The Advantages If They Declare A Palestinian State

Yaacov Lozowick writes about the consequences of Unilateral Palestinian Independence. While he refers to David Horowitz and Robin Shepard on the likely success of Arab efforts to declare a second Palestinian state, Lozowick himself considers what would happen next--and considers the prospects to be not so terrible:

1. The occupation would be over. It would be hard to damn Israel for occupying the Palestinians and preventing their independence when they're recognized as being independent. Since the Israeli occupation of them has proven to be their most potent weapon against us by far, having them lose it would be great.


2. There would be an ongoing Palestinian demand for the slivers of land between the barrier and the Green Line, which the Palestinians would claim as their own. Israel would be called upon to evacuate these territories, but given the large numbers of Israelis in them, and the small numbers of Palestinians, it would be clear that this demand would have to be negotiated, with Israel holding the physical cards, meaning that the Palestinians would be expected to pay something. That's what negotiations are for, and declaring independence won't change that.

3. The two most important issues on which the Palestinians and Israelis cannot agree at the moment are the right of return, and Jerusalem. The right of return demand will lose much of its potency if there are two sovereign nations living side be side: who ever heard of a demand by a country that millions of people from third countries must move into a second country? As for Jerusalem, I've been clear for years that the city can't be divided. The Palestinians will demand it, but they will no longer be able to demand it as part of the terms of their independence - since they'll already be independent, and the occupation will be over.

On the other hand, a unilaterally declared Palestinian state would seem to negate Lozowick's Thesis About Peace that he wrote about last week on the benefits of maintaining the status quo in the absence of negotiations:

A negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not achievable at the moment. On the other hand, in the past few years, and especially since the IDF operation in Gaza succeeded in mostly putting an end to rocket fire from there, a calm has settled upon Israel and the Palestinian territories that is good for almost everyone. The longer it goes on, the more it can be reinforced, by opening roadblocks, collaborating in combating terrorists, growing economies in all three political units. So here's my suggestion: let's stop trying to negotiate what can't be negotiated, and let's strengthen the processes that are already happening. If we could prolong the present 20-month calm by ten years, we might all discover, to our great surprise, that renewed final-status negotiations actually could lead somewhere.

As a result of bypassing the process of negotiating towards a state, the independent and unilateral declaration--and creation--of a state may very well put an end to the positive developments that Lozowick anticipates in a longer, more drawn out process.

Abbas has declared that he would not allow an Israeli presence within any third-party security force after the creation of a state. To the extent that these and any other collaborations would be suspended between the West Bank and Israel--a likely outcome in reaction to a unilateral declaration of a state--what happens next? Would there be negotiations on the points listed by Lozowick, or an ongoing exchange of claims as in the case of Lebanon, with the threat of Hamas mirroring that of Hezbollah?

And if Abbas is the West Bank's Sadat--what will their Mubarak be like?

Technorati Tag: West Bank and Palestinian State.