Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 12 Jan 2011, 1:20 pm

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpa ... ivens.html

The awkward fact is that the 270,000 Arabs who live in East Jerusalem may not be very enthusiastic about joining Palestine. The survey, which was designed and supervised by former State Department Middle East researcher David Pollock, found that only 30 percent said they would prefer to be citizens of Palestine in a two-state solution, while 35 percent said they would choose Israeli citizenship. (The rest said they didn't know or refused to answer.) Forty percent said they would consider moving to another neighborhood in order to become a citizen of Israel rather than Palestine, and 54 percent said that if their neighborhood were assigned to Israel, they would not move to Palestine.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jan 2011, 1:51 am

Did you look down the poll to see the reasons why?

Top four reasons for a preference for Israel (by those saying it was 'very important':

1. Israeli health care
2. Israeli utilities
3. Israeli unemployment & disability benefits
4. Israeli retirement benefits

If we take all those for whom the reasons were 'very important' or 'important', the top three remain, and the fourth is replaced by

4. Israeli job market

The top reasons to be concerned about being in a neighbourhood that was put into Palestine where:

1. Losing access to Old City & Al Aqsa Mosque
2. Losing employment in Israel
3. Losing free movement in Israel
4. Changing to Palestinian health care
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Jan 2011, 5:44 am

Yes. If you follow the links, the whole poll is well worth reading. The Palestinians are torn between their ethnic loyalties and their economic well being. I think they respect that Israel can deliver education, health care, economic well being and political stability for its citizens.

What's interesting to me is that the whole world (except Israel and sometimes the US) is insistent that Israel stop building in East Jerusalem and return it to the Palestinians as part of a two state solution. The presumption is that all or nearly all East Jerusalem Palestinians want to be part of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. However, this data contradicts that presumption.

I wonder whether there should be a referendum for East Jerusalem Palestinians on staying as part of Israel or joining a new West Bank state. If they did want to stay as part of Israel with certain visiting rights to the West Bank for family ties, then you solve one of the hardest issues for peace between the two sides, namely, the status of Jerusalem.

RJ (FKA JJ)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jan 2011, 11:43 am

I guessed it was the old Jaundiced Jaffe! Hi man.

I can see where you are coming from, but I also wondered at the reasoning behind these results. A lot seems to stem from uncertainty about how secure and stable Palestine would be, how economically viable it would be. And of course, some people in EJ are able to more easily travel into the rest of Israel for work.

Is part of their concern that whatever Palestinian state emerges, it will be hamstrung by Israel, just as much as that the leadership of such a nascent state could be venal and corrupt? That it would be too poor to provide the services they are used to from Israel? That by choosing one side or the other they could end up on the 'wrong side' of a border?

The fact that being unable to access the Al Aqsa mosque and Old City is also a the top concern about choosing Israel would seem telling. Indeed, many of the top concerns on that question were about access and travel.

Perhaps the 35% who are undecided are so because they would want to see how boundaries are drawn up and on what terms cross-border activity would continue before they would agree either way? Perhaps a number of those choosing Israel are doing so because of assumptions they are making about what the dividing line would be.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jan 2011, 3:16 pm

The poll also says that the EJ Palestinians feel discriminated against by Israel and yet still they'd accept that discrimination over the uncertainty of a Palestinian government.
So what if all Palestinians on the West Bank petition to become citizens of Israel? They immediately get competent government... etc.
And change the nature of Israel.
Surely Israel doesn't want to share their "Jewish" nation with an equal population of Arabs?
Doesn't the answer lie in Israel taking an active role in improving the government of Palestine in delivering a better quality of life? (Easier said then done ...)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Jan 2011, 9:42 pm

Dan said: Is part of their concern that whatever Palestinian state emerges, it will be hamstrung by Israel, just as much as that the leadership of such a nascent state could be venal and corrupt?

Hi Dan! That would make for a good poll question. I think you are leading the witness.

Dan said: The fact that being unable to access the Al Aqsa mosque and Old City is also a the top concern about choosing Israel would seem telling.

It's always worth pausing to note how Israel has allowed Muslims and others incredible access to the Al Aqsa mosque. A less restrained people would take it down to search for the old sacred temple that was destroyed by the Romans which I believe is underneath.

Ricky said:So what if all Palestinians on the West Bank petition to become citizens of Israel? They immediately get competent government... etc.

Unbelievable ... 2 months later and you are still humming the same tune. Israel annexed Jerusalem; it has not annexed the West Bank. The Poll was taken of Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Israel does not want to annex the West Bank any more than the US wants to annex Mexico. (There is the nasty problem of the settlements in the West Bank, but do we really need to have that conversation again?)
Last edited by Ray Jay on 13 Jan 2011, 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm

Ricky said: "Doesn't the answer lie in Israel taking an active role in improving the government of Palestine in delivering a better quality of life? (Easier said then done ...)."

Sure, Israel should help where it can. But fundamentally, the answer lies in the Palestinians improving their own governance.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Jan 2011, 10:47 am

I've been offline for a few days, and when I looked at the news I saw this: Interesting, huh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... h-reaction
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 24 Jan 2011, 11:42 am

The Palestine Paper may need a new thread, no?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Jan 2011, 12:40 pm

Maybe so. I notice there wasn't one about Tunisia as well, that could do with a thread as there's a lot going on there.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 24 Jan 2011, 1:48 pm

danivon wrote:I've been offline for a few days, and when I looked at the news I saw this: Interesting, huh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... h-reaction


Interesting indeed. I'm actually listening to the BBC right now. There are still questions about the accuracy of the documents that were leaked. There are many parties (Hamas, Israeli right wingers, others) who would want to falsify or exaggerate documents for their own agendas.

I find it all disheartening. It does show Israeli intransigence (and it is not by Netanyahu, but by his more moderate predecessor, Livni) which is unfortunate. Of even more concern to me is the reaction of the Palestinian and Arab world. To way too many Palestinians it is unthinkable that their leadership would actually compromise for peace. Since the Palestinians do no have a democracy, it is much harder to make peace with them. There are already calls for a 3rd Intifadah as if that is a solution.

RJ
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Jan 2011, 1:58 pm

And it also shows the problems that the PLO face. They are constantly being told that they need to offer compromises in order to get what they want. But they have to tread a very careful path between offering too much and losing the support of their own people (egged on by extremists like Hamas), or offering too little and Israel refusing.

I think we can see why it might be that Arafat didn't go as far as we would have wanted back at Camp David all those years ago. Had he accepted such a compromise, he may well have got a deal that the Israelis and US were happy with, but if enough of the Palestinian people objected (and it wouldn't take a majority, just a motivated and well armed minority), it could destroy the PA.

Not that it's doing all that well at the moment in terms of governance, although there was a fair amount of contribution to that from the Israeli raids in the early 2000s that led to further polarisation and the removal of a large chunk of the PA's law enforcement capability, nascent bureaucracy and infrastructure.

MInd you, I wasn't aware that the 2nd intifadah had ended...
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 24 Jan 2011, 4:40 pm

Never in history have so many people conspired to not solve their mutual problem. Unfortunately, as RJ alludes to intentionally putting off the mutual resolution of this problem is going to lead to some very unpleasant outcomes.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Jan 2011, 8:04 am

danivon wrote:I think we can see why it might be that Arafat didn't go as far as we would have wanted back at Camp David all those years ago. Had he accepted such a compromise, he may well have got a deal that the Israelis and US were happy with, but if enough of the Palestinian people objected (and it wouldn't take a majority, just a motivated and well armed minority), it could destroy the PA.

Not that it's doing all that well at the moment in terms of governance, although there was a fair amount of contribution to that from the Israeli raids in the early 2000s that led to further polarisation and the removal of a large chunk of the PA's law enforcement capability, nascent bureaucracy and infrastructure.

MInd you, I wasn't aware that the 2nd intifadah had ended...


Arafat and the PA spent decades villifying Israel in particular and Jews in general in their press and general announcements. Now his people don't want to compromise. How surprising is that? I agree that Israeli actions over the last several years haven't helped.

I don't understand your last sentence. There were about 2,000 West Bank originated terrorist incidents per year from 2000 to 2002 and now there are under 50 per year. This reflects Abbas's leadership as well as Israeli security measures. People criticise the fence / walll, but I'm not going to argue with success. (I agree that the fence / wall should have more closely followed the pre-67 borders, but big picture, Israel certainly has the right to defend itself.) Right now, Tel Aviv seems safer to me than Moscow and continues to be much safer than many places in the Muslim world.

RJ
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Jan 2011, 8:11 am

Neal Anderth wrote:Never in history have so many people conspired to not solve their mutual problem. Unfortunately, as RJ alludes to intentionally putting off the mutual resolution of this problem is going to lead to some very unpleasant outcomes.


I was just curious about your hyperbolic first clause. It certainly has "truthiness", but Is this really that different than other world intractable differences, or does it just get more press? How long have the Chechnyans, Kurds, Tibetans, Basque, and others yearned for freedom without resolution for one reason or another? I guess one difference is that the Israelis know that they need to make peace, but somehow under their current government won't do so. On the other hand, the Palestinians don't seem to realize that they do need peace.

It occurs to me that there is a certain irony here. On the Israeli side, most of the people want peace (although they are very sceptical that the other side can deliver), but the government doesn't seem to; on the Palestinian side, Abbas is yearning for peace, but his people are upset about it. Very odd.