I24 News..
15 February '14..
The most important question one should ask oneself on the subject of a prospective peace deal with the Palestinian Arabs is that of the "day after." We should seriously consider the more than plausible scenario of a painful awakening of the Israeli population who would realize, only too late, that the Palestinian Arabs, despite the agreements they had signed, never had the intention of changing their good ways.
The definitive cessation of hostilities and demands, one of the prerequisites set by Israel to the signature of any agreement, may well not be worth the paper it will be signed on. Just consider the intense anti-Israeli propaganda in the media and the education system under the Palestinian Authority. A system where teachers never tire of hammering home the point that Haifa, Acre, Tiberias, Safed and Lod are Palestinian cities waiting to be "liberated."
Another legitimate demand voiced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, equally important but less frequently discussed, is that Israeli Arabs waiver any nationalistic claims they have. These two conditions are inconceivable to the Palestinian Authority and the other Palestinian factions, as they strip Palestinian Arab nationalism, made up for the sole purpose of eliminating the State of Israel one way or another, of its raison d'etre.
In this regard one should look at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the Interior Ministry recently held in the Knesset, and during which Arab MKs - among others - made surreal propositions that were totally ignored by the major Israeli media.
The agenda focused on the declared will of the government to beef up the Jewish population in the Galilee region, which does not seem to be politically disputed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is certainly what most Israelis think.
Hanna Sueid, initiator of the debate, started by denouncing Construction Minister Uri Ariel's alleged "obsession" with building "settlements" in Galilee. The term Hebrew word for "settlement" generally only refers to the villages erected by Jews in Judea and Samaria, and now an Arab representative used the term to refer to Jewish villages in Galilee. The deputy found a staunch ally in MK Tamar Zandberg, of the extreme leftist Meretz party, who vocally stated she too was categorically opposed to the establishment of new Jewish villages in Galilee! Taken aback, Yifat Kariv, of Yair Lapid's centrist party "Yesh Atid," became the sole voice of dissent, asking: "Is the Galilee region not a part of Israel?" This "insolent" question brought about a barrage of verbal abuse from Arab MKs.
Hanin Zouabi, an MK with the "Balad" party, charged "it was then a desire to take control of Arab lands along racial lines." Her colleague Jamal Zahalka was the one to put the last nail and finally reveal what lies at the bottom of these Israeli Arab representatives' minds: "The Galilee is ours and this land is ours. This represents a course of action of an apartheid regime and the nakba (catastrophe) continues to this day."
This is a telling scene. The terms and arguments normally applied to Judea and Samaria - the official showcase of the Palestinian Arabs' claims - are extended to the Galilee without sparking outrage. It would be interesting to know what the European Union or the United States - impressing upon us all year long that the evacuation of Judea and Samaria represents for Israel the unique and safe way to put a definitive end to this century-old conflict - make of this. What was said in the heart of this Committee says a lot about Arab leaders' intentions in Israel, who are moreover unofficially but nevertheless entirely supported by Mahmoud Abbas in this matter.
Identical slogans were heard a few months ago when part of the Bedouin population rioted in the Negev (South of Israel). Imagine for a moment then the map of Israel without the regions of the Negev, the Galilee, Judea and Samaria, and it will be easy to surmise that this is in fact the implementation of Arafat's famous step-by-step plan to "liberate Palestine" that he crafted in 1974 and from which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has never distanced itself. Those who still believe that throwing the Palestinians a bone in the guise of Judea and Samaria would appease their hunger are invited to seriously reconsider the issue.
Certainly, the eleven Arab Knesset representatives do not necessarily express the views of the entire Israeli Arab population, who have become accustomed to living at the not-so-unpleasant rhythm of a modern developed state. However, it is obvious that they are working in the background and with the help of the Palestinian Authority to hammer home the notion that any Jewish presence in "Palestine" is illegal, and they are thereby also encouraging the rise of future Arab-Israeli independence and separatist movements. All this even with the existence of a potential Palestinian state… or rather, perhaps because of it!
No signed agreement or international guarantee would stop a new wave of claims from a population that has not as of yet truly accepted the principle of a sovereign Jewish state on any parcel of land they consider to be Muslim.
The question that therefore remains is the following: Can Israel allow itself the luxury of taking so many risks and making such painful concessions if the "day after" is very likely to be worse than the prevalent situation on the "day before?"
Link: http://www.i24news.tv/en/opinion/140215-occupied-territory-in-galilee
Shraga Blum is an independent journalist. He publishes a weekly press review in the "P'tit Hebdo" and political analysis on Israeli-French language sites.
Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment