Lieberman’s Plan

From Ynetnews:

(VIDEO) A diplomatic plan that would see Israel retain West Bank settlements while handing over Arab-Israeli towns to the Palestinian Authority enjoys international support, Israel Our Home Chairman Avigdor Lieberman told Ynetnews in a special interview Thursday.

“I think we have support for this idea in the international community,” Lieberman said, making note of a recent opinion piece by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. “Now it depends only on us, what we will decide.” … Lieberman’s plan, which would see Israel’s borders redrawn in a way that leaves such towns as Umm al-Fahem outside the country, has been slammed by critics as a thinly veiled attempt to remove Israel’s Arab citizens. Yet the right-wing leader insisted his initiative is viable and pointed to similar solutions elsewhere. “You can take for example Cyprus, or the solution that happened in Yugoslavia,” he said, making note of other cases in history where borders were redrawn.

There is a good question to this plan though: what if Israel’s Arab citizens don’t want to?

7 Responses to Lieberman’s Plan

  1. RL says:

    I don’t understand. You mean people feel that if Israel were to give up sovereign territory so that Arabs could have self-determination by living in a state run by Palestinians for Palestinians, that would be bad?

  2. Yehudit says:

    Umm al-Fahem and probably the others too are not going to like this. I recall a story about Umm al-Fahem a few years ago where the populace was adamant about remaining part of Israel. I also remember the Arab Jerusalemite businessman who collected 100,000 signatures from his fellow Palestinians protesting the idea of turning East Jerusalem over to Arafat.

    I sure wouldn’t want to trade being a mildly discriminated against minority in Israel for being part of a majority ruled by Hamas.

  3. Anon says:

    The article refers to “Israel’s Arab citizens”. In actual fact, many of them refer to their nationality as “Palestinian”, despite their Israeli citizenship.

    Calling them “Arab”, rather than “Palestinian”, was promoted by Israel’s politically-correct left, implying their nationality is Israeli, while “Arab” merely pertains to customs/background and so forth. This is certainly true for some people but it also cloaks the truth”: Large numbers of these “Arab Israelis” regard their nationality to be Palestinian.

    Ahmed Tibi (Arab parliament member in Israel, formerly Arafat’s advisor) recently went on record, stating that Israel’s Palestinians need to have a nationalistic governance (or some form of self-government) and would still need to have it, even if Israel were not a “Jewish state” but merely a nationality-less “state of all its citizens”. Being “Palestinian” and having that nationality expressed in sovereignty of some sort seemed very important to him.

    I also saw Tibi march and chant “Liberate Palestine with blood and fire” and I’ll bet Tibi’s definition of “Palestine” encompasses all of Israel. In other words, Tibi and those who elected him to Israel’s parliament, considers themselves to be living on occupied land. Land they desire to be “Liberated” from Israel’s hands (preferably with blood and fire).

    I’ve also seen adults and children in Umm al-Fahem chant similarly, expressing the same stance: that they’re living under Israeli occupation and that they (and the land itself) is “Palestinian”.

    These people should be the first to rejoice if the boundaries are redrawn so that Umm al-Fahem is no longer “occupied”, but now “liberated” and part of the Palestinian country. However, they love the idea of “liberating” it through violence, rather than through Israel’s choice.

    this was one of the explanations for Arafat’s rejection of Camp David. there is no honor in getting something thru negotiation. real men need to take, not talk. do you have any evidence for this attitude?

    Moreover, if Israel does this, only their own area will be “liberated”! The rest of Israel will actually, to a great part, be protected. They will be less capable of “liberating” the land of Israel than they were before. Far from furthering their ultra-nationalist cause, it will set them back. Therefore, they are duty-bound (in the name of their cause) to protest and insist on remaining part of Israel, rather than on having themselves (whose nationality they define as Palestinian) and the “Palestinian land” they live on, be part of the Palestinian country.

    As to the politically-correct in the West, at 1st they may love the idea of the Palestinian state encompassing parts of the Israeli land, which Palestinians live in. However, the politically-correct follow the ultra-nationalist Arabs/Palestinian as a matter of prinicple, regardless of what this entails. Once it is explained to them that the Palestinian nationalists want Umm al-Fahem to remain part of Israel, they will quickly change their minds and denounce the plan.

    interesting conjecture. i’m afraid you’re probably right. would be nice if the left had some real principles to work with other than capitulation to the demands of “the other.”

    I hope Israel follows through with it. This does not entail removing anyone from his home. Moreover, years later, it will be impossible for Palestinian nationalists to argue to the West that a territory, filled with nationalist Palestinians and inside the Palestinian state somehow ought to be part of Israel and its population, who have no love of Israel, and whose land is part of the Palestinian state, should have Israeli citizenship. Such arguments will sound hollow to almost everyone.

    i have long ago given up thinking in terms of what (should) sound hollow to almost everyone. after the suicide bombing started again in 2001, and good leftists responded with “what choice do they have?” and “resistance is not terror”… i no longer could even hope for commmon sense where such issues were involved.

    but then, i guess this blog, and the Second Draft, and everything else i do is aimed at that moral common sense.

  4. Antidhimmi says:

    Wouldn’t it be delicious if the Israeli’s announced that they were serious about turning over Umm el Fahm to the PA and its Arab residents rioted and burned cars to protest Israeli racism. What possible message could anyone draw from such a (highly likely) protest.

    that they are understandably frustrated and enraged by Israel’s racist behavior.

  5. Yehudit says:

    I thought I had written about Umm el Famm, here it is. If they still feel the same way they did 2 years ago, I wouldn’t be surprised if they rioted if Israel tried to turn them over to the PA.

  6. Yehudit says:

    Sorry, wrong URL, use this one.

  7. […] av Many, said the court’s will is not so clear. And here’s the answer to my previous question: what if the Israeli Arabs don’t want to be part of a palesti […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *