“Peace for our time” a famous four word phrase from Benjamin Disraeli, who said upon returning from the Congress of Berlin in 1878,
“I have returned from Germany with peace for our time”.
This was echoed in a speech given on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration.
Does anyone think that peace with the Palestinian Arabs in Judaea and Samaria, as well as those in Gaza is possible?
Given their history I don’t for one moment think so.
1937 British government, which then ruled Palestine, proposed to divide the land into separate Arab and Jewish states.
The Commission reached the conclusion that the Mandate had become unworkable and must be abolished. A partition was seen as the only solution to the Arab-Jewish “deadlock”. It outlined ten points on:
- a Treaty system between the Arab and Jewish States and the new Mandatory Government;
- a Mandate for the Holy places;
- the frontiers;
- the need for Inter-State Subvention;
- the need for British Subvention;
- tariffs and ports;
- nationality; civil service; Industrial concessions;
- and the Exchange of land and populations.
In 1948 when Israel declared statehood, the Arabs choose to go to war rather than accept the UN’s decision to partition Palestine between its Jewish and Arab populations.
Five Arab nations attacked the fledgling State. Against all odds, Israel was victorious and gained more land but it left Judaea and Samaria in the hands of the Jordanians and Egypt was left with Gaza.
It is famous for its Khartoum Resolution known as “The Three No’s”;
NO PEACE WITH ISRAEL.
NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL.
NO RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL
In 2000, the Camp David summit took place from July 11-24, 2000, at the presidential retreat in Camp David.
Camp David offered Arabs a sovereign state with shared control of Jerusalem and billions of dollars in compensation for Palestinian refugees.
Attending were President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat. The aim of the gathering was, ostensibly, to negotiate a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in accordance with the 1993 Oslo agreement. The parties were unable to come to an agreement with Yasser Arafat refusing the offer.
A wave of ‘Palestinian’ violence and terror, the Second Intifada, soon engulfed Israel.
Former President Bill Clinton said that he went to great lengths to secure a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians while he was in office, but that the Palestinians rejected the offer.
“I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza, … between 96 and 97 percent of the West Bank, compensating land in Israel, you name it,”
Clinton added that civilian fatalities in the Gaza Strip during the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas resulted from the terror group’s practice of embedding its weapons and fighters in residential areas.
“Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel, they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools, in the highly populous areas, and they are smart.”
IN 2008 Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas a peace agreement that would have guaranteed a Palestinian state in virtually all the West Bank, Gaza, and part of Jerusalem. President Mahmoud Abbas shined a light on the breakdown of a potentially history-altering round of peace talks, saying that he rejected an offer from Israel’s Ehud Olmert — which included placing Jerusalem’s Old City under international control — because he was not allowed to study the map. There will never be the right terms.
The PLO is never going to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and sign off on end of conflict. Not when the whole goal of the PLO is to deplete and damage Israel.
Haaretz details two American initiatives to forge a peace plan under the Obama administration.
Once again, it shows that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the Likud government that is routinely described as “the most right wing government in Israeli history” was willing (for whatever reason) to accept a far-ranging and potentially self-damaging “peace” plan with the Palestinians – and the “moderate” Palestinian Authority said no.
Here is Haaretz’ summary of its very detailed reporting.
Abbas refuses to talk peace. He cannot talk peace he is in no position to do so.
Abbas is decidedly unpopular because of his corruption. If he takes a unpopular step he runs the risk, literally, of being killed.
Abbas has no mandate from the people to sign a peace deal with Israel.
In fact, Abbas, since his term of office ran out 6+ years ago, he is not legally president of the PA.
He has no legal authority to act on behalf of the PA and any decision for peace he made could be challenged later as invalid.
How can he make a decision for the ‘Palestinian people’ who are in two places . Gaza and Judaea & Samaria, with different controlling powers?