ROBIN SHEPHERD ON NEXT AUG PALESTINIAN STATE
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/2631
Will UK join push for ultimate solution of MidEast peace through the United Nations? NOV 5,10
Will UK join push for ultimate solution of MidEast peace through the United Nations?Amid all the brouhaha over British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s visit to Israel this week, the key question of the moment has yet to be asked: If peace talks fail, will Britain join France and others in openly declaring that a Middle East peace might have to be imposed through the United Nations? I have not seen a clear and unambiguous quotation from the Foreign Secretary or any of his senior officials to that effect. But if you put together everything that is being said and everything that is not being said, and you set that against the international mood music my instincts tell me that we are ineluctably heading towards the UN route. For example, as the BBC’s MidEast headline today roars: Mid-East peace talks: UK says window closing. But what does that mean in practice? That Britain would be prepared simply to let matters rest should that window ultimately close? That the UK would say: a plague on both your houses and retreat back to the island and wash its hands of the whole business? If only the British outlook were characterised by such indifference. Here is how the BBC characterises the British position in its article today:
Mr Hague said that both sides had obligations, but that it was largely up to Israel to break the impasse.We do want Israel to announce a new moratorium on settlements [said Hague]… That is what the whole of Europe wants, that is what the United States wants,he said.In other words, Israel is going to get the blame if and when the talks collapse.It is not that there is anything new in all this. It is just that the Arab/Palestinian side has been remarkably successful in portraying Israel as the intransigent party in a current round of peace talks representing history’s last chance for a solution. Either there is an agreement on the way or something radical will have to be considered. And that something would be an imposed settlement authorised by the UN Security Council sometime in the middle of 2011.Look. I have no proof, and this is little more than speculation. But given that British foreign policy in the Middle East has long been driven by a foreign office that is almost as slavishly deferential to the Arabs as it is to the United Nations, given that the new British government is almost entirely opportunistic in the management of its foreign policy, given (see last posting but one) our new strategic ally France has mooted the UN route, and given that the Palestinians and the UN are already preparing the way for such a move, the notion that Britain is going to jump on the bandwagon has a certain inevitability about it. The Palestinian/Arab side can hardly be under any illusions as to how weak Britain has become under the new government and how prone it is merely to go with the flow of global events.At the very least, it would be good if the journalists would start posing the question. Because if Britain and France do join forces diplomatically (as they have recently agreed to do militarily) on this issue, this would constitute a powerful combination to help legitimise and energise a movement that already has the support of dozens of nations in the Arab and Musim world.The UN route would be a disaster for Israel’s security. But it is the looming issue of the moment, and we urgently need clarity on precisely where Britain stands on the matter.
Before the storm: Palestinian ability to go through UN for unilateral declaration of statehood not to be underestimated OCT 30,10
Before the storm: Palestinian ability to go through UN for unilateral declaration of statehood not to be underestimated Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz has written an extensive analysis of the prospects of the Palestinian leadership opting for a unilateral declaration of statehood, probably sometime in 2011, as an alternative to working for a negotiated end to the conflict. It is crucial to understand the issue since it could add an entirely new dynamic into the situation, give new momentum to the Palestinian cause, and simultaneously put Israel in a perilous situation.There are many reasons to be concerned about a move towards a unilateral declaration of statehood, not least because the Palestinians would undoubtedly want to go beyond the demilitarised state being offered by the Israeli government and also because they would then seek to argue that Israel is not merely an occupying power but also an invading power. This they could use as a justification for renewed resistance, for which read terrorism.Horovitz has produced an excellent analysis and I recommend reading it in full. But since, at nearly 3,000 words, some readers may not have the time to go through it from beginning to end, I offer here a bullet point rendition of what I take to be the most important points, along with some comments of my own. Points taken from Horowitz’s piece (which are my words, not his) are in bold italics while my own comments follow in normal script:
** Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has himself declared a summer 2011 deadline for Palestinian statehood. Stop the press right here: summer 2011 is effectively tomorrow. In other words, the threat should be treated as imminent.
** Last Tuesday, the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry said to Fayyad: We are in the home stretch of your agenda to reach [statehood] by August next year, and you have our full support.The day before, PA President Mahmoud Abbas repeated what is an increasingly common theme from PA officials in threatening a resort to the United Nations in the context of a possible unilateral declaration of statehood. In other words, the potential move to a unilateral declaration of statehood with recognition at the UN should not only be treated as imminent, senior UN officials are sounding increasingly positive about such a possible move.
** Important and influential governments are also sounding more receptive to the idea. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner recently said that if the negotiations became deadlocked France cannot rule out in principle the Security Council option. These are dangerous and irresponsible words which could encourage the Palestinian side to deliberately deadlock peace talks so as to get a better deal at the UN.
** It is true that the Americans have said they would veto any such deal. But this may not be enough to kill it. Consider the example of Kosovo whose own unilateral declaration of independence was opposed by Russia, another of the permanent security council members with veto powers. This has not stopped some 70 countries from recognising Kosovan independence which is now basically a fait accompli. The Palestinians are well aware of the Kosovo example and frequently talk about it as a precedent. As Horovitz notes, the point here is not that there is a direct analogy between Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia on the one hand and Israel and the Middle East on other. Rather, the point is that unilateral declarations of independence can build unstoppable momentum if a critical mass of nations support it and there is some sort of embryonic government (in this case the PA) to recognise.
** The Kosovo precedent is not the only one. Consider Lithuania which declared independence unilaterally in 1990 despite the fact that the Soviet Union still existed and had its armies on Lithuanian soil. This is another strong example of how a determined national movement with international support and with a governmental apparatus can build new dynamics to its own advantage.
** While fully aware of the potential dangers of any unilateral declaration of independence, too many Israeli officials underestimate the prospects of it actually happening. The Palestinians have made a unilateral declaration of independence before, in 1988 when more than 90 countries recognised it. It came to nothing, many Israelis point out. But the situation now is very different since, among other things, there is a recognised PA government. Indeed so, and in 1988 we were still in the Cold War, we hadn’t had the Oslo process or the Clinton peace efforts in 2000 and 2001, or the second Intifada, or 9/11. Nor was the demonisation of the Jewish state quite so deeply rooted in western countries as it now is.
** The Palestinians are serious about this. As Salam Fayyad said to an Italian newspaper last week: [In 2011] the United Nations will celebrate the birth of our nation… The deadline is next summer, when the Israeli occupation of the West Bank must end.That’s straight from the horse’s mouth.Once again, Horovitz has written a great analysis of a crucial issue and I recommend reading his piece in full.
Editor's Notes: Unilateralism is no mirage
By DAVID HOROVITZ 10/29/2010 16:23 JERUSALEMPOST.COM
Netanyahu's right: Palestinians won’t achieve peace with Israel by unilaterally declaring establishment of Palestine. But they're not talking about peace. They're talking about statehood.The months go by, and while Israel keeps its head buried in the sand, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s declared summer 2011 deadline for Palestinian statehood draws nearer.Photogenically picking olives with Fayyad on Tuesday, the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry offered his stamp of approval for the purportedly soon-to-be-established Palestine.All international players are now in agreement that the Palestinians are ready for statehood at any point in the near future, Serry said to Fayyad. We are in the home stretch of your agenda to reach that point by August next year, and you have our full support.A day earlier, the PA President Mahmoud Abbas had spoken about the possibility of seeking statehood unilaterally, via what he termed a resort to the United Nations.Other PA officials have frequently invoked this option of late, bemoaning Israel’s ostensible torpedoing of peace hopes and looking to the international community for unilateral recognition.A couple of weeks ago, the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner made plain that even some countries that consider themselves to be firm friends of Israel might not prove deaf to Palestinian efforts toward unilateral recognition, saying that France cannot rule out in principle the Security Council option if the negotiating process is beset by prolonged deadlock.And officials within the US administration, while indicating to their Israeli counterparts that the US would veto any effort by the Palestinians to seek binding UN Security Council backing for the unilaterally declared establishment of Palestine within the pre-1967 lines, have also been stressing the limits of their veto power. Look at the case of Kosovo, for instance, they suggest. This is a nation that has not been recognized by the Security Council, where permanent member Russia is implacably opposed, but whose statehood – declared by its parliament in February 2008 and recognized by some 70 countries, including the US – is nonetheless something of a fait accompli.
The Kosovo precedent is certainly not lost on the Palestinians. Earlier this month, Palestinian politician Mustafa Barghouti urged that an independent Palestine be declared now on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, including east Jerusalem and that the world community be pressed to recognize it and its borders, as it did in the case of Kosovo.Serene in the face of such ostensible pressures, the Israeli government continues to insist that there is no credible, viable path to statehood for the Palestinians via the unilateral route.Opening Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared that We expect the Palestinians to honor their commitment to hold direct negotiations. I think any attempt to bypass them by appealing to international bodies is unrealistic...
But is it?
THE KOSOVO precedent is plainly quite different from the Palestinian context. (Indeed, Israelis who have spent time in Kosovo say that people there often compare their emergence to that of Israel.) But there are numerous critical parallels and themes that Israel would be extremely foolish to ignore.Independent Kosovo was born out of the fragmentation two decades ago of Yugoslavia, and what proved to be the impossibility of peacefully resolving the conflicting demands of one of the former Yugoslavia’s six constituent republics, Serbia, with those of the Albanian majority in what had been the autonomous area of Kosovo. The unilateral declaration of statehood followed years of violence, international intervention, the designation by the Security Council in 1999 of Kosovo as a UN protectorate, and the terminal failure of a succession of efforts to foster substantive negotiations between Kosovo’s Albanian leadership and Belgrade.A fragmenting federation, war, NATO involvement on the ground and the absence of anything remotely close to an agreed framework for resolving the crisis – in all these aspects Kosovo differs utterly from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict arena. Just to be on the safe side, furthermore, the US made explicit, when recognizing Kosovo, that this process represented no legal precedent whatsoever.Where the potent similarities begin, however, is that in Kosovo, as with the Palestinians, the international community was galvanized by a group that sought independence from another party whose rule it did not accept; and where that group was impatient and felt that it had sufficient strength to advance its cause.Kosovo’s road to independence featured an earlier declaration of a separate republic, in 1992, which went nowhere because, as Nikolas Gvosdev pointed out in an article in World Politics Review a few days ago, it had no formal governing presence in any part of the territories it claimed as its state and no real institutions of state. But by 2008, Kosovo did have a functional governmental apparatus in at least part of the territory it claimed, and it has subsequently gained a certain critical mass of international recognition.
As a result, Gvosdev notes with what ought to be dramatic resonance for Israeli ears,any future talks with Serbia will be aimed not at getting Kosovo to give up its independence, but rather at determining the conditions and arrangements under which Belgrade will accept an independent government in Pristina.Try re-reading that sentence with certain substitutions after a unilateral assertion of Palestinian statehood: Any future talks with Israel will be aimed not at getting Palestine to give up its independence, but rather at determining the conditions and arrangements under which Jerusalem will accept an independent government in east Jerusalem.The echoes from Kosovo of that shift to international acceptance over the past couple of decades drastically undermine official Israel’s insistently sanguine response to the Palestinians’ unilateralist threats. Fayyad’s entire state-building exercise has been designed to demonstrate, Kosovo-style, the attainment of a formal governing presence in at least part of the territories being claimed and the establishment of a functional governmental apparatus.And much of the international community has long-since been won over. So Israel’s blithe, dismissive reminder that the Palestinians have little to show from their last attempt at the unilateralist route – the 1988 declaration of statehood that won recognition from some 90 nations – is simply outdated. We are not in 1988 anymore.Kosovo is not the only cautionary tale. Gvosdev cites the case of Lithuania to demonstrate that a potential state need not be in full control of the territory it claims in order to gain international recognition:
When Lithuania redeclared its independence in 1990, he writes, numerous states... recognized its status as a sovereign member of the international community, even though the Soviet Union rejected such a claim and refused to withdraw its forces from Lithuanian soil. By the time the USSR accepted the reality of Lithuanian independence on September 6, 1991, a separate Lithuanian government had already been functioning for more than a year. Even the United States, which was one of the last states in the world to extend de jure recognition, had already begun to deal with a government in Vilnius on a de facto basis.THE PALESTINIANS themselves, it is asserted in the prime minister’s circle, don’t believe they have a serious unilateral option. Even Fayyad, it is stated, knows that borders, for instance, have to be demarcated by agreement.Everyone understands that a solution must be negotiated, sources close to Netanyahu have repeatedly stated. Everything else is a mirage. They know that. We know that.Every now and again, it is noted in Jerusalem, the Palestinians come out with statements threatening variously that Abbas will resign, they’ll dismantle the PA, they’ll shift to seeking a one-state solution or they’ll go the unilateral route. This rhetoric is viewed as a case of the Palestinians essentially saying, Hold us back. Our commitment to reconciliation is not real. We have other options. In fact, though, runs the Jerusalem mantra: There are no other options.Essential aspects of statehood, it is pointed out, include a defined territory, a defined population, effective government and the recognition of other states. Official Israel, as far as I can understand, believes the Palestinians to be deficient in at least two of those areas.One might acknowledge that they represent a defined population and they could certainly count on widespread international support. But in the official Israeli assessment, they lack a defined territory – negotiations having thus far failed to define borders – and they lack effective government – which is less a critique of Fayyad’s institution-building efforts and more a factual description of the practical limitations of PA authority, over such basic areas as controlling what goes in and out of its would-be Palestine. Official Israel, largely unmoved by evidence to the contrary in cases such as Kosovo and Lithuania, evidently wants to believe that these deficiencies doom the notion of unilateral statehood.
In conversation with some in Israeli officialdom this week, I ventured the suggestion that the resort to unilateralism, at the very least, would surely ratchet up the pressure on Israel. The international community is less sympathetic to Israel, and more impressed by the Palestinian leadership’s credentials and ostensible capacity to maintain stability, than it was when Yasser Arafat tried the unilateral declaration route 22 years ago, I noted. And so, if Palestine is being stymied because of the failure to negotiate core issues like agreed borders with Israel, then a Palestinian unilateralist effort would surely provoke intensified calls on Israel to negotiate those borders, and other core issues, in a spirit of greater compromise.The frustrated response was that Israel is ready to negotiate. In rather anguished terms, it was noted that the Palestinians claim they need other solutions because the talks are going nowhere, but that the talks are only going nowhere because the Palestinians are refusing to negotiate. And as for the Palestinian claim that settlements are the problem, the official line from Jerusalem was that the settlement enterprise does not preempt a negotiated solution, that no planned construction will affect the contours of peace, that the overwhelming majority of proposed construction is within the settlement blocs, and that the minority of building that is outside the blocs – an extra house or two here and there in an isolated settlement – won’t make a difference, because it would either be dismantled under a peace agreement or would be on the Palestinian side of the border.These may all be eminently reasonable arguments, but none of them, I repeated, is likely to forestall international pressure if the Palestinians do opt for the unilateral route.The point was acknowledged. Of course there’d be pressure, one source finally allowed. And then he added, ruefully: You don’t think we’re under pressure already? TRADE MINISTER Benjamin Ben-Eliezer this week spoke for some in the government who are internalizing the growing perceived international legitimacy of Palestine. Time isn’t merely working against us, observed Ben- Eliezer, who just got back from talks in Washington. It’s racing against. Racing.Many in the Israeli diplomatic hierarchy, moreover, understand that the world has changed in the past couple of decades – and specifically that the US no longer calls the shots globally in the way that it once could. American economic dominance, American military dominance and American diplomatic dominance have receded. There are more global power centers. The US itself, recognizing these changes, works more readily with international forums.For Israel, for whom the alliance with the US remains paramount, these shifts have nonetheless required a shift in diplomacy, a diversified investment of effort and energy.In terms of the conflict with the Palestinians, these shifts have also required a gradual internalization that the Middle East peace Quartet – that constellation of would-be mediators comprising the US, UN, EU and Russia – potentially carries real weight, and is no longer just a diplomatic construct designed to give the international community a superficial sense of involvement, while only the US really matters.
This changing climate again renders some of the public Israeli comments on unilateralism – the blasé dismissal of a unilateral Palestine as a mirage and a pipe dream – unconscionably complacent. And Netanyahu’s own assertion on Sunday that attempts at unilateralism will not give any impetus to a genuine diplomatic process completely misses the point.By definition, a resort to unilateralism will not give any impetus to a genuine diplomatic process. The whole thrust of unilateralism is an escape from a genuine diplomatic process – an attempt to achieve, without agreement, ambitions and gains that could not be won at the peace table, and to achieve them without the concessions that a genuine diplomatic process would require.OTHER ISRAELI arguments against unilateralism also seem unlikely to give the Palestinians much pause. It is suggested that a unilateral declaration of statehood, though endorsed by long sympathetic nations, might be strongly resented by other, fairer-minded countries that oppose the abandonment of the diplomatic process. But one wonders how many such nations there might turn out to be, and how grave a concern that would be for the Palestinians, given the international hostility to Israel right now, and Israel’s perceived responsibility for the failure of the direct talks to date.It is asserted that unilateral statehood might cause problems of legality for the Palestinians in countries where their independence was not recognized. Would a President of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas be accorded a White House welcome in a US that had not formally recognized his country, or a Downing Street hearing in a Britain that was similarly withholding recognition? Here, too, it is unlikely that the Palestinians would be too fearful of a diplomatic cold shoulder; American or British mandarins would presumably prove capable of finding a legaldiplomatic finesse to solve such problems.It is argued that a resort to unilateralism would breach the Oslo Accords and that various signatories and witnesses to these and other interim agreements, including the US, EU, Egypt and Jordan, might resent the breach and withhold recognition. They might. They might not. A concern for the Palestinians? Possibly. But enough to deter them? Unlikely.Officials have issued vague threats about Israel’s capacity to take unilateral actions of its own should the Palestinians pursue the unilateral route. Risibly, anonymous officials were quoted in some newspapers here last week warning that Israel might respond by dismantling isolated settlements or reviving Ehud Olmert’s convergence plan for the removal of tens of thousands of settlers from areas outside the settlement blocs. As threats and warnings go, these are absurd. Don’t declare statehood because, if you do, we’ll take steps that would ease the process for you?! The Palestinians are hardly going to be quaking at the prospect.
Perhaps Israel might seek to unilaterally annex the major settlement blocs. But Israel would want to annex them anyway in the context of a negotiated accord; this way, the Palestinians might reason, Israel would simply be annexing with less legitimacy and less support, and without the Palestinian leadership having compromised and condoned it.Another purported bulwark against Palestinian unilateralism is the notion that the subsequent legal vacuum of voided accords and conflicting assertions of authority could cause chaos and violence on the ground, to the detriment, among others, of the Palestinian Authority. This seems a more credible consideration for the PA to bear in mind. Then again, Abbas and Fayyad may have an elevated sense of their capacity to maintain relative stability. Or they may be prepared to risk chaos and violence.And, finally, it is noted that a unilateral declaration of statehood – with many of Palestine’s key parameters and fundamental aspects still unresolved – is no substitute for the benefits of finding a binding, detailed, stable agreement with an enemy turned full peace partner. As Netanyahu said on Sunday, peace will only be achieved through direct negotiations.That argument, of course, is undeniable...if your goal is peace. The thing is, however, that the Palestinians are talking about something else. About statehood. About a process that would give international weight to their demands no matter what the immediate practical implications, and no matter how many problems – all the core issues, plus the question of the fate of Gaza – remain unresolved. International support for statehood, without the necessity to come to terms with Israel, to legitimize Israel.AT TUESDAY’S olive-picking event, timed to coincide with the 65th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, Fayyad expressed the hope that when we celebrate the 66th UN Day next year, we will be celebrating also the emergence of a Palestinian state.A day later, he told an Italian newspaper that he would give Israel one more year of grace. These colonies, he said of the settlements, can no longer be there. They are illegal everywhere; here and in Jerusalem.In 2011, he said more bluntly this time, the United Nations will celebrate the birth of our nation... The deadline is next summer, when the Israeli occupation of the West Bank must end.Israel can talk dismissively about pipe dreams and mirages. But Fayyad isn’t being light-headed. He’s a perfectly clear thinker. And he knows exactly where Palestine is heading. Israel doesn’t.
