Pakistan to take along Arab friends on Israel’s recognition: Kasuri

[Ray]

From news article:

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Pakistan to take along Arab friends on Israel’s recognition: Kasuri


KUWAIT: Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri arrived in Kuwait on Monday with a special message from President General Pervez Musharraf.

Kuwaiti foreign minister Sheikh Dr Muhammad Sabah received Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri at Kuwait International Airport. Pakistani ambassador in Kuwait Muhammad Aslam Khan, First Secretary Qasim Raza Muttaqi, Head of the Chancery Dr Muhammad Khalid Ejaz and senior officers of Kuwait foreign ministry were also present on the occasion.

Kasuri said Kuwait was the first country in the world which immediately provided relief to Pakistani quake victims. Kuwait government announced $ 10 million as immediate assistance for quake affectees. “ I have come here to express gratitude to government and people of Kuwait on behalf of government and people of Pakistan for this generous aid”, he remarked. He said Pakistan-Kuwait relations were based on solid foundations. Kuwait has always stood by Pakistan in the hour of crisis. “We are ready to render every sacrifice for Kuwait”, he announced. The foreign minister said Pakistan needed time for rehabilitation of the quake-affected people. “ Inshaullah we will again succeed with the help of world countries in rehabilitation of people who were affected in disastrous quake “, he hoped. Rescue and relief teams of 53 countries were working in the quake hit areas, he told. To a question about recognition of Israel he said Pakistan would not recognize Israel unless the latter restores to the Palestinians their full rights.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...11-2005_pg7_44online

Pakistan will take along Arab friends to recognise Israel.

This is indeed laudable an aim.

Notwithstanding, what is worth note is that Pakistan has put a rider - She will NOT recognise Israel unless Isreal restores FULL RIGHTS to Palestine.

The question is what is "full rights"?

Does it mean status quo as when the Jews were coming to Palestine after WW II? I presume the Palestinians do have "full rights" in the area that is with the Palestinian Authority. Or don't they have it?

This "full rights" requires clarification.

Indeed, the news reports that have emerged after Musharraf's "bold" step of talking to the Jews in NY, does carry the suggestion that Israel is scrambling to get recognised by Pakistan. The only dissenting note is the comment and analysis of the President of the Zionist Organisation.

Is Isreal really scrambling to be recognised by Pakistan and is willing to concede to the Pakistani demand of whatever "full rights" means? One wonders.

The million dollar issue is whether the Arabs will be ready to join the bandwagon or is it a merely an exercise to please Bush as also indicate how moderate an Islamic country is Pakistan.

If the Arabs were serious about genuinely recognising Israel, then they would have done it otherwise or would they not have and instead they require a third Party nudge?

Notwithstanding, I am sure that Pakistan apparently is the vehicle that will take the issue to the end of the tunnel and finally the light shall dawn.

If it were not so, then Bush would not have entrusted Pakistan with the task which Camp David and Oslo failed to achieve!

The news is Pak.

[karthik]

Yes, that'll be it. It is nothing more than an effort to show the world how moderate Pakistan is. An another attempt to flatter Bush.

Pakistan's efforts to take the Arab states on a path towards regcognising Israel is like an onlooker trying to persuade a mob.

Full rights here = establishment of a Palestinian State.

[Ray]

OK fine.

Have a Palestinian State,

But what are the boundaries?

Full "West Bank" and Jerusalem?

Is that acceptable to Israel?

[karthik]

Well, everyone in the PA, starting from Saeb Erakat keep repeating their hackneyed statements that nothing less than a Palestinian state, with the entire West Bank and Gaza, and with Jerusalem as its capital will be acceptable to the Palestinians.

I dont think Israel is likely to part with Jerusalem though.

[Mira]

OK fine.

Have a Palestinian State,

But what are the boundaries?

Full "West Bank" and Jerusalem?

Is that acceptable to Israel?

Where Israel stood at Taba, the location of the last round of negotiations before the intifada, was to give the Arabs all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, including Arab parts of Jerusalem, with land swaps (some 1948 territory for some 1967 territory) in those areas that are strategic for Israeli security. Negotiations broke down before any agreement could be made on the boundaries, and no agreement was reached regarding refugees, control over holy sites and other security matters.

[KettleWhistle]

The question is what is "full rights"?

Does it mean status quo as when the Jews were coming to Palestine after WW II? I presume the Palestinians do have "full rights" in the area that is with the Palestinian Authority. Or don't they have it?

A good question. First of all, the area that was called "Palestine" for centuries under the Ottoman Turkey included ALL of today's Jordan, Israel, and the desputed territories. It was a province in the same way as California is a U.S. state, and not any sort of an independent entity, or anyone's national homeland. The word "Palestinian" had essentially same meaning as the word "Californian" has in context of the U.S.--it described a person who resided there. When Brittish were doing their land deals, they put Saudis in charge of the territory of todays' Saudi Arabia, and gave the territory of today's Jordan to the Hashemites. So by all historical and legal means, Jordan is as much "Palestine" as Palestine gets.

Now, regarding the rights, after the '67 war, the Palestinians who lived on territories taken from Jordan and Egypt had wide autonomy, with Israel supporting their infrastructure. With all the talk about "illegal Jewish settlements," there are no less than two Palestinian settlements for every one of those, that were built after 1967. The only things they, being Jordanian and Egyptian citizens, and not citizens of Israel, couldn't do is to relocate to pre-67 border Israel without permittions and to participate in political processes. Things like student and work visas/permissions were neither an issue nor a problem.

With the establishment of the PA, they got essentially full autonomy in their local matters. How they used that is a whole other issue, but technically they have all the rights that their elected government gives them.

[Mediocrates]

First you have to detail how 'rights' are proscribed before you can articulate what 'full' rights are. And you have to agree generally what the parameters of rights even are. Rights are generally pretty broad things, not specific rules. People who carp about 'full' rights are being childish like someone who walks up to you and punches you in the face then runs away saying "It's a freeeeeee country!!!!"

Even in the US 'full rights' is a meaningless construct. "Full" for whom? Minors? Ex spouses? People who own real property versus people who don't? See you have to describe how rights are not full before you can describe what the goal of rights even looks like.

[Ray]

Given Musharraf's statement of "full rights", what exactly would be the connotation that the Israeli govt would construe out of it?

The US and UK have indicated that there will be the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

Therefore, if Palestine becomes a State, then obviously they will have full rights in their own state.

What all would encompass this Palestinian State?

Israel has hostile neighbours, and I don't forsee any change, excepting cosmetic, in their attitude even if they notionally recognise Israel. Therefore, what borders would be conducive to Israel's security and what all territories will it encompass?

However, if I have understood Kettle Whistle correctly if Jordan is all that is Palestine, then what happens to those who are claiming to be Palestinians and are under the jurisdiction of the Palesionian Authority? What is the repatriation planned and will they accept it?

[Mediocrates]

I think he means clearly rights to whatever their own claims are such as rights to what they think they are entitled to vis a vis land and property inside Israel. That is, the Right of Return.

[Asim Aquil]

What were the security issue that Israel kept a few parts of the west bank back then?

I hope a split of Jerusalem should be agreeable for both the sides, sounds reasonable.

which leaves the tiny westbank issue.

Full rights definitely means a separate nation and rights as that nations citizens. It does not mean full demands probably.

Remember both nations are starting off from the point where they want the control of all of Israel for themselves. Lets see what solution Musharraf's able to bring up.

[ShimonG]

The arabs were offerred partition in 1948 and refused. hardly likely that they will agree now, after years of vicious indoctrination.

it is wishful thinking that the arabs or the palestinians are going to ever peacefully co-exist with the jews. Too much water has flowed from the Banias since '48.

The fence offers the best choice to afford israel a measure of safety, even if it means giving up Judea and Samaria.

[KettleWhistle]

What were the security issue that Israel kept a few parts of the west bank back then?

I hope a split of Jerusalem should be agreeable for both the sides, sounds reasonable.

which leaves the tiny westbank issue.

The split of Jerusalem will not be acceptable. It has been annexed in accordance with all the international conventions and laws, and it is Israeli capital. The issue of the West Bank is not just that of security, but also that of it being the core part of Jewish native lands. Jerusalem has always been the capital city for Jews. Bethlehem is a historic Jewish city, that had a signficant Jewish population until the Arab riots in 1929. The Jewish people have been connected to that land for 3,500+ years. The Palestinians that live in the West Bank are simply disenfranchised Jordanians that all of the sudden developed some bond to that land upon the creation of the State of Israel.

Addionally, they have no legitimate claim to the land within the pre-1967 borders for the simple fact that 94% of the land given to the State of Israel during the 1948 partition was owned by the Jewish National Fund, and most of the rest was state land. Those claims and demands to split Jerusalem, and to get this and that are a blatant attempt at terrorising Israel into giving them lands to which they have no legitimate claims.

[Ferdie]

A good question. First of all, the area that was called "Palestine" for centuries under the Ottoman Turkey included ALL of today's Jordan, Israel, and the desputed territories. It was a province in the same way as California is a U.S. state, and not any sort of an independent entity, or anyone's national homeland. The word "Palestinian" had essentially same meaning as the word "Californian" has in context of the U.S.--it described a person who resided there. When Brittish were doing their land deals, they put Saudis in charge of the territory of todays' Saudi Arabia, and gave the territory of today's Jordan to the Hashemites. So by all historical and legal means, Jordan is as much "Palestine" as Palestine gets.

You should read the views of Col. T.E Lawrence (a.k.a Lawrence of Arabia) who dream't of forming an arab nation amonsgt the warring tribes of the deserts, and the British politics during 1919 in Palestine. Its a very intresting on power politics of the British.

[Mediocrates]

No it's stupid on its face. The 'Palestinians' were offered 75% of the original British Mandate. They refused, and the Jewish section was halved giving the Arabs 87%. They refused again and went to war. Everything since then has been the Arabs screaming about how they should be given the other 13% as compensation for having lost a war they themselves started.

So screw them and the camels they rode in on. Let them tell glorious stories about the Middle Ages and Sala Hadin while they sit round the dung fire at night.

[Mil]

Eventually Palis will get it all except Jerusalem. Jerusalem stays in Israel.