Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ plan to seek recognition for the Palestinian state in the United Nations on Friday has stirred opposing views from both Students for Justice in Palestine and Students for Israel at Boston University.
“Israel and the United States really left Palestine no choice,” said Charles Dunbar, a BU professor of international relations. “But there will be a price that Palestine is going to pay for taking this issue to the United Nations.”
Abbas will deliver a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Friday, and the Palestinians will formally submit a letter to request U.N. membership, despite U.S. and Israeli requests to return to negotiations, according to news report.
“This is circumventing the entire negotiation process,” said College of Arts and Sciences junior Alex Alpert, the vice president of public relations at BUSI. “They need to decide on borders and in order to do that, they need to talk with Israel. They’re moving the peace process backwards.”
U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has already promised to prevent Palestine’s recognition at the United Nations, The Times reported. Israel also opposes Palestine’s route to statehood, which violates multilateral peace efforts agreed upon by both countries in the Oslo Accords of 1993. Palestinian government officials said that they are taking further action because negotiations have not worked thus far.
“What more do you want in negotiations?” said CAS sophomore Luke Rebecchi, a member of SJP. “Since the Oslo accords, the settlements have expanded, 82 percent of our land is gone, there is state terror in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority officials admit that they killed their own citizens for Israel. It’s come to a point where it’s just ridiculous.”
U.N. Security Council vote will likely be postponed, said Augustus Norton, a professor of international relations at BU. “I expect some prevarication to find a path for serious talks, as opposed to the bogus talks that have been the story to date.”
Israeli headlines indicate that Israelis do not want a viable Palestinian state and would rather continue advancing their settlements, Norton said.
CAS junior Kareem Chehayeb, SPJ treasurer, said that Palestinians need a state that has sovereignty over its borders.
“As a secular person, I have an idealistic one-state solution, where they all coexist,” Kareen said. “If this can’t happen immediately, I feel like a two-state solution could be a stepping stone.”
Part of the issue is that Israelis want their nation to be recognized as a Jewish state by Palestinians, Rebecchi said.
“This is subjecting the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians that live in Israel to a second class status,” she said. “It’s a policy of ethic cleansing. That’s what the settlement is about, that’s what disconnecting Gaza from Israel is about.”
BUSI members said they think a two-state solution is the best path to peace.
“Palestine already declared themselves a nation in 1988, but they’re still in this situation because they neglected negotiations,” Alpert said. “Israel has proven time and time again that they’re willing to negotiate.”
The only thing preventing peace is Palestine, said CAS sophomore Matt Goldberg, BUSI vice president and a CAS sophomore.
“Peace takes two. If you want to make peace with someone, you can’t decide it on your own just like they can’t do it on their own,” Goldberg said. “Israel wants to be at peace, but they need a real partner.”
Chehayeb said that not only will the U.S. likely veto the measure, but U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state would not likely improve the average Palestinian’s life.
“I would say go for it, because it will give more exposure to the plight of the Palestinians when the U.S. rejects them publicly,” he said “[Palestinians] are getting excited for something that will not actually lead to living in a better situation. They’re only further away from peace with Israel.”
Despite the possible outcome of this declaration, Dunbar said that it a necessary move on the part of Palestine.
“They made that calculation and decided that the United States’ role as a broker of peace between Israel and Palestine is simply not fulfilling their goals effectively,” Dunbar said. “They’re taking a deep breath and going on a different course.”
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
To clear any misconceptions from my second quote “They’re only further away from peace with Israel” – I meant that a true peace would not be achieved, where Israel will cease its constant violations on the Palestinian people. I feel that the Israeli administration will still be able to pull off what it has been right now with or without a resolution passed by the UN.
If anything I think Israel has been stalling the peace process by not taking former peace talks seriously, such as the Oslo Accords. Therefore, going to the UN and taking action there, will hopefully put things on a better route, but we will see…
And when I say ethnic cleansing, I do not mean a plan to kill mass amounts of Palestinians, but to enclose Palestinians into smaller and smaller pieces of land in the West Bank, effectively cleansing/marginalizing historic Palestine of Arabs. If all residing in the West Bank just moved to Jordan, Israel would be delighted, because that is the policy.
And “disconnecting Gaza from Israel” should read from the West Bank. The “settlement” being the continual expansion of settlements, illegal under international humanitarian law, as a tool to ‘cantonize’ the West Bank and destroy possibilities for a viable future state. Sorry about being picky, but I have learned this topic requires precise word-choice.
Chehayeb and Rebecchi…when Israel left Gaza, violence increased in that region. If you want Israle t leave those areas alone, there cannot be terrorist attacks from there. So part of the issue is, how would those be prevented? If you find a solution to that question, peace is much more possible.
when israel ‘left’ gaza (dismantled settlements and ended the military occupation), they strengthened the military siege, which almost all human rights organizations consider illegal and a violation of maritime law/humanitarian law. further, hamas respected the ceasefire until november 4 2008, when, according to the IDF’s own website, the IDF conducted a cross-boarder raid into gaza in which six militants were killed (a violation of the ceasefire). it was after that incident that hamas began firing rockets into israel.
i’m not going to defend hamas because they are rightly designated as a terrorist group. the same, however, should be said for the idf.
your version of post-direct occupation gaza is flawed.
Gary, I was pretty much going to say what Rebecchi was going to say, but instead of repeating myself, I’ll also put things in another perspective. Part of the issue is Hamas, yes, but another part of the issue is Israel’s government. It says that it wants to negotiate and make peace, but it certainly isn’t acting like someone interested in peace or in fair negotiations. It’s not a good vs evil scenario as you seem to put it, and it’s not like Palestine and Israel are both in similar situations as Obama put it at the UN today.
Also, I suggest reading the reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International on Operation Castlead in Gaza. You might get a different scope on what seems to you like a counter-terrorist operation
Could someone explain this conundrum for me?
Why is it Muslims are free to violently conquer lands anywhere and everywhere without a word of protest from American Muslims, or any Muslims for that matter, but if Jews have a legally established homeland Muslims will never stop protesting against it? Why is this do you suppose? What explanation can be given other than as the Qur’an states repeatedly that Islam’s goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate in which all non-Muslims are subjugated.
For instance, Mohammed was born around 571 AD thousands and thousands of years after Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism existed. But within a few centuries of Mohammed’s birth Islam had violently conquered vast sections of Asia, all of North Africa and smaller sections of Southern Europe.
Now Muslims tell us that all this land belongs to them even though, for instance, in Afghanistan they killed every last Buddhist who once lived there. According to Muslim logic per Israel shouldn’t this land belong to the Buddhists?
Or in North Africa all the Berbers have been forcibly converted to Islam or have been killed and now we’re told all this vast landmass belongs to Islam. That’s interesting, if not completely hypocritical. And what about Southern Thailand. Did anyone know that in the last several years something like 5,000 Buddhists have been killed by Muslims because, or so we’re told, the land the Buddhists are on belongs to Islam. And Southern Russia? Muslims are relentlessly waging a slow reign of terror in Russia because, you guessed it, Russians are treating Muslims poorly and they should give up the Southern section of that country to Muslims.
Or, let’s take Sudan as another example. How many millions have been killed in Sudan? How many babies and children have starved in Sudan while Islamists steal the food from aid compounds? How many women have Muslims gang-raped in Sudan all because that land belongs to Muslims and only Muslims. All other people can go somewhere else to live, I guess.
And Kashmir? The same. Despite Hindus having lived there for 5,000 years – something like 4,000+ years before Mohammed was born – Muslims tell us Kashmir belongs to them. Amazing logic isn’t it?
And that brings us to Israel. Israel also belongs to Islam. Did you know that? It’s true. Even though it’s no bigger than a small pimple on the caliphate’s ass it is still their land and they will fight to the death to prove their point.
Doesn’t the logic here make a lot of sense. Isn’t it as clear as day? Of course it is. The world belongs to Islam and we’re mere players on their stage.
Is it just me or do conflicts and Islam appear to go together like salt and water?
Sudan: 2.6 million dead at the hands of Muslims
Algerian Civil War: 150,000 killed by Muslims
Cahd’s Civil War: 30,000 killed
Somalian Civil War: 500,000 killed
Lebanon Civil War: 190,000 killed
Syrain Hama crackdown: 30,0000 killed
Jordan Black September: 10,000 killed
Turkey killing Kurds: 38,000 killed
Iraq killing Kurds: 500,000 killed
Iranian Revolution: 70,000 killed
Iraq/Iran War: 1,000,000 killed
Tajikistan: 50,000 killed
Bangladesh: 1.5 million Hindus killed
Indonesia 1965/66: 400,000 killed
East Timor: 175,000 killed
Mumbai/British Rails. Madrid Rails. WTC/Bali/UN HQs/Embassies: 10,000 killed
Suni/Shi’ite conflicts: Hundreds of thousands killed
Arab Spring: 10,000 killed and counting.
But it is all Israel’s fault…or America’s fault….or Colonialism’s fault…or Imperialism’s fault, but never Islam’s fault even though Mohammed was a theocratic despot who raped, enslaved, stole and murdered like there was no tomorrow.
American Civil War: 625,000 dead
Spanish-Amercan War: 60,000 dead
Vietnam War: 3,000,000 dead
War in Iraq: 1,000,000 dead
War in Afghanistan: 50,000 dead
And we’ve only been around 235 short years!
Clearly, we are #1 and in a place to judge centuries of religion and conflict as they are clearly related.