The 27 members of the European Union have become the key battleground in the current Palestinian UN gambit.
Britain, France, Germany and Portugal sit on the UN Security Council. They would be among the 15 nations acting on a Palestinian request for UN membership.
Moreover, the General Assembly is expected to vote on another Palestinian-initiated resolution that, given the assembly's make-up, will inevitably be adopted. But the European Union (EU) votes are particularly sought by Ramallah, as they are seen to have a moral cachet unavailable from Caracas, Damascus, and Tehran.
Along come two former top European officials, Martti Ahtisaari and Javier Solana, who have just published "Ten Reasons for a European 'Yes'" in the International Herald Tribune. Reflecting their own views, they want the EU as a whole squarely on the Palestinian side.
Apart from the unlikely prospect of EU unity, given internal fault lines, their reasoning is deeply flawed.
First, they claim that a "yes" vote "is an attempt to keep the two-state solution alive." Really?
Four consecutive Israeli prime ministers -- Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu -- have been for a two-state accord. One Israeli initiative after another has been presented, only to be rebuffed.
For the peace process to be "meaningful," contrary to the authors' assertion, the EU should be telling the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table with Israel, not seek false comfort in UN chambers.
Second, they assert that the heavy EU financial investment "to help build a functioning Palestinian state" needs to be protected.
The EU has indeed helped. But the key point is that a "yes" vote threatens progress toward a two-state deal by allowing Palestinian unilateral steps -- in violation of existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements -- to trump bilateral talks. If that's not a formula for instability on the ground, what is?
Third, they want the EU "to respond positively to Mahmoud Abbas' state-building achievements."
In fact, much of the credit deservedly goes to Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who opposes the Palestinian UN strategy. He understands precisely what's at risk, including vital American and Israeli economic cooperation.
At the same time, the EU, better than anyone, should grasp what constitutes a "state."
Is Palestine today a state? Hardly. For starters, look at the PA-Hamas, West Bank-Gaza split, something the authors strikingly failed to address. Indeed, the word "Hamas" doesn't appear in their article, as if it could be wished away.
Fourth, according to the authors, the EU, mindful of the "Arab Spring," needs to avoid "charges of double standards" by supporting "rights for Palestinians."
Do they mean the EU should also support, come what may, the rights of all Arabs (and, for that matter, Iranians) to achieve the human freedom, human rights, and human dignity they have been denied for far too long? Now that would be interesting! Too often, however, and not just in Europe, of course, interests have handily trumped values, allowing double standards to thrive.
Fifth, speaking of interests, Ahtisaari and Solana invoke them as an argument to vote "yes."
The EU needs export markets, energy supplies, and a break from jihadist terrorism, they note.
So, the authors essentially believe that Europe is vulnerable to what can only be described as Arab blackmail if it doesn't do the "right" thing by supporting the Palestinians. One might wish for a bit more backbone!
Sixth, they contend a "yes" vote would be a favor to the U.S., which can't be supportive only "for evident domestic reasons."
This one is below the belt. The coded language, of course, means "the Jewish lobby."
These otherwise worldly Europeans apparently don't get what makes America tick. Rather, they want to believe that two percent of the American population, with all of its diversity, "controls" governmental decision-making.
For centuries, Europe had been quite expert at conjuring up myths of Jewish "power," which proved rather costly to the Jewish people. Isn't it high time to realize, in this case, that America itself, as polls have revealed for decades, is a pro-Israel country precisely because it identifies so closely with Israel's narrative?
The seventh and eighth arguments are lumped together, but boil down to "Israelis' objections to the Palestinian move... do not hold water" and, anyway, we know best what's good for Israelis.
If that isn't chutzpah, what is?
Israel, half of the Israeli-Palestinian equation, has legitimate concerns about Palestinian intentions, the diplomatic end-run, possible recourse to the International Criminal Court, the PA-Hamas relationship, and a region in flux. The authors, however, blithely ignore or dismiss these concerns from their redoubts in Helsinki and Madrid.
Ninth, they confidently predict that a "yes" vote will reduce the likelihood of Palestinian violence. But then again, maybe it won't.
By raising Palestinian expectations through the UN rather than the bargaining table, the authors advocate a scenario where, the day after a vote, the Palestinians may realize that nothing has changed, planting the seeds for further unrest.
And what about the prospect then of Hamas, not to mention other extremist forces, eager to fan the flames of fury following that disappointment?
Finally, they note that a "yes" vote "in the General Assembly does not entail bilateral recognition of 'Palestine'." Technically, that's true, but by endorsing the notion of Palestine as a "state" -- in this case, a UN observer state -- the vote creates significant facts on the ground.
And by defining the state's borders, which is expected, it would only make it still harder for the Palestinians to climb down from the lofty UN heights to deal with the Israelis, as they must, if they ever wish to achieve a real deal.
The EU, with its power, prestige, and proximity, has a key role to play in moving the peace process forward.
But saying "yes" to the Palestinian gambit at the UN would be precisely the wrong way to go.
For more information, visit ajc.org.
Very simply u cant have it both ways:peace with Israel AND an alliance with hatemonger-Hamas. Its just not credible. OR hate filled school books and childrens programmes in Arabic; soothing words in English for the pitiful British Arabist media cf Guardian/The Independent/BBC (most times)
And finally whist they refuse The Jews their homeland-the Sovereign State of Israel.
The Palestinian Authority chose the mother of 4 terrorist murderers, one who killed seven Israeli civilians and attempted to killed twelve others, as the person to launch their statehood campaign with the UN. In a widely publicized event, the PA had Latifa Abu Hmeid lead the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah and to hand over a letter for the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.
[Al-Ayyam, 9/9/2011]
The official PA daily reported that she launched the UN campaign last week. Noting that she is the "mother of seven prisoners and of the Shahid (Martyr) Abd Al-Mun'im Abu Hmeid." However, the paper didn't mention that 4 of her imprisoned sons are murderers.
It was reported last year that Abu Hmeid had 4 sons in Israeli prisons; each serving between two and seven life sentences, a total of 18 life sentences. At that time she was in the news because the PA Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, honored her with an award, "the Plaque of Resoluteness and Giving... inscribed with the names of her four sons who are imprisoned."
The PA minister explained then why the mother of 4 murderers of Israelis deserves such honor:
"It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honor."
I> Resolutioon 141 in 1948 actually created 2 states, an Isreli one AND a Palestinian one. The Jordanian government took over the lands give for a Palestinian state.
2. Resolution 242 declared that any states must recogniz the right of both states to exist. The Palitian authroity has ot one this.
3. the Oslo Accords agreed upon by all parties in cluding the US and Europe,NATO etc all require that meetings and agreements must be between theIsraelis and the Palestinians.
SO far only the first resolution has been even atempted and the Arab states except for Egypt ( and the new government is obviously not going along with its treaty with Israel) has not recognized the right fo Israel to exist.
The Security COuncil will never bringthis before the General Assemly and should remove anyone who tries o bring itthere before the Security Council decide.
1. How heavy is the EU financial investment in the "functioning Palestinian state"?
2. Why is it not functioning yet?
3. Where did all the money disappear to?
... and most important:
4. How much money is missing in the EU budget to be able to save the Greek economy?
Israel is the only country in that part of the world that provides for the freedoms that Franklin Delano Roosevelt enunciated, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom from fear. I have visited Israel a total of five times, and my wife has been there six times. We have relatives and friends who live in Israel. Given the history of oppression that the Jews have experienced, including the Holocaust, we need a country that is a Jewish country and where Jews can migrate to in times of trouble. If only Israel had been available before World War II...
Rsoluiot
n141 provded for both an Israeli stae tAND a Palestinian state. The land was usurped by Jordan . Tell Jordan to give the Palestinians land. No Israeli began the 1948 war when the land was taken by Jordan and only UN intervenion gave them more land. I guess the US should give back most of the West to the native or Firt Amercans?
Should clear up the problem you seem to be having in typing at the same time it clears up the problem you are having with keeping a grip of facts.
Unfortunately, Europe really doesn't care, certainly not about Jews, and not about palestinians.
Most of Europe will vote for this *state* simply because they a seek to appease the arab world which supplies them with oil..hope to avoid terrorism...and placate their own restless muslim populations.
"hope to avoid terrorism...and placate their own restless muslim populations." let me guess : you're not european and have never been in continental Europe in your life?
And that is their stance on Kosovo statehood. If a few years of futile 'negotiations' is enough to establish that an agreement by both parties is not going to happen, surely decades of futile 'negotiations' should be enough to establish that an agreement by both parties is not going to happen, and instead the EU should act again as if an agreement that complies with international law and human rights has in fact been reached, recognise statehood based on those two principles, and hope that in the future the intransigent party will realise that it cannot force the world into making an exception to what are supposed to be universal prinicples and rights.
In agreeing to even hear the PA application for "statehood", the U.N. is ripping up its own Charter, and opening the door to any group or dissident organization (Basques, the IRA, Quebec separatists, kurds, etc.)
The Israelis, under successive governments, have offered everything they could, without fatally endangering their security. The Palestinians have not conceded a single issue. With the West weka and divided, I greatly fear the following scenario.
Palestinian demonstrations, including rock throwing and danger to settlements is met with a stiff Israeli response. Hamas again rains rockets down on Israeli civilians in the south, and Israel again is forced to respond in force. Egypt and Turkey intervene on behalf of Hamas, and Hezbollah gets into the act, supported by Syria and Iran.
The Arab refusal to accept the secure existence of a single nation state of the Jewish People is the tip of the spear of rising Islamism, and the dogs of war are about to be set free.
"In agreeing to even hear the PA application for "statehood", the U.N. is ripping up its own Charter" : so, if you disagree with someone, you shouldn't even allow them to express themselves, interesting view about freedom.
"The Israelis, under successive governments, have offered everything they could" like what for instance? more settlements? the reality is that Olmert and Netanyahu were against any peace process from the start.
"the tip of the spear of rising Islamism" May you explain to me how you can go from a request to the UN which has nothing to do with religion to islamism?
They signed the Oslo Accords, under which they agreed to negotiate any outstanding issues, and end violence. They neither ended violence, and have refused to negotiate for the last 3 years. Abandoning negotiations in favour of an attempt to put international pressure on Israel is a violation of the agreements, which established the P.A. in the first place. No adherence to agreement - no P.A.
"so, if you disagree with someone, you shouldn't even allow them to express themselves,"
They can, and have been "expressing themselves" for years. However, to have the U.N. consider an application for statehood by a non-state entity, without any of the trappings within the definition of "statehood", is an outright abrogation of the U.N. Charter.
can you blockade them???? God sure made a good chouice on the chosen - how mot to do things like these - hummmmm id's
One can make an impeccably logical case for the Earth being flat, as long as you exclude the evidence for it being not from your arguments.
The ten points :
1/Barak and Sharon tried to do something in favor of a two-state solution, Olmert and Netanyahu did nothing in this direction.
2/unilateralism? pure fantasy, to want to be recognised by the united nations is not something that can harm anybody.
3/Do you know anything about Palestine, really? this is your most absurd point.
4/So what? Of course, european countries should support democracy and human rights for the entire world. They won't do anything when they are not involved but if you ASK them, why would they deny anybody their rights?
5/Yes, the arab world with less than 10% of global GDP and small weak markets is economically blackmailing the far wealthier European Union, the biggest economic group on the planet. Of course, and, the same way, Lesotho is threatening of boycotting the US (terrifying).
6/How can we not see it? Anyone who disagree with the Israelian government is an antisemite (and because of History, Europeans in general are all antisemites). And you're talking of below the belt...
7/ and 8/ For you, anyone who disagrees with the israelian government is a bad guy, we've understood.
9/ and 10/ you don't really make any point there...
I hope European countries will vote yes.
And Norway, one of the most free ,democratic and transparent nations in the world has today said it would vote FOR a Palestinian state
I don't get what you're trying to say.
India is a subcontinent and happens to be a democracy, so it is the largest. It doesn't mean they're correct in their support for a Pal. state.
but heres the part u dont get..............this article wants the best democracies to support netanyahu, yet India and Norway say nope, we support Palestine.
now do you get it??