For months Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has traversed the globe, lobbying members of the United Nations to vote in support of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. This is the week when he will take this long-threatened action, and when the member states will decide to support or oppose the Palestinian bid.
These countries have also heard from Israeli officials, who say that no good will come from this Palestinian go-it-alone strategy. The Israelis, too, favor a Palestinian state, but one established as a result of direct bilateral negotiations with Israel. They want to resolve the outstanding issues of the conflict -- such as borders, security arrangements, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements -- through mutual agreement, not recrimination and division. By continuing to avoid direct negotiations, the Israelis say the Palestinians risk grievously harming future prospects for peace, while violating existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements and potentially inflaming the situation on the ground.
As policymakers and diplomats weigh how their country might vote in the Security Council or General Assembly, there is another critically important perspective they should hear out -- that of Palestinian policymakers and advocates themselves.
A chorus of Palestinian leaders and supporters strongly believe that going to the U.N. is a big mistake that would undermine the true interests of the Palestinian nationalist movement and aspirations of the Palestinian people.
Most prominent among the critics is Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Admired by the international community for his focus on building the institutional infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority, Fayyad has argued that unilateral statehood will bring no tangible benefits. Without an agreement with Israel regarding borders, security or settlements, he said, a campaign at the U.N. will not bring the Palestinians anything resembling statehood or independence.
As Fayyad told Israeli television in late 2010: "What we're looking for... is a state of Palestine, we're not looking for yet another declaration of statehood... The reality of the state may be there in terms of the functional institutions of the state, but if the Israeli army is still in our territory that's not a sovereign state, that's a Mickey Mouse state... We're not looking for a Mickey Mouse state, we're not looking for some form of self-rule, we're looking for a sovereign state of Palestine where we Palestinians can live as free people."
That position was underscored in arguments made by the Palestinian Authority's own Negotiations Support Unit. Among the so-called "Palestine Papers" -- the 1,700 confidential Palestinian Authority documents leaked to Al-Jazeera earlier this year -- are numerous memos which argue that a declaration of statehood outside the context of negotiations would weaken their longtime demands on borders, right-of-return, settlements and Jerusalem.
Now other respected experts are expressing concerns about the impact of U.N. recognition and its effect on the status of Palestinian refugees.
Guy Goodwin-Gill, an Oxford law professor and a member of the legal team which pursued a 2004 judgment against Israel at the International Court of Justice, concluded in an opinion requested by the Palestinian Authority that, "[U]ntil such time as a final settlement is agreed, the putative State of Palestine will have no territory over which it exercises effective sovereignty, its borders will be indeterminate or disputed, its population, actual and potential, undetermined . . ." and "it will fall short of meeting the internationally agreed criteria of statehood . . ."
Goodwin-Gill also noted that a unilateral declaration would "disenfranchise" Palestinian refugees living outside the area administered by the Palestinian Authority. "[T]he interests of the Palestinian people are at risk of prejudice and fragmentation," he wrote.
This fear -- that unilateral statehood would invalidate the rights of the Palestinian diaspora -- has also been raised publicly by the steering committee of the international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel, the Palestinian Boycott National Committee. Ali Abunimah, a hardened critic of Israel and the founder of The Electronic Intifada, wrote of the committee's statement that it "implicitly warns that recognition of a 'state' that does not include full recognition of the rights of all Palestinians everywhere to be represented, could violate or negate those rights."
Others voicing concern include the highly respected Ziad Asali, the founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine, who in an op-ed warned of the serious "financial, political and security consequences" of unilateral action.
For the member states of the U.N., the decision comes down to this: Do they wish to support a divisive Palestinian campaign at the U.N.? Do they wish to endorse a state which would (even in the most optimistic Palestinian scenario) lack the sovereignty, viability, physical infrastructure and the real benefits of statehood? Do they wish to undermine the Palestinians' own declared priorities and aspirations regarding borders, settlements and refugees? Would they want to destroy any semblance of a negotiating process left?
Or does the international community truly want to play a constructive role and promote a mutually negotiated Israeli-Palestinian agreement, which would ultimately establish a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish State of Israel, ensure security, set borders and end the conflict?
The choice is clear. The negotiated land-for-peace framework has been accepted by the international community since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967, and has been actively applied by Israel and the Palestinians since the 1990s.
While there is understandable frustration and discouragement at the pace, violations and regular breakdowns of the negotiation process, Israel, the Palestinians and the international community must continue recognize it is the best means for the realization of a two-state solution, whereby Israel and an independent Palestinian state will be able to live side-by-side in peace and security.
The international community and world opinion recognize this reality and thus will justly and rightly recognize the State of Palestine, which will give the Palestinians some measure of equal-footing and demonstrated support to come to agreement on the big issues; the status quo is not acceptable any longer, nor is the intransigence of Israel and their expanded settlement policy. The UN and International Community should insist on an immediate framework and timetable for negotiations based on international law and UN resolutions.
How is it a threat Abe? If it’s a threat because it would confer legitimacy on them for acting in an adult fashion. Then I suggest that those opposing it are being juvenile.
"Palestinian go-it-alone strategy"
Israeli settlements-what-ever strategy
"By continuing to avoid direct negotiations."
Israel hopes to end up owning everything one way or another.
"no tangible benefits"
Abe, just ask Ben to put up or shut up. The game’s up for goodness sake. Israel tells the UN and America what it will and won’t do.You seem to be expecting the Palestinians to submit to that process too. They must really be on to something, to provoke this kind of furor. If its as meaningless as you seem to be claiming, why get your underwear in such an uproar?
"This fear"
is itself, the only thing we have to be afraid of?
"Do they wish to support"
the disenfranchised, against the manipulative?
"Would they want to"
watch, as more illegal settlements go up?
"ultimately establish a Palestinian state"
Define “ultimately” Abe. Sometime, never?
"The choice is clear."
More of the same, or something different.
As the last one would not accept even one comment, one opinion or fact
that might shatter the fragil glass their pov pours from.
It's also odd that while over 40%, sometimes well over 50%, depending on
the wording, of Americans think we do not have all the major facts about
Sept. 11. Even the two top men, one GOP, one Dem, of that Commission
admitted 5 years ago that they were rushed, had little money, were even
Lied to, and " encouraged" not to explore certain aspects.
As the FBI says, " Israeli involvement in Sept 11 is classified ! "
Not that it did not exist [ as many of their spies were caught, around
airports no less ], not that it was proven to be innocent [ as they failed
their lie detector tests ! ], but that they really don't want to talk
about it. If there's Nothing to hide, then let's reopen this box
and see if it was far more complex than feared....if a good
investigation finds nothing, then fine....if it does....
If the Palestinians declare a state on 67 borders, the entire narrative of "facts on the ground" upon which Mr. Foxman and his supporters in the US and Israel rely will be scuttled, and there will be no mechanism left that will allow them to forcibly transfer Palestinians out of territory that they desire.
We don't need your opinion about anything.
Thanks.
Better to click it, try and understand it, to avoid the making the same mistake ourself.
Then give the Palestinians the First Choice of the Land. Or the other way around I don't care
THAT IS JUSTICE (equal and fair)
Such a very even-handed solution sounds to me like the legendary wisdom of King Solomon, but despite this Jewish connection I doubt your plan would be very popular in Israel.
On the other hand, I'd eat cake with you anytime.
Was dying of cancer so we went off to his remote cabin. Unfortunately, his relgion would not let him accept my Diet, Affirmation and Meditation
So, I ask him since I am a positive reinforce and you are a negative reinforcer how would you deal with the middle east if you for the sake of Equality do it.
I always have to remember 2 other events
1) when I was 4 and he was 8 he traded all my cap guns for pipes and then put my pipes on the wall so all could see
2) when his boys broke his CB, he said I want you all to show me you favorite toy. Then he threw them on the ground and smashed both of them.
Don't get me wrong I loved by brother, I simply would not do business with him. I have another brother who I try not to talk to. He says I talk all the time while he just talks louder and get mean rather than listening.
Of course, I am not perfect either. But I try to be perfect
I think Palestinian CAN and MUST go it alone. First in their hearts and then without.
NO ONE has the right to refuse a Population from Self Determination. Especially when it was their land in the beginning.
Some wish to create the Crusades ALL OVER AGAIN. I refuse to go backards
ONWARD Palestinianes onward to your Destiny and for MOSES SAKE "Let those People GO and America let these people Declare their own Independence of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Run your life not others as people and Nation States. Attacking other for what they MIGHT or may Justifiably do while WE DRONE, UNPROVOKE ATTACK is the DARK SIDE of the DEVIL SPIRIT
i mean who are the israelis here really? king solomon whose words were JUST and BINDING...we have netanyahu who even after taking billions in aid from USA openly disgusted VP Biden when he was visiting israel of all the places...and what is netanyahu contribution till date? more settlements...that will definitely kick the process forward...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/11/first-report.html
as one of those commenting on it wrote, "Israeli's" controlled about 6% of the land in 1947....then grabbed about another 50%, although a small minority....and of course always had in mind a path, regardless of how violent, to grab Jerusalem.....
HERE WE GO AGAIN