Ponce
11th September 2011, 05:43 PM
General Assembly vote on Palestine: 1967 border is the point of
reference
From: Iskandar Masih <iskandar38@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011
08:43:11 +0500
Published on The National Interest
Aug 10, 2011
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/challenging-the-insupportable-arguments-against-palestinian-5734
Challenging the Insupportable Arguments against Palestinian Statehood
In their near-hysterical efforts to prevent Palestinians from asking
the United Nations to recognize the Palestinian right to
self-determination and statehood in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel and
the United States have put forward a number of insupportable arguments
that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
The claim that the UN is not the appropriate address for bringing about
Palestinian statehood that underlies the various legal, political and
prudential arguments mustered against the Palestinian initiative can
only be described as a lie. Not only was the UN set up to deal with
issues of war and peace, it set the indisputable legal point of
reference for all subsequent Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts—Security
Council resolutions 242 and 338.
Indeed, one of the main purposes of the UN was ending colonial
domination and promoting the self-determination of native populations in
former mandated territories. It is the UN’s action in its Partition
Resolution of 1947 that established the legitimacy of a Jewish State of
Israel in a part of Palestine, at the time a British mandate, a fact
celebrated in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. That same resolution
established the legitimacy of Palestinian patrimony in an Arab state
whose territory was twice as large as Palestinians claim for their state
today.
Even more wrongheaded than the notion of the inappropriateness of
bringing this issue to the UN is the alternative venue advocated by
President Obama—a return to the deadlocked bilateral “peace process.” So
far, this “peace process” has enabled the transfer of over half a
million Jews from Israel into Palestinian territory and East Jerusalem,
but not one square inch of Palestinian sovereignty.
There is an even more fundamental misrepresentation at play here:
Security Council Resolution 242 declares unequivocally the
impermissibility of acquiring territory as a result of war, no matter
who started the war. What this means is that it is the party whose
territory is under occupation whose consent to changes in the
pre-conflict border must be obtained, not the consent of the occupying
party. If the occupying power fails to obtain that consent, it must
either return to the Security Council to obtain its permission to retain
any part of that territory, or withdraw without any territorial changes.
The assumption that in the absence of an agreement, the occupying power
can retain its permanent hold on the occupied territories is absurd. But
that is the absurdity that has defined America’s peace efforts—as well
as the EU’s—to this day.
The alleged legal objection to the Palestinian initiative is that it
violates the terms of the Oslo accords, which preclude measures by
either party to resolve unilaterally any of the permanent status issues.
If it were true, as Israel’s government maintains, that an impermissible
unilateral measure frees the other party from the Oslo accords’
obligations, then Palestinians were freed of Oslo’s obligations long
ago, for both the UN and the International Court of Justice have
declared that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank are not only
impermissible unilateral acts but in clear violation of established
international law.
More fundamentally, however, it is simply not true that the proposed
Palestinian initiative violates the Oslo agreement. Palestinians do not
intend to ask the UN to address any of the permanent status issues they
are required to negotiate with Israel. If the UN were to declare that
Palestinians have achieved the requirements of statehood—as they have in
fact been found to have done by the IMF and the World Bank—and a
Palestinian state were accepted into full UN membership, Palestinians
would still have to reach agreement on each of the permanent status
issues with Israel.
The United States and Israel have warned Palestinians to abandon their
UN initiative on prudential grounds as well, for even if they were to
succeed in obtaining UN recognition of their right to statehood in the
Occupied Territories, nothing would change on the ground, for Israel’s
government would be as indifferent to such a UN declaration as it has
been to countless other UN directives. Indeed, Israel’s foreign
minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has threatened that in those circumstances
Israel would feel free to annex far more West Bank territory than it
already has.
But if were true that UN action would have no effect whatever in
advancing the Palestinian cause, except perhaps to spur an even greater
Israeli land grab, why is Israel engaged in such frantic efforts to
prevent a UN showdown? Indeed, why does it not welcome the Palestinian
initiative?
The answer is that what the Netanyahu/Lieberman government fears most is
an international confirmation that the 1967 border is the point of
reference for Israeli Palestinian territorial negotiations, for despite
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s alleged acceptance of a two-state solution,
he remains as committed to the retention of most if not all of the West
Bank as are most other members of his government, most of whom belong to
the “Whole Land of Israel Caucus” in Israel’s Knesset. (Imagine what
would have been the U.S. reaction to a Palestinian parliamentary caucus
for the retention of the “Whole Land of Palestine.”)
A formal UN designation of the 1967 border as the starting point of
negotiations, especially if it includes a provision for “equal land
swaps,” would likely spell the end of the Whole Land of Israel dream.
For if Israel had to yield as much Israeli territory as it seeks to
acquire from the Palestinians beyond the 1967 border, it would wind up
with no more of the Land of Israel than it already possesses. That, too,
is why Netanyahu behaved so outrageously in trying to get Obama to back
down from his May 19 statement that the 1967 line and land swaps are the
essential elements of a territorial agreement.
What is so shameful is that not only have we failed to support a
legitimate Palestinian demand but we threaten to punish them severely
for it by denying them further U.S. financial support. Have we ever
issued such threats to Israel, even when its governments engaged in
behavior considerably more reprehensible than turning to the UN?
We have put forward our democracy as a model for the rest of the world
to follow. But in seeking to bludgeon Mahmoud Abbas into foregoing the
United Nations and returning to predictably futile negotiations with
Benjamin Netanyahu, the United States is placing its diplomatic leverage
at the service of Israeli policies aimed at preventing Palestinian
democratic self-determination. That is how the world will see it, no
matter how this administration will try to rationalize its actions at
the UN in September.
Henry Siegman, President of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a
non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East
Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Links:
[1] http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=nationalinterest
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/harry-siegman
reference
From: Iskandar Masih <iskandar38@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011
08:43:11 +0500
Published on The National Interest
Aug 10, 2011
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/challenging-the-insupportable-arguments-against-palestinian-5734
Challenging the Insupportable Arguments against Palestinian Statehood
In their near-hysterical efforts to prevent Palestinians from asking
the United Nations to recognize the Palestinian right to
self-determination and statehood in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel and
the United States have put forward a number of insupportable arguments
that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
The claim that the UN is not the appropriate address for bringing about
Palestinian statehood that underlies the various legal, political and
prudential arguments mustered against the Palestinian initiative can
only be described as a lie. Not only was the UN set up to deal with
issues of war and peace, it set the indisputable legal point of
reference for all subsequent Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts—Security
Council resolutions 242 and 338.
Indeed, one of the main purposes of the UN was ending colonial
domination and promoting the self-determination of native populations in
former mandated territories. It is the UN’s action in its Partition
Resolution of 1947 that established the legitimacy of a Jewish State of
Israel in a part of Palestine, at the time a British mandate, a fact
celebrated in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. That same resolution
established the legitimacy of Palestinian patrimony in an Arab state
whose territory was twice as large as Palestinians claim for their state
today.
Even more wrongheaded than the notion of the inappropriateness of
bringing this issue to the UN is the alternative venue advocated by
President Obama—a return to the deadlocked bilateral “peace process.” So
far, this “peace process” has enabled the transfer of over half a
million Jews from Israel into Palestinian territory and East Jerusalem,
but not one square inch of Palestinian sovereignty.
There is an even more fundamental misrepresentation at play here:
Security Council Resolution 242 declares unequivocally the
impermissibility of acquiring territory as a result of war, no matter
who started the war. What this means is that it is the party whose
territory is under occupation whose consent to changes in the
pre-conflict border must be obtained, not the consent of the occupying
party. If the occupying power fails to obtain that consent, it must
either return to the Security Council to obtain its permission to retain
any part of that territory, or withdraw without any territorial changes.
The assumption that in the absence of an agreement, the occupying power
can retain its permanent hold on the occupied territories is absurd. But
that is the absurdity that has defined America’s peace efforts—as well
as the EU’s—to this day.
The alleged legal objection to the Palestinian initiative is that it
violates the terms of the Oslo accords, which preclude measures by
either party to resolve unilaterally any of the permanent status issues.
If it were true, as Israel’s government maintains, that an impermissible
unilateral measure frees the other party from the Oslo accords’
obligations, then Palestinians were freed of Oslo’s obligations long
ago, for both the UN and the International Court of Justice have
declared that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank are not only
impermissible unilateral acts but in clear violation of established
international law.
More fundamentally, however, it is simply not true that the proposed
Palestinian initiative violates the Oslo agreement. Palestinians do not
intend to ask the UN to address any of the permanent status issues they
are required to negotiate with Israel. If the UN were to declare that
Palestinians have achieved the requirements of statehood—as they have in
fact been found to have done by the IMF and the World Bank—and a
Palestinian state were accepted into full UN membership, Palestinians
would still have to reach agreement on each of the permanent status
issues with Israel.
The United States and Israel have warned Palestinians to abandon their
UN initiative on prudential grounds as well, for even if they were to
succeed in obtaining UN recognition of their right to statehood in the
Occupied Territories, nothing would change on the ground, for Israel’s
government would be as indifferent to such a UN declaration as it has
been to countless other UN directives. Indeed, Israel’s foreign
minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has threatened that in those circumstances
Israel would feel free to annex far more West Bank territory than it
already has.
But if were true that UN action would have no effect whatever in
advancing the Palestinian cause, except perhaps to spur an even greater
Israeli land grab, why is Israel engaged in such frantic efforts to
prevent a UN showdown? Indeed, why does it not welcome the Palestinian
initiative?
The answer is that what the Netanyahu/Lieberman government fears most is
an international confirmation that the 1967 border is the point of
reference for Israeli Palestinian territorial negotiations, for despite
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s alleged acceptance of a two-state solution,
he remains as committed to the retention of most if not all of the West
Bank as are most other members of his government, most of whom belong to
the “Whole Land of Israel Caucus” in Israel’s Knesset. (Imagine what
would have been the U.S. reaction to a Palestinian parliamentary caucus
for the retention of the “Whole Land of Palestine.”)
A formal UN designation of the 1967 border as the starting point of
negotiations, especially if it includes a provision for “equal land
swaps,” would likely spell the end of the Whole Land of Israel dream.
For if Israel had to yield as much Israeli territory as it seeks to
acquire from the Palestinians beyond the 1967 border, it would wind up
with no more of the Land of Israel than it already possesses. That, too,
is why Netanyahu behaved so outrageously in trying to get Obama to back
down from his May 19 statement that the 1967 line and land swaps are the
essential elements of a territorial agreement.
What is so shameful is that not only have we failed to support a
legitimate Palestinian demand but we threaten to punish them severely
for it by denying them further U.S. financial support. Have we ever
issued such threats to Israel, even when its governments engaged in
behavior considerably more reprehensible than turning to the UN?
We have put forward our democracy as a model for the rest of the world
to follow. But in seeking to bludgeon Mahmoud Abbas into foregoing the
United Nations and returning to predictably futile negotiations with
Benjamin Netanyahu, the United States is placing its diplomatic leverage
at the service of Israeli policies aimed at preventing Palestinian
democratic self-determination. That is how the world will see it, no
matter how this administration will try to rationalize its actions at
the UN in September.
Henry Siegman, President of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a
non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East
Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Links:
[1] http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=nationalinterest
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/harry-siegman