There is a case for saying that those leaders of the discredited PNA (Palestine National Authority) who are proposing to unilaterally declare an independent state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip and seek to get UN Security Council backing for it are being clever.
What they would be doing in effect is asking the Security Council not only to re-affirm its commitment to Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 but, far more important, to confront that resolution’s fatal flaw on the matter of land for peace.
Yes, 242 did emphasise “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war“. But its call was for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict“. The original draft of the resolution contained the definitive article the, so it read “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict“.
If 242 had stated that Israel’s withdrawal from “the territories” was required, the meaning, with no ambiguity and no wiggle room for Zionism, would have been that, in exchange for recognition and legitimacy, Israel was required to withdraw from all the territories it occupied in the 1967 war. But that was not on so far as Zionism was concerned. It wanted the freedom to be the one, and the only one, who would determine (on a take it or leave basis backed by brute force) the extent of any Israeli withdrawals. Resolution 242 in its final form gave Zionism that freedom.
Many of the diplomats who were engaged behind closed doors in the months of wrangling about the wording of the resolution were privately shocked and publicly embarrassed by the dropping of “the” in the final text. They saw it for what it was – a Johnson administration surrender to the Zionist state and its awesomely powerful lobby. Some came up with words to give the impression that 242 was not a disaster for all who were working for a just and lasting peace. “The full and true meaning of the resolution,” they said, “is in both its letter and spirit.” That was not a point Zionism was ever going to take because it is congenitally incapable of negotiating in good faith.
As events were to prove, 242 effectively gave Israel a power of veto over any peace process.
There’s a case for saying the prospects of overcoming that veto could be improved if the Security Council unanimously backed a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (as they were on 4 June 1967). On the ground nothing would be changed by such a declaration, but if the Security Council backed it, legal and moral pressure on Israel to end its 42-year-old occupation world surely intensify.
That, it seems, is the calculation of those Palestinian leaders who are proposing a unilateral declaration of independence as the only alternative to surrendering to Zionism’s will and accepting crumbs from its table. (The crumbs being two or three Bantustans which the Palestinians could call a state if they wished).
But what if the U.S., unwilling for a showdown with Zionism, blocked moves in the Security Council for a statement which, by recognising the unilaterally declared Palestinian state, would effectively be a demand (242-plus) for Israel to end its occupation in return for a full peace with the whole Arab and wider Muslim world?
The short answer is that the Palestinian initiative would be in the same boat as President Obama’s current attempt to re-start the peace process – going nowhere. (That the U.S. would be more fully exposed as a client state of Israel on matters to do with ending the conflict is not the point).
So the clever initiative is at best a gamble. (The reason for taking it was put into words by Ghassan Khatib, head of the PNA’s media centre. “I honestly think there is no future for the peace camp in Palestine if this is not going to work.” He spoke those words to Donald Macintyre, the Independent’s correspondent in Jerusalem).
But this latest (proposed) Palestinian initiative could also be stupid.
It could tempt Netanyahu to go for broke and say to the Palestinians something like the following. “Okay. You’ve declared your state. We don’t accept its borders as defined by you, but we will recognise it inside borders defined by us (the two or three Bantustans). Now shut up. The game is over. The file is closed. And there’s nothing you or anybody else can do about it.”
And he, Netanyahu, would probably think but not say, “If you give us any trouble, we’ll have the lot of you removed to Jordan or wherever”.
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- Comment on it using the form below.
- Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
- Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
[...] The latest Palestinian strategy – clever or stupid or both? By Alan Hart 2009 November 16 by kanan48 Via: Alan Hart. [...]
Hi Alan
True enough, but the Zionist regime's acquisition of the territory it established by 1967, was obtained without the consent of the Palestinian people who had no say in it. That the Zionist thugs systematically committed, (even before 1948), and continue to commit, a "Holocaust" against the Palestinian people, surely makes the apartheid state of Israel morally illegal in the first place, thus making 242 something of a misnomer? Sorry, I forgot, the Zionists have no morals.
On a completely different tack, how come Israel gets to be in the Eurovision song contest? If they use the excuse of geography then Lebanon and Syria should also be in it! If ethnicity is their excuse, how come Canada, Australia, NZ, etc., cannot be in it?
Brad
You write that Netanyahu could 'go for broke and say to the Palestinians something like the following. “Okay. You’ve declared your state. We don’t accept its borders as defined by you, but we will recognise it inside borders defined by us (the two or three Bantustans). Now shut up. The game is over. The file is closed. And there’s nothing you or anybody else can do about it.”...'
But isn't that pretty much the Israeli position today minus the explicit 'game over' part? They are making their 'game over' by stealth with their 'facts-on-the-ground' policy of expanding settlements, evictions, right-of-return prevarications and wall 'land grabs'
I think Netanyahu is more likely to say, "if you give us trouble, we'll kill as many of you as possible and then ghettoize you in your bantustans." He really is a curse on both Israel and Palestine. Under his leadership the entire idea of a peace settlement has collapsed. With evil genius he has pulled the rug out from under Abbas and thereby effectively made the Palestinian Authority utterly feckless. Hamas remains ostracized, and so no one is representing the Palestinian people anymore. Netanyahu has also completely disregarded Obama (who has proven to be out of his league in this matter) and has made him very unpopular in Israel. I think that Israel's motives have not changed; they are just blatantly on display under Netanyahu. He doesn't give a damn whether or not the whole world hates Israel; he will go to hell while continuing to steal Palestinian land.
@brad
This conflict should be, but is not, about moral and legal rights. It’s about Zionist might v Palestinian right. And that's why I call in my book for the Jews to become a light unto nations by demonstrating that right can triumph over might and that there is a place for morality in politics.
242 was much more than a "misnomer" as you put it. As I wrote, it was a disaster for real, would-be peacemakers because it gave Zionism a power of veto over any peace process. And this in the historical context of the UN putting itself above the law with the General Assembly partition resolution (leaving aside the fact that it didn't go to the Security Council and was vitiated).
As for how "Israel gets into the Eurovision song contest", I offer you this thought as part of the answer. Europe needs, actually can’t do without, Israel’s scientific and technological expertise.
Best wishes,
Alan
@Chris
I agree that the Zionists, are making it game over "by stealth" and gradually, "slow genocide" as my dear friend Ilan Pappe put it. My main point was that a Palestinian declaration of independence could give Netanyahu the pretext to speed things up, trigger the final ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians sooner rather than later.
Best wishes,
Alan
No country that supports Israel can credibly denounce any assault against human rights, and certainly cannot continue to bleat about the Nazi Extermination pogrom! Nor do those countries believe in, or support International Law.
No country has ever stood up for the rights of the Palestinians, why would anyone assume that they would start now?
The question is why are the Israelis permitted to get away with flouting International Law?
It is past time that they were put firmly in their place.
I agree, Peter, "The question is why are the Israelis permitted to get away with flouting International Law?"
I assume it is because of European sensitivity/guilt over the treatment of jews in WW2, plus the large influence of Europeans/Americans who regard themselves as Jewish and who thus support Israel unconditionally.
As Dispatches showed and as has long been known, influence in Western governments from 'Friends of Israel' lobby groups is huge, and mentioning anything about is rewarded with accusation of being anti-semitic.
Hopefully this is now changing... gradually. I have been long in discussions with American Jews who regard any criticism or attempt at evaluation of even a hint of Israel's excesses as pure racist propaganda. But I feel a change is occurring even with such people.
Otherewise this repeatedly using the race card to divert from legitimate criticism I fear will back fire on ALL jews. So the charge of anti-semitism used so freely and undeservedly may regrettably become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You must also look at the UN itself, who its permanent member states are, and who are members of the Security Council and the UN Commission for Human Rights. Politics is everything, even in the UN. Its fecklessness in dealing with Israel's serial violations of international laws is reflective of the views of those who are in a position to act, or not act, on these violations.
By the same token, these countries were also instrumental in trashing the UN conference on Racism in Durban last summer, in large part due to Israel and its fears of being accused of racism and apartheid. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/957511.html
Chris Crookes said...
‘I assume it is because of European sensitivity/guilt over the treatment of jews in WW2, ----‘
Two points: the Nazi Extermination pogrom is said to have slaughtered approximately 12 million people, the claim is that approximately half of that number were Jews.
It seems to me that there is room for the legitimate questioning of the numbers, both the total and the number of Jews.
However vicious and brutal the Nazis were, the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is of no lessor evil or brutality.
A policy of semi starvation, denial of medical aid, daily humiliations, jailing without cause, genocide and the burning of a population with white phosphorous is as bad as anything the Nazis managed to come up with!
‘— plus the large influence of Europeans/Americans who regard themselves as Jewish and who thus support Israel unconditionally.’
Why is it that all Jews outside Israel do not understand that beyond a certain point, all Jews everywhere will be branded with the stench of the Israelis and the consequences will be more ugly than anything the Jewish people have ever endured?
It is past time that the Jews were told that they had long ago milked the last bit of guilt and/or compassion from the Jewish tale of the Holocaust
Zionism is a political movement which began before the Holocaust, although it is commonly believed that it came out of the Holocaust. It does not matter how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust, that is another issue entirely and is unrelated to Zionism and the formation of the Zionist State.
Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, as determined by the many records and witness testimonies recorded during that time. "It is past time that the Jews were told that they had long ago milked the last bit of guilt..." The deaths of six million human beings can never be "milked" for anything; it is an atrocity that should never be forgotten or minimized.
The problem is not Jews, it is Zionists. Not all Jews are Zionists, however those who are not are often accused of being "self-hating Jews". Israel's increasing unpopularity in the world, as a result of the illegal and bloody occupation of Palestine, is beginning to fuel an increase in anti-Semitism in Europe. And the Zionists' insistence that Israel be a Jewish state is racist and ignores the fact that a large number of the world's Jews have no interest in Israel. It seems that Israel has attracted and has become the home of secular European Jews (those who do not practice Judaism and may even be atheists) and fanatics (the extremist settlers whose political presence within Israel has strengthened in recent years).
Is that really all there is to it because that'd be flabbersgtaing.