It's been a busy time so posting has been at a premium. However I saw a small paragraph in a recent report on the Palestinian initiative for full statehood recognition at the United Nations that makes things fall into place. After all, why should Israel care. It has long subscribed to the two state solution in coming to some kind of "peace" in the region. So, let the Palestinians have their state and be done with it. There is increasing sentiment in Israel that this is best outcome. Of course the Likud party disagrees. So, what do the Palestinians have to gain by getting "statehood".
Before I try to explain, there was a time that, in the words of Abba Eban, the eloquent Israeli foreign minister, "the Palestinians never lose and opportunity to lose an opportunity". That time is gone forever. The Palestinians mounted a brilliant public relations campaign starting with the Intifada. It showed little kids throwing rocks at an Israeli tank. Brilliant. It got the world started on linking the Israelis to apartheid. It took over campuses with pro Arab groups that harassed Jewish students. The Israelis built more settlements and adopted a siege mentality. Recently Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that Israel is used to going it alone and will continue to make unpopular choices that it deems to be in its best interests. However, the world is so interconnected that going it alone is a dangerous course of action to undertake. There is some internal discontent in Israel with the widening gaps between the haves and the have-nots. There is also some discontent with the increasing isolation that Israel is experiencing. Turkey, long a staunch ally in the region has severed relations with Israel. Relations with the US is "frosty". But, suffice to say that the Palestinians are well versed in public relations. The call for statehood is, I believe, another brilliant public relations exercise.
It all goes back to the 1967 war. There were many in Israel, at that time, that did not want to take the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They subscribed to the theory of "if you break it you own it". Indeed the conquering of the West Bank and East Jerusalem almost bled Israel dry. It provided schools, hospital and infrastructure to that area. However, that policy was doomed from the outset. If successful it would mean inclusion in Israel of millions of Palestinians who would, by sheer force of population and birth rate, overtake the country. The Palestinians did not like it as well. Hamas repudiated the right of Israel to exist. Hardly a neighbourly thing to do. The checkpoints and the civilian bombing in Israel meant that the Palestinians rarely found work in Israel. With millions of willing workers on their boarders Israel became an net importer of labour. The two state solution was again in vogue.
The legal position of the West Bank and East Jerusalem has always been difficult. There is an international legal position that allows countries to annex territories gained by war. The doctrine indicates that once annexed the annexed population is given the same rights and freedoms of the conquerer nation. It appears that this happened in East Jerusalem and why there is very little fuss about settlements built on this land. It is under the guise of the spoils of war that Israel gained access to the Western Wall of the ancient Temple. But the Israelis never annexed the rest of the West Bank. To do so would have meant that these folks would have the rights afforded to all Israelis--including the right to vote. There were always known as the "administrated territories".
The Palestinians, by gaining statehood would immediately change the status of Israelis in the West Bank from "administrators" to "occupiers". The Israelis would have no, absolute no right to be in the area. The settlers would be no more than squatters on land that, clearly, was not theirs. The settlers did not buy the land--they merely expropriated it. Gaining statehood would mean that the Palestinians could legally call for the Israelis to withdraw--and take their settlers with them. The Palestinians could ask their new found friends in the Arab Spring to oust the infidel. It would surely lead to bloodshed.
Israel is treading a very fine line here. It is in its best interest to maintain the status quo. There is little support in the Arab world for Palestinian statehood--notwithstanding the outward sabre rattling in the UN. If the Palestinians get anything it will be some associate status short of statehood. Getting statehood would surely bring the region into a war that nobody wants.
We will all be watching with interest.
Bernie
No comments:
Post a Comment