Livni: Israel must give up land to remain Jewish and democratic

[oberliner]

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Monday told American Jewish leaders that Israel must give up part of its land in order to remain a Jewish and democratic state.

Livni was addressing the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, currently holding its annual leadership mission in Israel.

The delegation has already met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fisher during their visit, which began this week. They are also scheduled to speak with President Shimon Peres and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat over the coming days.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064591.html

[Joanne98]

1. WOW. I can't believe she said that.

[Big Blue Marble]

2. No, Israel must give back Palestinian lands

to remain a Jewish and democratic state. I find it arrogant that she
would give up part of its land. This land she talks about never belonged
to Israel. It is the occupied territories.

[oberliner]

3. Give back to whom?

Never belonged to an independent Palestinian state either.

Prior to 1967, the lands were occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

[Tripmann]

7. Well then....

...we'll just have to treat the palestinians like we treated the Israelis and give them a land of their own....

I'm being facetious. But seriously, I've had debates with people before about if there was no land of palestine, how could there be palestinians? Politically drawn lines on a map are meaningless in this context, especially as the claims are usually made by the same people who base the rights of the israelis to the land on words written by man 2000 years ago. Similar to how Columbus found america without the native americans ever having declared it as being lost in the first place.

[oberliner]

8. I get what you are saying

I think there should be a Palestinian state established as soon as possible.

I am just saying that the land has been controlled by a variety of different entities over the years. This would be the first time there would be an independent Palestinian state - which would be a very good thing, in my opinion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. How about to the independent Palestinian state that was SUPPOSED to

have been created alongside Israel in 1948?

[oberliner]

11. The Arab side rejected that one

Would've been interesting if they hadn't.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. You are aware that "the Arab side" consisted of a half dozen different

factions, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, each with their own agenda, and that the Palestinian residents had NO say in it when those countries declared war on Israel in '48.

There was no "Arab side". Just a bunch of wolves wrangling over the carcass of the British Empire.

Nobody even bothered asking the Palestinians.

[oberliner]

18. Definitely aware of that

Also aware that the Jewish side accepted the plan.

[Ken Burch]

21. Were you aware that, within six months AFTER Israel declared independence

Ben-Gurion was seeking cabinet approval to attack and occupy the West Bank?
(His cabinet showed humane and moral tendencies for what was apparently the last time in Israeli history, and refused to give him this approval.

BTW, my source on this is the book "Palestine" by Karl Saddagh.)

It's not so simple as saying "The Israelis accepted partition and the Palestinians didn't".

[Lithos]

23. Ben Gurion's request was on Sept. 26th, 1948

And was during a period when hostilities were still happening, in fact the war remained hot until 1949.

In other words, the war was still active, so this was a request for a military operation against an active foe, not a resumption of hostilities after peace had been made. The Israelis instead opted to shift their military focus to the Galilee and to the Negev, ultimately capturing Eilat in Dec. 1948. The Armistice ending the war was not signed until 1949.

L-


BTW, the author's name is Sabbagh, not Saddagh.

[Ken Burch]

34. It does reflect that the Israeli government's "commitment" to partition was not sincere

Everyone on the Palestinian side knew that Ben-Gurion was telling his supporters "don't worry, we'll get more later". With that knowledge, why SHOULD they have trusted the Israelis?

(Thanks for correcting the spelling of the author's name).

[oberliner]

40. Still - the whole war could have been avoided in the first place nt

[Ken Burch]

42. If BOTH sides had acted differently, to some degree, and if the Israeli leadership hadn't had such

a massive sense of arrogance and entitlement(note that I'm saying the leadership, and not the innocent refugees that showed up because the U.S. was still barring Jewish immigration OR the innocent(and universally non-Zionist before 1948) Mizrahim the Arabs stupidly kicked out in response to the Nakba).

There needs to be a huge apology for that attitude, and for Plan Dalet, and for the lie that Palestine was "a land without a people". The Palestinians were made to suffer for the crimes of Hitler, when they were completely blameless for the Holocaust and the European sin of antisemitism.

Making such an apology wouldn't have to mean disestablishing Israel, or endangering a single Israeli Jew, just owning up to the truth. There's no reason not to do that.

And, before ask, yes, I think the U.S. owes that same apology to our First Peoples for everything we did to them.

There's nothing to lose from saying "we were wrong to treat those people like that".

[Lithos]

41. You can make the same statement for the Arab Armies

who were at the time committed to destroying Israel. At the time this request was made, there were three Arab Armies active, one in the northern Negev and two in Northern Israel. The Jordanian Army to which this attack was contemplated had over-reached itself and was entrenching in the West Bank. Note: They too also were not committed to "partition", but in expanding the Jordanian Kingdom as they annexed the West Bank. The Egyptians in the Negev were also looking to annex that territory as well. The Syrians in Galilee the same there too.

As for Ben-Gurion's statement, he was notorious for not actually coming out with such things. I rather believe that what you describe is more "after the fact" projections.

Even so, this whole notion of "partition" based on the UN recommendation became nothing more than historical fodder once the guns started shooting.

L-

[aranthus]

47. Where's the contemporaneous proof of this?

I've see lot's of post war claims of Ben-Gurion's or the Zionist's "secret intent" to take all of Palestine by force irrespective of what the Arabs did (that is a plan for conquest even if the Arabs were peaceful and agreed to a compromise), but where is the evidence that a) there was such an intent, and b) where is the contemporaneous evidence that the Arabs "knew" of it.

[Alamuti Lotus]

29. "the Jewish side" was just as fractured..

the terrorist factions (which provided many future heads of state) were actively engaging in violence at all points in the timeline. So, if you consider "actively prepared for war" as analogous to "accepted the plan", then that statement fits......leaves some interesting questions open regarding many other interpretations of language and events, but it would fit in this particular case anyway.

[oberliner]

39. And yet in spite of that - the plan was officially accepted by their side

And rejected by the other.

[aranthus]

22. The Palestinians were part of the equation.

It isn't true that no one asked the Palestinians. They were asked, and like all the other Arab factions, they rejected any compromise whatsoever. In fact, it was the Palestinians that started the war in the first place. When Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebabanon invaded in May, 1948, it was to take part in a war that had already been raging since December,1947.

[shaayecanaan]

20. Neither the Israeli occupation nor the Jordanian occupation was recognised...

by any western country other than Britain.

Although most countries have not formally stated their position, a couple of European countries have made statements that "were they required" to ascribe a status to the West Bank, they would view it as being part of the Palestinian state that was created in 1947.

[oberliner]

38. No argument here

But neither has an independent Palestinian state ever been recognized by any western country.

[Alamuti Lotus]

27. Do you teach classes on "The Coy Response",

or is it just a hobby?

"give back to whom?" -- Oh I don't know, how about the people who still keep the keys to their stolen houses.. just a crazy thought, I know.

[oberliner]

37. It wasn't meant to be coy

Give back to whom in the sense of who should be governing the lands in question.

I think "give up" is a more accurate term since they are now under Israeli control and would be given up to form a new independent Palestinian state (as opposed to given back to Egypt and Jordan who held control of the lands before the 1967 war in which why were captured).

If you are talking about "giving back" individual houses or land within Israel to the Palestinians who lived there prior to 1948 then you are talking about something else entirely.

That is certainly not what Livni was referring to.

[Howardx]

43. how about

anyone with a deed gets their land back? do you oppose that?

[Taverner]

5. I don't care how she says it - as long as she did

If they can keep away from each other long enough, maybe both sides will stop killing each other

And for the record, both the Israelis and the Palestinians have blood on their hands - there are no innocent parties

[Taverner]

4. Awesome!

The first good news I have heard from the region in quite a while

[Thrill]

6. This is why Obama probably wants her as PM

She is probably the only chance for peace

[Idealism]

9. Am I right to be skeptical?

Livni doesn't say what she means and means what she says, so to speak, like Bibi does. She is a very deft politician, in many ways.

Keep in mind: she said this to American Jewish leaders - NOT to the Israeli public. What Americans will have to leave their newly built homes on Palestinian land? None.

[oberliner]

12. It's on the front page of an Israeli newspaper

It's not like the Israeli public isn't hearing this statement.

[Idealism]

14. Exactly! The biggest left-wing newspaper.

Did this make JPost's print version?

Who makes up the settler population? More right-winger nationalist-types or leftists?

[oberliner]

17. Associated Press - Livni: Give up half of 'Land of Israel'

JERUSALEM (AP) — Tzipi Livni, who hopes to be appointed Israel's prime minister-designate, said Monday Israel must give up considerable territory in exchange for peace with the Palestinians, drawing a clear distinction with her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hcX49mNGhMPjANq3C-wSH833a0swD96CQL0G0

[oberliner]

19. The headline is now on the Ynet home page

Livni: Give up half of 'Land of Israel'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3672896,00.html

They are running the AP version of the story (with the same headline).

[Idealism]

26. I saw it on JPost, too, very interesting.

She might be facing some harsh words from within her own party in the near future, Kadima after all is made up of ex-Likudniks

[pelsar]

31. EXACTLY WRONG.....

i guess you dont get the hebrew press, arabic press in israel, get israeli TV or israeli radio-her remarks were quite widespread in israel...reaching the golan to eilat, including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and even hebron.......the israeli media, i guess unlike the one you seem to be used to, isnt limited to sections...

which brings up the more interesting question...why do you believe you know how the israeli media works?..any experience with it- or do you just assume its like the one you get?

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Actually, a lot of them, as the settlements in the occupied territories

are mostly made up of American and Russian immigrants. I read in one thread (no idea how accurate it may be) that a great many immigrants are told they MUST settle in the West Bank settlements as a condition on their immigration.

Ever notice it is always the squatters who claim possession is 9/10ths of the law?

Israel KNOWS that they will eventually have to let go of the West Bank - and that is why they are building so many settlements there. The more they build, the more they will be able to retain in negotiations in the long run.

[GoesTo11]

44. ?????

No one MUST settle in the West Bank as a condition of immigration. On the other hand, it might be the difference between a subsidized house with a subsidized mortgage and subsidized downpayment vs. a relatively small apartment.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. Not according to what I read, but as i said I don't know about the

source - it could be referring to a particular RW organization that is funding immigration which is making those the terms. I don't believe the state itself would make those terms. I sure as hell hope not.

But even if I grant that the report is incorrect, then it is not coercion but, by your description, greed that is behind the settlements - which is the Palestinian contention. And the fact is, ALL the West Bank settlements are being established in defiance of international law. Regardless of who did or did not possess that land, the fact remains that it did NOT belong to Israel before '67 - it was outside the borders of Israel as agreed to by Israel and the international community of the United Nations. It never WAS a part of Israel, and can only BE a part of Israel by treaty with, and consent of, the inhabitants of that land.

These are not the middle ages and this is not some distant wilderness. The '48 border of Israel is very clear cut. And the world knows it. Why do you think the public and international perception of Israel has done a 180 since 1967? Because Israel has gone from a tiny, beseiged state before then to a military occupier with no legitimacy since then. They've gone from being the sole democratic state in the region to being an oppressive police state in the occupied territories.

And the hell of it is, most Israelis would just as soon get rid of the territories if it meant they could finally live in peace. Instead of occupying and invading, the Israeli government should be helping create the Palestinian state. Their own actions are radicalizing the Palestinians. They marginalize Fatah and isolate Arafat, resulting in the rise of Hamas - and now wish that Fatah still held the reins. The invasion of Lebanon to go after a couple thousand PLO and Black September soldiers collapsed the Lebanese government and gave rise to a Hezbollah army of 25,000.

We are not supposed to be a stupid people.

[Tripmann]

13. To give credit to Livni

I think she went as far verbally and on record as she possibly could. Nuances notwithstanding, any step however small towards justice for the palestinians is a step in the right direction.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. That this is newsworthy depresses me.

N.T.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Yet, Israel continues to expropriate Palestinian land to expand settlements

If Israel were a person rather than a country, he/she would be diagnosed with a personality disorder.

[Alamuti Lotus]

28. Indeed -- "say this" "do the exact oppose" -- the diagnosis is "hypocrite"!

And yet, still taken seriously on occasion -- although to be fair, typically by hypocrites of other stripes (an American or European politician, for example), so it can be forgiven that these similar 'feathers' naturally flock together.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Wrong, Indy. It's not Palestinian land, it's *the Land of Israel*!

I'm filing that Livni biblical-blooper alongside the 'there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza' one ;)

[azurnoir]

30. Here is what Livni said

She also told the delegation that Israel must take the initiative and come forward with its own peace plan to head off international programs. "Any plan put on the table will not be in our interest," she said.

Sounds like Israel is about to make a "take it or leave it" plan, it should be quite interesting to see what it consists of

[hope1954]

32. 2 states

This is the only solution to this

[azurnoir]

33. True enough

but it what those 2 states will look like that is the question, one the one hand you have the "solution" that consists of the West Bank in its entirety and Gaza sort of like East and West Pakistan after the British pulled out, then you have the land swap in which the Palestinian state would look something like a game of "connect the dots" with of course Israeli "security" check points between each dot.

[LeftishBrit]

35. Very strongly agree

[GoesTo11]

45. Regardless how the solution is achieved, the Palestinians should run their lives

They should govern themselves, but they shouldn't have certain powers that would threaten the state of Israel.

[clixtox]

48. And vice-versa, of course! N/T