Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Thursday, 29 October 2015

Two States: Beware Shimon Peres's Disingenuous Claim, declares David Singer

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It's entitled
"Peres Trashes Rabin’s Oslo Accords Vision".
 
Writes David Singer:

Former Israeli President Shimon Peres has pre-empted the memorial rally this Saturday evening to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the assassination on 4 November 1995 of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, by writing – quite misleadingly  – of Rabin’s vision in the Jerusalem Post this week.

Former US president Bill Clinton, Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin and Yitzchak Rabin’s daughter  – former deputy defence minister Dalia Rabin – are scheduled to participate in the rally – and hopefully will set the record straight.

Peres claimed that Rabin’s Government – in which Peres was Foreign Minister:
“sought peace at the price of a historic compromise: two states for two peoples. For, if there shall not be two countries, there shall be one continues [sic] tragedy for both peoples.”
Rabin never offered any such a two-state compromise.

Peres repeated this disingenuous message again in the same article:
“We laid down the foundations for a two-state solution and began building our peace with Jordan.” 
Rabin made his vision very clear in his last speech to the Knesset on 5 October 1995 when presenting the 300-page “Israeli -Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” (Oslo Accords) for approval: 
“Members of Knesset,
We are striving for a permanent solution to the unending bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab states.
In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80 per cent of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.
At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel  – Muslim, Christian, Druze and others – will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.
We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.
And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:
A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev – as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.
B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.
C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.
D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.”
The two-state solution was never entertained by Rabin.

Two separate countries  – favoured by Peres – is irretrievably dead and buried. Rabin’s legacy should not be coupled with that failed diplomatic initiative.

Rabin’s vision should be faithfully preserved – not trashed.

8 comments:

  1. I agree with David Singer that Prime Minister Rabin's last speech to the Knesset is absolutely clear with respect to a "two-state solution" --- he never used the term. To the contrary, he made clear that, in his view, the Palestinian "entity" would be "an entity which is less than a state".

    Furthermore, I think Rabin indicated clearly that Israel would maintain, under a negotiated "permanent solution," something close to the 70% of the West Bank under full Israeli control in October 1995 (the so-called "Area C"). I think his statements with regard to an undivided Jerusalem, settlements, including organic growth, security borders, and roads and other infrastructure, bolster this interpretation.

    Tellingly, he also made clear his realism regarding what many authors of late point to as the *real* issue --- Palestinian intransigent unwillingness to recognize Israel's right to exist or the 3000+ years of historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel:

    "We are aware of the fact that the Palestinian Authority has not -- up until now -- honored its commitment to change the Palestinian Covenant, and that all of the promises on this matter have not been kept. I would like to bring it to the attention of the members of the house that I view these changes as a supreme test of the Palestinian Authority's willingness and ability..." As the world knows, 20 years on, we're all still waiting.

    It is noteworthy, perhaps, that President Peres began his Oct. 25, 2015 Jerusalem Post article with the date "July 13, 1992," nearly three and one-half years *before* Rabin's last Knesset speech. What key event transpired between July 1992 and October 1995? The peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. Could Peres' reference to "two states for two peoples," and in fact much else that he wrote in the article, be understood to be referring to Israel (State One) and Jordan (State Two)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Borhani

      An interesting observation about whether Peres was referring to Israel and Jordan as the "two-state solution". I doubt that he was since Israel (1948) and (1946) Jordan have been the two successor States in 95% of the former Mandate for Palestine for more than 65 years.

      Obviously Jordan and Israel is the only two-state solution capable of allocating sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective States. If Peres hopped on to that solution he would be on a winner. Whilst he regards Abbas as "a partner for peace" he is backing a certain loser.

      Delete
    2. I was trying (I know, it's a stretch) to give Peres a generous benefit of the doubt. I agree 100% that he appears to be not only backing a certain loser in Abbas, but a loser that long ago (7 of the past 11 years) lost the backing of his own people.

      Delete
  2. Had Rabin not been killed, we would be in essentially the same position as we are now. Why? Because there was a shrewdness to Rabin's talking out of both sides of his mouth. What he pushed was a non-strategy strategy. He was doing what many since have advocated - that is - simply agreeing to anything and everything the Arabs demand and letting them fall back and refuse to accept what they were given. This would have been an entirely sound approach. Meet the Arabs and smile and agree to everything - not actually execute on those agreements. And then sit back and wait for the Arabs to scream and pout and whine that 110% of what they just demanded isn't enough. They would continually demand more and more and Rabin could have continued to smile and agree to it. Again, w/o ever having to honor it because the Arabs will never stop escalating their demands.

    We would be in essentially the same place now except the Israelis would be smiling and agreeing to insane things that no one believes are rational or capture any meaningful solution to anything. This is after all what the Arabs game plan has always been - to run out the clock. So play that game on their terms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Empress
      No one can say with certainty what would have happened to Rabin's vision had Rabin not been assassinated - so it is really pointless to speculate on any possible outcome.

      What we do know however for sure are the following facts:
      1. Rabin publicly presented a detailed vision to the Knesset of where Israel with Rabin as its leader wanted to end in its dispute with the Palestinian Arabs.
      2. This vision was presented in 1995 - when conditions in Judea and Samaria and indeed the Arab World were very different to those in 2015.
      3. No other Israeli leader since has publicly presented such a detailed vision.
      4. Peres's attempt to mislead the public in 2015 as to Rabin's vision is to be deplored. That was what I was at pains to point out in my article in the hope that this "two-state" nonsense uttered by Peres as Rabin's legacy would not take on a life of its own by repetition over and over again.

      Delete
  3. Peres was not invited to speak at the memorial rally, despite the passionate plea last Friday on radio by Judy-Shalom-Nir-Moses (whose IQ is about that of what was Rabin's), which is probably why Peres stuck his oar in first. If he was an honest man, he would have returned the Nobel "Peace" prize years ago. He has the blood of some 1,500 murdered Israelis on his hands. I personally know at least 12 families one of whose relatives was murdered as a result of Peres's actions.
    I was once cut off from an Israeli radio talk show because I stated the simple fact that Peres never served in the IDF.
    The only times in his life that he has sweated, have been on the many occasions when he was about to lose another election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting comment. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous

      I am not interested in kicking Peres - only in confronting and rebutting his opinions - which in the case of Rabin's vision - was clearly and demonstrably wrong as I pointed out.

      Peres's statements in the Jerusalem Post clearly indicated the wisdom of rally organisers refusing Peres the right to speak at the rally and probably repeating his false claims in the Jerusalem Post as to Rabin's vision and legacy.

      What is even more shocking however was Rabin's grandson speaking at the rally where he brazenly called on Israel to recognize a Palestinian State - something that was anathema to Yitzchak Rabin, an insult to his late grandfather's blessed memory and virtually an echo of what Peres had said in the Jerusalem Post.

      These attempts at Rabin Revisionism need to be exposed every time they are made.

      Delete