by Peter A. Belmont / 2010-12-18

Recent Essays (All Topics)

•Hebrew as a secret language

•Questioning M.J.Rosenberg on claim that total BDS seeks to destroy Israel

•Mitchell Plitnick defines away the Palestinian Right of Return

•Taking Peter Beinart's lead: Jews calling for full-court BDS against Israel

•Israel, we know an artisan by his works.

•Gunter Grass's poem "What must be said"

•A story about how morally dangerous Israel is for Jewish kids

•Benny Morris shows that Ben Gurion ordered expulsion in 1948.

•Ben Gurion's thoughts about removal of Arabs from Israel

•The three Jewish religions regarding Israel

Palestinians are considering asking the UN to accept a declaration of a Palestinian State (the third such, I guess, since it was first declared in the Palestine Mandate, and second declared by the PLO in 1988). They will, it is widely supposed, ask for a territorial definition based on the (1950 truce) boundaries of Israel before the 1967 war.

If they take the step (of asking) and if the UN (including the UNSC) agree and grant the recognition, it will be a great step forward. But it will not end the occupation.

Indeed, military occupation is normally by one state over a portion (or all) of the territory of a neighboring state (as the occupation by Germany of any number of then-existing and still-existing states in Europe in WWII).

The occupation by one state, Israel, of territory not clearly “of” any other state is an anomaly. Therefore, the confirmation of the existence of a Palestinian State by the UN (and admission as a state to the UN upon the usual initial promises, such as the promises that Israel apparently made to secure its own admission as a law-abiding state) would remove this anomalous situation. But that is all it would do. It would have no effect on the legality of the occupation as such, the legality of Israel’s behavior in the course of the occupation (quite another matter altogether), or the duration of the occupation.

But although it would have no effect on any of these legalities, it would have profound importance as a “signal” (that so beloved of words of diplomacy!) of the tendency of the international community, namely, a tendency to move toward Palestinian freedom from occupation while at the same time a tendency to re-affirm (rather than to challenge) Israel’s right to remain, as of right, in its pre-1967 territory. This latter would offset Israel’s displeasure at the first.

I think it would be a jolly good thing all round, although signally lacking (as so described) in punitive impact on Israel for all these years of violations of UNSC resolutions and Palestinian human rights, and also lacking in impact on the issue of 1948 and 1967 refugees.

      ghnfeaquuz
      1234567890