PM heads to U.S. under threat of Palestinian statehood declaration

topic posted Sun, November 8, 2009 - 12:42 AM by  John
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Last update - 10:34 08/11/2009
PM heads to U.S. under threat of Palestinian statehood declaration
By Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya

Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United Nations Security Council.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.

The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line, even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense.

In late August Fayyad presented the international community with a detailed plan for building up Palestinian Authority institutions and set a timetable of up to two years for its implementation. Senior Israeli officials said Fayyad's plan initially met with positive reaction in Jerusalem for its emphasis on institution-building and making security services more efficient.

But some Israeli officials told Haaretz that alongside the clauses reported in the media - which are similar to elements of Netanyahu's call for "economic peace" between Israel and the Palestinians - Fayyad's plan also contains a classified, unreleased portion stipulating a unilateral declaration of independence.

The plan specifies that at the end of a designated period for bolstering national institutions the PA, in conjunction with the Arab League, would file a "claim of sovereignty" to the UN Security Council and General Assembly over the borders of June 4, 1967 (before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, during which Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza).

Fayyad is also seeking a new Security Council resolution to replace Resolutions 242 and 338 in the hope of winning the international community's support for the borders of a Palestinian state and applying stronger pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

Several Israeli officials told Haaretz that Fayyad had spoken to them of positive responses he had received over the plan from prominent EU member states, including the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Sweden. Fayyad added that he presented the proposal to the U.S. administration and did not receive any signal of opposition in response.

Netanyahu's "kitchen cabinet" has held a number of meetings on the matter in recent months. "It's a very dangerous move," said a senior Israeli foreign-policy official. "More and more cabinet ministers understand that diplomatic inaction on Israel's part is likely to bring international support for the Fayyad program."

Israeli sources said Netanyahu discussed the proposal in meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special Mideast envoy George Mitchell and requested that the U.S. tell Fayyad that it would not support his proposal and would veto it in the Security Council. Netanyahu has yet to receive a clear response from Washington on its stance on Fayyad's plan.

Netanyahu is to arrive in Washington today for a brief visit. He is scheduled to address the United Jewish Communities General Assembly, preceded by Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

On Tuesday Netanyahu is to fly to Paris, where he is scheduled to meet with President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday. The prime minister's Paris visit comes just two days before that of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who will also meet with Sarkozy. Netanyahu has not signaled interest in renewing negotiations with Damascus, but stagnation in talks with the Palestinians may force him to do so.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, a mediator between Israel and Syria during Ehud Olmert's term as prime minister, said Friday in Paris that Turkey seeks to resume its role as an intermediary between the two countries, and that his government can be an "honest broker" in such talks.

Netanyahu has expressed reluctance over Turkish mediation due to ongoing diplomatic tension between Ankara and Jerusalem.

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spag...126594.html
posted by:
John
Advertisement
Advertisement

  • Um, what?

    Abbas is not running for reelection, and there's a "threat of Palestinian statehood declaration"!?

    uh...

    Who is going to declare the statehood? Fatah? Abbas before he leaves office? His no-name replacement? Someone in Hamas? What will Hamas do at this point? They were ignored and left out of the decision. How will they react to THAT? Find some more Fatah guys to torture and then throw off of some more roofs?


  • <<The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state.>>

    That's provocative. In the past, the US would veto a resolution without giving it a second thought. If true, it'll be interesting to see what Obama will do.

    There's a certain sense of fulfillment attached to such a declaration and subsequent UN ratification. The UN inherited the mandate authority of Palestine. Israel's state was born but Palestine was stillborn. This would finally realize the Arab state envisioned under 181 and end the pointless border discussions (assuming that it will be written as the author suggests, on the '67 line). It would turn the tables on Israel with regard to settlements. Once again such a declaration ratified by the UN would declare the settlements illegal and Israel would be in the position of having to lobby the UN for some shifting of the border in their favor. Should the UN, Europe, the US and others recognize the new state, that state would have the power to invite peace keepers from the UN and other nations into the area. It would also have jurisdiction over its borders. It would certainly be a game changer. With Netanyahu dragging his feet, I could see the world community getting behind such a plan, but realistically, I doubt that it'd be a clear cut as the author suggests. More likely, they'll set up another commission on the border and it'll get mired in the type of claims and counter claims that we witness here everyday. The only thing that would save the resolution if that were to transpire would be a dead line for the border commission. Give them a 6 month window and then just end it once and for all.
    • <With Netanyahu dragging his feet,>

      A laughable assertion. Netanyahu offered peace talks with no preconditions while Abbas intentionally set impossible preconditions.

      Has anyone cared to imagine for a moment the reality past your fantasy here?

      There's no way that any Pal leader can do this while there's a schism between Fatah and Hamas... It's not going to happen. What - Fatah will make this happen and then Gaza will be...what...? Part of "Palestine"? With no connection to the West Bank? Only through a negotiated settlement will there be a connection between the two parts - much less actual borders, but there'll be no negotiated borders until Fatah and Hamas get their shit together.

      What - they're going to delcare statehood based upon what lines? 181!? HA! The '49 armistice lines? The '67 borders? What... Anyone want to guess?

      You're all living in this dreamworld. They can't just say 'We are a state, but we'll come up with borders later...' Nope. That won't work.
      • "What - they're going to delcare statehood based upon what lines? 181!? HA! The '49 armistice lines? The '67 borders? What... Anyone want to guess?"



        actually the legal borders have already been established an upheld numerous times, and are based on those defined in 181
        • <actually the legal borders have already been established an upheld numerous times, and are based on those defined in 181>

          Yeah. You keep dreaming. "upheld"? Ha. I'd like to see you cite that one. Oh, right. You can't. You will SAY that this is a fact, but...that's all you got. Your claims.

          You really think that they are going to claim 181? HA!

          They're not going to do shit. They are dreaming and AGAIN filling their citizens and their follower's heads with this bullshit fantasy that they'll never be able to satisfy.

          They won't claim independence anytime soon. It won't happen. I know that you WANT it to happen, but nothing good can come from it. What - they'll claim independence on what land? How what defined borders? And, in this fantasy, the Fatah lamb will lie down with the Hamas lion? Yeah. Right. The Israeli far Right's best thing going is Hamas, and Hamas won't be so stoked to see Fatah doing this.

          This is just another fantasy, like Hamas and Fatah's statement about destroying Israel. About their holding the line on Settlements as if it'll matter. Just another fantasy.

          But, I do know that this reality of this fantasy just hardens your hearts against Israel. Which is fine - it's not like you ever will say/do anything positive when Israel says/does anything positive. There's no positive point for Israel with your lot, so? They'll just keep doing what they have been doing, and all of you will whine about it using with your wireless and drinking your lattes. It sure is easy to bitch from here in the West, 'eh?
          • "Yeah. You keep dreaming. "upheld"? Ha. I'd like to see you cite that one. Oh, right. You can't. You will SAY that this is a fact, but...that's all you got. Your claims."

            www.stopthewall.org/download...uling.pdf


            <<<Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including
            resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine
            into two States, one Arab and one Jewish>>>

            <<<Since 1997, the tenth emergency special session of the
            General Assembly has been resumed several times. At the
            resumed emergency session held in Febru a ry 1999, the Assembly
            a ff i rmed its support for the Middle East peace process on the basis
            of the relevant Security Council resolutions and for the principle
            of land for peace. Recalling its relevant resolutions, including
            resolution 181 (II) (the Partition Plan) and those of the Security
            Council, the Assembly re a ff i rmed that the international comm
            u n i t y, through the United Nations, has a legitimate interest in
            the question of the city of Jerusalem and the protection of its
            unique spiritual and religious dimension. It further re a ff i rmed the
            continued invalidity of all actions taken by Israel, the occupying
            P o w e r, that have altered or purported to alter the character, legal
            status and demographic composition of Jeru s a l e m .>>>

            www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch12.pdf





      • andrew:
        > The '67 borders? What... Anyone want to guess?

        They've been pretty clear about that. They wish to pretend that the 1967 armistice line is the border.

        That should be no surprise to anyone.

        > They can't just say 'We are a state, but we'll come up with borders later...'

        Why not. Israel did!

        Israel's eastern border is extremely nebulous. There is no reason a Palestinian state cannot exist without a defined Western border.
        • <Israel's eastern border is extremely nebulous. There is no reason a Palestinian state cannot exist without a defined Western border.>

          The problem here Adam is not the border. They have larger problems. A Fatah/Hamas schism, those pesky settlements...

          This is all talk. The Pal leadership is great at every once in a while doing something to lighten the hearts of their followers. This is just another example. Last week it was War Crimes Tribunal (that'll come to nothing), before that it was that Hamas drove off Israel in Gaza, and before that something and before that something else.

          It's all the same song, just for a new generation.

          If they want peace they'll have to agree to make peace. It's that easy. No more preconditions to talks, no more attacks on Israel. All they have to do is agree to talk.

          AMAZINGLY, not ONE of you is pushing that position. Fucking crazy.

          Why do not ONE of you support the call for talks with no preconditions? I honestly do not understand it.
          • andrew:
            > The problem here Adam is not the border. They have larger problems. A Fatah/Hamas schism, those pesky settlements...

            Okay, but you listed that as a problem, and it's not.

            The PA can simply declare themselves a state with nebulous borders.

            But on this second point, you're right. They're going to have a hell of a time declaring themselves a state while they have two seperate "governments". They're going to have to somehow solve the unity impasse before declaring themselves a state.
            • <The PA can simply declare themselves a state with nebulous borders.>

              You're right. They CAN, just like I CAN 'fly'. I can jump out of a plane and fly. The problem is similar to Fatah's problem: If one of us does this, the pleasure will last only a short period. Sure, Fatah CAN just 'do' it I suppose, but Hamas won't take that laying down, will they? No, no they will not.

              How would that work anyway. "We're a country! Well, not really. We kinda are. I mean...we don't have our own boundaries, and we are still occupied, but we're a country!" Hmm. I suppose that they COULD, but then they'd be forced to HAVE to negotiate, which is something that they do NOT want to do.

              <They're going to have to somehow solve the unity impasse before declaring themselves a state.>

              Yes. Any reasonable person knows this fact. And, if this IS in fact a fact, then what does this mean in terms of their actually dealing with "the unity impasse"?

              This "unity impasse" is the Israeli Right's favorite toy. Favorite pet. I wonder how much Israel tries to affect this problem between them?
  • Well.... first of all, I think that the Palestinians should unilaterally declare statehood.

    If it's true that Netanyahu is trying to get that vetoed, then I'll condemn him for it. As I'll condemn the US if they should veto it.

    But one of the key repercussions of this is _not_ that the Palestinians will have a "right" to defend themselves. They already have the right of self-defense. Though, they do _not_ have the right to perpetrate war crimes against Israeli civilians as they have been doing. What will change is that they will suddenly and clearly bear the full responsibilities of statehood.

    And it will clarify Israel's rights to attack and even occupy the Palestinian state, if that state engages in acts of war against Israel.

Recent topics in "**MIDEAST POLITICS**"