New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman floated in a column Sunday to re-visit the 1947 General Assembly partition resolution, this time in the Security Council.
According to Friedman, the resolution could be “very simple” and read as follows: “This body reaffirms that the area of historic Palestine should be divided into two homes for two peoples – a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The dividing line should be based on the 1967 borders – with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements for both sides. This body recognizes the Palestinian state as a member of the General Assembly and urges both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve all the other outstanding issues.”
In such a resolution, Friedman argued, the Palestinians “would gain recognition of statehood and UN membership, within provisional boundaries, with Israel and America voting in favor. And the Israelis would get formal UN recognition as a Jewish state – with the Palestinians and Arabs voting in favor.
“Moreover, the Palestinians would get negotiations based on the 1967 borders and Israel would get a UN-US assurance that the final border would be shaped in negotiations between the parties, with land swaps, so theoretically the five percent of the West Bank where 80 percent of the settlers live could be traded for parts of pre-1967 Israel.”
What the Lemonade squeezer doesn’t take in count is :
Had the Arabs of Palestine wanted to live in peace alongside the Jews in 1947 when 181 was passed, they could have done so. Their problem with the resolution wasn’t the borders the UN drew up that gave the Jews far less territory and security than even the truncated ’67 lines. It was the idea of letting the Jews have any sovereignty over any part of the country. That’s the same reason why Palestinian leaders have rejected Israel’s offer of a state three times in the last 11 years. And it’s why the Palestinians have walked away from negotiations and ignored President Obama’s attempts to entice them back to the table with his calls for Israeli concessions that have tilted the diplomatic playing field in their direction
Public opinion polls in Israel and in the US show that a majority of Israelis and Americans alike agree that this conflict is not a territorial conflict but a religious ideological conflict, the refusal to recognize the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.
So Thank you Mr. Friedman for the hard work squeezing out the lemon for us, but without providing a Glass, the lemonade will get spilled, without any use.