Once again, the Palestinians, with the help of their international enablers, are about to shoot themselves in the foot -- or worse.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, the Palestinian leadership will soon turn to the UN to seek support for unilateral recognition of statehood.
Since Washington has indicated it will veto any effort in the Security Council, the Palestinians will look to the General Assembly (GA).
The GA cannot admit a new state to the UN, but can elevate the Palestinians' current status to non-member observer state. It can also offer symbolic support, by majority vote, for a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines, with the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital.
For those interested in a two-state outcome, the Palestinian gambit should be opposed. The strategy is self-defeating. And the sooner the Palestinians get the message, especially from key democratic countries whose support they crave, the more likely they are to reconsider.
First, it does an end-run around face-to-face talks. Responsible political leaders should be encouraging the Palestinians to return to the table with Israel, not undermining the prospect of direct negotiations. No lasting peace can emerge by trying to force Israel's hand through GA resolutions.
And speaking of hands, Israel's has been extended in peace, through successive governments, yet the Palestinians have always managed to spurn it, while counting on their supporters to embrace unthinkingly every imaginable excuse.
Second, if a Palestinian state is recognized along the 1967 lines (in point of fact, nothing more than the 1949 armistice lines), this undermines UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 and the Camp David Accords, which call for a negotiated outcome and do not predetermine final boundaries.
Indeed, think about it. Once the GA endorses a Palestinian state's borders, then, in the real world, how will the Palestinians ever climb down from that tree to accept the territorial adjustments diplomats know will be required to address the minimum needs of both sides -- not just one party -- to reach a deal?
Third, countries that support the Palestinian strategy may well contribute to a resurgence of violence.
After all, when Palestinians on the street realize that no UN General Assembly vote will actually produce a state, how long will it be before disappointment turns to protests and more? And when they grasp that annual U.S. aid of about $500 million may come to a screeching halt, as Congress has already indicated, what then?
Why feed false expectations?
Fourth, to be a state entails certain criteria, including control of defined borders.
Can PA President Abbas legitimately claim control over the West Bank, where unresolved issues with Israel remain, and Gaza?
If he says yes to the latter, for instance, he acknowledges a partnership with Hamas, the governing authority in Gaza. But Hamas is a terrorist organization that has not met any of the three conditions for engagement set by the Quartet, including, notably, the UN.
If he says no, then he seeks to include Gaza in his envisioned state, but has no actual control over it, which is, in fact, currently the case.
Even if the GA vote is largely symbolic, countries should consider carefully if "Palestine" today has the necessary elements of statehood. And they should do it for a larger reason as well - they may be creating a precedent that could come back to haunt them.
After all, this is not the only case of disputed territory. If every secessionist, insurgent, or so-called independence group felt it might get validation from the UN General Assembly, regardless of actual conditions on the ground, all hell could break loose. Some affected countries smugly feel they can avoid the outcome through deft - read strong-arm - diplomacy. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. We'll see.
And fifth, a GA vote would send precisely the wrong message to Israel. It would say we are prepared to: (a) ignore your vital interests in the process, (b) overlook your determined efforts to reach a negotiated two-state agreement, (c) hand over, among other land, Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter and sacred Western Wall to Palestinian control, and (d) reinforce your long-held distrust of the world body, whose automatic majority today won't give Israel a fair hearing.
At the end of the day, of course, that majority will support whatever the Palestinians decide to do. It's simply the way the UN works. The Arab League (22 members), Organization of the Islamic Conference (56 members), and Non-Aligned Movement (118 members) have the numbers. With rare exceptions, they robotically go along with every Palestinian whim, however counter-factual or counter-productive.
Still, the Palestinians don't simply want the vote of the likes of Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Rather, they seek the endorsement of democratic countries, especially the 27-member European Union. A few EU states, including Italy, Germany, Netherlands, and Romania, have declared their opposition, but, disturbingly, most are playing their cards close to the vest.
To support the Palestinians at the UN offers the path of least diplomatic resistance, some nations conclude. If we vote against Israel, as a practical matter, nothing will happen to us. But if we stand with Israel, the price can be high. Look at Canada, they say, which lost its bid last year for a Security Council seat because it voted with Israel rather than succumb to the herd mentality.
Even if we are not keen on the Palestinian strategy, as many top officials from Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America have told visiting AJC groups behind closed doors, do we really want to have the automatic majority block our aspirations in the UN system? And could there also be bilateral consequences (energy, investments, trade, etc.) for taking a principled stand on such a vote? In actuality, Israel's foes at the UN don't play according to Hoyle.
We'll know soon enough how countries line up.
And then we'll have a pretty good sense of what democratic nations have the courage to embrace principle in the pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace, and what countries are ready to throw it to the wind.
And then we'll have a pretty good sense of what democratic nations have the courage to embrace principle in the pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace, and what countries are ready to throw it to the wind." (David Harris)
A large part of American popular support for Israel is grounded in a perceived common religious heritage. Polls show Israel increasingly popular in the United States.
The European nationalists (right of center) are increasingly supportive of Israel, perceiving Israel as a model to be emulated to preserve European culture. European Christians fear Muslim dominance and are also increasingly sympathetic to Israel as a Trustee of Christian rights in the Holy Land. Even European Atheists and secularists are aligning with the Christians to preserve European culture which is grounded in Christianity. Overt anti-Semitism among Europeans has subsided. The major threat to Zion within Europe comes from the left.
I don't expect Europeans to take a principled stand. My gut tells me that perceived European self interest is shifting away from the Palestinian cause. Zion is increasingly seen as the front line in a religious, cultural struggle against the incremental influence of Islam within Europe. Europe might come through for Israel not based on well reasoned argument but on the emotive drive of religion and nationalism.
We'll know soon enough how countries line up.
This is about poor politics on both sides. Yes, Netanyahu should have extended the cessation of settlement building. Yes, Abbas should have come to the table earlier than a few weeks before the deadline. Yes, Abbas should have continued to negotiate final borders, which would halt future settlement building once and for all. Netanyahu should have supported the Palestinian bid for UN recognition, as that's the only way Israel's concerns would be addressed as well. And so on and so forth.
The UN bid, to me, is a valid step for the Palestinians, and one they should have done from the start instead of allowing violence to define their movement. That being said, I don't think the PA have adequately prepared their people - this isn't going to change anything on the ground any time soon. That's not going to go over well on the streets and will further destabilize the region.
Israel on the other hand will not recognize palestine in any capacity as an indpeendent state, which is what this article is about
ANP achieved or not their purposes anyway war, no one can stop.
There are many countries that want wiped off the map of Israel and will lead to a war, stronger than the last 3 big as the ones.,, 1949, 67 y 73.
So shall.
Third, countries that support the Palestinian strategy may well contribute to a resurgence of violence if approved at the UN.
"Part of the letter from Mr David Harris"
HERE:
Why feed false expectations?
Fourth, to be a state entails certain criteria, including control of defined borders.
At the end of the day, of course, that majority will support whatever the Palestinians decide to do. It's simply the way the UN works. The Arab League (22 members), Organization of the Islamic Conference (56 members), and Non-Aligned Movement (118 members) have the numbers. With rare exceptions, they robotically go along with every Palestinian whim, however counter-factual or counter-productive.
Still, the Palestinians don't simply want the vote of the likes of Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Rather, they seek the endorsement of democratic countries, especially the 27-member European Union. A few EU states, including Italy, Germany, Netherlands, and Romania, have declared their opposition, but, disturbingly, most are playing their cards close to the vest.
If the PA declaration will pass with enforcement of sanctions (unlikely) and the Palis will ask the UN to enforce Israel’s withdrawal beyond the armistice lines of 1949 -- A WAR WILL ENSUE either between Israel and the Arabs, or Israel and the Arabs backed by the UN….
If the declaration will come to pass without sanctions (based on the above, most likely), then the Palis will have at the end of the day to sit down with Israel and negotiate the terms and borders of their future state…. So how that is different than today’s negotiations prospect….
Either way it will complicate the situation and increase the mistrust between the two people to a point of breakdown, such that exist with Hamas and Hezbollah….
The difference is that even if everybody accepted the partition plan it would still require the two respective states to form their governments or constitutions and then declare independence and then apply to the UN for sovereignty for the implication of the plan.
Please spare me your compliment…. The UN-GA resolutions are not binding, only UN-SCouncil’s resolutions are…so UN-GA declaration is not going to make the Palis entity an Independent state by their declaration of determine the borders, the Palis will need to declare their independence and apply to the UN and if they want their borders to be recognized they will have to negotiate with Israel the terms and conditions of those and other issues as well…. Also, the UN-GA cannot force Israel to withdraw or remove its settlements; only the UN-SC has that power and so far the US is objecting to have that passed. This is not my interpretation but that of legal experts in Int’l law and UN bylaw.
It's time for Palestinians "to grow up" and show courage to negotiate and to compromise - even if it will lead to painful sacrifices in land and other things on both sides.
Indeed!!
And the way to bring about an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world and the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel, is by implementing, as is, that which has been designed to achieve it: UN Security Council Resolution, 242.
242 was designed to resolve the conflict. It passed at the Security Council unanimously. And, 242 has been accepted by ALL relevant parties to the conflict as the way to resolve it. Indeed, 242 has been used as the basis for all peace talks to date, and the basis for peace treaties between Israel and two of its Muslim-Arab neighbors.
242, let's note, expects the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to withdraw from "territories" captured by Israel during the defensive Six-Day War, 1967, but not from all of them.
242 doesn't specify to which lines the Forces should retreat but states that those lines must be "secure and recognized" ones, to be reached through direct talks by the "warring parties".
Also, 242 doesn't call for the setting up of an additional state in the region, nor does it even make use of concepts such as "Palestinians" or "Palestine", let alone a "Palestinian state".
The assumption of course is that Israel should withdraw from territories, and control over those territories should revert to the countries from which Israel captured the land: Gaza to Egypt and much of the West Bank to Jordan.
To be intellectually honest - rather than strictly use wishful thinking and that language which is considered "politically correct" in certain circles, we must examine reality based on factually based analysis.
And, reality has been that the geographic region called "Palestine" - or as we, Jews, have been referring to it as "Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) - has consisted of present day Jordan, 78% of the territory, and the rest, Israel-WestBank-Gaza, 22%.
Jordan, or 78% of the territory of "Palestine", consists of 72% "Palestinians" while the rest are primarily nomadic Arab tribes.
Thus, if the Arabs of historic Eretz Israel/Palestine wish to set up their own independent state they should be able, indeed encouraged to do so in Jordan with Amman as its capital.
This doesn't mean that any movement of people should take place as a result. It means however that the center of life of the Arabs of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel)/Palestine will be 78% of the country populated exclusively by Arabs.
If there is a will, there is a way!! The only question that needs to be answered is: Is there a will out there...??
Obviously not as nobody holds to your novel but minority opinion.
The Jews of Palestine accepted the Partition Plan which called for the establishment of *two* nation states west of the river, since that time nobody (except for some religious Zionists) considers the occupied Palestinian territories part of Israel.
Indeed the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the occupied Palestinian territories are *NOT* part of sovereign Israel. This of course is keeping with world opinion ie: the UN, EU, USA, etc, etc.
This false notion that 'Jordan is Palestine' is only adhered to by a tiny minority of zealots who somehow mistakenly believe that Palestinians are not entitle to the same basic human rights as everyone else.
Thankfully however you believe that "all peoples have the universally accepted ethical right to national self-determination and independence" thus the Palestinian People are quite entitled to establish a nation state within their own lands which are currently under brutal Israeli occupation.
Sadly many in Israel refuse to acknowledge this basic universal human right, for example the major political parties in Israel in their party platforms, the Likud Party Platform states:
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state."
And to think that Israel 'demands' that the Palestinians 'recognize Israel' when the Israelis won't even recognize the fact that Palestinians have an equal right to statehood.
You've got that backwards.
Israel accepted Arabs' equal right to statehood at the very start, accepting partition and inviting all Arabs within the borders of Israel to remain as full citizens. The Arabs would not accept Jews' "equal rights to statehood" and went to war in 1948 and multiple times since then to take away that right.
Israel now accepts the right of Palestinians to their own state IN THE CONTEXT OF A PEACE DEAL. In other words, after all those years of Arabs/Palestinians trying to wipe them out, they want some guarantee that the Palestinians also will accept Jews' rights to self-determination in Israel.
Is that too much to ask?
The Palestinians have, under international law, the exact same human right as Jews, this includes the universally accepted right to Self-determination which of course includes statehood.
Approaching the UN seeking recognition and statehood is a fundamental right for the Palestinian People, a right which they are free to exercise at any time.
It is pretty ludicrous for some to claim that Palestinians, only because they are Palestinians, must limit their basic human rights for 'the sake of Israel'.
This, of course, includes the Jewish people as well.
The Jewish people has translated its historic and ethical right to national self-determination and independence by first and foremost accept that this right is not exclusive to the Jewish people, and by exercising this right through the use of declarations, decisions and resolutions that have become part of what is commonly dubbed 'international law', i.e. Balfour Declaration, 1917; San Remo Conference, 1920; League of Nations Decisions, 1922; and, United Nations resolutions, 1947, and most importantly the UN Security Council Resolution of 1949.
No doubt 'nlkatz' is also looking forward to this September when the Palestinian People exercise their universal right to self determination and independence at the UN.
Nobody trying to take Palestinians' rights from them.
But "Sake of Israel" should be as much important as "Sake of Palestine". And legitimate concern of one side should not be discarded and ignored because other side think so.
Oh you mean like the illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank which have been condemned globally for decades, how many UN resolutions condemning this blatant breech of international law and human rights has Israel ignored at this stage?
Let's see some hard data on these questions. Otherwise, the West is sure making some bold assumptions.
But I would demand that their leadership states clearly, in Arabic, Hebrew and English, that it accepts Israel's right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people; and, accept a peace treaty as the end of the conflict and the end of all future demands.
In the Muslim-Arab culture, no statement is of value unless and until it is made in public, and sadly, to date, the PLO/PA leadership has refused to make any such public statement. Indeed, all public statements made have been to the contrary.
And, that tell us something about where their hearts and minds are...!!
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227346
demanding to be recognized as a Jewish state is ridiculous. If Israel wants to define itself as a Jewish State that's her internal decision. It has no place in international politics or peace negotiations.
1. Netanyahu NEVER stopped all building in East Jerusalem even when requested to stop building in the West Bank.
2. Netanyahu REFUSED to state the borders and the security conditions for a settlement although this was requested by Abbas before initial peace talks could start.
3. The US administration literally begged Netanyahu to stop building in the West Bank and give peace talks a chance. It was Netanyahu who refused to do this, preferring building in the occupied territories to peace.
If Netanyahu was really serious about peace, he would stop the collective punishment of Gaza and the building in the West Bank. It is clear by his actions and statements he is not serious about peace and believes he can pretty much do whatever he wants by blaming everyone else for the problems that result. Israeli actions are not preludes to peace, but the encouragement of hate, fear, anger and eventually war. We all sleep in the bed we make, not the bed we imagine we have made for ourselves.
Mr. Harris is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. The truth is not changed by what one desires to believe. Nor does assigning blame prevent war, it only gives one side an excuse for ignoring its responsibility for it.
You state generally good statement that I agree with "Peace is never possible so long as the parties involved can only embrace their own view of reality and the pundits continue to reinforce that twisted perspective".
But then continue with looking ONLY at Israel. Very balanced approach indeed :-)
Going to the UN is the opposite of unilateral.
Also, making this move contradicts the Oslo Accords, especially the second of them, 1995, on which the PLO/PA actually singed.
Isn't this enough to suggest that it is a unilateral move and that one that contradicts the PLO/PA's former commitments...??
And no, Palestine as its on state is the very basis for all two state negotiations. That's what two state means.
You guys are just saying silly things
Closing eyes on this or ignoring this fact - or still claiming "un-biased" UN - is simply to deny a reality. You want to live in dreams? Or get a real peace in that land?
Really??
The Arabs of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) have been offered an accommodation of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish people and with the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel, numerous times during the past nearly a hundred years, all of which offers and opportunities have been rejected:
1917 - The Balfour Declaration
1920 - The San Remo Conference
1922 - The League of Nations Decisions
1937 - The Peel Commission proposal
1947 - The United Nations resolution
1948 - Israel's peace offer
1948 to 1967 - the entire territory now in dispute was under total Arab rule and "cleansed" of its former Jewish residents, yet no "Palestinian" state was set up and Jerusalem was not proclaimed its capital city (but, incidentally, three full years before Israel captured the territory in the defensive Six-Day War, 1967, the Palestine Liberation Movement (PLO) was set up, 1964. One wonders, which part of "Palestine" was the PLO to "liberate"...??)
1967 - Israel's offer
1978 - Begin/Saadat offer
2000 - Barak/Clinton offer
2005 - Sharon gesture for peace
2008 - Olmert/Bush offer
2009 to present - Netanjahu offer to come to the table and talk peace without preconditions, in good faith and clean hands.
All of the above offers, gestures and opportunities have been rejected by the Muslim-Arabs. One wonders, why...??
Another Zionist term: "the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel"
Actually the 'nation state of Israel' is home to 'Israeli citizens' (both Arabs and Jews alike).
The simple truth of the matter is that Mizrahi Jews, Yemenite Jews, etc are Arabs, they are only 'Jews' by faith. Effectively this means that approx 35% of all Jews in Israel are Arabs.
It is sad to think that in this day and age some people think that a so-called 'democratic nation' should define citizenship and civil rights based on 'religion'.
Because not a single one of them afforded Palestinians equal rights
Responsible political leaders should be encouraging the Israeli's to return to the table with Palestine, not undermining the prospect of direct negotiations. No lasting peace can emerge by trying to force Palestine's hand through GA resolutions.
Second, if an Israeli state is recognized along the 1947 lines (in point of fact, Israel occupies more than 25% of this land), this undermines UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 181m, which already created final boundaries.
Third, countries that support the Israeli strategy of denying self determination and state hod to Palestine, despite Israel enjoying those same attributes may well contribute to a resurgence of violence.
Fourth, to be a state entails certain criteria, including control of defined borders.
Can Israeli president Netenyahu legitimately claim control over the West Bank, where unresolved issues with Palestine remain, and Gaza?
eg:
Once again, the Israeli's, with the help of their international enablers, are about to shoot themselves in the foot -- or worse.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, the Israeli leadership will soon turn to the UN to seek support for unilateral dismissal of statehood."
"And speaking of hands, Palestine's has been extended in peace, through successive governments, yet the Israel's have always managed to spurn it, while counting on their supporters to embrace unthinkingly every imaginable excuse."
Gosh, i bet it if this version of article was written it would soon be denounced as anti Semitic or a pro Palestine propaganda piece