I can't find anyone who talks about the legality or legal consequences of Jordan's actions in 1988. And I cannot find any possible legal justification for calling the West Bank "Palestinian territory."It doesn't seem to matter to the author that there are 2 million or so Palestinians living there and that that might make it worthy of being called "Palestinian territory". More importantly, the entire discussion is irrelevant really because who cares whether Jordan's annexation was legal and whether it could legitimately hand it over to the PLO. What bearing can that have on the current situation?
The author might, of course, be idly speculating about the subject knowing that it is irrelevant. But if not it is truly worrying that he was a finalist in the "2011 pro-Israel blog-off". I maintain that more Israelis need to understand the need and the correctness of withdrawing from the West Bank. If the second most (because I assume he didn't win or else it would say winner not finalist) popular or important pro-Israel blog is encouraging the idea that the West Bank is not really Palestinian territory then that is surely making it harder for Israelis to reach that point.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Israel-Palestine blogging, Anthony. I think the more time you spend on this issue, the more you'll find that many Israelis, and Jews around the world, have quite legitimate reasons for rejecting the concept of Palestinian sovereignty, in any for the Palestinians themselves would find acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of "Palestinian territory" which EoZ brings up is a corollary of the sovereignty question. His point, essentially, is to say that since there is no Palestinian sovereign, and never has been, then there is not a geographic domain which can be claimed to be "Palestinian" in nature.
Yes, individual Palestinians own land, and with Israeli consent, there exists a measure of municipal and even national administration, in a less than sovereign capacity. However, there are no Palestinian "state lands" - non-private, publicly owned or managed areas - and thus there is no such thing as "Palestinian territory".
Your response that it should be called "Palestinian territory" because 2 million Palestinians (and 550,000 Jews) live there doesn't address his challenge. Brooklyn, New York, may contain a very high concentration of American Jews. That doesn't mean that Brooklyn is "Jewish territory".
The issue isn't that "Palestinian territory" exists, because outside of Israel's consent it doesn't, but that you think it should, and seek that outcome. Again, many Israelis do not seek that outcome, and not out of prejudice or hatred. Before lecturing them, you should attempt to understand why.
Thanks for the welcome. Your concern over the phrase "Palestinian territory" is purely semantics. It makes no difference whether we call it that or call it "presumed Palestinian territory" or even "disputed territory over which the Palestinian Arabs have the strongest claim to sovereignty by some margin". The basic point remains that Israel and Israelis should not think it is right for them to prevent the Palestinians from having self-determination. And since they certainly aren't going to make them Israeli citizens they must be prepared to make them citizens of a new and independent state.
ReplyDeleteEoZ's post may have been idle speculation on what the technical position of the area is. However, it comes across as a post arguing that the Palestinians have no claim to an independent state of their own. And this is not right.
You try and compare the situation to American Jews living in Brooklyn. The difference is that those Jews have the right to vote on their leaders and therefore full control over their lives. They have self-determination. Palestinians do not.
I fully understand the reasons why Israelis do not want to see an independent Palestinian state. Some of them are even good reasons. None of them is strong enough, in my opinion, to make it acceptable to deny self-determination to the Palestinians forever.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteWhat you call "semantics" has a direct impact on public opinion and the legal status of the territories. In this conflict, every word is charged with meaning.
It makes no difference whether we call it that or call it "presumed Palestinian territory" or even "disputed territory over which the Palestinian Arabs have the strongest claim to sovereignty by some margin".
There is no "we" here. I wouldn't call these territories anything other than disputed, and certainly not Palestinian, either in the "presumed" or the "strongest claim" form.
The basic point remains that Israel and Israelis should not think it is right for them to prevent the Palestinians from having self-determination.
Right. So, some Israelis actually lived through the 1990s, when self-determination for Palestinians sounded like a wonderful idea. That was before Israeli surgeons became world experts in removing shrapnel from the bodies of terror victims. Palestinian self-determination has not been the issue for two decades, Anthony. Successive Israeli government have offered the Palestinians a state, in 2000, 2001 and 2008. These terms were rejected by the Palestinians.
Self-determination is the right of any national grouping - a right which the Arabs, incidentally, deny to the Jews - but this right is not absolute; it is paired with responsibility. You cannot engage in a war of extermination against your neighbors and simultaneously demand your sovereignty.
And since they certainly aren't going to make them Israeli citizens they must be prepared to make them citizens of a new and independent state.
Actually, this isn't at all clear. For example, there are around 8 million permanent residents in Germany (from Turkey) who do not have the right to vote. Did you know that the entire island of Jamaica is not represented in the US Congress, and cannot vote for the President, yet is governed by US law?
The world is full of examples of incomplete, less-than sovereignty, autonomous regions and special voting provisions, including in Western, democratic societies. Quebec, for example, is an autonomous region of Canada.
The Palestinians have elected a parliament, a presidenct, they have municipal services. It's not as though they are entirely disenfranchised. So, it's not either "one man one vote" or "apartheid", because the situation is far more complex.
Moreover, the present Palestinian leadership has refused the terms offered by Israel for full sovereignty, and I might argue, terms endorsed by the international community. So, it's not as though there is no process in place to rectify whatever injustice there is, merely that this process has yet to yield a successful outcome.
You try and compare the situation to American Jews living in Brooklyn.
ReplyDeleteYou take this out of context. I was making the point that just because 2 million Palestinians (and 550,000 Jews) live in the West Bank, this doesn't make it "Palestinian territory". Residency doesn't define a region's character.
I fully understand the reasons why Israelis do not want to see an independent Palestinian state.
I'm not sure you do, but I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.
Some of them are even good reasons. None of them is strong enough, in my opinion, to make it acceptable to deny self-determination to the Palestinians forever.
So, with all due respect, what is your opinion worth to people whose families have been under rocket bombardment by Hamas or Hezbollah? Did you know that every time there was a bus bombing in Israel the cell phone networks crashed? Israel is a very small, close-knit country; everyone knows everyone. Every Israeli is someone's husband, sister, cousin, etc.
When was the last time you had to urgently call every number programmed into your phone to make sure that they weren't the ones splattered all over the pavement on the evening news?
Your opinion isn't worth very much to people who have to put their families on the line. Israelis are no less intelligent than you, and perhaps more so. There are six million of them, with high literacy and education levels, and they don't need your help forming sensible opinions about the world in which they live.
The 90s were a time of great optimism, said to herald a "New Middle East" of peace and prosperity. It's dead, Anthony. The Arabs killed it.
Until the Palestinians agree to the terms which are within the Israeli consensus - a demilitarized state, retaining settlement blocks along Israel's narrow waist, a military presence in the Jordan Valley, agreement to a Jewish State of Israel - there will be no Palestinian state. If they do agree, they can have their state tomorrow.
So why waste time trying to convince the Israelis, who are ready to give the Palestinians a state, and have attempted to do so twice in the last decade? Do everyone a favor and convince the Palestinians to accept that state, and you'll be a real hero.
I'm going to ignore your appeals to emotion if you don't mind (well even if you do).
ReplyDeleteYour position is confused. On the one hand you are trying to tell me that of course Israel (and presumably you too) support giving the Palestinians an independent state. Yet at the same time you are busy telling me why they don't really necessarily need one.
Israel has magnanimously offered a state to the Palestinians but they reject it. Yet at the same time you tell me that really the Palestinians must either accept exactly what Israel says they can have or else they get nothing.
My problem is with one fact - only 1 in 2 Israelis is prepared to accept withdrawing from the West Bank (excluding major settlement areas) as part of a negotiated permanent peace agreement. How do you respond to that?
source: http://arielzellman.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/poll-israeli-public-opinion-on-settlement-evacuation/
That's not "withdrawal". Withdrawal is another one of those loaded terms, and it refers to the retraction of Israel's military presence from the territories.
ReplyDeleteWhen you speak of settlements, the correct term is evacuation. So, many Israelis believe that Jews should not have to evacuate from a newly created Palestinian state just because they're Jews.
What is your specific problem with this? You don't think that Jews should be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state?
I'm going to ignore your appeals to emotion if you don't mind (well even if you do).
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I made many appeals to your emotions, merely to your sensibilities. You seem to think that six million highly educated people, living from birth in a country and region which is alien to you, are incapable of making sensible decisions which affect them and their families. If that's not arrogance on your part, I don't know what is.
My position, as is the position of the vast majority of Israelis, isn't confused in the least. We are all open to the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty, but only on terms that the Jews of Israel can offer. This means, again, a demilitarized Palestinian state (Germany was basically demilitarized for 40 years, as was Japan, so this is not unprecedented), retention of settlement blocks along Israel's narrow waist, and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan valley.
Why should these minor issues be an impediment to Palestinian statehood? They're not. The Palestinians could have a state tomorrow. They don't want it on those terms.
So, until they accept, or until Israel loses a major war, those terms will be on the table, and the Palestinians will either be free to accept them, or to continue their obstinate war against the Jews.
In the meantime, it's worth pointing out that the Palestinians are not entirely disenfranchised. In other words, they already enjoy a considerable level of self rule and normal life in all the territories in question. In other words, there is no pressing need for Israel to make any further concessions. The Palestinians are not doing great, but they're also not that badly off, and if they want more, they will need to cease violence and accept Israel's very basic, legitimate and just terms for a final settlement.
But if they don't, they don't. And life goes on.
You make a good point about the difference between withdrawal and evacuation. Though it seems obvious that evacuation is also necessary just as it is obvious that the right of return must be replaced with compensation.
ReplyDeleteIf indeed the position of most Israelis is as you describe then I'm very pleased and have no reason to argue with you. But going back to my post I was simply making the point that if EoZ's post was not idle speculation then it was harmful by spreading the notion that there really isn't any need for an independent Palestinian state.
If you agree that there is such a need then do you agree with me that EoZ's post (and similar ones) don't really help?
Look Anthony, you're a good guy. You're looking at this through the perspective of equity and justness for all sides. It's not an unreasonable perspective, but it is also a less than seasoned one. When you are entering a negotiation, it is sheer folly to admit what your bottom lines are. Once other side knows what they can get from you, they will adjust their maximalist demands and ask for more.
ReplyDeleteEoZ is fighting a war. It's not a war he started, or even a war he wants to be fighting, but it's a war with clear front lines, weapons, tactics, foot soldiers, etc. In a war, you don't give the enemy breathing room just because it's a nice thing to do, and you don't relinquish territory because your enemy thinks you should.
In the wide, pluralistic spectrum of pro-Israel advocacy, EoZ plays a role in outlining a particular position. He argues that a Palestinian state is an outcome which can lead to tragic, bloody consequences, which is certainly possible. Therefore, he is against Palestinian sovereignty, and attempts to rally reason to his cause. It's one thing to say that his arguments aren't helpful to creating a two state solution - to which he would respond, "that's the point" - and another to say that they have no merit.
For what it's worth, I think there are better writers and advocates than him on "maximalist" Jewish rights, if we can call them that. However, EoZ isn't really a thinker's thinker; he's a collator of news and opinion which gives ammunition to the war. He knows his role in this war, and he performs his duty in accord with his conscience.
Though it seems obvious that evacuation is also necessary just as it is obvious that the right of return must be replaced with compensation.
ReplyDeleteAgain, please remember that what is obvious to some is less than obvious to others. I'm not sure why it is obvious that no Jews should be allowed to live in a Palestinian state. On what basis are you making this statement?
Is it obvious that Israel should deport the 1.4 million Palestinian citizens within its borders to a future state of Palestine? That sounds ridiculous, and racist. So why isn't the inverse also true?
Once sovereignty over territory is transferred from Israel to a future Palestine, Israeli communities which remain behind, and which wish to stay, will (and must) be granted Palestinian citizenship.