If the Palestinians go ahead with their plans to declare a state later this year, the United States should recognize it.
There really is no good reason not to.
After all, ever since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson, presidents from both parties have expressed support for the return of the occupied territories in exchange for peace. No nation, other than Israel itself, recognizes any of that land -- including Arab East Jerusalem -- as part of Israel. And the United Nations, which issued Israel its birth certificate in 1947, appears ready to do the same for the State of Palestine this summer.
It was once widely assumed that creation of the Palestinian state would be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians. No more. The final nail in the direct-negotiations coffin was driven by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu when he coldly rejected President Obama's offer of an extra $3.5 billion in U.S. aid in exchange for a 90-day settlement freeze.
Netanyahu couldn't even bring himself to explicitly reject an offer he considered so contemptible. He just left it (and President Obama) dangling in the wind while he issued more building permits for settlers and expulsion orders for Palestinians.
It is now clear that although Israel would like to achieve peace with the Palestinians, it is not willing to pay much of a price for it. It will not even negotiate over Arab East Jerusalem. It intends to keep not only the West Bank settlements but also the lands and fields near those settlements -- plus the settlers-only highways that connect the settlements. It will not free blockaded Gaza from its grip, maintaining full control over its airspace, seaports, and land entry points.
Israel may consider giving up some land that is heavily populated by Palestinians and that no settler desires for his own. But it will not agree to a contiguous West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state, as is obvious from its demand that the mega-settlement of Ariel, smack-dab in the middle of the West Bank, become part of Israel.
No wonder the Palestinian Authority has given up on negotiations. It is unwilling to negotiate the terms of its own surrender -- not when there are other alternatives.
The best alternative is a U.S.-brokered settlement that would establish a State of Palestine, with contiguous borders, alongside Israel. East Jerusalem would be the Palestinian capital. In exchange, Israel would get the two things it has always insisted are the only demands it makes of the Arabs: secure, recognized borders and security guarantees from the United States. (The security of the Palestinian state would also be guaranteed.)
This is not some pie-in-the-sky idea. As early as 2002, the entire Arab world signed on to the Saudi plan (later renamed the Arab League Initiative), which offered Israel not only recognition and peace but full normalization in exchange for establishment of the State of Palestine. The Palestinians immediately accepted the offer. Israel ignored it, followed by the United States.
The few changes since then have been for the worse. The current Israeli government has no interest in any plan that requires withdrawal. As for the United States, it can be expected to be even more timid than usual in the two years prior to election day 2012. Additionally, U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine is in the hands of White House aide Dennis Ross, who unambiguously supports Israeli positions on pretty much everything.
This all means that the Palestinians may have to take matters into their own hands by unilaterally declaring the establishment of a state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem with the blessing of the United Nations.
Some say that a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood would lead to war (much as Israel's unilateral declaration of statehood led to war in 1948). That could be true.
A furious Israel could abolish the Palestinian Authority, assume direct control over all the territories and attempt to govern millions of Palestinians without the assistance of the exceedingly compliant Palestinian Authority.
But that would surely lead to the Palestinians going back to the United Nations and demanding the right not to statehood but to full citizenship in Israel -- including the right to vote. That is the last thing Israel wants -- a Palestinian majority in the Jewish state.
More likely, Israel would have to negotiate with the new Palestinian state as one government negotiates with another. No longer would the Palestinians be beggars asking for a few crumbs at the table. No, suddenly the playing field would be leveled, at least somewhat.
In the context of those state-to-state negotiations, the two sides could decide on permanent borders and security arrangements that satisfy both sides. More than likely, some Israeli settlements would remain in exchange for an equal amount of territory inside Israel. The negotiators would also decide on the modalities of sharing Jerusalem as the capital of two states.
There are two significant obstacles to this proposal. The first is that, pressured by AIPAC and its congressional cutouts, the United States could announce in advance that it will block (with a veto, if necessary) any unilateral declaration. Those who support an end to the conflict should start working now on deterring the Obama administration from announcing that it will, despite all its promises, veto Palestinian statehood to please the lobby.
The second problem is the nature of the two Palestinian governments that control the West Bank and Gaza today. Neither is democratic. Both are authoritarian. There is no indication that either would improve should statehood come into being.
That is why following establishment of the state, the entire Palestinian people would have to vote for new leadership. It is safe to assume that under free and fair elections (closely monitored), neither Hamas nor Fatah would win outright. The only thing most Palestinians like about Fatah is that it's not Hamas; the only thing most like about Hamas is that it's not Fatah.
But first things first. The United States should either lay a plan on the table and demand its implementation, or the Palestinians should declare full independence, with negotiations with Israel to follow. And the United States should support them.
Forty-four years of occupation is enough, for both Palestinians and Israelis. And it's time for America to keep its promises.
Starting this week Foreign Policy Matters will be updated during the course of the day. Check us out here. And follow me on twitter @mjmediamatters
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
“After learning of J Street’s current public call for the Obama Administration to not veto a prospective UN Security Council resolution that, under the rubric of concern about settlement activity, would effectively and unjustly place the whole responsibility for the current impasse in the peace process on Israel, and–critically–would give fresh and powerful impetus to the effort to internationally isolate and delegitimize Israel, I’ve come to the conclusion that J-Street is not an organization with which I wish to be associated.
As I have often said, as long as Fatah, the Israeli-U.S. appointed, marionette, West Bank, authoritarian government is forced to grovel at the feet of its puppeteers for crumbs, it will never, ever earn the respect of either the Arab states or its occupiers. And it will never negotiate on a level playing field for the liberation of its people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJ-JR_vBo0
q> rejected by Palestinian Arabs
Which Palestinian Arabs rejected it?
I wonder if the UN decided to divide your house into two, and gave the upper part to some immigrants, and allowed you to keep the basement- I wonder if you would reject that plan?
q> a bilateral agreement, which already has
q> been offered to the Palestinians.
Israel has ***NEVER*** offered to give back the land it stole- NEVER.
What is needed is the unilateral declaration- approval from Israel is not required. Israel has had 43+ years; this will take one year.
only a deep commitment to nonviolence will take the air out of this conservative escalation and turn things back toward a just resolution.
But I have to disagree with your latter argumnt. Israel don't understand nonviolence. They feed of it, and in it's absence, they will create it. It's what they did in 2008 when the ceasefire with Hamas was working too well.
If someone said that about Arabs you would scream "racist!"
Notice how many photographers were there in advance.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00Ykg2FgvV1cP/610x.jpg
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0cAIaPoaAg5Ob/610x.jpg
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0dAs9v77hq1E7/610x.jpg
How many of the people throwing rocks or cheering for them you think were evicted from their homes?
B'Tselem Statistics on demolition of houses built without permits in East Jerusalem
years 1992-2010
Total number of houses demolished 553
Number of people 2004-2010 1,438
Jews whos home were demolished and were evicted of Gaza 8,600.
http://www.btselem.org/english/planning_and_building/east_jerusalem_statistics.asp
Who knows? How many of them have a bother or a father who was killed, or a family who was evidected, or a mother who was humilated at a check point.
"B'Tselem Statistics on demolition of houses built without permits in East Jerusalem
years 1992-2010"
Actually the figure is 688.
And how many people were simply evicted?
"Jews whos home were demolished and were evicted of Gaza 8,600."
According to what source? Nothing is mentioned in your link.
q> drive on a "Palestinians only road"
Mindful of the "Whites Only" roads in South Africa.
Gosh, the world is going to hell in hen basket! Why oh why cannot all people recognize and appreciate bigotry for what it is?
How will Israel get secured borders while Hamas controls Gaza?
There are very few people even in the Israeli left wing still naive enough to think a final settlement with the Palestinians will end attacks from Palestine onto Israel.
There's no such thing a secured borders. Just ask the parents of the330 children Israel massacred in 2009.
Why does it build Jewish only housing and outposts on in Palestine?
It is a land grab.
According to the study's findings, during 2009 and 2010 the PA's reliance on donations increased – with a 20% growth in donations, totaling some $3.96 per year.
In real values, the scope of donations more than doubled within a period of four years.
The research, similarly to OECD reports, points to the PA's steadily increasing dependence on donation funds. In fact, the Palestinian people receive the largest amount of donations worldwide.
For every Palestinian citizen, the PA receives an average of $1,000 per annum, which amounts to an average of ILS 2,000 (about $560) per family, per month. The data reinforces the claim that there is no Palestinian economy, and that in reality is almost exclusively supported by the donation industry.
q> National Product comes from the United States
Israel got three billion from US taxpayers.
Notice how Debussey avoids mentioning how many dollars the PA actually collected from US.- of the promised $500 million.
Notice that most of this $500 will be dedicated to making improvements to the things that Israel (which will get over $3000 million) BLEW UP in Cast Lead.
Gosh: isn't this fun for the US taxpayer? They first off pay Israel billions of dollars and Israel rewards us by blowing up things we have paid for and- this is the fun part- Israel then asks for more money to replace all the weapons they used to blow up the things US taxpapers paid for (or US investors invested in, such as the power station).
The median family income in Israel is $38.000.
The question is: why does the American taxpayer give Israel a nickel?
You do read books right BF?
President Obama, you have the power the stop it. Please do not veto the resolution.
If Israel doesn't recognize the establishment of the state and moves to take control of the territories...no problem. The Palestinians would go to the UN, who would then force Israel to give the Palestinians full citizenship.
So the author thinks that while is it quite likely that Israel would not accept UN recognition of the Palestinian state, but they would accept the UN's determination that Palestinians should be given full citizenship??
Regardless of your view on the conflict, that is laughable.
Yet another pundit who, safely from the sidelines, boldly advocates positions that even acknowledges will likely lead to war.
And to those that are concerned that Palestine will be a semi-dictatorship...no problem. Israel has no worries about security, because the Palestinians will surely elect good democratic leaders (assuming their current leaders allow them to hold an election again. )It is apparently "safe to assume" that, for reasons largely unexplained.
q> that Israel would not accept UN recognition
Israel has had more than 40 years to recognize Palestine and for the last twenty years has know what terms were needed to have peace in the Middle East.
Israel is more comfortable mooching billions of dollars from the US and using those billions of dollars to hold onto land they stole in the war they started.
Palestine is not going to ask Israel for concessions any more.
Recognize what? There was no state of Palestine. Israel should have told a bunch of Jordanians and Egyptians that they are now the state of Palestine? That would have gone over great.
"land they stole in the war they started."
Which war did they start? You mean the one where Egypt committed an act of war and closed the straits of tiran, while amassing troops on the border and signing a pact with jordan and syria?
"Palestine is not going to ask Israel for concessions any more."
OK. So you can speak for them now? So when are they going to hold elections?
According to the study's findings, during 2009 and 2010 the PA's reliance on donations increased – with a 20% growth in donations, totaling some $3.96 per year.
In real values, the scope of donations more than doubled within a period of four years.
The research, similarly to OECD reports, points to the PA's steadily increasing dependence on donation funds. In fact, the Palestinian people receive the largest amount of donations worldwide.
For every Palestinian citizen, the PA receives an average of $1,000 per annum, which amounts to an average of ILS 2,000 (about $560) per family, per month. The data reinforces the claim that there is no Palestinian economy, and that in reality is almost exclusively supported by the donation industry.
False. As Rosenberg mentions in his article, 22 Arab States have signed a peace initiative offering to normalize relations and recognize Israel.
Israel has rejected it.
Peace, peace with Israel - that's the cornerstone, the prerequisite for recognition of Arab state in Palestine by any responsible leader, sane politician. Since Arab leaders have not demonstrated ability to control their own population and even more, Arab leaders continue and encourage incitement and glorification of terrorism it would be wrong to recognize any unilateral declaration by Arab side.
Israel has refused the offer since 2003. It's just goes to show who wants and doesn't want peace.
They demand that Israel submit to all arab demands in return for a promise of "normamlized relations"...not even a guarantee of peace.
Secondly, those immediately on Israels borders refused to back the agreement. Both Hamas and Hezbollah refused to accept the plan, Syria expressed reservations, and Iran condemned it.
So, even if Israel acquiesced to ALL the demands, it would still not have peace.
Additionally---the arab plan called for Israel to uproot a half million people in return for a "promise". The arabs never spelled out any repercussions should they (the arabs) renege on that promise.
Since Israel has been doing its darnedest to disrupt the peace process for over 40 years, it is long past time for Palestine to expect anything from these brutal occupiers.
The next step will be recognition by the EU.
It is not dissimilar to the occupation by the Soviets in the 90s.
Occupation of what exactly? Give you a hint, Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. That doesn't leave you much space, unless you're talking about 19th century (vbg).
There a countless propblems.
1. Building on someione else's land is anything but peaceful, which is why the 4th Geneva Convention ws created.
2. The terirtory is considered Palestinian where Palestinian homes are to be built. Palestinians are denied permits to build in these areas.
3. The homes are built on the best land with access to the West Bank's water sources, which the settlements annex and control.
4. To give acces to to he settlements, roads are created connecting them, which bisect the West Bank into non contiguous cantons.
5. To protect the settlements, the IDF stations troops at the periphery, who in turn, brutalize and oppress the Palestinian population
6. To protect the settlements, Israel continues it's apartheid wall to emcopass the settlements. The wall cuts 10 miles into Palestinian territory adn denies Palestinians access to their farms an orchards, thus forcing them to pass through check points.
Need I go on?
False. It's quite peaceful. It doesn't kill or injure anyone. And the West Bank is not "someone else's land".
"2. The terirtory is considered Palestinian where Palestinian homes are to be built. Palestinians are denied permits to build in these areas."
Are Palestinians homeless because of the settlements?
"3. The homes are built on the best land with access to the West Bank's water sources, which the settlements annex and control."
Are Palestinians dying of dehydration?
"4. To give acces to to he settlements, roads are created connecting them, which bisect the West Bank into non contiguous cantons.
5. To protect the settlements, the IDF stations troops at the periphery, who in turn, brutalize and oppress the Palestinian population
6. To protect the settlements, Israel continues it's apartheid wall to emcopass the settlements. The wall cuts 10 miles into Palestinian territory adn denies Palestinians access to their farms an orchards, thus forcing them to pass through check points."
Then those are bad and should be removed. But they don't pertain to the settlements intrinsically.
2. This area has no legal owner; the arabs rejected the UN partition plan and failed to set up and a state in the west bank, then jordan illegally occupied it, and then lost it after invading israel, being beaten, and retreating across the jordan river.
3. Completely untrue; while unequal water rights are an (exaggerated) concern, the "best land" meme is tired and untrue.
4. The roads were open to palestinians until the palestinians began shooting innocent civilians for traveling on them.
5. The problem is with the soldiers, not the settlements themselves.
6. The wall is hardly apartheid; there are many settlements outside of it. What is "apartheid" about protecting israeli citizens?; it was also only built after palestinian men started blowing themselves up in crowded areas of israel. In the few places where the fence denies palestinians access to their livelihood (e.g Bil'in), it is being moved.
Illegal.