Jump to content

Should Palestine unilaterally declare independence?


Werthead

Recommended Posts

The 1967 borders, since the Palestinians already hold those lands.

I don't understand what you mean here. The Palestinians most certainly do not hold those lands right now -- they hold a subset of them, but the quarrel is mostly over the rest (that and the right of return). They could claim them in a declaration of statehood and will probably get some support from the UN and some individual countries, but that's nowhere near as good as actually holding those lands in the sense of having an army there.

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.

Note that every single one of your examples except Israel is a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto rights and an army to match them. Israel operates in a manner that is (usually) tightly constrained by what the US says (note how they ended the January 2009 conflict just in time for Obama's inauguration). Even when they tug at the leash (like with this housing announcement), they generally comply (my guess is that they will cancel it shortly...). The Palestinians have no such relationship with anyone in the UNSC; they get their weapons from Iran and various other places in the Middle East, but these lack the influence to protect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Re-read my messege. What I wrote was that many Fatah officials have not given up their dreams of an enlarged Palestine which includes Israel, something they hope would come into existance as a result of demographics. Declaring a state and its borders would limit them in the future.

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.

Ofcourse it is. Regardless of sanctions not being against international law (as the Gaza blockade really is), the PA would become Israel's equal regarding international law. It would basically ease pressure from Israel (which does exist, on a massive scale, regardless of what you think).

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.

That's a concession they (at least formally) made two decades ago. Thing is, up untill now, they havent budged with regards to the right of return, which goes directly against the concept of 'two states for two people's'. In the last decade, they have not budged on that. Nor has the US road-map dealt with the critical issues, like Jerusalem and the refugee issue, which was why they could 'accept them' without making any ideological concessions.

"Sure you've done alot for me, but what have you done for me today?"

:rolleyes:

They have not budged with regards to the most critical issue, which is the difference between a two state solution, and one big Palestinian state, namely the right of return. You can shrug it off, but the rest of the world treats it as a critical issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheKassi,

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.

I'll ignore the snark and actually engage you in a serious conversation. You seem to be confusing "creating an acceptable environment for negotiations" with "final settlement of the conflict".

If your first paragraph above was addressed to PM Netanyahu and if you substitute "solve all their problems" with "lay the foundation for serious negotiations for the final resolution of the conflict", then you are indeed bang on!

And yup, if Netanyahu did that and in the ensuing negotiations made a serious and concerted effort to find a workable solution, he most likely would receive a Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the day.

Yoadm,

They have not budged with regards to the most critical issue, which is the difference between a two state solution, and one big Palestinian state, namely the right of return. You can shrug it off, but the rest of the world treats it as a critical issue.

This is one of the few bargaining chips that the Palestinians have left for the final negotiations. If they give this one up now, then what exactly do they have left to bargain with in return for receiving a state of their own within the pre-1967 borders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoadm,

This is one of the few bargaining chips that the Palestinians have left for the final negotiations. If they give this one up now, then what exactly do they have left to bargain with in return for receiving a state of their own within the pre-1967 borders?

But there were final negotiations in 2000, and they fell largely over the Palestinian refusal to agree to forgo the right of return into Israel itself. It is critical because ROR would directly lead to Two Palestinian nations, and not two states for two people's. It puts into doubt the will of even the moderate Palestinians to mutual coexistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there were final negotiations in 2000, and they fell largely over the Palestinian refusal to agree to forgo the right of return into Israel itself. It is critical because ROR would directly lead to Two Palestinian nations, and not two states for two people's. It puts into doubt the will of even the moderate Palestinians to mutual coexistance.

To be perfectly honest I think that the Palestinians are morally in the right on the subject so I'm not surprised that they find it a difficult position to concede on, unfortunately the realities of the situation mean that a compromise will have to be reached. To be fair so far the Israeli counter offers haven't been a particularly convincing basis for compromise either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoadm,

But there were final negotiations in 2000, and they fell largely over the Palestinian refusal to agree to forgo the right of return into Israel itself. It is critical because ROR would directly lead to Two Palestinian nations, and not two states for two people's. It puts into doubt the will of even the moderate Palestinians to mutual coexistance.

It is a tricky issue. If you had to flee your home during a war, you'd want to return home afterwards, right? But I see where you are coming from, and Israel's concerns on the issue are certainly legitimate as well. One possible solution might be to allow those people to return that actually lived in Israel pre-1948, but not their descendants. Of course, that can be problematic as well.

I think Palestinian negotiators will realize that at the end of the day the best they can hope for would be a limited right of return. And perhaps they were stubborn in 2000 (I'm not too familiar with the details of the negotiations back then), but positions can change, especially when different people are calling the shots (Abbas instead of Arafat, for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be perfectly honest I think that the Palestinians are morally in the right on the subject so I'm not surprised that they find it a difficult position to concede on, unfortunately the realities of the situation mean that a compromise will have to be reached. To be fair so far the Israeli counter offers haven't been a particularly convincing basis for compromise either.

Whether you believe flooding Israel with millions of refugees is right or not, it goes against the whole formula of two-state's for two people's. It extinguishes one side's self-determination, and is hardly a way for peace. It's a critical issue, thus as long as they do not concede on this, then one might say they arn't even conceding on the basic issue of Israel's existance. And the 2000 final offer was more than fair.

Yoadm,

It is a tricky issue. If you had to flee your home during a war, you'd want to return home afterwards, right? But I see where you are coming from, and Israel's concerns on the issue are certainly legitimate as well. One possible solution might be to allow those people to return that actually lived in Israel pre-1948, but not their descendants. Of course, that can be problematic as well.

I think Palestinian negotiators will realize that at the end of the day the best they can hope for would be a limited right of return. And perhaps they were stubborn in 2000 (I'm not too familiar with the details of the negotiations back then), but positions can change, especially when different people are calling the shots (Abbas instead of Arafat, for example).

I agree with the above, and I totally emphasize with the Palsetinian aspirations to return (though 95% of the refugees never set foot in Palestine). The point is that this is a recipe for disaster, akin to reuniting india-pakistan and flooding eachother with the decendents of 10's of millions of refugees created by partition. It might seem 'just', but it would cause unmitigated chaos, and probably civil war, because you have (as in the Israeli-Palestinian issue), two people's with two distinct national identities. Thus, it would be solving an injustice.. by creating a new one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the 2000 final offer was more than fair.

Actually it was fairly offensive, it's offers for reparations were laughable and it didn't even include an apology.

I'm completely unsurprised that the Palestinian's didn't find it remotely acceptable.

ETA: I agree with you about the problems associated with the right of return for Palestinian refugees and why it would unfortunately no longer be feasible but I do think Israel also needs to compromise further than it has already offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it was fairly offensive, it's offers for reparations were laughable and it didn't even include an apology.

I'm completely unsurprised that the Palestinian's didn't find it remotely acceptable.

Offensive? The final offer included 100% of Gaza, 98% of the WB, and land swaps to compensate for the rest, including a land corridor between the WB and Gaza. Talks did not fall due to a lack of an apology (which I find laughable that you brought up, since the Israeli side could stall negotiations for the silly demand of an apology from the Arab side aswell). Rather, they failed due to the right of return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offensive? The final offer included 100% of Gaza, 98% of the WB, and land swaps to compensate for the rest, including a land corridor between the WB and Gaza. Talks did not fall due to a lack of an apology (which I find laughable that you brought up, since the Israeli side could stall negotiations for the silly demand of an apology from the Arab side aswell). Rather, they failed due to the right of return.

I meant the proposed Israeli solution to the issue of the Palestinian right of return not the entirety of the proposed accords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant the proposed Israeli solution to the issue of the Palestinian right of return not the entirety of the proposed accords.

The proposition included reparations and resettlement in the Palestinian state and other state's. Ironically, Israel did not bring up the issue of 800,000 middle-eastern Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world, and did not demand reparations for theis plight, simply because the Arab world would turn the world flat before recognizing the issue. But the Palestinians did not only refuse the Israeli offer, they refused to present a counteroffer despite repeated pleas for them to do so. Thus, it seems hard to impossible to justify and excuse their behavior at the talks. Simply put, they were unable or unwilling to end the conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposition included reparations and resettlement in the Palestinian state and other state's.

Extremely limited 'reparations' that Israel wouldn't exactly be paying while disavowing any responsibility for the issue.

Ironically, Israel did not bring up the issue of 800,000 middle-eastern Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world, and did not demand reparations for theis plight, simply because the Arab world would turn the world flat before recognizing the issue.

Not particularly ironic since that's a separate issue that Israel should raise with the countries involved, and I think it would be in the right on that issue.

I agree that the Palestinians should have continued to negotiate but the Israeli position was hardly beyond reproach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoadm,

Well, technically, Israel was also unable or unwilling to end the conflict. I mean, any side that doesn't give up is refusing to end the conflict. This is not to say anyone should give up, but if "ending the conflict" is the goal, then both sides are at enormous fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremely limited 'reparations' that Israel wouldn't exactly be paying while disavowing any responsibility for the issue.

First of all, Israel offered to pay part of the sum itself, while the rest would be shared by countries within the international community who agreed to pay. Secondly, declaring 'responsibility' or not is akin to Israel demanding the Palestinians declare their responsibility for starting the 1948 war. It's irrelevant, and would simply be a ploy to stall negotiations. It shouldnt matter (and it didn't) to the Palestinians who payes the reparations, as long as they get them. Third, the Palestinians did not even make a counter-offer, but simply left, never making any negotiating position. Lastly, talks did not fall due to the sum of reparations, but the right of return itself, thus your point is void.

Not particularly ironic since that's a separate issue that Israel should raise with the countries involved, and I think it would be in the right on that issue.

I agree that the Palestinians should have continued to negotiate but the Israeli position was hardly beyond reproach.

Considering that the war was started by the Palestinians (whos leadership formally supported the Nazi final solution), included an attempt by them and their Arab brethren to exterminate (ie, genocide) the Jewish population of Palestine, and indirectly lead to the ethnic cleansing of both 100,000's of Jews AND Palestinians, then Israel would have been in the right to bring this up directly with the Palestinian leadership itself. But it didn't, because it would have doomed the negotiations, the same as a Palestinian demand for a one side apology for an issue which is anything but one-sided. Again, as I said before, talks did not even fall on this, but on the right of return itself, thus one might clearly see why and because of who talks fell.

Yoadm,

Well, technically, Israel was also unable or unwilling to end the conflict. I mean, any side that doesn't give up is refusing to end the conflict. This is not to say anyone should give up, but if "ending the conflict" is the goal, then both sides are at enormous fault.

Regarding the current Israeli government, I fully agree with you. But Barak's government in the 2000 talks is another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, Israel offered to pay part of the sum itself, while the rest would be shared by countries within the international community who agreed to pay.

It offered to 'contribute' to an international fund that would assist refugees until it ran out of money and the fund wasn't even to be specifically for the Palestinian refugees. I can't think why the Palestinians didn't find this a convincing offer.

It's irrelevant, and would simply be a ploy to stall negotiations. It shouldnt matter (and it didn't) to the Palestinians who payes the reparations, as long as they get them.

Of course it's relevant, if the Palestinians are going to give up their perfectly reasonable desire to return to the homes taken from them in order to facilitate the peace process it's not particularly surprising that they might want some acknowledgement of the issue by Israel.

Lastly, talks did not fall due to the sum of reparations, but the right of return itself, thus your point is void.

Since both sides disagreed on almost every issue you're misrepresenting why the talks failed but anyway my point is that the Israeli proposal isn't a reasonable compromise, which stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talking about the right of return brought to my mind the sage words of Eric Hoffer, back in 1968

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace .

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on .

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It offered to 'contribute' to an international fund that would assist refugees until it ran out of money and the fund wasn't even to be specifically for the Palestinian refugees. I can't think why the Palestinians didn't find this a convincing offer.

It's irrelevant. They refused to present a counteroffer, and, as I said before, talks fell over their demand for a right of return into Israel proper, and not the sum of reparations.

Of course it's relevant, if the Palestinians are going to give up their perfectly reasonable desire to return to the homes taken from them in order to facilitate the peace process it's not particularly surprising that they might want some acknowledgement of the issue by Israel.

It's irrelevant because the Palestinians did not break off talks due to this issue, but rather, the right of return. Allso, Israel could have allso demanded an apology for the 1948 war, attempted genocide, and 50 years of terrorism. So, thus you end up with two sides demanding the other 'say sorry' before a peace deal is made. It doesnt work that way, and the side which demands it is simply using it as a ploy to delay negotiations. As it happened, neither side did, because the Palestinians broke off negotiations due to ROR itself.

Since both sides disagreed on almost every issue you're misrepresenting why the talks failed but anyway my point is that the Israeli proposal isn't a reasonable compromise, which stands.

They disagreed on the borders as-well, while the proposition regarding borders was more than fair (roughly 100% equivalent of the 1967 borders), which is yet another argument against the Palestinians. Allso, you are avoiding the simple matter of the Palestinians refusing to make any counter-offer and lay out their own proposition, probably because they feared Israel would accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...