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

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"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."

more

[The Magistrate]

1. They Should Have Done This Long Ago, Sir

Israel has not a shadow of legal right to exercise a veto over it, and regularizing the legal framework of the situation through the establishment of sovereignty will be beneficial all around in the long run.

[imdjh]

2. If any US official has agreed secretly or otherwise to side against Israel...

... I will cock my head disinterested as he or she is hauled from his or her office and delivered to the street.

[The Magistrate]

3. We have Nothing To say About It Either, Ma'am

It is a matter solely between the Arab Palestinian political leadership and those countries who choose to recognize a declaration of statehood by them, should they make one. A sufficient number would recognize such a declaration to establish it as a legitimate state.

[imdjh]

4. Israel is not giving up Jerusalem. They have no reason to, and no one should expect them to.

[The Magistrate]

5. Not My Problem, Ma'am

The de facto borders of Israel, the area in which it legally exercises sovereignty, are those of the Armistice Line of '49.

While as a matter of political will within Israel, the matter is as you state, and as a matter of military capability, Israel is certainly capable of holding the territory, as a matter of law Israel has no more of a leg to stand on than did Jordan between '49 and '67.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. No-one's asking Israel to give up West Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem is occupied...

...and for anyone to sit there and feign shock that people would expect Israel to respect international law is a rather ridiculous tactic to use, imo...

[imdjh]

7. Hi.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Hello :)

[sabbat hunter]

18. It depends

Is the old city of Jerusalem considered East or West Jerusalem?

[The Magistrate]

20. The 'Old City' is East Jerusalem, Sir

[sabbat hunter]

35. If the Palestinians

ever think that the old city will be a part of Palestine, then we will never have peace. Personally I would love to see the old city as an international city under UN auspices. (not like they actually defended it in 49 from invading Jordanian forces). Baring that it should remain as is under Israel political control with the various holy sites under the control of the various religions.

I don't think the most liberal person in Israel would consider giving up political control of the old city.
I would not have a problem with Palestinian political control of the eastern part of Jerusalem outside of the old city.

[sabbat hunter]

36. well if you want to go that way

Jerusalem wasn't supposed to be a part of Palestine either. So if Israel was to give up control of the old city, it still would be occupied territory, just under Palestinian auspices instead of Israeli ones.

Best solution is to have the UN have true control over the old city with open access to all holy sites by everyone. With Israel having its capital in the new section of the western areas of Jerusalem, Palestine having its capital in new sections of eastern Jerusalem.

Second best would to leave the old city politically in Israeli hands with the holy sites controlled by the various religions (status quo) and Palestine gets the newer areas of eastern jerusalem for its capital.

But I think anyone who thinks that the old city will be controlled politically by Palestine, is fooling themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I thought they had done it or something very similar before...

Back in the 1980's, but I'm most probably wrong. Anyway, I certainly would hope there'd be no veto of any declaration of statehood by Palestine, because that veto would be a very strong indication of not being interested in a viable and sovereign Palestinian state...

[The Magistrate]

11. Not To My Knowledge, Ma'am

No formal declaration, 'we are a state', equivalent to the Israeli declaration in '48.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Then they definately need to do it now and formalise things...

I guess it's been the uncertainty over how many other countries would recognise them that's been holding them back until now, but I think they'd be silly not to do it now...

[The Magistrate]

14. The Chief Reason It has Not Been Done, Ma'am, is Probably Not Uncertainty Over Acceptance

It is rather that such a declaration must establish a territorial limit. This is a very loaded matter in Arab Palestinian politics. Some parties insist that portions of land the world recognizes as part of Israel are by rights part of Arab Palestine, and even some who hold all of Israel ought to be part of Arab Palestine. A declaration of sovereignty on the '49 Armistice Line would put an end to such pretensions, or perhaps more likely, raise up armed Arab Palestinian internal resistance to the new state, in refusal to recognize the retreat from maximalist designs.

[excess_3]

21. Palestine declared independence in 1988 .nr

[The Magistrate]

23. The Algiers Declaration is a Dead Letter, Sir

The body proclaiming it had not even a pretense of control over either the people or territory of the place.

The present 'Palestine Authority' is present in the place, and has some control over the ground and the people. A degree of fiction would still be present in regard to effective exercise of sovereignty, but not enough of one to dissuade many from recognizing it, were it proclaimed tomorrow.

[excess_3]

24. Palestinian independence versions 1.0, 2.0. 3.0, all the same to me .nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. Algiers Declaration in 1988.

[sabbat hunter]

17. I completely agree n/t

[aranthus]

32. Agreed. Why do you think that they have not? n/t

[The Magistrate]

33. See No. 14, Sir, For The Short Answer

Both sides feel they derive some benefit by leaving certain definitions a bit hazy....

[aranthus]

34. I see it now, thanks.

I agree with your reasoning, but I also see declaring statehood as entering into a new unknown. How will the Israelis react? Will the new state be viable as is? What about the Palestinian Diaspora? I suspect these questions are in the minds of Palestinian leadership as well.

[Mosby]

10. I think it's a great idea

assuming of course that the PA can ensure adequate security for it's citizens and Israelis.

I wonder if there are plans to offer citizenship to the jewish settlers?

[The Magistrate]

12. Most Likely, Sir, they Would Be Regarded As illegal Aliens....

It is a settled matter of international law now that the settlements are illegal, and the people in them have no lawful right to be there.

[Mosby]

15. Israel absorbed it's remaining arab population

when it implemented UN res 181, even though it's 61 years later it seems fair that the Palestinians do the same when they declare statehood.

There is also the issue of UN res 242, which would IMO necessitate land swaps with Palestine at some future date.

[The Magistrate]

16. What Does Fair have To Do With Anything, Sir?

And besides, it is hard to see what you are driving at in any case. The original Partition of '47 assigned a good many Arabs to the Jewish Zone; in the course of the war that followed, Israel over-ran roughly half the alloted Arab Zone. None of the Arabs remaining under Israeli rule moved there from elsewhere, and all were included under the citizenship laws of the new state.

The Israeli settlements are a transfer of the occupying power's citizens to occupied territory: that is barred by the Geneva Conventions, which a competent international tribunal has ruled apply to the lands Israel over-ran in'67.

Resolution 242 is pretty much beside the point, as it really envisioned the possibility of adjusting borders relative to existing states, Syria, Jordan Egypt, and Lebanon. In any case, it allows such adjustments, but does not require them.

Obviously, the two states could negotiate any mutually satisfactory arrangement between themselves....

[Mosby]

28. I'm just trying to figure out how this could work

I think Fayyad is serious about his two-year plan but there are significant aspects to it that will require negotiations and multilateral involvement with other countries. There is the Palestinian refugee population to consider, now more than 3.5 million strong - funding will need to be secured to relocate that many people.

I don't think there is any question that Israel will be unwilling to evacuate the major settlement blocks near the green line, and some people (like Dore Gold) assert that res 181 is null and void while the oslo agreement is in force due to it's acceptance by both sides. The agreement stipulates that the conflict will be resolved through negotiations and based on UN ress 242 and 338.

[The Magistrate]

31. The Situation, Sir, Would Become Extremely Interesting....

A declaration of statehood would not void the de facto condition of military occupation, or void any right of an occupying power. In my view, however, it would render void any agreement between Israel and any pre-state Arab Palestinian authority, as the situation of a newly declared state would be different from that of a change in ministry or administration within a state. The establishment of a state of Arab Palestine would give its leadership direct access to various international courts for redress of Israeli violations of the laws regulating conduct of an occupying power, the most important of which are such encroachments on land as establishment of settlements, the present position of the security barrier, and various other seizures of land to Israeli property. There is no doubt whatever an international tribunal would rule against Israel on these questions, and that it would be correctly applying the law when it did so.

[shira]

19. Declaring statehood violates Oslo and UNSCR 242 (secure & defensible borders)

The PA unilaterally ending Oslo also frees Israel from their restrictions and responsibilities they agreed to at Oslo.

And with the fairly recent rocket activity from the north and south (Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008/09), Israel will not tolerate a threat from the W.Bank many times worse if the PA pushes to get them out of Area C and the settlement highlands. Not to mention that even if Israel agreed, it would only be a short matter of time before the rockets fly and that would be more disastrous for Palestinians than Israelis (not that the faux 'peace' camp cares too much about that since they get their jollies demonizing Israel for self-defense....leading me to believe Western extremists would love to see 'justice' in the form of rockets flying into the Israeli mainland from the W.Bank, nevermind the toll it would take on Palestinians).

I call bullshit.

Fatah has the most to lose from this, knowing Hamas would overrun them as they did in Gaza without the IDF's help keeping them down in the W.Bank.

[The Magistrate]

22. Oslo, Ma'am? Flowers Are Thick On Its Grave; It is Sincerely Mourned Lo these Many Years

Resolution 242 says nothing of relevance here. The 'defensible borders' language concerned borers with states then existing, principally Jordan and Egypt and Syria. It also relates to a quite different military environment, where the threat considered was conventional military attack on the ground that could indeed in theory have physically over-run the state.

The original intent of the United Nations, expressed in the Partition of '47, was for two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state, on the territory of the Palestine Mandate. No legal bar exists to prevent the political leadership of Arab Palestine from reviving this unilaterally.

[Mosby]

27. What do you make of this?

General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was made null and void by the Arab States and the Palestinian leadership in the aftermath of its adoption on 29 November 1947. In statement after statement on the floor of the General Assembly, representatives of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia not only refused to comply with its recommendations but also subsequently admitted to the use of armed force to overthrow its provisions.

With the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine on 14 May 1948, the armies of seven Arab States illegally attacked the newly born State of Israel. United Nations Secretary-General Trygve Lie termed this act "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the (Second World) War". It should be noted that the Arab League actually included the rejection of the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947 as a formal justification for its invasion.

The United Nations Palestine Commission, in its report to the Security Council on 16 February 1948, viewed the armed Arab invasion as an act intended to nullify resolution 181 (II): "Organized efforts are being made by strong Arab elements inside and outside Palestine to prevent the implementation of the Assembly's plan of partition and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory ... This Commission now finds itself confronted with an attempt to defeat its purposes, and to nullify the resolution of the General Assembly."

The War imposed on Israel was particularly difficult for Jerusalem. By the end of May 1948, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City had fallen. Its residents were expelled. Ancient synagogues had been destroyed or desecrated. The rest of Jerusalem was put under siege and surrounded by invading armies on three sides. Only the convoys of the newly formed Israel Defence Forces provided food and water to Jerusalem's residents. No United Nations body took any action to protect Jerusalem at this critical time.

For these reasons, Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stated before the Knesset on 3 December 1949: "Thus we can no longer regard the United Nations resolution of 29th November as having any moral force. After the United Nations failed to implement its own resolution, we regard the resolution of the 29th November concerning Jerusalem to be null and void."

The fundamental act of international illegality was the invasion of the nascent State of Israel and the attempt to overturn a resolution of the General Assembly with armed force. That is why those seeking to critique Israel's position on the status of resolution 181 (II) are misdirected. For in fact, resolution 181 (II) was made irrelevant by the actions of the Arab States and the Palestinian leadership in 1948, whose refusal to accept the resolution altered the circumstances in the Middle East on which it was originally based.

By early 1949, with their invasion thwarted, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan entered into armistice agreements with the State of Israel. These agreements made no mention of 181 (II). Similarly, Security Council resolution 73 (1949) of 11 August 1949, which endorsed the armistice, made no reference to 181 (II). In short, from the perspective of Israel, resolution 181 (II) had been overtaken by the events of 1947-1949.

In order to respond to the new realities that emerged in the years and decades following the partition resolution, the United Nations abandoned the proposals contained in resolution 181 (II). In its place, the Security Council adopted resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) which provided a radically different formula for the settlement of the conflict. Indeed, this is the only formula that has been accepted by all concerned as the basis for permanent status negotiations.

http://www.jcpa.org/art/jid-apx.htm

[The Magistrate]

30. It Does Not Much Impress Me, Sir

Since the state of Israel must trace its own claim of legitimacy, legitimacy beyond force majeure, anyway, to the Partition resolution, it is in no position to argue that the Partition resolution is nullified. Both the familiar Security Council resolution arose in a context in which no one, even Arab Palestinian political leadership itself, envisioned an independent Arab Palestine, at least one which was not erected on the ruins of Israel as it stood within the '49 boundaries.

Israel can legally occupy the territory it over-ran in '67 so long as it pleases, but it cannot annex it or any portion of it, nor can it establish colonies of its citizens unilaterally upon any portion of it, and in its administration of it, it cannot alter the civil law in force there at the time occupation commenced. The population of the place is under no obligation to accept or co-operate with the occupation, and has the right to resist it. Both parties, Israel in suppressing resistance, and elements of the population in resisting occupation, must abide by the laws of war. Israel has no right to, or any legal claim to, a square inch of that territory under any condition but that of military occupation. This is simply how the law stands on the matter.

[bemildred]

37. I must say, Sir, that it is a pleasure to see you spending a bit of time down here again. nt

[The Magistrate]

38. Thank You, My Friend

Not much more than a recce in force, really: this topic caught my eye the moment it was posted....

"What my Noble Lord requires is two thousand ounces of silver yearly. Otherwise I shall be forced to quarter my braves on your granaries."

[bemildred]

39. Subotai demonstrated, Sir, what a skilled hand can do in executing a recce in force.

But no doubt I have now made you vain by such a comparison.

One would like to quote Gibbon here, but I do not have it at my disposal.

[bemildred]

40. Ah, here it is:

“Dost thou not know, that the greatest part of Asia is subject to our arms and our laws? that our invincible forces extend from one sea to the other? that the potentates of the earth form a line before our gate? and that we have compelled Fortune herself to watch over the prosperity of our empire. What is the foundation of thy insolence and folly? Thou hast fought some battles in the woods of Anatolia; contemptible trophies! Thou hast obtained some victories over the Christians of Europe; thy sword was blessed by the apostle of God; and thy obedience to the precept of the Koran, in waging war against the infidels, is the sole consideration that prevents us from destroying thy country, the frontier and bulwark of the Moslem world. Be wise in time; reflect; repent; and avert the thunder of our vengeance, which is yet suspended over thy head. Thou art no more than a pismire; why wilt thou seek to provoke the elephants? Alas! they will trample thee under their feet.”

[The Magistrate]

41. No Need, Sir, To Fear My Conflating Myself With The Great Subotai....

That is a great screed, though: standards have certainly fallen....

"Another damned thick square book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh! Mr Gibbon!"

[LeftishBrit]

25. I hope they *do*; it's probably the one thing that might work

[azurnoir]

29. Hasn't "the Quartet" thrown in their support for Fayyad's

2 year plan? albeit there is some of the same hysteria about that too

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&...

And just what is Obama supposed to veto here?

[Scurrilous]

42. Abbas must unilaterally declare Palestinian state - Yossi Sarid

<snip>

"It is precisely now that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas must not give up hope, and not because of the sweet nothings that Shimon Peres uttered at the rally in the square last Saturday night about people giving up hope in Ramallah. As if at the President's Residence every day is Carnaval, and not only when he's packing his bags for his trip to Brazil.

Abbas was right when he decided to announce he would soon resign: It is impossible to hold negotiations "without prior conditions" while settlement is going on. For 42 years Israel has been scattering prior conditions and faits accomplis all over, marking them with red tile roofs and making the peace process into nothing more than a never-ending process.

But before Abu Mazen quits, he has just one more job to do: He must declare, unilaterally, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Palestine now.

Both sides have a right to act unilaterally. Abbas owes it to his people, to himself, and to us. This week, there were reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds this possibility very scary, and he expects the Americans to nip it in the bud. But his nightmare is our only chance for an end to the occupation in our time."

more

[bemildred]

43. Four days late, U.S. releases photo of Netanyahu-Obama meet

The White House finally released on Thursday a photograph of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting Monday with U.S. President Barack Obama, after speculation that the lack of a photo opportunity was an intentional slight by the administration.

Commentators have suggested that the White House wished to "humiliate" Netanyahu by not issuing an official photograph of the talks, in order to highlight dissatisfaction over the premier's unwillingness to make further concessions on West Bank settlement construction.

The photograph shows the two leaders in conversation leaning over a table endowed with cookies in the Oval Office private dining room.

The meeting lasted roughly an hour and 40 minutes, of which about an hour was devoted to a tense tete-a-tete between Netanyahu and Obama. Senior officials from both sides were present for the rest.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1128041.html