The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    Palestinian Statehood and the Politics of Denial

    By Michael Wolraich on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 12:30pm | Politics

    For once, the stars aligned to favor an unlucky people. Defying the odds, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed to admit a country of refugees still struggling to build a permanent state. The Security Council's recognition did not change the "facts on the ground." The refugees still had to fight for sovereignty and security. But the international recognition offered them a symbol of dignity that they had never experienced. They were not just a people. They were a nation.

    That nation was Israel. The year was 1949.

    The Palestinians now seek to emulate Israel's example. President Mahmoud Abbas has defied the United States, the Arab League, and even Hamas by seeking full U.N. member status, which requires Security Council approval.

    His bid for U.N. recognition will probably fail, much as Israel's first bid failed in 1948. But there will be a second, and if that fails a third--until the stars align once more to favor another unlucky people.

    The first bid will fail because the Israelis fear for the consequences if Palestinians gain the same recognition that they themselves were granted in 1949. And because the Israelis fear it, the American Jews fear it. And because the American Jews fear it, the United States will veto it.

    What is behind the fear?

    The Israelis do not fear Palestinian statehood because it will move any borders or shoot any rockets. U.N. membership for Palestine would not alter the facts on the ground any more than Israel's U.N. membership once did.

    It's the facts in the air that Israel fears--the ethereal logos of the human mind.

    For years, Israelis have refused to negotiate with various Palestinian representatives with the excuse that these representatives do not recognize Israel's right to exist. But how well does this rationalization hold up when Israel likewise refuses to recognize Palestine's right to exist? For when the world acknowledges a Palestinian nation, Israel's tortured efforts to avoid uttering the word "Palestine" will be appear as senseless and dogmatic as when its enemies substitute "Zionist entity" for Israel.

    There is more. For if Palestine is a state, reason insists that the presence of Israeli soldiers on Palestinian land is an occupation, that the incarceration of Palestinian citizens in Israeli prisons is colonialism, and that the acquisition of Palestinian land is imperialism.

    Occupation. Colonialism. Imperialism. With Palestinian statehood these words become more than the hysterical propaganda of leftists and jihadists. They gain a rhetorical power that no rational person who accepts the premise can deny--not even the Israelis themselves.

    And so they seek to suppress the premise--to keep the world and themselves from acknowledging that the Palestinians are a sovereign people who deserve their own government and that it is Israel and Israel alone which would deny them their security, their freedom, their land, and their dignity.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Yes, and next week may finally put paid to the fiction of America's honest brokerage of the peace process.


    by Red Planet on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 12:46pm

    Great lead in with the events of 1949.

    I mean, well done!


    by Richard Day on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 1:09pm

    Great piece.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 1:16pm

    The UN has never granted statehood to a people from whom groups of militants engaged in bombings and terror attacks seeking to further their cause. Or maybe they did.  link.


    by NCD on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 1:59pm

    The Israeli right wing is only playing for time, hoping some day to have the opportunity to ethnically cleanse the West Bank to which they believe the Bible gives them title... if a general war ever breaks out again in the Middle East, that is what they will do, very similar to what they did during "Exodus" days.

    I emphasize the "Israeli right wing"  part, because many Israelis and many American Jews are strongly against all of this.

    Me, I am reaching the opinion that only a Jewish president of the USA will ever be able to bring the Israelis to heel. I like the way that Bloomberg, for example, handled the Ground Zero mosque affair... an honest broker that can't be accused of being an antisemite, is what is needed.


    by David Seaton on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 2:32pm

    It is never worth arguing these points, especially with the crowd with whom I agree on so much else, but who simply refuse to see what is there to see.  (I will not debate here, either, the many, legitimate issues there are concerning Israeli policies, and its current government since in this place those words are used against the more important issues.)

    Israel, as a state, and American Jews as a group, would welcome peace with a Palestinian state. I do not think that to be seriously in doubt, though apparently many have those questions. Recognition of its "statehood" when that can come with peace is not the issue. A UN resolution will not bring that peace, however.

    Consider what happened in 1949 and what has happened since. Who attacked who? Who refused to permit this teeny little sliver of land to become a place of refuge for Jews, (with the other half of what had been called Palestine reserved for the Arab population) ?

    Who refuses to permit this to be so even to this very day?

    I am not getting into another I/P debate with the people whose views on almost everything else are in accord with my own, but I simply cannot read these false equivalencies without shaking.


    by Barth on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 2:42pm

    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.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:38pm

    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.


    by acanuck on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 2:17am

    William Pfaff wrote this back in 2007, I still think the situation can't be stated more clearly:

    One must ask the Israeli government the following question. Suppose, as is probable, that no American administration, now or later, puts any obstacle in the way of whatever you want to do. Suppose there were no effective international pressures on you to stop colonization and land seizures. Suppose that no Palestinian state is created. What are you going to do about the Palestinians?(...) How long can this continue, even as a purely practical problem of physical control of a hostile population? The Palestinian population continues to grow more rapidly than Israel's, and the average age grow younger, producing cohorts of young people who are politically radicalized, ready to turn again to violence to be free of these conditions of life. There are certain to be new Palestinian uprisings.  In international law, Israel is responsible for these people. What methods of permanent control does it envisage? There are some in Israel who hope their misery will force the Palestinians to abandon the territories. But to go where? In what conditions, and under what compulsion? (...) I am not asking this for polemical purposes. I am asking a practical question. What is Israel going to do with these people? The problem exists, and however convenient to ignore today, it will have to answered.

    This is what he writes today:

    President Obama could spectacularly reverse policy and save the day. He could declare that the United States will vote in support of Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations. It will use all of the means at its disposal to support Israeli withdrawal of illegal settlements from territory designated as part of the Palestinian state by the United Nations. It will do all in its power to impose the solution everyone -- including realistic Israelis and the Palestinians -- understand to be the permanent, just and inevitable solution to this problem. The world would be dazzled. Barack Obama’s place in history would be assured.

    Fat chance Bill.


    by David Seaton on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 3:18pm

    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.


    by Resistance on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 11:07pm

    Really fine writing, Genghis, and exceptional for this topic and p.o.v. Can't imagine any counterarguments that wouldn't look pitiful in comparison, precisely because you kept it simple and strong.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 4:01pm

    Interesting piece Genghis and I appreciate your efforts over time to be a straight-shooter in a sensitive area.  But I think your thesis requires us to overlook the overtures make by Israeli leaders in 2000 and 2008 in order to accept your hypothesis that they have looked for excuses to ignore negotiations.  I can understand and disagree with those who argue that Netanyahu's relative intransigence means that the Israelis have forfeited the right to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians.   But I think your position goes beyond Netanyahu and casts the Israelis as the party which has refused to negotiate.  And on that point I really  do disagree with you, respectfully.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 4:22pm

    I didn't hear Genghis saying all representatives were spurned, just pointing to the language used about the ones that were.

    One good element in Palestine gaining recognition is that they can take no advantage of the change if they refuse to recognize the right for another member state to exist. It is no wonder that Hamas has less than zero interest in the development.


    by moat on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 6:35pm

    That is not a bad comment/perspective Moat.

    Not that you delve in bad comments....ha

    You have a point here!


    by Richard Day on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 7:02pm

    Thanks, Moat. You read me right.

    I suspect that Hamas may just be poo-pooing the U.N. bid because it makes Abbas look good. A couple of months ago, they were singing a different song.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:55pm

    I see your point about the desire to avoid promoting Abbas but it is worth noting that other Hamas officials were singing a different tune back at the same time Marzook made his remark.

    One doesn't have to make a final judgment about whether Hamas is genuinely interested in a two state solution to see how the Abbas coalition is in a better position to use the recognition for increasing their share of support from Palestinians. Sometimes actions that can be completely explained by political expediency directly reflect what the struggle is actually about.

    The growth of Hamas is rooted in the language of being the only one who helped when the Palestinians' back was against the wall. They have developed a certain institutional investment in that wall. 


    by moat on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:26pm

    Touche. I humbly concede the point.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:05pm

    Any Israeli leader would and should appear to be unreasonable  while trying to cut a good deal for the Israelis-that's what negotiators do(as we wish Obama would) to the extent of  appearing to be ready to walk.. But -as I suspect Bslev believes -Netanyahu isn't trying to cut a good deal, he's trying to prevent any deal  from being cut.   

     Before the Wall , when suicide bombings were an integral and tragic part of life. probably  an overwhelming  majority of the Israeli public would have actually supported  Netanyahu if he'd been explicit.  I've recently finished David Grossman's To the end of the land which gives me some feel for that period

    .                                                                                                                 

    Maybe now not so large a majority.but still a majority I guess.


    by Flavius on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 10:48pm

    Forceful and brilliantly written. I step in here with trepidation but I'm interested in your views about how the Arab Spring might have changed the political realities for Israel, not only the context of the ultimate decision on Palestinian statehood but the time line for decision making. I'm a neophyte on this but it seems as if the longer they wait, the more "freedom" in the Middle East, the less moral force Israel has for impeding the decision on Palestinian statehood.


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 5:18pm

    That's a good question. The Arab Spring isn't really about the Israelis or the Palestinians, so I see only an indirect affect.

    To some extent, it could undercut some of the more subtle elements of Israel's rhetoric, such as the boast of being the only democracy in the Middle East, but that's not very close to the crux of the conflict. And on the other hand, if the Arabs vote for rabid Israel-haters, it could bolster the Israelis' belief that the average Arab still wants to wipe Israel off the map.

    I see a larger indirect effect from the changing political dynamics of the region, such as losing Arab allies like Mubarak. On one hand, that raises the prospect of unsettling Israelis' comfort with the status quo. On the other, it could provoke fears that will support the hawks.

    So in short, I don't really know.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:11pm

    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?


    by Resistance on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:00pm

    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.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:03pm

     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..


    by jollyroger on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:37pm

    Thanks. Some very good points.


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 9:48pm

    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.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:18am

    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


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:37pm