open Democracy News Analysis - Palestine: a Kosovo precedent?, Yossi Alpher - Comments

dominikwach on "Kosovo and Palestine"

dominikwach — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:43:21 +0000

Firstly, you must understand that Kosovars hadn't "controlled the entiretyof their territory with the help of an international force on the eve of independence", the true is that international forces controlled Kosovo with assistance of Kosovars, and it is still a part of Serbia under international law.

Secondly, "the Israeli leadership welcomes a two-state solution based on the 4 June1967 lines". It's not true, Israelis welcomes a two-state solutions based on their vision, with Gaza Strip totally separated from Israel, with jewish settlements spreaded around West Bank, with East Jerusalem as a part of greater Jerusalem under jewish control.

Thirdly, "the PLO already declared independence once, in 1988", Kosovo did it too few years ago, but no one even heard about it.

Finally, if you want to declare independence you must have USA on your side.

JCBosma on "Kosovo and Palestine"

JCBosma — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:38:04 +0000

A striking similarity:
- Serbia did not have an official policy to ethnically cleanse Kosovo; the cleansing was planned and executed by Milosevic and the military leaders
- The Yishuv/Israel did not have an official policy to ethnically cleanse Palestine; the cleansing was planned and executed by Ben-Gurion and the military leaders
(read e.g. Pappe, 'the ethnic cleansing of Palestine'; Morris ignores the planning in 'The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem Revisited' because he says he didn't find enough proof)

JCBosma

Babur on "Kosovo and Palestine"

Babur — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:13:55 +0000

While there are indeed lessons to be learned in comparing the situation in Kosovo with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr Alpher clearly has not learned any of them. As a previous commenter pointed out, to claim to that Israeli leadership welcomes a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders is laughable. Welcomes? Just because certain Israeli officials have conceded the possibility that this could be a potential solution does not mean that they welcome it. Indeed, whenever this issue is discussed the Israeli government includes multiple requirements for such a two-state solution to be reached. Recall the Camp David Summit in 2000 where Israel demanded complete control over Palestinian airspace and the right to deploy troops in Palestine essentially at will. Welcomes? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, he goes on to imply that such a two-state solution would not be "forced" on Israel like it was on Serbia. The Israeli leadership has not engaged in any kind of talks with the Palestinians out of the kindness and generosity of their hearts and their deep desire to maintain the welfare of the Palestinian people. Every step in even the farcical "peace process" that they deign to engage in occurs only because of the need for Israel to seem modern, liberal, and responsive to international pressure from the West.

Several other specious arguments were made in the article, but many have already been pointed out. Making such ludicrous and obviously biased claims seriously undermines your credibility, Mr Alpher.

lotsofwordz on "Kosovo and Palestine"

lotsofwordz — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:59:11 +0000

"Israel had no respect for the '67 borders or it's responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions as an occupying power. If an international force attacked Israel and expelled the IDF (and illegal settlers) from the occupied territories to protect the Palestinians from war crimes and ethnic cleansing ... blah blah ..." -- this is profoundly ignorant nonsense. There were no '1967 borders', ever, only ceasefire lines. These became null and void the moment Jordan declared war on Israel. You do understand the concept of ceasefire lines, right? No? Ah, well ...

The settlers are not 'illegal'.

The Geneva conventions are always used by antisemites who don't understand that they are inapplicable here, for several reasons.

There is no 'ethnic cleansing'. This is another mouth-frothing nonsense used by antisemites as a blood libel against Israel.

Pathetic.

Pathon on "Kosovo and Palestine"

Pathon — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:14:56 +0000

In all honesty, this has nothing to do with one country's brutality in an internal conflict. It all comes down to who and what fits better into American global plans. To argue that Serbia lost Kosovo because its security forces were unusually brutal is just laughable. Let us compare military actions of Israel in the Palestine and in other neighbouring countries with the ones we saw in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999 by Serb forces. And let us compare behaviour of American troops in Iraq with that of Serb troops in Kosovo. Let us also compare the scale of civilian casualties caused by Israeli and American troops in various parts of the region with the ones caused by the Serb forces in Kosovo. Yes, let us compare and let us finally see who has been more brutal in dealing with insurgents, their supporters, their neighbours and their families.

Justice? OK, let us talk justice. Can anyone name one Israeli soldier or an officer who was imprisoned by Israel for crimes committed by the Israeli troops? How many American soldiers and officers have been so far punished for crimes against Iraqis or any other groups and individuals? Even Milosevic who was himself (and rightly so) accused of war crimes ordered the arrest and prosecution of low rank police officers and federal soldiers for their criminal behaviour in Kosovo. Serbia was bombed into submission because the USA could not reportedly tolerate refugee camps in Europe or the prospect of many Albanians being denied the right to return to their homes. Fair enough. But let us now talk about the Palestinian refugee camps in the Middle East and its occupants? And let us talk about their right to return to Israel and reclaim their homes?

Isreal wants a Palestinian state? OK, where is that state then? Why is it taking so long to set up a Palestinian state? Or is it that Israel wants a Palestinian state which is unacceptable to the Palestinians? Serbia was offering substantial autonomy to Kosovo, anything but an independent state. A fair offer one would say, but was this an offer the Albanians in Kosovo would accept?

For over a decade the Serbs were being told that all their traumas and losses were unavoidable consequences of their bad leadership. They finally removed Milosevic from power and turned to Europe for guidance. And what happened? Ethnic Albanians in southern Serbia rebelled against their country. Montenegro then declared independence. Kosovo declared independence. It is evident that Serbia lost more territories since the fall of Milosevic than during his rule. No wonder that over 2 million Serbs want to see their nationalists back in power. As Boris Tadic stated in the UN: “If you are taking Kosovo away from Serbia because of Milosevic, why did you not do that in 1999 or 2000? Why now that Milosevic is gone and after we assured our citizens that you are our friends?”

If trying to justify an independent Kosovo, then please do not use moral arguments and lines such as “needless to say, it is Serbia's horrific behaviour toward the Kosovars over the years that led the west to impose this solution, while Israel has consistently avoided any similar situation in its conflict with the Palestinians”. Just do not. Some honesty will not hurt anyone.

John Hill on "Kosovo and Palestine"

John Hill — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:13:20 +0000

Palestinians are not able to declare nationhood in the occupied territories because they are under occupation by a hostile force, directly in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, remotely in Gaza. Kosova was under occupation (of sorts) by a force supportive of its right to self determination. To say "Israeli leadership welcomes a two-state solution based on the 4 June 1967 lines" is simply a lie. If it were true, there would be a Palestinian state. Israel had no respect for the '67 borders or it's responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions as an occupying power. If an international force attacked Israel and expelled the IDF (and illegal settlers) from the occupied territories to protect the Palestinians from war crimes and ethnic cleansing, then the situations would be more roughly comparable.

Palestine: a Kosovo precedent?, Yossi Alpher

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:36:30 +0000

If the current Israeli-Palestinian peacenegotiations fail - at the time of writing they have been suspended by thePalestinian side in protest at Israel'smilitary response to rocket fire from Gaza - the Palestinian leaders in Ramallahostensibly have three options:

YossiAlpher is co-editor ofthe bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is aformer director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, and was a special adviser toformer Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak.

Also by Yossi Alpher in openDemocracy:

"An international solution?" (9 May 2002) - with Ghassan Khatib

"Two separate roadmaps: anIsraeli view"(29 May 2003)

"Riyadh's Arab summit: a preciousopportunity"(28 March 2007)

"Israel: you can't reverse time" (7 June 2007)

"Israel-West Bank-Gaza: the future" (18 June 2007)

"Gaza's agency, Israel's choice" (29 January 2008)

This article was firstpublished in the independent website BitterLemons.org* they can launch a third intifada in the West Bank

* they can petition the internationalcommunity to compel Israelto accept a single bi-national state solution

* they can declare independence.

The last option was considered - and rejected- by Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat, during the more difficult stages ofthe Oslo peaceprocess. It has now been resurrected by Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)executive committee member Yasser Abed Rabbo and others. Their inspiration is Kosovo. They advocate declaringindependence within the 4 June 1967 borders as a means of galvanising Arab andinternational support.

The differences between the Kosovo model and aPalestinian unilateral declaration of independence are substantive. To take three of the mostobvious: first, the Ramallah-based Palestinian leadership does not control theGaza strip nor much of the West Bank, whereas the Kosovars controlled the entiretyof their territory with the help of an international force on the eve of independence;second, the Israeli leadership welcomes a two-state solution based on the 4 June1967 lines, whereas Serbia insists that Kosovo is partof that state; third, the PLO already declared independence once, in 1988, andenjoys diplomatic representation throughout the nations of the world, yet thebenefits of that act for the cause of a genuine Palestinian state have been limited.

Under these circumstances, a Palestinian moveto (again) declare independence is liable to be perceived widely as desperateand pathetic rather than heroic and triumphant. Yasser Abed Rabbo himself notes that his embrace of the idea is largely anattempt to stimulate the current unproductive two-state negotiations and fendoff pressures by some of his fellow Palestinians to demand a bi-national statesolution. Nevertheless, the Kosovo declaration of independence on 17 February 2008 raisesthree interesting and relevant issues for the Israeli-Palestinian case.

The first is the fact that, from the Serbianstandpoint, this is an imposed solution. As Serbian foreign minister VukJeremic warned on 27 February 2008: "Recognising theunilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence from Serbia legitimises the doctrine ofimposing solutions for ethnic conflicts". Needless to say, it is Serbia's horrific behaviour toward the Kosovarsover the years that led the west to impose this solution, while Israel hasconsistently avoided any similar situation in its conflict with thePalestinians. But there are Arabs, Israelis and others who insist that the onlypossible solution for our conflict is an imposed one, and they will drawencouragement from the Kosovo model.

Among openDemocracy's recent articles on Serbia and the Kosovoissue:

Juan Garrigues, "Kosovo'stroubled victory" (7 December 2007)

GinanneBrownell, "Kosovo'sSerbs in suspension" (10 December2007)

Mary Kaldor, "The Balkans-Caucasus tangle: states and citizens" (9January 2008)

John O'Brennan, "Kosovo: the hour of Europe" (14 January 2008)

Eric Gordy, "Serbiachooses a future, just" (5 February 2008)

Robert Elsie, "Kosova and Albania: history, people,identity" (21 February2008)

DraganKlaic, "Serbia: an old script, replayed" (27 February 2008) The second relevant issue emerging from Kosovois the role of the European Union. In effect, the EU is trying to embrace bothKosovo and Serbia and highlight the huge benefits for each of solving thisconflict within a European community context that offers economic prosperity as well as adiminution of the significance of national borders and a downgrading of ethnicconflicts. Here, too, there are Arabs and Israelis who see the solution to theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict in a similar European context. They note that, despiteits difficulties with Turkey, the EU is anxious to absorb Muslim Kosovo,thereby accelerating the precedent for membership by additional non-Christiancountries.

Under present circumstances, an EU solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appearsfar-fetched. But the notion of a regional solution has already been embraced bythe Arab League in the form of the Arab peace initiative. Hopefully the league,where voices have recently been raised threatening cancellation of theinitiative, will now draw encouragement from the Kosovo model and more activelypursue its plan.

The third issue is that the Kosovo drama isnot over. The partition borders imposed on Serbia are untenable for thatcountry largely because of the historical memory of the battle lost in Kosovo by the Serbs to the Ottomans in 1389. Thepresence in Kosovo of a large Serbian population that borders on Serbia, and ofother communities throughout the territory, is significant here. While the Serbs and Kosovars refused todiscuss partition of Kosovo to accommodate the Serbian national narrative priorto Kosovo's independence, doing so now might be a way to end the standoffcreated by that act.

In other words, an imposed solution thatleaves one of the parties as desperate as the Serbs may be only a prelude toadditional negotiations and compromises. This is a message that resonates withIsraelis and Palestinians.

Average rating

(9 votes)