In comments today to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said he made it clear to Israel that it was a “mistake” for them to keep holding out demands for PA recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” as the ultimate decider of if talks are going to continue.
Kerry pointed out Israel had already been recognized as a Jewish state scores of times and that there wasn’t really any value to the Palestinians doing it one more time.
The PA has withheld the recognition over concerns of what it could mean to Israel’s Arab minority, but insists that Israel’s internal organization isn’t its concern.
Polls show Israelis are more or less fine with that position, with 69% of Israelis believing it is much more important to get peace deals with Arab countries than it is to squeeze another recognition out of them.
This overlooks the real purpose of the demand by Israel: to block any possible agreement.
Of course it is already a Jewish state, and that is something confirmed by the preferences given, and discrimination in favor of Israel's Jewish citizens over its other citizens, Kerry and company seem not to care, even though these fundamental issues of human rights.
Their objective here is; submission and humiliation.
Article 1.
•All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3.
•Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 17.
• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Me: Kerry is correct here, perhaps more correct than he may realise.
We must consider the evolution of 'the Israel problem;' briefly, Herzl 'midwifed' the Z-project of finding a J-home, and the Zs settled on coveting what became Mandate Palestine. They tried buying their way in but the erstwhile legal owner/occupiers (= ELO/Os) i.e. the hapless, mostly Palestinian natives, generally refused to sell. So by 1947, the Zs had only managed to 'legally' wangle a mere ~6% of P-land, and much that of inferior quality. Following Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" strategy (which was morphed into perpetual, aggressive war), the Zs set out to steal even more than their illegitimately 'allocated area,' an area designated by a corrupt and invalid process = *not* UNSC-approved.
Long-story short; the 'core' problem as I see it is land-ownership; I conclude that UNLESS the Ps surrender, THEN they still own the land – and that, into perpetuity.
Proof#1:
unispal A/68/L.15
19 November 2013:
"22. Also stresses the need for a just resolution of the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948;"
UNGA194:
"11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"
My summary: Palestinians *still* have a valid = UNGA-recognised claim on their improperly alienated land/property.
Suggested solution: RoR+R*3 = Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation.
Proof#2: It is the Zs' 1st demand; "Recognise I as J!" = Ps to 'legitimate' the I/J/Z-plex-theft of Ps' Lebensraum.
But more: It is *impossible* for any to either take, or surrender, any 'inalienable' right, by definition – such may only occur via crime(s), and endure only while those crime(s) remain un-remedied.
The Ps would be mad to ever surrender – and in fact, may not legally do so. IF the Ps were forced into surrender THEN they would only be putting themselves in the same *illegal, immoral* position as their Z-oppressor/persecutors.
Two wrongs cannot make a right – oh! Always and as usual IMHO.
Kerry must be ill. For once, he actually makes sense.