Danny Wakil, Billinudgel
In response to Gareth Smith’s letter (February 12), it is the Palestinians who have the most to gain from securing a deal, rather than it being ‘blatantly obvious that nothing good would come,’ of it. The Palestinians’ options are limited by their own divisions. When the Palestinian leadership rejected the deal outright, they also declined to counter-offer or consider returning to negotiations.
A resolution requires compromise, and Israel will again be making painful compromises under this deal. But so shameful is the idea of compromise to the Palestinian leaders that it is impossible for them to contemplate any offer. Life under ‘Israeli occupation’ is seemingly so horrendous, but the idea of reaching a resolution even more so.
It sends a clear message about the land swaps involving the Palestinian population currently living in Israel (holding full Israeli citizenship). They are up in arms more than anyone else at the deal as it will mean that these large swathes of territory will be part of the future Palestinian state, and the last thing they want is to leave the flourishing democracy that is Israel, to live under Hamas or Palestinian Authority rule.
This conflict cannot be settled by shaping borders and handing over parcels of lands. It is a clash between one people’s desire for land to call their own, and a ‘cause’ with no clear outcome, other than obstructing the rival.
The Jewish people have their national home, but the Palestinians tragically remain stateless, claiming they want nothing more than a home of their own and an end to the conflict. By rejecting the offer outright and refusing to come to the table, the Palestinians once again put cause over statehood.
I am pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian and pro-peace. Do your words reflect the same attitude Gareth Smith?