Ever since the flailing collaborationist authority in Ramallah began seriously floating the idea of unilaterally declaring Palestinian statehood in the West Bank and Gaza, I’ve been meaning to write a post on what this would mean for the Palestinian struggle for justice.
Such a declaration would do away with the final card the PA’s leadership has yet to throw away in its negotiations with the Zionist occupiers and would effectively be the death knell for the struggle. It would legitimize the dispossession of the Palestinian people and Israel’s racist policies, but at the same time fail to gain any form of true sovereignty for the new state.
Indeed, despite public threats, the entity that stands to gain the most from such a move is Israel itself. Benjamin Netenyahu has threatened to annex Area C if the PA goes through with a unilateral declaration of statehood-but underneath the angry rhetoric, this would be the realization of what Israel has been planning on doing from the very beginning of the Oslo Accords; it will thus speed up the implementation of Israel’s expansionist vision rather than put an end to it.
Anyway, Virginia Tilley is a much better writer than I, and she explains all these points and more in detail in the following piece. I highly recommend you read the full article.
But it’s no exaggeration to propose that this idea, although well-meant by some, raises the clearest danger to the Palestinian national movement in its entire history, threatening to wall Palestinian aspirations into a political cul-de-sac from which it may never emerge. The irony is indeed that, through this maneuver, the PA is seizing — even declaring as a right — precisely the same dead-end formula that the African National Congress (ANC) fought so bitterly for decades because the ANC leadership rightly saw it as disastrous. That formula can be summed up in one word: Bantustan.
It has become increasingly dangerous for the Palestinian national movement that the South African Bantustans remain so dimly understood. If Palestinians know about the Bantustans at all, most imagine them as territorial enclaves in which black South Africans were forced to reside yet lacked political rights and lived miserably. This partial vision is suggested by Mustafa Barghouthi’s recent comments at the Wattan Media Centre in Ramallah, when he cautioned that Israel wanted to confine the Palestinians into “Bantustans” but then argued for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood within the 1967 boundaries — although nominal “states” without genuine sovereignty are precisely what the Bantustans were designed to be.
Click the text for the full piece.
Related posts:
But it’s no exaggeration to propose that this idea, although well-meant by some, raises the clearest danger to the Palestinian national movement in its entire history, threatening to wall Palestinian aspirations into a political cul-de-sac from which it may never emerge.
Whether her point is valid or not, that's the exact same excuse that has been used every other time there's been talk of a final settlement for a Palestinian State.
I don't even need to look her up on Google to know that she rejects all two state solutions, and is an advocate of a one state solution. Hani, a one-state solution is never going to happen. I don't really get why you use a proponent of one state for both Jews & Palestinians to rebut this unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State thing. Seems like it would have been a better choice to choose somebody who actually supports a Palestinian State but doesn't think this proposal and this timing is worthy.
Posted by programmer craig | November 21, 2009, 5:38 amI think it would be better for you if u read the article first….. and then criticize!
Your arguments would sound that bit more logical.
Posted by OooKhalid | November 21, 2009, 6:02 amI read the whole article, Khalid, and it's mostly a lot of blah blah blah about South Africa. In her own mind this woman has applied a South African filter to the Arab-Israeli conflict even though there isn't any part of it that fits that context. Is that helpful? Is it logical?
The Jewish state of Israel is not going to go away. This woman's arguments are fantasy. How many more decades of delusional behavior to there have to be before people on both sides decide to try to come up with a realistic solution that they can live with?
Posted by programmer craig | November 21, 2009, 6:20 am//a one-state solution is never going to happen//
neither is a two-state solution possible, unless your advocating Bantustans style state. Like Ahmadinejad said, Israel must be wiped off the map. A two-state solution is not only impossible while Israel is around but is also more-so immoral.
Posted by OooKhalid | November 21, 2009, 6:22 amOK… so is there some reason why I should keep arguing with a maniac? I mean, seriously – that right there is the Arab position of 1948. 60 effing years ago. Stuck on stupid much? :p
Posted by programmer craig | November 21, 2009, 6:34 amYeaaahhh…..
And what do i care what the puppet Arab governments feel or wish to do. They don't reflect the aspirations of their people.
Nobody thought the Crusader Christian state would ever fall. But lo and behold it fell after 100 years. So PC – my main man- be patient; Zionist Israel is only 60 years old. You never know what the future may hold for your country.
Posted by OooKhalid | November 21, 2009, 12:11 pmI can be patient forever, considering I don't even know anyone who lives in Israel/Palestine. Seems to me that a majority of Palestinians are all out of patience, though. Could be I'm wrong, but if so why are Palestinians complaining so much? If the game plan of the last 60 years is working out so well then they should be happy, right? Divine victory and all that?
Posted by programmer craig | November 21, 2009, 5:34 pmIsrael must be wiped off the map.
Good luck with that.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 21, 2009, 7:28 amOops! That comment was for you, Mohammad
Posted by programmer craig | November 21, 2009, 5:40 amcollaborationist authority in Ramallah
Does that mean to imply that any authority must operate without any negotiations with Israel.
dispossession of the Palestinian people and Israel’s racist policies
While there has been dispossession of Palestinians, how can Israel's policies be called "racist" when they simply deal with either Israeli citizens or non-Israelis which have declared themselves as enemies of Israel?
Benjamin Netenyahu has in fact stated that unilateral action will not be accepted by Israel, and they will retaliate.
threatening to wall Palestinian aspirations into a political cul-de-sac from which it may never emerge
That seems to be what is holding up Palestinian progress most of all, the idea that they shouldn't settle on a solution, because they may give up something they could magically get later. Some of the grandiose "aspirations" are not realistic.
Palestine is not South Africa. A future Palestinian State will not be a "Bantustan". The article was sort of an interesting read of conspiracy theory, but not realistic.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 21, 2009, 5:45 amits funny how you make israel sound like the victim.. "israel has been under attack" bla bla… it's pointless for you to waste more time on this because we all know who the colonizer is, and we all know who are the colonized are. you cant change that, unfortunately.
Posted by m7amad | November 22, 2009, 11:59 amit's pointless for you to waste more time on this
The accuracies of history are not a waste of time. Haven't you noticed how so many people are operating on false information? So their ideology is based on lies… what good is that?
The comparison of the Palestinian situation to the apartheid situation in South Africa is simply inaccurate in that it pretends the Palestinians are innocent victims of racial discrimination, and that is clearly not the fact.
we all know who the colonizer is
Jordan was under British supervision until after World War II. In 1946, the British requested that the United Nations approve an end to British Mandate rule in Transjordan. Following this approval, the Transjordanian Parliament proclaimed King Abdullah as the first ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. (Abdullah I was killed by a Palestinian in 1951 as he was departing from the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.)
Iraq was under the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932.
Syria and Lebanon were under French control when the Ottoman Empire was partitioned.
The Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 led to the advent of modern Western Asia and Republic of Turkey.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 24, 2009, 4:29 am//(The only state to recognize the Homelands was fellow-traveler Israel.)//
Enjoyed reading this article. Definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the deeper politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict. This politics reminds me of the game chess. Confusing. Exciting.
Posted by OooKhalid | November 21, 2009, 6:26 amThe blacks of South Africa were not terrorists.
The Palestinians did not get to where they are today because of racism.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 21, 2009, 7:26 amYea it was different, according to most South African activists, the Apartheid in the occupied territories was far worse than anything the Afrikaneers imposed on them .
Second of all the ANC did engage in terrorism, and armed resistance much like the Palestinians have.
I'm sorry Eagle, but you can't just lie and think people are going to buy your bullshit.
I know the thought of a Palestine in which everyone Jew and Arab have equal rights scares the shit out of you.
Posted by Arayus | November 21, 2009, 7:56 amI love how the trolls foam at the mouth at the mention of a state in which Jews and Palestinians would be considered equal under the law.
Posted by Arayus | November 21, 2009, 7:57 amYou live in a world that exists only in your own imagination, Arayus. That doesn't make everyone who chooses to be more realistic a "troll".
Posted by programmer craig | November 21, 2009, 8:20 amso the call for equality of Jews and Palestinians is stuck in the realm of imagination…
good one.
Posted by craigissad | November 21, 2009, 2:57 pmNo, the idea of a one state solution in which Palestinians and Jews live side by side in peace and harmony is the fantasy.
The talk of "equality" amongst two different people who are at war with each-other and don't even live in the same society (nor do they want to!) is simply a lie. You may as well call for equality between Americans and Guatemalans. Does not compute.
Posted by programmer craig | November 21, 2009, 5:30 pmThey used to live in peace, side by side with no problems PC.
Then the Zionists came and ruined that. Pity.
This conflict has to do with the simple fact that European colonizers uprooted the indigenous population, then forced the survivors to live under a brutal military occupation.
Remedy those issues, and the conflict would be over.
First step would be to end unconditional American aid to the Israeli government. This conflict would not be able to sustain itself without the billions we give to Israel annually, and without the diplomatic support we give to Israel. Not to mention all the free military hardware we toss at them.
But I guess racists like you can't handle that.
Posted by Arayus | November 22, 2009, 3:46 amThis conflict has to do with the simple fact that European colonizers uprooted the indigenous population, then forced the survivors to live under a brutal military occupatio
That is where you are mistaken. When the Ottomon Empire ended, no one was uprooted. At the Paris peace conference and through the League of Nations, much of the Ottoman Empire was divided into mandated territories assigned to the victors of the war. The British and French saw the Mandates as instruments of imperial ambitions. US President Wilson insisted that the mandates must foster eventual independence
In November 1917, before Britain had conquered Jerusalem and the area to be known as Palestine, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration – stating Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, without violating the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. Again, no one was uprooted.
At the Paris peace conference in 1919,Dr. Weizmann and the Emir Feisal reached a signed agreement regarding Arab support for a Jewish national home. Feisal also assured the American Zionist representative, Chief Justice Frankfurter, of his support for the Zionist cause. However, Feisal conditioned his support on satisfaction of Arab aspirations in Syria. Instead, Syria was given to the French as a League of Nations mandate and Feisal not only withdrew his support from the Zionist project, but claimed he had never signed any such documents.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:19 amViolent Arab opposition to the Mandate and Jewish settlement had begun as early as 1919, and took the form of periodic pogroms and agitation for return of Palestine to Syria. In Easter 1920, Amin Al Husseini and Aref el Aref, led a particularly violent pogrom in Jerusalem.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:26 amOn 29 November 1947 the United Nations voted to terminate the British Mandate of Palestine by 1 August 1948 and, to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict in the British Mandate of Palestine, for a plan for the partition of the Mandate territory. The plan came to be called the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. The plan was approved by the United Nations General Assembly by 33 votes to 13, with 10 abstentions.
The plan would have partitioned the territory of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area, including Bethlehem, coming under international control. Again, no one was to be uprooted.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:21 amhe Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it. The resolution divided the land into two approximately equal portions in a complicated scheme with zig-zag borders.
At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands" belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency. There were about 600,000 Jews in Palestine, almost all living in the areas allotted to the Jewish state or in the internationalized zone of Jerusalem, and about 1.2 million Arabs. The allocation of land by Resolution 181 was intended to produce two areas with Jewish and Arab majorities respectively. Jerusalem and environs were to be internationalized. The relatively large Jewish population of Jerusalem and the surroundings, about 100,000, were geographically cut off from the rest of the Jewish state, separated by a relatively large area, the "corridor," allotted to the Palestinian state. The corridor included the populous Arab towns of Lod and Ramla and the smaller towns of Qoloniyeh, Emaus, Qastel and others that guarded the road to Jerusalem.
No one was uprooted.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:22 amIt soon became evident that the scheme could not work. Mutual antagonism would make it impossible.
The UN was unwilling and unable to force implementation of the internationalization of Jerusalem. The Arab League, at the instigation of Haj Amin Al-Husseini, declared a war to rid Palestine of the Jews. In fact however, the Arab countries each had separate agendas. Abdullah, king of Jordan, had an informal and secret agreement with Israel, negotiated with Golda Meir, to annex the portions of Palestine allocated to the Palestinian state in the West Bank, and prevent formation of a Palestinian state. Syria wanted to annex the northern part of Palestine, including Jewish and Arab areas.
The Arab Leaque had "ethnic cleansing" in mind, so they wanted to uproot people.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:27 amDuring the period before Israeli independence was declared, two armies of Arab irregular volunteers, led by Haj Amin Al Husseini in the Jerusalem area, and by Fawzi El Kaukji in the Galilee, placed their fighters in Arab towns and conducted various aggressive operations against the Jewish towns and village under the eyes of the British. Kaukji and his irregulars were allowed into Palestine from Syria by the British, with the agreement that he would not engage in military actions, but he soon broke the agreement and attacked across the Galilee. The Arab irregulars were met by the Zionist underground army, the Haganah, and by the underground groups of the "dissident" factions, Irgun and Lehi.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:33 amThe uprooting began when….
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
and then…
1948 Arab–Israeli War
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:31 amAre the Jordanians and the Lebanese and the Saudis and the Syrians all equal under "the law"?
The Palestinians will have their equality when they have a state.
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 21, 2009, 10:06 pmAs usual, what are you talking about?
We are talking about Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not Saudi Arabia.
The Palestinians may obtain full equality if they have their own state, but Israel shows no sign of allowing them to have one. The only "peace" Israel has shown itself willing to accept is one in which the Palestinians legalize the Israeli occupation.
Thus, if Israel does not want the Palestinians to have their own state, well then… the Israelis will just have to learn to live with the Palestinians as fully equal citizens of the same state.
The only other alternative Israel has is some sort of "Final Solution" for the Palestinians, in which the remaining Palestinians would either be ethnically cleansed or just wiped out.
And I'm sure you'd just love that Eagle.
Posted by Arayus | November 22, 2009, 3:50 amThe Palestinians may obtain full equality if they have their own state, but Israel shows no sign of allowing them to have one
Who is refusing to negotiate?
The only "peace" Israel has shown itself willing to accept…
Rocket fired from Gaza into Israel: army
The rocket exploded near the Israeli town of Sderot, according to an army spokesman.
Israel's military says more than 270 rockets and mortar shells have been fired into the Jewish state since the end in January its war on militants in the Palestinian territory controlled by the Islamist movement Hamas.
the Israelis will just have to learn to live with the Palestinians as fully equal citizens of the same state.
Wrong, Israel is not going to do that.
The only other alternative Israel has is some sort of "Final Solution" for the Palestinians
No, that is not the "only other option" – that is just retarded. What's wrong with you?
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:11 amThe Palestinians may obtain full equality if they have their own state, but Israel shows no sign of allowing them to have one
Who is refusing to negotiate?
The only "peace" Israel has shown itself willing to accept…
Rocket fired from Gaza into Israel: army
The rocket exploded near the Israeli town of Sderot, according to an army spokesman.
Israel's military says more than 270 rockets and mortar shells have been fired into the Jewish state since the end in January its war on militants in the Palestinian territory controlled by the Islamist movement Hamas.
the Israelis will just have to learn to live with the Palestinians as fully equal citizens of the same state.
Wrong, Israel is not going to do that.
The only other alternative Israel has is some sort of "Final Solution" for the Palestinians
No, that is not the "only other option" – that is just retarded. What's wrong with you?
Posted by eagle007blogger | November 22, 2009, 8:11 amThe only peace "Israel" has shown itself willing to accept..The only peace "Israel" has shown itself willing to accept..
http://www.btselem.org/english/press_releases/200…
Posted by OooKhalid | November 23, 2009, 2:54 amThe only peace "Israel" has shown itself willing to accept..
http://www.btselem.org/english/press_releases/200…
Posted by OooKhalid | November 23, 2009, 2:53 amThe pot calling the kettle black.
Arayus Troll
Posted by tiny | November 23, 2009, 8:52 am