Skip to main content

View Diary: On the impossibility of Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel (307 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    npbeachfun

    Negotiation requires compromise, but why does it require "precondition?"  That is the opposite of negotiation or compromise, it is a unilateral demand.  All the things Israel wants should be gained in the same way any other nation gets what it wants, through negotiation.

    Remember, all the demands are for things that the PLO previous gave and got nothing for.  No Palestinian state exists despite once giving in on all the preconditions, and despite your belief that Israel is really concerned about protecting Palestinian rights.

    I have to admit, if someone comes up to me and says Palestine will only be free through military resistance, I cannot refute the point, despite its major lack of success so far.

    •  OK (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric S, zemblan, james risser

      When the preconditions are things like we acknowledge your existence and we'll stop killing your civilians, I don't think those are the least bit unreasonable.  These are just basic requirements needed for any kind of serious negotiations.

      And while prior negotiations between the PLO and Israel did not produce a Palestinian state, there were negotiations. The preconditions got Israel to the table.  And the PLO (Fatah) is not in charge anymore - Hamas is, and as Hamas won't recognize the pre-conditions, it is the Palestinian side that has gone back on the prior agreements.

      I have to admit, if someone comes up to me and says Palestine will only be free through military resistance, I cannot refute the point, despite its major lack of success so far.

      Major lack of success?  Every time a Palestinian bomber blows something up, its a setback for the Palestinians.  Israel takes a harder line, sympathetic Israelis lose sympathy, and the international community eases off the pressure on Israel.  The "military resistance" is entirely self-defeating.  What gives you the idea that it can succeed?  

      What would Ghandi have done?  What would Mandela do?  Palestine needs to look to those successes.  

      i was france ave when they came out dancing. i was lyndale south. i was kicking it with cousins.

      by Mia Dolan on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:31:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Answers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        npbeachfun, james risser

        When the preconditions are things like we acknowledge your existence and we'll stop killing your civilians

        These would be more plausible if they applied to both sides.

        I don't think those are the least bit unreasonable.

        I think they are great end goals.  Indeed, since there is basically a war and what you are describing is basically peace, they can only be the goal.

        These are just basic requirements needed for any kind of serious negotiations.

        Well, no.  Any revolution, when it seeks separation from the original country, starts out without recognition and gains it at the end.  Likewise, in war, the end of killing comes after negotiations, not before (though there certainly can be truces, such as there is in Gaza).

        And while prior negotiations between the PLO and Israel did not produce a Palestinian state, there were negotiations. The preconditions got Israel to the table.

        Exactly.  This is the critical problem.  You believe that Palestinians should make sacrifices and compromises solely for the right to talk to Israel, not for any specific outcome.  You would  not apply this standard in any other negotiations.  It again becomes a unilateral demand for Palestine to give Israel what it wants in return for Israel then beginning discussions over what Palestinians want.  That isn't how negotiations work, both sides give up something to gain something.

        Every time a Palestinian bomber blows something up, its a setback for the Palestinians.

        Probably true, though it implies that Israel would have granted a state if not forced to, and I am not convinced of this at all.  Palestinian resistance has caused them untold suffering and costs them sympathy around the world, but I don't actually know that they would be independent now if they had been non-violent.

        The "military resistance" is entirely self-defeating.  What gives you the idea that it can succeed?  

        Just the history of guerrilla warfare.  It is always worse on the resisting population than the occupier, but it is very often successful.  Not always, and much about I-P is unique, but it is not impossible that it can succeed at some point.  Empires fall.

        What would Ghandi have done?  What would Mandela do?  Palestine needs to look to those successes.

         
        They had the massive advantage of numbers.  The cases are certainly very important but not perfectly parallel.  If the Brits had shot Ghandi on day one, what would have happened?  I don't know.  If Britain had been right next door and outnumbered India 2-to-1, what would have happened?  I don't know.  

        •  Well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zemblan

          Obviously, the situation varies from country to country.  But if you exlcude the major settlements near the 1967 borders (and btw, those borders are long gone) the Palestinians do have a massive advantage in numbers in the occupied territories.  Israel unilaterally left Gaza in part for that very reason.

          I don't know that non-violent residence would have or even will lead to a Palestinian state.  But in this case, violence is not going to get them there.

          And as far as the terms and compromises necessary on one or both sides - it may seem unfair on its face.  But the parties are not on an equal playing field.  You have to deal with the situation you have, and this situation requires that the Palestinians have to make the first concessions.  

          i was france ave when they came out dancing. i was lyndale south. i was kicking it with cousins.

          by Mia Dolan on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:05:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            npbeachfun

            it may seem unfair on its face.  But the parties are not on an equal playing field.

            Well now we've come to the point that this isn't actually negotiations.  It is simply Israel ordering the Palestinians to jump through hoops and justifying it on the ground that they have the bigger guns.  This calls into question your thesis that Israel is truly concerned with Palestinian rights.

            So again, I cannot refute the argument that violent resistance is the only way Palestine will become free.  Without negotiations (which doesn't include unilateral demands), Palestine is left with two choices: war or reliance on Israel's goodwill.  Which is more likely to result in success?  I don't know.  

            •  OK (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric S, james risser

              Well there is nothing arbitrary ("jumping through hoops") in insisting that the other side recognizes your right to exist and agrees to renounce violence against you.  And my thesis is that Israel (or many Israelis) are or will be concerned with Palestinian rights once their own security is secured.  Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  

              You say you cannot refute the argument that violent resistance is the only way, but can you actually support that theory?   And agreeing to the preconditions is not surrendering to Israel's goodwill - there is plenty of leverage left.  But even so, I think Israel's goodwill is a better option.  

              i was france ave when they came out dancing. i was lyndale south. i was kicking it with cousins.

              by Mia Dolan on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:25:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  just curious... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                npbeachfun

                ...have you ever heard of one state claiming 'they have a right to exist' other than israel?

                what does it mean? is it based in law, precedent, common usage? where has it ever been used before?

                and, what state has or hasn't a right to exist? did saddam's iraq have a 'right to exist'? does luxembourg have a 'right to exist'? and, if every state has a 'right to exist' what does that mean? no more wars? alternatively, if no state has a 'right to exist' what would that mean? which is the state of the world today? how many have this 'right' and how many do not? examples?

                that has always seemed somewhat baffling to me. is isreal the most exceptional state to ever exist in the history of time to demand that other non-states/states recognize (wrong term by the way) their 'right to exist' when such a right has never in the history of time been extended to any other state?

                •  Hey (0+ / 0-)

                  I've been offline, and will be offline until late next week, but I'm enjoying our discussion and want to pick it up again then.  

                  i was france ave when they came out dancing. i was lyndale south. i was kicking it with cousins.

                  by Mia Dolan on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:22:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Again (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                npbeachfun, callmecassandra

                Well there is nothing arbitrary in insisting that the other side recognizes your right to exist and agrees to renounce violence against you.

                As a Final condition, that is perfectly true.  It would be implausible to imagine any final peace deal that did not include those terms.  But as a precondition it makes no sense.

                And my thesis is that Israel (or many Israelis) are or will be concerned with Palestinian rights once their own security is secured.  Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

                 
                It may be true, but I see no reason to believe it, nor any reason for Palestine to put faith in it.  If it were a security question, then coming to the table to try to achieve security would be the obvious Israel tactic.  Instead, by demanding that the Palestinians lay down their physical and rhetoric weapons before peace can even be discussed, the goal appears not peace but setting up Israel to get the absolute best deal at the negotiating table, which means setting up Israel to annex large swaths of the West Bank.

                You say you cannot refute the argument that violent resistance is the only way, but can you actually support that theory?

                No, as I've said.  I can't guarantee it will work.  But guerrilla war has worked in many placed, and Hamas at least would argue that the cost of the occupation was what drove the settlers out of Gaza.    So I can't prove it either way.

                And agreeing to the preconditions is not surrendering to Israel's goodwill - there is plenty of leverage left.

                I wish you could explain this to me, because except for recognition and an end to the violence, I don't see at all what Palestine has that Israel wants.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site