Should Palestine unilaterally declare independence?

[arya_underfoot]

palestine doesnt have any friends, even in the arab world. sure, they'll use the opportunity to have an anti-semitic rant, but no one will seriously support palestine against israel. so it doesnt particularly matter what the palestinians do, they're screwed

[Werthead]

Declaring independence accomplishes nothing. Doing so and being recognized by super powers accomplishes nothing. Without the military backing of several first world countries willing to start world war three Palestine exists at the sufferance of Israel, and Israel doesn't seem keen on having a hotbed of terrorist and rocket attacks touching it's boarder.

If Israel wasn't intent on colonising the West Bank in an illegal land grab that makes the Iraq War look like a fully-justified act of self-defence, there'd probably be less anger towards Israel in the West Bank at least, which would solve part of that problem.

Gaza is a different story altogether. On the one hand, the entire strip is a massive prison camp and ghetto where 1.5 million people are imprisoned against their will, the overwhelming majority of whom have never done anything to Israel at all. On the other, its ruling political party has both vowed to destroy Israel, launched rockets against them (well, in their vague general direction on the off-chance they might hit something) and is also in a state of hostility towards the more peaceful, Israel-recognising governing authority in the West Bank. It is this issue which is severely going to foul up Palestinian attempts to forge a lasting peace and would also render an independence claim nonsensical.

That said, if Israel are using the excuse of Hamas activities in Gaza to not proceed with peace negotiations with the West Bank, then Fatah may feel that cutting off Gaza and going it alone in a three-state solution might be the best course of action for them. Given the immense propaganda value of Israel's activities in Gaza in drumming up support for the Palestinian cause worldwide, however, they may feel that it's an all-together or not-at-all situation.

[Mad Monkey]

Am I the only one who thinks that this might have been easier to deal with if all of these guys were still ruled by London? Or, Hell, why not Constantinople?

he Israelis are no less adept at speaking the language of diplomatic games than the rest of the Middle East.

I think it's because they've never been forced to be polite to anyone before. All of those countries know that that they fall into two categories: they either get automatic support and preference from the West (Egypt (not really Middle East, but thought of the same thing), Israel, Pakistan (Southeast Asia, but still...)) or they benefit more from a "hard-line" stance against the West (Iran).

[The Stranger]

for the LOLZ, i think Palestine should declare independence on May 13, a day before that of Israel in 1948.

[Galactus]

Well, declaring independence WOULD move the "level" of conflict, from that of (essentially) an internal israeli matter with regards to their occupied territories and into a conflict between two states.

OTOH it would also lose them certain protections, so it's hard to say.

[arya_underfoot]

I think it's because they've never been forced to be polite to anyone before. All of those countries know that that they fall into two categories: they either get automatic support and preference from the West (Egypt (not really Middle East, but thought of the same thing), Israel, Pakistan (Southeast Asia, but still...)) or they benefit more from a "hard-line" stance against the West (Iran).

dude, pakistan is not in southeast asia. countries belonging to the asian continent to the south and east of myanmar are considered southeast asia.

but i agree with the point you're making.

[Werthead]

Well, declaring independence WOULD move the "level" of conflict, from that of (essentially) an internal israeli matter with regards to their occupied territories and into a conflict between two states.

Correct. Whether this would make any qualititive difference is another issue.

What needs to be done is that the current goals of the three sides need to be looked at to see if there is any current hope for the peace process:

Fatah - wants 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as their nominal capital, although I think the latter could be slightly fudgeable: Jersualem as their titular capital but most of the business of government continues out of Ramallah, like Israel with Jerusalem versus Tel Aviv. Fatah also wants a strong, independent Palestine which is a full state with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, including Right of Return (once Palestine becomes an independent state, they can let who they like back into the country, frankly, and it's out of Israel's concern). Fatah is working with the US, EU and other international bodies to push forward the peace process.

Hamas - wants Israel destroyed and swept into the sea. Regarded by Israel and the rest of the international community as bloodthirsty terrorists. Have shown very vague signs of maybe compromising over some issues. Their power base is now entirely contained within the Gaza Strip and their influence in the West Bank is at its lowest ebb in a long time.

Netanyahu's government - the current policy of the Netanyahu government seems to be to constantly sabotage the peace process. Netanyahu has accepted the two-state solution but only if the Palestinian state has no army, doesn't allow refugees to return and if its borders are rearranged to omit Jewish settlements (and, not coincidentally, certain water sources). No word yet on if he wants to install an Israeli rump government over the Palestinian authority under the name 'Government-General', but I would not put it past him. Netanyahu also clearly has zero interest in stopping settlement building and removing extant settlements, since he clearly regards the West Bank as Israel's personal own lebensraum to the east.

On this basis, with only one of the three sides actually apparently interested in serious negotiation (and Israel isn't one of them), the conclusion must be that something must be done to dramatically redefine the situation. The Israeli hostility to a potential Fatah declaration of independence suggests that even if it has no material impact on the ground, it would change the argument in the international community into something they are very much less comfortable with. The only other possibility is to hold out until the Netanyahu government falls and another Israeli government, more serious about peace, comes to power, which could take a considerable number of years.

[sToNED_CAT]

Fatah also wants a strong, independent Palestine which is a full state with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, including Right of Return (once Palestine becomes an independent state, they can let who they like back into the country, frankly, and it's out of Israel's concern).

Right of Return is not about return to (todays) Palestine. Israel doesn't care if refugees go the Fatah territories. Fatah basically wants the rule over pre 1967 Arab territories, PLUS return of millions refugees from 1948 war to Israel. Of course that would mean the end of Israel as Jewish state, so Israel is not very enthusiastic about the idea.

[Altherion]

Fatah - wants 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as their nominal capital, although I think the latter could be slightly fudgeable: Jersualem as their titular capital but most of the business of government continues out of Ramallah, like Israel with Jerusalem versus Tel Aviv.

I do not see a circumstance under which any government of Israel would peacefully give up a part of Jerusalem. The rest of the land is negotiable and I think Israel would be willing to give back most of it, but Jerusalem is the single most important city in Jewish lore and I'm just not seeing how such a surrender could be justified.

Netanyahu also clearly has zero interest in stopping settlement building and removing extant settlements, since he clearly regards the West Bank as Israel's personal own lebensraum to the east.

I don't think so. Given the birth rate in the West Bank, Israel has no chance of absorbing it without a policy of ethnic cleansing which would completely unacceptable in both Israel itself and its patron. Netanyahu is making a play for a few pieces of land, no more than that.

On this basis, with only one of the three sides actually apparently interested in serious negotiation

If you think Fatah is any more interested in serious negotiation that Israel is, man have I got an offer for you. A huge bridge that connects the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Manhattan can be yours for practically nothing... ;)

[Werthead]

Right of Return is not about return to (todays) Palestine. Israel doesn't care if refugees go the Fatah territories. Fatah basically wants the rule over pre 1967 Arab territories, PLUS return of millions refugees from 1948 war to Israel. Of course that would mean the end of Israel as Jewish state, so Israel is not very enthusiastic about the idea.

No-one in their right mind expects that to fly, although the official definition of Right to Return does remain incorporating all of Israel. Any realistic negotiation would knock that down to Palestine alone pretty quickly because no-one is going to expect Israel to vote themselves out of existence.

I do not see a circumstance under which any government of Israel would peacefully give up a part of Jerusalem. The rest of the land is negotiable and I think Israel would be willing to give back most of it, but Jerusalem is the single most important city in Jewish lore and I'm just not seeing how such a surrender could be justified.

The problem is that I do not see a circumstance under which any government of Palestine would peacefully give up even a small and token part of Jerusalem ;)

Logic, of course, would dicate that Jerusalem should be held as a city open to both sides, or divided between both sides, or even operated as an independant city by the UN (the SF writers' favourite option, for some reason), with access to the city granted to all whist the administration and government of both countries was undertaken from elsewhere. Logic doesn't have much place in the Israel-Palestine conflict, however, as we have seen.

If you think Fatah is any more interested in serious negotiation that Israel is, man have I got an offer for you.

Really? What more does Fatah have to do then to get Israel back to the negotiating table, aside from somehow destroying Hamas and taking over the Gaza Strip themselves (which even the Israelis must realise is totally impossible). They have recognised Israel, they've stamped out some of the other militant groups in the West Bank and kept a lid on serious violence there (at least compared to the Second Intifada days). Israel, on the other hand, is sticking two fingers up at the Palestinians, the UN and the Americans and continuing their land-grab policy, even after (very tentatively) accepting (a joke version of) the Two-State Solution, any serious version of which would require them to give up all the settlements.

On that basis, the notion that the Israeli government is currently seriously interested in the peace process is utterly laughable. Every single attempt Netanyahu has made to sound reasonable and conciliatory recently has been deliberately designed to impede a negotiated settlement, most notably shown in the construction announcement last week, whilst not coming straight-out and saying he does not believe in the peace process. Since he knows that Obama cannot withdraw US support for Israel in any manner that would seriously impact on Israel, he feels can operate with a free hand.

[Altherion]

The problem is that I do not see a circumstance under which any government of Palestine would peacefully give up even a small and token part of Jerusalem ;)

No, they probably would give up the claim to all of Jerusalem for the East portion of it. Of course, they currently don't have anything to give up except a claim -- they have not held any part of Jerusalem for nearly half a century.

Really? What more does Fatah have to do then to get Israel back to the negotiating table

They can and almost certainly will go back to the negotiating table, but I don't see how this will lead to anything other than what it has always led to. The claims of the Israelis and Fatah are irreconcilable and Fatah has not budged any more than Israel has (i.e. not at all).

[Stalker]

Correct. Whether this would make any qualititive difference is another issue.

What needs to be done is that the current goals of the three sides need to be looked at to see if there is any current hope for the peace process:

I don't see how those positions would be change by a declaration.

And frankly, you are doing yourself a disservice by holding such simplistic views on the various actors in the conflict. The real world tends to be far more nuanced. And full of people.

Palestine which is a full state with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, including Right of Return (once Palestine becomes an independent state, they can let who they like back into the country, frankly, and it's out of Israel's concern).

This is not what the term "Right of Return" is used to refer to. You should read up on this, if you wish to seriously discuss it, but in brief, it refers to descendants of refugees from the 1948 war permanently settling in Israel proper.

lebensraum

Invoking Godwin on the second page already? Datepalm will be so happy.

[Stalker]

I do not see a circumstance under which any government of Israel would peacefully give up a part of Jerusalem. The rest of the land is negotiable and I think Israel would be willing to give back most of it, but Jerusalem is the single most important city in Jewish lore and I'm just not seeing how such a surrender could be justified.

Seeing as how several members of Labour has indicated such a willingness, as well as there being general consensus among international observers to it, I don't see what makes it so implausible for you. The notion of dividing equally plays to well to sensibilities of fairness for it to not be the popular choice.

[TheKassi]

If Israel wasn't intent on colonising the West Bank in an illegal land grab that makes the Iraq War look like a fully-justified act of self-defence, there'd probably be less anger towards Israel in the West Bank at least, which would solve part of that problem.

Very unlikely. The land has nothing to do with this conflict. People do not strap themselves with bombs, scream god is great, and kill themselves in the hope they might murder others for the sake of dirt. This is about hate, rage, fear, and religious zeal. That is why this can not be solved by making agreements over a map. As long some or all of the above rests in the heart of both populations agreed upon lines accomplish nothing.

Might as well argue you can sooth a person crazed with hunger by giving them a nice warm bath.

[mormont]

Very unlikely. The land has nothing to do with this conflict. People do not strap themselves with bombs, scream god is great, and kill themselves in the hope they might murder others for the sake of dirt.

The naivete of this statement is stunning. Putting aside the specific case of this conflict, history would tend to indicate that people have done exactly this for exactly that reason for pretty much as long as we have had bombs.

Of course, if you're going to elide the distinction between immediate personal motivation and actual root cause like that, it's inevitable you'll wind up saying something silly. Individual Palestinians only have that level of nationalistic and religious fervor because of the argument over dirt (and water).

[Shryke]

They can and almost certainly will go back to the negotiating table, but I don't see how this will lead to anything other than what it has always led to. The claims of the Israelis and Fatah are irreconcilable and Fatah has not budged any more than Israel has (i.e. not at all).

Actually Fatah HAS budged. They acknowledged Israel and dropped the whole "Kill them all" thing.

And all they got for it was increased settlement activity.

And thus the rise of Hamas. (part of the reason anyway)

Very unlikely. The land has nothing to do with this conflict. People do not strap themselves with bombs, scream god is great, and kill themselves in the hope they might murder others for the sake of dirt. This is about hate, rage, fear, and religious zeal. That is why this can not be solved by making agreements over a map. As long some or all of the above rests in the heart of both populations agreed upon lines accomplish nothing.

Might as well argue you can sooth a person crazed with hunger by giving them a nice warm bath.

Actually it's got almost everything to do with land. (and water, but it's kinda the same thing).

What do you think the Settlers and their ilk are DOING? The whole point of those various movements is to get Jews living on the land.

[Altherion]

Seeing as how several members of Labour has indicated such a willingness, as well as there being general consensus among international observers to it, I don't see what makes it so implausible for you.

My understanding of the history of Jews. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident that they won't give up Jerusalem.

Actually Fatah HAS budged. They acknowledged Israel and dropped the whole "Kill them all" thing.

:lol: I meant more recently than that, but your statement neatly illustrates the extent of their overall "budging". :)

[Shryke]

:lol: I meant more recently than that, but your statement neatly illustrates the extent of their overall "budging". :)

What else is there for them to budge ON?

And also, I love how you say "more recent". Why would they budge again anyway when the last time they did Israel just took a shit in their face? They aren't goldfish, their memories go past 5 minutes ago.

Seriously, it's like you pay a guy to fix your car, you come back the next day and he asks you for more money.

"But I payed you yesterday!"

"Yeah, but when have you payed me more recently?"

[Werthead]

Invoking Godwin on the second page already? Datepalm will be so happy.

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

Very unlikely. The land has nothing to do with this conflict. People do not strap themselves with bombs, scream god is great, and kill themselves in the hope they might murder others for the sake of dirt. This is about hate, rage, fear, and religious zeal. That is why this can not be solved by making agreements over a map. As long some or all of the above rests in the heart of both populations agreed upon lines accomplish nothing.

Might as well argue you can sooth a person crazed with hunger by giving them a nice warm bath.

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. This can only be achieved with all of the factions involved agreeing to a logical and realistic peaceful settlement which will inevitable involve heavy concessions from all sides. Israel is currently not interested in this position and neither is Hamas.

Peace is achievable between Israel and the Palestinians. A workable peace settlement could be enacted within a few years at the most if all the parties involved are genuinely interested in pursuing it. At the moment they are not.

What do you think the Settlers and their ilk are DOING? The whole point of those various movements is to get Jews living on the land.

And to redraw the maps so the West Bank shrinks from its 1967 boundaries to a rump state with as much of the land as possible in Israeli hands before a final settlement is agreed upon. They're grabbing what they can whilst the going is good.

[Altherion]

What else is there for them to budge ON?

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.