Palestine Ploy
"The Palestinians asked the European Union (EU) ...to back their plan to have the UN Security Council recognize an independent Palestinian state without Israeli consent.."
Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2009
If Israel won't give them the state they want, why not just declare independence? Just run the flag of Palestine up the flagpole, and see who salutes it?
The Arab League has already saluted it, and sympathy for the "plight of the Palestinians" is rampant in Europe as well as in all Muslim countries. Even the United States has supported the concept of a State of Palestine under three presidents (1), and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared such an entity absolutely necessary.
Actually there are several major downsides for the Palestinians in making a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Such a move would render the Oslo Accords, formalized in the presence of President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993, a dead letter. Under this agreement, the Palestine Authority (PA) continues to receive substantial aid from Israel, including transfer of importation taxes. Without those funds, the PA would have to beg for help from other Arab states. Israel could also seal its border with the new state, thus depriving Palestinians of consumer goods and electricity. Palestine could continue to trade with Jordan, but that may prove insufficient.
Even if the EU supports UN recognition for a unilaterally-declared State of Palestine, the Associated Press article quoted above predicts that the United States would veto it. Since UDI would effectively kill the hope for a negotiated settlement that the US has championed for years, the US cannot be expected to allow the Security Council to recognize the new state. Moreover, the domestic political pressure for a veto would be overwhelming.
The UDI would not affect Gaza at all, since it is already independent in all but name. Even if Mahmoud Abbas were recognized as President of Palestine by the Arab League, the EU and the UN, he will still be President of Nothing in Gaza.
The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers on the West Bank may welcome a UDI of Palestine, since that would effectively eliminate the prospect of Israeli soldiers dragging them out of their homes in accordance with some future peace-deal with the PA. But if they defy orders by the President of Palestine to vacate their settlements, attacks by the jihadist militias aligned with Fatah (2) would be virtually certain. The settlers are well-armed, and most are veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF); I would expect them to defend their settlements just as Israelis did in the 1948 war. If Palestinian security forces and the IDF were drawn into settlement battles, the entire West Bank could be engulfed in a long and bloody war. Those Arabs staring down the barrel of an IDF tank may be comforted by the thought that Mary Robinson (3) and many other Europeans are concerned about their plight, and wish them well.
When the smoke clears, the settlements will still be there, the IDF will patrol the entire West Bank, and the State of Palestine will be reduced to smoldering ruins. Then Judge Goldstone will condemn Israel for more war crimes.
And Barack Obama will send George Mitchell to the Middle East to jump-start a new round of peace talks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Bill Clinton (who offered Yasser Arafat a state). George W Bush (who convened the Annapolis Conference), and Barack Obama (who promised the Palestinians a state in his Cairo address).
(2) Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Hamas militias, though not allied with Fatah, might seize the opportunity to attack settlements in hopes of provoking clashes between the IDF and PA forces.
(3) UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002), known for her sympathy for the Palestinians.
Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2009
If Israel won't give them the state they want, why not just declare independence? Just run the flag of Palestine up the flagpole, and see who salutes it?
The Arab League has already saluted it, and sympathy for the "plight of the Palestinians" is rampant in Europe as well as in all Muslim countries. Even the United States has supported the concept of a State of Palestine under three presidents (1), and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared such an entity absolutely necessary.
Actually there are several major downsides for the Palestinians in making a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Such a move would render the Oslo Accords, formalized in the presence of President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993, a dead letter. Under this agreement, the Palestine Authority (PA) continues to receive substantial aid from Israel, including transfer of importation taxes. Without those funds, the PA would have to beg for help from other Arab states. Israel could also seal its border with the new state, thus depriving Palestinians of consumer goods and electricity. Palestine could continue to trade with Jordan, but that may prove insufficient.
Even if the EU supports UN recognition for a unilaterally-declared State of Palestine, the Associated Press article quoted above predicts that the United States would veto it. Since UDI would effectively kill the hope for a negotiated settlement that the US has championed for years, the US cannot be expected to allow the Security Council to recognize the new state. Moreover, the domestic political pressure for a veto would be overwhelming.
The UDI would not affect Gaza at all, since it is already independent in all but name. Even if Mahmoud Abbas were recognized as President of Palestine by the Arab League, the EU and the UN, he will still be President of Nothing in Gaza.
The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers on the West Bank may welcome a UDI of Palestine, since that would effectively eliminate the prospect of Israeli soldiers dragging them out of their homes in accordance with some future peace-deal with the PA. But if they defy orders by the President of Palestine to vacate their settlements, attacks by the jihadist militias aligned with Fatah (2) would be virtually certain. The settlers are well-armed, and most are veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF); I would expect them to defend their settlements just as Israelis did in the 1948 war. If Palestinian security forces and the IDF were drawn into settlement battles, the entire West Bank could be engulfed in a long and bloody war. Those Arabs staring down the barrel of an IDF tank may be comforted by the thought that Mary Robinson (3) and many other Europeans are concerned about their plight, and wish them well.
When the smoke clears, the settlements will still be there, the IDF will patrol the entire West Bank, and the State of Palestine will be reduced to smoldering ruins. Then Judge Goldstone will condemn Israel for more war crimes.
And Barack Obama will send George Mitchell to the Middle East to jump-start a new round of peace talks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Bill Clinton (who offered Yasser Arafat a state). George W Bush (who convened the Annapolis Conference), and Barack Obama (who promised the Palestinians a state in his Cairo address).
(2) Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Hamas militias, though not allied with Fatah, might seize the opportunity to attack settlements in hopes of provoking clashes between the IDF and PA forces.
(3) UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002), known for her sympathy for the Palestinians.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 1:50 PM
1 Comments:
Israeli officials have already said that Israel will annex the settlements if the Arabs declare a state. This thus is the most likely result which you have not listed.
‘If PA Declares State, Israel Will Annex Settlements'
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Follow Israel news on and .
(IsraelNN.com) A government minister publicly advised the Palestinian Authority on Monday that if it unilaterally declares a new Arab state, Israel may annex parts of Judea and Samaria. Unlike eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria remain under military rule, although all Jewish residents have the same basic rights as other Israelis.
"If the Palestinians take such a unilateral line, Israel should also consider ... passing a law to annex some of the settlements," Environment Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) said on Voice of Israel government radio.
In the video below, Cabinet Minister Dr. Uzi Landau (Israel Our Home) and MK Danny Danon (Likud) take a similarly hard line. Landau blames Netanyahu's "generosity" in accepting the "two state solution" - albeit with a demilitarized PA state - for the situation, and believes that the PA threats for a unilateral declaration of a state are a result of the concessional declarations and the building freeze in Judea and Samaria.
MK Danon says that Israel must not settle for annexing settlement blocs, but must rather annex Judea and Samaria in their entirety, except for Arab cities.
Post a Comment
<< Home