Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Realistic conditions aren't what they have in mind

Jonathan Schanzer proposes to reach a compromise over the 'Palestinians' unilateral declaration of statehood by putting realistic conditions into the resolution.
In view of the large number of supporters, opponents of a universal declaration likely lack the votes to defeat the initiative. But they can amend the U.N. resolution to ensure it preserves incentives to maintain peace. Specifically, it should acknowledge Israel's three main concerns: defensible borders, an end to Palestinian refugee claims and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. An amended resolution should also require the Palestinians to take additional steps toward state-building. And a framework already exists.

The World Bank in April published a report backing a Palestinian state, but only if "the Palestinian Authority maintains its performance in institution-building and delivery of public services." The report also noted that "aid is what keeps many Palestinians above the poverty line, particularly in Gaza, where unemployment is still 37.4% and a staggering 71% of the population benefited from some form of social assistance in 2009.

An amended U.N. resolution should include similar language, declaring that the international community would consider endorsing a state at the successful end of the political process that the Palestinians launched in May. The conditions would be a complete lack of violence against Israel, the continued flow of international aid at current levels, additional strides in state-building, a successful election and transfer of power and the end of internecine violence.
Schanzer admits that 'it won't be easy' to amend the 'Palestinian' resolution. He attributes that to Fatah's unity agreement with Hamas.
It won't be easy. On May 3, the Palestinian Authority's ruling Fatah faction signed an unlikely unity deal with its arch-rival, Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. The agreement remains incomplete, but has caused some Western governments to reconsider aid to the Palestinians. The U.S. Congress now seeks overwhelmingly to halt roughly $600 million in payments this year.
Schanzer is assuming that all the 'Palestinians' want is recognition of their aspirations to statehood. But in his May 16 article in the New York Times, Abu Mazen told us that's not the case.
Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.
The 'Palestinians' are seeking to obtain their 'state' without any compromise with Israel. They don't intend their 'state' to be the end of the conflict, but rather another phase in the destruction of the sovereign state of Israel. They want a state without signing on an end to the conflict.

The United Nations vote is a zero-sum game. There are no compromises to be had. If the 'Palestinians' obtain a 'state' at the UN, the 'peace process' is over.

What could go wrong?

Labels: , ,


At 10:35 AM, Blogger Eliana said...

Considering that the "Palestinian Authority" can't function without the Oslo Accords, it would make all the sense in the world for Israel to dissolve the Accords and the "Palestinian Authority" along with them.

I know that the Arabs think they're clever by forcing Israel into a "one state solution" where Israel wouldn't be a Jewish state anymore (G-d forbid).

Personally, I think that annexing Judea and Samaria is the only answer, but I'm wondering if it can be done in a way that won't give nervous breakdowns to Israel's entire left wing. As small as it is, these people are noisy.

I think annexing Judea and Samaria would be supported by Israeli voters (since the two-state solution is so ridiculous) but I fear that the left would become hysterical in ways that would be difficult for Israel's government to handle.

Maybe distributing sedatives to the left would help.

At 2:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely, the PA doesn't want a UNSC or UN General Assembly recognition as an impartial framework for negotiations but as a substitute for them and an open-ended diktat that determines outcomes in the PA's favor--"negotiations" are where Israel surrenders on the dotted line. Like "negotiating" a "partnership" with the Mafia. An outstanding question is whether Obama can bring himself to go through with a veto of the UNSC rez when the time arrives.


Post a Comment

<< Home