From: bgdv706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Noam Tractinsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Concessions
Date: 8 Oct 92 07:22:03 GMT
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin

In article <bdm.717861102@cs.anu.edu.au>, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
> bgdv706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:
+>In article <1992Sep24.080215.2891@cs.anu.edu.au>, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
+>> 
+>> In article 16776@das.harvard.edu, adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
+>		[...]
> 
+>+>However, you are in a way, right.  The Palestinians have very little
+>+>to give in a concrete fashion (if you'll excuse the pun.)  However,
+>+>there is a list of "ideological" and moral concessions that could be
+>+>made, and could be made quickly and easily if they are in fact
+>+>interested in a permanent and just peace.
+>+>
+>+>1.  Amend the Covenant.  Article 19, and others.
+>> 
+>> Yes, subject to 2--
+>> 
+>+>2.  Clearly, plainly, and without retractions recognize Israel's right
+>+>to exist. 
+>> 
+>> Does Israel recognize that the Palestinian people exist?  (Not talking
+>> about a state.)  I don't remember any such recognition, but rather
+>> signs of a deliberate failure to recognise them (such as the insistence
+>> of joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegations).  
> 
+>	From The Camp David Accords, Sept. 17, 1978:
+>	"Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the _Palestinian
+>	people_ should participate in negotiations on the resolution of the 
+>	Palestinian problem in all its aspects...." (Framework, A.1., 
+>	emphsis added).
> 
> Ok, good example, but Palestinians also have made statements which
> implicitly note the existence of Israel.  You would not regard those
> statements as formal recognition of Israel (and I may well agree 
> with you), and in the same way I would not expect Palestinians to
> accept the above as a formal recognition of their rights as a people.


	Well, you first asked for a recognition that "the Palestinian
	people exist".  Now you ask for a formal recognition of their
	rights (which ones?). What next? {:-)

	 
> 
+>	Besides, the Israeli equivalent of the Palestinian covenant does 
+>	not negate the Palestinian existance or their right to exist. 
> 
> Neither does the Palestinian covenant negate the Jewish existence 
> or their right to exist.  That's my point.


	I'm sorry, I should have wrote "does not negate their right
	to statehood" or something to this effect. I guess that makes 
	the difference clearer.

	Let me try to explain it further. There can be three basic
	attitudes of an entity towards another's existence: affirmation,
	negation, and indifference (i.e., neither one of the other two).
	You could probably find a better terminology, but I hope the 
	idea is clear. The basic (fundamental) laws and the major 
	ideological document of Israel are, in this sense, indifferent
	to the existance of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian covenant,
	on the other hand, explicitly opposes the legality and the 
	existence of Israel. That's the asymmetry I'm talking about.
	When we are talking about both sides moving towards an affirmative
	attitude, it is the Palestinian side that lags behind.
	  

	It is true that for most practical purposes, moving from a state
	of negation to a state of indifference implies recognition while
	remaining indifferent does not. On the other hand, if you were
	clever enough to create the asymmetry in the first place, you 
	should not expect others to correct it for you.


 
+>	Analogy seems to be improper.
> 
+>If not, why should these
+>> nonexistent people recognise a Jewish state?  Do the Palestinians deny
+>> the existence of the Jewish people?  Not to my knowledge.  It seems that
+>> Israel has some catching up to do in the matter of recognition.
> 
+>	Catching up, yes. But not with the Palestinians' recognition
+>	of Israel.
> 
> I didn't say that Palestinians recognise Israel.  What I would suggest 
> is a swap:  Israel makes a formal declaration that it accepts the 
> Palestinians as a people with the same rights to self-determination 
> as any other people, and the Palestinians repeal all articles in the 
> Covenant and elsewhere that call for the destruction of Israel and
> formally denounce that call.  (Anyone who thinks that such declaration
> by Israel is not necessary should read t.p.m for a while.)   Formal 
> recognition of a Jewish state by the Palestinians can wait until Israel 
> is ready to recognise a Palestinian state.


	This is not good enough from a Palestinian point of view,
	because the major problem here is where this self determination
	will take place. Do you think Sharon has any problem with 
	a Palestinian self determination to the east of the river?
	What I'm saying is that until these very complicated issues are
	resolved, some basic symmetry in attitudes is desired.


> 
+>Noam
> 
> Brendan.


Noam