The Oct 03 op-ed by Ruth Gavison in Haaretz, that was followed by your editorial of Oct 05 in the run up to the anticipated Annapolis conference, both express the lack of an understanding of the basic fault line concerning the terms of the conflict between us, the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Muslim world.
True, issues like the exact borders between Israel and a proposed Palestinian state; the status of Jerusalem; prisoners and the ever volatile refugee question have come to be accepted as the main areas of conflict and disagreement between us. But these are essentially only the symptoms. As is often the case in medicine and health, in this case too, the symptoms are confused with the true cause of the illness.
Its like prescribing treatment by Acamol for a headache that is in fact a brain tumor.
There is really only one fundamental disagreement between the parties. That is the inability or unwillingness of the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim world to acknowledge what the we, the Jewish people believe; that we have a legitimate historical claim to ANY of the land between the river and the sea.
This basic reality was articulated just yesterday by Abu Sitta, a prominent spokesman for Palestinian refugees, who stated in a letter to Abu Mazen warning him of the danger of the Israeli idea of a two state solution.
He states that : Israel’s attempt (is) to redefine the idea of the two-state solution. Israel now wants mutual recognition – Israel as the national homeland of the Jews and, on what’s left of the land, Palestine as the national homeland of the Palestinians.” he then goes on to explain the significance of this long standing Israeli understanding of the terms of the conflict. He warns that by accepting it Abbas and the Palestinians are essentially (are) accepting the Jews’ ostensible historical and biblical rights to the land.
In other words this ostensible Jewish idea of historical and biblical rights to the land are rejected and should be unacceptable to Abbas and for any formula for reconciliation between the two peoples.
He is saying that any and all concessions that we make under the illusion that these are the real issues will be meaningless as our basic premise of a legitimate historical claim is fraudulent.
