Palestinian statehood: the chicken or egg conundrum

This is kind of a continuation from:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/11/terrorists-turned-statesmen.html

The idea expressed by the interviewee that (more than a few) Jews went through a transformation from terrorist to statesmen, but Palestinians are incapable could be why the peace process isn’t going anywhere.

If Israel expects that Palestinians can’t transform, as they did, from terrorist to statesman, then Israel isn’t going to give an inch and will in fact create conditions that breed terrorism as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don’t know, though, that this mutual understanding and respect has to precede talks and a Palestinian state. This would take forever. If we had waited on prejudice of African Americans to subside some before throwing out slavery and giving them civil rights, we would not have come as far as we have.

It comes down to the chicken and egg. Which are actually final status issues? Should we require a government, certain democratic benchmarks as we have been before a state is “awarded”? Or should a Palestinian state be declared first and negotiate Jerusalem’s international status, dismantling of settlements, removal of the wall, contiguous nature, etc in continuing negotiations? I still think one state should be considered; it would make all the other issues disappear.

Declaring a state first seems more logical to me. If no state is declared, then Israel feels free to continue the brutal occupation indefinitely, which is costly for Israel and obviously unjust and costly for Palestinians. If there is a state and other issues are worked out later, it seems there would be more of a reason for both sides to work things out.

***
Strangely enough, seems the world isn’t ready for this solution (statehood) that it claims in the end game for these negotiations that we always want to jump start. Everyone wants peace in the Middle East. Every head of state wants to assist in negotiations. This means nothing if they aren’t ready for the solution they claim is the goal of all this! Yet another contradiction in this never ending process…

Recognizing Palestinian state premature: EU
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AG1R720091117

U.S. "would veto" Palestinian state move: Senators
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091116/pl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_usa


The US and EU are saying no to a unilateral decision for Palestinians to move forward with a state. They want to return to negotiations that have stalled due to Israeli insistence on breaking the law and everyone else’s complicity in this crime. I believe that's called aiding and abetting.

A return to negotiations means Palestinians will have to give up more land- as if they had much, if any to give away in the first place. They were lured into negotiations with the US stand for international law that settlements are illegal and the US was going to go for a temporary halt to building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Due to Israeli insistence and certain events on the ground (continuing construction despite any US announcements), the US is falling back into line with Israel. What are the Palestinians supposed to do? Accept the injustice of more of the same or just move ahead with a state? It would be nice to have a bilateral agreement, but those always end up being Israel-US, not Israel -Palestinians anyway and under the circumstances, the latter is the best option. I had always thought leaving refugees, Jerusalem, borders, etc as "final status issues" was backwards anyway. Establishing a state first makes so much more sense than expecting Palestinians to act sovereign while trying to overcome travel restrictions, checkpoints, and other hassles and tragedies Israel imposes on them that make proving themselves or their sovereignty impossible.

I had always thought that everyone supported a Palestinian state. By definition, the much celebrated “two-state solution” demands it. It appears this is only the case under terms Israel agrees with, which will surely cement the status quo of collective punishment, blockade, travel restrictions, terrorism and humanitarian disaster that Israel has established.

And what’s this about Israel planning to retaliate if Palestinians unilaterally declare a state?? What kind of punishment can they throw at Palestinians that they aren’t already?

“Israel reacted quickly, warning that a negotiated peace agreement was the only solution to the conflict, while declaring a state without it would lead to Israeli counter-measures that could include annexation of more West Bank territory.”

Did Israel ask Palestinians' permission before declaring itself a state? Did the Palestinians get to dictate the terms of Israel declaring a state like everyone wants for Israel and the Palestinian state? I think not.

I still believe a single secular democratic state is the real answer, but I don’t guess I really have a say in this.

Israel's intentions... lets' stop lying to ourselves. Israeli leader's don't.

I heard this quote from Shamir today about Israel's real intent to stall with talks while they create facts on the ground with settlements that will make a Palestinian state impossible. We in the US often make it seem like Israel's trying their utmost and doing everything possible for peace that they can do; we are just waiting on Palestinians to fullfill their obligations. This is far from the truth if you listen to Israeli leaders themselves- Shamir, Sharon, etc.

Democracy Now Monday June 15, talking about Netanyahu's June 14 policy speech:

RABBI ARIK ASCHERMAN: Well, it’s, of course, significant that he even made a policy address. Israeli leaders don’t usually do that. That shows that he—that our prime minister felt a need to respond to President Obama in a very significant way.

I’m, unfortunately, always remembered of the words of our former prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, when he was voted out of office. He had been the prime minister during the beginning of the Madrid process. And he said, “You know, it’s too bad that I was voted out of office. My plan was to keep on talking and talking and talking, all the while creating facts on the ground, so that by the time we actually got anywhere, there would be—it would be moot. There would be nothing really to talk about.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/15/netanyahu_outlines_vision_for_a_demilitarized

***
This is the actual quote I found after some digging:

Mission accomplished
Osamah Khalil, The Electronic Intifada, 29 November 2007

After leaving office, Shamir explained why he agreed to attend the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, stating that although Israel participated in negotiations with the Palestinians, "I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years and meanwhile we would have reached a half million people in Judea and Samaria." [7]

[7] Joseph Harif, "Interview with Yizakh Shamir," Ma'ariv, 26 June 1992; Avi Shlaim, "Prelude to the Accord: Likud, Labor, and the Palestinians," Journal of Palestine Studies, p 23 (1994).

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9131.shtml

***
And here is some backpedaling from those remarks at the time, after ruffling feathers of "friends". There are just too many statements by too many leaders to believe anything other than the original impression. Especially if you read some of the other stuff Shamir said (his talk of "Greater Israel", etc).

Shamir remarks on autonomy 'misinterpreted'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/shamir-remarks-on-autonomy-misinterpreted-1530468.html

Read the fine print: Netanyahu agrees to two states... or does he?

He didn't agree to two states so much as one apartheid state and one amorphous ( and constantly shrinking) pseudostate with no military (?!?!) with several other provisions that flout international law and past agreements. Like their "recognition" of the Roadmap peace plan, the so-called reservations (check out the Roadmap's 14) for this momentous announcement negate it completely. If you're not going to remove ALL settlements and withdraw completely to pre-1967 borders, as Resolution 242 requires, then you are lying; you are not serious about peace.

Israel has made it clear that Iran is the only item on their agenda and that they think (absurdly) that Iran, not peace with Palestinians, is central to their and the region's peace and stability. This little publicity stunt is probably meant to shift the conversation away from settlements, which most Americans are coming to their senses about. And to warm up the White House for Lieberman's visit. We are a glutton for punishment. First Netanyahu, then Lieberman? What's next? Are we going to host a reunion of all the 1948 terrorists who are still alive? We could invite Rahm Emanuel's dad- we know he's good for some hateful slurs.

Avigdor Lieberman, the terrorist FM and top "diplomat", is coming to Washington this week. We should be banning this guy, not treating him with any sort of respect or credibility! As I have said before- because of this guy, we should be boycotting the entire state of Israel. If we let this terrorist in our country, then we should have NO problem honoring Hamas (the military wing, not the other) in the same way. Break out the red carpet for them and call them men of peace.

Netanyahu sets conditions for new peace talks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090614/wl_mcclatchy/3252418_1

While Netanyahu called for renewed peace talks without preconditions, he outlined a series of demands for the talks.

This guy is a fountain spewing doublespeak! He is full of it! Unbelievable. Yet Obama is probably taking this as a sign of his influence. Too bad, Israel is in reality making a fool out of us. That's par for the course, though.

Along with his call for Palestinians to accept a demilitarized state and explicitly recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, Netanyahu said there would be no discussion of ceding control of any parts of Jerusalem to establish a capital of a future Palestinian state or of allowing Palestinian refugees to return to ancestral homes they fled in 1948 when Israel was established in British-mandate
Palestine.

This is clearly a dead end. Who would accept those terms?? But in case you had any doubt, Netanyahu puts the nail in the coffin for peace with his remarks on settlements, all of which are illegal and would need to be removed for a viable Palestinian state.

But Netanyahu defended the settlers as Jewish pioneers and indicated that he would continue to support settlement construction in the West Bank .

"The settlers are neither the enemies of the people, nor are they the enemies of peace," Netanyahu said. "They are our brothers and sisters. Pioneers. Zionists. Principled people."

Principled people do not settle on land stolen by their country. Principled people don't make us believe the lie that Israel wants peace and two states, all the while grabbing land illegally with a goal and belief of a Greater Israel (the equal and opposite of "pushing Israel into the sea").

If settlers are brothers, not enemies, pioneers, and princlipled people, then so are Palestinian suicide bombers and rocket launchers.

But that's not how it is. The double standard says that it is ok for us to talk to terrorist and extremist Jews, but not Palestinians. It's ok to let Israel pick off the (scantily armed) security forces and imprison Parliament members, but fine to condemn Palestinians for lack of control over the area. It's every Jew's natural right to live in Israel (and apparently settlements on Palestinian land), but Palestinians aren't even afforded the right of return guaranteed them by the same UN Resolution Israel uses to justify it's very existance. It's ok for Israel to brutally oppress, imprison and punish the entire Palestinian population for the crimes of a few, but fine for us to ignore atrocities and violations of law ordered by Israel's top officials. In fact, we let terrorist Zionist Jews have state visits, but won't even talk to extremists on the other side. First, the British promise the land to Arabs, France, Zionists (and of course themselves) in an overlaping and deceitful fashion and make a huge mess of things, then we get involved and continue to stir the pot and side with the transplanted Europeans, rather than follow and enforce international law.