The Debate on a Palestinian State- the Time article

This article inspired the title of my last post because I intended to include it, but I kept remembering stuff and it went longer and longer, much like this sentence, so I didn't include it...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2094388,00.html

On FB:

The Debate on a Palestinian State- Time Magazine- Having only read the title, I say the only thing to actually debate is one binational state or two. The fact that Palestinians deserve and need a state should not be up for debate at all- it is a given and too long overlooked. If statehood is the debate, then to be fair, we should also debate whether Israel's statehood should be revoked or not.

On FB, after reading it:

An Israeli minister (Yossi Beilin), president of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Haass), a Palestinian journalist (Daoud Kuttab), and Uzi Landau (of the extremist Yisrael Beiteinu party of all things!). Not exactly variety. If we were talking about Israeli politics, this would be a panel. Wow. There is a range of opinion among just Palestinians and they didn't even go there. And to include the party of the extremist settler Foreign Minister Lieberman! Settlers are illegal, so until there is one state or they move back to Israel, they shouldn't even be allowed in office, print, etc. I mean, if you're going to listen to and seriously consider these guys, there is no reason not to get Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad in on the action. But, then they couldn't get another Palestinian opinion, so the chances of that are nil.

Beilin- To his credit, he thinks Israel should vote yes the a Palestinian state... but likens it to jumping on the train headed for the train wreck to steer it properly and save the day. Israel can avoid disaster (whatever that means- keeping the occupation, run the show, renounce any claim/ownership to/of any land outside the W Bank and Gaza??) and look like the hero for restarting dead negotiations, shocking the world, and graciously letting Palestinians have some of the same rights God apparently gave Israel and the US. He does believe the bid will not preclude negotiations. I agree.

Haass- Our Bush-era Jewish official. Of course he's on team negotiations only. He thinks the bid is a desperation move. It doesn't matter what Abbas' (or Arafat's before him, for that matter) motivation is. The Palestinian people deserve this. It is long overdue. Too much is made of the leaders' motivations when there is no state. He also thinks rightly that Israel would make life unbearable, but wrongly that this is reason to abandon statehood via the UN. Another "reason" to abandon the bid is it would make America look bad to Arabs (and cause an anti-American govt in Egypt which causes instability) since we would have to veto. That just makes me laugh. So do the right thing- don't veto! Also humorous was, "...direct talks, the only proven method of advancing peace in the region." Since I'm quoting, I'll add one I actually believe: "There can not be peace without justice."

Kuttab- Basically says what I'm thinking. Palestinians have no choice. This is the right move and right time. Negotiations have led nowhere despite cooperation, patience and promises. He is not naive- he knows the UN bid won't end the occupation and negotiations are necessary. The goal is to have 2 states negotiate, rather than the occupied and the occupier. A valid point no one ever brings up.

Landau- Where to begin! I can't possibly list every falsehood, wild accusation and myth because I'd be retyping the whole section. If you can think of a misconception, he said it. And Iran's in there at the end. Palestinians are trying to get a free lunch and are abandoning Oslo with this move. Riiight. Abbas' "flaunting past agreements." Check. Auschwitz mention. Check. (And it was in talking about the internationally recognized 1967 borders, not anyone wanting to push Israel into the sea.) Framing of discussion (explicitly) as not about equality, but about how fragile the state with the 4th largest army is. Palestinians have walked away from offers for a state in the hopes of gaining more and destroying Israel (decoded- Palestinians want equality and sovereignty, not institutionalized occupation). (???) Abbas is a Holocaust denier, has made up with Hamas (uuhhh...hello...unity govt...and you include Yisrael Beiteinu, so what's your problem??) and has never reciprocated any of Israel's good faith measures. Whaaa? Good faith measures. Now that's a good one. He wants a Palestinian Sadat. Not possible. Sadat dropped Palestinian issues in order to make a very profitable deal with Israel. I won't say it couldn't happen, but he probably wouldn't live long. He says Abbas is inciting violence by encouraging a state and UN bid because it's only going to cause frustration. And he brings it home with an Iran is "waiting to reap the prize" scare. 

At least we ended lighter with a little fiction writing for the 4th and final section. It was almost funny. Almost.

Palestinian Statehood "Debate" / Dear President Obama

UN begins weighing Palestinian statehood bid- France 24 - 9/26/11

"US President Barack Obama says the UN bid is an unrealistic shortcut that will not produce real and lasting peace on the ground between the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Right? Israel hasn't respected any other UN resolution, so why would this be any different?!

Very perceptive of him, yet wrong conclusion. Just because the UN bid won't solve the whole deal, doesn't mean we shouldn't support it or that it isn't a positive step. And since Israel won't accept a Palestinian state that is equal in every way to any other state, this is actually the only way to get things done.

 If this is meant to be a two state deal, then sure, you have to send those settlers packing immediately, which is probably a concern and Israel wouldn't be able to go in and demolish houses, forbid the return of ALL refugees, take hundreds prisoner for whatever reason, hold people without charge, control the water supply, attack power and police infrastructure, control the borders and seas, they'd have to get rid of all those checkpoints, and get out of the new state completely. How to get Israel to comply without using force? That's been the dilemma all along, I guess. A state would make this imperative. I would hope. Not that it shouldn't have before.

In a two state solution that leads to one state, all you'd have to worry about was an apartheid situation and equality and I think since these issues have been dealt with before that the beast could be tamed and democracy achieved. Finally.

***

I have to say that the UN bid was one thing that prompted one of few letters I've written to Obama in his term.  The other was a letter asking me to donate. I wanted to respond to their catchy subject line- Will you say yes?? Will he??

Submitted via webform 9/26/2011:

Dear President Obama,

I am writing you to let you know I disagree strongly with your opposition to the Palestinian UN bid for statehood. If we truly believe in the opening paragraphs of our own Declaration of Independence, this is something we need to support, like democratic change in Tunisia and Egypt. The Palestinians have work to do on their own government that can only be accomplished when unfettered by the shackles of Israel's brutal, restrictive, destructive Occupation. We acknowledge and affirm Jews' right to return to their homeland every day and it is time we act on Palestinians' right to a free and normal life in the same homeland that the two peoples must share.

Sharing the land and guaranteeing both peoples' rights to exist in their homeland and return and live freely and equally in that same land is the only way.

***

A past post:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2011/04/palestinian-statehood-upgraded-status.html

***

Congress pro-peace letter (or is it-- you decide)

This particular letter is supported by (Jewish) Americans for Peace Now and is from May 2010 (my apologies). The Congressional action in my last post reminded me of this other one. A lot of stuff they do is great, but support for this letter is not one of them. It's apparent goal is to verbally support peace and the start of peace talks between Israel and Palestinians, but it actually smears rather successful Palestinian efforts and puts Netanyahu and Israel on a pedestal they most certainly don't deserve.

Full text of the letter is at this link:
http://peacenow.org/entries/feinstein_letter

"Pro-peace" Senate letter (as it's called)

As steadfast supporters of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship, we are writing to express our support for the start of proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on ending the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the active participation of U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell.

It will solidify Israel's identity as a Jewish, democratic state by giving it safe and secure borders.

Attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah are mentioned as obstacles, but they are often in areas not controlled by the PA; they are Israeli controlled. This is often blamed on Abbas, though. Interestingly, Netanyahu's obstinance isn't alluded to, nor the fact that he chose such to embrace people like Lieberman who are in fact settlers (part of the problem) and terrorists who make public statements that undermine peace and call into question Israel's desire for peace and value placed on human life and rights.

This is indicative of congress's view:

We applaud Prime Minister Netanyahu for committing to direct talks and we urge you to press President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to reciprocate.

Just one report on this reciprocation that Congress is so intent on not seeing:

While No One is Looking, the Palestinians are Building a State (June 2010)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/16/while_no_ones_looking_the_palestinians_are_building_a_state

US House to vote no to Palestinian state

Sign the petition. Palestinians are ready for a state. It's always us and or Israel (what's the difference really) who aren't.

This reminds me of another Congressional action this year in the form of a letter by Feinstein, I believe, that I found utterly ridiculous. It was meant to support peace talks, but ended up smearing Palestinians and their efforts and putting Israel on a very high pedestal it doesn't deserve in the least.

And as for the "problem" with a unilateral decision... boo hoo. Israel makes them all the time and often innocents die as a result. I'm glad Palestinians are taking the bull by the horns for a change.

---
From the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation:

We are outraged to learn that Rep. Howard Berman, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is trying to push through Congress today a resolution “condemning unilateral declarations of a Palestinian state.”

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” the worst stumbling block to freedom’s advance is the person who “paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's [or woman’s] freedom.”

Yet, this is exactly what Rep. Berman’s resolution seeks to do: subjugate Palestinian freedom and self-determination to Israel’s indefinite timeline. As MLK said, “‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’”


TEXT OF RESOLUTION

Supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral measures to declare or recognize a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.

Whereas a true and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties;

Whereas Palestinian leaders have repeatedly threatened to declare unilaterally a Palestinian state and to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations and other international forums;

Whereas Palestinian leaders are reportedly pursuing a coordinated strategy of seeking recognition of a Palestinian state within the United Nations, in other international forums, and from a number of foreign governments;

Whereas on November 24, 2010, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, wrote to the President of Brazil, requesting that the Government of Brazil recognize a Palestinian state, with the hope that such an action would encourage other countries likewise to recognize a Palestinian state;

Whereas on December 1, 2010, in response to Abbas’s letter, the Government of Brazil unilaterally recognized a Palestinian state;

Whereas on December 6, 2010, the Government of Argentina announced its decision to recognize unilaterally a Palestinian state, and the Government of Uruguay announced that it would unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state in 2011;

Whereas, on March 11, 1999, the Senate adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, and on March 16, 1999, the House of Representatives adopted House Concurrent Resolution 24, both of which resolved that ‘‘any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition’’;

Whereas Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated on October 20, 2010, that ‘‘There is no substitute for face-to-face discussion and, ultimately, for an agreement that leads to a just and lasting peace.’’;

Whereas, on November 5, 2010, United States Department of State Spokesman Mark Toner, responding to a questions about the Palestinians possibly taking action to seek recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations, said, ‘‘[T]he only way that we’re going to get a comprehensive peace is through direct negotiations, and anything that might affect those direct negotiations we feel is not helpful and not constructive’’;

Whereas Secretary Clinton stated on November 10, 2010, that ‘‘we have always said and I continue to say that negotiations between the parties is the only means by which all of the outstanding claims arising out of the conflict can be resolved. . .There can be no progress until they actually come together and explore where areas of agreement are and how to narrow areas of disagreement. So we do not support unilateral steps by either party that could prejudge the outcome of such negotiations.’’;

Whereas on December 7, 2010, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip J. Crowley stated, ‘‘We don’t think that we should be distracted from the fact that the only way to resolve the core issues within the process is through direct negotiations.’’;

Whereas Secretary Clinton state on December 10, 2010, that “it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that will be sustainable”;

Whereas the Government of Israel has made clear that it would reject a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence, has repeatedly affirmed that the conflict should be resolved through direct negotiations with the Palestinians, and has repeatedly called on the Palestinian leadership to return to direct negotiations; and

Whereas efforts to bypass negotiations and to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state, or to appeal to the United Nations or other international forums or to foreign governments for recognition of a Palestinian state, would violate the underlying principles of the Oslo Accords, the Road Map, and other relevant Middle East peace process efforts;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) Reaffirms its strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition;

(2) reaffirms its strong opposition to any attempt to establish or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians;

(3) urges Palestinian leaders to—

(A) cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process, including efforts to gain recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations, within the United Nations, and in other international forums prior to achievement of a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and calls upon foreign governments not to extend such recognition; and

(B) resume direct negotiations with Israel immediately;

(4) supports the Obama Administration’s opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state;

(5) Calls upon the Administration to:

(a) lead a diplomatic effort to persuade other nations to oppose a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and to oppose recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations, within the United Nations, and in other international forums prior to achievement of a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians; and

(b) affirm that the United States would (i) deny recognition to any unilaterally declared Palestinian state and (ii) veto any resolution by the United Nations Security Council to establish or recognize a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated by the two parties.

---

We’re asking you to take action now because this resolution will be voted on today. (By the way, the text of the resolution isn’t even public yet, but we got our hands on a copy of it, which we’re publishing below.) Here’s what you can do:

1. Sign our petition to Rep. Berman letting him know that it is wrong for the United States to put a timeline on Palestinian freedom and self-determination.

If we get 5,000 signatures before the vote, we will hand deliver the signatures to Rep. Berman to let him know in person how outraged you are by his resolution. Help us reach our goal now by signing the petition and then spreading the word.

2. Call your Representative and ask him/her to vote “no” or “present” on this resolution and to speak against it on the House floor. After you sign the petition, you will be redirected to a page where you can enter your zip code and then get the phone number for your Representative.

Use one or more of the talking points below when calling your Representative, but be sure to call now before the vote!

---

TALKING POINTS

* I urge Representative X to vote “no” or “present” on the resolution condemning Palestinian statehood, and ask him/her to speak against the resolution on the House floor.

* It is wrong for Congress to condemn Palestinian attempts to achieve freedom and self-determination. Congress has no business putting a timeline on Palestinian human rights.

* Israel has shown repeatedly that it prefers to colonize Palestinian land, rather than end its illegal 43-year military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip and negotiate in good faith to establish an independent Palestinian state. Under these circumstances, Palestinians cannot be blamed for seeking alternatives ways to establish an independent state.

* This resolution paternalistically demands Palestinians “resume direct negotiations with Israel immediately” even while Israel continues to illegally colonize Palestinian land supposedly designated for a future Palestinian state.

* This resolution calls on the Administration to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries by opposing the recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations.

* The text of this resolution was kept secret prior to the vote, the Obama Administration probably had no time to offer its opinion on it, there were no hearings about it, and the public had little chance to offer its opinion on it. The process by which this resolution is being brought to a vote is fundamentally anti-democratic.

South America's got brains- and guts

And that's what it's going to take to solve this thing. Maybe the US should hand over the mediator job to them.

Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay are recognizing Palestine and possibly establishing diplomatic ties. Apparently, Iran said France was also recognizing Palestine, but that's false. Of course, you can guess what the US and Israel have to say...

A U.S. State Department official said Argentina's move was a "premature step [that] does not contribute to our common goal of a two-state solution."

"Negotiations are the pathway for the parties to see the realization of their aspirations - for the Israelis, security - for the Palestinians, an independent, viable, and sovereign state of their own," the U.S. official added.

I mistakenly read this as an Israeli official's statement at first. Kind of funny. In most cases, I guess they are interchangeable anyway.

Israel called it regrettable and said the recognition won't change the Israel-Palestinian relationship. (What will, pray tell??)

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/argentina-joins-brazil-in-recognition-of-palestinian-state-1.329220


What about recognizing the already legally accepted boundaries of 1967 doesn't contribute to a two state solution?? The longer we wait, the more settlements Israel will build. They build them whether or not there's an agreement not to build and they announce it during high profile state visits. How about those settlements for the future of a two state solution?? Countries should have recognized Palestine a lot sooner. They'd have more land without settlers that need evicting. Hope it catches on.

Interesting how Abbas (unilaterally, I suppose) requesting recognition by various countries is frowned upon, but Israel's unilateral decision of "withdrawal" which was meant to be in their words political formaldehyde was welcomed as a step toward peace... I guess when you consider the settlement situation, this is just par for the course, but it further reveals our perverted view of this conflict and unjustifiable support for Israel alone.

Palestinian statehood imminent??

Palestinians renew threat to seek UN recognition
Jordan Times
October 26, 2010
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=31267

One possibility would be asking the United Nations to recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, territories Israel occupied in the 1967 Mideast war.

That would not dislodge the Israeli military from the West Bank, dismantle the 120 Jewish settlements there or give Palestinians free access to East Jerusalem. But it could isolate Israel and change the diplomatic equation.

Now, I like the sound of that last sentence. But, if the Palestinians get any small piece of what they deserve or some form of justice, it will isolate Israel and change the diplomatic equation. One state will produce a more familiar form of apartheid, after all.

Of course, Netanyahu said only direct talks would produce peace. Hmmm. What, then, was the Gaza disengagement? Was that through direct talks? How was Israel formed?? Did Israel talk to Palestinians about that? Direct talks (i.e. filtering any national ambitions through Israel's sieve) are fine for Palestinians, but Israel is above all of this and must control any and all outcomes?

I've often thought scrapping talks and declaring a state should be the way to go, especially if you're going for two states. The only one who doesn't recognize Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory is Israel, who considers it Israel. They really shouldn't encounter too many problems... Except the US's unreasonable and predictable objections.

This seems like a bold move for Abbas, who has lacked backbone in dealing with the US and Israel. This article speculates that it's only a threat to move things along or pressure Israel. I hope they can make good on this if they need to. I think it could be the only way they will get anything from Israel.

***

And on a sort of related note, an UNRWA person telling Palestinians to not count on a state; just work on assimilating into whichever country took you in. I wonder if he is commenting on how likely Israel is to allow a state or on what he thinks Palestinians have a right to do...

The formatting was crazy on this email (below), so I got rid of it. Now I have to fix it, but maybe it won't be too annoying to read:

November 1, 2010
For Immediate Release

ACTION ALERT: DEMAND THE IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL of UNRWA OFFICIAL ANDREW WHITLEY
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition is shocked and dismayed that a senior UNRWA official, Andrew Whitley, made a statement to the National Council of US-Arab Relations on October 21, 2010, that the Palestinian refugees should not entertain the "cruel illusion" that they will ever exercise their inalienable Right of Return and that they should start considering "their own role in the societies where they are", or elsewhere. This statement is a grave breach of duty and betrayal by Whitley of the trust vested in UNWRA by the world community and, particularly, by the refugees themselves. As a UN official, Mr Wiltley undermined the integrity and the credibility of UNRWA and exposed himself as the enemy of the people he is supposed to serve. In 1948, The UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 which calls for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes, and affirmed this resolution 110 times so far. This same resolution created UNCCP to repatriate the refugees. UNRWA was established in accordance with Resolution 302 which, in paragraph 20, requires UNRWA to uphold Resolution 194. Thus, while the UN affirms every year the call for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands of origin, in order to reverse the ethnic cleansing of 1948, this UN official has called for the perpetuation of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian refugees; such ethnic cleansing is a war crime according to the Rome Statute of 1998. ACTION

Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition calls on all its members, supporters and people of conscience to write to His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon, The Secretary General of the United Nations to demand the immediate dismissal of Mr. Andrew Whitley.

SAMPLE LETTER

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
The Secretary General of the United Nations

Your Excellency,

I was shocked and dismayed that a senior UNRWA official, Andrew Whitley, made a statement to the National Council of US-Arab Relations on October 21, 2010, that the Palestinian refugees should not entertain the "cruel illusion" that they will ever exercise their inalienable Right of Return and that they should start considering "their own role in the societies where they are", or elsewhere.

While the UN affirms every year the call for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands of origin, in order to reverse the ethnic cleansing of 1948, this UN official has called for the perpetuation of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian refugees; such ethnic cleansing is a war crime according to the Rome Statute of 1998.

Therefore I call on your Excellency

1. To dismiss Andrew Whitley from his UN position immediately
2. To censor him for his breach of his duties as UNRWA official and disavow his statements.

Such measures are necessary to maintain the integrity of the UN's main agency, UNRWA, and the confidence of all people, especially the Palestinian refugees, in this unique agency.

Sincerely

Your name
Address
Telephone number

Please address messages to: inquiries@un.org and cc f.grandi@unrwa.org; c.gunness@unrwa.org; s.mshasha@unrwa.org; j.ging@unrwa.org; r.cook@unrwa.org; s.lombardi@unrwa.org; r.hearn@unrwa.org; b.shenstone@unrwa.org; a.whitley@unrwa.org; l.takkenberg@unrwa.org; maher.nasser@unvienna.org

Please cc us at alerts@al-awda.org on all your correspondence Until Return,
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition
PO Box 131352
Carlsbad, CA 92013, USA
Tel: 760-918-9441
Fax: 760-918-9442
E-mail: info@al-awda.org
WWW: http://al-awda.org/

Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition (PRRC) is the largest network of grassroots activists and students dedicated to education and advocacy for the restoration of Palestinian human, national, legal, political and historical rights in full with particular emphasis on the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and lands of origin from which they have been dispossessed since 1948. PRRC is a not for profit tax-exempt educational and charitable 501(c)(3) organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States of America. Under IRS guidelines, your donations to PRRC are tax-deductible. To donate, go to http://www.al-awda.org/donate.html and follow the instructions. To become a member, go to http://www.al-awda.org/membership.html

No Peace Without Justice: Just In Darfur??

Aha! So they can put these words together in this order! They are aware of this concept!

Now, to get over the Cold War and the Israel lobby (AIPAC) apply it to Israel...


Obama says no peace in Sudan without justice, urges cooperation with ICC

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35670


-------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: http://tiny.cc/y3hqc (Oct 2009)

As Justice Goldstone stated, “The ongoing lack of justice is undermining any hope for a successful peace process and reinforcing an environment that fosters violence.”

*** *** *** *** ***
Sadly, this article from 2005 is no less relevant in 2010...
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk02122005.html

*** *** *** *** ***
A more recent article from July 2010 distills the Israeli left and right's position on justice (and hence peace) and the one and two state solutions.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/one-state-debate-explodes-myth-about-the-zionist-left/

I had always thought the Israeli left the reasonable bunch. In general, though, they are for a two state solution with walls and separation. The new J Street Lobby is definitely in this camp.

The right, unexpectedly is exploring a one state solution. Sounds good, but their vision is not of a state for it's citizens, but rather a state for Jews in all of Mandate Palestine where Palestinian majorities will be gerrymandered out, loyalty oaths to the Jewish state will be demanded, and Palestinians will be second or third class citizens.

Anyway, the article gets you thinking about peace and justice in the one or two state contexts.

Palestinians stop rockets; Lieberman threatens against a Palestinian state

Gaza groups agree to stop rockets
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=172485


Good news, right?

Maybe we can expect peace and goodwill from Israel as well?


Israeli FM warns Palestinians not to declare state
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians


Wrong!


Israeli FM warns Palestinians not to unilaterally declare a state??

You know, this would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that the US backs whatever Israel decides. So, as dumb as this sounds coming out of this bigoted (former?) terrorist’s mouth, it matters. ☹

Israel was allowed to declare a state on mostly Palestinian land.
Whose permission did they get?
Israel is allowed to unilaterally “disengage” from Gaza and try and dodge responsibility. Israel is allowed to do whatever in the name of security.

Palestinians, however, aren’t even entitled to basic necessities, let alone national aspirations!

Most free nations consider freedom and national identity a God-given right. Not Israel.

http://tinyurl.com/yzql4qn

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.