Why would oppose territorial compromise?

Well, it''s Arab territorial compromise that he opposes, actually.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


Akiva Eldar, in his new home base after leaving Haaretz, perhaps seeking wider exposure, is now published in Al-Monitor and I found there a snippet of his commenraty I''d like to comment on:-





    The leader of HaBayit HaYehudi, Minister of Economy and Trade Naftali Bennett, outdid his colleagues. Bennett, whose interpretation of the “territory in exchange for peace” formula is that Israel takes control over the territories and gives the Palestinians peace in return...




That, of course, sounds either evil, mean, unfair on Bennett''s part - and it is intended so to sound - or it could be just plain cynical writing on Eldar''s part.


But let us think and review the actual facts.


Jews have consistently had to reduce the territory of the Jewish National Home since 1915 on.  The Zionist Movement accepted partition after partition after reduction after truncation multiple times.  No Litani headwaters, no Hejaz reailway, no Transjordan at all, and then Judea and Samaria went.


Despite the fact that Arabs have consistently refused to agree to any of the lines, boundaries of borders and have time and again launched violence, terror and war to eradicate any Jewish presence anywhere, why cannot the demand of "territorial compromise" apply to the Arabs?  Why are they the only ones who can attempt to take, grab and seize and never have to ''return'' at all?


They aren''t obligated to compromise?


Only the Jews have to compromise on territory?




P.S.






    ...former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker wrote...[a] letter on behalf of the Legal Forum for Israel, along with another attorney with the group, Yossi Fuchs...The group quotes from US president George W. Bush’s letter to Sharon on April 4, 2004, which it said was given as a political quid pro quo, in return for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.


    According to that letter, “As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of the final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”


    These commitments were later affirmed by a large majority of the US House of Representatives...


So, even the United States desires only Jewish territorial compromise, too?





Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share