Israeli Leader: Palestinians Should Unilaterally Declare State Now!
Yossi Sarid, the longtime head of Israel's Meretz party and a staunch Zionist, writes in Ha'aretz that the Palestinians should unilaterally declare a state now (like the Jews did in 1948) in West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
It's a very interesting idea. And it has a lot to recommend it. He writes:
"Abbas owes it to his people, to himself, and to us. This week, there were reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds this possibility very scary, and he expects the Americans to nip it in the bud. But his nightmare is our only chance for an end to the occupation in our time.
When he declares independence, Abbas should call upon the Jews living in the state of Palestine to preserve the peace and to do their part in building up the new country as full and equal citizens, enjoying fair representation in all of its institutions. David Ben-Gurion would not have been upset by such a pretty act of plagiarism from his Declaration of Independence.
And thus, Abbas will become the Palestinian Ben-Gurion. Conditions were no less foggy and circumstances were no more certain when Ben-Gurion declared independence in 1948. But our founding father took the risk, and we are fortunate that he did.
The risk Abbas would be taking is much smaller. Of the 192 member states of the United Nations, over 150 would recognize a free Palestine, and it would soon become the 193rd. Although the American position is an unknown, it is hard to believe that Barack Obama would agree to drag America back into isolation now that it has begun to be part of the world again.
And what would Netanyahu do? Invade and re-conquer the West Bank? Restore the military government in the Muqata in Ramallah?
And what orders will Ehud Barak give his army? Serbia didn't dare invade Kosovo after it declared independence, and even Russia the great didn't allow itself to remain inside the sovereign territory of Georgia after their war.
Immediately after the declaration, celebrations will begin in the capital, East Jerusalem, and people from all over the world will join in, including Israelis. The masses of the House of Ishmael will carouse joyously through the city's neighborhoods, and especially those neighborhoods from which they have been evicted by people with priestly pretensions. This will have to be joy without any manifestations of violence, not even one stone thrown.
This week, I phoned Abbas, after not having spoken to him for at least four years. I told him everything that I am writing now. I also told him something else: What happened to the wall in Berlin 20 years ago, and to apartheid a few months later, would also happen to the occupation: It will collapse, even if attempts are made to reinforce it with nails."
OTE: I WILL SOON BEGIN SENDING out by e-mail a weekly Friday column on foreign policy issues. If you want to receive it by e-mail, send your address to:
mjrosenberg8@gmail.com
I have been waiting a long time for someone to come to this obvious idea. My main question would be why has this step not been tried long ago, and I think three main reasons are worth noting:
1. Any such breakthrough would have been hopelessly stymied as long as Arafat and Sharon were in power, e.g. before 2005.
2. Abbas is not in the same league with Ben Gurion, Mandela or Gorbachev.
3. A minority of Palestinians (of unknown size though surely much smaller than West Bank settlers, their Israeli coddlers and US dupes pretend) do not want such a state because they are too wedded to the fantasy of driving Israel "into the sea" and/or blowing things up in perpetuity. On their side with their irrational fanaticism they have as much tail wagging the dog power as the Israeli settlers do on theirs.
America should nonetheless push this, and try hard not to muck it up (e.g. tell AIPAC politely but firmly, for the first but long overdue time, to go to hell where it belongs, and get on with Mitchell and Co lining up the international players to help put things in place).
I don't think it will happen, but it would be worth a try and maybe give Obama a reason to feel able to accept the Peace Prize.
November 15, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too have been saying for the longest time that the US should recognize Palestine, and the sooner it's done the sooner there'll be the end to this insanity in the Middle East.
Except for that oil stuff & the Saudis, Kuwatis, et al.
We'll still have that insanity.
But at least we can get rid of the I-P insanity.
November 15, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is either the Kosovo-Palestine that you suggest or if that fails the "one state solution". The "peace process" is dead, the "road map" has run out of road.
Since the Israelis surely won't allow the Palestinians to create their de facto state and if they declare it the USA will veto any recognition of it in the UN, I think that finally it will be the one state.
That would mean apartheid, which would be unacceptable to world opinion. The Israelis have painted themselves into a corner, which I believe they could only escape from by starting a general war in the ME, during which they would try to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, counting on the USA to give them diplomatic cover in the UN.
In my opinion, part of their eagerness to attack Iran is in order to set this process in motion.
I believe that this is going to fail, in great part because of the new attitude of Turkey (but that is another story).
Finally, I think we'll see the "one state" as the default position. And from then on Israel will begin to rot from the head, like a fish. All the "best and the brightest" will emigrate leaving the country to the haredim and the arabs. This could all happen very quickly once the ball starts to roll. That's why I think the Israeli want to start the big ME war a soon as possible.
November 15, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's great! The WHOLE of the West Bank and the WHOLE of East Jerusalem. Nothing less. All West Bank settlements OUT! No excuses. No land swaps. No Israeli security roads. Just give the land back.
November 15, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue, The Palestinians should not act as mercilessly as the Israelis have. The settlers should be allowed to stay as law abiding citizens of Palestine after fully compensating anyone from whom they have expropriated land. There should be no special police force to protect them and no privileges. Those who cannot comply with the law should be prosecuted. No one should be forced to stay.
November 15, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are a few questions to think about:
1. If the Palestinians declare a state, will they declare a border? Or will they, like Israel in 1948, declare a state with indefinite borders?
2. If they do declare a border, what means will they be prepared to use to defend that border, and how assertive will they be about defending it? Given that the Palestinians really lack the means to defend themselves against a modern nuclear-armed state like Israel, will their abject weakness and manifest inability to defend the borders they declare undermine the integrity and credibility of the declaration?
3. If the Palestinians declare a state with definite borders, and many UN member states recognize that state, will those states be prepared to offer collective defense assistance to the Palestinians to defend their declared border, and to remove foreign troops from their declared territory?
4. Following such a declaration, will Washington (a) offer no recognition of the declared Palestinian state, but remain non-committal on the legitimacy of the declaration or (b) declare the declaration illegitimate?
Let's remember that Israel declared independence after it had succeeded in forcing a British withdrawal from Palestine.
November 15, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Palestinian state would require the immediate lifting of the illegal blockade to Gaza by sea: the opening of an international airport and the opening of the border crossing to Egypt.
It would also require an access road between Gaza and the West Bank that would be international territory guaranteed by the UN, in perpetuity.
It is assumed that the illegal settlements in the West Bank that have been deliberately founded by the Israeli government in breach of international law, will be dismantled and all illegal settlers moved to the Northern Negev or elsewhere on Israeli land. When the settlements were erected, they knew full well that they were illegal and would one day have to be dismantled. So no surprise there.
Furthermore, Palestinian airspace would have to be respected internationally.
November 15, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, given that tall list of requirements, one has to ask whether the time is ripe for such a declaration, and whether the Palestinians are at all well-positioned to make any of those things happen. If not, then the declaration will be a dud and laughing-stock, and may even end up damaging the long-term prospects for Palestinians statehood.
The contrary argument would be that the time will never be ripe, and that it gets less ripe with each passing day. So perhaps it is now or never.
November 15, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of days ago, Caroline Glick had a column which set out the Likud plan that has been circulating around Israel for the last couple of years. During the election campaign earlier this year maps were being diseminated showing what Likud had in mind for the Palestinians. As Glick's column forthrightly stated, it involves annexing the Jordan Valley and most of the settlements in Samaria and Judea. There would be some Palestinians swept in but most would reside in no man's land of 4 separate "reservations".
The minute the Palestinian state is declared, Netanyahu will immediately put in place his annexation plan and present the world with a fate accompli. There will be much gnashing of teeth and wailing but no country will put troops on the ground to overturn Israel's land grab. Thus the conversation shifts to how to make the Palestinians more comfortable.
It's unfortunate but Bibi and the rest of the right wing in Israel have no intention of relinquishing Judea and Samaria. There is not a force on earth, not the UNSC, the EU, USA or arab world who is going to go to war with Israel over this land grab. Israel will be ostracized and boycotted but as during the 30's, 40's and 50's the Jewish diaspora will see to it that the negative impact is overcome.
It's really sad because the muslim world will not forget nor forgive this move by Israel. Mark my words, Israel will be nuked within 25 years and at least 6 million more will die.
November 15, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those that can stomach reading Glick here is the link:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027277862&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
November 15, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read Glick's article you'll see that underneath all the self-serving nonsense all she is doing is advocating the "Golan Heights Law" trick i.e. Israel doesn't actually annex the territory, but does insist on applying Israeli law to that territory.
So Israel will
a) refuse to call it an annexation but
b) will treat the territory as if it is annexed.
The reason for that trickery should be obvious: if Israel ANNEXES the territory then the people living there become "Israeli Arabs", but if Israel merely "applies Israeli law" then it can keep up a pretence that the Palestinians aren't entitled to Israeli citizenship.
They become, in Israeli law, "foreigners in their own land", and so Israel can deny them citizenship and a vote.
That's exactly what the Afrikaaners did with their Bantustan "homelands", and it will evoke the same response from the world as did Apartheid-era South Africa i.e. revulsion.
Glick can advocate this as much as she likes, but if she has her way then she will be dooming this current zionist regime i.e. all she will be doing is helping to fulfill Ahmadinejad's prophesy regarding the fate of "the regime occupying Qods".
November 15, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. The Israelis are painting themselves into a corner whose only "final solution" would be to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians... and probably the Israeli Arabs along with them.
November 16, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you feel the need to refer to the "final solution"? Is it that your argument so weak or is it that you have so much unmitigated hate in your heart that leads you to reflexively draw an analogy between the Nazis and the Jewish State?
MJ you don't have to answer to me. This is your following. Fester in it. Your audience narrows to the haters on all sides. You are exposed.
November 16, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious, bslev: did you actually go and read Caroline Glick's op-ed, which is what both David Seaton and I were commenting on?
I don't agree with David, because I believe that the path the Israelis are set upon is that of Apartheid South Africa, rather than that of "ethnic cleansing".
But I'm curious: do you believe Glick's article is a shining example of truth and an exemplar of crystal-clear moral certainty, or do you think it is an example of a racist who is too cowardly to say out loud What Must Be Done To Ensure The Purity Of The Race?
November 16, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reasons for my comment are clear on their face. Judging from your question, and the childish manner in which it is posed, it appears that you live in a world where someone like me, who objects to the Nazi/Jewish State analogy, must automatically subscribe to the views of a Caroline Glick. I can't say that's what you thin for sure but it certainly looks that way. How eminently unexceptional on your part if that is the case, but of course, and sadly so, par for the course in Rosenbergville. You may have the last word, as by gracing you with a response--despite the obnoxious manner in which you addressed me--please remember that I don't work for you.
November 16, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see.
I asked for your opinion on Caroline Glick's article, and you respond with an ad hominem attack that is tinged with what can only be described as "smug paranoia".
Which is a pretty neat trick when you think about it.
Very illuminating, in a dark sort of way...
November 16, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, against my better judgment, I'll bite. Johnny, you asked the following:
"But I'm curious: do you believe Glick's article is a shining example of truth and an exemplar of crystal-clear moral certainty, or do you think it is an example of a racist who is too cowardly to say out loud What Must Be Done To Ensure The Purity Of The Race?"
In short, Johhny, in typical cheesy and amateruish fashion, you ask me--for the sin of protesting an ugly and hateful but all too common analogy on these pages between Nazism and the Jewish State--the choice of declaring that Glick is either some cowardly racist or a shining example of something. Well Johnny, I reject both of your silly choices (imagine that (sigh)) and I reiterate that the question you posed to me--which you now disingenously claim was innocent and unloaded in any way (as if objective people can't read)--betray eminent unexceptionality on your part.
Now run along and pretend that you're some smart guy with your fancy-penned assertion that there was something mysteriously "dark" and "illuminating" about my response to you. For heaven's sake, just who do you think you're fooling with that tripe? With all due respect Johnny, you got exactly what you deserved--a simple, honest, unambiguous and well-deserved smackdown. Deal with it and do better next time.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
November 16, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time for a recap, methinks.
Someone posted a link to an article by Caroline Glick, to which I give my opinion.
An opinion that was - to put it mildly - unflattering to Glick.
David Seaton then stated that he agreed with me, before going even further than I had.
Mr. Bruce S. Levine then launched into an ad hominem attack upon David Seaton for daring to state his opinion.
I (somewhat charitably, I suggest) refrained from pointing out that Mr. Levine's response was an ad hominem attack, and instead ask him for HIS opinion of Glick's article.
Mr. Levine then launching an ad hominem attack upon me, while being very careful to avoid expressing any opinion on Glick's article.
I point out (again, I think, charitably) that he has merely launched an ad hominem attack upon me while conspicuously avoiding voicing any opinion on that article.
Q: So how did Mr. Levine respond?
A: He launched yet another ad hominem attack upon me, while yet again scrupulously avoiding voicing any opinion on Glick's article.
Maybe I'm being a bit slow today, but I do detect a pattern forming here....
Mr. Levine, there are three people who have contributed to this little thread, but only two of them are holding a "discussion".
You are the gooseberry, and an exceptionally foul tasting one at that.
I'll try one more time:
1) I think Glick is advocating an Apartheid-era Bantustan solution.
2) David said he thinks that Glick's solution will inevitably lead to "ethnic cleansing".
3) What do YOU think Glick is advocating, and where do YOU think that advocacy will lead Israel?
Nobody is forcing you to respond, but.....
If ya' do respond then I will debate you.
If ya' respond with an ad hominem then I won't.
November 16, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one useful bit of information in this Glick column is the reference to the "Fayad plan."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861906349&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
November 16, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do appear to assume that the ONLY way to undo a unilateral annexation by Israel is by foreign armies. That is not necessarily true: a combination of sanctions (think Apartheid South Africa) and a massive increase in the lethality of any Palestinian insurgency (think Afghanistan during the 1980's) could have a, ahem, sobering effect on Israel. The goal would not be to eject Israel from the West Bank, but to force Israel to face the prospect of its collapse should it refuse to relinguish its ill-gotten gains.
November 15, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Bibi annexes "Judea and Samaria", nobody is going to recognize that annexation, not even the USA and the de facto situation will not have changed one bit. However the peace process farce will be over and that at least will clarify things a bit.
November 16, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody will recognize it initially. But if nobody does anything about it then, over time, the annexation will evolve into another one of those facts on the ground that is eventually accepted, then embraced. That's how the Zioinst movement has acquired everything else it wanted in Palestine. Why should they stop now?
November 16, 2009 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel tried a "annexation but we won't call it an annexation" of East Jerusalem in 1967.
That's 42 years ago, and Israel is no closer to having that unilateral act recognized now than it was back in '67.
The inadmissibilty of the acquistion of territory by war is a BEDROCK of modern International Humanitarian Law and - so sorry to disappoint the zionists - Israel simply isn't that important that an exception should be made for her.
Any unilateral annexation of territory by Israel would not be "accepted", nor will it be "embraced".
Not now.
Not ever.
November 16, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you were right, Johnnyboy, but I think your protestations are very naive. Israel has in fact succeeded over time in expanding its control of territory through the use of force, both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and in gaining international acceptance of that control.
Notice that recent two-state solution proposals all cede Israel a certain amount of the territory it took by force in 1967.
Our president just made a gesture in the direction of preventing such forceful territorial acquisition by insisting initially that Israel should in fact only stop expanding its West Bank colonies, which would seem to me a minimal precondition for a settlement based on withdrawal from those territories. Israel, in response, made it clear to the United States and the rest of the world that the cessation of territorial expansion in "Judea and Samaria" is a no-go. Not only did the United States respond by backing down on its previous insistence, our Secretary of State then praised Israel's leader for his bold and unprecedented initiatives.
International law, like all law, is only effective if the law is sanctioned by the use, or at least the credible threat, of some sort of organized coercive power and influence. In the case of Israel, the supposed international proscription on the acquisition of territory by force has been rendered hollow and laughable by decades of United States policy that is resolutely opposed to the imposition of any such sanctions.
Israel is successfully acquiring territory by force as we speak. If the international community, including the United States, collectively fails to put credible hurdles in Israel's way, or inflict meaningful penalties on Israel for its behavior, then Israel will continue along with its long campaign to absorb Judea and Samaria, and in the end the international community will have little choice but to accept and recognize the success of that campaign, just as it has done in so many cases in the past.
November 16, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree, Dan K.
DK: "Israel has in fact succeeded over time in expanding its control of territory through the use of force, both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem,"
A "occupation" is all about "control" i.e. that is what an "occupation" is.
Israel has spend decades attempting to extend its control over this territory in ways that violate int'l humanitarian laws, sure. No question from me.
But none of those Israeli efforts - NONE - have ever been "recognized" by the international community. Not a one.
DK: "Not only did the United States respond by backing down on its previous insistence, our Secretary of State then praised Israel's leader for his bold and unprecedented initiatives."
We appear to be talking at cross-purposes here, Dan.
The USA has often turned a blind eye to Israeli activity in the name of "advancing the diplomatic process", but that is not the same thing as the USA "recognizing" either the legitimacy or the legality of those acts.
The USA does not, has not, and will not "recognize" those acts, even while it refuses to do anything about them.
The implications of that should never be underestimated i.e. nothing but its own will stops the USA from turning around tomorrow and saying "I've had enough of this shit!", and if/when it does Emperor Netanyahu will be left standing there with his naked arse flappin' in the breeze.
Zionists scoff at the very concept of America's patience snapping.
Mind you, Saddam Hussein once scoffed at the idea that the Americans patience with his buffoonery would finally snap, but snap it did - and with it his neck.
There is a limit to American patience, and Netanyahu is burning through his store of goodwill at a ferocous rate.
November 16, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The USA does not, has not, and will not "recognize" those acts, even while it refuses to do anything about them.
Your faith in the commitment of the United States government to international law where Israel concerned, Johnboy, is as heartwarming as it is ahistorical and contrary to the preponderance of available evidence.
Let us recall that - even excluding the West Bank - Israel acquired most of the territory that it now possesses on the Mediterranean side of the Green Line by force. It used an uprising assisted by terror campaigns against the British mandate holders to push the UK out of Palestine and force the hand of the international community into the partition plan. And the full territory that then came into the new state's possession during the 1948 war exceeds by a substantial amount the territory set aside for the Jewish state by the partition plan. The Israelis made use of the state of war to expel Palestinian Arabs from their homes throughout the territory that most maps now unapologetically label with the name "Israel".
Yet most members of the international community recognized Israel following its declaration of independence, and have effectively accepted the legitimacy of this 1948 seizure, since nobody of any weight is talking about a two-state settlement that requires Israel to give any of that territory back. Indeed, most of the two-state proposals floated by serious diplomats and ministers these days anticipate that Israel will be permitted to retain large tracts of the colonized "settlement" territories in the West Bank. So Israel has every reason to believe that its use of sheer aggression and brazen colonial taking has worked in the past, and will continue to work until they ultimately succeed in acquiring all the land they covet.
That's what happens. People take things, and establish facts on the ground. Eventually, other people recognize that they lack either the means or the will to oppose those takings, and they accede to them. Much of the territory in the world now recognized withing the world community as the legitimate territory of some state or other was originally seized by force within historical memory.
Now what is likely to happen in Israel and Palestine in the near future? It looks increasingly likely that a war with Iran is in Israel's plans, and probably our own as well. As you might have noticed, Israel makes quite a point of dramatizing the fact that some Palestinian factions are supported by Iran. On that pretext, then, it seems very plausible that Israel will make use of the war with Iran to designate Hamas, Fatah, and perhaps the Palestinian Authority as Iranian allies, and will launch clear and hold operations against Palestinian militia during that upcoming war, driving millions of Palestinians into permanent refugee status in Arab countries, just as happened in 1948. Following the war, on the assumption that they win, Israel will move to annex officially the territories it then holds, and declare a border. (Perhaps it will seize more than it actually wants, so that it can make a "magnanimous gesture" by giving some back.)
Given the low reputation of the Iranian-Palestinian "enemy" that will likely prevail among the US public and government following such a war, Israel will probably find little difficulty in securing a ringing recognition and endorsement of this annexation from the US Congress, with others around the world following, whether enthusiastically or reluctantly.
In this world, there are some people willing to take what they want by force. And unless others are willing to resist the aggressors with countervailing force, the aggressors succeed. Where force produces unalterable facts, the legitimation of law eventually follows. So ultimately the Israelis are going to succeed, because the powers that count most in the present world are unwilling to use force, or even coercive economic and social sanctions, to thwart Israeli aggression. In fact, there is much evidence that a substantial portion of the US Congress actively supports this aggression, cheers it on quietly despite some occasional cosmetic demurrals, and only awaits the opportune time in world history to ratify it fully.
I am tired of indulging all the absurd pipe dreams about America "snapping" and suddenly turning against Israeli aggression and resisting it. These scenarios are idle fantasies. Barack Obama just gave up the last vestiges of the ghost on that score, and has exposed and killed the remaining hopes that some American government would every step in with commitment to stop Israeli expansion. It's over; a real and viable Palestinian state is toast.
And your analogy with Iraq is, frankly, preposterous. Saddam Hussein did not possess an unwaveringly committed majority phalanx of supporters in the US Congress. Do you follow the doings of the US government at all? What world are you living in?
Please don't buy any of MJ's liberal Jewish lobby jive. He's a pied piper of nothingness and impotence. Neither he nor J Street has any real plan at all. His positions are entirely reactive and rhetorical, and shift almost daily in response to the latest mournful setback. The new movement he is part of is just a vanity lobby. It lacks the commitment to accomplish anything other than give some liberal American Jews a rhetorical home so they can feel better about themselves while they advocate lame gestures and accomplish nothing of any substance. The fact is that they haven't the slightest idea about how to stop Israeli aggression, and are entirely unwilling to advocate any firm, concrete measures that could have an impact. Ultimately, MJ and his friends are Zionists who will, with some wailing and fretting and ostentatious atonement, accept what Israel does. They have too many friends and relatives in Israel to even think about doing anything more.
November 16, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, there are a couple of issues that I have with your comments.
First, while the UNILATERAL annexation of territory is completely illegal that doesn't mean that annexation per se is illegal i.e. if you can find someone to cede the territory then you can annex it.
So a victor of a war might insist upon terms that involves the loser AGREEING to cede territory, and any such terms are (almost) invariably going to be recognized, because the alternative (continued conflict) is even worse.
But you have to get the loser to AGREE, and they don't come to the party empty-handed i.e. they can keep on fighting - however hopelessly - and that is a very powerful disincentive.
But the Pals simply will not agree to cede territory on "their" side of the Green Line, and while that remains their position then Israel CAN NOT unilaterally take that territory away from them.
You mention the territory that Israel seized in 1949-49, and how NOBODY suggests that Israel should relinguish any of that, and in that you are perfectly correct.
But there are sound reasons WHY that is so, and it revolves around the difference between "de facto" and "de jure".
The Armistice Agreements of 1949 were quite explicit: the Green Line is not a border, and its existence says NOTHING about the territorial rights of the protagonists on either side of that line.
Which meant that in 1949 fully HALF of what Israel claimed to be "Israeli territory" was *as* *disputable* as the West Bank is now, and certainly that was the position of the Palestinians all the way up until the 1990s.
That situation ended in 1993 when the PLO committed itself accepting a peace treaty that would recognize Israeli sovereignty up to the Green Line.
That commitment from the PLO gave Israel "de facto" recognition up to the Green Line (but not "de jure" because, of course, that peace treaty doesn't exist yet) and therefore there is no point in anyone - including you - complaining about that.
So "disputing" Israeli sovereignty up to the Green Line is now a dead letter, but it didn't become a dead letter because of Israel's actions.
It became a dead letter because of the PLO's declarations back in 1993.
November 17, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It became a dead letter because of the PLO's declarations back in 1993.
In the end, legitimacy within the international order is what the international community says it is. If Israel simply declares some territorial matter to be the case, then only one thing determines whether that declaration is elevated to the status of international law: the decisions of the members of the international community on whether or not to recognize the claims made in that declaration.
November 17, 2009 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
DK: "In the end, legitimacy within the international order is what the international community says it is."
That is a motherhood statement, Dan.
The question becomes, as always, wether that "international order" is going to be overturned by the "international community" for no other reason than for the singular benefit of one selfish and self-obsessed nation.
The answer is (almost) invariably going to be "no, no f**king way".
DK: "If Israel simply declares some territorial matter to be the case, then only one thing determines whether that declaration is elevated to the status of international law: the decisions of the members of the international community on whether or not to recognize the claims made in that declaration."
Yeah, and Israel isn't worth overturning the "international order" merely because its insatiable greed demands that territory be served up to her on a silver platter.
Israel is simply not that imporatant, and so it can keep "declaring some territorial matter to be the case" until the Cows Come Home and it simply isn't going to get its way.
The answer from the "international community" is always going to be "no, tiny, we don't agree".
November 17, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, you really don't pay attention. You don't see what is happening. Israel has gotten everything it has ever wanted, and is going to continue to get it.
November 17, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I see that the point I am trying to make is flying over your head.
DK: "Man, you really don't pay attention. You don't see what is happening. Israel has gotten everything it has ever wanted, and is going to continue to get it."
Israel has "gotten" these things necause nobody is doing anything to stop it, and not because anybody has agreed that she can "get" them.
I would have thought that the implications of that distinction should be obvious but, apparently, I have to spell it out.
Dan, if everyone agrees that Israel can "get" these things then nobody - and I'm talking nobody - can ever take them off Israel again.
Because they are "hers", you see.....
Dan, if nobody agrees that Israel has the right to "get" these things then Israel is always - and I do mean always - under the threat of losing the lot of 'em.
Because they are "ill-gotten gains", you see...
Now, in the latter case Israel can hunker down forever over those ill-gotten gains and do its very best Daffy Duck "Mine! Mine! It's Allllll Mine!", but all it will take is one reverse and Israel will lose the lot.
You scoff because you can not conceive of Israel suffering a reverse.
I offer this simple analogy: An aging heavyweight boxer never thinks he is going to lose when he enters that ring, and Sure As Eggs he never, ever sees the punch that floors him.
Israel won't even see it coming when that reverse finally hits home and, judging from your comments, neither will you.
Israel is crazy not to take the Saudi Plan, because it crystallizes Israel's "gains" (and it gains plenty from that plan) as "hers", and those "gains" can then never be taken from her.
Israel refuses, because Israel's greed is getting the better of it - and that is a recipe for disaster.
For Israel.
November 17, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, if nobody agrees that Israel has the right to "get" these things then Israel is always - and I do mean always - under the threat of losing the lot of 'em.
Perhaps. But the current and historical evidence suggests that the "nobody agrees" stage won't be very long-lasting, and that if Israel just continues to work its military and diplomatic angles and stick it out, they will eventually succeed in securing, first, the world's passive acceptance of their conquests and, ultimately, the world's legal endorsement of those conquests. This thing happens time and again in world history. If a country possesses enough power to hang onto its conquests, then eventually those conquests are recognized by most capitals, and the law is adjusted to match reality.
The reason Israel doesn't accept the Saudi plan is simple: it knows that in 10 years, or 20 years or 30 years there will be another Saudi plan, or a Russia plan, or a China plan, or a Dubai plan, and that the terms of that plan will likely be far more favorable than the terms it can get now. Israel knows this because it accurately sees that it has never failed, over time, to extend the facts on the ground in its own favor.
Israel has fought a long, 100 year war for its territorial aims. It's progress has been slow, but almost uniformly in the direction of success, and is never reversed. In its long war, Israel keeps winning. So it has no reason to stop fighting.
Now if your really want to change or reverse this course of events, you should stop waving impotent legal briefs around, stop dreaming of miraculous reversals of Israeli fortune in the US government, and start thinking about what more coercive steps you might be willing to support and participate in.
As reported today in Ha'aretz, factions of the IDF are increasingly putting their country, and the world, on notice that they will not help evacuate settlers from the West Bank, even in the very improbable event that such an order actually came from the Israeli government. My guess is that much of the IDF would actually fight to protect the settlers from evacuation. Thus, if people are serious about getting the colonists out of the West Bank, they are going to have to be prepared to fight to make that happen.
Who is going to do that fighting? Are you going to do it? Is MJ?
What about sanctions? What sanctions do you think would be effective? My impression is that Israel has at its disposal an extended global financial and commercial network of powerful allies, with abundant black market connections, and that it would be extremely difficult to build and maintain the kind of crushing sanctions regime that would be needed to force Israel into a West Bank evacuation that it deeply, even religiously opposes.
And of course, if things ever get too hot for the Israelis, they have a sizable nuclear arsenal they can use to defend themselves.
November 17, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
DK: "Perhaps. But the current and historical evidence suggests that the "nobody agrees" stage won't be very long-lasting,"
Look, I'm going to stop you right there, because you simply can not back up that statement.
Dan, the entire "world order" changed after WW2, for the simple reason that those leaders who managed to crawl out of the rubble decided - with very good reason - that this insanity should not be allowed to happen again.
ALL pre-war international law regarding the right of conquest, the right to colonize, and the right to Lord Over Others, the right to fight for what you want and to keep it if you win - all of it - went out the window, and 1945 became "Year Zero" for what you could and couldn't do, and what was and was not acceptible with respect to the use of force to acquire territory.
Now, starting from 1945: can you give me any example where one state went WHAMMER-JAMMER on anyone - anyone at all - and as a result of dishing out that wolloping the "new world order" said "yep, ok, fair enough, you can keep that, sonny".
Certainly not when Jordan did it in the West Bank.
Certainly not when Turkey did it with Cyprus.
Any others, Dan?
There are plenty of hotspots where one side has seized something and has then refused to let it go again.
Plenty.
Now, name me one example where a country has siezed something ***AND*** the "new world order" then said "yep, ok, fair enough, you can keep that, sonny".
November 18, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Replying to Dan K:
"Israel has fought a long, 100 year war for its territorial aims. It's progress has been slow, but almost uniformly in the direction of success, and is never reversed. In its long war, Israel keeps winning. So it has no reason to stop fighting."
Quite wrong. Israel's long territorial war was successful, but the turning point came long ago, in 1973. Israel has not conquered and held an inch of territory since then. Of course its victims have suffered greatly, but every war since then has been a pretty clear long-term strategic loss for Israel. Its defeat and return of occupied territory has been very grudging and slow, but quite real. If you think Israel has gotten everything it has ever wanted, you forget how absurdly much it has wanted and didn't get / keep in the past.
I think the idea about the inefficacy of sanctions is incredible. Israel is quite vulnerable to economic sanctions, if only they could be imposed, of course wildly unlikely. They would cave in 6 months, a year tops. Where would they get their oil? Running a modern economy in a modern democracy on a black market that would have to evade hostile neighbors and an international blockade that included the usual evader, the USA, is exceedingly dubious. The economy would collapse, many who could would emigrate. And modern gold-plated military equipment is expensive to maintain. Nobody knows better than the leadership of Israel how entirely its desire to retain the West Bank and rejection of the two state solution is based on greed and is utterly contrary to Israeli security. They're just that greedy, short-sighted and stupid. Sanctions would finally force them to grow up and choose, and they'd have someone else to blame.
For an example of a successful, accepted, post 1945 acquisition of territory by force, there's India and Goa, maybe the leading example. Kind of proves Johnboy4546's point though.
By the way, the PLO already declared a (paper) state in 1988, Abbas is currently the president of it. It is recognized by more than half of the world's states; for a while, until Madrid and Oslo, more than recognized Israel.
November 19, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
DK: "And your analogy with Iraq is, frankly, preposterous. Saddam Hussein did not possess an unwaveringly committed majority phalanx of supporters in the US Congress. Do you follow the doings of the US government at all? What world are you living in?"
Dan, I have no idea how old you are, but I am old enough to remember how America once continued to insist that night was day, up was down, and that the Kuomontang was the legitimate govt of China.
And everyone laughed at the mere suggestion that America might rethink that policy and finally embrace those godless commies.
And anyone who followed the doings of the US Govt understood that the ol' reprobate red-baiter called Nixon would never, ever be the guy to make such a fundamentally UNTHINKABLE break with US foreign policy.
Only....... one day I woke up and suddenly "only Nixon can go to China", and the next thing I knew the Americans were insisting that up was up, down was down, Red China should have that seat in the UNSC and you little guys in Taiwan need to Shut The F**k Up And Sit In The Corner.
Nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to diplomacy, Dan.
N.O.T.H.I.N.G.
Israel is becoming a real liability to the USA.
It always has been, of course, but now the Israelis are not just biting the hand that feeds it; it is sooling itself onto the body politic of the USA in an astonishing display of hubris.
Israel can get away with that forever, can it?
Yeah, and pigs can fly.
November 17, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You guys both make a number of very good and congruent points, and your differences over semantics and what MIGHT happen in the future seem over-emphasized in comparison.
I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of Israelis who want to take over additional land in Syria, Jordan or Egypt. Things are not exactly symmetric on the Arab side, but we are a long long way from any realistic prospect ever developing of Israel either disappearing or losing a dominant Jewish character. Most Israelis don't even want Gaza or all of the West Bank. Most Arab leaders have been stating repeatedly for many years that they are ready to more or less unilaterally accept Israel within its Resolution 242 borders. Whatever they might say, most Arab people have better things to do than to lift a finger against a long-internationally ordained and overwhelmingly common sense based two-state solution.
The real issue therefore is whether the Palestinians will (1) in fact get a proper state or (2) continue to live in crowded, miserable occupation or isolated Bantu-lands. And whether their Fatah faction, the Obama administration, realistic Israelis, and Jewish Americans of courage, open-mindedness and non-myopia will manage to push through what 95% of the world, including most Jews, Israelis, Arab, and Americans want (but AIPAC will observe no moral scruples trying to stop as long as even a sizable faction of the Israeli ruling clique wants them to): outcome (1). A window of opportunity is open, and is not likely to stay open long, and quibbles over details are a good way to waste the chance (again).
November 17, 2009 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel can get away with that forever, can it?
It certainly can. Your reading of the politics of the situation is different than mine. Netanyahu was successful in beating back Obama's half-hearted challenge because he knows that, where Israeli affairs are concerned, he possesses more power in the US Congress than Obama, or any other US president, will ever have.
Your dreams of a startling sea change in US politics are as politically unrealistic as prayers for The Rapture. The US government is never going to alter its stance toward Israel simply because Israel continues to show chutzpah and bites the American hand that feeds it. That is no different from the way it always behaves. But it always wins the political fights.
November 17, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
DK: "Your reading of the politics of the situation is different than mine."
No shit, heh?
DK: "The US government is never going to alter its stance toward Israel simply because Israel continues to show chutzpah and bites the American hand that feeds it."
That is hubris, Dan.
Israel is getting away with it because its lobby is so powerful that Congressmen will act against their better judgement rather than risk having the power of that lobby turned against them.
That is not sustainable, and will be corrected, and when it does it will happen with shocking abruptness.
You think that Rosenberg is a charlaton. I do not.
I think he is being accurate when he states that only 30-odd Congressmen really believe the nonsense they sign when AIPAC comes calling; the rest do it because they fear the consequences of offended that lobby group.
THAT sort of arrangement IS ripe for a "startling sea change", and if there is ever any AIPAC blood in the water then those Congressmen will turn on it with a ferocity that will have all the onlookers running for cover.
November 17, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not sustainable, and will be corrected.
Sure. I mean, it's only be sustained for 40 years. No doubt that power is all about to come crumbling down.
November 17, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
DK: "Sure. I mean, it's only be sustained for 40 years. No doubt that power is all about to come crumbling down."
I'm curious, Dan: you knew the Berlin Wall was coming down years before the rest of us, did you?
And you forsaw how quickly the USSR would collapse under the weight over its own internal contradictions, did you?
Dan, regimes like this current zionist monstrosity will very often meet their fate in the same way that a fly meets a car windscreen i.e. they are tooling along thinking how pretty the sky is, and then the last thing that goes through their head is their arse. SPLAT.
November 17, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe in faith-based politics. Your stimulating fantasies of a sudden and dramatic reversal of political polarity might be personally comforting for you, but they are not grounded in the preponderance of the evidence we have available.
And your Berlin Wall analogy only shows the desperately fallacious nature of your reasoning. Yes, for each person who wins the lottery, we can correctly note that before they won the lottery it was highly improbable that they would in fact win it.
But that doesn't alter the fact that for any one us, it would be irrational to expect to win the lottery, or to base our decisions and actions on such an expectation. Your hopes of that grand day when the power of Israel in the United States comes tumbling down like the walls of Jericho falls into the same category of expecting the highly improbable.
November 17, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it Dan?
When the dust does settle on the wreckage of this current zionist regime, well, hindsight will tell us all why it was so obvious and so inevitable.
Heck, even you'll be saying "I told you so" though, sad to say, Ahmadinejad will probably beat you to it.
November 18, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some posters are leaping to premature prognostications here. Despite being a breath of fresh air blowing through a window of opportunity, I do not see the slightest indication of this idea amounting yet to anything much more than Yossi Sarid's wise insight-laden frustration expressed as creative fantasy.
The practical problems are immense. Some have already been mentioned. Unless the state declaration is accompanied by named boundaries, it will be hostage to Israeli foot-dragging on negotiating boundaries and beset by the mother of all propaganda barrages claiming that the declaration is aimed solely at destroying Israel as a Jewish homeland. But any named boundaries, even the most obvious and sensible, e.g. the 1967 line with possible Geneva 2003 modifications and compromises on water rights, Jerusalem and right of return, will face bitter hostility from multiple sides. Abbas is far from up to the job. He has already shot himself in the foot by not acting earlier, dithering instead, trusting Obama not to cave on the settlements, and agreeing to back off on Goldstone.
Sarid himself is skeptical. See what he was saying just a month ago:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121555.html
The elephant in the room here (that is, if there were a room) is of course AIPAC. Based on
(a) the powerfully bedrocked Big Lie that American Jewish voters will severely punish any Congressperson who does not accept any demand of Israel no matter how stupid, cowardly, counterproductive, amoral, or based on kowtowing to the settler extreme, AND
(b) 8 years of blind and spineless Democrat acceptance of paranoia-based Rovian idiocies such as the "war on terror",
all that need to be done to sabotage any such Palestinian declaration is to arrange, one way or another, for terrorists (Israeli or Palestinian) to be unleashed. That will suspend common sense from Capitol Hill insuring that it remains AIPAC's lapdog. Without Congress half way in support, Obama will cave. Without America the world will cave.
Even if he were Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and David Ben Gurion rolled into one, Abbas would still need J Street to take on AIPAC and not just feel good about not being AIPAC.
November 16, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: There is more to this unilateral statehood idea than Sarid's modest proposing. See the link in my post above November 16, 2009 3:10 PM
November 16, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see one problem: When the Jews declared their state, there were already a number of large, functioning institutions in place. The Histadrut labor union was key to providing jobs and the semi-state structure of the Yishuv was very organized. The Palestinians seem to be getting there, and maybe with some of Salam Fayyad's ideas put into place, they'll be at the necessary level in time. However, I see unilateral declarations of statehood ending in potential disaster if done in the near future. Palestinians need a functioning economy, knowledge of how to manage water resources (which, by the way, also need to be agreed upon with the Israelis), and a more intact security structure (who says that a new Palestinian state will not be overrun by Hamas?). Additionally, how can a unilateral Palestinian state function when it is already split in two? Will there be two states of Palestine?
November 18, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink