Will the Palestinians Just Go Ahead and Declare Statehood?

-

wave flag palestine.jpg
Kosovo did, and the U.S. immediately recognized it.
Now, David Rothkopf has been hearing rumblings that the little-left-to-lose Palestinians may declare independence and the creation of their state, without necessarily having the state’s borders in their control.
Rothkopf lays out a plausible scenario that Iran’s nuclear pretensions force the U.S. to more closely ally with Arab states in the region, thus finally forcing a deal on Palestine, whether Israel is on board or not.
I still have my doubts that the U.S. is anywhere near that point yet. But the fact remains that when the Palestinians have really lost hope that a peace process will lead to a state for their citizens, they may very well self declare.
From Rothkopf’s interesting essay:

In any event, I was thinking about this phrase the other day in light of the on-going concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Because indeed, as President Obama acknowledged in a recent interview with the New York Times’s David Sanger, were Iran to become “nuclear capable” it would effectively be the same as actually having produced a weapon. Capability is the line you don’t want a proliferator to cross … and were Iran to nudge across that line, it would likely set in motion a wide ranging chain of events that would almost certainly include: heavy incoming rhetorical fireworks, strategic backtracking by countries who resisted sanctions, tactical consternation from the Israelis as they recognize the world is going to do precious little to address what they see as a critical threat and a full scale diplomatic assault from the United States, designed to shape the alliances that will form the containment network/nuclear umbrella club that will be our post-nuclear Iran “strategy.”
However, in recent conversations concerning this possible shift in the situation in the Middle East with diplomats from several countries in Asia, the greater Middle East, and Latin America, another perceived consequence emerged: There was a universal sense that Israel is becoming more isolated and the United States is becoming more dependent for its regional strategy on Arab states. Further, as a result of the likely demands those states will make for action by the United States to help move the Israelis along toward a resolution of their conflict with the Palestinians … and the perception that Obama must make a move in the Muslim world to fulfill the now questioned promise of his Cairo speech … and due to the view that Israel is more isolated than ever in terms of international support (or lack thereof) … there was a sense that the evolving situation is having the added effect of emboldening the Palestinians.
The predicted result offered up in three separate conversations: that the Palestinians will declare independence unilaterally. (I’m not recommending this approach — just reporting what they said.) And, in the words of one diplomat who is in regular contact with the Palestinians, “much sooner than you might think.”
It seems plausible. They have been making noises in this vein for a couple years and the volume has been dialed up recently. And the theory among these close observers of the situation is that right now, perhaps more than at any time in recent history, the likelihood of much global pushback seems low.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

65 comments on “Will the Palestinians Just Go Ahead and Declare Statehood?

  1. Mr.Murder says:

    Why not start an arms race between Palestine and Israel? Build up both sides, there would be plenty of demand. Our tax dollars could provide both….

    Reply

  2. JohnH says:

    “What’s a friggin “just outcome” Dan? Destroy Israel and kill all the Jews?”
    Amazing how Nadine and her “religious” nationalist cohorts can envision no middle ground whatsoever. Either Palestinians win and drive all the Jews into the sea or Israel wins and drives all Palestinians into the desert. Zero sum game, period.
    Next up, Iran. Either Iran has to go or Israel has to go. Black and white. Amalek vs. Israel.
    And people accuse the Iranian regime of being irrational actors!!! What about paranoid “religious” nationalists who see Amalek behind every rock and tree? And who in their right mind would give these loonies $3 Billion of US military aid every year? Might as well shoot yourself in the foot!

    Reply

  3. Jerry says:

    NYT, today:
    “Mr. Obama was speaking to businesspeople and intellectuals from Muslim countries who were attending his first summit on entrepreneurship, an offshoot of his speech to the Muslim world last year from Cairo.
    The president called for more exchanges between Americans and Muslims, vowing to engage in a

    Reply

  4. Jerry says:

    A Regional union would provide greater predictability for its member states. This would accelerate the changes that are already occuring and provide for greater long term development and security in the region.
    President Obama recognizes the call to help implement existing plans with its inherent message to step back from military adventurism and be a facilitator instead.

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads, Jerry.
    You take nattering to new hieghts..

    Reply

  6. Jerry says:

    President Obama won’t impose a deal, not just because he can’t, but who would want to own the problem.
    His first task is to get the U.S. military out of Iraq and Afganistan to stop the financial drain on the U.S. economy and restore the military.
    Clearly, he is not against using the military to protect the U.S., but the Palestinian Israeli issue is not a safety threat concern to the U.S.
    However, given his speech in Berlin and Cairo and the use of former judge and senator Goerge Mitchell as an envoy, he is indicating that he is more interested in a Regional solution that would stand the test of time.
    Such a resolution need not be far in the future. The U.S., Russia, China, India have many interests and sufficient resources to help the Region’s countries form their own union.

    Reply

  7. nadine says:

    “Another motive for this position is that the Palestinians, as the weaker party by far in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – realize that they cannot obtain a just outcome through negotiations with their conquerors. So they would like the world community to apply and enforce some standards here, standards that go beyond the antique standard of awarding spoils to victors.”
    What’s a friggin “just outcome” Dan? Destroy Israel and kill all the Jews? Can you not get it through your thick skull that this is what Hamas means by a just outome, and they will kill any Palestinian who tries to settle for less? There will be no peace while Hamas rules Gaza.
    “standards that go beyond the antique standard of awarding spoils to victors”
    You mean the standards that operate any time a country not named “Israel” has war?. Tibet, Cyprus, Lebanon, Chechnya, hey no new standards needed there! And I thought those new standards distinguished between aggressive war — that was Jordan in 1967 — and defensive war — that was Israel in 1967. Oh silly me. I forgot, Arabs can’t be aggressors, they’re “oppressed.”
    If Jordan had won in the 1967, would any “world standards” have been applied to bail out the weakened Israelis? Of course not, who the f— are we to enforce such western colonialist ideas on the oppressed?
    Wigwag is right, “regressive-progressive” is good name for your philosophy.

    Reply

  8. Em says:

    There was an interesting op-ed published in a recent Christian Science Monitor about one way we might actually get to peace in the Middle East. The idea’s a little out-of-the-box but it makes you think. The article is titled “Host city for 2020 Olympics: Why not Jerusalem?” Here’s a link: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0420/Host-city-for-2020-Olympics-Why-not-Jerusalem

    Reply

  9. Dan Kervick says:

    “That’s why he’s taken the anamalous position for a supposed head of state of begging outsiders to come in and impose a solution on him..”
    Another motive for this position is that the Palestinians, as the weaker party by far in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – realize that they cannot obtain a just outcome through negotiations with their conquerors. So they would like the world community to apply and enforce some standards here, standards that go beyond the antique standard of awarding spoils to victors.

    Reply

  10. nadine says:

    Dan, I didn’t change my position. I just made a different point. The first point about borders still stands.
    I was trying to make you understand that even Arafat thought he could not survive agreeing to a two state solution, and the weaker Abbas definitely could not survive it. That’s why he’s taken the anamalous position for a supposed head of state of begging outsiders to come in and impose a solution on him — so he can take the gift but insist he agreed to nothing, there is no peace treaty, the conflict continues.

    Reply

  11. Dan Kervick says:

    “That’s why Abu Mazen is asking Obama to impose a deal.”
    Perhaps that’s one part of the motivation. The other part is that he knows that Israelis will never accept a viable Palestinian state with green line borders unless the US forces them into it. And that’s why Obama does need to impose a deal. Neither side can make a deal without the political cover of being forced into it.
    But you’ve changed your position again. You first said that the reasons against a temporary borders deal – concern about the need for subsequent negotiations in a weakened position of already having ceded ground – apply with equal force to a deal with borders on the green line and Gaza. But they don’t. If Obama articulated and sought to impose a resolution with green line borders there would be no subsequent negotiation over borders.

    Reply

  12. nadine says:

    chumanist, I don’t know what you mean by “diplomatic adventurism” and I don’t think I want to know. Sounds like the kind of thing that could spark a very big war.

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    “Actually, the reasons don’t apply at all to a state covering the entire area of the West Bank and Gaza. If a state was declared covering the entire West Bank and Gaza, there would be no remaining border negotiations.” (Dan Kervick)
    No, Dan, aside from any border dispute with Israel, HAMAS WOULD KILL ABBAS AS A TRAITOR. For relinquishing claim on the rest of Palestine. You are such a dope about this; it’s not like Hamas hides its views. Or Hizbullah, or Syria or Iran.
    That’s why a Palestinian state never happened. Even after I figured out that Arafat signed Oslo as a ruse, it took me a long time to figure out why he didn’t sign a deal, get a state, and renege on peace later on. Wouldn’t that have put him in a much stronger position? Of course it would – except – he’d have to say “End of Conflict. I recognize Israel; I accept the two state solution.” Even if he was lying, and he told everybody he was lying, it would still be unforgivable to sound, even for a day, like he was accepting the permanence of Israel. Arafat thought he would be killed. So it never happened.
    Abu Mazen is far weaker, and then there is Hamas, so it’s even less likely to happen now. That’s why Abu Mazen is asking Obama to impose a deal. That way Abu Mazen could cry, “I never signed anything! I don’t agree to any terms!” With Obama, he needn’t fear being pressed to give any concessions of his own, such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. I think his asking Obama to impose a deal proves that much. You never heard Abu Mazen ask Bush to impose a deal, did you?

    Reply

  14. chumanist says:

    The wisdom of time ordains the fact that the US government,should, by now, do_ something more tangible by adopting the policy of ‘diplomatic adventurism’ in terms of Arab- Israeli conflict_ thereby divorcing the previously adopted doctrines of political incrementalism and gradualism.

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “POS that`s the first thing that`s come out of your god damned mouth that I agree with”
    Well, I’m sorry, Marcus, that I haven’t lived up to your high standards. But then again, I’m not into accusing posters of deviant sexual proclivities, (‘cept maybe a comment or two about questions, who seems to be perversely infatuated with his reading list), so I doubt I have much to say that you’d be interested in.

    Reply

  16. marcus says:

    “at this point.As far as I am concerned.we should cut Israel loose.”
    POS that`s the first thing that`s come out of your god damned mouth that I agree with.
    If the US can`t/will not help,they should get the fuck out of the way…except … they should sell Israel the bombs they need,same like they would do to everyone else on the planet.

    Reply

  17. Jerry says:

    Hey, I admire President Obama for coming to the defense of his Vice President.
    The call-out had the desired effect, it let the ‘world’ know:
    1.) that the President supports his team,
    2.) that the President is not afraid to take on Israel,
    3.) that the President won’t be bullied,
    4.) that it required an apology which Netenyahu delivered at the White House, and
    5.) that VP Biden will be back.
    The call-out may have rattled conservative, American Jews but that is their problem. Maybe they should put a leash on their prima donnas.
    President Obama’s position with regard to Israel is well known as he stated it in Cairo.
    Having served in the Senate, President Obama knows Senator Schumer: no foul called.

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “……does anyone care ???”
    Not me. Not at this point. As far as I am concerned, we should cut Israel loose, and let them go it on their own. If their actions cause them to be trampled, tough shit.

    Reply

  19. marcus says:

    “it`s good to have this on record ” Why ? are you compiling lists for the trains ?

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    Schumers declaration that he represents Israel in the US sentate instead of America is making the rounds on the internet.
    Israel

    Reply

  21. marcus says:

    Any declaration of a state by the arabs with ANY part of Jerusalem as it`s capital would be explicitly ILLEGAL under “international law” specifically UN security council resolution 181……does anyone care ??? are there ANY “international laws” that apply to arabs..or just to israelis ??? …. just wondering……..

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “POA, The Iranian leaders have American blood on their hands by way of their involvement in Iraq”
    Pure unmittigated bullshit. You seem to be prone to prattle.

    Reply

  23. Carroll says:

    Very interesting. Will the US try to prevent democracy in Egypt? If ElBaradei is elected there could be some further changes in the ME.
    The looming risk of Egyptian democracy
    by Paul Woodward on April 24, 2010
    As the end of rule looms for Egypt

    Reply

  24. Dan Kervick says:

    “Abbas refuses a state in temporary borders. The reasons he gives hold with equal force for a state the Palestinians declare in all the WB & Gaza: they would turn the negotiations into border negotiations.”
    Actually, the reasons don’t apply at all to a state covering the entire area of the West Bank and Gaza. If a state was declared covering the entire West Bank and Gaza, there would be no remaining border negotiations.

    Reply

  25. Jerry says:

    POA writes:
    “Can someone tell me what nation other than Israel can target AMERICAN protesters, shoot them down, with nary a mention from these … cowards in our media and their handlers in Washington DC? Can you imagine if Iran was pulling this …?”
    POA, The Iranian leaders have American blood on their hands by way of their involvement in Iraq. Now, is not the time to act wrt Iran. But make no mistake about it, the Iranian leaders days are numbered. The protesters will get the assistance they need to overthrow the current leadership.

    Reply

  26. Jerry says:

    There are 40-50 thousand U.S. troops coming out of Iraq by the end of August, this year. I wonder what their next nation building exercise will be?
    A good start for some of them would be to create and train a Palestinian Army and police force in Jordan for eventual transfer to the soon to be created State of Palestine. These are certainly two of the institutions that a modern state needs to ensure its sovereignty.
    After all, it doesn’t make sense to create a state and not provide it with the means to ensure its sovereignty.
    The King of Jordan is a military man; I think that he understands the need for strong instutitions and would facilitate their development. There is certainly no need to convince him of the need to create a Palesinian State.

    Reply

  27. MarkL says:

    I remembered the name I was thinking of—Ben Linder. I had friends who knew him.
    http://www.envio.org.ni/articulo/3034

    Reply

  28. MarkL says:

    POA,
    I think you’re mistaken that Israel is unique in being able to get away with killing American leftist protesters. This happened in the 1980’s in Central America as well.
    There are probably other examples.
    That doesn’t excuse what the IDF does, of course, nor does it excuse the silence from our leaders.

    Reply

  29. ... says:

    poa, if it’s any consolation – your view is not lost on everyone…many people can see what is going on, in spite of the propaganda aimed in the opposite direction…

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmerican says:

    As “…” links to above, the fact that Israel is shooting peaceful protesters, of numerous nationalites, with live amunition, does not warrant comment from these racist sacks of shit carrying Israel’s water here.
    Nor, apparently, are this nation’s leaders, and our media, sincere in their concern about how protesters are treated by foreign governments.
    Can someone tell me what nation other than Israel can target AMERICAN protesters, shoot them down, with nary a mention from these fucking cowards in our media and their handlers in Washington DC? Can you imagine if Iran was pulling this shit?
    Neda this, and Neda that, while these zionist SS troops target international journalists and peaceful protesters that are protesting serious breeches of INTERNATIONAL LAW.
    http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/what-threat-did-i-pose-the-israeli-soldiers-international-injured-by-israeli-gunfire-asks/

    Reply

  31. nadine says:

    Abbas refuses a state in temporary borders. The reasons he gives hold with equal force for a state the Palestinians declare in all the WB & Gaza: they would turn the negotiations into border negotiations. If Abbas begins border negotiations, Hamas declares him a traitor and kills him.
    ‘No temporary Palestinian state’
    “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has officially rejected an offer by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to demarcate temporary borders for a sovereign Palestinian state on more than 60 percent of the West Bank, Al-Hayat reported on Saturday, citing Palestinian sources.
    According to the report, Abbas said Netanyahu’s overture was aimed at jump-starting negotiations by agreeing to the creation of a Palestinian while blurring the specifications of the future state’s borders. The offer, the sources told the UK-based Arab paper, was a

    Reply

  32. ... says:

    Bianca Zammit, shot in her outer thigh (leg) by armed Israeli soldiers as she filmed, unarmed, at a Palestinian demonstration against the Israeli-imposed “buffer zone”. Bianca, about 3 metres to my left, was standing stationary, filming the IOF soldiers shooting on unarmed Palestinians between us and the border fence. As she was stationary, it is very unlikely that Bianca’s shooting was an accident.
    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/israelis-shoot-maltese-photographer-as-she-films-gaza-demonstration.html

    Reply

  33. nadine says:

    Jerry, in the history of new state creation, of which there have been hundreds in the last century, is it normal for the putative ruler of the new state to take a stance of such perfect helplessness, and demand that some other power impose a solution on him?
    Normally, isn’t that the last thing he’d want? That is, if he really wanted to have a state and be acknowledged as the head of that state. Wouldn’t HE want the credit for state creation? Wouldn’t he be afraid of being forced to take a bad deal?
    Think about it, Jerry. What doesn’t add up about this picture?

    Reply

  34. Jerry says:

    AP report:
    In a speech to leaders of his Fatah movement, the Palestinian president noted that the Obama administration has defined the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as a strategic U.S. interest.
    “Since you, Mr. President and you, the members of the American administration, believe in this, it is your duty to call for the steps in order to reach the solution and impose the solution

    Reply

  35. nadine says:

    “Israel declared a state in 1948, and the world recognized that state even though the reputed state did not have defined and established borders.” (Dan Kervick)
    That’s not quite true, as there were defined borders. Israel was declared with the partition borders of Nov 1947. Those borders were altered by the ensuing war. The Green Line is the truce line of 1949.
    “A Palestinian declaration of statehood can only be a game-changer if it comes from a body representing the whole Palestinian people, declares the boundaries of the state to include all territories occupied during the 1967 hostilities, and secures mutual defense commitments from outside powers willing to send troops to Palestine to help the new state defend its territory. I doubt any of this will happen.”
    The division between Hamas and Fatah is looking permanent. Certainly it would be very risky for Fatah or PM Fayyad to declare statehood on their own.
    Any declaration that claimed only the WB and Gaza would implicitly renounce claims on pre-1967 Israel. This, the Palestinians can’t do. Hamas and the other radicals would kill them as traitors to the Cause.
    But if they declare statehood without any borders, then Israel can say, Fine, let’s negotiate borders, like we did in 2000 and 2008. Hamas will be even madder.
    But if, to mollify Hamas, they declare statehood in all of Palestine “from the river to the sea” then they have let the mask slip about their fixed intentions to destroy Israel. Their western support might slip.
    So it’s fraught with risk in any direction. Wailing about how oppressed they are by the “brutal Occupation” and cashing checks is a much safer option.
    “We

    Reply

  36. Don Bacon says:

    . . .from “101 uses for the ‘Iran nuclear threat'”:
    #44 — to force an I/P settlement
    Let’s address the false assumption, how about that?
    1. Iran, according to the US, is entitled to have a civilian nuclear program, which it has.
    2. Iran’s nuclear program, under treaty, is under full UN surveillance, and the IAEA has consistently reported non-deviation of nuclear fuel to weapons programs.
    3. The US position is that Iran should have a stated policy against having a nuclear weapons program, which it has repeatedly done.
    4. All other demands and claims have no basis in law or fact.

    Reply

  37. Dan Kervick says:

    If the Palestinians declare a state, where would they declare its borders to be?
    Israel declared a state in 1948, and the world recognized that state even though the reputed state did not have defined and established borders. We

    Reply

  38. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Here you have an article at Politico that opens with “The W.H. is trying to reassure Jewish leaders about the relationship between the U.S. and Israel”.
    The article has, at its top, photographs of three men; Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, and Bigot Netanyahu.
    Schumer.
    “Jewish leaders”?
    Think about it.
    http://images.politico.com/global/news/100423_schumer_obama_net_218.jpg
    W.H. launches Israel P.R. offensive
    By LAURA ROZEN
    The W.H. is trying to reassure Jewish leaders about the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
    The White House is engaged in an aggressive effort to reassure Jewish leaders that the tense relationship between the Obama administration and the Israeli government that has played out in public in the past few months does not signify any fundamental change in U.S. policy.
    continues…….

    Reply

  39. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Report from Bil

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    watching the invasion unfold
    April 22, 2010
    It was an early morning, farmers relieved to have harvested the 6 dunam (1 dunam is roughly 1000 square metres) field of lentils planted 5 months ago in Al Faraheen borderlands. The village, east of Khan Younis, includes land cut off to farmers by the Israeli-imposed

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Bad wine: Settlement floods vineyard with sewage
    According to local officials, Israeli settlers released a sewage pipe on the town of Beit Ummar Wednesday night, Ma’an News Agency reports.
    The wastewater, from Gush Etzion settlement, destroyed roughly 70,000 square meters of the Sabarneh family vineyard. All the land in the Wad Shakhat area of Beit Ummar along with the grape crop were ruined by the untreated wastewater, land experts called by the village mayor say.
    The Israeli Civil Administration say the pump incident was an technical malfunction and the matter was rectified as soon as officials were alerted to the flooding.
    A Civil Administration representative said the settlement mayor “called and apologized.”
    http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/news/archive/2010/04/23/bad-wine-settlement-floods-vineyard-with-sewage.aspx
    These people are scum. And this is YOUR tax dollars at work.

    Reply

  42. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://palsolidarity.org/2010/04/12098
    Bulldozers return to destroy children

    Reply

  43. Dirk says:

    “Jews have made so many contributions to the world–Moses and the Ten Commandments, Maimonides, Galileo, Einstein, Freud, Salk.” (JohnH)
    There is absolutely no evidence that Galileo was Jewish; in fact he was a devout Catholic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

    Reply

  44. nadine says:

    correction: Jordan did not build infrastructure in the West Bank before 1967.

    Reply

  45. nadine says:

    “during the “Jordanian occupation” the Palestinians were occupied by themselves. There is no real ethnic difference, Jordan is nothing else than the old Kingdom of Moab and other Aramean tribes, inclusive Judea. In 1923 the whole area was called Palestine.” (frenchconnection)
    It’s true there was no ethnic differences between the Arabs of the West Bank and the Arabs of Jordan. However, the Arabs of the West Bank were not treated like citizens of Jordan from 1948 to 1967, were they? Jordan did build infrastructure in the West Bank during that time. No Palestinian universities were founded during that time. No Palestinian political parties were permitted during that time.

    Reply

  46. nadine says:

    JohnH, I think you need a little reminder of what the Arab attitude towards Israel was before a single Arab refugee had left Palestine, or been occupied by Israel. To quote Abba Eban:

    Reply

  47. David says:

    Palestinians under Israeli dominance would be best served by becoming Israeli citizens, but that would be the end of the notion of a sectarian Jewish state. A shame, because Jews are at their best (at least in my experience) as secular champions of justice and the broadest possible application of essential human rights, and are at their worst as highly sectarian land-grab settlers. I realize the sectarian Zionist mindset will never accept Muslims as fully enfranchised fellow citizens, which really is a shame because of the power for good of that integration.
    The problem with an independent Palestinian state is that Israel can then wage war, state-to-state, which I see no reason to think the current ultra-right powers in the Israeli government would not do. And all one has to do is look at a map of the settlements in the Occupied Territories to see how justified the Palestinians would be in driving the Israelis out of Palestine if Palestine becomes an independent state. Not that they could, and they would be much wiser to follow an approach MLK, Jr. would endorse.
    I do not see any evidence of folks of a J-Street mindset having significant influence over the behavior of the government of Israel, which is really unfortunate.
    But quite honestly, one never knows what might come out of the emerging dynamics. I am still inclined toward what JohnH has suggested could happen.

    Reply

  48. Croatoan says:

    Anyone who suggests that Neturei Karta or True Torah Jews are even remotely more representative of Jews worldwide is utterly delusional at best.

    Reply

  49. Pahlavan says:

    “It is only those in Israel who feel under constant threat, and that is because of their ethnic cleansing, dispossession and brutal occupation of Palestinians.”
    JohnH, It’s helpful and important to make a distinction between the elder Zion’s grossly ambitious expansion plans, also exploiting the Jews residing in the middle-east.
    The level of oppression and annihilation on both the Jews and Muslims, (at the hands of Mongols, the Crusaders and Nazi

    Reply

  50. JohnH says:

    Sad to think that Nadine wants us to believe that Israel=Judaism. Some of us know better. Jews have made so many contributions to the world–Moses and the Ten Commandments, Maimonides, Galileo, Einstein, Freud, Salk. Herzl was not among them.
    http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/herzl/index.cfm

    Reply

  51. Maw of America says:

    Nadine says, “Israel would offer them a state, just not all of Jerusalem like they want.”
    I’ve been to a number of panel discussions with both Israeli and Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian side has never called for all of Jerusalem. In fact, it was just the opposite. They would be happy with East (or was it West) Jerusalem, but the Israeli side kept declaring that god had given them all of it, and they weren’t about to accommodate them.
    Here’s one of those panels:
    “The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is stalled, so AirTalk goes “on the road” to convene a mock “peace summit” at the Japanese American National Museum in downtown Los Angeles. Bringing together a sitting Israeli diplomat with a Palestinian who actively lobbies the U.S. government on behalf of a two-state solution, Larry Mantle moderates the “negotiations” between the Honorable Jacob Dayan, Consul General of Israel to the Southwest U.S., and Hussein Ibish, Senior Fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based American Task Force on Palestine.”
    http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2009/04/29/israel-and-palestine-is-peace-possible-part-i/

    Reply

  52. nadine says:

    “I frankly don’t understand the rationale for a Jewish state in today’s world.”
    That’s ironic, because the one-sided condemnation you apply to Israel, and Israel alone, underlines the reason every day.

    Reply

  53. JohnH says:

    Personally, I think the two state solution will largely formalize the losses of the Palestinians and ill-gotten gains of the Zionists.
    I would much prefer a single state solution, perhaps by extending Israeli law (minus discriminatory parts) to all people living under Israeli control, including Gaza. Palestinians would then be able to vote their way to a more equitable distribution of the pie.
    I frankly don’t understand the rationale for a Jewish state in today’s world. Most Jews today are secure and prosperous. It is only those in Israel who feel under constant threat, and that is because of their ethnic cleansing, dispossession and brutal occupation of Palestinians.

    Reply

  54. frenchconnection says:

    during the “Jordanian occupation” the Palestinians were occupied by themselves. There is no real ethnic difference, Jordan is nothing else than the old Kingdom of Moab and other Aramean tribes, inclusive Judea. In 1923 the whole area was called Palestine.
    Curiously at that time began anti Jewish riots due to the increasing zionist immigration.
    Because there is a big difference between an internal hegemon of the same ethnic group and an EXTERNAL one with a complete different culture, language and religion and at the very best peripheral ethnic ties.
    a literate Pashto has less difficulties in understanding the Theran dialect than a cockney Londoner has to understand Welsh. But a literate Pashto might not be fluent in Uzbek or Tadjik. At least he shares the same religion and much of the culture. Replace Iranian with Jordanian and Pashtun with Palestinian and you get the picture.
    But Askhenazi Jews are as foreign to the area as Americans are in Afghanistan. Of course Americans could always say that some of them are descendents by immigration of Alexander the Great who ruled the region for 400 years, which of course could be very possible.

    Reply

  55. Carroll says:

    “Had Hamas behaved differently, Israel would have behaved differently.”
    Ha…total bullshit. If Palestinians had not actively fought Israel, Palestine would be competely gone by now. Israel would have just taken it all.
    I had always favored Palestine just declaring their statehood and going from there.
    I haven’t researched and don’t know the legal ramifications there would be in settling borders.
    However if they did that without waiting further for Israel and the UN approved it.
    Then it may be that finally declaring statehood actually puts them under the 1948 agreement on Palestine becoming a state. Which could legally revert Palestine back to the original borders set by the UN in the original agreement in 1947.
    “If” it could work that way it would throw a lot of legal weight Palestine’s way in recovering their land. All land questions would start over from stratch, not Israeli facts on the grounds.

    Reply

  56. JohnH says:

    “Had Hamas behaved differently, Israel would have behaved differently.”
    The usual crap. They committed misdemeanors, so we get to commit felonies.
    Sharon could have chosen to negotiate his withdrawal from Gaza but chose to ignore Hamas. Recognition is indeed a two way street.

    Reply

  57. nadine says:

    “Question: what people were ever able to establish an effective government and lasting institutions during a brutal occupation? IMHO the answer is, “None.”” (JohnH)
    You have no idea what you are talking about. You are drinking your own kool-aid. Under Jordanian occupation, the Palestinians were forbidden to make their own parties, forbidden to found institutions, basically kept in control by the Jordanian secret police. Every single Palestinian university, Bir Zeit and all the rest, was founded under Israeli occupation.
    Esp. since Oslo, the Pals have gotten billions and billions to build their state. They don’t want one. Victimhood pays better and requires no compromises.

    Reply

  58. nadine says:

    JohnH, There was no blockade of Gaza while the PA ruled it. Hamas reneged on all the PA-signed agreements, refused to recognize Israel, launched attacks at Israel — and that was before they threw all those Fatah guys off tall buildings and took complete power in a coup.
    Recognition is a two-way street.
    Had Hamas behaved differently, Israel would have behaved differently.

    Reply

  59. nadine says:

    JohnH, There was no blockade of Gaza while the PA ruled it. Hamas reneged on all the PA-signed agreements, refused to recognize Israel, launched attacks at Israel — and that was before they threw all those Fatah guys off tall buildings and took complete power in a coup. Recognition is a two-way street.
    Had Hamas behaved differently, Israel would have behaved differently.

    Reply

  60. JohnH says:

    Jerry said, “the land that will make up the Palestinian State is not Israel’s to give?!?”
    Nonsense! Israel took it. Israel can give it back.
    Question: what people were ever able to establish an effective government and lasting institutions during a brutal occupation? IMHO the answer is, “None.”

    Reply

  61. Jerry says:

    Never forget…the land that will make up the Palestinian State is not Israel’s to give.
    But there is no point in helping establish a country that cannot govern itself.
    So, create the institutions first, then give the Palestiniaans their rightful land to govern.

    Reply

  62. JohnH says:

    As Nadine says, Israel would give Palestinians a state. And we can see exactly what she means by looking at Gaza.
    Israel’s “generous gift” came with a total blockade by land, air and sea. Israel’s “generous gift” is little more than a gigantic prison camp. And of course Gaza is denied access to the large natural gas deposits for which it is named and which Israel covets.
    And Nadine wonders why Palestinians cannot accept Israel’s “generous offers?”

    Reply

  63. Jerry says:

    In the Cairo Speech and in James L. Jones speech it is clear that the Obama Administration’s position is more ambitious than previous administrations.
    President Obama has elevated the Palestinian cause to the same level as the Israeli cause in American dipomacy. Resolution of the Palestinian Israeli issue in a fair manner is key to American interests worldwide.
    The goal of “building Palestinian institutions” clearly elevates the Palestinian cause to parity with Israel.
    It will be interesting to see what replaces the Palestinian Authority as the institution building progresses.

    Reply

  64. nadine says:

    Israel would offer them a state, just not all of Jerusalem like they want. But I believe this is noise for attention’s sake, nothing more. If the Palesitnians had wanted a state, they could have had one many times — and during periods when they had unified rule and could have run one. Now all they will get is an instant civil war and a probable Hamas takeover of the West Bank, which would surely put a crimp in Fatah’s gravy train.

    Reply

  65. non-hater says:

    The Palestinians can declare all they want, but Israel will never let them have a viable state.
    What the Palestinians should do is declare themselves Israeli citizens, which is what they should be anyway. Doing so would change the dynamics entirely.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *