Dave Sharma voices his support for a two state nation
Chris Hayes, the Labor member for the federal NSW seat of Fowler, has told Parliament “to reaffirm our commitment to the Palestinian people and stand united in their struggle for self-determination”.
Chris Hayes
The speech is ahead of November 29 which is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People declared by the United Nations in 1977.
Liberal MY for Wentworth Dave Sharma seconded the following statement made by Chris Hayes during Private Members’ Business.
Chris Hayes asked parliament to recognise the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and a future built on peace, dignity, justice and security; acknowledges the obstacles to the ongoing peace process, particularly the need for urgent action on issues such as settlements, Jerusalem, the Gaza blockade and the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories; further recognises that the ongoing humanitarian situation in Palestine is far-reaching, with many in the Australian community affected by this ongoing conflict; and calls on the Government to ensure Australia is working constructively to support security and human rights in Palestine, in advance of a just and enduring two-state solution in the Middle East.
He stated: “I take the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the Palestinian people and stand united in their struggle for self-determination. When the Oslo agreements were drafted in 1993, they were intended to give the Palestinian people autonomy. However, 28 years later the military occupation continues to control the lives of Palestinians and their access to the basic necessities of life, including the vital water supply.”
He touched on the peace process and called on Australia “to become more engaged in addressing the need for a tangible process towards the creation of the Palestinian state while ensuring respect and security for a Jewish homeland”.
He went on to say: “I genuinely accept the right of the Jewish state to exist and for it to be able to defend the rights and freedoms of its people. However, I firmly believe the future of the Jewish state and, indeed, the region depends on Israel’s ability to live in peace with its neighbours, including a Palestinian state.”
Dave Sharma thanked Chris Hayes for moving this on International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people.
He told parliament: “Much of what he said I agree with, particularly his support for the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. I, like the Australian government and many Australians, support the notion of two states—the two peoples living alongside one another peacefully and in coexistence. Unfortunately, a peace process, one that has been engaged over many years, has not led to the establishment of a Palestinian state to date. As the member for Fowler articulated, there have been numerous obstacles.
My enduring lesson from my time as the Australian Ambassador to Israel is that there are two things that need to happen, effectively, for peace to come about. Firstly, Israel will only make the necessary territorial concessions that are needed for peace once its security is assured.
Secondly, Palestinians will only make the necessary identity concessions once the Palestinians are reconciled to Israel’s existence. Both of those elements are missing to date, and have been missing throughout the process, whether it was the UN partition plan of 1947 and 1948, which was rejected; or the three noes of the Khartoum summit, which rejected Israel’s right to exist; or the failure of the Camp David process, the Indianapolis process or even the John Kerry-led process launched during the Obama administration.”
Mr Sharma: The “process” you refer to did not begin in 1947 – but started in 1920 – with the decisions taken by the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in April 1920 and the signing of the Treaty of Sevres in August 1920.
This was followed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922 when the right of the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home was restricted to just 23.1% of Mandatory Palestine – what is today called Israel, Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza. This right has been preserved by article 80 of the 1945 United Nations Charter.
The remaining 76.9% of Mandatory Palestine is today called Jordan – having obtained its independence in 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan – subsequently being renamed Jordan in 1949 – after Transjordan and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) were unified into one single territorial entity following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Mr Sharma: The groundwork for the formation of two states in Palestine – today called Jordan and Israel – was decided back in 1922 when article 25 was inserted in the Mandate for Palestine. There were no Israelis or Palestinians then – just Jews and Arabs. Israel and Jordan now only need to redraw their internationally-agreed boundary to complete the “process”
Two peoples – the Jews and the Arabs – need two States – not three – in former Palestine.
There is more than one reason for the failure of the Oslo Accords, but at the basis lies a fundamental difference in how the conflict is viewed.
To American ears, the meaning of “two states” is unambiguously straightforward. The struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, to them, is a struggle between two indigenous peoples fighting over the same space of land in which they share a history. A fair solution, then, would be one in which Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and alongside it will exist a separate Palestinian State.
Nevertheless, according to the Palestinians’ view, this is not a conflict between two national movements but a conflict between one national movement (the Palestinian) and a colonial and imperialistic entity (Israel). According to this view, Israel will end like all colonial phenomena — it will perish and disappear. Moreover, according to the Palestinian view, the Jews are not a nation but a religious community, and as such not entitled to national self-determination which is, after all, a universal imperative.
The Palestinians’ idea of a fair “two state solution” is one completely Arab state in the West Bank and one democratic binational State of Israel that allows the right of return for descendants of Palestinian refugees. It is a “two state solution,” but not the one American Jews would recognize or Israel could survive.
The claim of the need to support the Palestinian people’s right to self determination is un-balanced statement since the Palestinian people want he same land and space that the Jewish people have as their homeland for their self determination. Davis Sharma should know better than his statements are saying. In case he does not here is a very brief history of the Middle East with the focus on the mandated area given to Britain to maintain The British put Lord Balfour in charge of their mandated area and Lord Balfour essentially divided the land in the mandated area into two parts – one part was west of the Jordan River and the other was east of the Jordan River, the area east of the Jordan River became Jordan and the area west of the Jordan was declared to be the State of Israel in 1948. The dividing line of the Jordan was for convenience and gave much more land to Jordan that to the new state of Israel BUT THIS IS THE TWO STATE SOLUTION! Any further division as it seems that David Sharma speaks of is a three state solution and not a two state solution!
The Palestinian people do not want to share the land west of the Jordan River with the Jewish people and that is the problem. If the Palestinian people wanted to live in peace then they would be able to live west of the Jordan River with the Jewish people in peace and prosperity but when the hearts are set on war with the Jewish people and at times between themselves the rights for so-called self determination are in fact expunged and as such their warlike attitude has extinguished their so called rights for self determination.
So Mr David Sharma should re-visit his thoughts on the “two state solution” and move away from supporting the three state solution that is currently presented in disguise as a imposter two state solution.