Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The Palestinian leadership seems determined to bring its case for statehood to the U.N. in September. The details remain unknown, but that hasn't stopped pundits and groups from staking out hard-line positions opposing the effort.
These reactions consist of a lot of hype and some measure of hysteria. It's time for a dose of clear thinking and common sense. The reality is that some Palestinian initiative is almost certain to come before the U.N. in September. Palestinians have lost faith in the negotiated approach to the peace process, and have settled on this new strategy without asking for American or Israeli approval. Indeed, the hysteria they are provoking only makes the strategy more attractive given their inability to get a meaningful response to anything else they propose.
Those who are truly concerned about what that could mean for Israel should be pressing for bold U.S. action to avert a collision at the U.N., rather than simply criticizing the Palestinians and demanding that they desist. The bold action, for example, could be in the form of a serious initiative to re-accredit peace efforts and give the Palestinians a real reason -- not just a thin pretext -- to change course, or a U.S.-backed initiative to transform the proposed U.N. action on Palestine into something broader, like a Security Council resolution embracing key peace parameters. Absent such an effort, the Palestinians will have a hard time backing off their U.N. strategy, even if they want to.
This should not be taken to mean that there are no reasons for concern. A U.N. resolution won't resolve the issues of borders, refugees, security and Jerusalem, nor can it end the occupation. It cannot build support on both sides for an acceptable final status agreement. Only negotiations that involve both Israel and the Palestinians can achieve these goals -- something that the Palestinian leadership itself has recognized.
It's true too that taking the Palestinians' case to the U.N. involves risk -- for all sides. It could become a pretext for accelerated Israeli actions on the ground that could hasten the demise of the two-state solution, as well as the application of sanctions on the Palestinians. It could cost the Palestinians desperately needed American and international financial and political assistance. Moreover, it could strengthen rejectionists --Palestinians and Israelis alike -- who oppose peace negotiations and a two-state solution and who welcome confrontation and violence as a means of closing the door to both.
There are also risks for the United States and Israel. A crisis at the U.N. over Palestine would exacerbate the growing U.S. and Israeli isolation on the issue. U.S. credibility will take a hit if Washington is seen, once again, to be opposing a resolution that is consistent with longstanding U.S. policy; Israel could find itself in an awkward position, given that it was the U.N. that gave birth to Israel after Israel's founders went to that same body with their own demand for recognition. However unlikely, it is conceivable that U.N. action could even pave the way for sanctions and multilateral enforcement efforts against Israel and its citizens.
But simply condemning the Palestinians and demanding that they desist, while browbeating other countries to get into line with the U.S. and Israel, is not an especially smart or effective counter-strategy. To push the Palestinian leadership in a different direction, the Palestinians must be offered a serious alternative way forward. Given Netanyahu's uncompromising May 2011 speech to the U.S. Congress and continued settlement expansion, do they have any reason to believe that negotiations offer such a route?
Whether people think it is a good idea or not, the Palestinians have the right to take their case to the U.N. Opposition to the U.N. strategy must directly address difficult questions. Is their U.N. initiative consistent with longstanding U.S. policy regarding permanent status issues? Is it consistent with a negotiated agreement that can resolve the conflict? Do the Palestinians have meaningful alternatives?
The U.N. option doesn't represent, as some would suggest, a Palestinian betrayal of the peace process or a rejection of a negotiated resolution to the conflict. Rather, it reflects the almost universally acknowledged loss of credibility of the current negotiating effort. It reveals the Palestinians' understandable conclusion that, as things stand today, negotiations will never end the occupation or deliver statehood. It discloses the Palestinians' quite understandable fear that the situation is nearing a tipping point, after which expansion of settlements and settlement-related infrastructure in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will make the two-state solution unworkable.
While the Palestinians' decision to appeal to the U.N. reflects the failure of the peace process, the U.N. effort itself contains some extremely constructive -- and largely overlooked -- elements, like the fact that the U.N. effort appears to be predicated on a continued Palestinian commitment to the two-state solution and to a permanent status agreement that is consistent with longstanding U.S. positions, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Israeli Peace Initiative. And the point that is perhaps most important, is the fact that the entire effort reflects the Palestinian leadership's continued determination to achieve progress through non-violent means. These elements should be welcomed and embraced, rather than dismissed in the zeal to attack the Palestinians for their U.N. strategy.
Lara Friedman is director of policy and government relations for Americans for Peace Now.
This article was originally published on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel.
Email a friend
twitter
facebook
feed
Ref. "No choice but the UN for Pals" by Lara Friedman...I agree that Palestine is tired of
the nowhere 'negotiations' with Bibi and Likud.
Palestine shud bring to New York a large, model
railroad-like 'model' of the Holyland showing the following: From a midpoint west of Rehan
and East of Oazir, draw a straight line SW to a
point west of Qibya and NE of Route 443. This
line will become the centerline of the new utility easement carrying both high voltage transmission and medium voltage distribution lines, low-pressure water and opticfiber buried
cables--a new bi-national facility. 15 meters to each side will be kept cleared. On the Pal
side, a simple wire mesh 'cattle' fence will be
built with warning signs every 20 meters along its length. On the Israel side, an access road
[unpaved], will be cut, bridging dips and gullies if necessary. At least 10 meters beyond
that, Israel shud build its 'fence' or wall.
Most existing roads across the new boundry shud
be cut off. Both countries will agree a few necessary Ports Of Entry where ALL vehicles and
persons are checked by their own side first--then the other...From the point near Route 443,
the boundry will continue [minus the power lines] to a point where 443 turns south to Jewrusalem. A chainlink fence will skirt the Aterot Airport [which goes to Palestine]. The
stub north of 443 is cut at the existing barrier. The cities of Tulkarm and Qalqilyah are
'moved east'--rebuilt to 'The ARC' standards,
either as the new 'station towns' or 'boulevard
communities' Residents of the former cities may
move to the 'new' ones or to anywhere else in
Palestine they wish to settle in. Any minor ham-
lets vacated will be turned over to Israel or
dismantled--whichever is better in each case... The bulge at Imwas goes to Israel.. Israel keeps
Route 5 [to Ariel]. Ariel and its satellite sites will remain Israel--if Israel does not prevent the connection of Al Rawabi to 'TheARC'
with sufficient E-W highways and utility easements...The ARC will pass Jewrusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron, where a short spur-line
will proceed SW for future use. An ARC line, near 31d/30'N will connect Hebron to North Gaza.
This easement shud be 1km wide to allow for the
Pal Tollway, a 2-track railway, a 2 lane 'frontage' road and other necessary water lines, power, communications, etc. At about midway, a Pal State Police station, emergency
vehicle garage and rest stop will be built...
Rte 1 East will become Israel and serve eastern
gated communities and the passage for Israelis to Jordan, over the King Abdullah Bridge. The
Rte 1 East connection with Rte 90 [N-S] will be
broken: Rte 90 will become Palestine along its
entire length within Palestine. The northand
south ends will be cut off and barricaded..All
of these features will be 'on the map'--colored
pins and strings will be available for Pal and
Israeli engineers and land-authorities to lay out further changes/confirmations. Every Pal community will have accurate N-S [meridian] and
E-W [baseline] coordinates to build-out upon,
according to the Palestine Geo-planning Project
which will plot, platt, record, and warranty-
deed EVERY place in Palestine. Eventually, all
Pal land will be 'owned' withany scraps and minor bits being held by the Pal National Parks.
A week or so of intensive study and 'string-mapping' shud fix the boundries, water supplies,
and sewage disposal matters. Both nations will
recognize eachother and sign the required documents...Palestine will vacate Jewrusalem and
build its new, no-nonsense capital campus in a
location yet to be determined, but close to 'The
ARC'...Aaron Allen...
Ref. "Israel to build 336 new West Bank settlement homes" by the Associated Press. [I'll try to keep this one short]. Under what real, internationally-recognized, legal authority does Israel review/approve 'tenders' to contractors or developers to stake-out such housing projects? Is it 'might makes right'?
Is it a benefit of rule by [Basic Laws] decree?
Maybe this sort of agressive land-theft can be
examined by appropriate committees of the UN in
New York in September? Will the nation of Palestine [not 'Palestein'] be able to get fellow UN Members to stop ANY violation of its
new--but long overdue--sovereignty? Wud the presence of a few hundred well-trained and behaved UN Policefolk and Peacekeeping troops be helpful in keeping things-agreed as things-settled?..The UNfolk shud be White northern Europeans, Black central/eastern/southern Africans, and Oriental eastern and south eastern
Asians: No Mid-Easterners--Semites/Jews, Arabs/ Muslim!..Aaron Allen...
Ref 'moral' boycotts vs 'economic' ones? Almost
all boycotts are based upon some actual or percei
ved moral principle. Sometimes a boycott is a pub
lic action or reaction to a political or 'fairness' issue...Example of an evil, unfair
boycott: The nazi 'boycott' of Jewish businesses,
artists, and professionals such as doctors...Exam
ple of a 'justified' boycott: The Montgomery AL
busline boycott by African Americans...Think upon
it carefully--what type of boycott is that of the
goods/produce of the settlements and/or the hill-
top trailer lots? Cud the population observe both
principles--boycotters DON'T buy stuff from the
West Bank; supporters DO buy things from Gated
Communities and hilltops of Samaria and Judea?..
If Israel is truly a 'democracy', this shud do--
trying to control morality by legal restrictions
is not worthy of a country founded upon devotion
and rectitude...Aaron Allen...
Two PS-ideas to my msgs ref. Palestine bringing a 'working model' [table tennis-sized topo-map]
to UNHQ in Sept: UN Police shud security-check
ALL persons who approach 'map'--and, ALL changes
or additions are scanned into a computer for safekeeping...A view-only [no tampering, etc.]
site shud be available [with commentary in several languages] for folks to lookit? C-SPAN,
Al-Jezera, PBS, BBC, etc. shud be able to take
feeds of visuals and spoken info from the official participants?..No shouting, interrupting, other disorder is tolerated?..Aaron Allen...