• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fayyad rejects unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
10,286
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has ruled out any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.

“There is not going to be a unilateral declaration of statehood,” Fayyad told The Media Line during a private meeting in his office. “What’s the point? We did that in 1988, and what did it get us?”


Such a declaration indicates that at least some among the senior Palestinian leadership understand that a Palestinian state cannot be established through a unilateral declaration. Such a declaration would have little impact, other than undermining negotiations due to a breach of trust, as the declared "state" would lack jurisdiction in disputed areas it attempted to claim as its own. At the same time, the breach of trust would open the door for Israel to make its own unilateral declarations e.g., annexing settlement areas that might otherwise be ceded in negotiations. The overall impact would be a further setback along the difficult road to peace.

In the end, given existing power realities and the need for a Palestinian state to gain legitimacy, such a state can only emerge through negotiations. Toward that end, the sooner the Palestinian leadership agrees to direct negotiations, the sooner substantive progress can become possible toward that outcome.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wasn't it Fayyad who came up with the "threat" to declear independence unilateraly a few months ago?
I think Fayyad is very good to the Palestinians, he seems to be the first leader who is actually building up the foundations for a state, building up the economy, removing the armed citizens from the street, creating a strong police force and cleaning the Palestinian athority from corruption
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
10,286
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ido_,

I believe both President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad hinted at possible unilateral declarations to "test" international opinion. Abbas had also asked the U.S. to impose a solution, something the U.S. rejected. They found little support for such moves, with the international community remaining focused on achieving a two-state solution through negotiations. The passage of time yielded no significant changes in international opinion. IMO, it was the continuing lack of international support for unilateral moves that led to a more realistic appraisal by Prime Minister Fayyad.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has ruled out any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.

“There is not going to be a unilateral declaration of statehood,” Fayyad told The Media Line during a private meeting in his office. “What’s the point? We did that in 1988, and what did it get us?”


Such a declaration indicates that at least some among the senior Palestinian leadership understand that a Palestinian state cannot be established through a unilateral declaration. Such a declaration would have little impact, other than undermining negotiations due to a breach of trust, as the declared "state" would lack jurisdiction in disputed areas it attempted to claim as its own. At the same time, the breach of trust would open the door for Israel to make its own unilateral declarations e.g., annexing settlement areas that might otherwise be ceded in negotiations. The overall impact would be a further setback along the difficult road to peace.

In the end, given existing power realities and the need for a Palestinian state to gain legitimacy, such a state can only emerge through negotiations. Toward that end, the sooner the Palestinian leadership agrees to direct negotiations, the sooner substantive progress can become possible toward that outcome.

I still don't understand why Palestine needs Israel's permission to create their own state. The Americans did not ask the permission of King George III to write their declaration of independence. Furthermore the UN has been saying for half a century that there should be an independent Palestinian state, and we all know that the borders will roughly be the 1967 ones, possibly with some land swaps, but that could be negociated after.
 
Last edited:

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,804
Reaction score
9,071
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I still don't understand why Palestine needs Israel's permission to create their own state. The Americans did not ask the permission of King George III to write their declaration of independence. Furthermore the UN has been saying for half a century that there should be an independent Palestinian state, and we all know that the borders will roughly be the 1967 ones, possibly with some land swaps, but that could be negociated after.

Declaring the creation of a state is different then being able to enfore that declaration. The US was able to enforce it, the Palestinians are not. Israel would not recognize it, none of the worlds major powers would (especially not the US). It would be a meaningless declaration, and would make them look foolish.


A bigger threat that would get realistic attention, is the declaration for a one state solution. Where the Palestinians abandon the idea of an independant state, get rid of separate Palestinian government agencies and force the Israeli government to run the Palestinian territories fully. Legally as an occupying power they would be required to as well.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
10,286
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I still don't understand why Palestine needs Israel's permission to create their own state.

Because areas the Palestinians would attempt to claim are disputed. Unless the Palestinians possess the power to assert jurisdiction in the areas they would claim as their own, they won't have such jurisdiction. At the same time, if the Palestinians unilaterally choose to declare a state, they cannot reasonably expect Israel to refrain from its own unilateral declarations, namely to annex far more of the settlements than would be the case under an agreed solution. Moreover, unlike the Palestinians, Israel possesses the power to exert jurisdiction in the areas it would annex. Hence, a unilateral decision would provide the Palestinians with little more than a rump state, one that would not be recognized by many other states (given the cool response the Palestinian trial balloon toward that end garnered) and it would also undermine the atmosphere necessary for a negotiated solution.

The Americans did not ask the permission of King George III to write their declaration of independence.

Correct. However, the American colonists ultimately won their independence on the battlefield. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence would have amounted to little. That they received support from France facilitated the outcome of the American Revolution.

It is not very likely that the Palestinians could win the full extent of territory that they would try to claim as a sovereign state in a battlefield setting nor deny Israel land that Israel would then annex in response to their declaration of independence. A negotiated outcome would provide the Palestinians with more territory than they would be able to gain with a unilateral declaration of independence. It would also confer a sense of legitimacy on such an outcome.
 
Last edited:

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Also I believe that by actually creating a state, they will remove a lot of their reason to hate Israel.

If there is a Palestine, then they will loose a lot of their international support. After all, they would have what they claim they wanted. And any further attacks would then be acts of war. Launching rockets from a Nation State of Palestine against the Nation State of Israel would be no different then North Korea launching missiles at South Korea. It would be an act of war, deserving full military retaliation.

So even though that is wha they say they want, I don't believe it. To the fanatics, there is nothing acceptable short of the destruction of Israel, then the creation of Palestine, covering the entire area. Nothing short of that is acceptable.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Because areas the Palestinians would attempt to claim are disputed. Unless the Palestinians possess the power to assert jurisdiction in the areas they would claim as their own, they won't have such jurisdiction. At the same time, if the Palestinians unilaterally choose to declare a state, they cannot reasonably expect Israel to refrain from its own unilateral declarations, namely to annex far more of the settlements than would be the case under an agreed solution. Moreover, unlike the Palestinians, Israel possesses the power to exert jurisdiction in the areas it would annex

International law should prevail over the law of the jungle: no one recognizes the Israeli jurisdiction on the "disputed areas" (no country recognizes the Israeli annexion of East Jerusalem nor the colonies in West Bank), which are in fact disputed only by Israel.

However, that would create problems, as there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli who have settled there and who probably won't want to be governed by Palestinians, so there could be a first step where Palestinians get sovereignty over the undisputed areas only (Gaza and the uncolonised parts of West Bank).

That would imply a total withdrawal of the IDF from these areas. Then, as the colonies nearly cut West Bank into three parts, there should be land swaps, so that West Bank becomes a contiguous territory. There should also be a territorial link with East-Jerusalem. In the end, most colonies that have been built on the Palestinian side of the 1967 should be dismantled.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Also I believe that by actually creating a state, they will remove a lot of their reason to hate Israel.

If there is a Palestine, then they will loose a lot of their international support. After all, they would have what they claim they wanted. And any further attacks would then be acts of war. Launching rockets from a Nation State of Palestine against the Nation State of Israel would be no different then North Korea launching missiles at South Korea. It would be an act of war, deserving full military retaliation.

So even though that is wha they say they want, I don't believe it. To the fanatics, there is nothing acceptable short of the destruction of Israel, then the creation of Palestine, covering the entire area. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

There is a great analogy with the Hamas: the Likkud. In the past, those who have formed the Likkud were members of militias (terrorist groups, like the Hagganah and things like that) who did not hesitate to use terrorism. Once they got what they wanted (an Israeli state, that did not cover the whole area) they stopped using terrorism and became a political party.

I don't see any reason why the Hamas would not stop using terrorism when they get their own state. They don't want to destroy Israel, they said they would accept to live peacefully along an Israeli state that would be inside the 1967 borders. That sounds totally fair and reasonable.
 
Top Bottom