Pundits and policymakers alike seem united in seeing a looming precipice as the Palestinians press a UN Security Council vote on statehood, forcing a US veto and rebuffing President Obama's pleas.
Palestinian and Israeli security forces are preparing for demonstrations which could turn violent. And, with passions aroused by the Arab Spring the impending US veto seems destined to cast a wide shadow over US influence in the Muslim world.
But none of this has to occur. Even at this late stage the Palestinians can take a cue from the 1982 UN Security Council playbook. Following the Lebanon War of that year, France and Egypt introduced a UN Security Council resolution that would have laid the foundation for a Palestinian state. That was totally at odds with US policy of pursuing direct negotiations, not UN fiats. Thus, the US threatened to veto the Franco-Egyptian initiative as a departure from the Camp David Accords. It would have been the first time the US vetoed a resolution introduced by an ally of the United States: France.
But just before the US was ready to cast its veto France and Egypt announced that they had decided to withdraw their draft resolution from a vote. Instead France's ambassador said that it was being introduced solely for the purpose of "discussion". This was a novel concept. Resolutions had never been introduced before at the UN Security Council solely for "discussion".
But, clearly, France and Egypt realized at the last moment that it was better to have a discussion and get their point of view across to the world than have a US veto. By allowing their draft resolution to be "discussed" the resolution could wait patiently in the wings to be resurrected at a more propitious time when US policy, or a change in the situation on the ground might result in a different reaction.
The Palestinians would be wise to take note of this Franco-Egyptian maneuver for establishing a new framework for settling their conflict with Israel. By not forcing the vote they can create a win-win situation for all concerned. After all, eventually the view expressed in the Franco-Egyptian initiative gained widespread approval.
Were the Palestinian to act otherwise little can be expected in terms of actual improvements on the ground. But looking at the playbook of yesteryear might in fact prove to be the smartest way to advance their strategic position.
Allan Gerson is Chairman of AG International Law, PLLC, a Washington, D.C. firm specializing in complex issues of international law and politics. He served as Counsel to the US Mission to the UN, 1981-1986, and later as Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The description of the Franco-Egyptian draft initiative is excerpted from his book, The Kirkpatrick Mission: Diplomacy without Apology (1991).
Really, someone (the US or the UN) needs to impose a two-state solution on the parties, b/c their internal politics will not allow them to come to an agreement.
Kinda makes you wonder just how legitimate the United States, Israel, and the UN really are, doesn't it? And that's what's making them all so uncomfortable. Bravo Palestinan Authority - make 'em sweat!
Perhaps. But then, if the "Palestinians" (or, rather, their "leadership") were wise, they would have had an independent state for years now. Gaza would have been on the way to economic prosperity, just like the West Bank -- and the two territories would have been connected through a "free passage corridor".
The reality is that the "Palestinians" are NOT wise and they are not interested in discussion. All they are interested in is IMPOSING a "solution" consistent with their interests, with no consideration given to the vital needs of the other side. And since they feel (correctly) that they lack the power to impose such a solution themselves, they seek the "help" of UNGA -- a forum in which dictatorships outnumber democracies and in which the votes of Ahmedinejads, Gadhafis, Assads, etc., etc. count just as much as the votes of Obamas, Sarcozys and Camerons. Contrary to their expectations, however, the Palestinians' move will not affect Israel's legitimacy (civilized countries, including those which will vote in favor of Palestinian "recognition", harbor no doubts about that legitimacy); the only legitimacy they will be hurting would be their own, and that of the UN. Since many harbor grave doubts about both anyway, that will only go with the grain.
The time has come to give serious consideration to the possibility that the UN made a mistake in 1948 by sanctioning the establishment of the state of Israel. Initially attacked from all sides by its Arab neighbors, Israel gradually transformed itself from the victim to the aggressor, always using those early days as justification for its crimes, just as it continues to exploit the murder of 6 million Jews in Europe during World War 2 to extort the western world, even though it now extorts money from the grandchildren of the now long dead perpetrators.
Israel should be given one last chance to alter its behavior in response to an ultimatum by the UN. But only one more chance.
Your advice does not make any sense. You are trying just to protect Israel. So far Israel had all gains ,with no pain. But pain is on its way.
Most people understand fairness, and justice. That is what is missing in this conflict.
Public financing of elections is the only answer to break the stranglehold Big Business and others have on our politicians.
So, let me be sure I understand you.
In 1982 it was "better to have a discussion...etc," and the resolution could "wait patiently in the wings.." for how long?
That resolution has waited "quietly in the wings" for 29 YEARS.
You are suggesting that a good course for the Palestinians would be to let their resolution "wait patiently in the wings" for ANOTHER 29 years?
You do know that another 29 years with similar levels of progress to the last 29 will see the obliteration of any possibility of a Palestinian state?
I have come across some facilely stupid notions in my time, and this has to be high among the top 5, along with "We will win in Vietnam," and "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
Nice idea, but this will NEVER occur. The US veto history with regards to any censure or reprimand, let alone action, against the illegal activities of isr.ael (in the face of nearly unanimous world opinion) is stark, unambiguous, and LONG. It transcends generations and parties like NO other issue in our history. MUCH TO OUR IMMENSE SHAME.
Veto list below. Read it and weep. I do.
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
Israel has become so intransigent that it can only be made to see reason and come to a fair settlement... ie a Palestinian state within the 67 borders, and security for Israel etc etc.... when the price it pays for its intransigence becomes untenable. Its so very much like pre '94 S Africa.
The time has come to isolate, sanction and boycott Israel. Nothing else will work.
In 1982 America was a different proposition, today its in trouble and not the same. Everyone see's what the emporors new clothes are about, but for Israel and the US itself.
In '82 France backed down, today an oppressed David like the PLO, can, and is willing to tell America to go to hell.
Worse is to come.
Newsflash- it's 30 years later and we are no closer to a Palestinian state. How is this in any way a success?