One op-ed writer in Haaretz described the Israeli PM's address on Sunday night as "a patriarchal, colonialist address in the best neoconservative tradition." Others have said it represents some sort of breakthrough. What breakthrough is not entirely clear other than that the PM uttered words reflecting two States some time in the very distant future - an Israeli and Palestinian one.
But wait! The PM expressly said, in effect, that the Palestinians would not have sovereignty over their land. And that is what he said 6 years ago in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, here:
"The guiding principle is this: The Palestinians would be given all the powers needed to govern themselves but none of the powers that could threaten Israel. Put simply, the solution is full self-government for the Palestinians with vital security powers retained by Israel.
For example, the Palestinians would have internal security and police forces but not an army. They would be able to establish diplomatic relations with other countries but not to forge military pacts. They could import goods and merchandise but not weapons and armaments. Control over Palestinian daily life would be in the hands of the Palestinians alone, but security control over borders, ports and airspace would remain in Israel's hands. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expressed these ideas last year, and most Israelis support him. Indeed, those Israelis who support a Palestinian state are in effect calling for limited Palestinian sovereignty with Israel retaining control of vital security powers."
It isn't hard to see that a peaceful solution to the never-ending conflict is far, far off!
But wait! The PM expressly said, in effect, that the Palestinians would not have sovereignty over their land. And that is what he said 6 years ago in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, here:
"The guiding principle is this: The Palestinians would be given all the powers needed to govern themselves but none of the powers that could threaten Israel. Put simply, the solution is full self-government for the Palestinians with vital security powers retained by Israel.
For example, the Palestinians would have internal security and police forces but not an army. They would be able to establish diplomatic relations with other countries but not to forge military pacts. They could import goods and merchandise but not weapons and armaments. Control over Palestinian daily life would be in the hands of the Palestinians alone, but security control over borders, ports and airspace would remain in Israel's hands. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expressed these ideas last year, and most Israelis support him. Indeed, those Israelis who support a Palestinian state are in effect calling for limited Palestinian sovereignty with Israel retaining control of vital security powers."
It isn't hard to see that a peaceful solution to the never-ending conflict is far, far off!
Comments