28 thoughts on “Haaretz: Fayyad to Declare Palestinian Statehood Within ’67 Borders – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. This may prove to be a power grab by the PA in their endless war with Hamas.
    I didn’t see any mention of Hamas in the article, and I cannot imagine they would sign off on something which totally excludes them.

    1. It would not matter whether Hamas approves or not. And what would the PA grab? If there is a declaration of statehood, both Hamas and the PA would both be victors. Then they’ll duke it out over who stays in power.

      Hamas has stated repeatedly that they will OK whatever the Palestinian people vote for in a referendum. If it’s the statehood declaration, then no problem.

      The US, ever subservient to its Zionist masters, will never go for this. It will have to do some major lying to cover up their objections, though.

  2. It’ll be a cold day in hell before Obama would cross the Lobby and sign on to something as fantastic as this fantasy.

    Perception management at work.

  3. This is the silliest piece of disinformation I’ve seen in a long time, but it is clear why Ha’aretz has been pushing this….there is a whole campaign that says “Abbas is weak, we have to strengthen him”, or “we can’t let Abbas resign, no one else can make peace” (as it were) and so they are trying to scare us that it will be the end of the world if Israel doesn’t make concessions now (e.g. a unilateral settlement freeze which Obama has given up trying to achieve).

    There is no way such a scenario could play out…it is a violation of the Oslo Agreements which prohibit both sides from unilaterally changing the legal status of Judea/Samaria/Gaza and it is also a violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 which call on both sides to negotiate a settlement regarding these territories, and not to carry out unilateral juridical acts regarding the legal status of these territories.
    If Obama were to try to ram a unilateral change in these things through the UN, there would be a political firestorm in the US and not just because of the “Israel lobby”.

    1. It can’t happen because it would violate the Oslo accords and UN Resolutions? Seriously? That’s your argument?

      1. Yes, I do. Everyone, except for HAMAS, nominally accepts their international legitimacy, at least regarding definition of the legal status of the territories, pending a permanent peace agreement (which isn’t in the cards). 242 gave Israel international legal backing for the occupation of Judea/Samaria/Gaza after the Six-Day War.
        Same with Oslo which is based on 242. There is no basis for anyone unilaterally abrogating them (which, again, HAMAS has attempted to do). I guess the UN could rescind 242 and 338, but that would then undermine the Oslo Agreements, so you see that that would be opening a can of worms.

    2. it is a violation of the Oslo Agreements…

      What a laugh! You hasbaraniks get to smear the Oslo Agreements saying they caused the death of hundreds of Jews. But when it’s convenient you turn around & say the PA can’t do something because it would violate the very same Agreement you despise. Rigor & consistency were never yr strong suit, were they?

      You don’t want Israel to follow the Oslo Accords, remember? So by what rule should the PA have to adhere to them when Israel hasn’t & you don’t even want it to? As for UN Resolutions, gimme a break. The UN Security Council itself has the right to define its own mandate and if it chooses to endorse this proposal that is certainly within its power.

      I also enjoy you, an Israeli who understands very little about U.S. politics (except as seen through yr own distorted prism) telling us what will happen if Obama does any particular thing. BTW, he doesn’t have to ram anything through the UN. All he has to do is sit back & let the EU lead the charge. An abstention on the SC would allow it to pass w/o Obama taking any position whatsoever. Yes, it would be controversial & the Israel lobby would howl. But that’s not the same as a “political firestorm,” which I don’t believe would happen.

      it would most likely lead to a war or at least a widespread outbreak of violence because Palestinians might take such a fantasy seriously

      I’m afraid it wouldn’t be a “fantasy” if the UNSC approved it. It might be your nightmare, but certainly not a fantasy. As for war, it might provoke Israel into a war to defend the Occupation, but the Palestinians cannot mount a war against anyone no matter how hard they might try. This sounds more like yr own fantasy.

      It is likely that a Palestinian leader who did proclaim a state without insisting on the “Right of Return” would be considered a traitor

      Yes, you’re parroting back various snippets you’ve heard or read over the yrs w/o bothering to adapt them to the circumstances of this particular scenario. Of course, the PA would not have any ability to implement the Right of Return under this scenario & Palestinians would understand this. The Right of Return of course requires Israeli agreement because the returnees would be returning to Israel. Since the PA would have no physical ability to make any determinations about who would return and when, no Palestinian will hold it against them.

      But nice try.

      1. OF course I objected to and still object to the Oslo Agreements, but that doesn’t change their legal status.

        If Obama sat back and didn’t veto such a resolution, it would be interpreted as being support for it. Yes, there would be a political firestorm in the US because the American people OVERWHELMINGLY Do support Israel and they OVERWHELMINGLY DON’T support the Palestinians. Yes, they would support a Palestinian state if it comes as a result of an agreement but such a unilateral move would be perceived as an act of war against America’s ally, Israel. The American people view Israel as their ally, not the Palestinians. Most people in the world, outside the Muslim countries couldn’t care less about the Palestinians, the settlements and all the favorite causes the “progressives” are always yelling about. They do not obsess about these matters, they don’t want wars and instability, which a move like this would cause, so such a move would not have strong international support. I don’t believe the EU would support it.

        1. Yes, there would be a political firestorm in the US because the American people OVERWHELMINGLY Do support Israel and they OVERWHELMINGLY DON’T support the Palestinians.

          They support Israel, but they don’t necessarily support everything that Israel is doing (particularly in the West Bank). If the Palestinians were to go ahead and declare a state (which would be music to my ears – I’ve been waiting for them to decide that waiting on the Israelis would be essentially Waiting for Godot for years), and that state was accepted by the UN, then a very large fraction of the US would simply say, “Well, if it’s only fair .. . “.

          they don’t want wars and instability, which a move like this would cause, so such a move would not have strong international support.

          If it causes some conflict and stability but results in a standing partition, then that’s fine. Political reality has always followed the facts on the ground in that neighborhood anyways, and I wouldn’t trust any boundaries that hadn’t been fought over to last (particularly with the pro-settler crowd in Israel screaming about losing “Judea and Samaria”).

        2. that doesn’t change their legal status.

          What legal status? Israel renounced Oslo long ago. It has no legal status.

          Yes, there would be a political firestorm in the US because the American people OVERWHELMINGLY Do support Israel

          The American people also overwhelmingly support the creation of a Palestinian state and our quite popular president could easily argue that Israel was the one preventing a resolution of this conflict by refusing to recognize a Palestinian state. The majority of Americans as measured by polls, also want a balanced U.S. Mideast policy that favors neither side to the detriment of the other.

          such a unilateral move would be perceived as an act of war against America’s ally, Israel.

          What are you blathering on about? An act of war against Israel? What is Israel going to do? Declare war on the U.S. for refusing to veto a UN resolution? That’s rich. You’re living an even more deluded existence than I thought.

          Most people in the world, outside the Muslim countries couldn’t care less about the Palestinians

          You live in Israel. You know nothing about what the rest of the world outside Israel thinks about the Palestinians. All this proves is how utterly & totally divorced a certain class of Israelis is fr. the outside world. I pity you. I really do. But the problem is that your isolation if not opposed and surmounted could lead to Israel’s destruction.

      2. I don’t think that the right of return necessarily must be settled before Palestine can declare statehood. It can be done under separate agreement and can involve monetary reparation.

        Political firestorm? You overestimate Israel’s importance. Israel may be able to buy votes in Congress, but it has yet to cause any political crises in this country. Get over yourself, please.

        I think the EU would be more than happy to pass the resolution through the security council. This impasse has to end eventually, and if it doesn’t happen voluntarily, I’m sure the UN will seize the opportunity.

        Israel has utterly ignored Oslo, but you have the nerve to mention it now. Thanks for the laugh.

  4. I forgot to add that if such a act were carried out, it would most likely lead to a war or at least a widespread outbreak of violence because Palestinians might take such a fantasy seriously and try to attack Israeli settlements and installations. What about the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount…does anyone think Israel would just pack and go home from these and other places.

    But the final nail in the coffin for this idea is that it leaves the key element of the Arab/Israeli conflict unresolved, and that is the so-called Palestinian “Right of Return”. It is likely that a Palestinian leader who did proclaim a state without insisting on the “Right of Return” would be considered a traitor and sell-out for accepting a state without completing the “Palestinian Revolution”.

    1. What about the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount…does anyone think Israel would just pack and go home from these and other places.

      No, but once the chips settle where they may, the Israelis can visit – whether that’s as tourists to another country or not.

      It is likely that a Palestinian leader who did proclaim a state without insisting on the “Right of Return” would be considered a traitor and sell-out for accepting a state without completing the “Palestinian Revolution”.

      So what? Let them say so – they won’t get any support from the Powers that Be on it. Moreover, I suspect that as time goes on, with an actual Palestine, the “right of return” would corrode. Particularly once the last of the actual refugees die.

      It’s also mighty ironic for an Israeli to talk about that, when their founding leader – Ben-Gurion – accepted the Partition of 1948 while refusing to renounce goals to take the rest of Israel.

  5. “242 gave Israel international legal backing for the occupation of Judea/Samaria/Gaza after the Six-Day War.”

    Bar Kochba this is the silliest interpretation of 242 I have ever seen. The Resolution does exactly the opposite. It stresses in the preamble ‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the war. Israel has argued that the lack of a definite article before the word territories gives it a certain discretion in what territories to withdraw from. This reasoning is faulty for various reasons: it is clear from correspondence of Abba Eban during the negotiations that he didn’t understand the text then in this way (though he later changed his mind).The French text, which has equal status, does have the definite article and, finally, both Lord Caradon, who was mainly responsible for the text, and Dean Rusk, then US Secretary of State, have emphasized that this lack of a definite article was only meant to allow for minor border corrections on the basis of reciprocity. The 1967 border was (is) after all a rather fortuitous armistice line.

    Lord Caradon has emphasized this interpretation in a get together in which Abba Eban was present as well (Norman Finkelstein has written on this) and Rusk did so in his Memoirs. When the Scottish lawyer McHugo came with his in my view definitive argument about the correct interpretation of this part of the Resolution the son of the late Lord Caradon made a point of declaring in the Observer (I think) that that was exactly how his father had understood it.

    I can’t see anything in the Resolution that prohibits a unilateral declaration of independence by Fatah. The PLO has long ago recognised Israel’s right to exist, there is a formal peace with the main neighbour states and the Arab League has offered a peace agreement on the basis of 242 (to which, incidentally, both Israel and the US are parties).

    As to the Oslo Accords, hasn’t Israel declared, and at least shown, that it is no longer bound by them?

    Except for the Internal difficulties between Hamas and Fatah the move to declare independence seems to me to have all kinds of advantages. The greater part of the ‘third world’ would probably immediately recognize it and even the solid backers of Israel in ‘the West’ would find it hard to find arguments not to do so (Bar Kochba is hardly likely to supply them). The precedent I am most familiar with is Indonesia’s declaration of Independence in August 1945 even though at that stage it was still occupied by the Japanese and would soon be re-occupied by the Dutch. This greatly strengthened Indonesia’s hand in international dealings about the conflict that finally forced the Dutch out. The from the initial Dutch point of view correct date for the transfer of sovereignty was December 1949 but its government has more recently recognized August 1945 as the correct date.

  6. My understanding of the prior Fayyad declarations were that Palestine was going to pursue institutional-building as its primary effort, and that within two years, the PA would regard itself as competent to function as an independant state.

    And, that in that effort, the attitude of the PA was “if this is coordinated with Israel, it will be far far better than if not”, but “if Israel does not acknowledge the compentency of the Palestinian authority, that it will declare independance anyway.”

    Both positions force the issue as far as Israel is concerned, and currently likud has rejected either prospect, instead continuing to pursue the “bantustan” effort of isolated and powerless but still internally responsible PA.

    If declared at 67 borders without any agreement from likud Israel, it will result in war. I don’t know if Netanyahu would attempt to return to the current status quo or adopt a more maximalist position, duplicating the sequence of 47-48.

    War, removal as a temporarily “just” solution, annexation of conquered lands, then imprinting the temporary status to permanent status by denying return or due process accompanied by transfer of abandoned lands to the state, then one of the trust entities managing exclusive Jewish leasehold of the land.

    1. War, removal as a temporarily “just” solution, annexation of conquered lands, then imprinting the temporary status to permanent status by denying return or due process accompanied by transfer of abandoned lands to the state, then one of the trust entities managing exclusive Jewish leasehold of the land.

      That would all be highly tricky and near impossible for Israel to do without drawing near-universal criticism and condemnation from abroad. Even the United States would balk at supporting them, which is why they’ve instead done the “slow-motion” land invasion process they’ve been doing for decades – it tends to draw less attention than a single massive act of ethnic cleansing.

      If declared at 67 borders without any agreement from likud Israel, it will result in war. I don’t know if Netanyahu would attempt to return to the current status quo or adopt a more maximalist position, duplicating the sequence of 47-48.

      There’s limits to what he could do in terms of the latter without ruining all relations with the few neighboring states Israel has ties with (particularly Jordan).

      1. It would lead to immediate war if done as anything other than a symbolic gesture because the Israel National Police headquarters is in Wadi Joz, East Jerusalem. PA Police would face the problem of attempting to take over patrol duty on sovereign (as of 1980) but disputed Israeli soil, or of disrupting the progress of Israel police on their daily patrols within Green Line Israel, or of taking the building tout court. Not to mention the issue of trying to exercise sovereignty, legal, and police power over French Hill, Sheikh Jarrah, all of the Old City, and in particular areas of the West Bank that had a Jewish rather than Arab population before 1949, like the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, Mishkenot Sha’nanim, Nabi Samwil (despite the name), and Sanhedria. You can cash in on Jordanian ethnic cleansing in ’49 enough to make the territory disputed (as in 242), but not enough to make traditionally Jewish areas of the West Bank Arab Islamic Palestine solely by fiat, especially since it was Turkish, British, and Jordanian. Perhaps the Palestinians want to be the new imperial rulers of the Jews of the West Bank?

        It would probably be a repeat of the 1988 declaration, smoke and mirrors, unless the PA wants to try to assert sovereignty via the PA police, Hamas and Jihad launch a war for the mosques, or an outside power tries to intervene. In general, Palestinians get more mileage from unilateral declarations of sovereignty when they remain symbolic, which is why they are so often practiced.

        1. Perhaps the Palestinians want to be the new imperial rulers of the Jews of the West Bank?

          If the settlers had the courage of their convictions & REALLY believed in the sanctity of the land they would agree to remain in Palestine post settlement. This is what Menachem Froman believes & it is an entirely principled position.

          Palestinians get more mileage from unilateral declarations of sovereignty when they remain symbolic

          What utter nonsense. You can’t possibly even believe yr own words, can you?? Unilateral symbolic declarations have absolutely no weight whatsoever with Israelis. Remember the Nazi minister who said: “How many divisions has the Pope?” Israel only understands force that is stronger (politically or militarily) than its own. It is completely moral obtuse when it comes to comprehending symbolism or non-violence & the like.

          1. Richard,

            Again, the dynamics of the Palestinian West Bank population were such that there has never been a Jewish population of the West Bank when Arab nationalism asserted itself, ’48-’67. Even the quiescent, pietistic religious communities were deported in their entirety, and there is no indication (cf. Kfar Etztion) that this was purely a Jordanian problem, it seems that the Jordanians succeeded mainly in keeping the WB population off of the Jews of the Old City long enough for the deportation to take place, that they considered this enough of a success given the Western reporters on the scene, and that the subsequent destruction of Jewish institutions would have occurred anyway, with or without the Jordanians. Post-Oslo, the results are pretty much the same, so I think Froman is discounting past and recent history.

            The other thing is that if you ARE counting on opposing force, realize that it will be backed by those who will stop at nothing to destroy Israel and Jews, that it will continue to harry them everywhere long after the destruction of the State of Israel, and that this is totally the moral and philosophical calculus of groups like Hamas and Jihad, who regard the issue as a theological Jewish Question.

          2. Froman is discounting past and recent history.

            There have been Jews living in Israel or Palestine or whatever you wish to call it for centuries since the Second Temple period. Froman has far closer relations with Hamas than you or I & I trust his sense of whether he believes his plan is doable. Of course, nothing in the Middle East is guaranteed. It could a cropper. But Froman has a damn sight more credible plan than the settler extremists.

            this is totally the moral and philosophical calculus of groups like Hamas and Jihad, who regard the issue as a theological Jewish Question.

            I am relatively uninterested in Islamic Jihad & don’t believe they represent a credible threat to peace. As for Hamas, your portrayal of the movements views are patently a fraud. Yes, you can site the charter and you can cite a leader here or there over the course of two decades. But you can’t cite a senior Hamas leader who has said anything like this since Hamas has begun to talk about a tahdiya or hudna.

            But nice try…

          3. Again, Richard, if Froman wants to risk it, he has my blessing. The Islamic Movement within Israel is another group whose praxis belies the absolutism of some of its rhetoric, it is not impossible that Hamas could definitively annul the Charter when faced with governing a Jewish population. Certainly the IM feels that because of its position as an avant-garde party in direct confrontation within Israel, it has flexibility and opportunities that Palestinian parties do not. I think Hamas would find that unacceptable.

            You can object, like Jules Roy, that I am preventing a possible future evil by preserving a certain present one. I think Hamas will solve that question by refusing to deal with a solution that would leave it a minority party in Israel, and that Israel will avoid leaving a minority population in a Palestinian state.

          4. I am fed up with the Israelis scapegoating Hamas and using them as a reason not to deal with Gaza other than to slowly starve it to death. Other than the suicide bombings of several years ago (and which have stopped) and verbal threats which are not much more than bluster, and their feckless rockets, there is nothing to consider them as genuine terrorists. I see political machination here. Hamas is willing to negotiate peace, but it is the Israelis who refuse.

  7. I’m neither from Israel nor from Arab state. I’m from India. I strongly support Palestinian cause and more strongly oppose expansionist, greedy intentions as well as deeds of Israel. I believe that Israel regime (not people) is no.2 rogue state after the US.
    An inhuman attack has just concluded in Gaza in Dec ’08 – Jan ’09. I have read many news stories how Israel fought comfortably with Palestinian civilians. Mr. Richard Goldstone’s detailed report has confirmed those news stories, which largely focused its attention on Israeli soldiers’ inhuman treatment of Palestinian civilians. While it was Israeli soldiers who used Palestinian civilians as human shields, some Israeli sites and people supporting Israel (most probably Jews, I don’t think any other people can support Israel except 3rd world Christians, maybe I’m an optimist excessively) simply wrote that Palestinian army has resorted to such acts. Even Israel Govt uttered it many times. Israel shamelessly attributed UNHRC inspector’s report as biased on infamous Goebbels’s lines. Israelis owned news papers and channels including BBC, produced senseless lies on ‘Iran’s Ahmadinezad denying holocaust’ flawed speech by simply replacing pronouns and some other words with their own terms to extract the meaning what they required. The heads of states of the US, the UK and France heads came out of G20 summit or some world leaders’ meeting on the sole purpose of condemning Iran leader’s denying holocaust. Placing of Israel state in Palestinian Land itself was a part of the US’ world hegemonic design. It wants to rule entire Arab oil fields for which Israel state was created amid Arab countries. None is new to this truth. War of aggression on Iraq by fascist Bush regime has been for the same purpose, which the greatest anti-imperialist president of Iraq Saddam Hussein defied the empire with brave heart and gave his life and family like a grass leave (his mistakes belong to other chapter). Afghan war is to check the possible rise of China and India (though Indian rulers never dare to even think against the US). These are all facts irrespective of one’s denial or acceptance. History tells what the US is, and what the west is. EU may differ with the US on sharing the Imperial design’s fruits but it cannot deviate from the US unless the EU itself establishes its own consistent and viable power (economic as well as military) over the US. Such situation cannot be expected in the near future taking the voluminous military power of the US into consideration. Japan possesses lesser power of Army due to constraints placed upon it as a result of WW-II. China may seem rising economically (but not established) but not militarily.
    While facts are like this, how the US or EU now comes forward and simply oppose Israel’s moves that too on the basis of UN resolutions while themselves don’t care them and denied, vetoed them for their hegemonic imperial ends? Recently all the western states walked out the Iran President’s speech in support of Israel that too showing the cause of ‘denying holocaust’ which never existed.
    More than 90% of world media is owned by Jews, which produce nothing but lies for the sake of the Imperial regimes. Jews are spread to every corner of the world with lot of wealth. (I wonder a lot about this. I cannot imagine any possible cause for it. How it happened? Whether other religions’ people converted to Judaism or Jews themselves are able to spread on such a wide scale, I don’t know. I’m poor in such knowledge of history) Third world’s Christians adore Jews’ wealth and believe that the whole world depended on them. Media could make them believe so. Moreover, third world countries are not prepared to make any moves against the west. They have been seeing the fate of Iraq and Afghanistan. Only Arab Countries should support such Palestinian move. You people all know about their capacity and intentions.
    In such a world situation, I think only Arab people of all Arab countries with united effort, can make Independent Palestine a reality whether it is in near future or distant future I don’t know. Such thing is possible under the leadership of consistent, effective ideology that strongly supports people’s cause. Genuine leadership may choose such an ideology. I’m not ready to propose any ideology to avoid stamping with labels. People and their genuine leadership may be able to find what they need. Only people created histories but not rulers or regimes. Scholars or researchers or whoever it may be who are with people can confirm this historical fact.
    Lengthy comment may please be forgiven.

    1. More than 90% of world media is owned by Jews, which produce nothing but lies for the sake of the Imperial regimes. Jews are spread to every corner of the world with lot of wealth.

      Though I welcome your other statements, the above anti-Semitic rhetoric may be commonly accepted where you live, but not only is your claim untrue, it makes me extremely uncomfortable as a Jew. These are views no reasonable person can accept.

      1. I agree, although the rest of the comment is spot on. I am a Muslim but I do not blame the world’s troubles on the Jews. They are as much victims as everyone else. I think Zionism is very destructive to the Jewish people.

      2. Mr. Richard Silverstein! I’ve opened my mail just a few minutes back and felt honored to receive your reply on my comment. I have acknowledged my poor knowledge on spread of Jews and their wealth in my comment itself. My christian (I don’t have any religion actually) friends who appear to have knowledge of Jews and Judaism talk and plenty about Jews. Though I do not believe their statements totally, I keep them in my mind to cross check them latter when opportunity is at my hand. I should have checked their feed for proof before reproducing them it is. Any way I could find such statements untrue, now, from you.

        Actually Mary was right when she said “They are as much victims as everyone else.” People are becoming ultimate victims for the mistakes of regimes and appropriators of productive forces.

        One thing is a fact for sure. i.e. whether media is in the hands of a Jew or a Christian or any other religion, It serves the interests of the haves but not havenots. It spreads mis-constructed stories in favor of top rung sections of the society known as ‘manufacturing consent’ as Mr. Noam Chomsky said. (Am I right? I’ve read 2 or 3 books written by him on middle-east and 9/11).
        A small request to you. If you have any documents or papers or anything in electronic format, please send me through e-mail for which I’ll be thankful to you.

        I extend my sincere regrets to you If I hurt your feelings as a Jew.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link