by Carlo Strenger
| Last Update: 08.02.2012
  • Published 15:53 02.12.09
  • Latest update 18:42 02.12.09

Palestinians have learned from early Zionists

EU recognition of a Palestinian state and capital might reignite the peace process.

By Carlo Strenger Tags: Middle East peace Israel news

History has its ironies. Sixty one years ago, Israel's independence was declared despite Arab opposition. Now the Palestinians are taking the cue, and are considering making the same move.

There are indications that the European Union foreign ministers will formally recognize East Jerusalem as the future capital of the Palestinian state. This as a reaction to the idea that has been floated repeatedly, by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and to seek international recognition for this state de jure, even though it would only function on about two thirds of the West Bank de facto until final details are arranged.

I have fought for the two-state solution for many years and am in favor of East Jerusalem's being the Palestinian capital. While it would be preferable to reach these goals through negotiation, the process has been stuck for too many years. The EU's recognition of the Palestinian state and capital might reignite the peace process. Moreover this would force Palestinian extremists, who continue to be committed to the destruction of Israel, and Israeli extremists, who continue to dream of the Greater Israel, closer to realizing that history has moved on. The question is how such a move by the EU could be made without Israelis feeling that they are being pushed into an ever-growing isolation.

Israel's current government has been catastrophically bad at generating understanding for Israel's justified concerns. This has given ammunition to many left-wing critics of Israel in Europe and the U.S., who make life easy for themselves by arguing that Israel's fears are nothing but a fig-leaf for its colonial plans to annex the West Bank.

It is therefore of importance to formulate these concerns to make clear that they are shared even by unequivocal, long-term Israeli proponents of the two-state solution who have condemned Israeli settlement policies for years. Hence I want to spell out Israel's justified fears of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.

The first is about security. Israel's citizens are traumatized by years of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, which only intensified once Israel withdrew from there. The international community has shown somewhat limited understanding for Israel's concerns, because these attacks have not cost many lives. While I think that the incursion in Gaza was conducted with excessive force, Israel had no choice but to do something to stop the attacks - and was severely condemned for this.

What will Israel's situation be after it withdraws from the West Bank to the 1967 borders? All major population centers of Israel would be in range of Katyushas. These missiles were sufficiently destructive to bring life in northern Israel to a complete standstill when Hezbollah fired large numbers of them into Israel during the Second Lebanon War. If Israel were to be attacked from the West Bank, the impact would be devastating, and Israel would have no choice but to react forcefully - and as a result would, once again be the target of international condemnation.

Hence Israelis say "we're damned if we do and damned if we don't": If Israel continues the occupation of large parts of the West Bank, it is under constant international criticism - but at least it is relatively safe. If Israel withdraws from the West Bank, it will open itself to attacks from there, and any retaliation will lead to massive international condemnation. Ergo, many Israeli think, it is preferable to maintain the status quo, unpalatable as it is.

The second issue is the lack of clarity over whether Salam Fayyad and Mahmoud Abbas represent all Palestinians: there are currently two de facto governments, with Hamas ruling Gaza. Hence Israelis ask whether anything signed by a Palestinian Authority that is de facto Fatah, will in any way bind Hamas, which has already rejected previous agreements with Israel. Israelis justifiably ask: what if Hamas wins the general elections again? Israel will be open to attacks from the West Bank by a government whose charter includes rabid anti-Semitic rants from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that is currently armed and influenced by Iran - whose president keeps reiterating that Israel needs to be wiped off the map of the Middle East.

Deeper involvement of the EU is to be welcomed. But if it is to be constructive, it needs to take all these concerns into account in future steps. Recognition of a Palestinian state must be accompanied by more than abstract commitment to Israel's safety - by very concrete proposals. This would, for example, include committing international forces to safeguard a perimeter of around 20 kilometers along the 1967 borders for a number of years to make sure that most of Israel is not in the reach of Katyusha rockets. It would also include a provision that the international community will not accept any Palestinian government as legitimate that reneges on the two-state solution and calls for Israel's destruction.

But none of this will convince Israelis that they can take the risk for peace, if they are not sure that the final agreement prevents any further demands that endanger Israel. Israel's concern has always been that Palestinians will demand the Right of Return for their refugees as part of a final peace agreement, a demand which would mean the end of Israel as the Jewish homeland, and would lead to a nightmare. Hence the international community must actively address this thorny issue. It needs to call upon Arab states to guarantee that, as part of such a settlement, they would make every effort to end the refugee status of Palestinians and to allow them citizenship and integration into their countries.

An abridged version of this article appeared on guardian.co.uk on December 2, 2009

Click here to return to Carlo Strenger's blog

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Photo by: (Getty Images)
  • Print Page
  • Send to a friend
  • Share
  • Text Size +|-
 
 
TalkBacks

Why Facebook Connect?

Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.

Add a comment

Add your reply

  • 26. 0 0
    #17rubbish
    • Julian Ronnefeldt
    • 20.12.09
    • 21:47

    But nobody is talking about dissoving Israel.Accepting Palestine as a state won't do any harm to Israel, the army is too big , the weapong are too sofistcated, what is Israel worrying about?But Elephants are apparently scared about mice as well.

  • 25. 0 0
    Palestinians have learned the tricks of Zionists.
    • David
    • 17.12.09
    • 00:07

    "Zionist Forever" is well named,but unfortunatly for him, his is a pipe-dream. In the short run, he is probably correct; Israel will resist the surrendering of the settlements, exactly as the Eurpean powers resisted surrendering their colonies. In the end, however, Israeli intransigence will further isolate the Zionists and produce greater anti-Semitism until it is forced to recognize the realities of the 21st century or perish. The sooner this happens the better for all concerned.

  • 24. 0 0
    The Israeli Question
    • Sam
    • 14.12.09
    • 07:01

    The Khazarian hypothesis has not been debunked. In fact all that the genetic surveys prove is that the Ashkenazis are genetically closer to Turks, Armenians and Kurds than to Palestinians. The Khazars were not Europeans or Slavs they were a mostly Northern Caucasian people like the Ingush, Dagestanis and Chechens. The Area of Khazaria composed of the ancestors of those people. Middle Eastern markers definitely show up in Northern Caucasia. In fact Chechens have been proven to be genetically similar to Armenians as have Ashkenazis. There needs to be further study done in the caucasus, and it has not happened yet. The Khazars were not a myth and were very real. They still are to this day.

  • 23. 0 0
    # 14 a question of origins for you, jon
    • eric
    • 13.12.09
    • 06:55

    what became of the israelites who did NOT flee the roman occupation, but remained instead in their villages and farms; having been largely unaffected by the great uprisings? 1800 yrs later, or so, ben gurion voiced the answer to that question as he considered the indigenous population of "palestine" in their villages and farms. it doesn't matter WHO coined the term "palestine" for the region, the term "palestinian" identifies them as its indigenous population...and they are NOT arab.

  • 22. 0 0
    No "peace process" to restart
    • Devasahayam
    • 12.12.09
    • 20:39

    Bacically, "Palestinians"--defined as they are by vitriolic hatred of Israel/Jews (typical of their Edomite ancestors, and passed to them with some adulteration such as Naziesque variety)--do not desire any form of peace (other than type preceded by "rest in") with Israel nor even non-Israeli Jews!

  • 21. 0 0
    2 Legal choises or 1 last war
    • noha
    • 12.12.09
    • 17:50

    You have 2 legal choices : 1947 or 1967 borders. ONE state for ALL . or counting to believe Arabs will let you steal the land just like Crusaders and Tatars believed.

  • 20. 0 0
    9
    • noha
    • 12.12.09
    • 15:18

    Palestinians want a Palestinian state not a Muslim state . As for what we (Muslims) believe about the Aksa it is not related to the legal state of East Jerusalem as occupied lands according to The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  • 19. 0 0
    8
    • noha
    • 12.12.09
    • 15:15

    They mean Security Council and UN declaration of the Palestinian state .

  • 18. 0 0
    2 Legal choises or 1 last war
    • noha
    • 12.12.09
    • 15:12

    You have 2 Legal choises : 1967 or 1947 borders. ONE state for All. Or continuing to believe Arabs will let you , just like Crusaders and Tatars believed .

  • 17. 0 0
    #16 rubbish
    • Sam
    • 10.12.09
    • 09:49

    i wish someone did as your name suggested and censored your nonsense. if you want to spout your lies and deny genealogical tests, historical fact, and just plain common sense, then take it to whatever white supremacist website you fancy most. whether you were referencing the debunked notion that today's jews are all khazars or just assuming that russian jews did not come originally from israel, you would be wrong on both accounts. I like how we need to "get a life" while your the one claiming to be educated whilst spewing lies. talk about rationalizing bad behavior. the fact of the matter is the jewish state is here and here to stay. am yisrael chai.

  • 16. 0 0
    #14 rubbish
    • always censored
    • 03.12.09
    • 05:44

    This ancestral home nonsense is a joke. The idea that Russian Jews have a right to Arab land is a fallacy that educated people don't believe or respect. You, and those who believe as you do, need to pull your heads out of your collective back sides and get a life. It's astounding the lengths some people will go to to rationalize bad behavior.

  • 15. 0 0
    12 - Be careful what you wish for
    • r cummings
    • 02.12.09
    • 20:44

    The idea that Israel would reduce its neighbours to 'piles of rubble' if it encounters any opposition to its land theft, is a dangerously deluded nationalist stance. Galtieri said the same kind of bellicose things before being slapped down hard in the Falklands, ditto Saddam in Kuwait ('the mother of all wars', which was over in 10 days!), Milosevic in Kosovo and a long line of other mini wannabes. Nations which get too big for their boots and underestimate the impact of UN resolutions and Goldstone reports are 'cruising for a bruising' as they say. Israel would be very foolish to overplay its limited hand and provoke Western action. It would be a pretty short, one-sided contest.

  • 14. 0 0
    sameer
    • jon
    • 02.12.09
    • 20:29

    sameer, israel was not rewarded after the war, they simply came back to their ancestral homeland..as for the palestinians being rewarded, can you tell me why they should be rewarded? also, the term palestinian, where does that come from? palestine was refered to as such as the jewish land and was given the name by the romans...in the pre 1948 days, there were only arabs..seems to me, 'palestinian' only came into being after both jordan and egypt were defeated. Also, why was the PLO established in 1964? for what reason?

  • 13. 0 0
    The article is wrong on a few points.
    • CJ
    • 02.12.09
    • 20:19

    Only after statehood has been declared can a State Government be elected. Look to the Declaration of a Jewish state for an example. The Hamas or Fatah Charters will not be the basis for Palestinian statehood. Statehood can only be declared by a non-political party, such as the Jewish Peoples Council, which represented all Jewish folk. Like wise for any entity wishing to declare statehood or Sovereignty. The Charter or Constitution for a State Government can only be adopted once there is a State to Govern. The demographic threat to SOVEREIGN Israel by RoR is a fallacy. Israel was guaranteed a minority of non Jews on it's Sovereign soil. Only a portion of that majority fled the violence, they are all now over 61 years old. The Palestinian have only ever claimed RoR as per UN resolutions which are as a matter of course based on the UN Refugee Conventions. Elaborated at http://wp.me/pDB7k-jS

  • 12. 0 0
    any government who supports this supports regional war
    • zionist forever
    • 02.12.09
    • 19:20

    Israel will not just abandon its settlements & it certainly won't abandon east Jerusalem no matter what the Europeans or UN say thats the reality. The palestinians will now see this territory as officially theirs so we are going to have an uprising on a scale never seen before. Hezbollah will almost certainly get involved, Syria might and Jordan may get dragged into it because 80% of its population are palestinians. This will mean Israel will bomb the hell out of Lebanon and possibly Syria as well as the palestinian state & send in ground troops. It will be gloves off time not another 2006 Lebanon & Cast Lead will look like a scirmish. When a ceasefire eventually comes after hundreds if not thousands of people are killed and the arab state & southern Lebanon & beyond are piles of rubble These same people who are vote to create this state unilaterally will have to say to the palestinians your going to have to sit & negotiate and make concessions because you need Israeli recognition

  • 11. 0 0
    I am confused -
    • GA
    • 02.12.09
    • 19:18

    Not sure what we the palestinians are asking? Some one explain. We already have 242/338 ... already decalred indepandance many times. This article fails to mention the zionist movement had fire power behind it, we do not. The country is to small for a 2 state solution. 1 state 2 state does not matter. Israel is on a self destructive path. what it is needs is rethinking of it's treatement of us and the concept of a jewish state. The non-jews are becomming majority in Israel and even with a 2 state solution it's jewishness is in question. While Israel has the upper hand they need to figure out a way to integrate the Jewes and non jewes to protect the jews from another holacost. Sorry for the spelling - in hurry

  • 10. 0 0
    To Mike in USA - Israel Annexed East Jerusalem in 1980...
    • Eli
    • 02.12.09
    • 19:06

    The World, represented by the UN sought to prevent this and issued a UN resolution not accepting the Annexation. To Annex land you need to: Have soveriegnty over it Give the persons on the land citizenship Have international recognition In your country, Foreign Policy Powers are split between Congress (Lower Legislature, as u r bicameral) and Presidency (Executive). Congress, agreed to move Embassy and Recognize UNITED Jerusalem as Israel's capital, in 1995 Directive, as such President must issue a reason every 6 months, why he hasn't followed up on the Directive, Obama promised to move embassy to J during AIPAC meeting on campaign trail then rescinded this promise that evening. More on Your post and its justification of violence to follow:

  • 9. 0 0
    Which is holy to Muslims, Al Aksa or the City?
    • Johann
    • 02.12.09
    • 18:11

    We keep hearing that the Muslims can't compromise on Jerusalem, yet the city itself was an unimportant backwater for centuries. It's significance to Muslims lies in the presence of Al Aksa and the Rock. Their attachment to the Mosques is understandable and the Wakf would have control there no matter what in any case. But the Muslim devotion to the entire city is a red herring - they demand it because the Jews want it. If Beersheba was to be Israel's capital, we'd soon learn of its holiness to Muslims.

  • 8. 0 0
    You can declare anything you want
    • Jack
    • 02.12.09
    • 17:51

    In fact, Arafat already declared Palestinian state once before, in 1988, I think. They can make these declarations into yearly occurrences for all I care. As long as they don't kill people I don't care what they do.

  • 7. 0 0
    East Jerusalem
    • Mike
    • 02.12.09
    • 17:00

    East for Palestine, West for Israel, international peace keeping force assiting cooperative Israeli-Palestinian peace. Only way it will work, or Israel will watch many people die for their greed both in Israel and outside. Not a threat just a fact. If Israel annexes east Jerusalem, it will be on with every Muslim country in the world and don't forget Asia has more Muslims than the Arab world, so you will be starting a battle that is much bigger than the Palestinians and Arabs. It will even split Americans who will be fighting against each other on different sides of Israel's crusade against Islam and to protect the holy sites of all religions, against greedy land grabbers. Face it, Al-Aqsa is there, the Dome of the Rock is there, and any attempt to remove it to rebuild a temple will be Armeggedon. Once again, just a fact, not a threat. If you don't see that you are blind.

  • 6. 0 0
    Best article Ive read to Date
    • George
    • 02.12.09
    • 16:47

    Someone with a clear head on his shoulders. Should be required reading for every politician.

  • 5. 0 0
    Strenger is Right about : Risk for Peace
    • Stephen
    • 02.12.09
    • 16:46

    The Nixon-Kissinger actions of the early '70s was based upon reducing Risk to israel. Gifting military aid in large amounts for decades and the possession of nuclear warheads(the worst kept secret,) was suppose to establish an imbalance of strenght between Israel and her neighbors that any aggression would be foolish on the Arab part. Israel, you have arrived at that point. You have signicant military power, one year of relative peace, an Arab peace proposal still on the table and the support of most major western countries. Your Risk is well covered. Just, make the jump..make peace.

  • 4. 0 0
    "Plans to annex the West Bank"
    • Nemesis G
    • 02.12.09
    • 16:45

    -"Israel's fears are nothing but a fig-leaf for its colonial plans to annex the West Bank."- They got caught in the act and now the kittens are out of the bag. As for the plans to continue to occupy Jerusalem, well even that little kitten has seen daylight. The Palestinian Arabs aren't going anywhere so Plan B.

  • 3. 0 0
    peace will make life easier for all
    • talal
    • 02.12.09
    • 16:30

    Peace is the best solution for conflicts, during peace everything flourish and ideas get executed

  • 2. 0 0
    The longer Israel waits, the less the West cares about it.
    • Michael
    • 02.12.09
    • 16:29

    Now is a vital time. Because of the Holocaust, and because of Jewish ethnic links and because of Israel's in some sense Western, democratic nature, the West's sympathies have been insticntively with Israel in its confrontation with the Arabs. But that is slowly changing, as the Pals under Abbas become more moderate and pro-Western and Israel appears to become less democratic, less Western, more religious and more extreme. We're at a turning point here. If Israel pulled out of the West Bank now, the whole of the West would rally round to help Israel financially and militarily, reassuring it and looking after its scerurity and making sure the settlers are humanely dealt with and the Pals are kept peaceful. But anger with Israel is growing and if it continues to alienate the West, Israel will end up as Serbia. The West will impose a solution, not caring what effect it has on Israel and its settlers. Bibi, Shas, Lieberman and the settlers are leading Israel into the abyss.

  • 1. 0 0
    Palestinians aspirations
    • Sameer S Reehani
    • 02.12.09
    • 16:13

    In 1948,the whole world rewrded Israel of a home for her people.Today,the whole world should reward the palestinians the same.There is no more escape from this realty,no matter how much Israel can try to deviate from the realities.It is just that simple!