Weekly Commentary: Is annexation the solution?

[kayecy]

Weekly Commentary: Is annexation the solution?......Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 10 March 2011

If the creation of sovereign Palestinian state presents an existential
danger to the State of Israel and the status quo is indeed unsustainable
then is annexation the best of a collection of bad alternatives?
.
.
.

All Palestinians legally permanently living now in the West Bank would
immediately have permanent Israeli resident status. If they want to be
Israeli citizens with all the rights (e.g. participate in Knesset elections
both as voters and candidates) and obligations of citizenship, all they have
to do is fill out the paperwork.
.
.
.
Is there a risk?

Absolutely.

But to borrow from the jargon of the Oslophiles, it is a “calculated risk”.

And if the choice is between the risk associated with the creation of a
sovereign Palestinian state that brings in millions of Palestinians into the
West Bank under “right of return” as it exploits all the trappings of
sovereignty to prepare for the destruction of the Jewish State and the risk
of annexation the choice is annexation.

Again. Autonomy would be better. But if the options on the menu are a
sovereign Palestinian state or annexing and giving the Palestinians in the
West Bank the right to be Israeli citizens then the clear choice is
annexation.





http://www.imra.org.il

[kayecy]

1. IMRA & Dr. Aaron Lerner are hard right ......Any comments?....

Lerner's proposal ignores Gaza and assumes the Palestinian Diaspora can be refused a right of return....Any commments from Zionist members?

[RZM]

2. Probably not gonna happen

I'd say this has an distant outside chance of passage. But the right of return? That's never going to happen, IMO.

[whosinpower]

3. Haha single state rears its head

What will they do about the supposed demographic threat.....

Force the palistinians into a one child rule?

and just to put this into perspective - Israel is going to deport children born and raised in Israel, speak hebrew....but alas....are not jewish.

[azurnoir]

4. right now what I see is that Israel seems to 'herding' Palestinians

into area A of the West Bank or 17% of the West Bank, they are not doing by force exactly but by means of home demolitions and refusal of building permits in area's B, C and East Jerusalem now area B is under Palestinian civil control but Israeli 'security' control so what happens is that Israeli settlers start some problems with Palestinian villagers and viola IDF swoops in and declares the area a closed military zone

so no I do not see a one state solution but eventually as many Palestinians as possible packed into area A with the occupation going on indefinitely, with more and more Israeli citizens moving into area's B and C and East Jerusalem as possible

[oberliner]

5. You have no idea what you are talking about

Not sure where you are getting your inaccurate information from, but there are no Israeli settlements in Area B of the West Bank and thus no Israeli citizens moving into Area B.

[azurnoir]

6. there are outposts aren't there ? and there are Israeli citizens living in those outposts

so you get a semantics win but that is all unless of course you can prove there are no Israeli citizens living in area B

[oberliner]

7. No, there aren't and no, there aren't

Who is feeding you this inaccurate information?

And of course one can't prove a negative.

To wit: Prove that there are no aliens from Mars living in Minneapolis.

[azurnoir]

8. lol no outposts in area B rright ok so all the outppost are in area c right?

as far as your strawman "Prove that there are no aliens from Mars living in Minneapolis". We'd first have discern if there were or were not aliens from Mars at all, can you say the same of Israeli's

[oberliner]

9. Yes, all the outposts are in Area C

A straw man is when you ignore someone's actual position and instead substitute something else in its place, attributing that claim to that person.

I was just giving an example of how one can't prove a negative. I thought I would give you a humorous, yet illustrative example of that very basic principle.

If you can provide evidence of there being any outposts in Area B, then I can attempt to refute it.

If you were just making it up, then there really isn't anything I can do.

[azurnoir]

10. all of the hilltop youth restrict themselves to area C right

hey I have this bridge for sale ..........

[oberliner]

13. You have no idea what you are talking about

There are no "hilltop youth" or any outposts or settlements of any kind in Area B.

I would still love to know where you got this misinformation from.

[azurnoir]

15. prove it but you an not can you? that is why you make

IMO ridiculous argument about Martians ect as to misinformation where do you get yours

[oberliner]

16. You made up something that you have provided no evidence for

You invented (or repeated) a false claim about Israelis moving into Area B, providing no evidence whatsoever of this being the case.

If you would like to tell me the name or location of one of the places in Area B where you believe Israeli citizens are moving, then I can attempt to provide evidence to refute it.

Since you believe (or were told) that Israelis are moving into Area B, it should not be difficult for you to identify some of the settlements or outposts in Area B to which these Israeli citizens are moving.

[azurnoir]

17. my 'misinformation' comes from B'tselem and other sources

The Western Hills strip extends from north to south, and is ten to twenty kilometers wide. The proximity of this area to the Green Line and to the main urban centers of Israel has created great demand among Israelis for the settlements in this area. The total population of the settlements in this area was approximately 85,000 as of 2002. The seizure of land limits the potential for urban and economic development in the Palestinian communities. The transfer of powers to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords has led to the creation of over fifty enclaves of area B in this area, as well as a small number of enclaves defined as area A. These areas are completely surrounded by area C, which remains under full Israeli control. As a result, these settlements interrupt the territorial contiguity of the Palestinian villages and towns located out along this strip.

http://www.btselem.org/english/settlements/map_analysis.asp


but I do understand your confusion even Israel seems to think the borders of area B are fluid or they don't know where they are


Court to debate sealing mosque in West Bank village Burin
By TOVAH LAZAROFF
02/21/2011 06:57


The village has refuted the claim of illegality on the ground that it believes the mosque is located in Area B.
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=209143

[oberliner]

18. You might want to read that B'tselem link a bit more closely

It does not say what you appear to think it says.

Nor does the link to the Jerusalem Post.

B'tselem, in fact, lists all of the Israeli settlements and outposts. You might want to check it out!

[azurnoir]

33. you may be right because Israel has changed the borders of Area B

as needed to absorb area's where Jews live into Area A however there are no current maps of 'outposts'
something that I am sure surprises you

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/95059/section/2

[Ken Burch]

11. Given that Prince lives there, that's gonna be tough.

n/t.

[azurnoir]

12. no no he's from Jupiter or Saturn remember the symbol when he was

'he who's name cannot be spoken' lol, besides I think he lives or lived in Minnetonka or Orono where the Pillsbury's and Dayton's live

[oberliner]

14. He doesn't

He hasn't lived there for years.

[kayecy]

19. Isn't this right-wing proposal worth some consideration?..........

Admittedly this proposal is unlikely to get very far but don't you find it interesting?...It seems that some Israelis on the right are prepared (failing all else!) to consider a larger Arab-Israeli minority.....providing Arab-Israelis remain a minority of course!......Surely that is an immense step in the right direction?


Advantages
a) It is effect proposing a one-state solution which gives West Bankers equality with Arab-Israelis and democratic equality with Jewish-Israelis....West-bankers standard of living would be immeasurably improved....The resulting change in Israel's demographic balance might just result in a less militaristic Israel.

b) With a much larger Arab-Israeli population, Arab hatred of Israel and Israeli arrogance might be reduced to such an extent that an EU-style reconciliation might just be possible.

c) Since the proposal is from a hard right publication, it obviously has more chance of being supported by the hard-right (and therefore more chance of success) than anything so far offered by the Arabs.

Problems
1) What happens to Gaza and the Gazans......Would Gazans and Israelis ever accept a similar arrangement?...

2) What happens to Palestinian refugees outside the enlarged Israel?........Big, big problem!

3) What happens to the Palestinians Diaspora?....(This may be rather academic as I do not think many of the Diaspora are likely to opt to return to the West bank under any two-state scenario)....

[shira]

20. I'm more interested in what you think. Is this yet another evil Zionist plot in your opinion?

I think it's a bad idea, as most Israelis and Palestinians are against one-state.

One state didn't work out too well prior to 1948 so I don't see the real benefit here either.

[kayecy]

23. Thank you for your comment Shira.......n/t

[oberliner]

21. Why post something right wing and ask people to consider it?

Isn't this board on the other side, politically speaking, of the right.

[kayecy]

22. If the proposal is attractive to right and left, why wouldn't you want to discuss it?.....

I thought the proposal was interesting because of the advantages I have listed......Presumably you don't agree.

Shira doesn't like it because it is a "one-state" solution without explaining why a hard-right publication like IMRA would propose it if they thought it unworkable or of a danger to the Jewish State's existence.....Perhaps this makes her even harder to the right than IMRA.


Why do you think it not worth considering oberliner?
.

[shira]

24. So Kayecy, you're for this rightwing one-state proposal? n/t

[oberliner]

25. I think it is attractive to right and right

I think the left is not keen on Israel annexing all of the occupied territories.

[shira]

26. Of course there is no Palestinian "Left" so this is totally Rightwing.

The most "Liberal" Palestinians like Sari Nusseibeh and Ray Hanania are also against one-state.

[kayecy]

27. oberliner - You might be correct but look at the figures:

I think the left is not keen on Israel annexing all of the occupied territories.

You might be correct, but if you replace 'Left' with 'Palestinian Arabs' things might be different....I suggest most Palestinians would accept a one-state solution which had a small Arab majority.
Much to my surprise, the Jewish hard-right would seem to be prepared to consider a solution with a 60% to 39% Jewish majority with presumably the potential to become 50-50 in the distant future.

Those ethnic balances are not too far apart and could change completely in the future....It would be interesting to see what sort of ethnic balance today, ordinary Israelis and Arabs would consider acceptable in order to achieve a permanent, prosperous peace in the Middle East.


2010 population figures:
Jewish residents of Israel - 5.8M
Arab residents - 1.6M
Total - 7.4M

Jewish residents east of the Green Line - 0.5M
Arabs east of the Green Line - 2.5M
One-state total - 10.4M

Arab population of Gaza - 1.6M
One-state total - 12M

Thus, today Israel's demographics are 78% to 20% in favour of Jews.

Under the IMRA proposal this would become 60% to 39%.(Extending the one-state to Gaza this would become 52% to 47%)

[shira]

28. And how do Palestinian terror groups fit within a 1-state situation?

They end up behind bars?

Deported?

Or do they get to run for election?

[oberliner]

29. I believe that a two-state solution is the more popular choice among Palestinians

Unless you are aware of more recent surveys that show otherwise.

[kayecy]

30. But, as usual, it depends on the question asked.......

If only surveys were clear cut.

A Nov 2010 Greenberg survey of West bankers and Gazans (Not refugees or diaspora outside Israel) showed that 60% of respondents would accept a 2-state solution, and 36% would not.

However, when the respondents were asked whether they preferred 2-states as a permanent solution or 2-states with an eventual move to a single Palestine state, only 30% accepted a permanent 2-state solution but 60% preferred to start with two states and then move to all being one Palestinian state.

My conclusion is that depending how the one-state solution was presented to them (ie showing that demographics would eventually convert the initial Jewish 60-40 to a Palestine majority) most Palestinians would probably opt for a one-state solution now.


I remember reading somewhere that 70% of Arab-Israelis preferred a one-state solution.....They apparently feared forced assignment of their villages to the Palestinian state in any 2-state solution.

[oberliner]

31. Have you got a link to that poll?

Or to the poll where "70% of Arab-Israelis preferred a one-state solution"?

Thanks!

[kayecy]

32. Herewith links and references you requested.......

www.theisraelproject.org/.../NOV2010_ PALESTINIANPOLLPOWERPOINTNEW.PDF►


I don't have an original source for Arab-Israeli preferences but the following are quotes from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

A one-state solution is generally endorsed by Israeli Arabs.<9> Many are becoming nervous that a two-state solution would result in official pressures for them to move into a Palestinian state in the West Bank and/or Gaza Strip and so lose their homes and access to their communities, businesses and cities inside Israel.<9>

However, in February 2007, NEC found that around 70% of Palestinian respondents backed the idea when given a straight choice of either supporting or opposing "a one-state solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights and responsibilities".


NB: Other sources indicate the Arab-Israeli support for a one-state solution may be as low as 25%

[oberliner]

36. Interesting - thanks

Phrasing of the question does seem to make a big difference.

[houstonintc]

34. One State is never going to happen...

The two populations have shown a fundamental inability to coexist peacefully. Heck that was seen as early as 1948.

[kayecy]

35. That was after a massive alien immigration....

That was after a massive immigration of aliens designed to prevent Arab self-determination.

Most present day Jewish-Israelis were born in Israel.....Times change......


Your comment seems to suggest your Israel-Palestine politics are somewhat to the right of the hard-right IMRA publication....

[houstonintc]

37. Whatever you say...

Jews had been in that region for awhile, immigration happened and you make it sound like some evil... you know what conspiracy against Arabs.

I stand by my assertion, the two populations can not coexist peacefully... not without substantial cultural destruction and coercion.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. What Kaycey is saying is factual...

There was massive waves of immigration into what is now Israel. Not sure what you find so evil about that...

You can stand by yr assertion all you like, but you don't know what yr talking about...

[houstonintc]

39. I think I take issue with...

The assertion that it was a plot against Arabs.

Immigration happened... Immigration always happens. The notion that it was a plot specifically against Arabs is what I find odd.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Yr the one who made the assertion it was a plot...

So, if the word 'plot' disturbs you so much, just stop introducing it into the discussion. Easy....

What kaycey said was that immigration happened in order to stave off self-determination for Arabs. I don't think it was as simple as that when it came to motivation, as the Zionists didn't tend to consider Arabs in Palestine to be anything other than amusing and somewhat dangerous natives. While I'm sure to some extent they saw Arab self-determination as a very dangerous thing to be avoided, I think their major goal was to bring as many immigrants as possible to Palestine to create 'facts on the ground' and create a new country out of something they made out was empty and uncivilised. It's the stuff American frontier and Ausralian colonial stories are made of, though the problem in this case is it happened in the 20th century when self-determination was becoming a good thing...

[houstonintc]

41. So the word "Designed" has a new meaning?

designed to prevent Arab self-determination.

Designed implies a designer. That is why the fundie's push for "intelligent design" as in the implication is that a designer exists.

Immigration happened as part of Jewish self determination, it's impact on Arabs was not part of the equation. They came largely because Jewish culture and lore places that places as their point of origin. And they came to get away from deadly situations in various home countries.

The issue I take is with the term design... which implies a plot... as if the purpose of Zionism is entirely to attack Arabs.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I've always understood it to mean to plan. I can't help it if harmless words bother you...

It'd be absolutely ridiculous and an exercise in futility to try to argue there wasn't planning involved in immigration to Palestine, so let's not even head in that direction, okay? btw, I already told you that the impact of immigration on the Arab population wasn't something that was considered in any depth, and I already told you the reasons why. Those reasons weren't anything to be proud of. They did what other waves of immigration had done in the past both in the US and Australia, and that was to not concern themselves with the existance of the population that was already there, and if so, only to see them as a complete nuisance. There's no way of prettying it up so that gets overlooked, btw...

[houstonintc]

46. Planning? Yes... Planning solely against Arabs? No...

Here... let me cite it again for you...

...designed to prevent Arab self-determination.

As in the sole reason Jews went to Palestine was to lay some beat down on Arabs. Like they gathered together going... "were going to get 'em" as their sole and only reason for going to the Middle East.

It's as if your not even reading what I am writing.

[kayecy]

44. What a sad reflection on both Jewish-Israelis and Palestinians......

I stand by my assertion, the two populations can not coexist peacefully.

What a sad reflection on both Jewish-Israelis and Palestinians......
.
.

... not without substantial cultural destruction and coercion

Since there are presently some 1.6M Arab-Israelis living amongst 5.8M Jewish-Israelis and apparently coexisting peacefully.....Who do you think is applying the ".....substantuial cultural destruction and coercion" to make it work?

[Ken Burch]

43. Annexation would mean, of course, an effectively binational, unitary state.

It's incredibly bizarre that the Israeli far right would end up, by default, taking the same position as people like Noam Chomsky.

It goes without saying that such a state would inevitably end up with an Arab majority...which means that it would depend on Palestinian Arabs behaving as the Israeli Right insists they are incapable of behaving...as civilized, democratic human beings that would treat everyone as equals and allow everyone to live next to them without fear of persecution.

[kayecy]

45. Exactly!......... Likud & Chomsky finding common ground!......

It's incredibly bizarre that the Israeli far right would end up, by default, taking the same position as people like Noam Chomsky.

It goes without saying that such a state would inevitably end up with an Arab majority.

Exactly my thoughts, Ken........So why do you think IMRA would float such a suggestion?



Sadly, judging by the response of some pro-Zionist members, this IMRA proposal is unlikely ever to receive much consideration, even from the centre-right.
.