|
The big thing in the blogosphere appears to be the decision of Israel's Likud party's central committee that there shall not be a Palestinian state (see the BBC story, the Ha'aretz story, and the AP story). One thing that does not appear to be noted, though, are Netanyahu's words as reported by Ha'aretz:
Netanyahu said that he supported an entity that allowed the Palestinians to govern themselves, but opposed granting them all of the rights that come with statehood - such as maintaining an army and acquiring weapons - because such a state would threaten Israel. Now, in my opinion, Netanyahu is appealing too much to formalism here; the Palestinian Authority is such an entity, but it had no difficulty in illicitly acquiring military-grade weaponry. Still, Netanyahu is correct that maintaining military force is an acknowledged right of an independent state, and is further correct (in my opinion, and not in mine alone) that a Palestinian entity's so doing would be an intolerable threat to Israel. In essence, he is saying that Israel ought to go back to the status quo ante intifadam, arguing that, though that state of things may not have been very good, it was the best obtainable under the current circumstances. I believe that this, more than anything else, places the ball squarely in the court of Palestinian supporters and sympathizers. There is such a plethora of supra-, quasi-, and non-governmental organizations -- a minute fraction of which are equipped with any armed force -- that I think that those people (as Robert E. Lee used to like to call the Yankees) would have an insurmountable obstacle in arguing from general principles why there should not be one more (they can still argue, of course, that a reformed Palestinian Authority would be a special case). Moreover, many of those people are (theoretically) anti-violence and pro-universal government; a Palestinian Authority with the powers of an American state, but not those that are possessed only sovereign entities, would be a proving ground for their assertions and theories. Let the next step be taken, and let it be either the acceptance of a non-sovereign Palestinian entity, or an explanation of just why that won't work. John "Akatsukami" Braue Monday, May 13, 2002 |
|