PMO rejects Palestinian assertion on right to declare state

[Gimel]

The Prime Minister's Office on Sunday rejected a statement by the Palestinian leadership reasserting its right to unilaterally declare an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, Army Radio reported.




The report quoted sources in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office as saying that the Palestinian Authority could not even manage the cities under its control, and that it was therefore impossible in the current situation to talk about the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The PLO Executive Committee, one of the key Palestinian leadership bodies, met Friday night in the wake of a recent warning by Sharon that Israel would take its own unilateral action should there be no advance in negotiations.

Sharon said that Israel could give up on peace talks and draw a boundary that would leave the Palestinians with much less land than they seek.


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/381731.html

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Unintended consequences of unilateral steps

The Prime Minister's Office is right to point out that the PA does not have the ability to maintain order in the territories. However, nature abhors a vacuum and, as Ms. Gimel implies on another thread, the security vacuum could be filled by the Islamic militants.

This brings up a concern, also raised by Ms. Gimel in the same post. Right now, it would seem that there will be a Palestinian state declared as the result of the unilateral action of either Arafat or Sharon. Sharon would declare one indirectly by completing his wall, dismantling settlements east of the wall and withdrawing the IDF. The wall then replaces the Green Line as Israel's de facto border with Palestine. Meanwhile, it would be up to the Palestinians to maintain order in their country; the Palestinian state may as well be declared at this point because somebody will have to take on the responsibility of doing what a state does, including maintaining order.

Since the Islamic militants are the armed force in the territories, wouldn't it fall on them, almost by default, to maintain order? That is a very scary thought. Could they not become the real political power in Palestine very quickly? For those who thought that a PA under Arafat was bad, imagine one controlled by Sheik Yassin.

There has not been a great deal of discussion on this board or in the press, either domestic or international, about what a Palestinian state ought to look like. It has just been assumed that Arafat would be its head and he would continue his kleptocratic ways, even assuming that Palestine makes no moves against Israel. However, Arafat is in his mid-seventies and believed to be in poor health. Furthermore, there are questions about his real relevancy. If he seriously asked the militants to stop fighting, would they listen? That being the case, would the militants become a law unto themselves in a Palestinian state? Would they enforce their will on the Palestinian people, regardless of what laws any official legislative body pass or what orders a Palestinian President may give?

For my part, although I have been aware of it being a possibility at all times, I would feel betrayed if an independent Palestine became an Islamist state. The question that might be raised is would a Palestinian state brought about as a result of unilateral action as planned by Sharon quickly become an Islamist state? Would a state brought about as part of a negotiated peace deal be less likely to become an Islamist state? If Arafat were to declare unilaterally a state, what plans would be in place to assure an orderly transition of power once he passes the scene? Indeed, what plans would he have in place to control those who now seem beyond his control?

[GabysPoppy]

2. Would you comment further please on this paragraph

"For my part, although I have been aware of it being a possibility at all times, I would feel betrayed if an independent Palestine became an Islamist state. The question that might be raised is would a Palestinian state brought about as a result of unilateral action as planned by Sharon quickly become an Islamist state? Would a state brought about as part of a negotiated peace deal be less likely to become an Islamist state? If Arafat were to declare unilaterally a state, what plans would be in place to assure an orderly transition of power once he passes the scene? Indeed, what plans would he have in place to control those who now seem beyond his control?"

Why would an Islamist State be a betrayal in your opinion. Had you said a "radical" Islamist State I would share your concern. A peaceful Islamist State would be far superior to what we now have. I can't imagine a "peaceful" State wanting anything to do with Arafat anyway. Your last statement is so very true whatever qualities this "new" State would have.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Response

What do you mean by a "peaceful" Islamist state as opposed to a "radical" Islamist state? Please notice I said Islamist, not Islamic. An Islamic state could mean many things, from an Islamist state to one that simply recognizes Islam as the official state religion and turns over revenues to Islamic organizations in order to perform the kind of positive functions that religious organizations perform. On the other hand, an Islamist state would be an undemocratic state by definition. Islamism is a theory that holds that Islam is the word of God and that a citizen's participation in the civic affairs should be contingent on his observation of Islam; one must not only be a Muslim in order to participate in civic affairs, but a "good" Muslim. The better Muslim one is, the more influence one will have in the political arena. Democracy, on the contrary, is a state where citizenship is universal and all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in and influence civic affairs. Islamism and democracy are incompatible.

I agree that Arafat is undesirable for many different reasons. However, Israel's greatest concern is simply that an independent Palestine be peaceful, meaning that Palestinian territory is not used as a base for attacks against Israel. What you imply is correct: the form of government adopted by a Palestinian state is irrelevant to that end; as long as Palestine does not wage war, Israel is unconcerned whether the Palestinian state is in the hands of an authoritarian kleptocrat, a cabal of Islamic fascists or freely and fairly elected progressive democrats.

However, while it may make no difference to Israel as long as there is no war, it makes a difference to the Palestinian people. A Palestinian state is of no value if it is simply used to subjugate the people at large to a ruling cabal, whether that cabal be one of thieves or theocrats. If we don't care that the people are subjugated, the IDF may as well remain in the territories. Consequently, the goal should not be merely the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, but a state that is progressive, secular and democratic.

Moreover, the implication of my post is that Arafat would be replaced by Ahmed Yassin or somebody like that. Peaceful? Yassin is less a man of peace than is Ariel Sharon. It would not be the best outcome imaginable.

[GabysPoppy]

4. Thank you

I read too quickly and hadn't noticed the difference between Islamist and Islam. My bad. Must remind myself to start brain engine before allowing body to drive off.

A State rooted in values of Islam wouldn't bother me in the least.

Obviously we should care that the Palestinian peoples are not subjugated as they have been in the past. It's also important to note that said subjugation did not begin with the IDF.

I wonder what a poll of Arab Israelis would indicate as to their preference given all the current possibilites available? Were I a betting man, my guess is they would prefer to stay with the GOI. I also wonder if they would be approving of the security fence? I think that too would get an affirmative vote.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Your welcome

The subjugation did not begin with the IDF. Indeed, the Levantine coast has been part of one empire or another for most of the last 2000 years: Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman, British. From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank was under Jordanian control and Gaza under Egyptian. The Israeli occupation began in 1967.

The answer to the riddle of why has there never been a Palestinian state is simply that there has been somebody else's army on Palestinian land preventing it all this time.

[Lithos]

6. Very correct sir

The answer to the riddle of why has there never been a Palestinian state is simply that there has been somebody else's army on Palestinian land preventing it all this time.

Very true.

Even so, the people have occasionally asserted themselves when given an 0pportunity. The revolt of 1834, the autonomy of the Sanjak of Jerusalem beginning in the 1850's, etc.

Don't forget too that the rest of the Palestine area was severed administratively from Syria and given to the coastal Vilayet of Beirut because the area started looking to the West and no longer to Damascus. This may not sound like much, but it reflects the increasing importance of the rising trade and prosperity of Palestine which started in the early 17th Century (following the conquest by the Ottomans in the mid 16th Century). Remember that under the Mamluks, the natural trade routes would have been stunted because of the hostile Ottoman Empire to the north.

L-