dagblog - Comments for "Palestinian Statehood and the Politics of Denial"

The Arab Spring is a turning

David Seaton — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 05:18:37 +0000

The Arab Spring is a turning point... the most important one since the Six Day War. Politically speaking, the Arab Spring means the Israelis are toast. With the collapse of pan-Arab nationalism the whole political front was based on the USA propping up a series of "moderate" dictators to keep the "Arab Street" in line. That seems to be finished. That way the contradiction Israel/oil comes more sharply into focus. The other industrial and emerging economies want the Palestinian situation resolved in a manner that will not complicate their economies in times like these.

What is left... Israel's military power and a wilting US prestige... for awhile yes, but make no mistake, The Arab Spring is a turning point... the most important one since the Six Day War.

Rick Perry basically says

artappraiser — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:37:12 +0000

In reply to Palestinian Statehood and the Politics of Denial

Rick Perry basically says this all happened, that the Palestinians got uppity, because Obama has treated them terrorists too nice:

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=238743

Tikun olam indeed, Genghis.

acanuck — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:17:57 +0000

In reply to Barth, I appreciate your

Tikun olam indeed, Genghis. An excellent post and an excellent comment. It was time to get this discussion going, and I'm glad you took the plunge before I felt obliged to. The strategic arguments for or against this move are irrelevant; the Palestinians -- and especially Abbas's government -- have run out of options. And this one offers at least some possibility of improving their bargaining position.

The panic with which the U.S. and Israel have reacted to the UN approach demonstrates they recognize this. Amazingly, despite the damage a UN vote will do to both their positions and reputations, neither has been able to come up with anything to offer Abbas as an alternative. Instead, they left it to the Europeans to try to fashion a "compromise" that offered non-member statehood recognition but without the right to access the International Criminal Court -- in other words, less than the Palestinians are already confident they can win in an up-or-down General Assembly vote. Bumbling.

Reportedly, the Israelis decided even this concession was too much, so the U.S. told EU policy chief Catherine Ashton not to float the idea with the Palestinians. Instead, Tony Blair was sent in to bluster and arm-twist. Palestinians described him as acting like "an Israeli diplomat."

So that's it. Despite knowing for months that this UN confrontation was coming, nobody developed a sensible plan to mitigate the damage. And the damage will be huge. Deservedly so.

What it comes down to is this: the Israelis see Palestinian statehood as within their power to grant or refuse, for which the Palestinians will have to pay a high price. The Palestinians see governing themselves as an inherent right; they realize they will have to negotiate borders, territory, water rights, etc. But they expect to negotiate nation to nation, with fairness as the underlying principle, not preponderance of military might. UN recognition would give their position moral standing. They'd be fools to drop their UN bid for vague promises.

I am asking a practical

Resistance — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:07:59 +0000

In reply to William Pfaff wrote this back

I am asking a practical question. What is Israel going to do with these people?

They'll probably do as President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad has done and no one has checked his hand.

Thanks. Some very good

Oxy Mora — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:48:33 +0000

In reply to That's a good question. The

Thanks. Some very good points.

Forced migration is fun for

jollyroger — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:37:42 +0000

In reply to That would be a perfect

Forced migration is fun for everyone.

But making aliyah was not forced, albeit it was migration

Anyway, everyone knows where the Jewish homeland is....Boro Park..

Touche. I humbly concede the

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:05:43 +0000

In reply to I see your point about the

Touche. I humbly concede the point.

That would be a perfect

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:03:23 +0000

In reply to Maybe Saudi Arabia could

That would be a perfect solution except for the sticky little problem that the Palestinians prefer to live in Palestine for some reason. One could equally say--and some have--that the U.S. and Europe should provide some other land for the Israelis. Forced migration is fun for everyone. Just ask the Cherokees.

Maybe Saudi Arabia could

Resistance — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:00:20 +0000

In reply to That's a good question. The

Maybe Saudi Arabia could donate to the cause and provide enough land for a Palestinian State?

It looks to me like they have plenty.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/middle-east/

How about Syria?

Open up their hearts, open up their land; seeing as how Israel is being stubborn and thinks their security is threatened.

Someone please tell me, would Israel's security be threatened?

Maybe Iran could find a place for the Palestinians?

It's a solution?

Barth, I appreciate your

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:38:45 +0000

In reply to It is never worth arguing

Barth, I appreciate your passion on the issue and understand your hesitance to engage. From me at least, you will get no poison darts. I have long appreciated both sides of the issue, and I find myself losing patience with both sides of the dispute. For the moment, however, I'm writing about the Israelis, not the Palestinians.

You are of course right that most Israelis and the Israeli state itself would welcome peace with the Palestinians--but only on their own terms. And that's frankly a false olive branch. What concerns me most is the lack of urgency that I sense from Israel. When I was growing up, the Israelis were far more desperate for a lasting peace, and they were willing to go much further to get it.

But now that they've more or less secured their borders from the constant threat of violence (thank goodness), they seem complacent. The economy is strong. Outside of a few border towns, their lives are safe. Why push for a peace that will force them to make compromises that they don't want to make?

There is not enough Israeli recognition of the moral disgrace upon which their security rests. It's a disgrace that too few people wish to face, so they take shelter in deflecting the blame--onto Hamas, Hezbollah, Abbas, whomever. That other actors have in the past and will continue to try to sabotage peace is without question. But their actions do not release Israel from its obligation to work urgently and aggressively to to resolve the outrage of the occupation. Tikkun olam.