Why have the "Arabs of the mandated Areas" "Palestinians" consistently refused to accept the territory they occupy as a finality and declare their state?
The reasons why "Arabs of the mandated Areas" have consistently refused to accept various territorial proposals and declare a state on the territory they currently occupy are deeply rooted in their "false" historical narrative, national aspirations, and a series of perceived injustices.
Here's a breakdown of the key factors:
1. Historical Grievances and the "Nakba" (Catastrophe):
"Loss of Land" in 1948:
"Arabs of the mandated Areas" view the 1948 war (which they call the Nakba) as a catastrophic event that led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arab residents and the loss of much of "their" ancestral land.
They contend that the establishment of Israel came at their expense and that the UN Partition Plan, which allocated a portion of land to a Jewish state despite Arabs being the majority population and "owning" most of the land, was inherently unjust.
Refugee Issue: The "right of return" for those Arab refugees "displaced" in 1948 and subsequent conflicts is a central and non-negotiable demand for most Palestinians.
Accepting a state solely on the "West Bank" and Gaza without addressing the refugee issue would be seen as abandoning a core component of their national identity and rights.
2. The Scope of Proposed Territories and Borders:
1967 Borders: Palestinians insist on a state based on the 1967 borders (pre-Six-Day War "cease-fire" lines), with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the internationally recognized basis for a two-state solution.
Israeli "Settlements": The continuous expansion of Israeli settlements in the "West Bank" and East Jerusalem since 1967 is a major obstacle to the "Palestinians", who view these settlements as illegal under international law and as actively eroding the contiguity and viability of a future Palestinian state. They argue that accepting a state with the current settlement blocs would mean accepting a significantly diminished and fragmented territory.
Land Swaps: While land swaps are often part of peace proposals, Palestinians have often found the proposed swaps to be insufficient in quality or quantity to compensate for the land taken by settlements, or that they further compromise the contiguity of their state.
Jerusalem: The status of Jerusalem is a highly emotional and religious issue for both sides. Palestinians demand East Jerusalem as the capital of their state, given its historical and religious significance. Israeli claims over all of Jerusalem are seen as a direct violation of Palestinian rights and aspirations.
3. Sovereignty and Viability of a Future State:
Lack of Full Sovereignty:
Peace proposals, particularly those offered by Israel, have often included limitations on the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state, especially regarding security, airspace, and borders. Palestinians argue that these limitations would render their state a "Bantustan" or a non-viable entity, not a truly independent nation.
Economic Viability:
The fragmentation of the West Bank due to settlements, checkpoints, and restrictions on movement, along with the isolation of Gaza, raises serious concerns about the economic viability of a future Palestinian state.
Security Concerns: While Israel insists on security arrangements, Palestinians often view these as disproportionate and infringing on their sovereignty.
4. Leadership and Internal Divisions:
Lack of a United Front:
Palestinian leadership has historically been fragmented, with different factions holding varying degrees of willingness to compromise. The division between Fatah (governing the West Bank) and Hamas (governing Gaza) further complicates any unified approach to peace negotiations.
Fear of Being Perceived as "Sell-Outs": Palestinian leaders face immense pressure from their population and other factions not to concede on core demands.
Accepting a deal perceived as less than optimal could lead to accusations of betrayal and destabilize their leadership.
Lack of Trust:
Decades of conflict, failed agreements, and continued occupation have fostered deep mistrust between the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships, making it difficult to reach and implement comprehensive agreements.
5. International Law and Principles:
Right to Self-Determination:
Palestinians consistently emphasize their internationally recognized right to self-determination in the entire territory occupied in 1967. They believe that accepting less would be a betrayal of this fundamental right.
Illegality of Occupation and Settlements: The international community largely views the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and the settlements as a violation of international law. Palestinians use this legal framework to justify their demands and reject proposals that do not fully address these issues.
In essence, for many Palestinians, accepting a state on fragmented territory with limited sovereignty, without addressing the refugee issue, and without East Jerusalem as its capital, would be seen as legitimizing the consequences of their historical dispossession and sacrificing their core national aspirations for a truly independent and viable state.
No comments:
Post a Comment