.png) |
| The situation as of 2007, from here. A detailed, full-page map of the West Bank can be found at the Washington Post. Israel has a population of 7.5 million (about 5.8 million Jews and 1.5 million Arabs). The West Bank has a population of 2.6 million, plus 500,000 Israeli settlers. Gaza has a population of 1.7 million. |
But why? After all, polls have shown that a sizable majority (or at least plurality) of Israelis and Palestinians have supported a two-state solution for years. Clinton, Bush, and Obama have pushed for two states. President Obama said that "the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security." Since Israelis are recognized by the UN as having a state, shouldn't Palestinians be recognized, too?
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteHow about starting with something simpler? The Chechens, Basques, Kurds, etc. also engage in terrorist activities in the name of statehood. But at least they accept the right of Russia, Spain and Turkey to exist in their present form. In my book that makes them more worthy candidates for immediate UN action. So let’s grant those entities statehood and see how it works out. Then, having learned from those roadmaps for peace, we can revisit the Palestinian issue in say twenty years. And so that everyone will think it’s a really cool idea, let’s call it ‘smart diplomacy.’
Okay, I am not being completely serious, although historically you can make a case for whatever your 'cause de jour.' As with most things the devil is in the details. It is true that a majority of Israelis and the US want a two state solution, one Jewish and one Palestinian. It is also true that Palestinians favor a two state solution – as long as neither one of them is Jewish. Maybe it has something to do with my religion, but I do not see this as a desirable outcome.
I believe that Israel and the Palestinians should negotiate a deal. But if you are in the Palestinian leadership and believe that time and demographics are on your side, you have the option of waiting it out while your people suffer. That’s what Arafat did and Abbas is doing. And why not? As Arafat occasionally let slip, reaching for a real peace with Israel would have probably gotten him killed.
So what could possibly be the harm if the Palestinians are recognized by the UN as a separate state? I think it makes peace less likely. Why? Because it will further encourage the Palestinians to play a waiting game. I believe their leadership would be happy to spend their time filing claims against Israel in the International Criminal Court and other entities any time a military response goes astray and leave it at that. After all, why go through the difficult and dangerous task of reaching a peace agreement through negotiations when it’s safer and easier to file grievances and hope the world beats your enemy into submission for you... call it 'hope for change.'
One further note: while we expect of ourselves and those we support to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, much of the rest the world uses a different playbook. When the Israelis gave a definite timeline for leaving Gaza the response was an increase in attacks. Apparently it was worth the extra lives and destruction to present the fiction that the Israelis did not leave voluntarily, but were driven out. And that was followed by an illegal takeover of the government of Gaza by a terrorist group.
So yeah, everybody wants peace. And most favor a two state solution. It’s just that for some the only peace worth pursuing is where the other party ceases to exist.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI think you are waaay off base but let me just address one of many problems (in my view) with your comments.
You said: "So yeah, everybody wants peace. And most favor a two state solution. It’s just that for some the only peace worth pursuing is where the other party ceases to exist."
But, actually, that appears to describe your own view. You want peace, but only one where the other party (Palestine) is not permitted to exist.
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteAre you reading my comments in the original English or a Greek translation?
I believe in a two state solution, maybe even a three state solution with Gaza as a stand- alone something-or-other since it is currently operating independently anyway. I also think a two state solution would have been an excellent solution prior to the Six Day War when Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza, but apparent the Arabs states and Palestinians didn’t care about that at the time. It would have been even a better idea in 1947 when the Palestinian People and Arab states chose war rather than accept a two state solution then offered by the UN.
What I want is a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I really think that is the only way to arrive at lasting peace (to the extent that anything is lasting). And it isn’t impossible – think Oslo. In any event I think it is unreasonable for the Palestinians to be handed statehood while they are unwilling to concede that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
Perhaps you are saying that my belief that Israel should exist ipso facto means I don’t believe the Palestinians should have a state; that it is unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to agree to anything as radical as recognizing a current reality? Is that what you mean? Am I missing something?
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI'm just trying to comprehend how recognition of two states, paradoxically, prevents two states from existing. I see the arguments given against Palestinian statehood as an excuse to drag out the peace process and continue the status quo--which is continued expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank (the triangles in the map, above). In my opinion this is advantageous for Israel, not Palestine.
It is important to remember what caused Abbas to go to the UN. I don't know how much of this was covered in the American press as I usually read the Jerusalem Post or Ha'aretz for information on this subject. But let's remember recent history: Israel's Likud-lead government ended a months-long freeze on new settlement construction permits. The entire world, including the U.S., agrees settlement activity has to stop in order for a two-state solution to go forward. Abbas requested an extension of the freeze so that negotiations could continue. This was refused. Abbas therefore quite understandably went to the UN, a move Israel had the power to stop at any time simply by resuming the settlement freeze.
The second reason you offered for not recognizing Palestine as a state was because Palestine should first recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
Let me say a few things about this. First let's remember that the PA has already conceded Israel has the right to exist and polls show Palestinians accept it. It's important to remember they have also taken *actions* which recognize Israel's right to exist (renouncing violent resistance as well as terrorism). Meanwhile, Israel is taking *actions* which do not respect Palestine's right to exist (occupying territory, transferring its own population into illegal settlements, blocking UN recognition).
So why is the PA reluctant to go one step further than it already has, and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? Please bear with me as I explain.
Netanyahu's Likud party--the current leader of the Israeli govt.--defines "the Land of Israel" as ALL of the territory, including the West Bank and Gaza (to read its platform, see links below). Likud further asserts that all this land belongs to the Jewish people by right -- whether or not the indigenous people are Jewish. Likud further maintains that settlements in the West Bank (and Gaza!) represent "the realization of Zionist values". The settlements must therefore be maintained and expanded.
Ariel Sharon's Kadima party, the main opposition to Likud, agrees that "Israel" includes ALL the land and by rights belongs to the Jewish people. But, Kadima argues that the Jewish people must give up some of their land to the residents of said land, in order to maintain a Jewish majority within Israel proper. Kadima is less insane than Likud but it still sees the principle of "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" as justifying carving up the land in the West Bank in a way that suits Israeli interests (we do not want Arabs, but we do want their land; hence the mixture of green and pink territory in the map, above).
So for Palestinians, the implications of "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation" are a continuation of current Israeli policy: continued carving up of Palestinian territory to "realize Zionist values", etc. They are naturally reluctant to concede this principle BEFORE agreeing to things such as where are the borders of "Israel", as this would imply a land of 5.8 million Jews and 5.8 million Arabs is a Jewish land, not a Jewish-Arab land. Quite understandable.
Links to the party platforms of Likud, and Kadima:
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/kadimaplatform.html
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to point out that I agree with you that the Arab states were wrong to choose war instead of a negotiated "two-state" solution for many decades. I happen to think Netanyahu's government should freeze settlement construction and, if he will not do that, the UN should recognize Palestine as a state. But I am not blindly pro-Palestine or anti-Israel. I think (and hope) you are right that today, a two-state settlement is possible.
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteFirst let me say that I am glad you are not blindly pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli. It is hard to tell given your reluctance to criticize Abbas and his minions while identifying a large part of the Israeli political establishment as either completely or largely insane. It is scary to imagine what those who are less sighted see.
You reproach those in Israel who would claim sovereignty over the lands occupied since 1967, but do not seemed troubled by Abbas’ claim that Palestinians have been living under occupation since 1948, Israel’s founding. Is there a separate lower standard Palestinians should be held to?
You believe Israel is acting against peace. But your survival is not threatened by Mexico and Canada. Our neighbors do not celebrate murderers and make heroes of suicide bombers. They did not dance in the streets on 9/11. Israel lives in a tough neighborhood. If nothing else it needs defensible borders.
As to the settlements, yes I know they are considered illegal by other world states and I am troubled by that. I know the international community wants Israel to go back to the 1967 borders. I also know they want Israel to hand over the Golan Heights to the gentle ministrations of the Assad family. But peace at any cost is usually a bad bargain.
You seem to believe that Israelis want to continue the status quo. Maybe some do. I have Israeli friends and every one of them hates the very idea of occupation and is sick of the status quo. They would gladly let the Palestinians have just about everything they want (although East Jerusalem might be a bridge too far) if they could be confident of peace. And peace includes the absence of rockets and suicide bombers.
But why is the current state of affairs Israeli’s fault? Abbas has said he can’t negotiate while settlements are being built. Really? Was 10 months too short? How about 10 years? The PA wants to halt building in areas of Jerusalem like French Hill which are unlikely to be given away as part of any deal. Does Israel need to agree to that too? Netanyahu has offered to negotiate without preconditions. Why shouldn’t Netanyahu’s position be that Abbas has to recognize Israel’s right to exist prior to any negotiations? Is there some reason Abbas hasn’t done that already? Does he expect to get something in return for agreeing that Israel can exist?
So why continue building settlements? I don’t know. Perhaps as you fear they are meant to become part of Israel or greater Israel; perhaps they are meant to be bargaining chips to be negotiated away in some future peace agreement; or perhaps, as I suspect, Israel blundered into an unfortunate position following multiple wars for survival and can’t figure out how to exit without becoming more vulnerable. There are clearly different factions in Israel with different agendas. But we’ll never know what Israel’s position is until the other side agrees to negotiate in good faith. The Clinton administration found out how difficult that can be.
Perhaps you can rationalize why 63 years after the fact Palestinian leaders can’t bring themselves to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Egyptians reached a peace agreement after they claimed victory (or at least an absence of total defeat) following the Yom Kippur War. Maybe the Palestinians can concoct a similar victory – hopefully less bloody – that will allow them to move forward.
That said I still remain hopeful. I am after all an optimist. Maybe there are backdoor negotiations going on that will allow for a grand bargain. Maybe the world will change in a fundamental way that will allow for rapprochement and recognition. No one can know. But I believe that UN action can only hinder the process. If the Palestinians believe they can accomplish their aims without talking to Israel, why talk to Israel?
Fred,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I am not "reluctant to criticize Abbas and his minions" in general; I just see nothing worth criticizing in Abbas' UN bid, in particular.
Second, I am not "troubled by Abbas' claim that Palestinians have been living under occupation since 1948" because he made no such claim in his UN speech. I do agree with you that his version of history leaves out the inconvenient periods when Arabs were the aggressors, Jews fled to Israel as refugees, and Israel was fighting for its existence. You are right, Israel lives in a tough neighborhood. But that is an argument against a two-state solution (which we both support); it is not an argument against Abbas' UN bid.
I agree that Israel needs "defensible borders", but this must be balanced by Palestine's need for "borders". In terms of Israeli defense against Arab states, three words: Israel has nukes. In terms of defense against terrorism: Israel's borders are arguably less defensible, not more, due to expanding islands and fingers of territory which do not respect a sovereign Palestinian state.
You're probably right about the Golan Heights, but I think that is a separate issue.
To answer your questions: yes, 10 months of negotiations was too short to resolve a decades-old conflict. Not surprising, especially given Likud's platform. Abbas only asked for a 3 month extension to the settlement freeze, not including East Jerusalem. This was a reasonable request; he would have been justified in demanding an indefinite freeze, since an occupying power has no right to transport its population into occupied territory. Peace does include the absence of rockets and suicide bombings, but Abbas is doing his part. In fact, Abbas *does* recognize Israel's right to exist. The problem, currently, is that peace also includes the absence of settlement expansion; and the Israeli govt. is not doing its part.
A peaceful settlement was close at hand, in fact, at the Taba Summit in 2001; the talks were ended in preparation for the coming Israeli election. When Likud was elected it chose not to continue those talks and it chooses to continue settlement expansion today. These are not inevitabilities. They are policy decisions which could change tomorrow, if the Israeli govt. so chose. So like you, I am optimistic.
A corollary to your last question is this: if the Israelis believe they can continue to expand settlements without consequences (e.g. a unilateral bid to the UN), why stop?