How does a Palestinian State serve Israel’s obsession with national security - it doesn’t, hence there will be no Palestinian state: ‘but surely something can be worked out’ = you’re not grasping the psychology on the Israeli political class.
A Palestinian state can never be allowed to happen. Those people need to accept a lower national and personal status.
Thanks for the answer. Letting Hamas and any other party that doesn’t recognise the right of the other side to have a state makes the country less democratic, the same going for Israeli political parties that don’t recognise the right of the Palestinians to have their own state.
But it’s a start. Hamas don’t really think they can destroy Israel. They’d quite happily settle for Gaza and a contiguous state in the West Bank with East Jeruslamem as its capital. They can’t admit this publicly but they’ve said they’d accept a 75 (or similar, can’t remember exactly) truce so that the descendents of current generations could work something out. Basically a face-saving way for them to maintain their credibility among their supporters.
The Palestine Papers show that Fatah would accept even less. You’d have a bunch of extremists on either side who hate each other, but they’d be dealing with other via politics instead of shooting each other. This would be a rocky road with occasional outbreaks of violence, but is the only long term solution that doesn’t involve a South Africa-style situation.
The problem is that Israel don’t want or need to make peace. They believe that they can continue the slow-motion annexation of the West Bank and take all the territory and resources they want, leaving a few bantustans that they’ll have economic and military control over. The voices in Israel saying that they’re doomed to the fate of white South Africa if they keep on that path are drowned out by the people running the show.
You’d need to ask the people of Palestine that one. What I want to know is if the Palestinian people keep electing Hamas or Hamas-like parties to represent them do you think they should be allowed to form a state if they’re represneted by men of violence?
This is ridiculous. Most Israelis support a 2-state solution. They just hope that it will not start lobbying rockets as it happened in Gaza.
And perhaps you would like to explain me something closer to your home: What is Britain doing in North Ireland ?
I am here in a minority of Israelis. I personally think that Palestinians should be allowed, or indeed encouraged to form a state even if or perhaps especially if they are represented by men of violence. I much prefer people that hate me to be outside my borders than inside them. For instance, even if Hamas is hostile to Israel in Gaza, and even if they are not exactly a liberal democracy, and they are manipulated by Iran, I think it is highly preferred than the situation that was existing before.
There is a great chance that Hamas or whatever other Islamic entity will come into power in the West Bank, and even then I would encourage a separate Palestinian state.
I wish the day would come that the conflict will turn into a conflict between countries than between ethnic populations in the same country.
All this arguing about how to create some form of stability while leaving the people where they are.
I admit, I am not intimately involved in Israel/Palestine dynamics. I see the arguments on each side being “under the circumstances, what we do is rational”, whether it is attacking the rocket launching folks, or being the rocket launching folks.
People have expended vast amounts of effort to try to find a solution ‘in situ’, everyone staying where they are. Let’s face it. Palestinians are not going to get a right of return, but they could get an independent state with clearly defined borders. To me, whenever a negotiation begins to get close to that goal, those on each side who are recalcitrant simply move the goal line and create new arguments to be sure no agreement is reached. Constant tension and lack of resolution creates opportunity for some people to advance in their political hierarchy and that is all that happens.
At some point the world and the people directly involved should just realize that an agreement will never be reached. Then…what?
This sounds logical to me, also on the grounds of “people with something to lose have more incentive to compromise than people with nothing to lose”.
At present, with Palestinians being essentially stateless (or at least nation-stateless) residents of occupied territories, it’s hard to see what they have to lose by taking an ideological hard line. There doesn’t seem to be much more that Israel can do in the way of severe measures in the occupied territories (barring cholilleh another full-scale intifada) without major negative reactions from the international community. So there’s little reason as things are for Palestinian hard-liners to compromise on their positions.
As a recognized nation-state with less restricted access, increased trade, and so forth (assuming that a new nation of Palestine would end up on that development path instead of just imploding), it seems reasonable that Palestinians would have more to lose and consequently more motivation to make compromises for the sake of their own prosperity.
You need to keep in mind that they don’t actually want an independent state, except insofar as it leads them closer to what they really want – which is for there not to be a Jewish state.
The problem is more on the Arab side. Note that the Palestinian Arabs have been offered their own state at least 4 times and each time they said “no.”
Contain the problem by maintaining the status quo.
Stop rewarding the Arabs for provoking Israel.
Israel’s government made proposals which included Palestinian States 2 times and both times the proposals were rejected.
The UN partition plan would have created a Palestinian State – the early Zionists accepted it and the Arabs rejected it.
So the evidence doesn’t seem to support your claim.
I can agree with you about them getting a state being the best thin. Unfortunately it isn’t going to happen because the people with all the power, the Israeli leaders are as dead set against the creation of a Palestinian state as the Hamas are about allowing an Israeli state. Actually moreso, I’m sure Hamas would agree to a long term truce and eventual political settlement but don’t think there’s any chance of the Israeli extremists compromising.
As for what Britain has done in Northern Ireland it’s an object lesson in what can happen when the United States actually works towards a peaceful solution to a centuries-old problem.
Back in the seventies the Brits sent troops into Northern Ireland. This occupation that was protecting the Protestant majority at the expense of the Catholic minority caused a big backlash and a big increase in Catholic (IRA) terrorism. The whole region of Northern Ireland became militarised very quickly.
In response to the terrorism you had a British mantra of “no surrender to the terrorists” and “no negotiations with terrorists”. That was until Ronald Reagan, peace be upon him, under pressure from the Irish lobby in America (who were pro-Catholic/IRA) put pressure on Maggie Thatcher to start a political process with the Catholics to end the violence. Thatcher was the most strident Brit leader and loved to be seen as the most pro-Protestant anti-IRA of all British politicians but under pressure from Ronnie started the process that led to this :
On the left is a Protestant radical cleric who believes that the Pope is the antichrist and that all Catholics will burn in hell for all eternity. On the right is a former Catholic terrorist who was a top IRA leader and directly responsible for many terrorist attacks that killed British troops and civilians. They preached hate and division for decades and were the most implacable enemies you can imagine. They were the fitsr leader/deputy leader of the new Northern Irish government when the terrorism ended.
Ok, you clearly don’t seem to recognize the implications of your claim that a “one state solution” based on “the Israeli model” would mean.
It most certainly would not be “secular-democratic-and-not-at-all-distinctly-Jewish-nor-Arab”.
A distinctly Jewish state, which under your proposed “Israeli model” it would be with the Star of David on the flag, Hativkah as the national anthem, no civil marriage, etc. would be the opposite of “secular” and “not distinctly Jewish”.
Moreover, you seem to think that Hamas et. all when banned could just reform under a different name.
Um…no. That’s not how it works in Israel. It didn’t work for Kahane and it won’t work for them.
You do realize what a difficult time many Arab political parties in Israel, all of whom are vastly too moderate for the Palestinians of the occupied territories have with not getting declared illegal and how they’re constantly fighting to stay eligible.
Any political party which refuses to recognize the state of Israel as “the sovereign state of the Jewish people” as do those believed to advocate “racism” or “terrorism”.
If you honestly think that under your proposed “Israeli model” that Hamas et. all would not be banned then you really need to read up on the Israeli political system.
It’s rather obvious that you object to the use of “the Israeli model” and would prefer “an American model” but merely said you’d prefer “the Israeli model” because you didn’t know what it entailed.
Of course at this same time, the Israeli government was negotiating with Arafat who was responsible for far worse than Gerry Adams ever was.
So, by your standards, the Israeli government has been willing to negotiate with “terrorists” vastly longer than the UK and unlike the UK has been willing to cede territory to “the terrorists”.
I’d only say that no one must negotiate with them, if they maintain such a violent stance. (As far as that goes, no one must negotiate with anyone; walking away from conference tables with good people is also valid.)
As for the formation of a state, I think they could probably do it unilaterally. Simply declare it to be so, and see how many nations recognize it. If Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. all say, “Yes, you are now a nation,” then they are. The U.N. would very likely recognize them.
To me, this is a “big deal” or “so what?” kind of event. Their actions matter, not whether or not they have a flag, Prime Minister, Parliament, and paper money. If rockets fly out of Gaza, Israel will respond, whether it is against a Hamas provisional regional government or against the Nation of Palestine (west.)
Once the violence stops, and groups arise who do not endorse it, then real negotiations can get under way. (I hope no one expects them to arrive at real, deep, meaningful compromises in any kind of hurry!)
Maybe one can can consider this as well:Gangam Gaza Style
You’ve got it the wrong way around, Martin McGuinness is on the left and Ian Paisley on the right, AKA “the Chuckle Brothers”.
Israel has never negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians. They just keep on sttealing land and building settlements. They’ve got zero intention of making any meaningful attempt at a peaceful settlement, they’re just going to continue annexing more andmore of the West Bank until a peaceful settlemt is impossible.
There’s zero chance of the UN recognising them. They were going to declare statehood recently but gave up when it was clear that it wouldn’t get UN approval.
If Hamas and similar groups remain the elected leaders, do you think the rest of the world, the UN etc. should recognise the Palestinian state?
Not in the first picture.
Pragmatism. If the rest of the Arab world recognizes them – if Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan and Iraq all do – then, for any meaningful purposes, they would be a state. Some nations would send and receive ambassadors; others wouldn’t. What happens at a big diplomatic reception in Riyadh: does the American ambassador pretend that the Palestinian ambassador doesn’t exist? Or do they enter into back-door diplomatic dialogue? Does the internet give them a two-letter national domain? Can someone get url.pa?
I just don’t see it as a big deal either way, although, personally, I think the two state solution is the only way forward, so such a declaration might be a form of progress.
For seventy years, the U.S. refused to acknowledge that the U.S.S.R. had incorporated Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. In practical terms, that meant nothing whatever…until the U.S.S.R. collapsed. If the Arab nations recognize Palestine, then if the U.S. doesn’t…what difference does it make?
Right-o, carry on. 