The Interview: Explaining the Latest Israel-Palestinian Controversy (Satire but Very Close to Actual Experience)
Now, in the wake of the UN General Assembly decision, PA leaders have been proclaiming that Israel is a racist state that shouldn’t exist, that the UN has now endorsed the Palestinian claim to all of the 1967 borders (which is not true), and that they will go to the international court to prosecute Israel for allegedly being the occupier of territory belonging to another country which has (not true) been declared sovereign over that land.
Reportedly, some of the countries that voted Palestine would be a non-member state at the UN asked the PA for assurances that they would not use this new status to launch lawsuits against Israel at the World Court. Within hours, however, the PA announced that this is precisely what it will do. The main goal is to get the court to rule that Israel is occupying the territory of a sovereign state and thus must withdraw immediately, with no peace treaty and no end to the conflict. Thus, as called for in the PLO Covenant almost a half-century ago, a state of Palestine would serve as a base for a “second stage” in which Israel would be completely eliminated.
And yet despite every point listed above, if the Palestinian side were to give Israel the slightest incentive today to believe it was interested in a real negotiated peace, those buildings would not be begun, much less built in a few years.
Now, after all this has happened, you want to blame Israel for the destruction of the negotiating process and the abandonment of a two-state solution? Don’t you realize how absurd this claim is?
Journalist: Thank you very much, Professor Rubin, for this very clear and detailed answer. I have only one more question: Why is Israel making a two-state solution impossible by building 3000 apartments in east Jerusalem?