If Kosovo, Why Not Palestine?

by moonwolf | February 22, 2008 at 05:26 pm | 379 views | 1 comment

OPINION: The US and EU rushing to support Kosovo's unilateral independence, and the precedent it sets, compared to these same powerful nations refusal for over 40 years to support Palestinian independence is the starkest and saddest demonstration of the hypocrisy of the western nations in their geo-political foolishness.  I will add here that Stephen Harper and the Government of Canada have not, as is the norm in most global political situations, gone along with the USA and NATO nations in recognizing Kosovo.  No wonder!  If Canada did so then how could the government argue against Quebec seperating from Canada on ethnic grounds?

As expected, Kosovo has issued its unilateral declaration of independence, the United States and most European Union countries, with whom this declaration was coordinated, rushing to extend diplomatic recognition to this "new country". This course of action should strike anyone with an attachment to either international law or common sense as breathtakingly reckless.

The potentially destabilising consequences of this precedent (which the US and the EU insist, bizarrely, should not be viewed as a precedent) have been much discussed with reference to other internationally recognised sovereign states with strong separatist movements practising precarious but effective self-rule, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transniestria, Ngorno-Karabakh, Bosnia's Republika Srpska, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Iraqi Kurdistan, as well as to discontented minorities elsewhere. One potentially constructive consequence has not yet been discussed.

American and EU impatience to sever a portion of a UN member state (universally recognised, even by them, to constitute a portion of that state's sovereign territory), ostensibly because 90 per cent of those living in that portion support separation, contrasts starkly with the unlimited patience of the US and the EU when it comes to ending the 40-year-long belligerent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (no portion of which any country recognises as Israel's sovereign territory and as to which Israel has only asserted sovereignty over a tiny portion, occupied East Jerusalem). Virtually every legal resident of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip seeks freedom, and has for over 40 years. For doing so, they are punished, sanctioned, besieged, humiliated and, day after endless day, killed by those who claim to stand on the moral high ground.

In American and EU eyes, a Kosovar declaration of independence from Serbian sovereignty should be recognised, even if Serbia does not agree. However, their attitude was radically different when Palestine declared independence from Israeli occupation on 15 November 1988. Then the US and EU countries (which, in their own eyes, constitute the "international community", to the exclusion of most of mankind) were conspicuously absent as over 100 countries recognised the new State of Palestine, and their non-recognition made this declaration of independence "symbolic", unfortunately for most Palestinians as well.

For the US and the EU, Palestinian independence, to be recognised and effective, must be directly negotiated on a wildly unequal bilateral basis between the occupying power and the occupied people with emphasis laid on attaining the final agreement of the occupying power. For the US and the EU, the rights and desires of a long-suffering and brutalised occupied people, as well as international law, are irrelevant. For the same US and the EU, Kosovar Albanians, having enjoyed almost nine years of UN administration and NATO protection, cannot be expected to wait any longer for their freedom, while the Palestinians, having endured over 40 years of Israeli occupation, can wait forever.

With the "Annapolis process" going nowhere, as was clearly the Israeli and American intention from the start, the Kosovo precedent offers the Ramallah-based Palestinian leadership -- accepted as such by the "international community" because it is perceived as serving Israeli and American interests -- a golden opportunity to seize the initiative, reset the agenda and restore its tarnished reputation in the eyes of its own people. If this leadership truly believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that a decent "two-state solution" is still possible, now is an ideal moment to reaffirm the legal existence (albeit under continuing belligerent occupation) of the State of Palestine, explicitly in the entire 22 per cent of Mandatory Palestine that was not conquered and occupied by the state of Israel until 1967, and to call on all those countries that did not extend diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine in 1988 -- and particularly the US and the EU states -- to do so now.

The Kosovar Albanian leadership has promised protection for Kosovo's Serb minority, which is now expected to flee in fear. The Palestinian leadership could promise to accord a generous period of time for Israeli colonists living illegally in the State of Palestine, and Israeli occupation forces, to withdraw, as well as to consider an economic union with Israel, open borders and permanent resident status for those illegal colonists willing to live in peace under Palestinian rule.

Of course, to prevent the US and the EU from treating such an initiative as a joke, there would have to be a significant and explicit consequence if they were to do so. The consequence would be the end of the "two-state" illusion. The Palestinian leadership would make clear that if the US and the EU, having just recognised a second Albanian state on the sovereign territory of a UN member state, will not now recognise a Palestinian state on a tiny portion of the occupied Palestinian homeland, it will dissolve the Palestinian Authority (which, legally, should have ceased to exist in 1999, at the end of the five-year "interim period" under the Oslo Accords) and the Palestinian people will thereafter seek justice and freedom through democracy, through the persistent, non-violent pursuit of full rights of citizenship in a single state in all of Israel/Palestine, free of any discrimination based on race and religion and with equal rights for all who reside there.

Palestinian leaderships have tolerated Western hypocrisy and racism and played the role of gullible fools for far too long. It is time to kick over the table, constructively, and to shock the international community into taking notice of the fact that the Palestinian people simply will not tolerate unbearable injustice and abuse any longer.

If not now, when?

Add a comment Comments (1)

ryan

I don't think it's fair to say that the US and Israel don't support the concept of a Palestinian state. Both countries publicly state that they do, and although nothing has happened on a practical level, such statements are meaningful in the diplomatic realm. It sure would be interesting to see what happened if the Palestinains did simply declare their independence. I think however that they would not do this becuase they would lose out on all their negotiating points, such as the right of return and a claim to east Jerusalem.

Here is a related article from Haaretz, Israel's left leaning daily.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, responding to an aide's call on Wednesday for a unilateral declaration of statehood if peace talks with Israel continued to falter, ruled out taking any such step soon.

"We will pursue negotiations in order to reach a peace agreement during 2008 that includes the settlement of all final status issues including Jerusalem," Abbas said in a statement.

And a related editorial from the same paper:

Are Palestinians like Kosovars?

Let me bore you with this dialogue that was part of the Wed. briefing at the State Department. The issue: Can Palestinians imitate Kosovars and declare their independence? The exchange is slightly shortened:

Q Well, in the Palestinian territories, they are thinking about imitating the example of Kosovo and declaring their independence unilaterally.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

Q. What do you think about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we think is that at Annapolis the parties -- the Israelis and the Palestinians -- made a commitment to a political process of trying to reach a negotiated solution to the issues that divide them by the end of this year. We think that everyone's focus -- the Israelis', the Palestinians', our focus, other interested parties' in the international system -- should be on trying to make that process work and helping the Palestinians and the Israelis come to a negotiated solution. That's the way we believe the process should work. We believe that is the appropriate outcome here and that is where people's energies should be focused.

Q. But don't you think that this kind of comment reflects the frustration because of the lack of progress in Annapolis?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I didn't see who the comments were attributed to.

Q. Abed Rabbo with the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, you know, you're going to -- you know, again, you're going to have a lot of different comments in this process that may serve as a distraction to the main event. And the main event is making that process work and devoting all possible energy and focus to making that political process that would -- that will result in a negotiated settlement work.

Q But is it really working? The general -- the secretary general of the Arab League, Amre Moussa, today said that the Annapolis process is collapsing. He says there is no progress at all.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, seeing as it is the Israelis and the Palestinians that are negotiating, I think they're probably in the best position to actually comment on exactly what kind of progress that they have made. We've talked to them and it's clear from our discussions with them that they are making progress. Do they have a lot of tough issues to resolve ahead of them? Absolutely. But they are making progress.

Q. Why is it, again, that the Kosovars are allowed to get -- declare independence after nine years, and the Palestinians after how many decades are not?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, you know, our position, for a variety of different reasons -- and I'm not going to bore you with a history of the conflict in the Balkans -- has been that Kosovo is sui generis. It is unique. It is not a precedent for any other situation around the world, whether that's in, you know, Abkhazia or South Ossetia or in the Middle East or anywhere else around the globe.

The situation in Kosovo had run its course in terms of trying to find a solution, a negotiated political solution. We believe that there still is a possibility of a negotiated settlement; witness the effort that we put into the Annapolis process and that we are now putting into that process to help it work. So they are different situations.

Sign In or Join Add a comment

Your email is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

February 22, 2008 at 05:26 pm by moonwolf, 379 views, 1 comment

is reporting from

closeSign in to NowPublic