This month, New York will witness the first comprehensive international gathering since the astounding Arab Awakening in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria, which started earlier this year and which has unsettled and embarrassed many a major power. At the forefront of such powers, are none other than Russia and China, given their stances resisting regime change in Libya and Syria. Then there is the United States, now tainted by embarrassment from the standpoint of the Palestinian-Israeli question, because of its resistance to the accession of the state of Palestine to the United Nations; and after having failed to persuade Israel to stop illegal settlement activity. For no matter what the Palestinian strategy shall bring about, whether in terms of full accession to the UN or the recognition of Palestinian statehood, the vast majority of countries are fully aware that the U.S. administration dares not implement the pledges and promises it has made, exactly because of the Israel lobby's huge influence in U.S. elections.
Consider the case of South Sudan, which became the 193 member of the United Nations in an incredibly swift manner, following a political decision that the Obama administration helped impose as a fait accompli. By contrast, Palestine shall not be the 194th member of the international organization, also because of an American political decision coupled with threats, and warnings along the lines of suspending aid to the Palestinian Authority.
These double standards cause embarrassment within the U.S. administration itself, due to the impunity continually afforded to the government of Israel, while granting the latter whatever it may ask. This is true even when Israel challenges U.S. national interests with its intransigence and resistance to the two-state solution, over which there is consensus in the international community today. Here, the weakest link are the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, and also the Palestinian Authority.
For this reason, it may be in line with Palestinian interests not to go too far in embarrassing the Obama administration and losing its good faith as a result, something that would translate into a gift directly given to the Israeli government. It may be best for the Palestinians to help maintain the unified European position over their cause, and invest in the U.S. administration by means of a cumulative strategy that would ultimately lead to the admission of the Palestinian state to the United Nations.
Such a strategy, if coupled with an awareness campaign and a peaceful effort to lobby international public opinion -- including the Israeli public opinion -- could lead to isolating the Israeli government and robbing it of its dream of a U.S.-Palestinian estrangement, and the fragmentation of pertinent European stances, which have so far been coherent with regard to the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people. In such a manner, the Palestinian Authority would also be acting with a sense of collective responsibility towards the Arab developments as they are being raised on the international scene.
For instance, Libya's still in 'intensive care', and it requires the best efforts of the international community so as not to fall prey to neglect or the hasty assumption that it has now fully recovered. Then there is Syria, which is currently proving to be a major challenge for the international community, particularly since Russia and China continue to oppose any serious pressure on the government of Bashar al-Assad, while bearing in mind that both countries have since backtracked on their defiance with regard to the Libyan question.
It is best here for Palestine not to be used once again as a bargaining chip for barters and one-upmanship, and for the Palestinian leadership to be afforded good faith, instead of compromising it.
Talk of the conduciveness of Lebanon's presidency of the Security Council to the Palestinian issue fall but under exaggeration, sycophancy, and political grandstanding. For one thing, the U.S. administration has made it clear that it would use its veto power to prevent the Security Council from adopting a resolution on Palestinian statehood, even if the resolution is to be supported by 14 members, and this may not happen if the Europeans see a flaw in the Palestinian strategy or a deliberate effort therein to embarrass Washington just for the sake of it.
If the Palestinian strategy opts to go to the Security Council, the procedures in force require the Palestinians to make a formal request to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to make a recommendation to the Security Council to favorably consider the admission of Palestine as a member to the UN. The Security Council would subsequently have to issue a resolution recommending, in turn, the General Assembly to approve the request.
But since the United States has made it unequivocally clear that it would prevent the Security Council from issuing such a resolution, Lebanon's presidency is meaningless here save for the fact that it would be presiding over a session of failure, of political confrontation with the United States, and of losing European unity over solidarity with the Palestinian cause.
This is hardly an achievement. Perhaps Damascus and Tehran would find that to be indeed an achievement, as it would expose American duplicity. However, this would not help the Palestinians under occupation in any way, nor would it help them regain their occupied territories.
Incidentally, Lebanon, in turn, is in the sphere of embarrassment, with the policy of evasiveness that it adopts with regard to the Syrian issue at the Security Council. For instance, Lebanon has dissociated itself from the presidential statement endorsed unanimously by the remainder of the Security Council members.
Lebanon is escaping forward with regard to the draft resolution being currently discussed among the members of the Security Council (This is while noting that Russia wants such a statement to merely be a call for engaging in a political process, while holding the opposition and the authorities jointly responsible for violence in Syria). By contrast, the Western nations are seeking a resolution that truly puts pressure on Damascus, with sanctions and condemnation, while refusing to hold civilians responsible for the crackdown and killing as carried out by the Syrian authorities.
Lebanon then, has not been spared the pain of embarrassment, nor does it hold the fate of Palestine's bid for UN membership except in a mere procedural and rather negative manner, if the Palestinian Authority indeed chooses to go to the Security Council.
In fact, there are Arab states in the follow-up committee headed by Qatar, which are pushing the Palestinian Authority towards confrontation with the United States in the Security Council and beyond. Some of these countries are offering alternative funding to that of the United States, should the latter decide on suspending aid to the Palestinians; and thus perceive confrontation as a means to buying off the Palestinian Cause and Palestinian leadership for ends that serve their regional and pan-Islamic ambitions around the world.
The President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas must first study in depth whether it is in the interest of the Palestinians to lose both the American weight and influence in the battle for the two-state solution and putting an end to Israeli occupation of the territories captured in 1967; and second, he must think carefully about whether he wants to become symbolic or marginal, should he "delegate" the reins of the Palestinian fate to another side, even if the latter consists of one or several Arab countries.
These are questions of momentous proportions, and Abu Mazen must mull them carefully as he studies the options of Palestinian self-determination. These are questions that the Palestinians must answer, if the Palestinian President chooses the path of "delegation".
With regard to the quandary of "going there willy-nilly", i.e. the fact that the Palestinian leadership has chosen to go to the United Nations come rain or come shine, it seems that there can now be no escape from that for political reasons. However, there are many ways to turn the embarrassment that the Palestinian Authority has caused for itself into some kind of an achievement.
For instance, the Palestinian Authority can go directly to the General Assembly, currently headed by Nassir Al-Nasser (Qatar), with a draft resolution that would ensure one hundred percent support by all EU member states, rendering it extremely difficult for the United States to vote against it or even abstain from voting.
The goal of such a resolution would be to build a solid platform for the bid for Palestinian membership in the United Nations as part of a long-term strategy that includes milestones for the mobilization of governments and public opinions in the course of its march.
A Palestinian strategy like this one would ensure unity among European stances, would show good faith to the U.S. administration, and would rob those who engage in political one-upmanship of the chance to manipulate Palestinian fate for their narrow ends. Today, there are 126 countries that have recognized the Palestinian state.
If anything, this is a testimony in favor of the right of the Palestinian people to their independent state, and to ridding themselves of the occupation that is essentially a violation of basic human rights.
Because it is so, the Palestinian strategy can work hand in hand with international human rights organizations. Those organizations wield in today's world huge influence in terms of altering the course of oppression and ousting tyrants. These organizations are bold, and have a global reach, and it is high time for them to be welcomed as partners in the legitimate Palestinian aspirations.
Then there is the Palestinian Spring, which troubles Israel especially if takes on a peaceful form, as with civil disobedience. There is also a significant movement within Israel and among the Jewish organizations in the United States and Europe which are proclaiming resoundingly that Palestine has a right to statehood, and to ending the occupation that has lasted more than 40 years.
A cumulative approach is therefore more advantageous to Palestinian aspirations than a strategy of confrontation or impetuous diplomacy.
President Mahmoud Abbas remains a safety valve for these aspirations, as he is aware of the tragedies engendered by involving the Palestinians in armed confrontations or turning their country into a battlefield for a proxy war. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has delivered on his promise to build the institutions of the Palestinian state, and he is also aware of the importance of continued European-American support for this endeavor financially, politically and morally.
These two men carry on their shoulders the responsibility for the salvation of the Palestinian people from occupation and for the establishment of their independent state, and the international community is committed to supporting their aspirations, whether the U.S. Congress accepts this or not.
The fact of the matter is that this Congress serves as a testimony of how the world's only superpower can be thwarted from acting in manner that suits its prominence and leadership. It is a source of embarrassment for the American people because the U.S. Congress seems to be perpetually unable to think in the logic of American national interests, so long as it is focused on self-interest.
The U.S. Congress is also hostile to the Palestinians, and appears to be in an aggressive and harmful temper today, so it is best to avoid providing it with more pretexts for further vindictiveness. It suffices to rob it of this pleasure, if not of the ability to instill animosity with the Palestinians and to force the Obama administration to follow suit.
The priorities of Mahmoud Abbas must include preserving what has already been achieved, without making excuses for the U.S. Congress or the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which is currently experiencing isolation and extreme embarrassment. The kind of approach followed in going to the United Nations may perhaps help end Israel's isolation if the wrong choice is made, and may step up this isolation, if the right decision is taken.
The Palestinian President is not in a predicament. He is in the process of maintaining the independence of the Palestinian decision-making process. And herein lie the difficulties, and the wager on making the right decision.
Follow Raghida Dergham on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raghidadergham
Rabbi Yonah Bookstein: Israeli Embassy Pogrom Is a Sign of What's to Come
Giving them statehood and a place at the UN table will not change that.
Israel collects their taxes. They control their Borders. They impose a crushing Military occupation under which land is stolen bu the settlers every day, and massive amounts of violence (both physical, legal and spiritual) are perpetrated against the Palestinians with impunity.
Checkpoints prevent free movement. Settler only roads cut up the land scape and make travel onerous as one must often travel great distances and wait for long periods in order to progress a relatively short way.
TO be sure, Israel is the defacto dictator of the Palestinian people, and in that regard, are far more repressive and cruel than Mabarek, Assad, or Gahdaffi ever were to their own people, and when the non violent protests against Israel start after the Palestinians declare a state on 67 borders, Israel will prove themselves equally or even more capable than those other dictators in spilling the blood of the innocent in an effort to crush resistance to their illegal settler based regime.
Giving them statehood and a place at the UN will in fact HIGHLIGHT the singularly repressive and illegal nature of Israels occupation and settlements and forever change the narrative about Israel as a partner for peace world wide, but rather put them is the same or a WORSE light than the Afrikaner government in South Africa.
You clearly have no idea how these Arab dictators treat(ed) their own citizens, let alone the Palestinian "refugees" within their borders. Palestinians, for example, live under the worst conditions in "refugee" camps in Arab countries like Iraq and Syria and Jordan and Lebanon, than the Palestinian living in the wb.
In fact, if you look at the UN statistics, you will find that more palestinians have been killed by other palestinians in gaza and the WB, usually under the auspices of hamas of fatah authority, than have been killed by the IDF or Israelis. For that matter, more syrians have been killed in the past several months by the Syrian regime that Palestinians killed by Israel over the past 63 years. The same if true for egyptians during their revolution and libyans during their revolution. But those facts are inconvenient and do not aid in your argument of evil Israelis and good Arabs.
Israel is more repressive than Syria, Libya, Egypt? Do you ever read about those countries? Israel haters all always ready to give a pass to Arab dictators, because they are.... not Israel.
Let's see what Libya has been up to:
http://www.hrw.org/news-filter/232
Libya: Evidence Suggests Khamis Brigade Killed 45 Detainees
Libya: Gaddafi Forces Suspected Of Executing Detainees
Libya: 10 Protesters Apparently Executed
Libya: End Indiscriminate Attacks in Western Mountain Towns
Libya: Cluster Munitions Strike Misrata
Libya: At Least 370 Missing From Country's East
Libya: Security Forces Fire on Protesters in Western City
They live in fear and under occupation. Their leaders have not particularly served them, but they cannot make one move without Israel's approval.THey have no freedom of movement, very little work, and no hope for the future.That is why they are going ahead with statehood. Israel has been the master for too long.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/poll-leading-eu-countries-support-palestinian-statehood-bid-in-un-1.384015
Ironic eh? The Palestinian people want statehood, the world is supporting it.
Read carefully and try to see if you can find any indication where I have said Europeans never make mistakes. Seeing things that are not there?
While Fayyad and, to a lesser extent, Abbas have started the painstaking tasks of state-building, Hamas refuses to allow Fayyad to have even a minor role in the new "unity" government which is not, in fact, unified at all. Abbas seems to be appeasing Hamas to retain some semblance of agreement, but that comes at the cost of cutting out the very policies and people which have for the first time laid the groundwork for a viable Palestinian state and instead embracing the elements--refusal to negotiate or compromise, dedication to Israel's destruction--which have made it impossible.
While supporters of this Palestinian bid for recognition would have us believe a no vote is a vote against the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, in reality it is a vote to do the hard work to create a state which will be viable and will live in peace with its neighbors. That means reining in violent factions like Hamas and committing to a peaceful solution by negotiating with Israel.
There are no short-cuts to this.
There needs to be a fair deal in place, and if the Palestinians are to have a state, they need to act like one. No terrorism, no antagonizing Israel. Israel needs to do the same.
If either side proceeds to do something to constitute an act of war, I'm more than fine with them beating the crap out of one another.
Same....
Though not until both sides are equal in military might. With one side heavily subsidized, as it stands, it would be yet another calamity upon the P@|3stinians.....
Compromise is usually better than confrontation. But Arab "leaders" are always incapable of compromise. Part of the reason is the cultural make-up, which over-develops masculine ego. The other part, however, is fear of their own "constituencies":none of these "leaders" are elected freely & fairly. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence (and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) they are NOT "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Their "authority" is entirely based on use & threat of force. Hence the need to always appear intransigent, the fear of making compromises which may be seen as "signs of weakness". Also, an external enemy or "occupier" is a God-send for a tyrant: it provides the scapegoat to blame for all the problems & mishaps. But there's a catch: the more of this "blaming" goes on, the less the tyrant is capable of striking a deal or even of stopping. It is all spiraling towards confrontation. The tyrant ends up by losing control and is forced (by the mob "inertia" he himself initiated) to go head first into conflict, even when he knows he'll lose. For typical examples of this behavior see Nasser in 1967, Arafat in late 1970s--early 1980s and Hamas in 2008.
- The "settlements" sit on less than 2% of the West Bank (by PA's own admission).
- Any peace treaty will naturally include agreements on fair division of water -- the peace treaty with Jordan does.
- Any peace treaty will naturally include complete freedom of movement within the territory of the Palestinian state.
- In peace (but NOT in war), it is Israel's interest for its neighbors to thrive. Rich neighbors can buy stuff and increase your own wealth. Poor neighbors are a curse. However, if the economy of an independent Palestine thrives or not depends on Palestinians, not Israel. So far, none of the Arab countries "thrives" economically -- and it's NOT because of Israel.
- The Arabs' inability to admit that Jews have a legitimate claim to self-determination in even part of their ancestral homelands (see your "declaring this state on stolen land") is part of that inability to compromise -- and the only real obstacle to peace. Until and unless Arabs understand that Jews have AT LEAST the same right as they demand for the Palestinians, there will NOT be peace.
The Palestinian dictatorship known as "Jordan" already has a seat at the UN.
The UN (where dictatorships already outnumber democracies) is badly in need of yet another Arab dictatorship, to "complement" the 22 it already counts as members.
That would be as big a folly depending on the Mubarak family staying in power indefinitely....
OK. Nothing, then.
One thing is missing here - Gaza and Hamas.
The article assumes that Abbas and Fayyad would be able to keep their powers and that Hamas will not start another round of escalation to interfere with their activities. I wish it will be like this. But I'm too pessimistic - in ME things often work according to Murphy law. " If anything can go wrong, it will."
(I know you like the Taliban but we're not talking about Muslim parties).
But this not the only issue that both Israel and Palestinians need to work on. There are many others and not less critical.
But to get to these issues, they first need to agree on bigger things like peace and borders. That was the article about and that was my comment about.
I know that this is your style - when you have nothing to contribute to the particular topic, you just pulling our your usual propaganda.
Low economic growth and lower than expected donor assistance have resulted in an acute financial crisis, World Bank says; only fraction of desired $1.4 billion donor support has been raised.
Full story: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=237584
I feel the Palestinians should proudly stand up in front of the world and demand their rights. If they don't they will remain abused by the Israelis.
What are those "rights", may one ask?!
I suggest the poster reads the Charter of the PLO, the organization that set up the Palestinian Authority, and the Charter of the Fatah, the organization that makes up the majority within the PLO.
I also suggest the poster reads the Charter of Hamas, the organization that controls Gaza and the one that won a majority vote in the 2006 elections (elections have not been held since).
The essence of all of these Charters and their common denominator is: Israel, it being the liberal democratic UN member state, the nation-state of the Jewish people, has no right to be, to exist as such on any parcel of land between the River and the Sea. And, any trace of Jewish life in this homeland of 4,000 years of the Jewish people and the cradle of Judaism, the civilization of the Jewish people, must not remain in the country.
Can the poster identify with these, what the Arabs of the Land call, 'rights'...??
The Palestinians have a RIGHT, an unalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, none of which are possible under permanent Israeli military occupation.
Either you believe this, or you reject the constitution of these United States and the principles for which is stands.
I am curious, what pledges and promises has the US made that they aren't trying to implement? I am not a fan of President Obama - but it seems to me ha has bent over backwards to try and show the Palestinians that he wants to work with them for Peace...he got Israel to agree to a 10 month moratorium on building in/around Jerusalem and the Palestinians waited until the 10 months were almost up before even agreeing to sit and discuss the preconditions to sitting down and talking.
Other than President Obama sending in troops to forcefully move settlers out of the disputed territories - what would you have him do at this point? Negotiations are just that negotiations, they are to be used to determine what the final plan will be...the problem may be that there is no one for Israel to negotiate with, is Hamas or the PA in charge????
Israel is in breach of several of the conventions relating to these and it behoves the US to take its part in preventing such breaches rather than materially aiding them.
I am also curious about something - and this isn't really insignificant: two parties go to war - and a cease fire is negotiated, something (in this case borders) are to be negotiated AFTER the fighting has stopped...it would seem based on the Geneva Convention to not be in the winning sides best interests to sign the cease fire.
I mean let's look at the facts on the ground, Israel has consistently sought peaceful compromise with its Palestinian Arab neighbors, but Palestinian leaders have rejected the territorial compromises that would have allowed them to create the first Palestinian Arab state in history: in 1937, 1947, 1967, 1979, 2000, and 2008. They were even offered a plan that would have given them parts of East Jerusalem as their capital and yet they still said "no".
So I will ask again, and why would any country agree to a cease fire if they are winning? Why not wait until the losing side sues for peace and gives you everything you want?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/world/middleeast/08briefs-Israel.html?ref=world
Ah yes, the path of wisdom. Who can doubt it.
Rejecting U.N. mandated division. A division that would've given Arabic Palestinains more land than can possibly get today.
Electing Gruppenfuehrer Al Husseini as their leader.
Assassination of Jordanian King.
Attempted take- over of Jordan.
Occupation of Southern Lebanon.
Refusal to form a state during 19 year Arab control of W. Bank, Gaza and E. Jerusalem.
Siding with Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini.
Rejection of Camp David. Taba and Annapolis.
Unilateral moves in U.N. that will virtually guarantee a deal far smaller than Camp David.
Wise is not the word.
I lost you after this point....
Will the UN determine who is in-fact the legitimate government for the Palestinians and Palestine? I mean you have the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza - or will the UN have the nerve to make two states one on the West Bank and one in Gaza?
For Israel two Palestinian countries actually have an advantage - any call for allowing Palestinians to travel between the two separate countries would NOT be Israels problem...it is like asking the United States to allow Mexican Nationals to travel though the United States without the US being allowed to have controls of their own borders (and while plenty seem to think that is a great idea) no country can survive without the ability to secure their own borders.