The Arab world has been rocked by what are being called the "Palestine papers" - a collection of over 1600 documents relating to Israel and Palestine peace negotiations that have been leaked to Aljazeera and now put on the internet.
For a complete look go to the Aljazeera website
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112214310263628.html
The documents paint a very negative picture of the PLO negotiators and also of their Israeli counterparts.
They claim to show that the PLO was prepared to make huge concessions to the Israelis. The extent of the concessions - on the Israeli settlements, on the number and status of refugees, on the division of Jerusalem - have aroused enormous anger amongst Palestinians.
The PLO claims that the documents - at least some of them - are forged. They point to the CIA and Israeli security forces as the culprits and think Aljazeera has been gullible.
Aljazeera's reputation for serious honest reporting is good. But now their reputation is on the line.
I certainly don't know whether the documents are legit or not. And we may never know.
But the release of the documents, and the extent of the concessions that PLO negotiators are supposed to have made has certainly brought to the fore the question of the "one state" vs. the "two state" solution. Certainly, the new "Palestinian state" which is foreshadowed in the documents as released is barely viable and its hard to see how it would meet the basic needs of the Palestinian people.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADIANS
Should Canadians support the "Two State Solution"
Many Canadians intrinsically prefer a "2 state solution' as the most fair way to settle this longstanding issue. (Interestingly, Israel has not yet said that it agrees).
However, we should be careful about entering into an internal Palestinian debate. The two state solution may or may not be what most Palestinians want. It will certainly depend to a great degree on what the size and powers of that Palestinian state will be. .
Canadians should agree to support any solution (one state, two states, 3 states) which Palestinians and Israelis can agree to and which fits with international law and human rights for all.
Some Palestinians are for a two state solution, some are for a one state solution. Some don't know. Canadians should abstain from what is essentially an internal Palestinian issue.
In fact, there is an increasing feeling amongst Palestinians that Israel's expansion and settlements may have already made a 2 state solution no longer possible. If that is the case, the only way to go forward would be to call for one state with equal rights for all. This would be the end of Israel as a "Jewish state", something that the current leaders of Israel fear even more than the 2 state solution.
Here is a short video which explores what some people on the ground inside Israel are thinking about the "one state solution".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z94I66qYb4E&feature=channel
Peter raises a number of issues:
ReplyDelete1. “The two state solution may or may not be what most Palestinians want. It will certainly depend to a great degree on what the size and powers of that Palestinian state will be.”
This is important. One can see the reaction of Palestinians to what Abbas and others were (ostensibly) willing to cede to Israel. The 1967 borders are the compromise and must be the starting point.
2. “Canadians should agree to support any solution (one state, two states, 3 states) which Palestinians and Israelis can agree to and which fits with international law and human rights for all.” Canadians should abstain from what is essentially an internal Palestinian issue. (emphasis in original)
One is tempted to agree with this statement, but I would say it obscures an important question.
Of course we should agree to any solution acceptable to both parties. The problem is, they have been unable to reach an agreement. The statement “Canadians should agree to support any solution ... which Palestinians and Israelis can agree to” assumes negotiations leading to agreement. Many have argued that the whole negotiation process is a waste of time (see below), even before the recent leaks; and have suggested Israel must be forced to act, by other countries or, failing that, by popular action (BDS).
If Israel is to be forced to act, what are the demands?
One could choose the BDS demands, which are silent on the one-state/two-state question. The BDS demands are politically wise for a Palestinian initiative as they take into account Palestinians in the occupied territories and in Israel, and refugees, but they do beg a great many questions and, except for the first, are not suitable as practical demands to make of Israel. And the first (“Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;”) implies the evacuation of settlers in preparation for a Palestinian state in the territories.
(I asked BDS’s Omar Barghouti, privately, “If Israel ended the occupation, what would happen to international support for the BDS campaign?” “It would die in a minute,” he said.)
The point is, as Said argued long ago, the Palestinians are too weak to negotiate because they have nothing to offer Israel, and Israel has proven that it uses negotiations only to stall as it expands the occupation. So an international effort will be required to force Israel to ... what? The answer to that question cannot be: “negotiate better,” or “either a or b,” or “do whatever the Palestinians want.” It has to be concrete.
It’s possible to demand a single democratic state, but we don’t even know if Palestinians prefer that. (When I was in the West Bank in June, someone said, “the one state solution is supported by 30 per cent of Palestinians and 30 Israelis.”)
I would suggest that the two state proposal, as outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative (see http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=205481), is the best proposal we have. It is concrete; it (with similar proposals) has vast international support; it appears to have the support of the majority of Palestinians; and it offers the most (among acceptable proposals) to Israel.
Arthur Milner
---
On the uselessness of negotiations, see:
Tony Judt’s tribute to Edward Said (http://www.thenation.com/article/rootless-cosmopolitan?page=full)
Henry Siegman, 2007, The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam (www.lrb.co.uk/.../the-great-middle-east-peace-process-scam)
Arthur Milner, 2004, No more negotiations (http://www.inroadsjournal.ca/archives/inroads_15/contents.html)
I think that Arthur raises a number of good points.
ReplyDeleteI feel concerned that many sympathetic Canadians "automatically' assume the answer is the "2 State Solution".
And it certainly is what most of the "international community' has been working on.
But when I look at the map today, and look at the massive settlements, and hear that Israel wants to keep the settlements, and the Jordan Valley, and wont allow a Palestinian "State" to have its own army, or airport... i wonder.
And I am aware that many Palestinians do not like the idea of a "2 state solution".
I still think its up to the Palestinians and the Israelis to work it out. If we (the west) stopped supporting the Israelis overwhelmingly, they would have to work out a solution.