24-25 But Jacob stayed behind by himself, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he couldn't get the best of Jacob as they wrestled, he deliberately threw Jacob's hip out of joint.
26 The man said, "Let me go; it's daybreak."
Jacob said, "I'm not letting you go 'til you bless me."
27 The man said, "What's your name?"
He answered, "Jacob."
28 The man said, "But no longer. Your name is no longer Jacob. From now on it's Israel (God-Wrestler); you've wrestled with God and you've come through."
29 Jacob asked, "And what's your name?"
The man said, "Why do you want to know my name?" And then, right then and there, he blessed him.
30 Jacob named the place Peniel (God's Face) because, he said, "I saw God face-to-face and lived to tell the story!"
Current times are no different and now the American and Israeli Jewish communities face some difficult decisions. The week of the Palestinian push for Statehood at the United Nations is here and what happens this Friday will alter the course of relations in the region for years to come. Oh, maybe not at first but, down the line this will be a "game changing event".
At the end of this week the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas will ask the United Nations Security Council for a vote on Statehood. As things currently stand, the United States is planning on vetoing this measure (or so it has announced). Both the United States and the European Union favors direct negotiations over this move but as far as anyone can see only the U.S. is planning a veto.
As for the main players.. .the Israeli people strongly oppose this move though there are widely dissenting opinions on how to handle it. Interestingly enough, the Palestinian People are mixed on this. Palestinian polls offer widely differing opinions on the matter. According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
83% support going to the UNSC to obtain recognition of Palestine as a state. Moreover, 74% believe that there is no point in returning to negotiations with Israel without acceptable terms of reference or without freezing settlement construction and that therefore president Abbas is right in seeking UN involvement.
So if the people involved are so divided, how should American progressives and liberals look at this upcoming vote and it's implications for The United States and the region?
First of all, it should be a given that this measure has enough votes to pass the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). It most likely has Security Council support or at least abstentions from everyone BUT the United States (who plans to veto). Given this America now needs to make an informed and important decision.
For American progressives and liberals this question is fraught with pitfalls, longterm traps, and really no good answers. On one hand, there are many reasons to support the Palestinian quest for Statehood (a quest I support along with supporting the maintenance of a strong Israel as the Nation State and Homeland of the Jewish People), from the yearning of the Palestinian people to be free to run their own polity to the necessity of maintaining the Jewish people's legitimate rights to self-determination. On the other hand, the Palestinian Polity is badly fractured between a group that actively calls for the destruction of the State of Israel (Hamas)and a group of individuals that are committed to creating a State that considers Jews as settlers in the land and talks of their expulsion of an ethnic group (Fatah/PLO). Neither Fatah/PLO or Hamas represent anything remotely progressive or liberal in their polity. SO... the question remains what should the U.S. do.
Further complicating the matter for the American team is a potential draft of wording on the resolution which DOES NOT call for establishing borders based on June 4th, 1967 armistice lines but on declaring Statehood and deciding borders based on negotiations (land swaps) of those borders at a later point. This position has been a big part of the American position regarding the resolution of borders for the conflict.
SO... here is a short list of the political and realistic Pro's and Con's of an American Veto:
CON'S (Why a veto would be bad)
1. America's standing and prestige in the area will take a hit. American prestige is already low and is being challenged by both Turkey and Iran (who are also lining up as opposing forces). This symbolic move for statehood is popular both with the "street" and with governments within the region. A U.S. veto would be go directly against these wishes and would inflame the Arab "street" making relations with the U.S. difficult. Though many of the governments involved here (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc....) have strong ties to the U.S. they would be faced with massive unrest should they continue their relationships with the U.S.
2. Ultimately the Palestinian people need a State and as such will keep asking the United Nations for recognition.Despite the wishes of the Israeli ruling coalition and the U.S. administration, this move will succeed in the U.N. at some point even if it does not succeed in the UNSC. It will pass the UNGA this time around. Should there be responsible behavior on the part of the Palestinian polity it is just a matter of time for it to pass the UNSC as well. When the U.S. veto's the Palestinian resolution it will further reduce America's diminshed ability to influence behaviors of the Palestinian Polity.
3. This measure would bring about strong international pressure to actually end the conflict. Whether the Israelis like it or not, this would force their Right Wing into decision making mode and there would be no more ambiguity to what position they would take regarding a number of issues involving the West Bank and Jerusalem. As the colloquial saying goes... at this point Israel would have to "Shit or get off the pot" relative to what they see as the fate of the occupied territories.
PRO'S (Why a veto is the right thing to do)
1. This will do nothing to settle the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. Given recent Palestinian pronouncements regarding ethnically cleansing Jews from their territory, pronouncements on Right of Return, and Hamas' recent signal that they might accept the Palestinian move at the U.N. as long as the future Palestinian State refuses to recognize Israel. The Israelis are simply not going to end their occupation because this measure passes. Far from that, what will likely happen is that the security meme will become dominant (as it is already) and that even Israeli Center - Left groups will adopt the Center-Right's narrative on Security (see my article Avodah Rising). This in turn would lead to conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians and could even lead to a violent Third Intifada.
2. The Palestinian polity is simply not ready for this despite the popularity of such a move. There is no coherency or unity there. Should there be a State, it would be a split policy with Hamas ruling part of the State and the Palestinian Authority ruling the other part. Who would anyone negotiate with as far as borders or peace? It potentially could set off a Palestinian Civil War, a conflict that could explode in other parts of the Arab world.
3. Unilateralism does not solve conflicts. The U.S. (rightly so) feels this issue should be settled through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. feels that it is not up to the United Nations to set borders between two nations and that only direct negotiations between the parties involved can do that.
4. The United States made a pledge to Israel, Whether right or wrong, the U.S. has "made it's stand". What would this tell our allies about what our words mean? Not too mention that Israel has been our strongest friend in the region. Not vetoing this would be seen as us turning our back on some of our best friends in the world.
So given what we are facing we are indeed faced with a task no less than Jacob was when he wrestled with an angel of G-d. He was wounded in the fight (as was evidenced by his permanent limp following the battle) but he emerged stronger and with the new name of Israel. How we wrestle with our own angels will determine how we come out of this fight.
Y'know, VB, to be perfectly honest, I do not really know what to make of the Palestinian bid for statehood.
ReplyDeleteIn truth, I suspect that this will turn out to be much ado about little. I could very well be wrong, of course, but I do not know that this action will result in much of anything.
If the Palestinians were unified, and if Abbas was the legitimate president of the PA, things might be different.
I suppose, tho, that just as Hamas is opposed to this action because it implies the legitimacy of the Jewish state, I find myself leaning in favor for that very reason.
I strongly favor a US veto, particularly for reasons 3 and 4 that you outline. This will do absolutely nothing to create a permanent settlement to the I/P conflict. Furthermore, our allies will wonder when it's their turn for us to turn our backs on them. While we might take a hit in prestige in some quarters as a result of the veto, our allies will know that we will stand with them, even if it does go against the tide of world opinion. That, in the long run, is much better for our foreign policy than just following world opinion.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, let me point to one of my favorite world leaders. In a different time, on a different continent, the seeds of war were being sown. A dictator had arisen and was threatening the entirety of the continent with his continual demands for territorial expansion and his country's rearmament. Most of the continent's governments acquiesced in these demands, lest not doing so would cause war to break out.
This man, from outside his country's government, yet as a member of the governing party, spoke up loudly against the dictator. He warned against acquiescing the dictator. He spoke frankly of the dangers. He was derided as a warmonger for this, and, yet, he persisted, confident of the rightness of his position and the belief that history would, ultimately, prove him correct. And history most certainly did. Today, he is the one lionized and his predecessor is the one derided.
That war did eventually break out. He was invited back into the government as the First Lord of the Admiralty. Following the Norway Debate, it became clear that the government did not have sufficient support and the prime minister resigned. There was one man who had the support to form a national unity government of all the major parties in Parliament. And, so, in 1940, that backbencher, that man who was derided, became the British Prime Minister. Today, Sir Winston Churchill is considered one of the greatest leaders in history.
Well Karma... I am sort of in the same boat. I can see both sides. I definitely don't see it as "much ado about nothing". I think that given all of the potential for international involvemnet this is a bigger deal, not to mention the symbolic values spelled out.
ReplyDeleteI think that were it I, I would have to see the wording of the final resolution. If it talked about negotiations over borders and refugee compensation I might support. If it just talks about 1967 borders and insists on Right of Return to Israel I would veto.
Pretty straight forward.
But yeah, I am not sure what to make of it.
I'm starting to think we should just abstain. Why not allow the Palestinians to become a member? I don't think that membership will make them more or less divided. And with the privileges of membership come some responsibilities. The Netanyahu government bears a great deal of responsibility for the current state of affairs and I don't think the President should do something so risky without getting some from Israel in return, like a settlement freeze.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that even more than the fact that is outlined in point three, namely the fact that it would do absolutely nothing, and, arguably, hinder the prospect of further negotiation, point four is even more significant. If we abandon our ally in her time of need and don't give her the protection that comes with being the ally of a permanent member, then what will our other allies think in their times of need? This is as much about showing our allies that we will stand by them, through thick and thin, as it is about supporting one particular ally and whether this is conducive to facilitating negotiations leading to a two-state solution or is a hinderance to such negotiations.
ReplyDeleteWell drew I both agree and disagree... I don't think we can abstain. I agree with Reuven that this would send exactly the wrong message and would make the U.S. appear weak and waffling.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do agree that the Netanyahu government does bear responsibility in large part for their intransigence.
(this is DrMike, having trouble posting under my own log-in for some reason)
ReplyDeleteReuven:
Given the refusal not only of Hamas but also of Fatah to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as the state of the Jewish people ---which means 1) accepting an Arab state of Palestine as "the end of the conflict" and 2) abandoning the fictional "right" of return which they have been insisting on--- it certainly looks as if they are going not to the UN to promote a peace of two states (one Arab, one Jewish) living side by side in peace and mutual recognition. Rather, it appears that they are going to the UN to be able to utilize international organizations such as the ICC, the ICJ, etc. to wage their ongoing war against Israel. Being a full member state would allow them to do this, which is why the US must (and will) veto this measure.
If the Palestinians came with a resolution that promoted two states, one Arab and one Jewish, living in peace and mutual recognition, and gave up the idea of flooding Israel with millions of irredentist Arabs, then not only should the US support it, so should Israel.
But, as Mike Myers was fond of saying on "Wayne's World": "Sure, and pigs might fly out of my butt!"
It's off topic, but I would be interested to know thoughts concerning this article that deals with Jordan. Why do Palestinians not look toward the east?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hudson-ny.org/2429/jordan-plan-b
I would also commend this new e-book:
http://jcpa.org/text/israel-rights/index.html
As for the US action, what a mess it has helped create. Veto is the right move. The Arab states and Palestinians will invariably find reason to fault us no matter what action we take. If we did not veto, their approval would quickly fade as we moved to oppose what would follow. As such, we should do the right thing and insist on negotiations. Only then will the parties "buy in" and, even then, there is the issue of whether or not having a state is a stepping stone to the next round of conflict concerning Israel proper.
Dr. Mike:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of the bid. Furthermore, the other day, when Abbas spoke of "63 years of occupation," rather than "44 years of occupation," he unintentionally made clear his really position on the issue, namely that Israel, itself, is the occupation. I think that a two-state solution is the only way to solve the conflict. However, it must be a solution that recognizes Israel as the Jewish State, just as Palestine is to be the Palestinian State. And, much as our right of return will be only to Israel, and not the entirety of our historic homeland, so too will the Palestinian right of return be only to Palestine, and not the entirety of their historic homeland.
If, as part of the bid, they put forth that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish People, then that would, of course, change things, as it would implicitly be giving up their claims to a right of return. In this instance, because of the unilateral nature of the action, I hold them to a higher standard. If this were a result of negotiations, negotiations which included forfeiting any claim to such a right, then it would be sufficient to recognize Israel and Israel's right to define herself according to her own laws, much as the treaties with Egypt and Jordan did. This, however, is a different scenario. Peace will not come until the Palestinians recognize, either explicitly or implicitly, that Israel is the Jewish State.
oldschool... as far as I am concernced Jordan is a non-starter. It is it's own entity NOT a Palestinian State. The Palestinians live in the West Bank that, is their home. I say let them have a State in their homeland. We ask it for ourselves why deny it to them.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of your post, it makes a certain amount of sense. BUT I think that we also have to take a line with Israel to get it back to the negotiating table somehow.
I'm not sure an abstention makes us look weak. I think a veto makes us look stubborn, and it will hurt us in the Arab world. I'm not averse to pissing off any other country. We need to make our decisions without worrying about our popularity too much. But if we are going to take this kind of PR hit, we should get something in return. It's time for somebody to reign in the settlers.
ReplyDeleteVB1,
ReplyDeleteAs to Jordan, it's not a matter of a non-starter, but what will happen. Seems that many Palestinian refugees there want to stay and are ready to give up the right of return. Seems also that Palestinians there are oppressed and discriminated by a small minority of rulers. At some stage one would consider that the majority will demand to be represented. Why should Palestinians be satisfied with such a small state? Would it join in a federation with Jordan, as in many ways the residents are one and the same? According to the Wikileaks cable, there are obviously some things happening on the ground.
Nah... oldschool.. I don't see this happening at all in the near future. Palestinian refugees there may want to stay, but Palestinian refugees everywhere else seem to want the keys to Tel Aviv.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the Palestinians be satisfied with a small State?
A. because it would be theirs and
B. because while they might not be satisfied it might be simply what they have to deal with.
I simply don't see it and I don't see the Jordanian monarchy accepting this. In fact, didn't Jordan just pass a law denying Palestinians in the territories Jordanian citizenship?
It may not be a matter of what the Jordanian monarchy accepts.
ReplyDeleteIt is a certainly matter of human rights, which do not only accrue to Palestinian non-refugees. You would imagine some of the pro-P advocates would care about this more.
With a new state will come the issue of the refugees and their rights. I think this will then rise to the surface, as Palestinians outside the state seek to give up return for more inclusion in Jordan's society, and this, in turn, will raise far reaching issues as to the overall discrimination by the minority in power. It's a new episode of Arab spring.
If the right of return issue is addressed this way, then it is good for Israel. It will open the door for other refugee populations to resettle. As such, perhaps it may be a silver lining in the question of statehood. The legal openings it may create can resolve some pesky issues that have too long been avoided.
Reuven (and others)-- there was a great summary by Yossi Klein Halevi in a 2010 article in The New Republic. (No, I don't routinely read TNR, but I do read articles that others send around to me).
ReplyDelete"To achieve eventual peace, the international community needs to pressure Palestinian leaders to forgo their claim to Haifa and Jaffa and confine their people's right of return to a future Palestinian state—just as the Jews will need to forgo their claim to Hebron and Bethlehem and confine their people's right of return to the state of Israel. That is the only possible deal: conceding my right of return to Greater Israel in exchange for your right of return to Greater Palestine. A majority of Israelis—along with the political system—has accepted that principle. On the Palestinian side, the political system has rejected it."
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-crisis
Isn't this really the crux of the matter? I don't even care if the PA won't recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state, as long as they agree that there is no "right" of return and declare-- to their people, in Arabic-- that this is the end of the conflict.
PS yes that was me before also, I guess I can't sign in via my work computer. That'll teach me.
I fully agree on recognition. What I'm arguing is that when they are acting unilaterally, such as by going to the United Nations, they need to take definitive actions to affirm that reality. That comes from recognizing Israel as the Jewish State. It is a de facto forfeiture of the claim to a right of return. In the event of a negotiated settlement recognition of Israel, and not the nature of Israel, is sufficient because that will involve a de jure forfeiture of the claim to a right of return. My argument is simply that the context is what matters when it comes to whether or not there is recognition of Israel as the Jewish State, as opposed to recognizing Israel as a state and saying nothing as to the nature of the state.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, the PA will have to say that in Arabic to their people. Unfortunately, thanks to Abbas' recent slip of the tongue, I don't have confidence that will happen. His words make me believe, as a Jewish American, that the end goal of him, and his organization, is the end of Israel as the Jewish State. I can only imagine the reaction of Israelis to those same words.