Diplomatic Warfare: Palestinians Threaten Unilateral Statehood
The rhetoric is flying these days in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that “there is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel’s side.”
He was responding to threats by chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that the Palestinian Authority would ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state in all of the post-1967 territories with its capital in East Jerusalem — part of Israel’s united capital of Jerusalem and formally under Israeli sovereignty for over four decades.
Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority and universally acclaimed moderate, has joined the fray with some immoderate words, saying: “God willing, we will soon have an independent state with its capital in Jerusalem. … Today we are renewing our commitment to the entire Palestinian people — the martyrs, the wounded and the prisoners … to continue the path to victory, the path to a free and independent Palestine.” Given that “martyrs” refers to suicide bombers and “prisoners” to convicted terrorists in Israeli jails, these words would be regarded as endorsement and encouragement of terrorism if someone less diplomatically protected and anointed than Abbas had uttered them.
Israeli leaders have fired back some warning shots.
Even some visitors from abroad have gotten into the act. Bill Clinton, speaking at the Yitzhak Rabin Center in Tel Aviv, said: “In the last 14 years, not a single week has gone by that I did not think of Yitzhak Rabin and miss him terribly. Nor has a single week gone by in which I have not reaffirmed my conviction that had he not lost his life on that terrible November night, within three years we would have had a comprehensive agreement for peace in the Middle East.” For many Israelis who lived through the drastically increased terrorism of the early “Oslo process” and then through the three years of greatly reduced terrorism during Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, the second sentence of that quote from Clinton is more than a little problematic.
To top it off, Arnold Schwarzenegger is here too, though he appears to be keeping his remarks mercifully neutral and anodyne.
What’s behind the rhetoric? The idea of a unilateral Palestinian push for statehood was broached recently by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and has been gaining steam. The Palestinians say that with the Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic talks frozen, they have no choice but to try and get their state by their own means. A quirk in that position is that, ever since Barack Obama became U.S. president, it’s Abbas who has steadfastly refused to meet with Netanyahu whereas Netanyahu has been constantly affirming his readiness to meet with Abbas and start negotiations on the two-state solution.
This is an accurate and persuasive analysis. The Palestinians are not making an opportunity for themselves but instead finding yet another way to miss an opportunity. One problem is that they have the belief that they have nothing to lose by doing so. This is the sin of the knee- jerk and foolish support given by Western Governments to supposed moderates who are in fact not really open to making peace with Israel, at all.
There are some annoying details about statehood:
1. You don’t get to tell other nations how to manage their affairs – for instance, where another county’s citizens can build houses on their own sovereign territory.
2. If you attack another country with rockets, for instance, it is called “an act of war.” The nation being attacked has a right and duty to defend its citizens with military force. That force can legitimately be used to destroy the aggressors’ ability to wage war and remove the government that initiated or allowed the aggression.
The “Palestinians” (a made-up nationality) need to be careful what they wish for.
Bibi is waging an understandable struggle for diplomatic advantage, but at the same time he keeps legitimatizing ideas–like deadly dangerous Israeli withdrawals from territory, or “peace” with that cruel despot in Damascus–that can harm Israel in the long run.
Of course all of this is irrevelant. The Palestinians, indeed the entirety of the Arab and Muslim world have no interest in any peaceful raprochement with Israel. This ‘process’ is a kabuki play. Buffoonery. Blather. If Clinton actually believed that ‘peace was at hand’ he is even a bigger fool than I thought. The Arabs have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that their ultimate goal is the elimination of Israel. Any contemporary deal is but a way station on the path to that ‘final solution’. Western Europeans are fully cognizant of this and would welcome such an outcome. Israel is regarded by the Eurotrash as that thorn in the side of world peace. The whole peace process can be boiled down into a remake of Groundhog Day .
What I don’t understand is what is there to negotiate, if Israel keeps building settlements on the proposed land base of a Palestinian state? Doesn’t that mean that there is no land for a Palestinian state?
Netanyahu himself has said that the land of Judea/Samaria (the West Bank) belongs to Israel. Therefore, what I don’t understand is – what is there to negotiate?
Since Israel will not take over the West Bank for itself, with the Palestinians there as citizens (of Israel), then, since it won’t release the land, its only ‘solution’ is to maintain it as occupied land. So, what is there to negotiate?
ETAB, #% — the so-called settlements take up about 5% of the land at issue. About 95% of these settlements (in the US, we would callmost of them suburbs or bedrom communities) are within 5 miles of the 1949 armistice lines. And the supposed expansion of those communities consists of adding more housing units within the existing footrpint. The PA already de facto controls the rest of the land that they claim to want for a state. And the Arabs have built new towns and housing in the disputed territories as well, but Arab settlements do not make the press.
As long as the deformed souls, zombies and other assorted ilk are threatening unilateral statehood for South Syrian Arabs, Israel can trump that with this: recognition of a continental preparatory regime for those parts of Asia which need it.
The last time I checked, the Middle East is in the Asian continent, so with the Israeli government being familiar with FDR’s musing about a preparatory regime for Vietnam in “Lost Crusade: America in Vietnam” by Chester L. Cooper, that gambit can be unveiled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, the Israeli cabinet, and ultimately the Knesset of Israel.
Certain things have to be in place, and frankly it is better for all to deal with what is as old as the hills, instead of just looking at the status quo. For there are Arabs who agree with one standard for all, but they are being marginalized by other Arabs who have given up their freedom of will to trudge along the road where no one benefits, and marginalized by others
outside the greater Mid East because they do not want to see the freedom which comes from setting standards at an honourable level, instead of giving in to the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.
ahad – I understand that the land base of the settlements may be small – and I can see that from a Wiki map, but they certainly aren’t close to the current Israeli border. They are spread out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
Wouldn’t this spread mean that,if Israel kept those settlements as ‘within Israel’,then, they’d have to control the roads, water supplies etc between them?
To my understanding -and this doesn’t refer to the religious belief that Judea/Samaria are by ‘right’, Jewish (as also stated by Netanyahu), but the aquifers and land are considered extremely important to Israel. Water and control of water, are vital in such an area.
As for your ‘tu quoque’ argument, that the Palestinians build in that area – why shouldn’t they?
And the PA don’t control the West Bank, de facto or de jure. They don’t control borders, roads, construction, well digging, irrigation and water use, etc.
So, my question remains. What is there to negotiate, since I think it’s obvious that Israel has no intention in giving up the West Bank.
Equally, I think it’s obvious that the Arab states have never been interested in a democratic Islam state of Palestine in their midst; they govern by tribal dictatorship..and don’t want an example of a free democratic Islamic nation in their midst.
Depending on Wiki for anything is sort of like playing blind mans’ buff…ANYONE can edit that information, and often do for political reasons. After all. Just look at any GOP politicians bio…they’re hysterical.
Be that as it may. The Palestinians have no desire to make peace with Israel. None. Looking at any PA school book for a map of Israel will show the truth to this. In PA school books, Israel doesn’t exist, only “Palestine” does…from the river to the sea.
Rich Vail – I agree that wikipedia is leftist and not always reliable, but that map is not unique to them. The fact is, the settlements are not all lumped in one area, but spread out and thus, functioning as a network ..rather than a singular geographic site…they take up a lot of ‘sovereign space.
Whether the Palestinian textbooks teach ‘one area’ is not the issue, just as the issue is not the similar ideology of Judea/Samaria belonging to Jews, by god’s will. After all, we all know that there are enough people on both sides who do not agree with this ‘orthodox’ view by both sides.
My point is that Israel has no desire to release that land base for a Palestinian state. [And neither do the Arab states want an Islamic democracy in their midst). So, I don’t know what negotiations could accomplish. Negotiate about what?
“Negotiate about what?”
Where to send the surviving “Palestininans”?
Saudi Arabia?
Yemen?
The UAE?
So many choices.
I dont guess I really understand why the US State Dept, or for that matter Israel, would object to a UN mandated Palestinian statehood is the West Bank.
I’m not entirely naive on this subject, I realize the Pals are natural born killers and will always have Israel’s final destruction as their ultimate goal ….. but what difference does it make whether the UN recognizes a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, or Israel negotiates their statehood?
I mean negotiations have been going on for how long? Does anyone really see a negotiated settlement on the horizon….. this century?
Israel at times seem to treat the Pals as their permanent dependents. They wont even cut off supplies to Hamas controlled Gaza? As long as they are occupying the West Bank all the Pals problems will be laid at their feet…… and thus ours.
What it looks like to me, someone who doesn’t have a horse in this race, is that Israel has permanent expansion and eventual annexation plans in the West Bank. And that the only negotiated settlement they would ever sign off on is one that left them with settlements and water rights, which I dont think would ever pass the international communities smell test.
Why not let them have their cess pool back? Cut off all financial and infrastructural support, and let them become wards of the UN or their Arab brothers. Somewhere Jordan and Lebanon can ship all their refugees to.
Then, if Israel still wants to negotiate, they can trade forced repatriation of their west bank settlers for all the Arab-Israelis inside Israel’s borders, and put the whole right of return saga behind them. Something they have to do before the demographic bomb goes off inside the democratic Jewish state anyway.
From RT “Something they have to do before the demographic bomb goes off inside the democratic Jewish state anyway.”
Sorry RT ,demographic threat is a leftist scracrow whose purpose is to press for more disastrous “withdrawals”
See the blogs of Yoram Ettinger or Caroline Glick for more details .
Sorry,I did mean SCARECROW
“What I don’t understand is what is there to negotiate, if Israel keeps building settlements on the proposed land base of a Palestinian state? Doesn’t that mean that there is no land for a Palestinian state?”
Sorry, you’re falling for the Pally/Leftist/Obama rhetorical equivocation of “settlement activity.” The fact is, Israel has not founded a new settlement nor expanded the area of an existing one since 2001. There is no ‘land grab’ going on.
470000 Israeli Jews migrating to the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967…… is not a “land grab”?
Your ability to see through only one side’s propaganda is commendable……
I mean you know, I’m biased towards Israel myself …… but I’m not blind.
Neither side can ever be objective on these issues ….. negotiations are no further along now than they were 20 years ago….. its disingenuous to assume a negotiated settlement is attainable.
It was a unilateral declaration, and a UN mandate, of statehood that created the problem …… why not let it be a UN mandate’s problem to fix.
….. I’ve been on Israel’s side in every war or skirmish they’ve ever had with the Arabs…… I’m not suggesting they were ever the aggressor (post 1948) …… but its obvious to me they are going to need to be forcefully restrained from taking even more land away from the Palestinians.
Frankly, right or wrong, I’m tired of being their only supporter at the UN. I’m tired of being held responsible for their survival and actions, and I’m tired of being responsible for restraining them against their attackers as well.
As far as being a strategic ally goes, they’re useless in the region. We couldn’t let them help us in any of our wars in the region. They’ve got no natural resource we covet. They are, to put it bluntly, more trouble than they are worth….. and they’re our problem and not Europe’s because we chose to be their protector for cold war reasons….. none of which any longer exist.
We should cut them loose from the American taxpayer’s tit, stop running interference for them at the UN, and let nature seeks it equilibrium in the region without outside interference.
Here in the USA there are ‘sanctuary cities’ wherin an illegal alien can find refuge from the law of the land. Aren’t there any in the ME where these Palestinians can hide out? They had their chance in 1948. A Palestinian state was defined at the same time the State of Israel was defined.
The real issue here is whether the US would veto this in the Security Council and whether the would vote no in the General Assembly.
The US is already abstaining or voting yes in cases where it has never done so. You cannot say we have a loose cannon at the UN because they represent Obama’s mindset (Ideology).
Interesting. You know that if they do declare unilateral statehood, and I think they could, one of their first acts will be to declare war on Israel. This would be the UNs nightmare, since a de facto war is just fine, but a declared war–what will the NGOs do? This will void all UN resolutions, since war has a way of undoing all of the rules and regulations that have built over a long period of time. The only serious question is Hezbollah, and whether any other Arab nation will join in. I suspect only Hezbollah will want to wade into those waters. Like I said, interesting.
@ 19: The PA would not declare war on Israel, as, if a true state of war existed between the two, Israel could legitimately bomb the crap out of them. It’s been demonstrated, in 1948, 1967, and 1973 that the Arabs cannot defeat Israel in a conventional war. That’s why they resorted to sucicide bombings. When Israel built a wall around that idea, they resorted to firing missiles…
@ ETAB: As previously mentioned, most settlements are within 5 miles of the “Green Line,” as most of the population uses WB settlements as bedroom communities for Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Yes there are several settlements that are further out inside the West Bank, but these are generally smaller. Those who live there tend to be ultra-religious, who do consider Samaria/Judea to be part of Israel proper. But this is a minority in the population. The majority of Israelis understand that the WB is not part of Israel, and that it will eventually be ceded.
The general consensus on how a final peace agreement will look has already been established: Israel retains 5-9% of the West Bank (land near the Green Line where the major settlements are) and compensates the Palestinians by ceding an equivalent amount of land from Israel proper (either Arab-heavy portions just north of the WB or land from the Negev in the south). The outpost settlements which lie deeper inside WB will have to be abandonded. There is precedent of this occurring, when Israel dismantled settlements within Siani when it established peace with Egypt, when it dismantled settlements in Gaza when it pulled out, and in Ehud Barak’s 2000 negotiation offer to Arafat. A remaining sticking point is the status of Jerusalem. But even here, if true peace is at hand, most would likely agree to ceding a small portion of Jerusalem and “custodianship” of the Temple mount, as Ehud Barak offered Arafat in 2000 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit )
Of course, dismantling settlements within WB and ceding even an inch of Jerusalem would be tremendously traumatic, but most understand that, if true peace is at hand, it’s worth it. However, given the belligerence and unwillingness to compromise on the part of the Palestinians, there is little impetus to put this plan in motion. Israelis geneally state that they are ready and willing to make the above compromises, if and when there is a true partner for peace on the side.
P.S. Insofar as the 1948 Palestinian refugees, they’d be monetarily compensated… just as soon as the 1948-1952 Jewish refugees were compensated by the Arab nations that expelled them….
There will never be a arab state on the western bank of the Jordan
This idea is built on a chmera setup by KGB on the 70′s
Nobody want it,especially the ‘palestinians’
These pseudo palestinians have never worked for generations,relying on UNRWA to survive
Obama knows about that but a powerful Jewish State works against his leftist bias
#20–We’re just speculating on the future so either of us could be correct. I’m just saying that given the Palestinian penchant for symbolism, the heavily armed and more difficult to reach Hezbollah, the fact that they already do have a de facto state and that hasn’t stopped them from trying to carry out attacks every day, the fact that they have de facto leaders who cannot perform even the simplest act of governance other than to vilify Israel, the only governmental act that they actually seem capable of is to declare war on Israel–because they sure can’t organize public works projects, create a viable economic infrastructure, create an equitable system of jurisprudence, and so on.
They are quite capable of making formal complaints to the UN about Israel. But if they are independent of Israel, then that fondness for formal declarations has only one move. That, and the fact that they’ve whipped their population into an anti-Semitic frenzy, they know that if they don’t make that declaration, their own lives are at stake.
So, that’s why I say that it’s just as rational for them, more so, to declare war than to not.
The only way I can see your scenario happening is if they back away from their independence declaration.
So we have two different speculations on what would happen. It’s up to history now. We’ve called it both ways.