What would happen if Palestinians unilaterally declared statehood?

[Violet_Crumble]

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad recently announced that his government intends to declare an independent Palestinian state in the summer of 2011, even if no agreement is reached with Israel. This statement obviously generated unease in Israel, and not only among supporters of Benjamin Netanyahu's government - especially as it was accompanied by hints that European countries, and even the European Union itself, would recognize such a unilateral declaration of independence.

The unease and the concomitant apprehensions are understandable, but they may well be fundamentally misplaced. After all, anyone with eyes in his head, unless he is a prisoner of empty slogans or committed to political correctness, must admit that even if negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians resume, the prospects for an agreement are nil. And this is not due solely to the positions of the Netanyahu government: Its predecessor, led by Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, negotiated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for two whole years and made him very generous offers, but still never managed to reach an agreement.

The reasons are clear: On the core issues - borders, Jerusalem, refugees - the gaps between even the most moderate positions on both sides are so wide that no rhetoric, and no assertive American involvement, is capable of bridging them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in pipe dreams.

Therefore, we should seriously consider what would happen if the Palestinians were indeed to declare a state and win relatively broad international recognition. First of all, it is clear that Israel would announce that this unilateral declaration nullifies all prior agreements between it and the Palestinians, from Oslo on; that it is released from all the obligations it has undertaken, including the economic ones; and that it will henceforth relate to the areas under Palestinian control as foreign territory. It is also clear that all Israeli obligations arising from its military control of the territories would be abrogated under both Israeli and international law. Not everyone would accept this argument, but it would not be possible to ignore it.

A unilateral Palestinian declaration would not change the situation on the ground. By itself, such a declaration could not bring about the evacuation of the settlements, regardless of whether the Palestinians say they accept the settlers as citizens of their state or continue to claim that the settlements are illegal. The same of course goes for East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians would presumably say they see as their capital.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164008.html

[Violet_Crumble]

1. article continued...

What a unilateral declaration of independence would generate, however, is a fundamental change in the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Instead of a dispute between Israeli occupiers and occupied Palestinians, it would become a dispute between two states. An independent Palestine would undoubtedly claim that Israel is occupying its territories, but so does Syria.

Moreover, if Palestine were independent, Israel would have no responsibility for the Gaza Strip, and the Israel-Gaza border would become an international border like that between Egypt and Gaza. Hence Israel would not be obligated, inter alia, to allow passage between its territory and Palestinian territory, just as there is no such passage between Israel and Syria.

Of course the matter is not that simple, but any measure that would make the Israeli-Palestinian dispute more "normal" - that is to say, a dispute between states - would also advance the prospect for negotiations: It would be far easier to conduct negotiations on borders, the future of the settlements, territorial exchanges, Jerusalem and other issues between states.

One must hope that this scenario does not deter members of the Palestinian leadership and make them change their minds. On the contrary, they should take their destiny into their own hands and stand up to Israel as a full-fledged state. In so doing, they would free both themselves and us of the occupation and do what they have not managed to do since 1948, and what we have not managed to do since 1967. This is the only way to realize the vision of two states for two peoples.

[aquart]

2. And I would send them a nice gift. Maybe cake. And a card.

Really, what you need to ask is, why haven't they? LOL!

[Countdown_3_2_1]

3. We would be no closer to peace.

Simply declaring statehood solves nothing.
The basic issues are not answered.
Palestine needs to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Palestine is currently in a state of war, they need to step away from that and encourage the economy.

Statehood is not a magic cornucopia of goodness and peace.
The simple fact that no one has agreed to borders means armed conflict would continue.

Bottom line: there is no simple fix.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. And how is the status quo getting any further to peace?

A few corrections for you:

1. The Palestinians have already recognised Israel's right to exist...

2. Palestine (are you meaning the West Bank?) is not in a state of war. The infrastructure of government is there and continues to develop.

3. Agreeing to borders isn't a prerequisite for statehood, otherwise Israel wouldn't have gained statehood as it never stated what its borders were, and currently the Green Line isn't a border...

[zipplewrath]

4. 2 results

1) Israel would be free to treat actions by Palestinian's as acts of war. And the level of violence would increase.

2) A civil war would break out inside Palestine, especially after the refugees were returned.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Why would the return of refugees spark civil war?

Curious as to the source of your thinking about internal Palestinian politics.

[zipplewrath]

6. They are not united

It would deliver into an already contentious situation, a large group of people to be co-opted into the on going internal struggles. Many, if not most, of them would be folks with little immediate history in the area, and there would be a confrontation between them, and those already established and struggling.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. What is your source for this information? Are you suggesting that refugees are not knowledgable

or savvy about the internal political situation?

[zipplewrath]

9. History

I'm saying that they are not a monolithic people. "reunification" is difficult under any circumstance. In an environment like the OP is proposing, it would be a recipe for internal strife.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. YOu have some pretty odd reasoning. Better refugees forever? I beg to differ.

[zipplewrath]

12. I never said such a thing

I was commenting on the effect described in the original post. Unilaterally declaring statehood and returning the refugees would be a dangerous evolution of the situation. There can be a time for the return, this way would be less than ideal.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Wish they would; it's getting to look like the only thing that MIGHT work.

Unfortunately their leaders seem unable to get together to agree on such a plan (and some hardliners seem to be against it because it would mean giving up dreams of getting rid of Israel altogether).

To all those prophesying doom if it happens - what do you think is going to happen if the status quo continues indefinitely.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Perhaps they woudl get the same treatment that happened to Israel when they declared a state

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. They're suggesting declaring a state in their own land, though.

If they try to declare a state in someone else's homeland and then ethnically cleanse it, as Israel did, then of course they will attract opposition. But they aren't suggesting doing that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. That it is "their" land is a bit dogy

Do you not find it odd that the Arab nations could ignore the UN and Israel had to accept that conquest in 1949 but when portions of that land are recovered by military action its wrong? Israel has actually held the land longer than the nations who claim it.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Dogy? Do you mean 'dodgy'?

Anyway, most people apart from those who have some bizarre belief that Israel should include the Occupied Territories are very willing to refer to them as Palestinian territory, as most people acknowledge that what remains is the territory that was supposed to become the Arab state...

Also, acquiring territory in war is wrong and I'm not sure why anyone would try to argue it wasn't...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. I'm not talking about nations, I'm talking about people.

I would be entirely happy with Israel annexing all the occupied territories, *provided it lets the natives live there and vote for the government that rules over them*.

[TomClash]

16. I like this idea

Either it will work or it will kill the two state solution forever. UNSEC recognition would help, but I wonder which of the five permanent members would exercise its veto power?

The "peace process" is a sclerotic joke. It has devolved into nothing more than a means for Israel to pretend it is the cooperative victim, while expanding settlements and keeping the Palestinian ghettos in place. This idea will either kill it or raise it form the dead.