairness that sentence is rarely if ever enforced).
So sure, Areikat says Jews that were there before the occupation are welcome to live in Palestine. He just leaves out the facts that there were no Jews living in that area (including East Jerusalem) prior to the results of the 1967 war.
How would he feel about the temporary removal of every Muslim from Israel, until the dust settles?
ReplyDeleteI would also note that the 1949 Armistice between Israel and Jordan provided that Israelis would be allowed to visit the Kotel and other holy sites under Jordanian control. Care to take a guess how many Jews, to say nothing of Israelis, were allowed to visit those sites during the years of Jordanian control?
ReplyDeleteMy personal belief is that people should be allowed to remain in place with the land swaps. Palestinians who wish to remain on their land despite it becoming part of Israel would become Arab Israelis, while Jews who wish to remain in their homes despite the land becoming part of Palestine would become Jewish Palestinians. Those who would wish to move, on either side, should get compensation. However, given the complexities that will initially arise, I could understand a rule that prohibited people from being citizens of both countries.
"Total separation" huh?
ReplyDeleteIf that's the way we're going, why isn't Israel trying to turn over the Umm el Fahm area to the Palestinian state? In all these proposed land swaps I've seen, it is never included, but it would significantly decrease the Arab population of Israel proper were they to do it?
Reuven,
ReplyDeleteYour suggestion is reasonable, but it seems a foregone conclusion that Jews will be persecuted for the express purpose of getting them to leave.
Many Palestinians, on the other hand, seem to prefer living under Israeli rule.
I know they would be forced out unless they chose to fight. However, it's more the principle of the matter. Furthermore, what will it say that there is yet another Middle Eastern state unwilling to protect its minority population from violence against it by the majority. If I were in their shoes, I'd almost certainly leave to get back into Israel, but the fact that that choice would not even be available is what this is about. After all, there is a reason that the area is known as Judea.
ReplyDeleteCan we say 'Judenrein'?
ReplyDeleteNot on Daily Kos we can't.
ReplyDelete