---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to have left out an analysis of hamas in the perspective of the mecca agreement, different shifts, new strategies.
And you also missed the point that regardless of the fact that the mecca agreement was signed there is an internal palestinian political debate is still developing. The whole idea of a national unity government aims at ending the seige over PA without compromising the Palestinian democratic process of elections. Regardless of the fact that i personaly stand nowadays on the margins of secular opposition.
This government was elected through a democratic process and the only way for this government to leave office is through democratic process.
My personal opinion doesnt really count in here since i do believe personaly that they did fail a long time ago in fulfilling their responsibilities.
But viewing the mecca agreement only from an Israeli perspective is not an objective way of examining what's been achived so far.
There are key issues that need to be remembered even when you are dealing with diplomatic efforts. And above it all lies the fact that we are still living under occupation, and requesting one side to fullfill their part of the agreement is only valid when you do request the other side to fulfill their part of the agreement.
Something that most seem to forget, that there is in fact still an occupation and second that Israel violated most of articles of agreements it signed with the PLO.
This is of course from a Palestinian perspective. From a political perspective it is different.
Second thing that keeps on getting on the surface all of the time "recognizing Israel right to exist as a jewish state on the Land of Palestine" you will be fooling yourself and any politician no matter where he is would be fooling themselves if any Palestinian would recognize that sentence as it stated above, you wont find one Palestinian out of the 10 million Palestinians in Palestine or in the diaspora who would say yes to that. Israel would be really lucky if as a political statement Palestinians recognized it as a state.
It is so full with nonesense to see that sentence repeated over and over again. The Palestinian official stand was that Israel was recognized as a state that had border.
Recognizing its right in Palestine transforms all Palestinians into zionists and refutes the core essence of our national identity.
So the West and Israel can consider themselves as achieved the achivement of their life if they reached a point of agreement with the Palestinians on recognizing Israel as a state that has borders. And that is what the PLO recognized. Saying that Israel has a right in Palestine would mean that we Palestinians are not Palestinians and we do not have a right in Palestine.
So for god sake stop using Israeli terminology and use common sense when dealing with the conflict, and also recognize the facts that Palestine was occupied and still occupied and show some respect to those who are sitting with you and trying to reach an agreement with you on how to end a conflict. Israel will never hear that sentence from any Palestinian, and it should acknowledge the fact that it would be really lucky to reach an agreement with Palestinians that recognize Israel as a state that got borders.
It is really nonsense to keep raising this issue as if it is what should happen, the world agenda should be different than Israel's agenda.
1 comment:
I have often made it clear at NCF that I am intensely aware of the horror that the occupation as a daily reality is. My cordial, in many cases warm contacts amongst the Palestinians (some of whose views are anathema to me, as mine are to them), for the purposes of finding solutions is often eye opening. For some it will never be good enough. But for most I have come to be known as a 'nice' Zionist. That is no mean feat, particularly since I feel no desire to join those amongst the Jews who are so loudly proclaiming their disgust for Israel. I love Israel, AND I respect this commentator's perspective. But I also know the history of the conflict as told by others. And I would look for an understanding of these other perspectives to this letter's very explicit rejection of my right to be there. My respect for the member's comments comes from something very simple, which I have come to see as a test on anybody who hovers around the MEPP. Most fail. My test: Is what you are proposing evidently motivated by a desire to move toward realistic peace? For example, those - Israelis and Palestinians - ensconsed in the International Relations department at Oxford don't stand a chance in hell. But people like the writer, however much their perspective may be difficult for me, do. So, thank you , dear correspondent. I don't agree, but clearly we could work together and find a formula to stop the children from dying. And I am more than happy to publicise your views.
In relation to the government that, as you point out, was democratically elected though, I must reiterate my earlier view. Read their statements. Comparatively over the last year, if you so desire. And tell me that Israel has anything to gain from working with them, Mecca or no Mecca, democratically elected or not. They do not mince their words. I'm sorry that you have to suffer under the occupation. But I wonder if you understand what it means to look at your government when I have never taken a bus in my homeland in my entire life.
Post a Comment