Should Palestine unilaterally declare independence?

[Shryke]

Not much. I don't see them giving up East Jerusalem either and I'm not sure what they'll ask for in exchange for giving up the right of return (which is a complete non-starter). This is why I think any negotiations will end the same way as before.

Except you said:

Fatah has not budged any more than Israel has (i.e. not at all)

Which is blatantly false since Fatah HAS budged. It's just rather then budging in return, Israel just took the opportunity to expand what they were previously doing.

[Altherion]

Which is blatantly false since Fatah HAS budged.

I have already said that my statement was referring to events less than a decade ago. The Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 and there both sides did move a bit closer to peace (in exchange for the acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist, the PLO got control of most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip). But the issues that they couldn't agree on then (right of return, Jerusalem, final borders) or later at Camp David in 2000 are still there and there has been no progress made on them since then. In fact, peace now would be significantly trickier than 10 years ago as something would have to be done about Hamas.

[Shryke]

I have already said that my statement was referring to events less than a decade ago. The Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 and there both sides did move a bit closer to peace (in exchange for the acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist, the PLO got control of most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip). But the issues that they couldn't agree on then (right of return, Jerusalem, final borders) or later at Camp David in 2000 are still there and there has been no progress made on them since then. In fact, peace now would be significantly trickier than 10 years ago as something would have to be done about Hamas.

And I already pointed out that restricting statements that much is fucking ridiculous.

Fatah HAVE budged and done so as far as they really could.

[Altherion]

And I already pointed out that restricting statements that much is fucking ridiculous.

I disagree.

Fatah HAVE budged and done so as far as they really could.

So has Israel -- hence the problem.

I'm being quickly reminded of why I've been avoided the Israel threads for a while, so I'm going to try an experiment: I'll just put the people who post things I find silly or despicable on the ignore list and see if it makes the thread more palatable. Shryke, you're the first test subject. :)

[TheKassi]

The problem with this assessment (aside from a notable lack of suicide bombings in Israel for some time now) is that numerous conflicts in the world which have raged for a lot longer than the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict have been brought to a peaceful settlement even with people on both sides still feeling angry and religiously persecuted, most notably in Northern Ireland.

And in countless other examples a settlement hasn't been worth the paper it was printed on, most notably in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If you wish to go all historical I can totally hook you up with some Native Americans that will not think much of your assessment. Israel could capitulate to every Palestinian demand and Iran would continue to pour in weapons and propaganda about how Jewish children are raised to hunger for the blood of Palestinians.

Palestine could also capitulate to every Israeli demand, and after several attacks Israel would start to push once again.

This war might possibly have been about land forty years ago (although people who think wars are mostly about land really need to read some political history) but the reasons it started no longer have anything to do with that which sustains it. Neither side can be appeased with a simple consession.

[Ser Reptitious]

TheKassi,

This war might possibly have been about land forty years ago (although people who think wars are mostly about land really need to read some political history) but the reasons it started no longer have anything to do with that which sustains it. Neither side can be appeased with a simple consession.

You know, there's a really simple way to find out whether you are correct on this: Israel immediately stops any further settlement expansions (including the just approved 1600 new housing units) and we'll see what develops on the peace front from there.

[Shryke]

I disagree.

And you are wrong.

I'm just here pointing out that your statement was utterly factually incorrect.

Feel free to use ignore though, I'm sure if you just ignore facts, they will change.

[Shryke]

And in countless other examples a settlement hasn't been worth the paper it was printed on, most notably in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If you wish to go all historical I can totally hook you up with some Native Americans that will not think much of your assessment. Israel could capitulate to every Palestinian demand and Iran would continue to pour in weapons and propaganda about how Jewish children are raised to hunger for the blood of Palestinians.

Palestine could also capitulate to every Israeli demand, and after several attacks Israel would start to push once again.

This war might possibly have been about land forty years ago (although people who think wars are mostly about land really need to read some political history) but the reasons it started no longer have anything to do with that which sustains it. Neither side can be appeased with a simple consession.

Except for the fact that the Settlers and the like are still pushing for "More Jews in The Promised Land".

It's still about the land.

[Galactus]

The claims of the Israelis and Fatah are irreconcilable and Fatah has not budged any more than Israel has (i.e. not at all).

Fatah has recognize Israel's right to existence within the pre-'68 borders. That's a HUGE concession. The rest of the distance is up to the Israelis to walk, I think, and if they want to make some changes they're going to have to offer something else in return.

[TheKassi]

TheKassi,

You know, there's a really simple way to find out whether you are correct on this: Israel immediately stops any further settlement expansions (including the just approved 1600 new housing units) and we'll see what develops on the peace front from there.

Yeah, simple. So go pull of this simple solution and then we will see if the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is so black and white that a guy can solve all their problems with a pen stroke accompanied by the phrase: "Don't build past here."

I will have your Nobel Peace Prize waiting for you when you get back.

[Galactus]

This war might possibly have been about land forty years ago (although people who think wars are mostly about land really need to read some political history) but the reasons it started no longer have anything to do with that which sustains it. Neither side can be appeased with a simple consession.

Land is important. Hugely so. To say anything else betrays gross ignorance. Why is land important? Because it is closely connected to property, not to mention any kind of politics, and yes, religion as well. The very fact of land, the physical space, is the bedrock (heh) upon which states are built. A state is *defined* precisely by the land it controls.

It's also hugely important culturally, and even religiously: We carry our culture in our heads but it is shaped by the land we live in. The environment shapes culture, and culture shapes people. And even religions are shaped by their physical confines: Shrines, temples, places of significance, where holy men and women did holy things.

Do you really think there would have been an Israeli/Palestine conflict if there had been no israelis occupying the physical landscape of Palestine? If they did not share the same physical space?

Now, there's no doubt that there are other dimensions too, the most simple being the age-old vendetta syndrome: The recounting of things done to you by the Other. (and conveniently forgetting what You did to Them) But in the end, the palestinians are fighting becuase they believe (rightly or wrongly) that the israelis have stolen land that belongs to them. They may cloak this in religious or political or racist langauge, but that's the gist of it: It's ours, they took it.

The israelis of course, has comparable myths.

[Lark the Sisterman]

I didn't invoke it, though. Netanyahu and the ultra-nationalist settlers have done that already.

I didn't know Netanyahu is posting in this forum.

[TheKassi]

Land is important. Hugely so. To say anything else betrays gross ignorance. Why is land important? Because it is closely connected to property, not to mention any kind of politics, and yes, religion as well. The very fact of land, the physical space, is the bedrock (heh) upon which states are built. A state is *defined* precisely by the land it controls.

This is not what defines a state or nationalism. My nation exists because people were happy to abandon the land they lived on and take land belonging to someone else because their ideas and desires were more important then their home. My state exists for the same reason.

People make a nation or a state, lines on a map simply define limits of authority. Home is where you make it and all that Jazz. Nationalism isn't about geographical area it is about a people united by things like ideology, religion, history and language ect. This is why a people can exist without a nation.

I.E the Jews and the Palestinian people.

Land is a symbol of something greater. An icon you can point to that is ultimately meaningless without the concepts that give it value, like the Statue of Liberty, or 'Let them eat cake' or 'They hate us for our freedom' or 'The Holy land' or any religious text.

The 'Holy land' isn't special geographically speaking, and buying up land in Detroit and or Wyoming would be far less costly then fighting over land in Israel. People all over the world choose to fight over this scrap of land because of all the symbolism wrapped up in the conflict.

The very fact that Iran and the US are wrapped up in the fight is evidence that it isn't simply about who gets what dirt. This conflict can not be solved by a concession of land, as all the symbolism in the conflict will not simply evaporate.

Anymore then European concessions eased all the pain, resentment, and humiliation inflicted by the Treaty of Versailles.

[Shryke]

This is not what defines a state or nationalism. My nation exists because people were happy to abandon the land they lived on and take land belonging to someone else because their ideas and desires were more important then their home. My state exists for the same reason.

People make a nation or a state, lines on a map simply define limits of authority. Home is where you make it and all that Jazz. Nationalism isn't about geographical area it is about a people united by things like ideology, religion, history and language ect. This is why a people can exist without a nation.

I.E the Jews and the Palestinian people.

Land is a symbol of something greater. An icon you can point to that is ultimately meaningless without the concepts that give it value, like the Statue of Liberty, or 'Let them eat cake' or 'They hate us for our freedom' or 'The Holy land' or any religious text.

The 'Holy land' isn't special geographically speaking, and buying up land in Detroit and or Wyoming would be far less costly then fighting over land in Israel. People all over the world choose to fight over this scrap of land because of all the symbolism wrapped up in the conflict.

The very fact that Iran and the US are wrapped up in the fight is evidence that it isn't simply about who gets what dirt. This conflict can not be solved by a concession of land, as all the symbolism in the conflict will not simply evaporate.

Anymore then European concessions eased all the pain, resentment, and humiliation inflicted by the Treaty of Versailles.

Except the Holy Land IS special geographically speaking.

It's not by chance that the State of Israel is where it is.

[Galactus]

This is not what defines a state or nationalism. My nation exists because people were happy to abandon the land they lived on and take land belonging to someone else because their ideas and desires were more important then their home. My state exists for the same reason.

You don't get it. A state is defined by the territory it controls. Literally. If it controls no territory it is not a state.

People make a nation or a state, lines on a map simply define limits of authority.

A state *is* authority. If the limits of a state's authority is zero, there is no state.

Home is where you make it and all that Jazz. Nationalism isn't about geographical area it is about a people united by things like ideology, religion, history and language ect. This is why a people can exist without a nation.

You are confusing "nation" and "state". States are defined by geography, nations not neccessarily so. (Althought they still tend to be, just look at the danish, or swedish, national anthems!) *Nationalism* Though is that the idea that the two are connected: That the Nation should also have A State. And that means geography has to come into it. Because a state needs territory to control, or it is no state at all.

I.E the Jews and the Palestinian people.

No, there really isn't. The palestinians have no fundamental objections to a jewish state: Their objection has always been "Just don't found it HERE, on OUR land, because it's ours." (whether or not they identified "us" as syrians or palestinians is beside the point) I doubt the palestinians would care if the Israelis had founded their state in say, Uganda. (The Ugandans would, probably!) Physical space is important.

Land is a symbol of something greater.

In part, yes. Mainly it is a symbol of control, wealth, security, home... But all of these things are intimately connected to the physical landscape itself: In order to get the wealth, or have the security, or be at home, you need the land.

An icon you can point to that is ultimately meaningless without the concepts that give it value, like the Statue of Liberty, or 'Let them eat cake' or 'They hate us for our freedom' or 'The Holy land' or any religious text.

The 'Holy land' isn't special geographically speaking, and buying up land in Detroit and or Wyoming would be far less costly then fighting over land in Israel. People all over the world choose to fight over this scrap of land because of all the symbolism wrapped up in the conflict.

Whoever said that all land was equal?

Both sides more or less agree on one thing: This piece of land is OURS. And those Others are trying to steal it from us.

The very fact that Iran and the US are wrapped up in the fight is evidence that it isn't simply about who gets what dirt. This conflict can not be solved by a concession of land, as all the symbolism in the conflict will not simply evaporate.

Sure it could. Easily. The problem would be solved EASILY by simply giving all the land to one side and killing or exiling the other side. (it might cause a whole NEW set of conflicts, but that's a different matter) for various reasons that's not considered an acceptable solution though, so any realistic attempt at peace basically is all about dividing the place. Both sides (well, Fatah and Israel) have grudgingly accepted this. Both sides are trying to weasel out and grab as much as they can.

Note that this isn't *just* about which state controls what: A lot of palestinians owned land personally in Mandate Palestine, and they want it back. That's part of what the entire Right of Return is about.

The conflict could be "solved" tomorrow if one side would just say "okay, this is too annoying, we're giving up."

Now, neither side is going to do that of course, which is why there's a process of trying to come up with some kind of solution that both sides can live with. But if (to take your example) the Israelis decided to move to Wyoming tomorrow, the conflict would end. Then and there. (There might start a Wyoming-Israeli conflict, but that's a different matter)

Anymore then European concessions eased all the pain, resentment, and humiliation inflicted by the Treaty of Versailles.

Versailles is a perfect example, actually: The conflict could have been easily solved permanently. Either surrender to the germans, or crush them so hard they can never get back up. Neither of the sides wanted that though, so the result was an attempt at compromise that failed utterly: It took too much away to be acceptable, and it yet did not provide enough of a crippling blow that revenge was impossible.

[Yoadm]

Regarding the question presented by the thread starter: No, the Palestinians will not benefit from declaring statehood, and it could even hurt them, even if most of the world's countries recognize them. Why?

1: They declare a state, but on what lands? They still have to negotiate with Israel a peace agreement in order to receive what they perceive as their lands.

2: By declaring a state, they would be expected by many countries to declare their borders. Many people in the Palestinian Authority would like far more than just the 1967 borders, and by declaring their borders, they would either limit themselves in future negotiations, or (if they declare borders beyond the expected 1967 solution) delegitemize their own position.

3: If they happen to be recognized as a state, they would be subject to international law. They don't want that, since they would be responsible for terrorism, torture, and many other deeds they commit that are overlooked because they are a 'people without a state'. Even when the Israeli High Court attempts to judge Palestinian acts, PA lawyers allways use the same mantra: "We are not a state, thus are not responsible for those acts". And they get away with it.

[Yoadm]

On a (slight) separate note, what exactly is Netanyahu hoping to achieve by so openly proclaiming the construction of a further 1,600 housing units in the West Bank? If he's simply trying to throw some red meat to his coalition partners, then why not choose a more inconspicuous time to make the announcement? To make it official while Joe Biden is visiting seems calculated to let the whole world know. To what end? Is Israel so confident now that it feels it doesn't even need the support of its most powerful ally anymore? In Canada, even the National Post (which is about as staunchly pro-Israel as they come) seems to condemn the move.

I would guess he had no idea about the timing of the declaration, since it is done by a regional planning commity. Needless to say, he probably had no idea about it. Other than that, the planned housing is taking place in E.Jerusalem, which is outside the sphere of where Israel promised to stop building settlements. Many Israeli's differentiate between East jerusalem, which they see as part of their capital, to the west bank.

[Yoadm]

Except you said:

Which is blatantly false since Fatah HAS budged. It's just rather then budging in return, Israel just took the opportunity to expand what they were previously doing.

When, in the last decade, have they ever budged?

[Yoadm]

Fatah has recognize Israel's right to existence within the pre-'68 borders. That's a HUGE concession. The rest of the distance is up to the Israelis to walk, I think, and if they want to make some changes they're going to have to offer something else in return.

That's not a concession, since they disagreed on stopping the demand for the 'right of return' for the refugee's decendents, making any future Israel (within their demands) crumble demographically within a decade. It's more like a trojan-horse peace offering than a concession.

[Werthead]

Yoadm, can you put all your replies in one message rather than filling the board with multiple ones. Click on 'Multiquote' to combine all the posts you want to reply to in one post.

1: They declare a state, but on what lands? They still have to negotiate with Israel a peace agreement in order to receive what they perceive as their lands.

The 1967 borders, since the Palestinians already hold those lands. Trying to argue for lands they do not presently hold, as they have done in the past, won't really fly. As the original linked article points out, if the Palestinian authorities do declare independence it will have to be on the 1967 borders which various international agencies and other countries such as the USA have accepted as the borders of Palestine. IIRC, Saudi Arabia's old 2002 peace plan also called for the recognition of Israel as of the 1967 borders, so this seems to be the default position at the moment.

2: By declaring a state, they would be expected by many countries to declare their borders. Many people in the Palestinian Authority would like far more than just the 1967 borders, and by declaring their borders, they would either limit themselves in future negotiations, or (if they declare borders beyond the expected 1967 solution) delegitemize their own position.

There doesn't seem to be much likelihood of that happening. I know other ideas have been floated, such as Israel gaining some West Bank lands with settlements on them in return for giving up territory elsewhere, but they don't seem very likely to happen (since the Palestinians would be giving up sources of water in exchange for desert, basically).

3: If they happen to be recognized as a state, they would be subject to international law. They don't want that, since they would be responsible for terrorism, torture, and many other deeds they commit that are overlooked because they are a 'people without a state'. Even when the Israeli High Court attempts to judge Palestinian acts, PA lawyers allways use the same mantra: "We are not a state, thus are not responsible for those acts". And they get away with it.

True, and I have no doubt this gives the PA some headaches (particularly over the actions of Hamas or independent militia/terrorist groups outside their control). However, given the fact that Israel has comfortably flouted international law - keeping the Gaza Strip blockaded, continued settlement building in violation of multiple agreements and resolutions - with no substantial reprisals (as have the USA and UK over torture and rendition, China over Tibet and Russia over Chechnya), this is not a major obstruction. If Palestine is constrained by such international limits than Israel would have to be as well. In addition there is plenty of precedent under international law for the government and political organisations not being held responsible for the actions of groups formally allied to them, such as Sinn Feinn not being held responsible for the actions of the Real IRA and Continuity IRA.

When, in the last decade, have they ever budged?

They accepted the US Road Map plans in 2002 (which Israel has not) and also the broadly-compatible Saudi Peace Initiative of the same year (which Israel has floundered over), both of which restrict the Palestinian State to the Occupied Territories and no earlier borders. They reiterated their support for both plans last year. Israel has been lukewarm on both issues (as shown by continued settlement building).