Doc's Talk: Poll: PA Youth Reject PA State as Solution

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Poll: PA Youth Reject PA State as Solution

Chana Ya'ar
A7 News

The latest Palestinian Authority public opinion poll shows that the population’s 18-year-olds largely reject any solution whatsoever to the so-called “Palestinian problem” and appear to be unable to make their peace with any compromise that might provide a way out of their conflict with Israel.

The survey, conducted by the Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah National University from September 17-19, sampled 1,361 eligible voters aged 18, residing in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The findings were translated by IMRA, the Independent Media Review and Analysis watchdog agency. ANot Everyone Sees PA State as Solution

Perhaps surprisingly, only a slim majority of respondents (52.5 percent) said they accept the creation of a new PA country on the area of the 1967 borders “as a final solution for the Palestinian problem.” Nearly as many (43.6 percent) rejected the idea, with only 3.8 percent saying they had no opinion.

An even greater majority (62.9 percent) said they opposed the creation of a PA state within the 1967 borders with some land exchange as a final solution for the “Palestinian problem.” Only 32.9 percent of respondents said they would accept such an option, with 4.2 percent expressing no opinion.

Significantly, more than three-quarters of the PA’s voting youth (78 percent) rejected the idea of making Jerusalem a capital for two states, “Palestine” and Israel, with only 19.4 percent of respondents supporting the idea.

Rejection Upon Rejection: No Solution is Good Enough

It appears that none of the options presented found favor with young PA voters, regardless of what they were. For example, a majority of respondents (56.1 percent) also rejected a confederation between the PA and Jordan, with only 35.3 supporting the idea. Nearly ten percent (8.7 percent) expressed uncertainty, saying they didn’t know, or had no opinion on the matter.

In addition, a majority (53.4 percent) also rejected a deployment of Arab peace forces in Judea and Samaria. There was, however, a more positive response to this plan: 42.3 percent of respondents said they supported the idea.

A higher majority – 61.9 percent – rejected the idea of a deployment of international peacekeepers in Judea and Samaria, with only 33.3 percent expressing support.

Pessimism About Direct Talks

The majority of respondents (67.9 percent) said they expect the direct talks between Israel and the PA to fail, and 63.3 percent assigned the blame for that potential failure to the Israeli government. Nearly a fifth (20.9 percent) said the U.S. would be to blame if talks fail; only 10.5 percent said the PA would bear any responsibility.

An overwhelming majority (81 percent) supported PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s decision not to participate in talks if Israel ends its 10 month-long freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria as scheduled on September 26. A similar number (81.9 percent) said they reject conducting talks “in case Israel continues building settlements” in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.

Ambivalence on Fatah v. Hamas

A great deal of ambivalence was seen in the responses to queries on issues surrounding the split between the two major factions in the PA, Fatah and Hamas, and how the status of the Gaza region might be affected in the future.

Respondents were evenly split (47 percent each) on the question of whether it is possible to reach a reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas in the near future. Likewise, there was nearly an even split between those who felt such a reconciliation could speed the peace process (38.6 percent) and those who felt it would have no effect (39.2 percent). Another 15.9 percent said it would simply result in entangling and stopping the peace process altogether.

The majority of respondents (65.4 percent) said they believe, nevertheless, that Gaza will not remain separate from the rest of the PA forever. However, 31.8 percent said they thought it might continue to be separate, as it is at present.

Shalit Irrelevant to Fatah-Hamas Issue

The issue of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, held captive in Gaza by Hamas since he was abducted by the group’s operatives in June 2006, was not considered relevant to the process by a majority of respondents (55.4 percent).

However, more than a third (34.5 percent) said they believed that concluding a prisoner exchange deal with Israel for Shalit’s freedom might, in fact, speed up the process of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

One of the highest number of ambivalent responses were seen on this question: 10.1 percent told pollsters they either had no opinion, or simply did not know whether concluding a deal would speed up a reconciliation, or not.

Election Apathy: ‘I Won’t Vote’

On a number of different questions, a significant percentage of respondents (20 percent) said they would not participate in elections, with nearly an equal number (18 to 19 percent) expressing ambivalence about the issue altogether.

If presidential elections were to be held at present, a slim majority (32.3 percent) said they would vote for a Fatah candidate – but 20.8 percent said they would not vote at all, and 19.2 percent said they had not yet decided what to do. Only 10.4 percent said they would vote for Hamas, 3.5 percent said they would vote for an Islamic independent, and 3.2 percent said they would vote for a leftist candidate.

Respondents were equally divided about legislative elections: 33.2 percent said they would vote for a Fatah ticket, and 10.7 percent said they would vote for Hamas. But 20.9 percent said they would not vote, and 17.9 percent were undecided; 3.6 percent said they would support an Islamic independent ticket, and 3.2 percent said that would vote leftist.

A larger majority (47.4 percent) predicted a Fatah win if PA legislative elections were to be held today, however, with 15.9 percent saying that Hamas would win. The largest number of ambivalent responses was seen in this question, however: fully 23.6 percent said they had no opinion or did not know who would win if a PA legislative election were to be held today.

Fayyad More Popular Than Haniyeh

The government of Salam Fayyad won hands down (61.3 percent) when it came to perception of who was the most capable of managing internal PA affairs, as opposed to the Gaza government of Hamas de facto Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh (22 percent).

Likewise, Fayyad won a thumbs-up on his performance rating from the PA’s young voters: 68.3 percent said the Fayyad government’s performance was “good,” as opposed to 23 percent who rated it “bad,” and 8.7 percent who had no opinion or said they didn’t know.

Fayyad’s rating contrasts sharply with that of Haniyeh: only 30.6 percent of respondents felt the Hamas leader had done a good job in the Gaza region he has ruled since 1007, with 57.2 percent rating his performance as “bad” and 12.2 percent expressing ambivalence.

Of those who responded to the survey, 37.9 percent were supporters of Fatah, 11.6 were Hamas supporters, 3.3 percent considered themselves independent Islamists and the rest belonged to other groups.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk