Meanwhile, while some in Israeli media complain that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has been completely atomised following the reorganisation after the last elections (a big mess!) – contrary to expectations, Israeli diplomats appear to have a clearer profile and engage more directly with friends and foes in their host countries.
HE Schutz seems to have a good way with words…
lifted from nrk.no (google translate)
Jewish connection to Israel denied
The Palestinians will not accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish nation-state. The conflict between Palestine and Israel is not only a struggle for land area.
Senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute Jacob Høigilt claims that the Palestinians “are an entire people who since 1967 has lived under occupation, without rights or autonomy.” This is a poor basis for a serious debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A reader who has little familiarity with the conflict on the basis of this will get the impression that until 1967 was Palestine an independent state with full civil rights, until Israel deprived the Palestinians of their independence. This is far from the truth. Israel wants peace with its Palestinian neighbors, and a functioning Palestinian state.
The bottom line is that an independent Palestinian state never existed. The modern state of Israel was established in 1948, and the so-called “occupied territories” only came under Israeli control after the war in 1967. The reasons why a Palestinian independent state does not exist today, is more complicated than the catchy explanation “occupation.”
Cause and effect
By focusing on the territorial dimension of the conflict, Høigilt commits two fundamental mistakes: He ignores the fact that when Israel ended its presence in the Gaza Strip in 2005, it did not cease hostilities from this area. It resulted in the opposite – an intensification of attacks. Large parts of Gaza became a launch pad for rockets aimed at the Israeli civilian population.
Sanctions against Gaza came as a natural result of this. Cause and effect should be pointed out. The likely outcome, if Israel were to follow Høigilt’s proposal and withdraw from the West Bank before the parties reach a working agreement – would be a deepening of the conflict. Høigilt does not relate to the risks associated with such a move, and what it means for millions of Israelis and their right to security and peace. These fundamental rights are also protected by international law, which apparently, Høigilt considers more applicable for Palestinians than Israelis.
Jewish connection denied
It is also worrying that Høigilt neglects to discuss one of the conflict’s most basic causes. There is no controversy over the land, but that many Palestinians (and much of the Arab world) are reluctant to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish nation-state. Too many Palestinians, unfortunately, do not see this as a conflict between two national movements. The existing perception is that only one national movement can exist – their own, while the Jews are a religious group who have no right to national self-determination. Jewish connection to the land is denied and replaced by a misrepresentation where Israel is presented as a product of colonialism and imperialism.
The murders of Jewish Israelis in recent weeks is not the result of “frustration” or “occupation” as Høigilt, in addition to several media commentators, claim. The attacks are the result of a praising of violence and dishonest rhetoric led by Palestinian leaders, including President Abbas. They argue, inter alia, that Israel has changed the status quo on the Temple Mount. Israeli leaders have on several occasions rejected these claims. This rhethoric is a perfect fit for the Palestinian narrative which denies any historical relationship between Jews and their land.