Israeli
authors urge Belgium to recognize Palestine
Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and
David Grossman among 800 Israeli public figures who sign letter ahead of
parliament vote
Many of the public figures
behind the motion — including 10 Israel Prize winners, Nobel Prize laureate
Daniel Kahneman, five former diplomats, several former MKs, and five
ex-ministers — have already submitted the same appeal to
the Danish and British parliaments, and will send a draft to other European
countries seeking to pass a resolution on Palestine.
“Your initiative to recognize a Palestinian
state will advance the peace prospects, and encourage Israelis and Palestinians
to reach a resolution to the conflict,” the letter exhorted.
The missive called for the establishment
of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with “Israeli recognition of
Palestine, and Palestinian recognition of Israel.” It also decried the “political
deadlock and ongoing occupation and settlement, which leads to conflict with
the Palestinians, and torpedoes any possibility of an agreement.”
Belgian legislators from the ruling coalition
are working on a nonbinding resolution to recognize a Palestinian state, adding
to a groundswell of support within the European Union.
Even if such a legislative resolution from
the government parties comes quickly, Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders
said Wednesday he would first push for a new EU initiative to bring Israel and
the Palestinian Authority back to the negotiating table to reinvigorate
the peace process.
Belgian legislators are completing work on a
text and it was expected that a resolution would be tabled quickly, said Peter
Luykx, a legislator for the N-VA party, the biggest in
Belgium’s four-party ruling coalition.
“We have a first draft text and our ambition
is to bring it swiftly to the parliamentary committee” dealing with foreign
policy issues, Luykx said in an interview.
He insisted that the resolution wouldn’t show
unconditional support for Palestinian statehood, but that “quite a few
conditions and strings are attached.”
Reynders told VRT network that in the end,
“it will be up to the government to decide when it is suitable to move toward
recognition.”
Last Tuesday, France’s lower house voted to
urge the government to recognize a Palestinian state. On October 30, Sweden
became the first Western European nation to recognize Palestinian statehood.
Parliamentarians in in Britain, Spain and Ireland have approved nonbinding
motions urging recognition.
Israel has denounced the votes as
counterproductive to peace efforts.
“Israel believes the vote in the National
Assembly, which supports recognition of the state of Palestine, will only
distance the chances of reaching an agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians,” said Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon.
“Such decisions will only make the
Palestinian positions more extreme and sends the wrong message to the leaders
and peoples of this region,” he said. A solution to the conflict will only be
found through direct negotiations between the two parties and not through
unilateral actions, Nahshon added.
News
agencies contributed to this report.
 |
| Bernard-Henri Lévy |
Author : Bernard-Henri Lévy
For nearly half a century I have favored the two-state solution.
But I believe that the “unilateral recognition” of Palestine under
consideration in the French parliament is a bad idea for three reasons.
1. Hamas.
Its charter and its agenda.
The fact that, for the time being at least, Hamas administers
one of the two territories that make up the state that supposedly must be
recognized immediately and with great fanfare. The fact that Hamas’s doctrine
is that Israel must be destroyed.
One does not recognize, even symbolically, a state in which half
of the government denies another state’s right to exist.
One does
not recognize, especially not symbolically,
a government in which half of the ministers dream of annihilating that state.
One extends a hand to its people, of course. One provides help.
One supports and reinforces the other party, that of Mahmoud Abbas, and
encourages it to break the unnatural alliance into which it has entered. But as
long as that alliance remains intact; as long as Hamas remains Hamas; as long
as a part of the state that one is preparing to recognize recognizes itself in
a charter that orders all Muslims to come out from “behind the rocks and trees”
where they are “hiding” to “kill … Jews” (article 7 of the charter); as long as
Hamas professes (article 13) that “the supposed initiatives” and “peaceful
solutions,” such as the current proposal in France, that would “settle the
Palestinian question” are contrary to the faith, one must defer recognition.
2. The timing.
The worldwide rise of jihadism.
And the fact that the Palestinian political class and, alas, its
civil society (not just Hamas), seem once again to be unclear on the question.
I am not referring to Mahmoud Abbas, who condemned the November
18 attack on a synagogue in West Jerusalem that left five people dead.
But I am referring to his allies in the PFLP
who took credit for it. I am referring to the Islamic Jihad and, again, Hamas,
which praised it.
And I am thinking of those thousands of young people who, as
soon as the news became known, came out into the streets to light fireworks and
celebrate.
One day,
perhaps, a majority of Israelis may come to believe that the least bad form of
protection against this situation is a clean break. But that will be their decision, not the decision of a
Spanish, English, Swedish, or, now, French parliament improvising a hasty,
ill-founded, and, above all, inconsequential resolution.
One cannot be horrified at the decapitations in Iraq and then
dismiss murders with knives and hatchets in Israel.
One cannot, at one moment, reject the rhetoric of excuses
(“those who have gone to fight in Syria are lost souls, victims of social
malaise…”) and, the next moment, indulge in it (“the killer was humiliated, a
victim of the occupation…”).
One cannot, with the right hand, strengthen the legislative
arsenal that makes it possible for Europe or the United States to combat blind
violence, then, with the left, approve a resolution that basically says “we
understand” to aficionados of the ram raid hoping for a third Intifada.
There will be a state in Gaza and Ramallah. That is in Israel’s
interest and it is the Palestinians’ right. But our involvement is justified
only if we demand equal effort from both parties. From South Africa’s ANC to
the Kurdish PKK, and including Menachem Begin’s Irgun, history is full of
terrorist organizations that changed their tactics and spirit. We are waiting
for Palestinian groups to follow the same path—and it is toward that goal that
men and women of good will in France and elsewhere should work.
3. Because this is the essence of the problem.
No honest observer can ignore the fact that both sides have a
long way to go.
No advocate of peace denies that between the governments in
Jerusalem, which, from Rabin to Netanyahu, have never renounced the
settlements policy, and a Palestinian leadership that has oscillated between
accepting Israel as a fact and rejecting any Jewish presence on Arab land,
there is blame enough to go around.
But that is precisely what the proponents of unilateral
recognition deny.
It is very precisely what they forget when they go around saying
“we can’t take anymore of this” and “it is urgent that things move forward,” or
that a “strong gesture” is needed in order to “apply pressure” and “unblock the
situation,” and that no better “strong gesture” can be found than to impose on
Netanyahu a non-negotiated Palestinian state.
And that points to the last critique to be laid against them:
Their reasoning presupposes that there is only one blockage (the Israeli one)
and only one party that needs to be pressured (Israel), and that nothing needs
to come from the Palestinian camp—literally nothing: Stay put; take no
initiative; whatever you do, do not demand the revocation of a Hamas charter that
drips with hate for Jews and contempt for international law—because, hey, now
you have your state.
It is hard to tell which is greater in this case: hostility to
Israel, contempt for the Palestinians, or lack of seriousness. But one thing is
certain. Without shared responsibility, there will be no shared land. By
excusing one side from its historical and political burden, we may believe that
we are seeking peace; in fact, we are perpetuating war.
Bernard-Henri
Lévy is one of France’s most famed philosophers, a journalist, and a
bestselling writer. He is considered a founder of the New Philosophy
movement and is a leading thinker on religious issues, genocide, and
international affairs. His 2013 book, Les Aventures de la
vérité—Peinture et philosophie: un récit, explores the
historical interplay of philosophy and art. His new play, “Hotel Europe,” which
premiered in Sarajevo on June 27, 2014, and in Paris on September 9,
is a cry of alarm about the crisis facing the European project and the
dream behind it.
Translated
by Steven B. Kennedy
BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY
Bernard-Henri Lévy et Shimon Peres
Je suis un partisan, depuis presque
cinquante ans, de la solution des deux Etats. Mais je pense que cette «
reconnaissance unilatérale » de la Palestine par le Parlement français serait
une mauvaise idée pour trois raisons.
1. Le Hamas.
La charte et le programme du Hamas.
Le fait que le Hamas administre, jusqu’à
plus ample informé, l’un des deux territoires constitutifs de cet Etat que l’on
veut reconnaître à grand fracas et sans tarder – et le fait qu’il a pour
doctrine la nécessaire destruction d’Israël.
On ne reconnaît pas, fût-ce symboliquement,
un Etat dont la moitié du gouvernement pratique le déni de l’Autre.
On ne reconnaît pas, surtout
symboliquement, un gouvernement dont la moitié des ministres rêveraient
d’annihiler l’Etat voisin.
On tend la main à son peuple, bien sûr. On
l’aide. On soutient et renforce l’autre parti, celui de Mahmoud Abbas, et on
l’encourage à rompre l’alliance contre nature qu’il a nouée. Mais, tant que
l’alliance n’est pas rompue, ou tant que le Hamas reste le Hamas et qu’une
partie de l’Etat que l’on s’apprête à reconnaître se reconnaît lui-même dans une
charte qui ordonne à tous les musulmans de « venir », jusque « derrière les
pierres et les arbres » où ils sont « cachés », « tuer » les « juifs » (article
7 de la charte), tant que l’on y professe (article 13) que « les prétendues
initiatives » et « solutions de paix » censées, comme le projet français
d’aujourd’hui, « régler la question palestinienne » vont « à l’encontre » de la
« foi », on ajourne la démarche.
2. Le moment.
La poussée mondiale du djihadisme.
Et le fait que la société politique et, hélas,
civile palestinienne semble, par-delà même le Hamas, à nouveau peu claire sur
la question.
Je ne parle pas de Mahmoud Abbas qui a
condamné l’attentat qui vient de faire cinq morts, le 18 novembre, dans une
synagogue de Jérusalem-Ouest.
Mais je parle de ses alliés du FPLP qui
l’ont revendiqué.
Je parle du Jihad islamique et, encore, du
Hamas qui l’ont salué.
Et je pense à ces milliers de jeunes qui,
aussitôt connue la nouvelle, sont descendus dans la rue pour lancer des feux
d’artifice et pavoiser.
Peut-être y aura-t-il, un jour, une
majorité d’Israéliens pour estimer que la moins mauvaise des protections contre
cette situation est encore une séparation sèche. Mais ce sera leur décision.
Pas celle d’un Parlement espagnol, anglais, suédois ou, maintenant, français
improvisant une résolution bâclée, mal étayée et, plus que tout, inconséquente.
On ne peut pas s’horrifier des
décapitations en Irak et tenir pour négligeables, en Israël, les meurtres au
couteau et à la hache.
On ne peut pas, ici, refuser la rhétorique
de l’excuse (« les djihadistes partis pour la Syrie sont des paumés, victimes
du malaise social… ») et, là, y consentir (« l’assassin est un humilié, victime
de l’occupation… »).
On ne peut pas, de la main droite,
renforcer l’arsenal législatif qui permet, en Europe, de lutter contre la
violence aveugle et, de la gauche, voter une résolution qui revient à dire « je
vous ai compris » aux aficionados de la voiture bélier rêvant d’une troisième
Intifada.
Il y aura un Etat à Gaza et Ramallah. C’est
l’intérêt d’Israël et c’est le droit des Palestiniens. Mais nous ne sommes
fondés à nous en mêler qu’en demandant autant d’efforts à une partie et à
l’autre : de l’ANC sud-africain au PKK kurde en passant par l’Irgoun de Begin,
l’Histoire est pleine d’organisations terroristes qui se sont assagies – on
attend des groupes palestiniens qu’ils suivent le même itinéraire et c’est à
cela aussi que doivent œuvrer, en France, les hommes et femmes de bonne
volonté.
3. Car tout le problème est là.
Aucun observateur honnête n’ignore qu’il y
a du chemin à faire des deux côtés. Aucun partisan de la paix ne nie qu’entre
les gouvernements de Jérusalem qui, de Rabin à Netanyahou, n’ont jamais renoncé
à la politique d’implantations et la direction palestinienne qui oscille entre
l’acceptation du fait israélien et le refus de toute présence juive en terre
arabe, les torts sont partagés.
Or c’est précisément ce que nient les
partisans de cette reconnaissance unilatérale.
C’est très exactement ce qu’ils oublient
quand ils vont partout répétant qu’« on n’en peut plus » et qu’« il est urgent
que les choses bougent », ou qu’il faut un « acte fort » permettant de « faire
pression » et de « débloquer la situation » – et qu’ils ne trouvent d’autre «
acte fort » que d’imposer à Netanyahou leur Etat palestinien non négocié.
Et le dernier reproche qu’on doit leur
faire est bien là : leur raisonnement présuppose qu’il n’y a qu’un blocage, et
qu’il est israélien ; qu’un acteur sur lequel il convient de faire pression, et
que c’est Israël ; et que, du camp palestinien, il n’y a rien à attendre,
littéralement rien (ne bougez pas ; ne prenez aucune initiative ; ne demandez
surtout pas que soit déclarée caduque, par exemple, une charte du Hamas qui
suinte, à chaque ligne, la haine des juifs et le mépris du droit international
; car votre Etat, vous l’avez)…
On ne sait ce qui, en la circonstance,
l’emporte de l’hostilité à Israël, du mépris pour les Palestiniens ou,
simplement, de la légèreté. Mais une chose est sûre. Sans partage des
responsabilités, il n’y aura pas de partage de la terre ; et, en exonérant l’un
des camps de sa tâche historique et politique, on croit vouloir la paix mais on
perpétue, en réalité, la guerre.
Update. Dec 10, 2014
Update. Dec 10, 2014
Sir, – I find it sad that leading Israeli writers understand
less about the Middle East than does the French-Jewish philosopher
Bernard-Henri Lévy who recently wrote: “For nearly half a century I have
favored the two-state solution.
But I believe that the ‘unilateral recognition’ of Palestine under consideration in the French parliament is a bad idea for three reasons. 1. Hamas. Its charter and its agenda. The fact that, for the time being at least, Hamas administers one of the two territories that make up the state that supposedly must be recognized immediately and with great fanfare. The fact that Hamas’s doctrine is that Israel must be destroyed.
One does not recognize, even symbolically, a state in which half of the government denies another state’s right to exist.
One does not recognize, especially not symbolically, a government in which half of the ministers dream of annihilating that state.”
MLADEN ANDRIJASEVIC
Beersheba
But I believe that the ‘unilateral recognition’ of Palestine under consideration in the French parliament is a bad idea for three reasons. 1. Hamas. Its charter and its agenda. The fact that, for the time being at least, Hamas administers one of the two territories that make up the state that supposedly must be recognized immediately and with great fanfare. The fact that Hamas’s doctrine is that Israel must be destroyed.
One does not recognize, even symbolically, a state in which half of the government denies another state’s right to exist.
One does not recognize, especially not symbolically, a government in which half of the ministers dream of annihilating that state.”
MLADEN ANDRIJASEVIC
Beersheba