We recognised independence for Kosovo - why not do so now for Palestine?

Wilberforce Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:19:45 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

We were so quick to recognise Kosovan independence, as was the USA. This despite the fact that it’s still has significant ‘issues’ with regards to Serbian towns within its territory.




Why not break the political and diplomat log jam in the Middle East by unilaterally recognising the nation of Palestine, even without a formal declaration from Pres. Abbas. I mean going beyond recognising and supporting their desire for a state, but formally recognising it, and the PLO as its leaders. We can then apply real pressure over the Israeli presence and actions within the truly ‘occupied’ territories.

 

Labour was, and still is credited in the subcontinent, as the party which finally gave India and Pakistan their independence.  Why not do the right thing and be the one help the Palestinians get theirs?



tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
We recognised independence for Kosovo - why not do so now for Palestine? | 26 comments (26 topical)

- why not do so now for Palestine? (#1)

by JamesM on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM GMT

Firstly, because - whether you agree or not - the UK and the US don't wish to "apply real pressure" to Israel, which is under enough pressure as it is.


Furthermore, it might have passed you by, but the borders for an eventual Palestinian state are the subject of disagreement. Unless you've devised a way of meeting these two competing national claims that would be agreeable to both sides - which I suspect is not the case - what you're really calling for is irresponsible gesture politics.


Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#2)

by rwendland on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:15:48 PM GMT

It does no good recognising a state for which realistic borders have not been defined. The settlements are now so extensive, and Palestinian areas so broken up by settler-only roads, I think a two-state solution is impractical, it's time has past - look at the map. It seems many in Israel and Palestine are coming to this view as well. It will be a long hard slog to a non-religous one-state solution I think.

 srttlement map



Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#3)

by Wilberforce on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:27:17 PM GMT

To think that I would post this without being familiar with the issues...

The borders are not in any legal dispute, facts on the ground or not. UN Resolution 242 clearly calls for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders. That, at the minimum, should be the boundaries of the state.

There are still unresolved issues with the 10% Serb population in Kosovo yet we did that.

I am not calling for gesture politics, because all the Palestinians have had so far is gestures... I am calling for bold action. 


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#4)

by rwendland on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:00:50 PM GMT

I do agree back to the 1967 borders is viable possibility, if it were practical; but I cannot see the US forcing this on Israel.

I'm not sure creating a de-jure state that is not allowed de-facto to have planes or ships enter, where vehicles cannot easily enter/exit or travel between zones, is a good idea. The state could not sustain itself even if offered finance from the Arab world (as Gaza has discovered), but Isreal would no longer have international law obligations to the occupied territory either. Doesn't sound a good idea to me.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#5)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:49:07 PM GMT

I agree with Wilberforce - we should go back to the 1967 borders and pressure should be put on Israel to comply with this.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#7)

by Prbo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM GMT

But I thought that Israel had already pulled out of the Gaza strip and handed over control to the PA?  That's a Palestinian state, isn't it?


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#11)

by rwendland on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:57:31 PM GMT

You can't even call the area a de-facto state when all the borders are controlled so people cannot move freely, and imports/exports and banking so restricted that normal commercial activity cannot take place. The population is 1.5 million (including 1 million refugees) in 360 sq km, making a population density of 4100 per sq-km, the most crowded non-tiny territory on earth except Hong Kong and Singapore - 4 times denser than  Bangladesh. GDP per capita is US$1,500 (Hong Kong US$37,300, Singapore US $31,400).

Some people argue the Gaza strip is like a large open-prison, and you can see some basis for that.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#12)

by Prbo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:52:16 AM GMT

I'll repeat what I said below.  Have you considered why Israel is reluctant to allow total access and freedoms to Gaza?  Is it just because they don't feel like it, and enjoy inflicting misery on people?  Or are there other reasons?


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#13)

by Wilberforce on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:44:31 AM GMT

I am not the Israeli government nor their spokesperson. I certainly would not want to in anyway seek to justify their actions by repeating their statements.

However, to hold more than a million Gazans to ransom in horrific conditions, because of the actions of a few of them lobbing unguided Qassam rockets at Sderot - whilst guided Israeli missiles still rain down and kill civilians in Gaza is completely unjust.

Moreover, the economic stranglehold and denial of the elected government, only leads to further radicalisation, and spiralling violence.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#14)

by Prbo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM GMT

whilst guided Israeli missiles still rain down and kill civilians in Gaza is completely unjust.

Do you believe that Israel deliberately targets civilians?  And why are they forced to attack targets in Gaza? 

When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians had the chance to show that they could run their own affairs and act like grown-ups.  Instead, they try and commit random murder by firing rockets into Israel.  Would you say this is justified?  Frankly, it's amazing that Israel's been as restrained as it has.  What you suggest the UK did if another country was firing rockets at us, trying to kill civilians?

As for the economic stranglehold, I agree to an extent.  The only problem is - why should Israel reward the Palestinians, who apparently seem bent on destroying them?  If they won't stop rocket attacks and attempted suicide bombings (which are occuring weekly, but as the IDF are so good at stopping them they rarely get through), why should the Israelis relax their restrictions?


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#15)

by rwendland on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM GMT

Let's think about the future stable possibilities for Gaza, putting aside the chicken&egg reasons for the present situation.

With a population density 4 times greater than Bangladesh on a meagre soil, an agricultural based economy for the present population looks impossible. I can only think of two possibilities other than continual refugee assistance:

  1. A million+ residents move out of the area, to reduce population to agricultural possibilities.
  2. Gaza becomes a small import/export industrial powerhouse like Hong Kong. This would almost certainly have to mean it is given free trade with the EU, to create a market, and a lot of investment support.

The other Arab states seem very resistant to taking in more refugees, so the first possibility seems dependent on an one-state solution allowing refugees to return to roughly their origins (if not their exact land), or the EU/US accepting the immigration.

Second solution seems to require and end to conflict, so Israel opens the ports and airfield, and EU support.

Of all the possibilities, the one-state solution sounds most plausible to me.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#16)

by Prbo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:23:31 PM GMT

Do you mean a one-state solution for Gaza, or for Israel as a whole?  It's not quite clear what you mean...


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#17)

by rwendland on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM GMT

One-state solution for Israel + West bank + Gaza strip.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#18)

by Prbo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:54:59 PM GMT

How you do propose getting Israel to agree with this, considered it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas?  Do you expect a country to vote itself out of existence?


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#19)

by rwendland on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:41:12 PM GMT

In 2000 some 18% of Israeli Jews (& 20% of Palestinians) were pro the one-state solution, so it's not off the wall. And 49% of Israeli Jews (68% of Palestinians) didn't think a two-state solution would bring peace.

But the real driver is that agreeing a two-state solution, given there are 465,000 West Bank+East Jerusalem Israeli settlers, will be pretty much impossible I think. What is the practical alternative?

A one-state solution will be just over 50% Jewish, so the politics could work reasonably co-operatively left/right. And I get the feeling the possibility is being considered more seriously recently by both those for and against a one-state solution.

But of course it will be many tears before there is a majority for a one-state solution. It's really in Israeli hands: withdraw to the '67 borders and give a two-state solution a real chance, or over time the majority will move toward the one-state solution as an alternative that might work.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#21)

by Prbo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM GMT

I admire your optimism...and on paper your ideas sound great.  However, in reality a one state solution is impossible, and though a two-state solution is more likely, I would say that's almost certainly not going to bring lasting peace.

The problem is the Palestinian attitude towards Israel's existence.  If claims to land stopped with a withdrawal to 1967 borders, then all well and good. But they don't.  Palestinian groups claim that all the land in the area is theirs, not just Gaza and the West Bank.  The terrorist groups of Islamic Jihad, Hamas , Al-Aqsa etc wouldn't stop the killings and rocket attacks if Israel withdrew to 1967 borders at all.

For these guys, it's not about Un resolutions or peace soultions.  It's about removing Israel's existence altogether.  There's no compromise they'd be happy with alas. 

I know that this isn't necessarily the view of all Palestinians.  However, this is what has to be taken into account when assessing Israel's actions and decisions.  Having been granted part of their wishes by having Gaza transferred to them, wouldn't one have expected Palestinian groups to have toned down their attacks?  It seems as though they actually increased them.  this doesn't seem like the actions of a group who would be assuaged with control of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem as well.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#25)

by rwendland on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:33:29 PM GMT

On the other hand there are some Israeli religious nuts that want all non-Jews turfed out of Greater Israel. After all God did give the descendants of Abram a vast chunk of land in Genesis 15:18-21!

We have to bypass all the extremists!

It's not really optimism. I just don't see Israeli political will, or US pressure, that will remove the settlers; or that the Palestinians accepting much less than the '67 borders. So eventually the one-state solution will be seen as the only peace on offer.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#20)

by Wilberforce on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM GMT

You are just talking about the Gaza here, there are many millions more refugees in camps in Lebanon and Syria as well as those in Jordan.

Can't believe you propose moving population out of Gaza. And you should not even be considering Gaza in isolation but as part of a wider Palestinian nation that includes the West Bank.

There is no reason at all, with proper investment and end of restrictions on trade that the economy cannot grow. Palestine has a very high level of education, but sadly many of its professionals are forced into a diaspora by the economic and political situation.

As for the Gazan economy, not only is there a potential for the fishing industry and market gardening, but also manufacturing and services. It has wonderful beaches too.... and if that seems unlikely remember that the best beach resorts on the red sea 0 Sharm al Sheik and Taba were also under Israeli occupation under their return to Egypt in the 1980s.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#22)

by rwendland on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:35:48 PM GMT

I wasn't trying to suggest Gaza should be handled separately, just exploring the difficulties for this area alone given the population density. When whatever solution is implemented, we need very rapid economic improvement to drain the past resentments - to give peace a chance.

If a one-state solution came about, I'd guess many Gaza refugees would want to move back to somewhere near where they came from. If not, we are looking at an area with a population density similar to Birmingham, so not all that much market gardening employment I should think.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#23)

by Wilberforce on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM GMT

There will never be a one-state solution.

Also, when Singapore was independent in 1965 it had 50% unemployment, no natural resources and no water supply and ethnic tensions of its own, as well as the worlds highest birth rate.... it now has a GDP per capita higher than the UK, low crime and near full employment.
So dont think it cant be done, especially if there were a kind of Marshall Plan for Palestine.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#24)

by rwendland on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:09:18 PM GMT

> There will never be a one-state solution.

Well, that is quite an assertion. Care to explain how you forsee the future quite so clearly?

Even Ehud Olmert will discuss the possibility with Haaretz.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#26)

by Wilberforce on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM GMT

I dont think its quite an assertion, its in line with the aspirations of the Palestinian people and all the UN resolutions.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#6)

by swatantra on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:22:28 PM GMT

You're absolutely right. There should have been one nonsecular State of Palestine in 1948. But it didn't happen. But looking at the map, for the new Palestinian State to be viable the only solution is that there should be a direct land link between Gaza and Jerusalem,  and the 'green' territory from Bethlehem should extend to the Dead Sea. That would give Palestine access to the Med and the Dead Sea. Israel could have Jericho.
If Israel really seriously wants peace, then they must give up Jerusalem, as well.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#8)

by Wilberforce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:25:27 PM GMT

Although Israel withdrew from Gaza it contains the water and electricity supply, prevents their fishermen from fishing, maintains closure of the airport and seaport and controls the land borders. Thats not an independent state, its just a large prison camp. This economic stranglehold is leading to further alienation and radicalisation in Gaza.

Actually under the 1967 borders, Palestine would have access to the Med via Gaza and the Dead Sea (albeit landlocked) from the West Bank. there would be a road link, perhaps a raised highway, linking Gaza and the west Bank to allow for unimpeded travel.

I actually think that shared sovereignty of Jerusalem is the only workable solution. (This was proposed under the original 1948 partition plan, with Jerusalem as an international city.) Jerusalem must be the capital of a Palestinian state, but no reason why it cant be for Israel too... even if their legislatures are in the East and West parts of the city.


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#10)

by Prbo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:52:41 PM GMT

Although Israel withdrew from Gaza it contains the water and electricity supply, prevents their fishermen from fishing, maintains closure of the airport and seaport and controls the land borders. Thats not an independent state, its just a large prison camp. This economic stranglehold is leading to further alienation and radicalisation in Gaza.

Factually that may be the case, but have you considered why Israel have maintained restrictions?  Is it just becuase they don't like the Palestinians, or is it for other reasons?  I know the standard belief is that Israel is evil and incapable of allowing the Palestinians any freedom, but have you ever wondered why they're reluctant to allow the Palestinians more freedom than they have at the moment?


[ Parent ]

Re: why not do so now for Palestine? (#9)

by Wilberforce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:27:32 PM GMT

Just to clarify Swantantra, the 1967 borders are the 1948 armistice line shown here, and not merely the shaded green areas, where the current Palestinian Authority has some remit.  :)


[ Parent ]

We recognised independence for Kosovo - why not do so now for Palestine? | 26 comments (26 topical)