Rabbi Yoel Ben-Nun, agree or disagree with what he thinks about the current peace negotiations and the Palestinians' mindset, finishes his article Lies I've been told about 'occupation' by a conclusion that is difficult to argue with:
Israeli government ministers and Knesset members, upon making a historic and legal decision on the outline of the American agreement, and on borders which will be set "based on the 1967 lines with land swaps" – if most of you are convinced that there is no other choice, that the State of Israel cannot be perceived in Israel and in the world as the side which thwarted the agreement – at least don't lie to yourselves, and set conditions which will expose the truth.
At least say in advance: Any Israeli agreement to permanent borders will be completely canceled if it becomes clear that the Palestinian terror against the "occupation of 1948" will continue after the agreement and if Palestinian missiles are placed on the ruins of the settlers' communities, and under the Palestinian villages.Amen to that.
8 comments:
Try to put Lurch off until November, when the Democrats may lose the Congress altogether. At which point, it should be less likely of anything lying Lurch comes up with being ratified.
Do not do it!
That true. So let's hope.
Thankfully, I am not in charge of doing anything ;-)
Lawyers drafting divorce agreements in Canada are careful to include clauses that will claw back any concession made of the party who receives the concession comes back seeking more, ie: were my repulsive ex-spouse ever come back looking to me for financial support after I relinquished my interest in the matrimonial home, it would reopen my claim to 50% of the value on the date of separation.
The problem with such a clause in the "final borders" agreement is the same as it is with the unilateral evacuation from Gaza. When the inevitable terror attacks start up, who will enforce the return of any land Israel conceded?
Oh, "who" is not actually a question. As long as we know the answer, I mean. Nobody but.
yes but involuntary revocation of sovereignty is a very difficult thing (hasn't been done in the modern era). what is arguable now as "occupied/disputed" territory will become an occupied nation state, with a recognized government in exile etc etc. the "1967 lines" will become enshrined as real borders recognized internationally by all objective observers. thus there should be no agreement if there is a good likelihood of a failure, because much of the changes following will be irreversible. alternatively, an interim agreement would be ideal with the establishment of a "transitional autonomous but non sovereign state". good behavior could be rewarded with sovereignty.
True, but the current rulers of West Bank will not agree to a solution of this kind.
Post a Comment