Yesterday,
we introduced four different questions in relation to the Israel-Palestine
difference. The first of these questions is:
1.
Who can take part in the negotiations?
This
question should be sub-divided into:
a)
Should Israel and Palestine be part of the
negotiations about the disputes territories? Why?
b) Should
any other party apart from Israel and Palestine be part of these negotiations
Why?
c)
Finally, within Israel and Palestine there
may be internal divisions, for example domestic political parties wanting a
different outcome. What should we do about it?
Should Israel and Palestine be part of the negotiations about the disputes territories? Why?
Both
Israelis and Palestinians should (ought to) be part of any negotiations in regard
to the disputed territory. Both these claiming parties have, for the reasons
explored when we introduced the colourable claim, a prima facie right to claim sovereignty (please refer to the respective posts). They either have the
historical, legal or moral basis to do it or a combination of them. Not to let
any of these claiming parties take part in the negotiations would be,
therefore, illegal and illegitimate.
Should
any other party apart from Israel and Palestine be part of these negotiations?
Why?
No.
If the claiming parties want a peaceful and permanent solutions that both
populations are willing to respect they should settle the question themselves.
No external party to the conflict should participate.
In
the particular case if the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia it
would be highly advisable to avoid any involvement with the negotiations. The
many relations between the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia with
either Israel or Palestine (financial, military, and historical only to name a
few) beg for them to remain outside any negotiations. Indeed, the claiming
parties must rest assured their bargaining positions are not affected by
external actors.
Some
may wonder whether fourth parties’ humanitarian needs like in the case of Syria (for example, natural disaster, famine,
etc.) are sufficient for a colourable claim and whether a third party should be
therefore included (that is, if humanitarian reasons can be seen as a base for
a colourable claim).
The negotiations should be solely to offer a
solution to the territorial dispute, and not to put an end to inequalities
amongst the claiming agents’ comparative situations or to help them in
achieving equal level of welfare. With the Israel-Palestine difference, we have
claiming parties that already possess wealth and who are likely to hold unequal
amounts of wealth. This is not an issue for the negotiations since it is not
asking what constitutes a fair allocation of additional resources amongst claiming
parties that already have unequal holdings. It is only interested in these
inequalities in as much as they have consequences for the agreement reached. Therefore,
in the event that a fourth party based their claim on humanitarian needs, they
would not have a colourable claim. They have in these cases other international
remedies—e.g. humanitarian intervention, international aid, etc. This is but a
tangential argument.
Links
to documents about the US, UK and Russia in relation to the Israel-Palestine
difference:
Finally,
within Israel and Palestine there may be internal divisions, for example domestic
political parties wanting a different outcome. What should we do about it?
The
post tomorrow will centre the attention on this question. Some may argue that
is not accurate to refer to Israelis and Palestinians as a whole. That is because
there may be (in fact, there is) domestic dissent in Israel and Palestine about
how to deal with this territorial disputes. An example of one of our readers
give a clear idea: “Netanyahu likes the current setup with ambiguous claims
while his Deputy Foreign Minister (same party) openly declares Israel
sovereignty over all the territory.”
08th
May 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment