The problem isn’t simply the fact that Hamas and the PLO disagree on this particular issue (though that does tend to illustrate and highlight the problem). The problem is that there exist two factions - Hamas and the PLO - who can, and do, disagree on issues sometimes and agree on issues other times.
In short, the problem is that the Palestinians lack (1) a united, credible government, and (2) one capable of controlling their people and territory.
Until those two problems are solved, it is premature to “recognize” a Palestinian nation. The UN cannot credibly “recognize” a state of affairs that does not exist, any more than the UN can make 2+2=5 by fiat.
Should the Palestinians obtain a government that meets the minimal criteria for such, recognition ought to flow. Not before.
No, we are going to reach a lasting settlement of the Israel-Palestine problem only by supporting, etc. Making Palestine an independent state is one thing, and the first priority; making it a democratic state is another, that’s a different problem entirely. But you cannot in fairness expect Palestine to function as a democracy-under-occupation, nor judge its democratic prospects by how it fares when it tries.
If Palestine is recognized as a nation the elected leaders are directly responsible for it. If the rocket attacks continue Israel can claim it as an act of war instead of terrorism.
That’s funny - you thinking that the world will look more kindly on Israel’s retaliation if it was against a “state”.
Reminds me of the Israeli leftists’ arguments for the “Oslo agreements” when they were asked how they would guarantee that all those weapons supplied to the Palestinians by Israel and US would not be turned against Israel - “But they would have the autonomy, why would they turn around and attack us?”. Or about the Gaza withdrawal - “But if we withdraw all our forces from Gaza and remove every Jewish resident, why would they attack us?”.
Well no, I’m wrong. That kind of naivete would be funny, if it didn’t have such horrible consequences.
I’m saying that there is no government capable of controlling, and thus being “directly responsible for”, the “state” of Palestine, and thus Palestine is not a state.
Look at it this way. Today, the UN recognizes Palestine as a state. Tomorrow, Hamas in Gaza commences rocket attacks on Israel. Ought Israel then to attack PLO headquarters in the WB in retailiation for this quite obvious act of war? Would those Arab countries applauding the UN move collectively say, “oh, now we have voted to recognize Palestine is a state, of course Israel is fully justified, under the laws of war, to attack the WB if Gaza rocket-attacks it”?
I suggest that no, this will not happen; moreover, it should not happen, because the PLO cannot be held responsible for what Hamas does, because the PLO has no power in Gaza. Attacking the PLO for Hamas’ acts of war would be unjustified … which is, as an example, why Palestine isn’t a state.
Fair enough. However, determining when a certain area deserves statehood is condescending at best. This is an area of land and in it exists people, those people deserve human rights and the capability to address grievances to an international community.
I would imagine that Obama wants to avoid anything remotely resembling a conflict between Israel and Palestine until at least the 2012 elections are over. A conflict could in no way be good for his reelection chances.
Why is anyone surprised. Obama has one overwhelimg objective, which is to win relection. He percieves rightly or wrongly that being pro-Israel will assist him in that. I must say I am amused at how much store the Republicans put by supporting Israel. Considering how socialist they are. The GOP would suffer a major collective heart attack.
I disagree. Democracies, by and large, hate fighting wars near home - they have far too much to lose. More importantly, they also make much better trading partners. The stagnant basket case that was the Mubarak economy was *not *good for Israeli exporters and for businessmen seeking to open factories in Egypt. A more prosperous Egypt could lead to greater prosperity for the entire Middle East, Israel included.
Besides, the only time Israel intervened in the internal politics of recognized Arab governments was in Lebanon in the late 70’s-early 80’s, and that turned out so horribly that we have no intention of ever doing that sort of thing again.
Well, I think everyone knows it is more “rightly” than everyone is willing to admit. Even yesterday some US pundit on local Canadian radio said that, simply put one cannot win presidency in US without so called “Jewish vote”.
Even NY Times writes that if Secretary of State wants something done with Congress she calls Netanyahu to make it happen.
I recall Clinton being called “First Black President” yet somehow I cannot reconcile that African Americans in US are in a similar position as Jews In Israel so much that they need a POTUS getting this much engaged and, what’s actually worst, aligning with the most radical element from Israel’s political landscape. However, it is not the first time that US foreign policy gets to align with the most abhorrent political currents in foreign countries. It’s been done.
Then we must disagree again. It is a lot easier for despots to make unpopular but necessary decisions then a Government that might get thrown out at the next election. Being seen to be even the slightest pro-Israel will be suicide in Egypt right now.
I don’t know about the balance of trade (if any) that Israel has with its neighbours, but Israel has not been involved as a regional trader for 63 years and its not about to start now, A fact which upon reflection must give Israeli businessmen heartburn.
Yes. This is not a new thing. AIPAC, to pick the most prominent example, has a lot of money to give to Congressional and Presidential candidates willing to toe their line on Israel, and has for a long, long time. Are you just realizing this?
NY Magazine has quotes around that. Who are they quoting?
Again - what is Obama doing that is any different than what Bush or Clinton or Bush Sr etc did? I mean, apart from not making nice with Israel in the hope of expediting the Rapture, as some have suggested Bush Jr was doing. Are they all frauds? And what is fraudulent about what Obama has said?
I think it is a nice political move by Abbas to split the interests of Israel and the US. Unfortunately Obama will not have much room to adjust US policy-and so Palestinians won’t profit much from it.
People deserve a real government, there is no dispute. Just as people deserve not to live in poverty and misery.
However, a UN declaration that the people have a government does not make them so, any more than one can “solve” the world poverty problem by simply declaring that no-one in the world is poor. It is condescending at best to offer such folks a simalcrum of statehood, lacking in the essential reality.
Hide from reality like an ostrich with its head in the sand if you want.
