Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Independent Palestine in September 2011: Does it Make Any Difference?

The New York Times seems to think it does, and that the possibility of a UN recognition of an independent Palestine in September this year will dramatically change the dynamics of the conflict. As anyone who frequents this blog knows, the fact that the NYT is convinced of anything doesn't much impress me, as doesn't the fact that they've dug up various Israelis to bolster their thesis. So far I haven't much written about this matter, since I'm still trying to figure out what it means, but if anyone wishes to pitch in with informed insights, be my guest.


Carrie said...

I didn't read the NY Times article (I don't want to throw up), but will the UN recognition simply ignore the fact that Hamas, a terrorist group, controls the Gaza Strip? If so, I guess the good cop/bad cop game the PA and Hamas played with the international community will really work out well for them.

Sérgio said...

What it means? It´s easy: it means war, as rockets will pour on Irael from the new pseudo-state, which means Israel has a chance of definitively annex the WB. Pals that want to stay would get full israeli citizenship (including military service) and those that don´t want to stay will have to move to Jordan.

I bet someone will be outraged and say I´m proposing the "ethnic cleansing" of pals. Well, call it what you want. Around 750.000 Jews were expelled from muslim countries after 1948, and no one calls that "ethnic cleansing".

Avigdor said...

Yaacov, you're looking at the dynamics between Israel and the Palestinians, which will indeed not change in any significant way were the UNGA grant them a state on 67 lines.

What you seem not to be considering are the consequences to the dynamic between Israel and the international community.

You're saying to yourself, fine, the Palestinians get a state on paper - which is a result you can live with and even endorse - but if they want to do anything in that state, they'll have to negotiate with us to resolve the conflict.

However, if a Palestinian state is created "on paper", Israel will never again negotiate the conditions of a Palestinian state with Palestinians. You'll be forced to do it with an international community, because Israel will be in violation of international law.

The Palestinians aren't interested in creating a UNGA-authorized state (maximalist Palestinian territorial and political demands) to change the dynamics between themselves and Israel. They're interested in placing Israel into conflict with the international community, which will respond by isolating and sanctioning the state, at Palestinian direction.

NormanF said...

The Palestinians are interested in paving the way for Israel's demise with the world's help.

And for some Israelis, the true problem is Israel has not hurried along fast enough to commit national suicide AKA the new "peace" initiative from Danny Yatom, Yaakov Perri et al.

Its going to be an interesting year.

ZJ said...

the US will probably veto it in the SC.

but then there will be a loophole:

the problem is simlpe:
right now the territories are disputed territories. if the UN establishes a state it is - in terms of law - occupation.

i think it is wrong to put the blame on the palestinians.
they are doing what is in their interest. not surprising.

israel is in a state of no decision for the last 40 years.
time that israel is acting and not only reacting.

Anonymous said...

International and UN Security Council resolutions are not synonymous. The Fakestinians have no right by established international to have a state on the land of the Jewish national homeland. Their recognition by the collection of tinhorn dictators aka UNSC is nothing more than Jew hatred. But the more important point is it will backfire on the Fakestinians for several reasons. Israel will finally emerge from their stupor and realize there is nothing to be gained by negotiating with the Arab mafia-like gangsters . Fakestine is totally non viable without Israel cooperating and propping it up. Once a Fakestinian state is established , all agreements which Israel very foolishly signed will be null and void. Israel will be free to annex the majority of Judea and Samaria, making Fakestine even less viable.

Y. Ben-David said...

No, it is the Palestinians who are in denial...they think they can get Israeli withdrawals and ultimately implementation of the "Right of Return" (which is their key demand...far more important than any territorial issues) without having to make peace. I just don't see the Western powers going along with this, because declaring a state with the pre-67 borders is a direct abrogation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for peace negotations without predetermining the outcome. I don't believe it will ever get as far as the UNSC.
If I were the gov't in Israel, should the UNGA make such an announcement, I would say that Israel should say it immediately recognizes this state, we are prepared to open an Israeli embassy in Ramallah and they would open one in Israel. Israel would then annex all the settlements and offer full Israeli citizenship to all Arabs living in the areas affected, including east Jerusalem. Israel would then agree to open negotiations with the Palestinians on the nature of relations between the two states and on the borders between them. In effect, this returns the situation to what it is now....deadlock.
Ultimately, I don't believe the Palestinians want to declare a state unilaterally because it would leave the "right of return" in suspension and the other countries might say "okay, you have your state, now shut up".

Barry Meislin said...

Ho hum...

Just another despotic Arab state (or two) in the middle east.


Zionist Juice said...

dear anonymous: spite does not have much place in an assessment of the current strategic situation. you dwell in spite. it might be an understandable emotion. but i really hope that the israeli leadership is cooler.

Dear y. ben david.
i think you your view is incomplete.
as much as i disagree with palestinian positions, i have to admit, that they act a lot smarter. maybe they have it just easier.
they are not in denial, they constantly work, very eager on their goals.
i am quite sure, that the security council will not approve the declaration of a palestinian state.
but most likely only because of an american veto.
the think is, that then Resolution 377 (V) (wiki: United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 (V),[1] the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that, in cases where the United Nations Security Council fails to act in order to maintain international peace and security, owing to disagreement between its five permanent members,[2] the matter shall be addressed immediately by the General Assembly, using the mechanism of the emergency special session.) could come in play.
and that could end in the general assembly accepting a palestinian state in the 1967 boarders.
would the matter come in front of the GA it would probably sanction it.

Barry Meislin said...

....they act a lot smarter....they are not in denial, they constantly work, very eager on their goals.

Well, if you say so.

And it sounds like you've thought about it quite a bit.

By the way, what, in your view, are "their goals"?

P.S. As long as we're talking "smarts," here's another example:

Anonymous said...

Who is to say that the new state would be satisfied with its boundaries? The PLO Charter (Covenant) still considers the 1947 partition plan to be illegal, as well as deeming the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate and anything associated with them to be null and void. I'd urge everyone to re-read the Fatah Constitution (available online in English too), which is explicit in the intentions the party has for the "Zionist entity." So many observers are writing - and for good reason - about delegitimisation. But such language has been in these documents for decades - to make no mention of the Hamas Charter.

Has anyone read the booklet "Can Israel Survive a Palestinian State?" by Michael Widlanski and others? If not, may I humbily recommend it. You can buy used copies on Amazon. Even if you disagree with the position, the potential security and strategic challenges presented to Israel by an independent, sovereign PA/Fatah/PLO/Hamas state are immense. The first section of the book has a very useful Summary and Conclusion section that enumerates the strategic challenges.

I'd also recommend the late David Bar-Ilan's essay "Why a Palestinian State is Still a Mortal Threat" (Commentary magazine, November 1993). His articles on Jerusalem and others are also worth reading or re-reading.

Zionist Juice said...

dear barry:

i think their goals is to establish a situation where a jewish state will no longer be established by the western world.
they understood, that they cannot gain that by open war.
however they understood that with every day a palestinian state does not exist, they gain support.
as funny as it may sound: if peace is not reached, if a palestinian state is not established it is only negative for Israel.
if no palestinian state is established the only other possibility way will be to grant all the palestinians in the west bank citizenship.
that will be the end of the Judenstaat.

Dear anonymous:
beemet. what you are writing has nothing to do with what we are facing. it is a war. what do i care what the other side is writing. i want to defeat them. i want to stop them using their weapon. and their weapon is being stateless.

Barry Meislin said...

...and their weapon is being stateless.

Which is why they must be given a state as soon as possible.

It is absolutely essential!!

Which is why they will refuse a state at any price (well, that is, until Israel is in tatters.)

It is absolutely, positively essential!!

Which is why they must be given a state as soon as possible.

Which is why they will refuse a state at any price (well, that is, until Israel is in tatters.)

Which is why they must be given a state as soon as possible.

Which is why they will refuse a state at any price (well, that is, until Israel is in tatters.)

Which is why they must be given a state as soon as possible.

Which is why they will refuse a state at any price (well, that is, until Israel is in tatters.)

Which is why they must be given a state as soon as possible.

Which is why they will refuse a state at any price (well, that is, until Israel is in tatters.)

Which is why they must be given a state as soon as possible.

Which is why they will refuse a state at any price (well, that is, until Israel is in tatters.)


P.S. Oh, by the way, they have other weapons. Lots of other weapons. One of my favorites is: "After all these years, there is no peace in the region and the Palestinians are still oppressed. They are desperate and their patience is wearing thin. And if there is no progress, we are not certain, we cannot promise, we do not guarantee, yadda, yadda, yadda, that we can control the emotions of our citizens".... yadda, yadda, yadda...

(Now that's usually good for a cool couple of hundred million bucks.)

Though sometimes the PA is a bit (quite a bit) more honest and just say that "The military option is always, always on the table. It all depends on the Zionists."

(Which is also good for a cool couple of hundred million bucks.)

Yes, we all agree that we indeed, we must, we have to, we are obligated to (what will our children say?) we are compelled to, we are obliged to, we need to make a maximum effort---the most maximumest effort---to achieve peace in the middle east, yadda, yadda, yadda.....

Y. Ben-David said...

Olmert, Livni and the rest of the Kadima gang are always saying that "it is a vital interest for Israel to set up an independent Palestinian state as soon as possible".
Yes, I can see Abu Mazen and the HAMAS people saying "we had better hurry up and make the concessions needed to get a Palestinian state so that we can help Israel". What I can't understand is why Olmert, Livni and the rest keep repeating this dumb mantra, other than the fact that they think it makes European Israel bashers hate us a little less.

Zionist Juice said...

dear barry,

well, there is still the possibility of unilateralism.
annexing and declaring by israel, moving out, evacuating smaller settlements.
leaving the palestinians alone.
at one point it will be the only way.

Anonymous said...

Well whenever i read something in the NYT on subjects i know something about - middle east, far east and finance - it is usually 100% BS with glaring factual errors. The fact they say X, probably means not(X) is true.


Avigdor said...

How about David Horovitz in the Jerusalem Post, Danny? Does he have any credibility? What about the former Israeli ambassador to the UN, or the Israeli Defense Minister?

How about the stream of endorsement for a Palestinian state from countries that Israel thought were "in the bag"? The declaration by the IMF that the Palestinians are financially ready for independence?

None of this gives you pause? None of this begins to change the atmospherics, to the benefit of Palestinian initiatives and demands?

At some point, we have to consider the costs of inaction. There are some here, and elsewhere, advocating disproportionate and sometimes totally unwarranted and quiet crazy actions - withdrawing from the UN, taking immediate unilateral action, etc. I am not advocating this.

We could, however, be taking practical measures to enhance our position, which will benefit us regardless of whether these developments take place or not.

Keeping our heads in the sand and pretending nothing has changed or could ever change, without our approval, seems... imprudent.

Anonymous said...

Victor, did you actually read the report from the IMF?


Compare and contrast with the press release that churnalists regurgitated and no I don't Barak has the slightest credibility.

That said i also agree with you about going on the attack. I would love to see Israel aggressively pursuing liars for libel. I would love to see Israel aggressively pursuing Hamas in the legal system in Europe. Whining about "anti-semitism" is pointless and now is at the stage where it has no effect and people can blatantly be anti-semitic with no loss.


Avigdor said...

Danny, I don't think the Palestinians are ready for a state. How can a country which doesn't control its own water, energy, borders or EM spectrum govern?

However, what I believe isn't important. We need to understand that international institutions, and the countries which run them, are being aligned for a very specific outcome.

We need to deal with that reality.

Anonymous said...

Victor, the trick is not to let churnalists get away with printing press releases. Point out that the amount of money going to the PA between now and 2013 when it "comes off aid" is relatively constant but is simply being reclassified. Israel needs to find a way to ensure these people simply do their jobs.

I would also add it would be nice if the Israeli government could speak with one voice and not have every man and his dog spout off


Avigdor said...

Danny, let's try this another way...

What is your specific policy objection? You don't think we should try to put pressure on Hamas by attempting to indict them for violating international law? Or do you think we should not weaken the PA's ability to push for a UNGA statehood resolution?

Those are the only two things I am advocating, so please tell me which of the two you have a problem with.

Anonymous said...

Victor, I think the objection is I think you need to deal with the causes of the press drive, hence raising the cost of simply lying. Once the conflict is accurately portrayed then that will immediately weaken the Palestinian case.

I don't think there is a chance of Hamas ever being indicted to the ICC. It needs a recommendation from the UNGA and Hamas isn't going to set foot in countries where there is even a danger of arrest. I would like to see one of the PA ministers being arrested or Lebanese or Syrian or Iranian.

I would also like to see Israel follow through on anything it starts, rather than make some noise and give up. It needs to be a sustained campaign. For instance, with the new convoy, Israel needs to be drumming into people's head there is no need for the convoy and that they are simply causing trouble just in time for the Turkish elections.

It is a long game, it took over a decade for the current wave to take over academia and another
decade to take over the media.


Silke said...

if I put myself into the shoes of a Palestinian BigWig who enjoys the Red Carpet and an occasional White House Dinner I just can't see what advantage I would get out of acquiring any kind of definable status.

It is just like the more clever maidens of old who knew that once they'd have said a definite yes it would be kitchen, kids and toil, no more manicured fingernails and dainty silk slippers.

So keeping the suitor on his toes with all kinds of elaborate back and forths is the ideal way to continue to secure it all. Bushels of roses and moonlight serenades and flirts galore with other possible suitors.

Other than the maidens of old however the BigWigs of the Palestinians don't lose their charms with increasing age and thus are under no time-runs-out-pressure, the inheritable right of return, oil and a couple of other things take care of that problem.

Raed Kami said...

Not only will the UN vote for Palestine but specify its borderss-from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, IN essence the UN will revoke the existence of Israel because it hase become a pest to the world. The, the UN will authorize a joint Anglo-Turkish-Iranian flotilla to enforce compliance and your right of return to Europe. Mr Soros will fund your right of return with the billions he has stolen from Islamic countries thru currency speculation

Anonymous said...

This is exactly what i am talking about:



Anonymous said...

Raed Kami said...
the UN will authorize a joint Anglo-Turkish-Iranian flotilla to enforce compliance "

I love that part ,it really brightened my day....
Israeli torpedoes and Gabriel Mk IV will do the job .
The remnants of the sunken ships will help to rebuild coral reefs off the Mediteranean Sea .