Israeli Leader: Palestinians Should Unilaterally Declare a State
Yossi Sarid, a longtime leader in Israeli politics and an aide to several prime ministers, says it's time for Palestinians to realize that negotiations with Israel will get them nowhere.
They should simply unilaterally declare a state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem now.
He writes:
"President 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?"
Read the whole piece. It's worth considering.
NOTE: 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
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Lloyd Greif: Israel Stands Alone
Obama has shown far more concern for strengthening ties with authoritarian regimes on the Arabian Peninsula than to maintaining the historically close alliance with the region's only true democracy.
Sharmine Narwani: Interview: Hezbollah And Hamas on Obama, Netanyahu, Terrorism ... And Oprah
While both groups embrace Islamic values as their core ideology and driving principle, their political actions appear to be driven more by realpolitik than Quranic mandate.
David Harris: Boycott Israel? Norwegian University Must Decide
Later this month, Norway's second largest university will consider a proposed boycott of Israel for developing "Zionist ideology and renouncing Palestinian history and identity."
Jamal Juma': It Will Take More Than a Wall To Silence Us
If President Obama is to live up to his Nobel, then he should insist that trapping Palestine's emerging Gandhis and Mandelas behind walls is incompatible with a peaceful and just future.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
JORDAN IS PALESTINE.
Who exactly proposed it? The Jews agreed to the borders set by the UN in 1948 over the opposition of the Arabs who had lived on the land for hundreds of years (while the Jews were all but absent). Naturally, the Arabs fought for their land. They lost that fight but this does not mean that they gave up their rights to the land as mandated by the UN and agreed to by Israel.
The western world wanted an ally in the Middle East and so Israel was allowed to steal (and continue stealing) Palestinian land. This is, without question, one of the most heinous crimes of the last 100 years. However, justice will prevail even if it takes 100 years.
Actually, if the Arabs refused the partition plan in favor of starting a war, it DOES mean they gave up their rights to the land. If you gamble away your house, do you still have a "right" to it?
This is a joke,right?? The Arabs now known as Palestinians can SAY whatever they want...THE
In all of your juvenile post, there is one point you make that actually makes sense. Jordan, Egypt and Syria lost that land-- except they have no more claim to it than Israel does. It belongs to the Palestinians-- and perhaps Beilin is right. Now is the time to seize the moment.
What you fail to realize in your triumphalistic rant is that there are a LOT of Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza and, (despite the efforts of the settlers to steal Palestinians' homes) East Jerusalem.
Not only are there a LOT of Palestinians, but their population is growing FASTER than Israel's -- quite a bit faster, as a matter of fact.
So if Israel decides to annex this territory (and try to make an illegal land grab a legal one), Israel will be faced with the prospect of having a larger ARAB population than their own.
What happens then? If Israel is to remain the democracy that many here like to brag about, then all those Palestinians will have to have their rights as citizens recognized-- and eventually "Greater Israel" will be a nation with a Jewish minority. Is that what you want?
Because two things are certain. The Palestinians aren't going anywhere. And they will NOT accept the current status quo indefinitely -- and neither will the world.
A Palestinian state has exiosted since 1922. If the UN wants to recognize the state it should address the inquiry to Jordan. In 1922 over 70% of the proposed Jewish homeland was taken to create Transjordan. This newly formed nation was to be a kingdom for the Hashemite allies of the Brits. But it was also to serve as a homeland for those Arabs unwilling to live in Israel among the Jews. If the Palestinians want a state, one already exists. No Arab will support this idea because it does not take land from Israel or put Israel at risk. BUt the historical fact remains, a Palestinian state exists and has since 1922.
The state of Israel also exists. The borders are those established and accepted in 1947/48. Israel should withdraw to those borders immediately.
well said baffy . . . totally agree . . israel must go back to its original borders . . there is no right of conquest .. .
Uh..they would still be inside those borders IF the Arabs hadn't attacked Israel ...and lost all the wars to them!!
Your obsession with ethnically cleansing Palestinians from Palestine and shipping them off to random third countries is a non-starter.
You make the same post in every thread. Its not going to happen.
Exactly correct! Jordan is Palestine.
Jordan, that isn't even the position of the Israeli government!! Or aren't you unaware of the Peace Treaty signed in 1994 between Jordan and Israel.
Of course this occurred when Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister of Israel, and he seemed genuinely committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Territories. This was not done out of pure altruism for the Palestinians, but out of concern for the long-term security of Israel, as well as the realization that millions of Palestinians CANNOT be controlled by Israel if they refuse to allow themselves to be.
THe first intifada (during which Rabin was Defense Minister0 taught him that. It's a lesson some Israelis have a hard time absorbing.
What do the Palestinians have to lose? If they receive UN recognition Israel can do nothing (it can't invade another UN state). Nobody can predict what will happen if the Palestinians announce. Will the refugees return to Palestine? Will the settlers leave? We shall see. However, the world and Israel will be greatly insented to make it all work. Go for it!
If Palestinians declare statehood they can accept anybody as a citizen. That includes anybody returning from the Palestinian diaspora or former Israeli settlers. Former settlers would certainly not be permitted to remain members of a foreign military.
If Israeli settlers dont accept Palestinian statehood and they remain as citizens of a foreign power they can expect no privileged land or property rights and I doubt theyll be permitted to be armed.
That sounds fair to me. So why are the Palestinians and their supporters claiming the settlers are THE barrier to peace?
I am with the Palestinians . . . they should have their own free and independent state .. . and it should happen now . . . this must be done by the UN . . . with or without the approval of the US and israel .. . otherwise it will never happen . . . israel will just keep stealing the Palestinians water and land . .. and waging wars against the Palestinians . . . . the failure of the international community to enforce international law which israel breaks on a daily basis has contributed to this sad, sick, amoral, unjust situation . . . it is more than time for justice for the Palestinian people.
http://new
I have thought that Palestine should have done this a long time ago. Israel has no problem engaging in unilatteral moves, no reason the Palestinians shouldn't as well. they have little to loose as Israel will treat the Palestinians brutally no matter what they do.
Yeah..espe
LizM wrote: "Maybe what we need here is something that shakes up the status quo and breaks the inertia of the Middle East peace process."
This was well said. I'm a great believer in "jump-star
That reminds me of a favourite Robert Kennedy quote which I'll have to paraphrase here...
Progress is a nice word but change is its motivator and change has its enemies.
*smiling, sadly* I love what Bobby Kennedy stood for; brave I suppose, or, simply couldn't help but speak truthfully
good words...ty
This is wishful thinking by Rabbi Sarrid. He hopes that the Palestinians will make a move like that and immediately bargain away any hopes for a greater Palestinian state and their right of return. They would never shortcut what they are due in the name of humanity and all that is good.
And instead they will get nothing.
Like Icarus, they will insist on flying too close to the sun, and will get burned.
AIPAC's and Pro-Zionist strongholds on US foreign policy and media are showing signs of weakening (see recent libel spread about NIAC and J Street by AIPAC associates). Their propaganda efforts aren't nearly as effective as they used to be either.
I don't think that your assessment that Palestinians will get nothing in the end is accurate. Although, I defend your right to differ with me on that opinion.
Like everything else, Israel would just ignore it.
JORDANISPALESTINE!
You sound like someone who, if he says something often enough, will make it true.
Who are you trying to convince of this slogan-- us? or yourself.
I do like the idea that Palestine declare itself a state and set the boarders of the country. Why, you ask! Because as a state a real country the United States would not have to support the poor people who live in the area. Israel could cut power and fuel unless the country had money to pay for the supplies. That could also go for food and other supplies. Also then when some terror group lobed a few missiles into Israel, they would have government officials to blame and could defend their fixed boundaries or attack the nation that first attacked them.
Going from homeless vagabonds to a national statues, being review and accepted by the world as a nation would be just great for Palestine. Yes, they the people and government would be accountable for the actions inside and outside of their new country.
middleamerican2010
Casey
Palestine would not set the borders of its country, not alone. Palestine and Israel would have to decide on its borders together. Israel currently controls almost every part of what would be Palestine, so if Palestine unilaterally declares that "Palestine" exists within the '67 borders (AGAIN), the onus would be on the Palestinians to secure control over that area by force. And as we have seen from every single war against Israel, they would lose.
Then they would be back to square one, or worse.
Why does everyone think that Israel is just going to give up her territory for nothing?
Why does everyone think that Israel is just going to give up palestinian territory for nothing?
I dunno, because people think Israel is a civilised country?
Yeah, people are so misinformed these days.
I blame the corporate amalgamation of media.
There is no need to rush !
Just wait ....
Empire is dying...
Everything will settle down....
I am an optimist !
Everyone seems to think that, if the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood, the Israelis will simply sit there and let their territory be taken. That's not how this game works, people. Here's a historical case study of unilateral declarations of statehood:
1776: American colonies unilaterally declare statehood from British: war ensues. Americans win because Britain is an ocean away and France helped the nascent American state.
1948: Israel declares statehood when British rules ends: war ensues. Israelis win because of ingenuity and motivation.
1991: Chechnya declares independence from Russia: war ensues. Russia wins because it is exponentially bigger and Chechnya has no international support, Chechnya remains under Russian suzerainty.
But my favorite:
1988: Palestine declares statehood. Israel laughs because Palestinians have no chance of asserting their own sovereignty over any part of Israel. Everyone forgets about it in a matter of months and 21 years later people are advocating for Palestine to declare independence. Second time's the charm?
I dont' think that's what we're saying at all. And, I don't think that's what this blogger is saying or what the Israeli leader is saying.
I think we all now how complex this situation is and we all know that the process is going nowhere, fast.
It needs a jump-start!
Okay, so there are three possible outcomes: 1) Palestine declares statehood, Israel says "what are you gonna do about it," Palestinians realize they can't do anything, nothing happens; 2) Palestine declares statehood, Israel says "what are you gonna do about it," Palestinians make a valiant effort to take Israeli land for their own, are crushed, Palestinian leadership arrested or expelled, Palestinian hopes for a state worse than before; 3) Palestine declares statehood, Israel says "what are you gonna do about it," Palestine replies "what are YOU gonna do about it," nothing happens because Israel still has no impetus to give any additional concessions and the Palestinians refuse to make any concessions whatsoever.
Yeah. Sounds like a great idea to me!
...and, if it has the current Israeli leader spooked, maybe the second time is the charm.
You forgot Kosovo!
And? This wasn't an exhaustive list. Kosovo declared independence once in 1990, and again in 2008, but Kosovo was autonomous for a long time, and the Kosovars had NATO on their side.
The Palestinians barely control any territory, and what is the likelihood that any international force will intervene on their behalf? None, because their "friends" don't want them to have a state: they want them to be pawns to use against Israel, and they wouldn't go up in a fight against Israel anyway, not after losing every other war to the Israelis.
(continued)
Problem #3: The settlers. The Palestinians declare their state, and the settlers are caught on the wrong side of the new borders. So what happens to them? There are two possible options: Have them become Palestinian citizens or get them to leave. This is assuming of course that the PA would declare the '67 lines to be the border of their state, without land swapping.
The settlers probably wouldn't become Palestinian citizens, as the PA doesn't want Jews to be living in their state. Yes, there is a movement among the Palestinians to annex the settler enclaves, but it is too weak at this point.
So that leaves the Palestinians with forcing the settlers out. How are they going to do that? Not without violence! This is assuming of course that Israel's army doesn't stay and help protect the settlers (since they are de facto still Israeli citizens). Looks like the Palestinians would be responsible for the start of yet another war between the two sides, only this time they would have a state and would be responsible for their own people, their own weapons, and their own facilities. They wouldn't be able to hide behind their statelessness and "refugee" status any more. In a war against Israel, they would lose everything and gain practically nothing.
International and internal pressure will take care of the settlers. Theyre a tooth that needs to be pulled. Either with or without anaesthetic.
They were removed from Gaza, theyre the same people and theytll be removed again. They have no rights, no claims and no legitimacy.
They were removed and Gaza and what happened? Oh right, there were even more missiles launched into southern Israel. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
Israel may not have the most friends (unfairly so), but it's not insane. They would do themselves no favors by removing settlers.
"International and internal pressure will take care of the settlers."
-That's been happening for a while. They're still there.
"Either with or without anaestheti
-So you're saying the Palestinians will force them out with violence? What a peaceful solution! So much for co-existence and democracy, huh?
"They were removed from Gaza"
-Yeah. BY THE ISRAELI ARMY! But now Israel has no incentive at all to remove them. Good luck convincing Israel to do that...
"They have no rights, no claims and no legitimacy
-They have the same rights, claims and legitimacy that the Palestinians do.
Well, it goes without saying that there will be problems..
But, I'm hoping there is something to this for the simple reason that it would shatter the status quo - relatively speaking, of course - and get things moving again before it's too late for the familiar two state solution. That is assuming it's not already too late.
lonelygod - just get AIPAC or Hagee to step in and help the poor sttlers - or they can always go back to their Eastern European homelands or their Russian homelands or Brooklyn.
I mean you and your ilk are forever trying to get 'other Arab nations' nations to step in and do something.
This plan would sound great, except there are tons of problems with it:
Problem #1: The issue of authority. The Palestinian Authority does not have sovereignty over the entire West Bank. They don't have the power to say "the West Bank is now Palestine!" Israel has control over quite a bit of it, and isn't just going to get up and leave because the Palestinians told them to. Especially without a peace treaty or cessation of hostilities between the two. In other words, the PA is not in a position to be declaring statehood.
Problem #2: Who is going to run the state? Hamas or Fatah? Or what? The same problem that the PA has now is just going to be repeated again and again and again until they figure something out. If anything, an end to the occupation would lead to more in-fighting and innocent Palestinian deaths. Which somehow I don't think is a solution that many Huffington Posters would be in favor of.
(continued)
Palestine would get immediate support and recognition from all over the world. Why wait for the settlers to leave and the wall to come down?
Form a government, produce passports and open up trade agreements. Theyd immeduately receive billions of dollars in investment from all over the world and theyre currently in a better position and have more support than Israel did in 1948.
"Form a government
How? Hamas doesn't recognize Abbas' authority. And Abbas doesn't recognize theirs! So who is going to run this government?
Israel seems to manage to form a government every time theres an election. With or without the popular vote.
"Form a government, produce passports, win the war with Israel that will result from an irredentist group claiming Israeli-controlled territory as its own, and open up trade agreements
One of these things is not like the others...
Win the war with Israel? I thought everyone around here thought the Palestinians were helpless and stood no chance against "Israeli aggression". I don't really see that happening.
All over the world? Are you sure? There's a lot more to this than just declaring a state. The Quartet for one would not want to be seen as breaching Oslo. I imagine Egypt would be against this for their own reasons as well.
Palestine is already recognized. one-hundred and one states recognize the State of Palestine, and 21 more grant some form of diplomatic status to a Palestinian delegation, falling short of full diplomatic recognition.
http://en.
Palestine is already further advanced and has more international support than Israel did in 1948
This is a great idea unless you live in the West Bank, Gaza or Israel. It's not perfect but both sides have benefited from the Oslo Accords. I understand the amount of frustration, but anything that leads to either side fully abandoning the Oslo Accords could only lead to a huge escalation of violence.
How is declaring a state, which is the end of the road of the so-called road map, abandoning the Oslo accords?
Because it would be a unilateral move. The Oslo Accords bind both parties to reach a final settlement through negotiations.
Because the Palestinians were only granted sovereignty over part of the West Bank under Oslo.
If they renounce Oslo, then the administered areas revert back to Israeli control. Abbas would have no legal standing to declare a state.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
