With the independence of the new Republic of South Sudan, the world is again reminded that states are created on the basis of local, regional and international necessity. At least two decades of international action, as well as a long, bitter and bloody conflict produced the independence of the south, a state that has been already welcomed by the international community, the African Union, the United Nations, and has been invited to join the Arab League.
South Sudan is only the latest newly-created state in the international community. In recent decades numerous new countries have come into existence, arising out of the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia, and so forth. Yet more than 60 years after its existence was envisaged by the UN partition plan for Palestine, more than 40 years after its creation was implied in the UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and almost 20 years since the Oslo Accords led the whole world to expect that Palestine would, soon, enjoy independence, there is still no Palestinian state.
It's hard to overestimate the strategic, political and cultural damage this failure to secure Palestinian independence is having on the Middle East as a region, and, indeed, throughout the globe. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the ongoing occupation that began in 1967 is completely disproportionate to its geographical and demographic size because of the profound emotional, ideological, religious and symbolic investment people throughout the world have made in it. Passions run high far beyond Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and it's no exaggeration to describe the conflict and the occupation as a cancer on the body politic of the global community.
The bottom line is this: in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea -- what has been the de facto Israeli state since 1967 -- there are approximately equal numbers, about 6 million of both, of Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Muslims and Christians. One group has a state, citizenship, self-determination and independence. A small group of Palestinians, about 1 million, are citizens of Israel but subject to significant forms of discrimination. But the large majority of Palestinians live in the occupied territories without citizenship or enfranchisement of any kind, self-determination or independence, and are subject to the arbitrary and typically abusive rule of a foreign military. Moreover, they have watched as their land is steadily colonized by Israeli settlements, which are both a violation of international law and a human rights abuse against those living under occupation according to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nowhere in the world is there any comparable level of separate and unequal as there is under Israeli rule in the occupied Palestinian territories.
David Ben-Gurion, who was Israel's prime minister twice, during 1948-1953 and 1955-1963, respectively, eloquently spoke in 1945 of the Jewish yearning for national validation and self-determination. He stated, "We are a people without a State and, therefore, a people without credentials, without recognition, without representation, without the privileges of a nation, without the means of self-defense, and without any say in our fate." These might easily be the words of a Palestinian leader in 2011.
Two years later, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, recommending the partition of Palestine into two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area to be placed under special international protection, administered by the United Nations. However, the UN Security Council failed to implement Resolution 181, and as soon as the British Mandate was terminated, Jewish leaders declared the establishment of Israel, leading to the intervention by five Arab armies in what was already a raging communal civil war in Palestine. This conflict left Israel in de facto possession of not the 55 percent of mandatory Palestine envisaged in the partition resolution, but 78 percent, which are now generally regarded as the internationally accepted borders of Israel.
Sixty-three years later, and following seven wars, the displacement of over a million Palestinian refugees during the 1948 and 1967 wars (who now number more than four million), two Palestinian intifadas, and countless dead and wounded, Israel remains a nation at war and in fear, and Palestinian national aspirations remain totally unfulfilled. Israeli settlements continue to be built at an alarming pace, with 200 already constructed, and the half-million Jewish Israeli colonists living in them are squeezing Palestinians into ever smaller areas of the West Bank and Jerusalem, and denying them access to water and other resources.
Peace efforts such as the Oslo accords (1993); Wye River accord (1998); Camp David meeting (2000); Taba negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli delegations (2001); George Mitchell's proposal (2001); George Tenet's plan (2001); United Nations Resolution 1397, which affirmed a vision of a region where Palestine and Israel would live side by side within secure and recognized borders (2002); the Arab Peace Initiative adopted unanimously twice by the Arab League (2002); and the "roadmap" for peace adopted by the Quartet (2003); have all been creditable efforts to develop peace, but none have succeeded and thus far the agony and tragedy have simply continued.
Years of conflict and insecurity, narratives of exclusion and pain, and incompatible visions of the future, let alone understandings of the past, have created a serious disconnect between Israelis and Palestinians. Each national community is caught up in its own tendentious and exclusive narratives: Israel using the past and the present to create the future; the Palestinians using the present to recreate the past in service of the future. Both are laboring under serious illusions.
Unfortunately, while US policy has emphasized that a two-state solution is imperative for American national interests, because of the "special relationship" between the two countries, in practice it remains steadfastly in Israel's corner, vetoing 26 UN Security Council draft resolutions on Palestine since July 1973. Domestic political considerations and a powerful American popular and elite consensus in support of Israel make pressuring that country in the normal diplomatic manner very difficult for an American president. Palestinians have hoped to be able to use the "special relationship" to help mollify Israeli concerns and reassure them that because of American participation, they are not taking any inordinate risks in entering into a peace agreement with the Palestinians. So far, this strategy, while theoretically promising, has yet to demonstrate much efficacy.
According to almost all opinion polls, most Palestinians and Israelis are in favor of a negotiated two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders, with agreed upon land swaps. Unfortunately, similarly large majorities do not believe it will happen and do not trust the other side's intentions. Unless President Barack Obama is able to persuade Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to negotiate on the aforementioned parameters, then the Palestinians will be facing many more checkpoints and a stonewall of delay while the Israelis continue to seize more Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Unfortunately, many Palestinians and Israelis believe that Netanyahu has no interest in pursuing a negotiated solution along the lines that Palestinians would deem acceptable. And, even more unfortunately, his unenthusiastic approach to the peace process and insistent emphasis on security above all, including peace, has proven extremely popular in Israel and he leads an unlikely but extraordinarily stable coalition government. In other words, his default position of saying "no" to everything is serving his political interests, leaving him with few incentives to be more forthcoming.
However, as numerous Israelis with impeccable national security credentials, including some very strongly rooted in the political right, have been publicly stating in recent months, it is essential to Israel's national interest to help secure the creation of a viable, democratic and peaceful State of Palestine. While the Israeli occupation resulted from conditions of the 1960s or even earlier, the time for its ending has come. An independent, contiguous, and secure Palestine (democratic, pluralistic, non-militarized, and neutral) living in peace alongside Israel is, as an apparent consensus of Israeli national security experts appear to recognize, the only way to secure Israel's long-term safety and stability. The occupation is untenable, dangerous and, ultimately, self-destructive.
The Arab states, as well as the United States and Israel, strongly require the creation of a Palestinian state for their fundamental national interests. For too long the Palestinian question has been a volatile, destabilizing variable in regional politics, the source of conflict and tension, and a powerful tool in the hands of extremists of many different varieties. This understanding was most importantly expressed through the Arab Peace Initiative, but has also been repeatedly emphasized by Arab leaders across the region. King Abdullah II of Jordan, in his memoir, Our Last Best Chance: The Pursuit of Peace in a Time of Peril, expressed "a sense of urgency, a conviction that the window for peace between Israel and the Palestinians is closing." We agree with him when he states, "Both sides have a moral responsibility to strive for peace... the alternative is more conflict and violence."
Every moment that is lost only benefits the proponents of extremism on all sides. Albeit a minority, they will continue to monopolize the political narrative and dictate the facts on the ground in the absence of peace. The moderates will lose heart and fade away in the smoke of violence and hate and the fog of deception.
Enlightened leadership not only leads and serves but finds like-minded followers as well, leaders in their own right, who would be eager to sustain positive change for the common good of both Palestinians and Israelis. It not only responds to constituencies, it creates them. The need for allies for peace and statehood is equally important as the need for such a consensus locally, regionally, and internationally.
What Ben Gurion envisioned for his people in 1945, all Palestinians have sought for decades. It is high time that the United States and the rest of the international community stood by them, not just rhetorically or in terms of development aid, but with practical, effective diplomatic efforts that ensure that the occupation will end, and that a Palestinian state alongside Israel will be created, recognized by the major powers of the world, and welcomed as a member state of the United Nations. Without a doubt this will require Israeli acquiescence as well, which means that negotiations are unavoidable and indispensable.
But the international community has an important role to play in laying the groundwork for such an agreement, making it crystal clear that it will accept no other outcome, applying both negative and positive pressure on both sides to make it happen, and doing everything possible to avoid any other outcome. Simply leaving it up to the parties, which are defined by the most extreme degree of power asymmetry imaginable, is not a viable option. International engagement, led by but not exclusive to the United States, is more indispensable now than ever. Especially given the role the international community played in the creation of Israel, it has a right and a responsibility to play a similar role in the creation of Palestine.
This is a delicate process, and we are not proposing an implausible and impracticable "imposition" of a solution on the parties by an international community that is unwilling and probably unable to take such steps. Nor are we suggesting that the Palestinian demand for full UN membership in September is likely to prove successful. Clearly a failed confrontation with the United States at the UN Security Council over the issue of statehood is not in anybody's interest, let alone the Palestinians. However, a greater role for the international community in resolving this exceptionally damaging and destabilizing ongoing conflict is essential. Palestinians can and should receive a major upgrade of their observer mission status from the General Assembly, and should be recognized on a bilateral basis by every state that is serious about Israeli-Palestinian peace.
There is much the international community can do to promote a two-state solution, particularly by clarifying its unshakable commitment to this outcome and its categorical refusal to accept any alternative. There is no longer any excuse for postponing or delaying such measures. They do not undermine Israeli-Palestinian negotiations; they support them insofar as they make the only reasonable, workable outcome far more likely and demonstrate that the world expects and will help the parties arrive at a two-state solution in the near future. The international community has made its commitment to Israel very clear since 1948. It must now move quickly to make its commitment to Palestine alongside Israel equally clear, especially to the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Hussein Ibish is a senior research fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and blogs at www.ibishblog.com. Saliba Sarsar is professor of political science and associate vice president for global initiatives at Monmouth University, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Task Force on Palestine.
MJ Rosenberg: Is Israel Officially Giving Up on Democracy?
Rabbi Michael M. Cohen: Can Netanyahu Become a Leader Like the Biblical Joshua?
John L. Esposito: The Chutzpah of Netanyahu Trumps the Audacity of Hope
'Despite Hamas opposition, PA to go to UN September'
Israel Urges Colombia Not to Back Palestinian State, Tiempo Says
Israelis, Palestinians march for Palestinian state
The Palestinians' Blossoming Failed State
Romania Favors Two-State Solution to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Thanks for your interest in my post.
But your remarks are confusing. In another post, you acknowledge Jordanian complicity in denying a Palestinian homeland through their actions at the '67 Khartoum conference (Ahmed Shukairy represented the PLO at the conference, by the way, but disagreed with the declaration) but you curiously totally ignore it in 1949. http://middleeast.about.com/od/documents/qt/khartoum-declaration-1967.htm
It was these same Hashemites who, in 1949, conquered East Jerusalem, and quite openly attempted annexation of the WB with the intent of denying it to the Pals. They also shut the border completely to everyone, Jews and non-Jews alike, much like the Berlin Wall. All Jews were expelled (estimates range from 10-20,000 which could easily translate into a population of 100,000 today with the high birthrate of these Jews), and Jewish Holy places were desecrated, with the destruction of over 50 synagogues, up to and including using gravestones from the ancient Mount of Olives cemetary as a path to a lavatory. You condone this acquisition of territory by war, which was catastrophic to the cause of Palestinian statehood, but condemn the same act by Israel.
Do you sincerely think that had Jordan had taken the wiser tack of staying out of the war, and had retained control of the WB, that there would any talk whatsover of a Palestinian state there?
Here is a simple truth: the annexation of the West Bank by the Hashemite Kingdom was always an illegal act, and if the IDF had not displaced the Royal Jordanian Army from the West Bank in 1967 then the PLO would still be seeking their independence today, and the only difference would be that they would now be arguing with the Jordanian King, and not with the israeli Prime Minister.
The Acquisition Of Territory By War is i.l.l.e.g.a.l.
Unilateral Annexation is i.l.l.e.g.a.l.
It was illegal when Jordan made that declaration in 1950, and if you think there WOULDN'T be any talk of a Palestinian state today merely because of the colour of the uniform worn by the army of occupation then you are deluding yourself.
Now, how many different ways do I have to say that?
I appreciate your noting the "illegality" of the Jordanian action in 1949, but why do you feel there would be any nationalism argument with a Jordanian King today when there was none for the 2 decades with uncontested Jordanian control of the WB? Palestinians welcomed the Jordanian capture of the WB, even though it was suicidal to their supposed desire for their own country.
Nor was there any "argument" with Nasser over his rather nasty administration of Gaza during the same period. There was no mistaking Syria's territorial designs on the Gallillee and the Golan during the 48-49 War.
From the Arab standpoint, the War of Independence was about denying it to Israel, not about granting it to Palestinians. There is absolutely no evidence to believe that Arab leaders of the day would have been any more sympathetic to the lukewarm nationalistic aspirations at that time than they are to the far more strident voices we have been hearing recently.
xmontrealer, or Erwon7?
It's getting so darn hard keeping track of your monikers, is it?
Most are trying to get out of that mess....
60 years and Israel blew it.
If there is an anti-Israel source counterpunch IS IT.........well maybe ifamerica…….. lol
"The significance of the (Gaza) disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. [...] Prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda..." "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde." - Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's senior advisor, Dov Weisglass during an interview published in Ha'aretz, 2004.
Fact: Palestinain Arabs rejected their own statehood in 1947. On the U.N. floor.
Palestinain Charter. Article 17: "The partitioning of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void."
Fact: 1948-1967. 19 years of Arab control. of W. Bank, Gaza and E. Jerusalem Palestinian Arabs rejected their own state on those lands.
Palestinian Organization Charter
Article 24:" This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."
Fact: In 1967, Palestinain Arabs rejected negotiations with Israel. Famous Khartoum declaration:" No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel."
Never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Only 46 people cast a vote on the floor of the UNGA in 1947, and not one of them was a Palestinian.
"Palestinain Charter. Article 17: "The partitioning of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void." "
Now would be a good time for you to explain how the Palestinians gained the right to veto UNGA Resolutions.
"Article 24:" This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area." "
I can see the word "exercise", can't you?
Article 24 is stating an indisputable fact i.e. the PLO did not E.X.E.R.C.I.S.E. any sovereignty in the West Bank, because
a) their host (the Hashemite King) was claiming the West Bank for himself and
b) the PLO was in no position to take on the Royal Jordanian Army.
"Fact: In 1967, Palestinain Arabs rejected negotiations with Israel. Famous Khartoum declaration"
The Khartoum Declaration was made by the Arab League, which in 1967 did not include the Palestinians, precisely because the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was still claiming the right to speak on their behalf.
"Never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Never let the facts get in the way of hasbarah propaganda.
Not true -- unless one refers to the "states" created by colonialists simply by drawing lines on a map. REAL states (as opposed to artificial ones) are created on the basis of the natural aspirations of a nation. The "international community" (whatever that means) does NOT "create" states. At most, it may recognize those aspirations -- or their result -- as a fait accompli.
Israel became a state because of the national aspirations of the Jewish people. If the Palestinian Arabs had similar aspirations, they would have accepted the partition, or any of the many deals offered to them, each consisting of circa 95% of what they SAID they wanted.
The reality is that while Israel, USA and others want a two-state solution, the Palestinian Arabs (fed on a 90-years-long diet of hatred) do NOT want "two states". They don't even want "one state; what they want is "no state" -- no Jewish state.
really? I'm croatian. I suggest you look at a map of croatia and it's neighbours. Go ahead, look
it up right now, I'll wait.... got it? good.
See how croatia is shaped like a horseshoe? rather odd shap for a state, don't you think? How did that happen, did the croats spread their population and homes long and thin like this? No, the Ottomans invaded EUrope and kept invade and invading and this is the borders of Croatia that were left, where the Ottomans were stopped. These aren't the natural borders of the croatian state and the croatian people based on national aspirations, this is the border of the croatian state and the croatian people as a result of being invaded, enslaved and sometimes ethnically cleansed from the land that was their state. The same thing happens all over the world, and it isn't always a matter of "colonialists simply by drawing lines on a map."
People like this give me hope.
Why can't Gaza transfer goods from Egypt above ground?
Arab attempt at genocide -- "intervention"
Creation of Trans Jordan from Mandate Palestine -- "aspirations unfulfilled"
On-going terror attacks, even before '67 - "Years of conflict and insecurity"
PA deliberately violates every accord, especially Oslo - "none have succeeded and thus far the agony and tragedy have simply continued."
Refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish State - "incompatible visions of the future"
PA cozies up to Hamas -- "mollify Israeli concerns and reassure them"
Only one in three Palestinians accepts two states for two peoples (Beit Sahour poll 2011) -- "Palestinians and Israelis are in favor of a negotiated two-state solution"
His last 5 or 6 paragraphs are totally negated by the existence of the BDS and de-legitimization campaigns - stop those and I might take you seriously.
Two questions. First, why this obsession with the '67 borders as some kind of Holy Grail? This really refers to the notorious "Green Line" established in 1949 by Moshe Dayan and a Jordanian commander as a ceasfire after the desparate battle for Jerusalem, hardly what anyone would call a carefully negotiated international armistice agreement. I think both sides could do with a more complete revisiting of the border issue, as I'm sure Israel would probably be happy to do without places like Umm Al Famm, an infamous militant hotbed.
Second, we know about the religious significance of Jerusalem, but what is its political significance to Islam? It hasn't had any sort of adminstrational significance for centuries, and if it wasn't for Hajj Amin's frantic fund raising in the '20s, the famous Al Aqsa Mosque was on the verge of collapse.
Well, THAT's an easy one to answer:
The territory that lies BEYOND the 1967 lines was seized by the IDF in June 1967.
That makes territory that lies BEYOND the 1967 "territories occupied in the recent conflict".
Annnnnnnnnnnd, according to UNSCR 242 "peace" will require:
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"
So there you have it: the obsession with the 1967 lines derives from a cornerstone of international law, recognized as such by the UN Security Council i.e.
a) states are not entitled to acquire territory by war, and
b) therefore occupied territory can not be annexed by the occupier.
Pretty simple, when you think about it.....
They are separate because they are not all citizens of the same nation. Does anyone know any better reason for being considered "separate"? As to "unequal", see again my former comments. Go across the border from San Diego to Tijuana. I would guess that conditions there are comparable--and those two groups are not even at war, let alone for the past 90+ years--with a partly failed 'final solution' in between.
Some Mexicans believe that the Southwest US is "occupied" Mexico. Opinions vary. The United Nations might some day side with Mexico on such a claim. All that would mean is that opinions vary GREATLY.
Mexico is a nation. it has borders, it people have the rights and social structures that are part of that nation. The same can be said for the US.
There are no US troops trying to help US civilians illegally steal land and eventually claim it as part of the US, while violently representing the current population as they are slowly swept out of their homes. The border disputes have been over, and are settled, and both governments are absolutely fine with the situation.
What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is not, as it is in your fantasy, just some dispute of opinions.
The US state department, along with almost every single other nation on earth, sees the settlements as a violation of the Geneva conventions prohibition of moving civilians onto occupied territories and enlarging borders through war or conflict.
let me repeat, Israel is, according to the US state department, in violation of the Geneva Convention. The Vast majority of UN member states concur.
You simply are so ashamed of the settlements you are trying to cover for that you lack the ability to even recognize that they exist. Or that Israels borders, according to EVERY single other nation on earth stop at the 67 borders.
Israel
"colonial settler movement"
So therefore can you please explain how Ariel Sheinerman (a.k.a.: Sharon) was born in central Israel (Kfar Malal) while Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt?
And as if Arabs have not been migrating into what is today Israel for the past 90 years? What makes them not "colonialists"? Because they are Arabs?
The fact is that under Turkish-Ottoman rule, Jews (and only Jews) were legally barred from moving to or buying land anywhere in Palestine.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/books/travel/593773/593773-c-033-800.html
This, during periods of history when people generally moved wherever their money could take them. There was no "Israel" and no nation of "Palestine" either, except as a minor geographic segment of the Turkish Empire.
Overall, I just don't especially care about the Palestinian-Arabs. I think they have received about a million times their due allotment of "15-minutes of fame". Mostly NOT because people care for them but because Hebrews are involved. That bothers me.
As for the world's opinion, every country in the world consumes oil. Only 0.25% of the world's population is Jewish, about 1/2 in Israel and most of the rest in the USA.
UNSC Res. 242, while ambiguous and conflicted, was clear on one critical point: Any Israeli withdrawal was predicated on an end to belligerency and all further territorial claims.
"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Israel had no obligation to withdraw from one CM of anything--without the above condition also being met. Moreover, there was no call for the establishment of any new or addt'l Arab nation in Res. 242. The word "Palestine" or "Palestinian" not appearing even once.
The biggest problem the Pal/Arabs face is that their leaders insist on establishing their new nation, without agreeing to abrogate further territorial claims against the Jewish nation.
Follow the bouncing ball....
1) In 1947 the UK was still the Mandatory
2) Mandatories could (and did, e.g. Syria/Lebanon) partition Mandates
3) Article 25 of Mandate stated that a Mandatory required the "consent of the League of Nations" for such a drastic move, which by 1946 meant "the consent of the UN"
4) In 1947 the Mandatory sought just that consent
5) That consent was granted by a vote of 33-13
There you have it: the Partition Plan was "legally binding" because of the steps that the MANDATORY took, which were indeed required by international law.
Article 25 says: "In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine". Do you know where that is? Not Israel. Not the WB or EJ or Gaza or the Golan either. Its Jordan. All, 100% of it is today JORDAN.
"ART. 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power". '
Again, this referred to a 45,000 square mile "Palestine", including what is today Jordan. It makes no exceptions.
The United Nations was NOT the League of Nations. Their charters were different in many crucial respects. The engineers of the United Nations did not want to have a repeat situation to what had occurred over the previous decades, namely, some countries (like the USA) refusing to join the L.O.N. and others resigning their membership. So the legal basis for the two tribunals is very different. The United Nations General Assembly has NO legislative authority, P.E.R.I.O.D. The League of Nations DID. Decisions of the League of Nations became legally binding on all members. This is especially so since the LON Mandate was actually added to the LON Charter.
If you still care to debate, after your epic blunder re: Art-25, your complete ignoring of Art-5, debate with yourself.
"ART. 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power". '
Again, this referred to a 45,000 square mile "Palestine", including what is today Jordan. It makes no exceptions.
The United Nations was NOT the League of Nations. Their charters were different in many crucial respects. The engineers of the United Nations did not want to have a repeat situation to what had occurred over the previous decades, namely, some countries (like the USA) refusing to join the L.O.N. and others resigning their membership. So the legal basis for the two tribunals is very different. The United Nations General Assembly has NO legislative authority, P.E.R.I.O.D. The League of Nations DID. Decisions of the League of Nations became legally binding on all members. This is especially so since the LON Mandate was actually added to the LON Charter.