An already-hot summer in the Middle East -- war in Libya, regime crackdown in Syria and domestic political protests from Cairo to Tel Aviv -- threatens to boil over in September when the United Nations General Assembly considers the membership application of the State of Palestine. It is a foregone conclusion that the U.S. will exercise a veto in the Security Council if Palestine applies for full member status; this would leave Palestine the option of achieving the status of a non-member state. In either scenario, the moribund peace process will absorb another body blow and attitudes on all sides will harden. However, this does not have to be. If cooler heads can prevail, then diplomacy and creative thinking could result in a third option -- one that is win-win for all sides.
There is a way for the Palestinians to achieve the diplomatic boost they are seeking with UN membership while not damaging peace negotiations or undermining relations with Israel and the United States. There are least three elements worth examining -- separately or together -- that could turn what some are calling a "train wreck" into a successful outcome for all concerned.
First, the way the UN resolution is crafted could go far in assuaging U.S. and Israeli concerns and promoting both Israeli and Palestinian interests. For example, an important Israeli interest is Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. In fact, UN Resolution 181, which is the foundation of Israel's independence, refers throughout its text to the creation of an "Arab state" and a "Jewish state" in the area of the then-Palestine Mandate. Thus, an artfully worded UN resolution presented in September could meet Israel's strongly-felt need for recognition as a Jewish state by stipulating that acceptance of Palestine as a UN member derives from the same UN Resolution 181 that specifies Israel's membership as the "Jewish state."
Second, the agenda of upcoming General Assembly sessions are littered with dozens of resolutions critical of Israel. They are devoid of any sense of balance, and each year they are offered and voted on mindlessly, accomplishing nothing. If the world is being asked to take seriously Palestine's desire to join the United Nations, then Palestine should be asked to withdraw these resolutions and stop the empty gamesmanship. Not only would this restore some sense of sanity in the UN agenda, but it would also restore some integrity to the way in that the UN addresses problems in the Middle East.
Third, a recent op-ed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas left the impression that one of the benefits of full Palestine membership in the UN would be the ability of Palestine to take its case to international legal forums, such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. We already had a taste of this when the issue of Israel's security barrier was taken to the ICJ. For Israelis and many others, a Palestinian campaign against various Israeli policies in these international legal forums is simply a ruse to delegitimize the Israeli state. Palestinians deny this, but the denials have not calmed Israel's nerves. Thus, in the context of Palestine's accession as a full member of the UN, the Palestinians should be asked to commit to negotiations and to refrain from transferring a political dispute to the international legal realm.
As important as it is to consider these creative trade-offs, it is also critical to focus on the precise wording of the resolution on Palestinian accession to the UN. If the resolution specifies details -- such as the location of the borders of the state of Palestine -- then it will undermine the very logic of the negotiating process. If, however, the United States, the Quartet, and -- especially -- Israel participate in negotiating the text of the resolution, drawing on the ideas noted above or other creative solutions, it might just be possible to develop a package that accomplishes three positive purposes: a resolution that delivers the diplomatic benefit sought by Palestinians, an outcome that provides some measure of political gain for Israel, and a Security Council text that does not foreclose final status issues by unilaterally determining their outcomes. Diplomacy should be accelerated, not abandoned, at this critical juncture.
Daniel Kurtzer is a Lecturer in Public and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School and the S. Daniel Abraham Visiting Professor in Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University. From 2001-2005 he served as the United States Ambassador to Israel and from 1997-2001 as the United States Ambassador to Egypt.
• Hamas does not rule out kidnapping more Israelis in order to better its bargaining position in a prisoner swap.
• "Resistance will continue, God willing, in order to liberate the land of Palestine from the [river to the] sea."
• Palestine has entered a fierce battle with Israel on two fronts. The first front is resistance against the occupation [i.e., Israel] continuing until its termination, and the second to preserve the unity of the Palestinian people.
• Resistance will humiliate the Zionist enemy and liberate the land.
• "We have made clear we will not recognize the occupation, and today I say more than that: There is no Israel in our political dictionary."
Fatah and Hezbollah echo these identical sentiments. What part of "Palestine, from the river to the sea" do people not understand?
How about, yes aboutery, the Arab Peace Initiative? The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty? The Egypt Israel Peace Treaty? Salam Fayyad?
"Thomas Friedman, a noted American columnist, has praised Fayyad for trying to build functioning institutions of a Palestinian state, and not focusing on Israel. Unlike Yasser Arafat, Fayyad "calls for the opposite — for a nonviolent struggle, for building non corrupt transparent institutions and effective police and paramilitary units, which even the Israeli Army says are doing a good job; and then, once they are all up and running, declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank by 2011." Friedman, Thomas L. (17 March 2010). "Let's Fight Over a Big Plan". The New York Times.
Matthew 13:9 "He who has ears, let him hear."
As this is a non-starter from an Israeli perspective, the Palestinians have decided that there is no more point in negotiating. I don't see why they would suddenly agree to this now.
Are you kidding??? The "right of return" is a joke. No one takes it seriously. I have seen no proposed peace plan that includes the right of return. Usually, some monetary compensation is substituted, symbolically. The right of return is the least of the troublesome issues. Water rights, and the status of Jerusalem, are far more important.
Once this futile peace process is well and truly buried, the parties can start talking about serious initiatives to end this conflict.
"Land Swaps". OK. But a lot of the best lands , and water supplies in the West Bank are already taken over by the settlements. That means Israel can't keep them all,{they swiss cheese the whole West Bank}
Then you have the issue that Gaza and the West Bank need free access to each other- and they are no longer contiguois .
But the details
The land swaps don't create swiss cheese. they only emcompass settlement blocs adfjacent to the 67 lines.
Acquifer issues need to be resolved.
Israel's already agree to a corridor connection tween Gaza and WB.
If he sees this bid as it stands as an attempt to delegitimise Israel, perhaps he is missing the fact that Israel is a legitimate thriving state and that the only force capable of casting a shadow on its legitimacy is Israel.
It is not a "win" when you have already lost 78% of your homeland.
Hamas leader of the other Palestinian half declares that he will never recognize Israel let alone as a Jewish state.
So why indulge in IF"S and wild imagination just to suit your higher ups for you to just to look good?
So long as there are 57 Muslim nations in the U.N. why should Abbas ever even bother negotiating with Israel when he can automatically get everything he wants anyway.
When will you guys call a spade a spade and stop sugaring up the wolf enticing Little Red Riding-Hood?
That is like saying reporting a theft to the police delegitimizes the burglar. Israel's action delegitimize it, not the Palestinians taking these issues to international forums specifically set up to deal with such issues.
Mr. Kurtzner would like to corner the Palestinians into only direct negotiations with Israel. This is not possible because a weak entity, (Palestine), can not negotiate fairly with a bully (Israel), especially when the mediator, (US), is solidly in the bully's corner. It is this grossly unbalanced relationship, where the bully has no incentive to give up anything, that has resulted in Israel moving hundreds of thousands of people illegally to the Occupied Territories, while the Palestinians have gained nothing. It is certainly time to internationalize the dispute.
End of discussion, and negotiations. Period.
Please take particular note of the final sentence in this quote:-
"The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”"
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peacetreaty.html
Actually that's a claim made by Palestinians who make up 72% of Jordan population
All the greater reason, if that is the case, to allow that they know that of which they speak.
The sentence stands.
Live with it.
You're being hypocritical. Egypt's law (like many Arab countries) says that the Sharia will be a primary source for civil legislation. The state honours Muslim holidays and festivities. You do not demand that Egypt call itself the Muslim state of Egypt! The same is true of every Arab state except Lebanon which balances a number of religio-cultural groups (not very well). And this is true despite Christian minorities in these states, and in Egypt's case, a significant minority. Having one culture dominate in a nation does not imply that minorities must be discriminated against. You can guarantee their rights and still have a national culture.