President Obama's "State of the Union" left out the traditional call for the renewal of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations which, for years, has been boilerplate in Presidential addresses to Congress.
I imagine Obama left it out because his previous calls fell on deaf ears in Israel, with Prime Minister Netanyahu continuing to expand settlements.
And Netanyahu's announcement yesterday that Israel intends to annex Ariel, a West Bank settlement of 15,000 that is 25 miles deep into the West Bank, could be the death knell for negotiations. The Ariel announcement means that the borders of Israel would extend so far into the West Bank that a contiguous Palestinian state could not be created.
For their part, Palestinians resist negotiations because they have gone nowhere and succeed only in taking the onus off Israel during them.
Palestinians also argue that Israel uses periods of negotiations to seize more land without conceding anything, on the grounds that any "concession" would cause right-wingers in the governing coalition to walk out.
In fact, just yesterday, President Obama himself alluded to the fragility of Israel's coalition as an excuse for not applying pressure (as if we should care whether a right-wing coalition in Israel survives).
Palestinians have been especially reluctant to yield to the US call for negotiations ever since we forced the Palestinian Authority to reject the Goldstone Report on war crimes against their own people, making them look like utterly ridiculous marionettes.
So, Palestinians believe, they are better off without negotiations, letting the pressure on Israel build.
It may not work, but negotiations haven't worked either.
So where does that leave Palestinians? Are they completely without recourse?
Not at all. They can demand their rights without reference to statehood and without negotiations to achieve them. That means they punt on the question of one state, two states, or three states (don't forget Gaza). They demand their rights whether they are exercised within Israel or within their own country. After all, basic human rights are guaranteed to all people, whether in their own state or as a minority in another country.
These rights are specifically guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was ratified by the United Nations with the support of, among others, the United States and Israel. (It was written by Eleanor Roosevelt, the US delegate).
The rights it guarantees (the right to vote, equality before the law, freedom of movement and resistance, peaceful assembly and association, the right to own property and not to be deprived of it, among others) are precisely the rights denied to the Palestinians of Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
Why shouldn't the Palestinians demand these rights, laying aside the question of a state with internationally recognized borders until the Israelis are ready to seriously discuss returning to the pre-'67 borders?
But would Israelis agree to granting Palestinians basic human rights? That is hard to say. The far right has a strong racial animus to Arabs and would be reluctant to see any change in the status quo.
But that is not true of most Israelis. Most Israelis are deeply troubled by the occupation but cannot imagine how it would be possible to evacuate hundreds of thousands of settlers from their West Bank homes. They might be relieved if the Palestinians focused on rights rather than territories.
After all, Israel's options would then be clear. Either grant the Palestinians fundamental rights or confront the settlement demon and begin the process of de-occupation and the preservation of Israel as a Jewish state.
But what if Israel said "no"? "No" to rights. "No" to ending the occupation. Then what?
That is where the issue of consequences would rise. Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have repeatedly collapsed when Israel has refused to fulfill a commitment to which it agreed.
It accepts a proposal and then supplements it with a host of unilateral conditions. It then says it cannot implement the original commitment until its new conditions are met.
Or it uses the device employed when President Obama demanded a settlement freeze. Netanyahu changed the subject by accepting, in nebulous terms, the two-state solution and coupling that with a partial freeze. But he exempted East Jerusalem, the area of most significance to the Palestinians and where most of the settlement expansion is now occurring.
That transparent gambit won him praise from Secretary of State Clinton and the easing of US pressure.
Saying "no" had no consequences.
But saying no to a Palestinian call for fundamental human rights would have to produce consequences, of one kind or another. If it doesn't -- if Israel pays no price for simultaneously maintaining the occupation and refusing to accord rights to those under occupation -- then Palestinians will come to believe that they have no recourse at all except submission. And that isn't going to happen.
What would happen is that the Palestinians would go to the United Nations, to the European Union, and even to the United States to seek those consequences. And these would most likely come in the demand for sanctions. There is already a burgeoning BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement that is seeking to bring down the occupation the way a similar movement brought down apartheid.
Is this what Israelis want? Do they really want those concerned about the occupation to be forced to turn to an option this extreme?
I know that the last thing I want is a successful international movement that would boycott and sanction Israel as if it was apartheid South Africa. But it's probably inevitable unless Israelis come to their senses and begin the process of ending the occupation while the decision is still theirs to make.
As for the United States, President Obama needs to stop worrying about the survival of Israel's right-wing coalition. He should instead focus on the survival of Israel itself, not to mention the well-being of Palestinians whose suffering is mightily abetted by US policies (and arms). And that means pressure, pressure, pressure. For Israel's own sake.
I used to believe that there was no alternative to negotiations. I was wrong. There is. And, at this rate, its day will arrive soon.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Resistance (defined by you as terrorism) is the by-product of Injustice.
In general, am I to understand that you are opposed to the Palestinians negotiating? I suppose you want them to continue "resisting," killing Israeli civilians and causing more casualties on both sides.
The only way the Palestinians - and the Israelis - will have any kind of peaceful future is by negotiations, not violence.
Israel stalls, negotiates placing impossible demands on the Palestinians, and then stalls some more - all the while building building building the settlements to make withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Palestinians want what they are entitled to, and peace.
The Israelis want what they are NOT entitled to, and will do whatever they can to get it.
The two issues are inextricably linked: if the Palestinians give up their rights they give up their land, if they give up their land they forfeit their rights.
They won't have to choose because it's not possible to.
The Palestinians and non Jewish residents of Israel merely have to wait. When Israel encompasses the whole area that the Zionists claim, the non Jewish population will exceed the Jewish population by almost 3 to one.
At that point, Israel face will the same choice as So. Africa did ; end apartheid or be ostracized by the world, legally by the UN.
Israel's best chance of remaining a Jewish state is to return to the 67 borders, accept the Saudi peace plan, and let the UN handle the Palestinian state.
This was pretty much the basis of Barak/Clinton offer. The negotiation process was rejected by Palestinain revanchists in favor of suicide bombing campaign on Israel citizens.
The offer is no longer available... sorry.
The 67 ceasefire lines were not borders, at the Arabs' insistence. Israel returned to those lines with Gaza, and got terror and rockets in return.
The Saudi plan includes the non-negotiable requirement for a return of the refugees, which will exactly destroy the Jewish state. And Israel can and will never relinquish sovereignty over Jewish Jerusalem.
And if the U.N. "handles" the Palestinian state the way they handle Lebanon and Hizbullah, or Rwanda, or Sarajevo.....well, you get the point.
Strictly on Take-it -or- leave basis.
Nothing else is available or will be available for foreseeable future.
Everything else is a revanchist phantasm without basis in reality.”
it's better to discuss the Palestinian problem like adults, not like adolescents....
"The Palestinians today are the worst enemy of their own cause. The time has come for us to tell them this openly, out of love, and not out of vindictiveness."
"The behavior of the various Palestinian factions, and the rivalry between them, looks to the world like efforts to maintain the status quo. .... have so far shown no political maturity proving that they want a solution instead of rejecting one."
Dr. Mamoun Fandy:
Even when did have unified Palestinian leadership, they rejected negotiations in favor of a guerrilla war on Israeli schools. buses and cafes. This preposterous choice set back the case of Palestinian state for decades, if not longer.
Anyway, are Palestinains willing to take a lesser deal now?
Because nothing approaching Barak/ Clintion deal is available now.
Palestinains can declare the state on the land their control.
U.N. and Israel will be happy with that solution.
Of course Palestinains will not be able to control their borders because netiher Israel, nor Egypt, nor Jordan, nor ( I suspect) Lebanon want an influx of hoards of various foreign Jihadists into open border Palestine.
Ah, the difficult realities of the Middle East.
Let Jordan take over the West Bank.
Done and done.
Done, done, and done.
(PS, last time there was a Jewish state there, it expanded its borders by force, and when it did so, the practice of the army was to kill 2/3rds of the people (at the time, they only regarded males as people). I'm glad the new Israeli army instead decided that all it needed to do was drive them out)
Got them nothing but a serious case of indigestion.
Basic Arab-Islamic narrative can only deal with Arab Muslims being controlled by other Arab Muslims.
And Gaza can remain, well Gaza. While under Muslim Brotherhood Iranian controlled franchisee, Hamas, Egypt wants nothing to do with: Witness the wall they're building.
"There is already a burgeoning BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement that is seeking to bring down the occupation the way a similar movement brought down apartheid". UNTRUE. The aim of the Palestinians, as well as themovements ranged against Israel, are not aimed at "bringing down the occupation", as it was not "apartheid" that was brought down. The country that was South Africa ceased to exist, and was replaced by the current state. The goal is equally, to dissolve the single Jewish majority state, and replace it with yet another Arab majority Muslim state.
"The Ariel announcement means that the borders of Israel would extend so far into the West Bank that a contiguous Palestinian state could not be created." UNTRUE. There is no geographic impediment to continuity.
"Palestinians also argue that Israel uses periods of negotiations to seize more land without conceding anything, on the grounds that any "concession" would cause right-wingers in the governing coalition to walk out." UNTRUE. Why did they reject negotiated offers with the left-wing governments of Barak, Olmert, Livni?
"So, Palestinians believe, they are better off without negotiations, letting the pressure on Israel build." TRUE.
"The rights it guarantees " it guarantees to " peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." 98% of Palestinians are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Auhtority.
" the pre-'67 borders". UNTRUE. The 67 lines were ceasefire lines, specifically rejected by the Arabs as "final borders".
"Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have repeatedly collapsed when Israel has refused to fulfill a commitment to which it agreed." Absolutely UNTRUE!! How many times have the Palestinians sold "an end to violence", "an end to terror" for Israeli political and territorial concessions?
Urgent
Need
To
Replace
trUth with
Fiction
Meanwhile, In the 'Settlements', buildings are being completed at about the same pace they were being completed a couple of years ago. Nice 'freeze'.
I think that one IS a settler.
- The situation in Palestine (the area south of Lebanon, north of Egypt and west of Jordan) is extremely unstable. That is, the status quo is not sustainable for many more years (I suspect less than 25).
- If there is not a fair negotiated agreement, there will be war with all the death and destruction that comes with war. As in any war, there is no guaranteed winner. That is, Israel could lose the war, forcing most of the Jews to flee the ME. Even though many Israelis think they can always win, this is not actually a given and Israel only has to lose once. The world is awash in weapons that are equal to or better than anything Israel has or will have.
- The Jews had to wait for ~2000 years to forcibly take over Palestine, I suspect the Arabs will not have to wait that long, but would, if they had to. This is the problem with taking land by force, eventually the opposing side can turn the tables.
- The only way to remove many of the settlers is with deadly force and there is no one in Israel with both the political and military power to remove the settlers, therefore, there can not be a two-state agreement, period.
So the bottom line is, the situation will not be resolved by fair negotiation but by massive war, with lots of deaths. Why do the Israelis wish this on their
If nothing else the Palestinians have shown they will never give up on their struggle to regain at least some of their homeland. Thankfully more Palestinians (and liberal jewish Israelis for that matter) are now starting to realise that military might is irrelevant when the debate is about universal human rights to which we are all entitled. On that front Israel lost many years ago.
2/2
Human rights is the way forward and the only negotiating framework that will bring about a permanent stable peace.
To date the debate has been based on the status quo (ie "what Israel wants") as opposed to what it has a legal entitlement to under International Humanitarian Law. Thus Israel repeatedly portrays itself as making generous concessions to the Palestinians when in fact the reverse is true: the concessions always involve the Palestinians forfeiting what is legally theirs, for the benefit of Israel. For example the settlements : they are ALL illegal yet in previous agreements when the Palestinians agreed to permit around half of the settlements to be annexed (the land swap) Israel claimed it was making generous concessions, when it was Palestinians agreeing to give up what is theirs by law - they are the ones making concessions.
1/2