For nearly 40 years, I have been in favor of the accession of a viable Palestinian State and the "two peoples, two States" solution.
Throughout my life, if only in sponsoring the Israeli-Palestinian plan of Geneva and in welcoming its main authors, Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, at the Palais de la Mutualité in Paris in 2003, I have never ceased to say and to repeat that this is the unique solution that is morally sound and conforms to the cause of peace.
Yet today, I am hostile to the strange request of unilateral recognition that is to be discussed in the coming days by the United Nations Security Council in New York -- and I am compelled to say why.
First of all, this demand is based upon a false premise, that of the supposed "intransigence" on the part of the Israelis, which leaves the opposing party no recourse other than this diplomatic putsch. I am not even mentioning Israeli public opinion, which, according to a poll conducted by the Truman Institute for Peace, at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, massively (70%) supports the idea of a partition of the land. I am talking about the Israeli government itself and of the progress it has made since the time when its current leader still believed in the dangerous chimera of a Greater Israel. Today, of course, the question of the West Bank "implantations" persists. But the disagreement regarding this affair opposes those who, like Mahmoud Abbas, demand that they be frozen before negotiations are resumed and those who, like Netanyahu, refuse to consider as a precondition one of the objects of negotiation -- it concerns neither the question itself nor the necessity to arrive at an agreement. Everyone, myself included, has his own opinion on the subject. But to present this disagreement as a refusal to negotiate is a falsehood.
This request, then, is based upon the generally accepted fact that Mahmoud Abbas has been miraculously and entirely converted to the cause of peace. I am far from denying the progress he also has made since the days when he was the author of a "thesis", which reeked of negationism, on the "collusion between Zionism and Nazism". But I read the speech that he gave in New York. And if I find genuine sincerity in his words and am moved, as we all are, by the evocation of the Palestinian calvary that has gone on too long, if I even sense, between the lines, how the man who has pronounced these words could actually become, should he wish it and should he be encouraged, a Palestinian Sadat, a Gorbachev, I cannot help but hear as well more disturbing signals. This emphatic homage to Arafat, for example. The evocation, on this occasion and in this place, of the "olive branch" brandished by the man who then, at least once, at Camp David in 2000, refused the concrete peace that was offered to him, within reach. And then the deafening silence on the accord he concluded five months ago with a Hamas whose very charter is enough, unfortunately, to exclude anyone associated with it from a UN that is bound to accept only "peaceful states" that eschew terrorism. Of course, it is with Abbas that Israel should make peace. But not there. And not like that. Not with this bluffing, and these silences and half-truths.
And this request assumes -- what am I saying? It demands that, with the stroke of a magical signature, the most inextricable knot on the planet, of opposing interests, of diplomatic aporias, of geopolitical contradictions, should be untangled. Is this really serious? Here we've been discussing for 40 years (often, but not always, in bad faith) the question of just borders between the two peoples and that of their capitals. Forty years this debate has been going on, among people whose lives and destinies are at stake, concerning the least bad way to ensure the security of Israel in a region where its full legitimacy has never, to this day, been recognized. And for the last 63, the world has been wondering how to deal with the wrong done to refugees in 1948 without, for all that, compromising the Jewish character of the State of Israel. And we are supposed to solve all that, arbitrate these nearly insoluble dilemmas, wrap up the package of complexities where the devil lies in the details with one spectacular and expeditious gesture, set against a background of rhetorical and lyric enthusiasm? Really! How rash! And what lousy theatre!
Most certainly, we must help the protagonists of this interminable drama rise to the occasion and carry the process through to a conclusion which, in the last few years, they have barely sketched out.
It is obvious that the international community should bring them to an understanding or, as Amos Oz says (but it's the same thing), to a divorce; and, in fact, that is the very purpose of the recent French proposal and the deadlines that it imposes.
But nothing can spare them the painful and costly confrontation without which there is never, not anywhere, true recognition. Nothing and no one can make it possible for them to skip this action that would appear so simple but that will be, for both of them, the longest of all voyages: the very first step towards the other, a hand reaching out, a direct negotiation.
Menachem Rosensaft: Israel's Jewish Essence Is Non-Negotiable: A Response to Mahmoud Abbas
http://bigpeace.com/jbradley/2011/08/29/nope-abbas-has-no-plans-to-recognize-israel/
Israel's intransigence is clear and it takes a purposeful blindness to not see it. If Israel is unwilling to continue illegally gobbling up the land they say they're willing to give, how seriously can one take that promise? BHL apparently takes it very seriously, probably because it serves his interests. He apparently never read the Palestine Papers either, probably because he's more useful as an ignorant dissembler than a teller of unpopular truths.
One perfect example of his sophistry: He claims that over 70 percent of Israelis "supports the idea of a partition of the land."(presumably in the same way that most American settlers supported a "partition" of the land with the natives). Yet Palestinians don't simply want a "partition of the land"; that Bantustan system is what they have now. What they want is an independent, sovereign state that includes all of the land outside the '67 borders, land they're entitled to by any reasonable standard. Israel has never offered that. That proposition is far less popular. Israelis want the Palestinian "question" to go away, but that doesn't mean they don't want to give Palestinians a fair shake.
F&F
He already knows that his resolution is a loser and the only question remaining is, how bad of a loser?
Its as if he somehow benefits by being rejected. Otherwise, why would he make such wide-ranging demands? Does he think he can demand the sun and settle for the moon, with the United Nations???
Does he think the developed world is ready to accept that Jerusalem is spiritually and culturally significant to Christians and Muslims but NOT Jews?
In my humble estimation, Abbas is either doing a proverbial "Mel Gibson" leap off the roof (only by himself) or he's really delusional.
You BTW are one of the best baffle-talkers I know.
But it is hard to think of a worse argument against it than that there is reason to believe that the current Israeli government is serious about pursuing peace. That is a joke. And yes the fact that they think it is unreasonable to request that Israel not make the situation worse while negotiations go on is a sign that they are not serious about peace.
Among other things, recognition as a state - even an observer state - would give the PA standing to sue before the ICC when Israel builds settlements on Palestinian land. True, Abbas has promised not to do this re existing settlements, but it would have been a formidable brake on new settlements, and it would have given the Palestinians both time and a new bargaining chip.
In this light, Abbas' move to demand recognition before the Security Council may actually have been a concession to the US (and Israel), notwithstanding the theatrics. The issue is now sent to commission, and I think it's a safe bet the US will do all it can to keep it there. Had Abbas demanded observer state status, which the General Assembly grants, he would have received it immediately. And the strengthening of his hand would not have depended on US approval.
For the Republicans or Tea Party readers: "calvary" is not the same thing as "cavalry"...
Congrats!
Never missing an opportunity to miss the opportunity.
Re the Olmert offer:
“Netanyahu's speech of lies”
By Akiva Eldar, Ha’aretz, Sept. 26, 2011
“Netanyahu certainly read Olmert's op-ed in The New York Times last week, asserting that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas never rejected his offer..."
My point still stands-- these unilateral moves will get Palestinians far less than offered by U.N. partition, Clinton, Baralk or Olmert. Bet on it.
Nahum Goldman, former president of the World Jewish Congress: "Israel has never presented the Arabs with a single peace plan. She has rejected every settlement plan devised by her friends and by her enemies. She has seemingly no other object than to preserve the status quo while adding territory piece by piece."
Professor Avi Shlaim, renowned Israeli historian, as summarized by Ha'aretz (11 August 2005) in its review of his highly acclaimed book The Iron Wall (2000): “...based on facts, he surveys the history of Israel's contacts with the Arab world from 1948 and states decisively ('The job of the historian is to judge,' he says) that the Israeli story that Israel has always stretched out its hand to peace, but there was nobody to talk to - is groundless. The Arabs have repeatedly outstretched a hand to peace - says Shlaim – and Israel has always rejected it. Each time with a different excuse."
Indeed, contrary to the late Abba Eban's assertion, it is Israel's leaders, not those of the Palestinians who "have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" to achieve peace.
I think that is the very core of the issue. Is this even possible when a state is based on a particular religious belief? It is a fact that non Jewish population will outnumber the Jewish population in Israel eventually. Certainly a good reason to hold strong on denying the right of return to any further non Jewish peoples. Would America exist if it were based on its citizens being of a certain denomination or belief? I think not. But then would Israel exist if it were not based on Judaism? This is the conundrum and problem of Israel and the peace process.
Jerusalem, Israeli capital needs more housing and improved infrastructure.
Time to build is now.
So what are we to do? Mr. Lévy implies that we should wait for the arrival of a true man of peace on the Palestinian side, one acceptable to the Israelis, while allowing the Israeli government to continue it theft of Palestinian land and policy of apartheid toward the non-Jewish residents of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank? This is exactly what the hard liners in Israel want, because in their eyes there will never be such a Palestinian.
Mr. Lévy apparently did not read the recent New Yorker article about Bibi and his father; had he done so he would realize that the Israeli PM does in fact want nothing less than the elimination of any trace of Palestinian presence in Greater Israel.
OK, good start.
But then the consequent catastrophically biased attack on Middle Eastern Jews runs the rest of the soliloquy into a semantic ditch.
Rae Abileah (Mondoweiss): Jewish Values vs. Israeli Policies: Why five young Jews disrupted PM Netanyahu in New Orleans reprinted at Jewlicious.com
Rae Abileah (AlterNet): Shattering the Israeli barrier: Don’t buy into the Palestinian occupation
Matthew Taylor (Mondoweiss) : Why I disrupted Bibi’s speech
Matthew Taylor (Ha’aretz: Young Jews Tell Bibi: Israel is Delegitimizing Itself
Rachel Roberts (Jewish Peace News): Challenging the Jewish General Assembly
Emily Ratner (Mondoweiss): We would not have had to interrupt Netanyahu if the world listened to Palestinian voices
Eitan Isaacson (Zeek): Reflections after New Orleans: What makes a liberal?
Israel has been intransigent. It has turned down the Saudi Peace Plan, which has been endorsed by all the Arab and Muslim countries in the world, and gives Israel everything it claims to want. More importantly, Israel continues to build settlements in occupied territories inspite of every other country in the world considering that to be an illegal action. That is intransigence.
The colonial project known as Israel doesn't have a future in a post-colonial world which may be the reason that more Jews are leaving Israel than going there. One million Israelis have US citizenship and 250,000 applications for citizenship are pending.
Living in an academic community, I see many Israeli Jews who have no intention of returning to the land of zion.
As do the israelis. And you cannot take away israeli rights of self-determination to grant it to the palestinians.
"It has turned down the Saudi Peace Plan, which has been endorsed by all the Arab and Muslim countries in the world, and gives Israel everything it claims to want"
A peace plan so bad and biased that not one non-muslim state has endorsed it, not even russia or china or france. A plan which would flood israel with millions of palestinian refugees from their arab-created prisons, effectively leading to the ethnic cleansing of the jewish population of israel, and the collapse of all law, education, rights and commerce in israel.
Mr. Abbas was just as clear, and stated without ambiguity: I will NEVER ACCEPT a jewish state. NEVER is a long time. It is not about religion, or even self-determination for the Palestinians. They want to wipe all of Israel off the map. They do not want to make PEACE, or ACCEPT Israel's existence. Making that statement clearly also states that Palestinians will never give up the *struggle* WAR!! With that declaration to all the world and before the UN he ended Palestine for good. A requirement to be an UN member-state is to be a Peaceful State. Abbas rejected PEACE first by making this endrun around Peace itself, and underlined it with his warrior statement. Never ACCEPTING means forever WAR, until the very end. Then, not to leave any doubts about his intent, he went home early and announced the Palestinian Spring. He also has declared to NEVER ACCEPTING Palestinian Refugees in Palestine, and to never giving them a passport even. No confusion possible.
Nothing will come forth from any Palestinian *leadership*. So, changes must be made first at the root level, starting with giving Palestinians the same rights as ALL other Refugees, and abolishing UNWRA. they must be given options to move up and out of their enslavement by their Arab Masters. Simple civil rights, opportunity to move up, self-determination, being able to apply for citizenship and passports, sothat they could also emigrate when they desire to do it, to study abroad, etc. That should be the first poing on the Agenda. Israeli cooperation in the West Bank has already made a start with this, and the economy has improved. It should be repeated all over the ME where Palestinians reside. The next generation(s) will then make natural transitions without these massive people transfers, strange ideologies, and recalcitrant standing on (the wrong) principles to come out on top, rather than to solve people's day to day problems.