By Musa Keilani
Washington did not give its support to an initiative launched by Britain, France and Germany for the international Quartet to outline the basis for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The proposal calls for an immediate halt to Israel’s settlement activity in the occupied territories, a solution to the question of Palestinian refugees, and agreement on the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both countries and on borders before the 1967 war, with approved territorial exchanges.
The plan also called for security arrangements that respect Palestinian sovereignty, and protect Israel’s security and prevent a resurgence of Palestinian armed resistance.
The US administration did not think a Quartet meeting would produce anything useful in terms of getting the talks restarted. But Washington very conveniently sidestepped the reality that the very process of laying out the basis for a peace accord would have encouraged the Palestinians to resume negotiations since they would have known what to expect.
The US also blocked the endorsement of a resolution by the Security Council that would have condemned Israel’s colonialisation of the occupied territories.
These actions are not compatible with the declared US commitment to international principles, but then, one has become used to the reality that Washington applies such commitment very selectively, particularly when it comes to Israel.
One is tempted to ask the US what, indeed, would be a “good idea” for the Palestinians to follow.
In simple terms, Washington would like to have the Palestinians reenter direct negotiations with Israel, go through the motions without being able to secure their territorial and political rights, accept the Israeli version of a “peace” agreement, settle down to whatever is given to them and hold their peace forever.
During the negotiations, the US could be expected to twist the Palestinians’ arm whenever they balk at accepting Israel’s conditions. It has been the case since the 1993 Oslo agreement: Israel promises something, offers something far less than it promises and the US steps in to pressure the Palestinians to accept even less than what Israel is offering.
One could argue that such was the case during previous US administrations and that Obama is different. That is a laugh, because Obama is one of the US presidents who had no option but to back down in a confrontation with Israel over the peace process. And he found out the hard way that Israel had powerful friends in the US political establishment who could make life difficult for any American head of state.
Obama might not have much liking for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he has no choice but to put up a smiling face and host him at the White House. And that also means that the US president had better uphold Israel’s needs, demands and conditions without question.
Therefore, it is no wonder that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Israel’s offer of a state with “temporary” borders; he knew he could not count on the US to support the legitimate rights of the Palestinians in the negotiations in the interim period. Abbas knows that the Palestinians would be stuck with whatever “temporary” borders are offered by Israel and that would be the end of the Palestinian struggle for liberation and independent statehood in the true international meaning of the term.
He and his diplomatic envoys reiterated last week that the Palestinians would like to have a peace treaty with Israel by September, as proposed by the Quartet, and short of that, they would go to the UN Security Council for recognition of their independent statehood.
A sweeping and major turning point would indeed by recognition of a Palestinian state bythe Quartet itself.
According to American and European diplomats quoted by The Los Angeles Times, if peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians are not renewed, the Quartet formally recognises a Palestinian state.
Is it a possibility? At best, it is doubtful, since the US is also bound by its “strategic” relationship with Israel to refuse taking any decision that is not endorsed by Israel. Therefore, the best thing Palestinians have is to follow the course of UN recognition of their state. Of course, without a recommendation by the Security Council, they would not be given recognition by the General Assembly.
According to Abbas, the Palestinians would have the support of more than 140 countries by September, compared to the 128 they require in order to qualify for UN membership. He also says that Britain and France would accept such a state. Therefore, his best option is to go to the Security Council with such strong support that the big powers would not be in a position to reject the Palestinian request outright.
Netanyahu is expected to make a speech at a joint session of the US Congress. He is planning to unveil a new peace initiative, but one fails to see what novelty he could introduce, since the Israeli position has already been made clear. He could indeed dust off his offer of a temporary state, but that has already been rejected by the Palestinians.
One thing is clear: something has to happen by September, the timeline set by Obama and accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians fora peace agreement. All indicators show that Washington will not veto a resolution for Palestinian statehood, though it might not support the move, as an Obama adviser, Martin Indyk, says. If nothing happens and if UN membership for the state of Palestine is aborted, then the world could expect a resurgence of armed resistance by the Palestinians, with Abbas unable to do anything about it even if he wanted to. That would definitely mean a threat to world peace and security.
Under the so-called “Uniting for Peace” resolution, the General Assembly can take action if it believes the Security Council failed to preempt a threat to world peace and security. And that could mean Palestinian membership in the UN.
This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 24/04/2011
The debate over the Palestinians’ quest for international recognition of their statehood got into high gear last week. The administration of US President Barack Obama offered the golden advice, saying it did not think that it was a “good idea” for the Palestinians to unilaterally seek recognition for independent statehood from the United Nations before reaching a peace agreement with Israel.
Washington did not give its support to an initiative launched by Britain, France and Germany for the international Quartet to outline the basis for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The proposal calls for an immediate halt to Israel’s settlement activity in the occupied territories, a solution to the question of Palestinian refugees, and agreement on the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both countries and on borders before the 1967 war, with approved territorial exchanges.
The plan also called for security arrangements that respect Palestinian sovereignty, and protect Israel’s security and prevent a resurgence of Palestinian armed resistance.
The US administration did not think a Quartet meeting would produce anything useful in terms of getting the talks restarted. But Washington very conveniently sidestepped the reality that the very process of laying out the basis for a peace accord would have encouraged the Palestinians to resume negotiations since they would have known what to expect.
The US also blocked the endorsement of a resolution by the Security Council that would have condemned Israel’s colonialisation of the occupied territories.
These actions are not compatible with the declared US commitment to international principles, but then, one has become used to the reality that Washington applies such commitment very selectively, particularly when it comes to Israel.
One is tempted to ask the US what, indeed, would be a “good idea” for the Palestinians to follow.
In simple terms, Washington would like to have the Palestinians reenter direct negotiations with Israel, go through the motions without being able to secure their territorial and political rights, accept the Israeli version of a “peace” agreement, settle down to whatever is given to them and hold their peace forever.
During the negotiations, the US could be expected to twist the Palestinians’ arm whenever they balk at accepting Israel’s conditions. It has been the case since the 1993 Oslo agreement: Israel promises something, offers something far less than it promises and the US steps in to pressure the Palestinians to accept even less than what Israel is offering.
One could argue that such was the case during previous US administrations and that Obama is different. That is a laugh, because Obama is one of the US presidents who had no option but to back down in a confrontation with Israel over the peace process. And he found out the hard way that Israel had powerful friends in the US political establishment who could make life difficult for any American head of state.
Obama might not have much liking for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he has no choice but to put up a smiling face and host him at the White House. And that also means that the US president had better uphold Israel’s needs, demands and conditions without question.
Therefore, it is no wonder that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Israel’s offer of a state with “temporary” borders; he knew he could not count on the US to support the legitimate rights of the Palestinians in the negotiations in the interim period. Abbas knows that the Palestinians would be stuck with whatever “temporary” borders are offered by Israel and that would be the end of the Palestinian struggle for liberation and independent statehood in the true international meaning of the term.
He and his diplomatic envoys reiterated last week that the Palestinians would like to have a peace treaty with Israel by September, as proposed by the Quartet, and short of that, they would go to the UN Security Council for recognition of their independent statehood.
A sweeping and major turning point would indeed by recognition of a Palestinian state bythe Quartet itself.
According to American and European diplomats quoted by The Los Angeles Times, if peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians are not renewed, the Quartet formally recognises a Palestinian state.
Is it a possibility? At best, it is doubtful, since the US is also bound by its “strategic” relationship with Israel to refuse taking any decision that is not endorsed by Israel. Therefore, the best thing Palestinians have is to follow the course of UN recognition of their state. Of course, without a recommendation by the Security Council, they would not be given recognition by the General Assembly.
According to Abbas, the Palestinians would have the support of more than 140 countries by September, compared to the 128 they require in order to qualify for UN membership. He also says that Britain and France would accept such a state. Therefore, his best option is to go to the Security Council with such strong support that the big powers would not be in a position to reject the Palestinian request outright.
Netanyahu is expected to make a speech at a joint session of the US Congress. He is planning to unveil a new peace initiative, but one fails to see what novelty he could introduce, since the Israeli position has already been made clear. He could indeed dust off his offer of a temporary state, but that has already been rejected by the Palestinians.
One thing is clear: something has to happen by September, the timeline set by Obama and accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians fora peace agreement. All indicators show that Washington will not veto a resolution for Palestinian statehood, though it might not support the move, as an Obama adviser, Martin Indyk, says. If nothing happens and if UN membership for the state of Palestine is aborted, then the world could expect a resurgence of armed resistance by the Palestinians, with Abbas unable to do anything about it even if he wanted to. That would definitely mean a threat to world peace and security.
Under the so-called “Uniting for Peace” resolution, the General Assembly can take action if it believes the Security Council failed to preempt a threat to world peace and security. And that could mean Palestinian membership in the UN.
No comments:
Post a Comment