Why the Palestinians Must Pay a Price

Pages: 1 2

The Palestinians are in the process of seeking sovereignty from the United Nations, but in doing so, they are asking for more than what was offered them in any prior negotiation with Israel—including during the talks involving President Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2000 and 2001. Rather than more, it is imperative that the Palestinians get less.

It is imperative to world peace that the Palestinians pay a price—even if it’s only a symbolic price—for rejecting the generous Clinton/Barak offer and responding to it with a second intifada in which 4,000 people were killed. It is also important that Israel not return to the precise armistice lines that existed prior to the 1967 war. If the Palestinians were to achieve a return to the status quo prior to Jordan’s attack on Israel in June of 1967, then military aggression will not have been punished, it will have been rewarded. That’s why Security Council Resolution 242—which was essentially the peace treaty that resulted from the end of the Six Day War—intended for Israel to retain territory necessary to give it secure boundaries (Indeed, in the formal application submitted by Abbas, he sought membership based on UN General Assembly Resolution 1810-11 of November 29, 1947, which would put the borders where they were before the Arab armies invaded the new Jewish state in 1948. This would reward multiple aggressions.)

Yet, however important it is that aggressive and unjustified violence not be rewarded, the international community seems bent on doing just that. If the end result of Jordan’s 1967 attack on Israel—an attack supported by the Palestinian leadership and participated in by Palestinian soldiers—is that the Palestinians get back everything Jordan lost, there will be no disincentive to comparable military attacks around the world. If the Palestinians get more than, or even as much as, they rejected in 2000 and 2001 (and did not accept in 2007), then further intifadas with mass casualties will be encouraged. A price must be paid for violence. That’s how the laws of war are supposed to work and there is no reason to make an exception in the case of the Palestinians.

I support a two-state solution based on negotiation and mutual compromise. But the negotiations must not begin where previous offers, which were not accepted, left off. They must take into account how we got to the present situation: The Arab rejection of the UN partition plan and the attack on the new Jewish state that resulted in the death of one percent of Israel’s population; the attack by Jordan and its Palestinian soldiers against Israel in 1967, which resulted in Israel’s capture of the West Bank; Israel’s offer to trade captured land for peace that was rejected at Khartoum with the three infamous “no’s”—no peace, no recognition, no negotiation; Israel’s generous offer of statehood in 2000-2001 that was answered by violence; and Olmert’s subsequent, even more generous, offer that was not accepted by President Abbas.

Efforts to achieve peace must look forward but they must not forget the past. A balance must be struck between not rewarding past violence and not creating unreasonable barriers to a future peace. But the Palestinians made it clear last week that they reject such balance.

Pages: 1 2

  • UCSPanther

    Statehood may be a blessing in disguise, for it will open a Pandora's box for the Palestinian terrorists, and it may very well cut down on any last-minute intervention options for Hamas.

    I wager that in the next Operation: Cast Lead redux, Hamas may cease to exist due it being wiped out, and they probably know it. They were bellowing how they won and defeated the Israelis, but it was a" victory" that at best, I would classify as a pyrrhic victory, and at worst, a stay of well-deserved execution.

  • IamJoseph

    Its not a 2-state:

    "It will be a historic compromise to grant two states in Palestine – one for the Jews – and one for the Arabs' – A cigar chomping Churchill.

    Serial 2-state demands in the same land = 100% Genocide.

  • http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    !I once heard Dershowitz say that he was "pro-Palestinian." It annoyed me until I realized that I too in a sense was pro-Palestinian in so far as I'm all for the Palestinians becoming peace loving, civilized, and democratic like Israeli Jews. Will that ever happen? Not in our lifetime.

    • ziontruth

      To be truly pro-Palestinian is to be pro-Israel, for the nation state of the one and only true Palestinian nation, the Jewish nation.

      To side with the Arab settler-colonist land-thieves falsely calling themselves "Palestinian" is to be pro-Islamic-imperialism, whether intentionally or not.

  • aspacia

    The Muslim majority lands will not tolerate the Jewish state. Israel will probably have to annihilate or expel all Muslims from Israel proper, Gaza and The West Bank.


  • http://historyscoper.angelfire.com tlwinslow

    Dershy doesn't really support a 2-state solution: he's a LAWYER and he's not in court :)
    If the Palestinians aren't happy with JORDAN then why would they want a 2nd state on Israeli land? Answer: because they are Saudi pawns in their chess game aimed at annihilating Israel for their dead god Allah. That's why it won't work.
    http://tinyurl.com/muslimscope http://tinyurl.com/jerusalemhistory http://tinyurl.com/islamvids http://tinyurl.com/islamwatch http://go.to/islamhistory

  • Inis_Magrath

    Dershowitz wrote above that he supports a negotiated peaceful two-state solution with borders that should, "not be on the pre-1967 borders because the Palestinians are not entitled to such borders and because such borders are not conducive to peace, BUT IT WILL BE CLOSE." (emphasis added).

    I'm glad the Mr. Dershowitz supports President Obama who took the same position by saying to AIPAC, "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."

    You can't arrive at negotiated borders that are "close" to the 1967 lines, unless you start your negotiations from the 1967 lines with the understanding that the negotiating parties must then "mutually agree" on some variances to the 1967 lines.

    Thank you Mr. Dershowitz for agreeing with President Obama.

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    Alan Dershowitz loves to dictate prerequisites. The video in which he tried to pressure J Street to join AIPAC and voice all of its differences privately was indicative of his falangist desires for control, and the domination of all discussions behind a wall of corporate secrecy. The fact that he shouts down any criticism of Israel and tries to dictate terms by manipulating the ground rules for discussion means that while it is necessary to take him seriously as a machinator, it would be foolish to take him seriously as a political comentator or peace negotiator.

    • maturin20

      It's classic academia. "Of COURSE you have to take Poli Sci 302 before joining my seminar!"

  • crypticguise

    The Palestinians will continue to demand what they can not get through negotiations. I think their position is totally intractable and they will not change in our lifetimes.

    Are they STUPID? Perhaps, hypnotized by 1,400 years of Islamic hatred of the Jewish People. Their position is neither logical nor "sane".

  • Raymond in DC

    Perhaps the greatest flaw in the 1979 Camp David treaty with Egypt was that Egypt itself paid no price for its aggression, as it got back every square inch of what it lost in 1967, as well as Israeli upgrades to infrastructure and oil fields. Egypt was made whole, and then some. Now everyone wants a comparable deal. Had Egypt been required to, say, cede Sharm el Sheikh or territory up to the Mitla Pass, it would have been clear that such aggression would not be cost-free.

    Fast forward to the present. It's not just that Syria wants all the Golan back and the PA wants all the land previously held by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem). It's that they know even if they start another war, as Hamas did in 2008, it will be quickly followed by a "donors conference" to rebuild all that their aggression led to.

    Most insulting is that those who insist on pre-1967 lines "with agreed swaps" expect Israel to "pay for" lands that previously belonged to Jews before they were seized by her enemies – the Gush Etzion settlement block, the Old City's Jewish Quarter, the Sheikh Jarra neighborhood, and much more – even the Western Wall plaza, if they want to retain them with other territory. That's simply madness.

  • Marty

    palestinians are not a nation and they do not deserve a state. There was no peace when Israel was at the 1967 lines. The palestinians even then wanted to "drive the Jews into the sea." Their policy of genocide is consistent and relentless.

  • Pathena

    The phony history and propaganda of Arabs being "Palestinian" came from the invention of the "Palestine Liberation Organization" by Gamal Nasser, ruler of Egypt, and the Soviet Union, both haters of Jews, in 1964 in Cairo.
    "Palestine" meant "land of the Jews" from the time that the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D, after defeating the last Jewish uprising under Bar Kochba, changed the name of Judea to Palestina. (He also outlawed Judaism and renamed Jerusalem "Aelia Capitolin," his gens name being "Aelius." "Palestinian" meant "Jew." After World War I, Great Britain was given the "Palestine Mandate" to be the "homeland of the Jews."
    The so-called "two state solution" is ridiculous – the Arabs do not need or deserve yet another state.

  • 080

    For the Palestinians there is only a one state solution. It's called Jordan. Placing a state headed by Hamas or the PA on your border is insanity. The only people who can possibly believe in it is called a Liberal.

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    "Liberal" is just a euphemism for "Jew," so that can't make much sense.

  • joy52

    Just continue to contain them. They have demonstrated over decades they are not smart enough to take the money handed to them and make something of themselves other than what they are. As much as islam is a threat, their history shows they destroy any culture and country they encounter, including their own. That's what hate does. Manage them, but be realistic about them. Handout-dependent cultures all end up floundering at the bottom, asking for more handouts but not realising why they are always on the bottom. A few get wise and get out while the rest self destruct. Too bad you have to live next to them.

  • maturin20

    Why should Palestinians accept less than Zionists did?

  • Thomas N. Fleming

    Dershowitz is against rewarding violence!?!?!? Hmmm…., can anybody recall the OJ Simpson trial?! I guess if Dershowitz personally profits financially by defending a double murderer, that’s different. This man is corrupt and his contempt for conservative Christians is obvious. The dishonesty of his high profile legal defense of criminals makes his moralizing bankrupt and hypocritical.

  • phillyfanatic

    To agree with Alan is a leap for me but I do. The Pals are simply un-reconstructed Islamofascist terrorists. Why reward them with a phony state which never existed in the first place? It makes no difference whether Alan is a lefty dope sometimes, he is right here. Israel is the only ally we have in the ME and the Islamofascists, notwithstanding Bama's love for them, will not change that.

  • http://OTVEgypt OTV Egypt

    Good, Why the Palestinians Must Pay a Price | FrontPage Magazine.

  • http://malaysiapalmoil.blogspot.com/2011_10_26_archive.html Palm Oil

    Magnificent beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog web site? The account helped me a appropriate deal. I have been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided shiny clear idea