New Jersey Jewish News is always here for you.
We need your support now.
Your contribution will help us bring you vital news
and frequent updates about the impact of COVID-19.
Invalid comparison
search

Invalid comparison

The claim of the Sept. 1 letter “Unilateral on both sides” that Israeli settlement expansion is equivalent to the Palestinian effort to secure statehood based on the 1967 borders (which is also the 1949 Armistice Line) from the UN is not valid.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority are obligated by the Oslo agreement and the UN 242 resolution to reach mutual agreements on various issues including borders, Palestinian refugees, and Israeli settlements through direct negotiations. If the UN accedes to the Palestinian request it will effectively support the Palestinians’ refugee demand that would end Israel as a Jewish state. This UN action would essentially nullify the 1947 UN Resolution that sanctioned a Jewish and an Arab state on the former Palestinian territory.

As for previous Israeli settlements in the Sinai and in Gaza, they were completely removed as part of agreements with Egypt and with the Palestinian Authority, respectively. Although Israel had complied with the Palestinian demand to stop settlement expansion as a prior condition to the resumption of negotiation, the Palestinian did not hold up their end of their demand to resume negotiations upon during the settlement freeze.

Doesn’t this action by the Palestinians and the probable UN recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a state raise doubts as to the integrity of future agreements?

Marvin Elmowitz
West Caldwell

read more:
comments