Should the US recognize the State of Palestine?

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
Jan 12 2014 17:46
Should the US recognize the State of Palestine?

transitional demands-
and -
it seems like a much more proactive way to go about things than -like BDS- doing irresponsible-ass-shit like banning Jewish professors from universities

Drakula25
Offline
Joined: 20-02-14
Feb 28 2014 21:39
confusionboats wrote:
transitional demands-
and -
it seems like a much more proactive way to go about things than -like BDS- doing irresponsible-ass-shit like banning Jewish professors from universities

1) Recognizing states, let alone fake Bantustans that are under military siege and basically function as a small fiefdom for the corrupt Palestinian collaborator class, is never "productive".

2) BDS did not ban Jews from universities. What a Zionist troll you are to regurgitate a slander like that.

The US did not recognize the Palestinian state because it signaled that the PLO collaborators were beginning to act independently of their Israeli and US paymasters -- likely in order to shift the political balance back in their own favor after Hamas' "victory" (if one can really call it that) in November 2012. The US and Israel want the PLO to remain in perpetual negotiations while the Zionist war machine continues to confiscate land and ethnically cleanse what is left of Palestine. The PLO wants international standing and will do whatever it can to balance its relationship with the US and Israel, which depend on it as a mini security contractor and maintaining some semblance of legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians under occupation. But for the Palestinian people themselves, this bullshit move put their rights in danger, especially the Palestinians of the shatat.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-palestinian-authori...

Markunin's picture
Markunin
Offline
Joined: 27-01-14
Feb 28 2014 21:52

The US should do a lot of things. That doesn't mean it will and whatever we say won't make a difference.

confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
May 11 2014 02:56

eh, that stemmed from a gross misconception regarding Israeli citizenship (I had thought that all Jews technically had Israeli citizenship) as well as just terminal frustration with this

oh, wait...
I had also mixed up UN Resolution 181 and UN Resolution 194
(I thought BDS was in support of 181 which was before the creation of the State of Israel - which was problematic, yes, but the state exists now so...)

anyways that lack of genuine scholarship had led me to believe the wrong opinions that I held upon first writing this.

I'm somewhat confused.

Quote:
Of course in reality this “state” would not represent anyone since it would have absolutely no control of the territory on which it purports to exist and its “government” – what is now the Palestinian Authority – would remain subject to the blackmail and pressure of its financiers and external political sponsors.

Recognizing this danger, the BNC states:

The most fundamental, inalienable right of the people of Palestine is the right to self determination. Ending the occupation is one pillar in exercising that right. The right to self-determination, which in the case of Palestinians is represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), is commonly defined as the right of “all peoples … freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” It is a right held by all Palestinians, irrespective of their current location, by virtue of international law and the principles of popular sovereignty and democracy. All Palestinians, including the refugees in the shatat (diaspora) and Palestinian citizens of Israel, have a right to participate in and be represented by –- in the UN and elsewhere -– a democratic PLO that determines the political status and pursues the economic, social and cultural development of the entire Palestinian people.

Therefore, the statement warns:

Until the Palestinian people exercises its right to self determination, the PLO remains the sole legitimate representative that represents all Palestinians in the UN and in other international, regional and multinational forums. No alternative will be accepted by the great majority of the Palestinian people.

In other words, a “State of Palestine” must not be allowed to replace or usurp the right to representation and self-determination of the whole Palestinian people through a reconstituted PLO.

Of course as Palestinians frequently point out, the PLO today is largely defunct, its offices usurped and held for life by the very people who run the PA. But legally, the PLO remains the only body and framework for representing all Palestinians, and protecting the possibility for the PLO to be revived in a truly representative form is absolutely vital.

There is no doubt that the PA “statehood” bid at the UN – which enjoys no Palestinian consensus behind it – represents a direct threat to this possibility.

they seem to be stating the PLO is now defunct but needs to be rebuilt and that 'statehood' denies this possibility since the PLO would not be represented (or rarther that the current officials in the Palestinian Authority are either unaccountable or unelected/ making too many concessions) (?)

Quote:
The BNC reiterates that “At a minimum, exercising the right to self determination by all Palestinians” entails:

1.Ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in 1967;
2.Honoring the right of Palestinian citizens of Israelto full equality by ending the Israeli system of legalized and institutionalized racial discrimination (which conforms to the UN definition of apartheid); and
3.Respecting and enabling the implementation of the UN-sanctioned right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands from which they were expelled.

This seems to be in line with the Prisoner's document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Prisoners%27_Document
which is also the stated political praxis of Fatah and therefore also (sort of) the PLO (whom, it is alleged, are collaborating with the Israelis/ corrupt)

It is contradiction with the stance taken by Hamas (whom the SWP and ei 'defend')

Abunimah's key distinction seems to be in favor of the one-state solution
http://www.isreview.org/issues/52/rev-onestate.shtml

I happen to be one of those cynical leftists who doesn't think that it is "realistic"

(please, if you can, ignore the first post. I was trolling and it is idiotic)

confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
May 13 2014 17:19

the problem I see with these calls for international solidarity (and, yes, my god, we do owe the Palestinian people an expression of solidarity) is that there is no organization to whom we should offer this solidarity to.

Hamas may support a 'one-state solution', but this 'one-state' ultimately means one Palestinian (i.e. one arab-muslim state), which for them may be understandable, but ultimately I find it hard to label them as anything other than reactionary (as well as I don't see much sense in trading one refugee crisis for another)

that being said, even if Hamas was a 'genuine' leftist organization, supporting an armed insurrection against the Israelis (especially since they are backed by the US) is pointless and suicidal.

I am not therefore critical of the PLO's concession in their willingness to engage in dialogue (which, yes, thusfar has been completely unsuccessful - in the recent talks Netanyahu refused to allow for the possibility of ending the building of the settlements on the grounds that it would 'alienate' the Israeli right)

Other criticisms of the organization however are certainly troubling.

For now though, for me at least, they are the only 'side' of this conflict that seems to have offered any reasonable solution to the crisis. (granted, I live in the States and have little "ground-truth" as to what the situation actually is there)

Perhaps there is a burgeoning radical sentiment there that is not still wrapped up in either so-called 'anti-imperialist' discourse, religious demagogy, sectarian violence, and/or nationalist rhetoric, but, (and I don't mean to downplay the importance of these movements as I hope to find them) I have yet to see reliable evidence of this.

Comparison to South Africa may be understandable, but there are a few things about it that I find troubling:

For one, the Israelis as white-colonialists narrative may be a 'half'-truth, but they were themselves the victims of oppression and largely left-leaning

The other problem that I see is in the notion of 'Pan-Arab Unity' (in part for its 'racial essentialism' - by this I mean the naïve assumption that if only it weren't for the state of Israel everything in the middle east would just go swimmingly - it should go without saying that I would have no problem with arabs who offer an expression of solidarity towards Palestinians or just general things like arabs coming together) but mostly, since, for me at least, The Palestinians have always seemed to have functioned as pawns in greater macro-political power bids amongst Arab nations. (Egypt or Iran for instance)

That being said, I have no serious problems with the Abunimah's solution to the crisis, just that I question its likelihood (are the sentiments that he expresses really there - can we really expect the Israelis to willingly give up their exceptional status etc.?)

sorry, multiple edits - at the time of writing the original I was briefly convinced of some sort of belafast type of agreement (67 borders, right of return, Palestinians have partial influence over Israeli policies, perhaps even the option to vote on unification, gradual dismantling of the borders etc.) not that the situations are really comparable.

anyways i'm nominating this thread for deletion as I'm way off script, counter-momentive, but most just because I don't want this facet of my online identity to be always already existing out-there