That would be the implication of Iceland recognizing the "state" of Palestine.
In an effort to woo the uncommitted, pro-Palestinian advocates frequently insist that one can be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Israel. In theory, that seems self-evident. But in practice, it’s often false. Just consider the parliament of Iceland, which on Tuesday became the first Western parliament to officially call for Israel’s eradication.So far--so good.
I’m sure many of the parliamentarians who voted for the resolution didn’t realize that was what they were doing; they just thought they were voting to become the first Western country to recognize a State of Palestine in the 1967 lines. Indeed, the resolution even urged Israel and “Palestine” to sign a peace agreement for “mutual recognition.”
Except, it also affirmed “the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes.There is a certain contradiction between that and being pro-Israel--a contradiction that goes way beyond mere abstract philosophy.
But you don't have to wrangle over the implications of a right of return that extends to children and grandchildren. There is a more mundane point.
As Gordon concludes:
But it’s also time to drop the fiction that one can be “pro-Palestinian” without being “anti-Israel.” As long as the Palestinians’ list of nonnegotiable demands includes destroying the Jewish state, anyone who backs their positions is indeed anti-Israel.Just what was Iceland thinking?
Come to think of it, has anything good come out of Iceland since Reykjavik 1972?
Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestine and Iceland.