FM: John Whitbeck
Transmitted below is a link to a 24-minute interview of my distinguished recipient Jeffrey Sachs in which Jeff offers his appreciation of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech yesterday to an almost empty UN General Assembly chamber.
On the issue of the potential consequence of a formal Israeli declaration of annexation of all or most of the occupied West Bank, as is being publicly "threatened" in response to this week's wave of additional diplomatic recognitions of the State of Palestine, my personal view is not the conventional one that formal annexation would sound the death knell of the "two-state solution".
In my view, Israel's not formally asserting de jure sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine other than expanded East Jerusalem has very cleverly and effectively served Israel's interest in permanent de facto control over the entire territory of the occupied State of Palestine without giving rise to awkward questions about the rights (or lack of them) of the Palestinians who live there which would arise if they were living in territory which Israel asserted was legally part of Israel.
It has done so by permitting Western governments to pretend to believe, notwithstanding blatantly contradictory pronouncements and actions by Israeli governments, that Israel's illegal occupation of the entire territory of the State of Palestine is temporary and should and can be ended by negotiations between the occupying power and the occupied people.
If Israel were to formally declare its annexation of a major portion of the occupied State of Palestine, the "international community", and particularly the 158 states which have now extended diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine, could no longer pretend to believe that the illegal occupation is temporary and would then have no moral, logical or legal alternative to imposing on Israel the crippling sanctions (suspension of economic relations, closure of their air space, non-acceptance of Israeli passports for visitors ...) which, by convincing a majority of Israelis that ending the occupation would improve the quality of their lives, offer the only realistic hope of ending the occupation and actually achieving a decent "two-state solution" in the interests of both peoples and of regional peace.
From this perspective, a formal Israeli declaration of annexation would be less likely to sound the death knell of the "two-state solution" than to be the spur which could ultimately lead to its achievement.
For this reason, and not because Donald Trump has publicly declared that he will not allow it, I would be amazed -- but not unhappy -- if the Israeli government were to declare its formal annexation of any further territory of the occupied State of Palestine.
Transmitted below is a link to a 24-minute interview of my distinguished recipient Jeffrey Sachs in which Jeff offers his appreciation of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech yesterday to an almost empty UN General Assembly chamber.
On the issue of the potential consequence of a formal Israeli declaration of annexation of all or most of the occupied West Bank, as is being publicly "threatened" in response to this week's wave of additional diplomatic recognitions of the State of Palestine, my personal view is not the conventional one that formal annexation would sound the death knell of the "two-state solution".
In my view, Israel's not formally asserting de jure sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine other than expanded East Jerusalem has very cleverly and effectively served Israel's interest in permanent de facto control over the entire territory of the occupied State of Palestine without giving rise to awkward questions about the rights (or lack of them) of the Palestinians who live there which would arise if they were living in territory which Israel asserted was legally part of Israel.
It has done so by permitting Western governments to pretend to believe, notwithstanding blatantly contradictory pronouncements and actions by Israeli governments, that Israel's illegal occupation of the entire territory of the State of Palestine is temporary and should and can be ended by negotiations between the occupying power and the occupied people.
If Israel were to formally declare its annexation of a major portion of the occupied State of Palestine, the "international community", and particularly the 158 states which have now extended diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine, could no longer pretend to believe that the illegal occupation is temporary and would then have no moral, logical or legal alternative to imposing on Israel the crippling sanctions (suspension of economic relations, closure of their air space, non-acceptance of Israeli passports for visitors ...) which, by convincing a majority of Israelis that ending the occupation would improve the quality of their lives, offer the only realistic hope of ending the occupation and actually achieving a decent "two-state solution" in the interests of both peoples and of regional peace.
From this perspective, a formal Israeli declaration of annexation would be less likely to sound the death knell of the "two-state solution" than to be the spur which could ultimately lead to its achievement.
For this reason, and not because Donald Trump has publicly declared that he will not allow it, I would be amazed -- but not unhappy -- if the Israeli government were to declare its formal annexation of any further territory of the occupied State of Palestine.