Is Ari Shavit right about this?
The writing is on the wall: 2011 is going to be a diplomatic 1973. In September and October the UN General Assembly will decide whether to establish a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. The international community will recognize a Palestinian state.
At that moment, every Israeli apartment in Jerusalem’s French Hill neighborhood will become illegal. Every military base in the West Bank will be contravening the sovereignty of an independent UN member state. The Palestinians will not be obligated to accept demilitarization and peace and to recognize the occupation.
Ethan Bronner thinks so. And, because the recognition vote will take place in the UN General Assembly and not in the Security Council, the United States cannot exercise a veto to protect Israel.
There are a lot of questions to answer about this. It would seem an inopportune time to recognize a Palestinian state. It would be nice if the governance of the territories were not split between Fatah and Hamas, for example. And what about those 1967 borders? I suppose that’s the default. After all, anything else would require some negotiation. Right?
And then there is trying to figure out what it would all mean.
am I supposed to be sad about the recognition of Palestine?
I wasn’t suggesting that. I only meant that recognizing a new state when that state has a split government is less than optimal.
It will happen but Israel and the US will go on as if nothing has changed. By the way, what would be an opportune moment to recognize Palestine as a sovereign country? I just can’t digest that ‘State of’ pomposity about Israel. I’ve never heard it applied to any other country. It’s easy to figure out what it would mean: the Israelis have to pack their bags and go home (to Israel). But they won’t.
“the Israelis have to pack their bags and go home (to Israel). But they won’t.”
Actually, I doubt that this would be a condition. More likely they would be offered the option of legal residency in the Palestinian state — and very likely the option of citizenship. (See Tarheel’s comment below, point 1.)
The irony of this is that a lot of the religious settlers are technically ANTI-ZIONIST. All that means is that they believe that they do not believe in the authority of the secular Jewish state as such, at least where it conflicts with their own views. Since they have settled in the territories for religious reasons, it shouldn’t really matter to them what state they are under, as long as they are allowed to freely practice their religion and other freedom. And it is a tenet of the Jewish religion to respect the government of the country in which you are living (with the above exception).
Shouldn’t really matter, but for most of them it will. As Tarheel suggests, living under a Palestinian state would represent an “interesting challenge” to these people for all sorts of reasons. And I think some of them are likely to continue making trouble and provocations. But since they regard their settlements as sacred ground, I don’t think they would want to leave.
Apart from all the subtlties of jewish beliefs, most settlers will fight tooth and nail to remain citizens of Israel. Sacred ground or not, they have no intention of budging. After all, the whole process is basically a real estate scam. And why am I to think that a Palestinian state would want so many jews to stay put in their nation? Jerusalem is not sacrred ground for e Muslims? Right.
Actually, for the most part there is and has been no problem with the presence of Jews in Palestine. The problem is and has always been with the presence of Zionists, and with very good reason. It should not be surprising under the circumstances that over time in some people’s minds the distinction has become blurred, but for the most part is is not that difficult to clarify the distinction.
Yes, but you’re talking about the Palestine Of the past before the establishment of Israel. I know as well as anyone that Jews have lived there under the Ottomans, and going back, and more recently the British. But the prospect of having many ISRAELIS living in Palestine strikes me as more than problematic. In the first place what makes anyone think that most of the ISRAELI settlers would even want to live in the country of Palestine. Would they take Palestinian passports, will they be allowed dual citizenship? There is a distinction between Jews and Israelis. The problem lies with the Israelis and, in turn, with the Palestinians reaction to the settlers intransigence. There is absolutely no love lost here—NONE!
No, I am talking about the Palestine of the present. The problem is not with Jews being or living there. There have always been Jews, including a few Israelis, living in the OPT, in Ramallah and other towns and villages. There is even an apartment in Ramallah that is known as “the Jews’ apartment” because for years a Jewish-American film maker lived there with his family, and when he left the stellar Israeli journalist Amira Hass lived there (as far as I know, she still does).
I repeat that the problem is not with Jews living in Palestine, the problem is with Zionists living in Palestine. The problem is not even with Israelis per se living there, the problem is with Israelis colonizing the land.
PS It did not escape notice, by the way, that you have changed “Jews” to “Israelis” in the comment I am replying to here. If you changed Israelis to Israeli colonizers you would be closer to reality, but even then not quite right on. There are small groups of Israeli colonizers who are there for religious reasons, who maintain friendly relations with the Palestinians, who would be quite OK with remaining as foreign guests in a Palestinian state, and who would likely be happy to take citizenship in the Palestinian state if allowed,
The social media-based youth movement in Palestine seems to be pushing unity talks between Hamas and Fatah. Interesting, isn’t it?
There are countries that have already recognized a Palestinian state–Brazil being a significant one.
The wording of a resolution in the UN Security Council will be where the US gets involved in trying to protect Israel. The politics of the Security Council depends on these countries–Bosnia/Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Colombia, India, Germany, Portugal, South Africa. And the biggies: US, France, UK, Russia, China. It might be that Lebanon is the stumbling block in the Security Council, being a frontline state. A recognition vote in the General Assembly makes sense, except for this. Membership in the UN requires a vote of the Security Council.
And there is no override:
And there is a bit of a political issue in recognizing a country and then turning around and denying UN membership.
What it would mean is at least these things:
It will surprise me if the UN acts at all; I expect more countries to recognize Palestine’s independence. When a tipping point of these recognitions is reached, there may be a movement to seat Palestine at the UN; during that process — however long — all countries will come to a diplomatic recognition of Palestine. And I doubt that Israel will be the last in line.
Yes, that would be a tough veto for the United States.
Yeah, no right of return, no deal.
But it is complicated by the fact that granting recognition is generally not something that has those sort of conditions. An after recognition as a sovereign state, it would be up to the Palestinian government to decide how to handle return within Palestine and whether or how to negotiate for right of return in Israel.
Most likely there would be some sort of conditional right of return, or preferential citizenship that brought back high-income earners first.
Recognition is not a deal; it’s a grant of the international community.
What right of return means after recognition will likely just because of the passage of time to be much different than it would have been in say 1954.
The politics of it requires some sort of validation and registering of claims. And some sort of judicial proving of the validity of those claims. Otherwise the cadastral record will be too confused to allow transfer of property among the citizens of Palestine. There has to be some way to declaring a clear title.
Fareen Zakaria GPS this morning (the only worthwhile show to watch all week!) discussed this and the consensus was that time is playing a dangerous role against the US in this vote.
I have to disagree with the idea that the path to resolution of the conflict is “negotiation.” We have been through that many times, and Netanyahu is unlikely to act any different than Shamir two decades ago, with a stall and deflect strategy while the colonialism continues.
With Netanyahu claiming the Jordan Valley for Israel, for alleged security reasons, annexation would be the next step. I don’t any space between the earlier Likudnik, Shamir, and the present one, Netanyahu. Netanyahu in fact just threatened annexation if the Palestinians declare a state.
I didn’t say that negotiation was the path to a solution. I said that
Whatever puts the screws to Israel is fine by me.
Yes, I’m talking about the Jews who are Israeli colonists. They are the overwhelming majority and they’re not having any of it. Are there really Israeli Jews in occupied land who are NOT Zionists. You’re telling me that the Palestinians are prepared to incorporate the large Israeli colonies into their country? You mention small stellar exceptions, Jews here, a Jew there. I guess you think the Israeli settlements (all Jews) could remain in Palestine? Then, my bad. Maybe I’m less precise with words than you are: tell me who is an Israeli in an Israeli West bank colony and who is not Jewish?
Well, at least you have managed to narrow it down from Jews to Israelis, a subset of Jews, and finally to Israeli colonists, a subset of the subset Israelis. So, now you are at least approaching accuracy.
“Are there really Israeli Jews in occupied land who are NOT Zionists.“
Absolutely. In fact the majority of Jews who live and have lived in the OPT outside of the colonies are there primarily because they are not Zionists.
“You’re telling me that the Palestinians are prepared to incorporate the large Israeli colonies into their country?……“
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I said nothing about incorporating any Israeli colonies.
“You mention small stellar exceptions, Jews here, a Jew there.“
That was precisely my point. The fact that there are Jews living in harmony with Palestinians outside the colonies throughout the OPT is clear evidence that Palestinians are unlikely to object to Jews living in their state, and would most likely welcome those who will live there as respectful, law-abiding guests, or even citizens.
“Maybe I’m less precise with words than you are: tell me who is an Israeli in an Israeli West bank colony and who is not Jewish?“
This is not about being precise with words. When you say Jew instead of Israeli colonist you are mischaracterizing Jews, the overwhelming majority of whom are not Israeli colonists, and do not want to be. Ditto when you say Israeli in the same context. And even worse when you use Jew in place of Israeli colonist in the context you did you are grossly unfairly mischaracterizing the nature of the Palestinians’ grievance, and reinforcing the stereotype that Palestinians simply hate Jews.
I never thought that Palestinians hate Jews. Hate is an extremely heavy term and is less common in any single situation than might be thought. Maybe more common than love, though.
Maybe you’d tell me what you think should happen to the colonies. Please don’t tell me it’s not your place to say. I said the colonists had to pack their bags and go because I assume the colonies will be absorbed by the Palestine, subject to them (law, taxes, etc.) and the inhabitants will refuse to accept the end of Israeli jurisdiction. Or are they going to be enclaves in Palestine with only highways only for the enclaves giving access to the motherland. I can’t imagine this unless imposed on Palestine on Israel. Apart from Jerusalem, I’d not heard of Jews living in occupied territory. I assume their number is insignificant in comparison to the half million Israeli colonists. If the UN recognizes Palestine, the one-state solution will thereby be rejected.
Ok, maybe hate was the wrong word in the context of this conversation, though you have to admit that one of the strongest stereotypes is that Palestinians are driven by hatred of Jews as opposed to legitimate grievances.
When you suggested that Palestinians would not accept Jews living in their state you were perpetuating the falsehood that Palestinians are motivated by a historic and intrinsic dislike of Jews as opposed to an objection to being ethnically cleansed, dispossessed, occupied, brutalized, and treated like fourth-class citizens in their own homeland. If they had received this treatment at the hands of anyone, including other Arabs, their reaction would not be different. I suspect we do not disagree about that.
As to what should happen, that is clear. The colonies should be dismantled, and the colonists should be relocated back to Israel – or to New York, if they prefer. The land the colonies sit on should be returned to the Palestinians with the buildings and infrastructure intact as partial reparation for their losses since 1948.
And what is the only truly just solution? A single unitary, multi-ethnic, multinational democratic state in which all citizens are equal both under the law and in practice. That would, of course, be a radical change for Israel.
Thanks for your answer. So we agree that the colonists should ‘pack up and go home’, as I wrote, wherever that may be outside Palestine. I incorrectly referred to Jews instead of to Israeli colonists who, by the way, I suppose are all Jewish. It becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish Jew from Israeli as Likud and its allies in Israel and the US keep howling for Israeli to be the Jewish State. I thought it all ready was. Many Jews outside Israel, I know, find Israeli more and more of an embarrassment. You seem to have an especially close concern for the injustice done, and still being done, to the Palestinians. Maybe one day you will write a diary and tell us about your ideas and sources in Palestine. It doesn’t surprise me that the persecution of the Palestinians might lead to hate Israelis/Jews. I had no intention of attributing blind hatred of Jews by Palestinians, though hatred thrives everywhere and in all kinds of circumstances. Too bad the US people as a whole can’t see the light about how badly they’ve been, and are still being, abused by Israel.