Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and chair of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), plans to call on the United Nations in September to admit a Palestinian state as a full member of the organization.
Abbas' U.N. strategy threatens to put the Palestinian leadership on a political and diplomatic collision course with Israel and the United States. Yet the move does not merit opposition, let alone a direct confrontation. While U.S. and Israeli officials decry the move as an act of "unilateralism" aimed at avoiding negotiations and "delegitimizing" Israel, in reality it is none of these.
Contrary to perception, the Palestinians are not seeking either statehood or recognition from the United Nations, but full membership in it as an existing state. This would require Security Council approval and a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, making it a quintessentially multilateral act. In any case, the United States will surely veto the Palestinians' bid, forcing them to settle for a simple majority in the General Assembly to become a "nonmember state."
Abbas' gesture is therefore largely symbolic. But this is not to say that it is an empty gesture. The PLO's primary aim is to regain some badly needed political leverage by forcing a shift in the cost-benefit calculations of Israel and the United States. Palestine's admission to the United Nations would, in Abbas' view, transform the conflict into a matter of one member state violating the sovereign rights of another. In short, Palestinians hope to use the bid to pressure Israel and the United States to engage in more equitable negotiations, whether these take place before, after, or instead of the U.N. vote.
This strategy did not come about in a vacuum or overnight. Its roots lie in the belief, long held by ordinary Palestinians, that two decades of "peace processing" have failed not only to produce tangible benefits but actually yielded a great many losses. The Arab Spring also played a role by forcing Abbas to reassess his political priorities and increasing the cost of continuing to ignore his public opinion. Even before the Arab uprisings, senior Palestinian officials had privately acknowledged that the PA's legitimacy was "hanging by a thread."
Far from negating the possibility of peace negotiations, therefore, the Palestinians' U.N. gambit is aimed at strengthening their negotiating posture vis-à-vis Israel and the United States while improving the domestic standing of Abbas and his colleagues. A U.N. vote will not end the Israeli occupation or create a sovereign state on the ground. But by registering it officially with the United Nations, the Palestinians hope to preserve the option of a two-state solution, now rapidly being foreclosed by Israel's ever-expanding settlement enterprise, until Israel and the United States can pursue it more seriously.
That U.S. and Israeli officials are prepared to go to the mat to prevent even a symbolic move toward statehood -- a goal both governments otherwise claim to support -- is nothing short of bizarre. American and Israeli opposition is all the more baffling when considering the alternatives on the Palestinian side. Over Abbas' shoulder sits Hamas, whose violent past and ambivalence toward a two-state solution make it an unlikely peace partner. Just beyond the horizon, however, is a new generation of Palestinians who are not wedded to the two-state solution and even less so to the peace process and who will, sooner or later, catch the revolutionary bug sweeping the region.
Whether the U.N. bid is successful, it is already bearing fruit. For the first time in many years, it is the Palestinians who are setting the agenda. Nevertheless, the plan entails some serious risks. Most crucial for the Palestinians is the risk of alienating Israel and the United States, both of which seem determined to defeat the measure even before it gets to a vote and are threatening to punish the Palestinians if its does. The bid also risks unduly raising the expectations of the Palestinian people, further undercutting the PA's credibility. On the other hand, withdrawing the initiative at this stage would likely deal an even more severe blow to Abbas and his leadership.
Rather than viewing the Palestinians' U.N. bid as a threat to a moribund peace process, the United States should see it as an opportunity to reset a failed and severely outdated approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It should seek to preempt the U.N. vote by working with other key international actors to develop a bold, new initiative that spells out the requirements for a comprehensive resolution to the conflict (the outlines of which are already known) and then marshaling broad international support for it.
Short of this kind of bold initiative, even if the U.S. government does convince the Palestinians to abandon their U.N. bid, it will only have succeeded in delaying, rather than preventing, a more serious crisis down the road.
Khaled Elgindy is a visiting fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He served as an adviser to the Palestinian leadership on permanent-status negotiations with Israel in 2004-9. This article is adapted from a longer version in the September/October issue of "Foreign Affairs."
Rabbi Yonah Bookstein: Israeli Embassy Pogrom Is a Sign of What's to Come
BBC News - Q&A: Palestinian statehood bid at the UN
Palestine, the UN, and international law - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Barack Obama: No Palestinian state via U.N. - Politico Staff ...
Fouad Ajami: The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State - WSJ.com
If the US vetos this application they will be saying that International Law is not a valid method of resolving international territorial disputes. Which will of course will have dramatic unintended consequences when for example; China makes territorial land graps in the East China Sea.
At some point, Blame and Victimhood are no-return investments.
“The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.”
By the way, how's that for honest brokership? Palestine merely announces its intention to seek recognition at the UN (a goal that both America and Israel claim to support) and the Palestinians are threatened with getting their aid cut off. Yet when Israel announced its intention to unilaterally construct illegal settlements on land that is supposed to be negotiated over (which America claims to oppose), rather than threaten to cut off funding, America begged Israel and tried to bribe them with billion-dollar incentives over and above the 3 billion that Israel is already guaranteed annually, no questions asked. When Israel said "screw you", America said, "okay, no hard feelings."
Israel accepted the palestinian state in 1948.
It was the palestinians and the entire arab league who rejected that state becuase to do so meant they would have to accept Israel--a non muslim state.
The reality is that the arab world does not accept the solution that the UN devised under UN 181.
Had they done so, the conflict would not exist today.
And while this "right to exist" is a major theme of the Zionist narrative, what exactly does this mean? The right to a Jewish National Home, or a Jewish State? The right to exist on 1948 Mandate Palestine or within pre-1967 borders. Does it mean the right to exist as a “Jewish” State or a “Democratic” State? It doesn’t matter, they have to say these words or we won’t even talk to them!
Even though Israelis themselves cannot agree on what this “right to exist” means, it is unequivocally demanded of the disposessed Palestinians as a pre-requisite before negotiations. Think about what this means for the Palestinians.
They have to unilaterally declare "Israel’s" (whatever that means) “right to exist” (whatever that means), that is, the very legitimacy of their dispossession and expulsion without qualification, before they can even be considered worthy of being spoken to!
But as the current Zionist gymnastics about the upcoming vote at the UN shows, there can be NO discussion whatsoever about a reciprocial "recognition" of "Palestine," despite its explicit reference to 1967 borders, even by the UN.
As I said before, Zionist hypocricy on this issue is simply stunning.
The demand that the Palestinians acknowledge some sort of immutable Jewish character of Israel before negotiations can commence (i.e., a precondition) because of what other nearby states did several decades ago just doesn't make any sense.
If this acknolwdgement is a deal-breaker for the peace process, then make it one of Israel's demands in the final status issues, but don't make it a precondition to negotiations...
Personally, if I were an Israeli, I would be affronted by the concept that Israel demands that it be recognized based on a predetermined religious character, rather than as a democracy of its citizens. Moreso if I were a non-Jewish citizen of Israel.
Yasser Arafat has already recognized Israel's right to exist.
1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:
September 9, 1993
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html
If Yasser Arafat can do it, I am sure Mahmoud Abbas can do it.
The International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, among many other international institutions have recently declared them fully ready for statehood. The US is going to look like a fool for opposing the move, when we have repeatedly stated we support Palestinian statehood.
So what do we do about E. jerusalem and ROR. There cannot be a state until we resolve those 2 issues, as well as finaling the land swaps.
The problem is the details, not the concept.
Whether the Palestinians choose to negotiate about the later, (I can not see the negotiating about the former), is entirely up to the Palestinians.
Zionists can not deny the ROR just because it would mean they are no longer a majority in Israel. Either you believe in democracy or you don't, and most Zionists say they do, but really don't.
The PLO's primary goal is to gain a capitol as a staging ground for continued violent confrontation with Israel, with the ultimate goal of complete acquisition. Even Benny Morris, who is often quoted by the pro-Arab side as a credible and competent historian acknowledges this point.
But can anyone identify another example where a state sought UN recognition as an existing state, whereby their claimed borders overlapped another UN Member's territory?
And in this case, the borders Abbas is seeking recognition of would have the Western Wall of the Second Temple of Solomon as part of Palestine, along with the "old city". That would be as if the Hebrews sought to claim territorial sovereignty over "The Sacred Temple" in Mecca, through a petition to the UN.
(Maybe that should be the Israeli response). If I were Israel's PM, I would do it just for general principle. At least go for Medina, which was a Jewish town. The word "Medina" BTW means "Nation" in Hebrew. The inference being "nation in exile".
It is pretty sad that you are not kidding about this. Just because Israel is an expansionist colonial power doesn't mean anyone recognizes their stated borders. For the record, NO ONE recognizes their claim to the occupied territories.
Just because no one recognizes Israel's territorial sovereignty over parts of Israel's claimed territory, does not mean that everyone automatically recognizes the Pal/Arab claim either. Neutrality on that issue is definitely in play. The only open question is, how much in play.
For a comprehensive analysis on the true nature of the legal disposition of Jerusalem, please refer to:
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2011/01/video-dr-jacques-gauthier-whose.html
and
http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/misconceptions-regarding-israels-legal-foundation-under-international-lawhoward-grief.html
and
http://www.globalpolitician.com/26079-israel-west-bank-settlements
The reason most of the world prefers to disregard these legal elements is because the international court which was supposed to have jurisdiction over disputes of this nature no longer exists. But that does not mean that the Hebrew's right have expired. Quite the contrary.
The numerous Jews who lived in the balance of the Mid East prior to WW1 were subjects of the Turkish-Ottoman Empire, just exactly the same as ever single Arab person in the ME. As "Palestine" was a PROVINCE and NOT a nation, all were Turks and so those Jews moving to Palestine were essentially the same as Virginians moving to Boston. NOT "colonialists".
The Jews living in what is today Jordan were also "Palestinians" only they were either expelled (including East Jerusalem in 1948) or in tghe case of the rest of the Hashimite Kingdom, were simply denied citizenship even though their families went back 3,400 years. Refugees, NOT "colonialists".
Lastly, the 400,000 Jews who escaped the "final solution" were also REFUGEES.
Calling them "colonialists" is pathetically unfair and improper. Had the USA (for example) offerd these 400,000 refuge following WW2, would they still be "colonialists" as US citizens? As I said, pathetic.
- That the "UN gambit" (as you call it) constitutes an infringement of official PA commitments -- and hence it makes anything this "government" promises or signs worthless;
- That the same "gambit" is an attempt to gain recognition WITHOUT ending the conflict;
- That the PA asks for "recognition" (that's the whole point of "UN membership") of a "Palestinian State", while at the same time refusing to admit that Jews have the right to a state of their own;
- That while the PA wants a state, it ludicrously ALSO wants to "return" its nationals to the territory of ANOTHER STATE -- a demand unheard of in the history of mankind;
- That while the PA wants to present this "gambit" as "an act of desperation caused by Israeli intransigence", in reality IT (not Israel) has turned down at least 3 generous two-state offers, which included 96-98% of the territory they SAY they want. And that since then the PA (NOT Israel) has been torpedoing any possibility of negotiations, including a 10-month settlement freeze.
- That in view of the "track record" of PA/PLO (and of Arabs in general) in terms of living up to commitments and peace treaties (including the recent attack against Israel's embassy in Cairo and the calls for cancelling the peace treaty), Israel has every right to be distrustful of anything the PA says or does.
Self-detemination means that the Palestinians get to decide on their own form of government. Sure, most people would prefer if it were a free and open democracy, with guarantees of equal rights, free expression and transparency. Sure, other countries might condition their offers of aid or support on certain forms of govenance, BUT failure of the new Palestinain state to comply with your personal preferences of governmental structures is no a basis for denying them self-determination and autonomy.
No arab nation contributes anything of any significance to the UN, yet use the UN when, and only when, it is to their benefit. If you don't like it, how about you start and fund a global organization.
This behavior of the "honest" broker causes one to very deeply question the intentions of the US in having Israel as its asset. What is the strategic goal of the USA and Israel? What do they want?
Can Israel offer some borders, or does she want the entire Middle East? Israel demands ALL of Jerusalem, will not allow even a sliver of it to the Palestinians, although by the UN they have a right to East Jerusalem. What else does greedy Israel want?
How do you negotiate with a state that institutionalizes "living room" in claiming that its citizens have a right to settle near an ever expanding Israel whenever they like? What state on earth can get away with this?
Actually, according to the UN neither Israel nor the palestinains have a right to east jerusalem, it's supposed to be an international city. The UN has never passed a resolution changing this original position on the future of jerusalem. However, the palestinians and their Jordanian allies occupied east jerusalem in 1948 and proceeded to cleanse it of it's jewish citizens and residents, but you don't seem to have a problem with that.
As a practical matter, however, everyone acknowledges that the UN is not going to go into West Jerusalem and kick out the IDF. We are now talking about compromises necessary to allow a lasting peace, not simply what is technically correct under plans and papers and resolutions from several decades ago.
From a real politic standpoint, to reach a lasting peace (which would have to be just, to be lasting), both sides are going to have to give up something they value. Ultimately I see that choice to coming down to East Jerusalem or RoR -- the Palestinians are going to have to give up one for the other, and the Israelis are going to have to accept one or the other.
A final status agreement that gives one side nearly everything they want, and the other very little (regardless of the sides, mind you) is not a recipie for long-term stability, which should be every even-handed observer's goal.
Turkey...
No land or resources are left whatsoever for a Palestinian state: Israel occupied 78%of Arab historic Palestine in 1947/8 and 22% in 1967 (West Bank, Gaza and most importantly Jerusalem which was built by the Canaanite Arabs long before there ever were Jews on earth) AND again Israel annexed-slowly but surely by implanting settlements in full day light- over 58% of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem-leaving less than 10% of original Arab historic Palestine for a Palestinian state. Israel continues to confiscate land held by Palestinian Muslim and Christian families for generations and build condos where there subsidies rent for radical Jewish families only too willing to terrorize neighbors.
Israeli defense minister Yahoud Barrack once said: “If I were a Palestinian I would be a terrorist.”
What happened in 61?
“Expectations will have been raised very high. But the economy will still be the economy, the situation on ground will remain the situation on the ground. The [Palestinian people] will not have any more sovereignty, freedom or autonomy than they feel today."