There has been much made over Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu insisting that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the home for the Jewish People. He has stated that just as Israel has accepted the Palestinian demands for their own homeland, that Israel should receive the same recognition from the Palestinians as being the state for the Jewish People. Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas has repeatedly drawn a line refusing to recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish People claiming that no nation has the right to claim to be home to a particular religion. Obviously Chairman Abbas would make exceptions and claim that Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are not really nations whose existence is based on preference of a single religion or perhaps he would claim that Islam is more than just a religion and since it also has a political structure as part of practicing the religion, that it is therefore different and entitled to establish national entities. Of course the same argument could be made about Judaism as there are rules in the Old Testament which pertain to limits and responsibilities of a King or ruling body in relation to the Jewish People when they would form a government in the Promised Land, Israel.
The real reason for both men making these demands is being skirted and avoiding direct mention as part of the debate is the demand from Chairman Abbas that over five-million Palestinian refugees be given the right to resettle in Israel as they left Israel right before or during the 1948-9 war during which half a dozen Arab armies attempted to annihilate the nascent Jewish State immediately after Israel declared their independence from British rule. The original number of refugees has been estimated to have been approximately six-hundred-fifty-thousand individuals, the majority of which left voluntarily in response to the demands of the commanders of the invading Arab forces along with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini who claimed that they should allow room so that the Arab armies could freely slaughter every individual in the new state of Israel and the Arabs could return after the victory and share in the spoils of the defeated Jews; but under United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) rules every descendent of a Palestinian refugee is also to be counted as an individual new refugee and is granted the same status and rights as the original refugees hence forth and permanently into the future generation after generations, a separate and unique definition of who qualifies as a refugee separate and different than the definition used in every other instance of refugee status throughout human history. This special situation is the reason that the original approximately six-hundred-fifty-thousand individual refugees numbers have swelled to the number today being quoted as being over five-million refugees spread out in refugee camps in several Arab nations and the Palestinian ruled areas in the disputed territories. The reason for this separate and unique definition being implemented for the Palestinian refugees was the Arab League demand that these refugees be granted special consideration in perpetuity so as to use their existence as a bludgeon to eventually destroy the Jewish identification of Israel through their eventual return no matter the amount of time that might transpire. To simply have utilized the normative definition of a refugee population which counts solely those individuals who were displaced at the time of the hostilities or other cause of their dispossession would have made the threat or repatriating these refugees to have dissolved over time.
The United States State Department had originally agreed with the Israeli demand to have the Palestinians give Israel recognition as being the home for the Jewish People but that changed after the recent meeting between Chairman Abbas and President Obama where Chairman Abbas refused the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the home for the Jewish People. To be completely accurate, Chairman Abbas not only refused to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish People, he also refused the two other demands which were presented as necessary compromises the Palestinians would need to make to reciprocate the actions Israel had already agreed to make which were, abandon the Palestinian refugees’ right of return and commit to the peace bringing a final end to the conflict. Chairman Abbas has also refused to compromise on numerous other demands which include but are not limited to the complete removal of every Jew from the lands which will be surrendered to form the Palestinian state, compensation for every last Palestinian refugee including those who return to live within Israel as well as those living elsewhere, automatic and immediate citizenship for those refugees returning to live in Israel, complete removal of all IDF forces from all lands that will make up the Palestinian state, complete return to the 1967 lines with any exchange swaps of land completely dependent on Palestinian approval, Palestinian capital to be in East Jerusalem including all of the Old City, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall and the Kotel all of which Palestinian leaders have sworn will return to being denied access and made beyond reach for Jews for all time just as they were when they were under Jordanian control. So, why has the State Department, one may assume that their statement along with that of Secretary of State Kerry also represents a recent change of mind by President Obama, has now chosen to back the Palestinian demand thus directly opposing the Israeli insistence. One idea that would explain such a reversal is that it is much easier and more likely to gain worldwide support to agree with the Palestinians and demand Israeli surrender on any given point than it would be to continue backing the Israeli side and attempt to have the Palestinians actually make any sacrifice in order to gain a homeland; a homeland they could have received in 1948 had they simply agreed with the stipulations of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 which suggested that the lands between the Jordanian border and the Mediterranean Sea be divided evenly into an Arab state and a Jewish state and suggested the boundaries for the two entities. As a General Assembly Resolution, the document never had the rule of law or any enforceability and was simply a recommendation. The Arab League refused to accept United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 as doing so would have meant accepting Israel as a Jewish state, something that the Arab powers have yet to accept to this day. Their refusal and the Zionist acceptance is why Israel came into being and there was no Palestinian state.
The latest rumors circulating state that the United States is considering offering Israel the release and return of Israeli Johnathan Pollard, who is serving the twenty-ninth year of a life sentence for spying, if Israel would be willing to continue the negotiations beyond their agreed upon ending date in April. What makes this offer so unusual and unexplainable is that Israel has already committed to continue the negotiations provided the Palestinians are also willing. Israel has not demanded any special consideration though the release of Johnathan Pollard has been an Israeli request for many years now but has been repeatedly denied, though President Clinton had intimated he would release him as part of an agreement concerning negotiations only to then refuse and virtually laugh in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s face implying he was a sucker to have believed that the United States would release Pollard. The sole stipulation from Israel for extending the negotiations is that there are no additional concessions placed on Israel or the Palestinians. The belief is the one-hundred-four terror prisoners Israel will have already released as their concession to bring Chairman Abbas and the Palestinians to the negotiation should be sufficient. So, why then is the Obama Administration now offering to release Pollard as a possible enticement to bring Israel to continue the negotiations? The reason has to do with the meeting between President Obama and Chairman Abbas. When the question was breached about extending the negotiations past their April end date, Chairman Abbas reportedly will only agree to extend talks if Israel allows a “right of return” for all five-million Palestinian Arab refugees, free additional terrorist leaders including Marwan Barghouti among them, and Israel must withdraw from Judea and Samaria. It is obvious that the motivation behind Chairman Abbas making these maximalist demands is to bring the negotiations to an end as continuing them would cause Abbas to lose face and possibly face overwhelming opposition from the leadership of Fatah, the Palestinian Authority and the PLO as well as provide Hamas with more arguments to use in any future elections to paint Abbas as being too lenient concerning Israel and the Jews. So, Abbas is making maximalist demands knowing that there is no possibility that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu can agree to allow a “right of return” for all five-million Palestinian Arab refugees, free additional terrorist leaders including Marwan Barghouti among them, and have Israel must withdraw from Judea and Samaria without losing his coalition and thus face new elections while the Obama Administration is offering to release Israeli spy Johnathan Pollard if Israel will agree to continue the negotiations, something the Israelis have already agreed to continue if possible. What is up with this obviously weird set of circumstances?
The release of Pollard is being presented to Israel so that when Secretary Kerry, with the full knowledge and backing of President Obama and the State Department, demands that Israel meet the concessions demanded by Chairman Abbas and the Israelis refuse, as obviously they must as granting the concessions demanded by Abbas would leave nothing to negotiate unless Abbas plans on negotiating to reclaim what he always refers to as “all of Palestine from the River to the Sea,” then all of the blame for the negotiations not being extended can be placed on Israel. The news across the globe the next day and continuing for weeks if not months will be that Israel refuses to extend negotiations with Palestinians as Israel not serious about peace. There will be absolutely no mention of the demands made by Abbas which are beyond reason. The only thing that will matter is Israel even refused the release of Johnathan Pollard rather than accept extending the peace process; this proves that Israel is not a serious partner for peace in the Middle East. Then the European Union and many European nations will be pressured by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and the United States State Department to initiate complete boycotts, sanctions and embargos on Israeli goods, services, academics, financial institutions and anything else that they can think up. The Palestinians will be informed that the United States would completely understand should they react by turning to violent uprising and start a third intifada. Then when the United Nations Security Council is petitioned to grant unilaterally statehood for the Palestinians the United States will argue that they can no longer protect Israel as it had become obvious that it has been Israeli intransigence all along that has blocked peace and their recent refusal to continue negotiations even when offered the release of Johnathan Pollard and the United Nations will establish a Palestinian state implementing the 1949 Armistice Lines, the same lines that the Arab League demanded when hostilities ceased would never be used to implement or denote a border as such would recognize Israeli existence, and then time will tell if they would use force to implement that decision. How immediate after the end of the negotiations would the United Nations establish a Palestinian state; but my best guess at an estimate would be after the coming midterm elections in the United States, though if it would be sooner it would be implemented at the opening ceremonies of the Fall session of the United Nations General Assembly with Chairman Abbas once again returning to the United Nations seeking the destruction of Israel, or at least the initial step, as he has done numerous times previously though he has not dared to petition the Security Council as he has known in the past he faced the United States veto. That may no longer be the case as President Obama, with the able assistance of the State Department, Secretary of State Kerry, and the able advice from Senior Advisor Valerie B. Jarrett, has chosen to side with the Palestinians or at least has chosen to twist the Israelis’ arms as that has proven to be easier than attempting to gain concessions from the intransigent Palestinians. We must remember that Ms. Jarrett once purported in an interview that the United States should use military force to impose a settlement on Israel and that it would be necessary to subsequently defend the Palestinians from the Israelis.