Palestinians Consider Shift in Strategy on Statehood

[chimpymustgo]

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: October 20, 2010


RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinian leadership, near despair about attaining a negotiated agreement with Israel on a two-state solution, is increasingly focusing on how to get international bodies and courts to declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The idea, being discussed in both formal and informal forums across the West Bank, is to appeal to the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the signatories of the Geneva Conventions for opposition to Israeli settlements and occupation and ultimately a kind of global assertion of Palestinian statehood that will tie Israel’s hands.

The approach has taken on more weight as the stall in American-brokered peace talks lengthens over the issue of continued settlement building.

“We cannot go on this way,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a former peace negotiator who is a part of the inner ruling circle of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which oversees the Palestinian Authority. “The two-state solution is disappearing. If we cannot stop the settlements through the peace process, we have to go to the Security Council, the Human Rights Council and every international legal body.”

In an interview, she said that the P.L.O. was holding high-level discussions on these options this week.

Israeli officials reject the move as unacceptable and a violation of the 1993 Oslo accords that govern Israeli-Palestinian relations. It would also pre-empt any efforts by Israel to keep some settlements and negotiate modified borders. But the Israelis are worried. No government in the world supports their settlement policy, and they fear that a majority of countries, including some in Europe, would back the Palestinians.

The Israelis say that what is really going on is a Palestinian effort to secure a state without having to make the difficult decisions on the borders and settlements that negotiations would entail. They are pressing the Obama administration to take a firmer public stand against the new approach, but Washington has made no move to do so.

“A lot of members of the international community believe that since the Palestinians are the weaker party, if they get more support it will help them in the direct talks with us,” a senior Israeli official said. “But it works in the opposite direction. This would kill a negotiated settlement.”

-edit-

If the Palestinians were to go to the United Nations Security Council, they might well face an American veto. Therefore they might start in the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where dozens of countries would be likely to support them.

While that would be less binding, it would also provide a kind of symmetry — dark or poetic, depending on one’s perspective — with Israel. It was in the General Assembly in November 1947 that the Zionist movement achieved success through a resolution calling for the division of this land into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. Israel has long viewed that vote as the source of its international legitimacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/world/middleeast/21mideast.html?_r=1&hp

*****

Go Palestine! Take it to the UN General Assembly.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Makes sense. Israel wasn't recognized as a sovereign nation until the U.N. declared it so.

Follow the same protocol.

Do nations vote on sovereignty or is it done internally?

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. "a Palestinian effort to secure a state without having to make the difficult decisions on the

borders and settlements that negotiations would entail"

That was decided in 1947, when Israel was established. The UN could re-affirm that decision, and modify it to accommodate the 1967 borders, which is what the Palestinians are requesting - which would then leave the legitimate government of Palestine to negotiate as an equal with Israel over the fate of the settlements - such as a HUGE settlement (like the Gadsen Purchase) where Israel pays to purchase from Palestine the land of certain settlements that are contiguous with Israel's borders. That would give the Palestinians a good amount of cash money to put into rebuilding their economy, and let Israel keep a few of the older, larger settlements. Israel has no right to any land it occupied in '67, and if they want to keep it they need to PAY for it. And of course, the Palestinians do not have to sell.

[azurnoir]

3. this may be the only alternative way lef t if the so called

"negotiations" fall through

[shira]

4. and let's suppose a Palestinian state is declared and Israel withdraws from everywhere except...

...the major settlements, then what?

You think all Palestinian refugees will be allowed into the West Bank?

I don't. They'll still be left rotting in camps.

Moreover, without any legitimate military presence in the West Bank, Hamas would soon take over.

So much for peace, right?

Those who think establishing a Palestinian state first and then dealing with the fallout later are as blind as the Bush administration for thinking they'd get rid of Saddam first and deal with the fallout later.

[whosinpower]

5. There is another possibility

Abbas hinted at....he talked about going to the UN and demanding a UN mandate to take over Palistine with the fall of the PA - which he mentioned dissolving should the peace talks fail.

Perhaps with a UN mandate, there would be UN peacekeepers sent in - and at least that might deter Hamas/Iran from being able to fill the void.

Having said that - I do not like this proposition much. But, maybe that is the only way....I am not sure.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Yes

This is IMO the second-best option. The best would be a two-state solution by mutual agreement. The second-best would be a two-state solution enforced and monitored by outside peacekeepers, as suggested here. Let's not deceive ourselves: it would be to quite an extent a form of de facto colonialism - but preferable to the indefinite continuation of the status quo, or to a one-state 'solution' (i.e. long-term civil war).

[chimpymustgo]

24. Israel has shown it does not want a 2 state solution. The only way is to impose one.

[shira]

7. That possibility is just as bad. Look at Lebanon with its UN peacekeepers there doing nothing...

....to stop Hezbollah.

What on earth would make you think they'd stop Hamas from taking over the West Bank?

And what of the refugees? Another 62 years wasting away in camps?

Besides, once Israel's out all it would take is one rocket on Tel Aviv or Ben Gurion Airport and all hell would break loose. A move like this in the UN won't bring peace any closer. It will actually do just the opposite.

Realize that the PLO isn't suicidal either. They know what they have to lose by Hamas taking over. They don't want that and the only thing preventing that from happening is an IDF presence there.

[whosinpower]

8. First of all

I was going to address my hesitancy to this option, but first I would like to clarify something regarding UNIFIL.

They aren't doing nothing, you thankless ungrateful piece of work. Their mandate is not to destroy Hezbollah. I know you wish it were so, but it isn't. It is to provide a neutral zone - to deter terror attacks coming from Lebanon into Israel and to deter Israel attacking Lebanon. 122 members from all over the world have died fulfilling their mandate - TO KEEP ISRAEL AND LEBANON FROM ATTACKING EACH OTHER. So, don't you dare say they aren't doing anything.

I mean - it worked out so well for Israel to occupy Lebanon didn't it? They fucking got total peace then, didn't they? Yeah - that worked out SO MUCH BETTER. Israel totally won hearts and minds with that little escapade. Your gratitude at the neutral blue line is impressive....when foreign forces offer up their fucking lives to preserve peace you say they are doing nothing. Unbeleivable - how worthless those lives are when they aren't part of the IDF.

When you treat helping hands in such a way - why should anyone offer to help? Really - why should they? When Israel made a bold announcement that Hezbollah had huge arms stockpiles....did they present this privately to Unifil to allow Unifil to investigate and keep those arms? NO - of course not.....so even if there were arms....Israel gave Hezbollah a loud clear beautiful wonderful opportunity to move them, rehide them for another day.....what a great job that is! Well done "friend".

Want another kick at the can do we? Get Unifil out of the way so the IDF can take "care" of Hezbollah once and for all......yeah.....that didn't work the last time either.

You may not like the mandate of Unifil....but Israel's solutions to date have not worked either. And that is fact.

[shira]

9. UNIFIL has been in Lebanon since 1978 and has been completely ineffective....

According to WIKI, there have been 258 fatalities in over 30 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon#Fatalities

Do you honestly think UNIFIL had no idea what Hezbollah was up to before Israel released its most recent information on Hezbollah weapons in southern Lebanon?

I mean, seriously?

--------

What is UNIFIL doing to uphold UNGAR 1701 and protect south Lebanese citizens from being used as human shields?

:shrug:

[whosinpower]

28. Israel had two choices

The first choice with their intelligence findings would be to privately tell Unifil to allow Unifil to investigate that intelligence and if found true, then confiscate the weapons. In this manner, Israel helps Unifil to preserve peace by keeping those weapons caches away from being used against Israeli soldiers.

The second choice(what they did) would be to tell the world first and to hell with Unifil....well that gives Unifil a black eye - and it is also incredibly helpful to the enemies of Israel to move their weapons. I say it again - WELL DONE FRIEND.

Of course, without a third party verifying the intelligence - there is no way whatsoever to prove whether or not it is true. You jump to the claim that it must be so - after all the IDF never lies. (that is sarcasm by the way)

You don't like Unifil because it refuses to take sides. That is ok - Hezbollah doesn't like Unifil either....so you are both on the same page. And since the IDF actually helped Hezbollah by releasing the information - and betraying those who provided that intelligence - one has to wonder why anyone should try to help Israel at all given the personal danger it encompasses. Honestly - it would appear that Israel treats its enemies with far more respect and honour than it does those who wish it no harm. It did warn them/Hezbollah after all. Publically.

[shira]

29. Once again, do you really think UNIFIL knew nothing about Hezbollah's buildup in S.Lebanon?

Seriously?

And UNIFIL has taken sides more than once. One example, of many, is the way in which they relayed to Hezbollah the IDF's troop movements, equipment, and location during the Lebanon war in 2006. Look it up for yourself. A decade ago, Hezbollah kidnapped 3 IDF soldiers, had videotape of the incident but obstructed Israel's investigative efforts by refusing to release the tapes, parts of which were shown on Hezbollah TV for shits and giggles. What can we say to that....WELL DONE FRIEND?

:eyes:

[shaayecanaan]

12. So you are an opponent of the peace talks?

The current peace talks are aimed at removing the IDF from the West Bank and allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state. You are convinced that the moment the occupation ends that Hamas will take over, and therefore you oppose the end of the occupation.

You are therefore an opponent of the peace process and the 2-state solution.

[oberliner]

13. Hamas would fold up once there is a peace agreement, right?

They only exist as a "resistance movement" and once there is an end to the occupation there would be nothing further to resist.

Just like Hezbollah would fold up once Israel withdraws from Lebanon...

[shaayecanaan]

17. Again, I thought we were in agreement?

The Obama Administration wants to see the removal of the IDF from the West Bank before the end of its first term. I thought that was the objective of all good liberals such as yourself.

If right-wing Jews are against the 2-state solution (which they are, by and large) and supposedly liberal Jews such as yourself are deeply ambivalent, what do you think the chances are of a 2-state solution coming to pass, without it being imposed by the international community?

[oberliner]

19. I was disagreeing with the other claim

I don't think Hamas would take over in the WB - I think they would and should cease to exist since there will no longer be any need for a Palestinian resistance group at that time.

[shira]

20. The UN recognizing a Palestinian state without a peace deal is not the same as the Geneva Initiative

You understand there's a world of difference between supporting the latter but not the former?

[shaayecanaan]

21. The UN recognised an Israeli state without a peace deal...

fallout and 750,000 refugees be damned. I take it that you support the UN recognition of an Israeli state in the absence of a peace deal?

[oberliner]

22. No they didn't

Israel was not recognized by the UN until after the armistice agreements were reached following the 1948 war.

[shaayecanaan]

23. That doesn't get you anywhere...

if the 1948 armistice agreements provide the basis for the recognition of Israel, then presumably they would also provide the basis for the recognition of Palestine.

You obviously believe that the UN was entitled to recognise the state of Israel over the objections of Arabs. Do you not concede then that the same organisation is entitled to recognise the State of Palestine over the objections of Jews?

Do you believe that Palestinians have the inherent right to self-determination?

[oberliner]

30. In 1948, Israel applied for membership in the UN and was rejected

Only after the armistice agreements were signed in 1949 was Israel's application to join the UN accepted.

The State of Palestine did not apply for membership in the UN at that time. There was no declaration of the State of Palestine submitted to the UN until 1988.

[shira]

16. No, see #15 below. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

10. Isnt that the goal?

A Palestinian state is formed and Israel withdraws from most of the West Bank. I thought that was the two-state solution in a nutshell.

You do remain a supporter of the 2-state solution, right? Because you do seem to have these moments...

[shira]

11. There's no contradiction...I remain a supporter of the Geneva Initiative but I can't deny reality

You realize Geneva calls for Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state and refugees to live within the new Palestine?

I thought you were an advocate for true peace but you have these moments...

[shaayecanaan]

14. Then we are in perfect agreement.

I also support the Geneva Accord and its implementation, which would see the IDF leave the West Bank.

Therefore, you would like to see efforts by the world community to implement the Geneva Accord, which would result in the cessation of the occupation?

[shira]

15. That's surprising, I thought you were an anti-Zionist.

And of course I'm for the implementation of the Geneva Accord.

The sooner the better.

[shaayecanaan]

18. I define a Zionist as a Jewish nationalist...

or someone who is sympathetic to Jewish nationalism. I think it is fairly silly to imply that anyone who does not identify as a Zionist is opposed to the existence of the State of Israel.

In any event, I would be overjoyed if the Security Council were to resolve that the Geneva Accord should be implemented. And I fully agree with you, the sooner the better.

[azurnoir]

25. there are 2 problems with Geneva IMO

1- it allows the settlement blocs that ring Jerusalem to the east of the city to remain which would IMO allow Israel to block or severely restrict access to the city from the Palestinian State and also allow for an IDF presence on the West Bank

2 it denies the Palestinian State's right to self defense

[shaayecanaan]

26. I think the second problem will fall by the wayside...

most settlement proposals include Palestine being a demilitarised state. That would be an extraordinary concession by any other people but it seems to be just another shit sandwich that the Palestinians have to eat in order to be able to live in their own land.

I imagine in the fullness of time that stipulation would simply recede in the same way that Japan has managed to acquire a military notwithstanding that the peace settlement/constitution imposed on that country precluded it from doing same.

[azurnoir]

27. Japan had a military 7 years after it's surrender

I wonder if the Palestinians will be allowed after that relatively a short period of time