A Palestinian State?


By Stanley Walinets
September 13, 2011
Share

I've just received this Cecilie Surasky of the US organisation Jewish Voice for Peace. It's worth reading.

"Forty-one.
That’s the number of times the United States has used its veto in the United Nations Security Council to block efforts to secure Palestinian rights over the last 40 years.

Now the United States and Israel want the Palestinian Authority (PA) to drop its bid for recognition at the United Nations —and if the vote goes to the United Nations Security Council as soon as next week, we think the U.S. might make that veto forty-two.

That’s just plain wrong.

Please tell your friends to join 20,000 others in telling U.S. Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice that the U.S. must NOT veto yet another push for Palestinian rights.

To be sure, the Palestinian Authority bid for UN recognition is complicated. Israel and the United States- and their Jewish institutional backers—say they are opposed because such a move would be "unilateral". But what is more unilateral than a 44-year-long military occupation of another people? And what forum more multilateral than the United Nations?

Israel and the United States also say the Palestinians should return, instead, to the peace process. But the so-called “peace process” has meant several decades of expanding settlements and illegally confiscated land.

That said, and despite the emptiness of Israeli and U.S. rhetoric, there are real criticisms of the PA’s effort. Palestinian leaders and civil society organizations have raised a number of concerns ranging from questions about the Palestinian Authority itself to the possible negative significance of the UN vote for refugee rights.

As a Jewish-American organization, we know that Palestinians will be the ones who have to figure out their most effective strategies.

But we also know we need to continue to speak out for one thing everyone agrees upon:
stopping the United States from continuing to play an obstructive role in securing a lasting and just peace.

No matter what happens, the significance of the vote will be dwarfed by what happens the next day. There will still be an occupation. There will still be refugees. There will still be no Palestinian state.

But there will be an extraordinary nonviolent people’s movement in Palestine, in Israel, in the United States, everywhere in the world—and we should use the moment to escalate our demands for justice, fairness, and a future for ALL people in the region.

Our Palestinian and peace-loving Israeli allies on the ground will need our support more than ever—and we’ll be ready to provide it.

But for today, let's send the United States a message. The world is watching. USA? What side are you on?

****(There's a 'click here' line in the email for signing a petition if you want to but I'm not computer-clever enough to reproduce it here! I can forward the full email to you if you want - email me on stan.walinets246@btinternet.com)

COMMENTS

Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 14:52

Rate this:

0 points

How can there be a Palestinian state when Hamas is committed to murdering all Jews and the PA does not recognise Israel's right to exist?

Obama says it's a sideshow and for once he's right

Britain must vote against it

A Palestinian State must be negotiated with Israel. Anything different is an irrelvant sideshow.


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:23

Rate this:

0 points

If it just a mere trifle of a sideshow why are you so agitated about it ?


Harvey

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:28

Rate this:

0 points

Strange . This must be the Palestine which Arafat misplaced between 1948 and 1967 .
So how come that which is acceptable now was not acceptable back then . Well truth is it's no more acceptable now then it was back then . The problem is that back in 67 the Palestinians took one giant step backwards in their overall goal of a single Jew free Palestinian state . It's like a game of snakes and ladders . Having taken 10 steps back ,the Palestinians now want a fast track back to the starting blocks .
The idea that a Palestinian state will provide an irrevocable peace treaty is risible . It's a smoke screen for renewed terrorist atrocities and further demands .
I prefer the Hamas statement issued yesterday . They do not support the establishment of a Palestinian state because it harms the Palestinian objective of a Jew free land from the river to the sea .
Hamas transparency is infinitely preferable to the weasel words of Abbas and the naive utterances emanating from western leaders .


Banacek

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:33

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley there is no maybe about it, it will be vetoed.

Israel is the US's spoiled child. What it doesn't realise is that spoiled children rarely turn out well.


Watchful Iris (not verified)

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:40

Rate this:

0 points

Yeah, why is everyone getting so worried and upset? Harvey?


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:50

Rate this:

0 points

Because it will distract from peace negotiations. That's what sideshows do.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 15:58

Rate this:

0 points

Peace negotiations ? Peace negotiations ? Jonathan you are a hoot.

Now you want to negotiate. This UN thing must be REALLY scaring you.

I take it you have now discovered a partner for peace ?


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 16:02

Rate this:

0 points

Wasn't Bibi elected on a no Palestinian state platform ?


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 16:38

Rate this:

0 points

No, fool

Here is Bibi at Bar Ilan (June 2009):

"In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other."


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 09/13/2011 - 16:47

Rate this:

0 points

Well he wont want to be building any more settlements on the others land then. Thank you Jonathan I am greatly gratified.


Stanley Walinets

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 11:26

Rate this:

0 points

R R Zionist - good point!
If Bibi really said that, it's hard to see why he's so against a Palestinian state. The declaration of such a state HAS to be the next step - which doesn't mean all problems will be solved as soon as the ink's dry. Negotiations will have to continue. But they might stand a better chance after so many years of Israeli 'No negotiations till we get everything we want' attitude.

General point - it's very encouraging to see, lately, that more and more JC readers are blogging in favour of a sensible and honourable approach to Judaism's problems with Israel, as opposed to the earlier hysterical masses of 'Israel can do no wrong!' bloggers. Keep it up, good people - we're all Jews and we're all in this together.


Advis3r

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 11:59

Rate this:

0 points

As I said there's no fool like and old fool. I find this statement "more and more JC readers are blogging in favour of a sensible and honourable approach to Judaism's problems with Israel" both puzzling and troubling. I am not sure what Mr Walinet's religious affiliations are but I would sincerely like to know what in his perception "Judaism's problems with Israel" are.

As to his outlandish claims of no negotiations until Israel gets all it wants I would like to remind him that the rejectionists are not the Jews the Arabs have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Mandate Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of an Arab state alone, but the Arabs rejected the plan.

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.

From 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Arabs could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

The Oslo process that began in 1993 was leading toward the creation of a Palestinian state before the Palestinians violated their commitments and scuttled the agreements.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected the deal.

In 2008 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to create a Palestinian state, but Mr Abbas rejected the deal.

A variety of reasons have been given for why the Arabs have in Abba Eban's words, "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that "Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it." This view is reinforced in the Hamas Covenant.


Stanley Walinets

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 13:45

Rate this:

0 points

Well, Advis3, that's an impressive list of precedents you give and I must admit I don't know enough of their detail to dispute your claim.

Your final paragraph does merit examination though. It is quite possible to see, in what Morris claimed as the Palestinians' reasons, a near identical reflection of Israeli's justification for THEIR possession of the land.

Thus, Israelis similarly have "religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement" with Palestinians. They too "cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel" because this similarly is THEIR holy land. "It was once in the hands of" the Jews "and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like [the Palestinians] would receive it".

In short, Morris - who may or may not realise it - is describing the basic historical justifications each group claims for their entitlement to the territory concerned.

That's surely a good starting point for the negotiations, don't you think?


Advis3r

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 14:05

Rate this:

0 points

Just a few problems with that:
First there was never Arab only Jewish sovereignty in the Holyland -further you have to separate Islamic claims from Arab claims because there are Christian Arabs too, so what would be the basis of their claims?
Secondly the "Palestinians" so-called did not exist before 1964 and the 1964 PLO Covenant specifically states they have no claim on what you call the "West Bank" for what they wanted for their state - only changing that claim when Jordan gave up its illegal claims after the Six Day War.
I believe you completely misunderstand Benny Morris. He was not justifying the Arab position but explaining why whatever Israel has offered or will offer the Arabs will never be enough because of the Koranic imperative of not ceding land conquered by Islam to the infidel, which is the view of most Muslims and which essentially leaves no room for negotiation.


Stanley Walinets

Wed, 09/14/2011 - 16:13

Rate this:

0 points

Problems Schmoblems.....

1) If "you have to separate Islamic claims from Arab claims because there are Christian Arabs too so what would be the basis of their claims?". Well, there are Jewish claims to Israel and there are diaspora Jews' views too, plus several Jewish sects who don't claim sovereignty. So what would be the basis of THEIR claims?

2) "The 'Palestinians' so-called did not exist before 1964..."
Oh? Then I wonder what the anti-Semitic kids in my school playground back in the 1940s had in mind, when they'd shout at us "Sheenies! Get back to Palestine!" Had they invented the word out of sheer nothing? They also used to shout "Hitler's a Jew!", so maybe Hitler didn't exist either?

3) "The Koranic imperative of not ceding land.... essentially leaves no room for negotiation." Whereas some Israelis' imperative that they're entitled to 'Judea' and 'Samaria' leaves lots of room for negotiation, huh?

Why, for ALL our sakes, can't you contemplate negotiating seriously and honestly with people you don't like? Because the longer you and your comrades stick to that position, the more will anti-Semitism grow the world over. And we'll all be victims of that, including you. Perhaps if you didn't have the benefit of Uncle Sam's $3bn-plus annual cheque, you'd be more willing to face reality.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.