Going into yesterday’s UN vote on upgrading Palestinian status at the world body, the Palestinian Authority received a fair amount of support from Israeli political figures, including former prime minister Ehud Olmert and former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh. Western European leaders also supported Mahmoud Abbas’s UN stunt as a way to possibly break the peace process out of its slumber. And in an utterly predictable move, the Palestinians announced as soon as the vote was tallied that they plan to make their Israeli and Western supporters look foolish.
The New York Times reports on the “day after” in Abbas’s world, and explains why negotiations are at an impasse: “Negotiations for a two-state solution have been stalled with the Palestinians, who insist on a halt to settlement building. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, says he is ready for negotiations without preconditions and has refused to renew a temporary freeze that expired in 2010.” There’s that genius idea of President Obama’s still haunting negotiations: the curse of the “preconditions.” Now that we know precondition demands by the Palestinians are holding up negotiations, will the UN vote change that? “With the new emphasis on the territory as occupied, Palestinian officials said, the demand for a settlement freeze was unlikely to be dropped,” the Times continues. So yesterday’s vote will make it less likely the Palestinians will return to the negotiating table.
Let’s not forget the full extent of the disaster brought on the peace process by Obama’s freeze precondition; as Omri Ceren pointed out here last year, it ended up weakening rather than boosting Abbas, who found that it wasn’t so easy for him to climb down from the limb on which Obama had deserted him. Abbas apparently still thinks he can’t climb down.
But it will be interesting to see now how the Western supporters of Abbas’s UN move will react to this. Abbas is threatening not to come back to the negotiating table, which would debunk these supporters’ claims that the UN move would be good for the peace process. They may be tempted to push Netanyahu to accept Abbas’s preconditions–but that is the reason for the impasse in the first place. And they shouldn’t forget the can of worms they opened when they supported preconditions last time: every time Netanyahu appeared willing to consider preconditions, Abbas added to them, because the preconditions are designed to disrupt and prevent negotiations, not enable them.
Maybe Abbas will have a change of heart. But it appears for now that Abbas took everyone for a ride, and that Olmert and his ideological allies on the Israeli and Western left miscalculated. Go figure.
I am sure that Abu Mazzen'swill be roundly denounced by all those who were so furious at disrespect that Netanyahu's supposedly displayed toward President Obama a few months ago.
"…it will be interesting to see now how the Western supporters of Abbas’s UN move will react to this…" That's easy; they will blame Israel.
The supporters of Abbas are not only foolish but STUPID. They will continue to support while getting slapped in the face! It is amazing what oil can do! nWe can of course count on the NYT & the left to do their best to undermine IL.
Build, build and build some more. n nThe ICC is a joke. n nThe House and the Senate will revoke funding to the UN and the Palestinians. n nOslo is dead and even Tony Blair knows he will have to look for a new job. n nEven Obama knows the game is up with regards to peace negotiations. n nThere are consequences,and finally the Palestinians and their allies in Europe should be made to pay the price.
Totally agree withMGray38
Me too.
Thank you much.
The main thing the Palestinians have achieved is a change in the legal condition of Gaza and especially the West Bank, which was previously, “disputed lands”.
With this General Assembly vote they can aver that they have an independent state recognized by the UN, and since Israel circumscribes its freedom, the sovereign Arab state of Palestine is suffering an occupation.
What can the Israelis reply?
1. The Palestinian Authority has no presence in Gaza. Its people do not recognize the PA as their ruler. A govt cannot exercise sovereign rights over territory and people it does not control or represent.
2. The term of office of the Palestinian Authority expired years ago. It eschewed new elections doubting the support of the population even of the W/B. As a consequence, while the ownership of the territory may no longer be in dispute, the identity of the body with a legal claim to govern there, and to exercise its sovereign rights is in dispute.
Moreover, while both Gaza and the W/B are now deemed Palestinian land Hamas, a terrorist organization that threw PA officials off its rooftops, rules Gaza but not the W/B. And the PA controls the W/B but not Gaza. Who speaks for Palestine and with whom is Israel supposed to cut a deal?
3. The Arabs now accept the General Assembly as the legitimate dispenser of sovereign rights in the Holy Land. But they did not in Nov 1947. Then they rejected the General Assembly’s partition vote and the awarding of sovereign rights to a Jewish regime there illegal. Is that action, the decision by the Arab world to ignore such a UN vote, clung to across seven decades, and still affirmed by some Arabs, not a serious precedent?
4. What of the cost of that non-recognition? Huge injury was done to Israel since 1947, by denying her legitimacy, calling her a mere entity, not a nation, forcing her to fight for her existence for 65 years. All that is now acknowledged by the Palestinians to have been wrong. They now flourish that same General Assembly vote as legal and properly obeyed.
How will they compensate the Jewish state for that violation, now acknowledged, across all those long years, at such heavy cost in lives and treasure to Israel? If it was wrong, must such an error not be indemnified?
The Palestinians and the Arab world that supported them in their mistake, have a huge responsibility and liability to make good.
The main thing the Palestinians have achieved is a change in the legal condition of Gaza and especially the West Bank, which was previously, "disputed lands". n nWith this General Assembly vote they can aver that they have an independent state recognized by the UN, and since Israel circumscribes its freedom, the sovereign Arab state of Palestine is suffering an occupation. n nWhat can the Israelis reply? n n1. The Palestinian Authority has no presence in Gaza. Its people do not recognize the PA as their ruler. A govt cannot exercise sovereign rights over territory and people it does not control or represent. n n2. The term of office of the Palestinian Authority expired years ago. It eschewed new elections doubting the support of the population even of the W/B. As a consequence, while the ownership of the territory may no longer be in dispute, the identity of the body with a legal claim to govern there, and to exercise its sovereign rights is in dispute. n nMoreover, while both Gaza and the W/B are now deemed Palestinian land Hamas, a terrorist organization that threw PA officials off its rooftops, rules Gaza but not the W/B. And the PA controls the W/B but not Gaza. Who speaks for Palestine and with whom is Israel supposed to cut a deal? n n3. The Arabs now accept the General Assembly as the legitimate dispenser of sovereign rights in the Holy Land. But they did not in Nov 1947. Then they rejected the General Assembly's partition vote and the awarding of sovereign rights to a Jewish regime there illegal. Is that action, the decision by the Arab world to ignore such a UN vote, clung to across seven decades, and still affirmed by some Arabs, not a serious precedent? n n4. What of the cost of that non-recognition? Huge injury was done to Israel since 1947, by denying her legitimacy, calling her a mere entity, not a nation, forcing her to fight for her existence for 65 years. All that is now acknowledged by the Palestinians to have been wrong. They now flourish that same General Assembly vote as legal and properly obeyed. n nHow will they compensate the Jewish state for that violation, now acknowledged, across all those long years, at such heavy cost in lives and treasure to Israel? If it was wrong, must such an error not be indemnified? nThe Palestinians and the Arab world that supported them in their mistake, have a huge responsibility and liability to make good.