Posted By Henry Siegman
Monday, August 9, 2010 - 11:23 AM
Share
Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister, recently startled his fellow cabinet ministers - and Middle East analysts everywhere - with a proposal that Israel end its status as an occupying power in the Gaza Strip and allow Hamas to establish an independent Palestinian state in that enclave.
Most everyone dismissed Lieberman's suggestion out of hand, coming as it did from a man derisively referred to by his Israeli critics as "the bouncer from Kishinev" (having in fact been employed as a night club bouncer in the Moldavian capital before emigrating to Israel).
Lieberman proposed that Israel fashion a border regime that removes Israel's effective control over Gaza's economic lifelines while satisfying legitimate Israeli security requirements - hardly an idea expected from an Israeli leader who has distinguished himself by his contempt for democracy and xenophobia towards Arabs, whether Israel's own citizens or under Israeli occupation.
Geoffrey Aronson has been a lone dissenter from this general reaction to Lieberman's proposal. In a posting here at The Middle East Channel, the highly respected director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace endorsed Lieberman's idea. He noted that in 1974, the PLO committed itself "to establish the independent combatant national authority for the people over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated." Aronson argues that if Israel and the Palestinians are unable to achieve this objective in the entire West Bank, "that is no reason to prevent [the creation of a territorially contiguous area under sovereign Palestinian control] in Gaza, or anywhere else where such an opportunity exists." He believes that an independent Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip "cannot but positively transform both the internal Palestinian and the international diplomatic landscape."
My respect for Aronson's exceptionally thoughtful analyses of the Israel-Palestine conflict notwithstanding, I believe his take on the Lieberman proposal to be mistaken.
The PLO's 1974 commitment referred to by Aronson speaks of the establishment of an "independent combatant national authority." I take the term "combatant" to mean an authority that would continue to struggle by all means for the recovery of Palestinian territory - or at least all territory within the pre-'67 borders. This would certainly be inconsistent with the condition Lieberman attached to the ending of Israel's status as an occupying power in Gaza, namely "satisfying legitimate Israeli security requirements."
The expectation that Hamas would agree to end its own efforts to roll back Israel's occupation of the West Bank in return for Israel's recognition of Gaza's independence is utterly unrealistic. Hamas won't even satisfy Israel's "security requirements" if Israel were to offer to withdraw from Gaza and 95% of the West Bank. Indeed, even the "moderate" Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, which declared its willingness to consider equal exchanges of territory on both sides of the pre-1967 border, rejected the Israeli proposal for Palestinian sovereignty in temporary borders.
Hamas has offered to renounce violence against Israel in return for Israel's acceptance of a long-term Hudna and a withdrawal of its occupation forces to the pre-1967 border. But it would never agree end its "resistance" in return for an arrangement that frees Israel to continue to deepen its colonial project in the West Bank.
Imagine if Israel's War of Independence in 1948 had ended differently, with Palestinians in control of 99 percent of Palestine, and the Jews confined to an enclave comparable in size to that of Gaza. Imagine further that the Palestinians had offered the Jews statehood in that enclave, but on condition they cease all activity that might compromise Palestinian "security requirements." Would the Jews have agreed?
Lieberman has advanced this proposal because he favors any measure he believes would relieve U.S. and international pressure on Israel to withdraw from much more than about half of the West Bank, the rest of which he and Netanyahu want to annex to the Jewish state - and for all practical purposes have already done so.
He and Netanyahu are desperately in search of strategies that would distract the outside world long enough to enable them to anchor the settlement enterprise even more deeply and more irreversibly than they already have; and what better way of doing that than by getting the international community (i.e. George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, the Quartet) to busy itself for the next five years with arrangements for Gaza's independence and statehood that satisfy "Israel's legitimate security requirements" - as Israel completes its "Judaization" of East Jerusalem and of much, if not all, of the West Bank.
Lieberman's idea may indeed "transform both the internal Palestinian and the international diplomatic landscape," but I fear only in a way that spells the death of what hope there still exists for something other than a cataclysmic outcome of Israel's unrestrained land grab to achieve an "Eretz Yisrael Hash'lemah" (the Whole Land of Israel).
It is an idea that has been rightfully ignored.
Unfortunately, however, so has the idea that President Obama finally renounce the "incrementalism" that has enabled both Israel and the Palestinians to prolong the agony called a "peace process" that has turned the goal of a two-state accord into an empty slogan, and instead present both parties with an outline of an agreement he and the international community are prepared to enforce.
The half-life of that so-far ignored idea is about to run out.
Henry Siegman, director of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a consultant for the Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre (Noref) in Oslo.
If the situation were the other way around, Mr Siegman, there wouldn't be any Jews in "Palestine", not in an enclave and not anywhere else. The options to negotiate or, not and on what are reserved to people who know that regardless of what they do or don't do, their status victims in enshrined.
if the Arab armies had won, there would be no Palestine.
Don't forget that the Palestinians themselves didnt really fight in the war. Jordan, Syria and Egypt all would have loved to claim the land. In fact, Jordan occupied the West Bank, hence the term, and Egypt occupied Gaza until 1967.
Don't fool yourself by thinking that there would have been a nation state of Palestine. Had it not been for Israel winning war after war then the concept a Palestinian identity and country may not exist anymore.
Also, this article takes a turn for the worst.
As usual with anti-Israel writers and activists they start off with a good point and then take a drastic turn to something that has nothing to do with their original statement.
The last few paragraphs all have to do with the West Bank. Not a word about Gaza.
It ended up being a smear campaign against Israel instead of a thoughtful analysis about the situation. It is sad because the author originally made some valid points until it took that turn.
Why would Israel agree to give the Palestinians authority over the West Bank after what happened in Gaza? Unless you think that the PA will stay in power forever then it is foolish to think that Hamas could never happen in the West Bank.
I think Gaza could be a perfect proving ground to Israel and to the rest of the world that Israel could ease its security needs regarding the Palestinians if Gaza could become a free democratic mini-state for the Palestinians.
Even General Petraeus has provided testimony saying that the Palestinian crisis remains the biggest threat to US forces in the middle east. Israel faces two serious threats: the rise of internal militant fundamentalist groups deciding who's really a jew, and growing international condemnation. And granted, the international condemnation is merely from the fact that this problem has gone on too long and that Israel (and therefore the US) continue to insist on choosing the Palestinian negotiators. Admit it...Hamas was 'outlawed' not because they were violent, but because they have revised all of the negotiating starting points, which means the settlements.
No real negotiations and endless pre-conditions are better than nothing for Israel...in actuality, peace with the Palestinians is far more achievable than internal peace with the settlers...Frankenstein awakes...good luck controlling it.
It is funny how you just assume that because they are a bit right wing you assume that settlers are fundamentalist militants.
Unlike a fellow religion they do not go around killing other Jews.
Hamas was outlawed because its charter explicitly evokes killing all Jews in the name of Allah.
Hamas was outlawed because it believes in armed struggle even more then Fatah, so compared to Hamas Fatah seems moderate. Lucky for Fatah.
You cannot come to negotiate with pre-conditions. That defeats the purpose of talking. I understand their point. But what if Israel came to the table with a pre-condition that Jerusalem remain undivided? And only then Israel would negotiate.
The whole world would cry foul and make Israel be the bad guy. But when a Palestinian does it, without reading the pre-conditions they say they must have a point!
Dangerous & Immodest? I think NOT!
People should applaud Avigdor for speaking up against the Zionist people of Israel.
This idea is exactly what Israel needs to gain its long lost respect back from the world.
Ofcourse it should "end its status as an occupying power!"
Whoever disagrees then you have no sense of humanitarianism and you are emotionally void to the atrocities that are being carried out. It is equal to not being human anymore.
It's time for a new and free Palestine where they can be free to pray wherever they like, eat and drink freely, think freely, without those idiots controlling what they do.
It is indeed a concentration camp there.
It wouldn't be so bad if the author at least used an honest premise for attacking Lieberman's persona.
Norway and other European states have a vested interest in isolating Israel - as a lightening rod to distract from their gross support and relationship with racist, apartheid Islamic states, and also continue their 2,000 years bias against Jews and denying Jewish rights.
the Palestinians have been turned into the ultimate pawn, first designed by the Soviet Union, adopted by the Arabs, and now recruited by the Europeans to satisfy their Arab allies.
The Palestinians have been used and abused, their legacy is tied to victimhood.
The author is literally graveling, accepting the proposals of Hamas without question and dubiously condemning Israel's POV without the slightest bit of evidence.
The real question is why is Norway so interested in this conflict? Do they not understand the concept of sovereignty? Clearly this author is detached from reality and knows jack and shit about Palestinians or Israel.
The problem is Europeans don't respect Israel. They fear Muslims because they murder Europeans, but Zionists are a soft target because they don't fight back.
I have yet to see any Leftist in Europe be so devoted to combating human rights in the Islamic world as they are so devoted in bashing Israel relentessly.
It has been an industry for this trolls. Being a racist and xenophobic european cesspool isn't enough.
And yes, Norway is super racist against Jews, one of the most antisemitic countries in Europe.
I say boycott Europe and create a Hamastan on it's border. Siegman obviously has an erection for Hamas, give it to him.
Siegman is an Islamic sockpuppet, like most ignorant Eurotrolls
"Imagine if Israel's War of Independence in 1948 had ended differently, with Palestinians in control of 99 percent of Palestine, and the Jews confined to an enclave comparable in size to that of Gaza. Imagine further that the Palestinians had offered the Jews statehood in that enclave"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For starters, there were no "Palestinians" in 1948. Jews and Arabs were Palestinian. And guess what? In 1948, Israel had NO AUTHORITY OVER GAZA! It was occupied by Egypt for 20 YEARS YOU EUROPEAN ASSHOLE.
Yeah, 20 years - no European state challenged Egypt's hegemony over Gaza - only when Israel showed up did they start bitching and whip out the buzzwords (colonialism, apartheid occupation, etc..)
Same deal with the West Bank (Samaria), which was considered part of Jordan until 1967 - even the PLO recognized Jordan's sovereignty over the WB and Egypt's sovereignty over Gaza. Don't believe? Read their 1964 charter:
"Article 24: This Organization DOES NOT EXERCISE any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields."
http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html
As far as the "Hunda" goes, Muslim brotherhood tactics. Hamas engages in controlled cease-fires. Israel knows this and the Arab states know this. Look how Jordan and Syria pummeled their muslim brotherhood insurgencies.
Norway - if you are SO RIGHTEOUS, why don't you send your peacekeepers to Gaza and fucking pacify them. Why is Europe so interested in Israel and Gaza. Don't you fags have better things to do? It's not like this is some genocide. Why don't you go push on your Arab allies and their real apartheid, how they subjugate and discriminate their Palestinian minority?
Oh wait - Israel is a soft target and attacking it is a win-win, but criticizing Arabs or the peace-loving Palestinians and uh-oh, bad for oil.
Israel should fed-ex Hamas to Norway, arm them, protect them, and let Siegman negotiate since he is such a genius.
United Nations not reliable enough for you? PLO doesn't try too hard to hide their history, though I'm sure they're grateful for the European street that white-washes their violent, homicidal history into some bogus quest for a state that never existed.
Even Arafat knew he was a fraud.
United Nations not reliable enough for you? PLO doesn't try too hard to hide their history, though I'm sure they're grateful for the European street that white-washes their violent, homicidal history into some bogus quest for a state that never existed.
Even Arafat knew he was a fraud.
How dim do you need to be to NOT see where lieberman is going; There is no land to steal in Gaza, but if the Israelis can call it a separate nation, they can still poke the tiger (Hamas) in it in all sorts of ways, get the reaction they are looking for. They will then use the predictable reaction as further subtext to justify illegally settling the vastly larger area of the West Bank and East Jerusalem,where there is land to steal, and then bomb the living daylights out of Gaza at will, all the while saying we gave the Palestinians their state, and they still attack us, so our brutal apartheid and ethnic cleansing in the west bank is justified.
This mans own home is built on stolen land in the occupied territories, and he leads a party committed to taking it all. Is this not clear as day to everyone?
The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE