UN rep. backs declaration of Palestinian state in next year

[dayag]

Ready for statehood?

United Nations Special Middle East Peace Negotiator Robert H. Serry told Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on Tuesday that the UN will a support the declaration of an independent Palestinian state. Serry spoke to Fayyad while the two picked olives together near the West Bank village of Turmus'ayyeh, close to the Israeli settlement of Shiloh.

"All international players are now in agreement that the Palestinians are ready for statehood at any point in the near future," said Serry. He continued, "We are in the homestretch of your [Fayyad's] agenda to reach that point by August next year and you have our full support."...

source: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=192836

[curlyg]

I do not think it is a laughing matter. We had better hope that Obama doesn't instruct the US representative to abstain, else the resolution will pass in the Security Council and impose international obligations, dictating borders and superseding UNSC Res 242.

[dayag]

I do not think it is a laughing matter. We had better hope that Obama doesn't instruct the US representative to abstain, else the resolution will pass in the Security Council and impose international obligations, dictating borders and superseding UNSC Res 242.

I was laughing at the idea that the Palestinians are ready for statehood, Curly. That is very funny.

I have no doubt that the US would veto such a resolution in the UNSC. But should the US allow such a resolution to pass, would you support complying with it?

[scattergood]

This actually could be good. If they declare a state, Israel is no longer responsible for them in any, way, shape, or form. Turn out the lights, water, and power and wait.

When the inevitable explosion of violence comes and hits Israel, then you can really go to town and just take everything. A state has rights, and it has responsibilities too. The Pal's aren't ready and if they jump in too fast they will pay the price.

Yes there will be those who say, no matter what, that Israel is responsible for the Pal's even after they get a state, but the bigger issue is whether Israel can justify to themselves to do what is needed. A failed Pal state may help that internal unity.

[curlyg]

So long as Israel maintains effective control over the territories, e.g. controlling borders, currency, military deployments, civil administration, etc. Israel will still be "responsible for them." These responsibilities are imposed upon an occupying power under international law. All such a resolution would do is dictate the terms of negotiations, and eliminate any "constructive ambiguity" as in UN 242.

[Reffo]

So long as Israel maintains effective control over the territories, e.g. controlling borders, currency, military deployments, civil administration, etc. Israel will still be "responsible for them." These responsibilities are imposed upon an occupying power under international law. All such a resolution would do is dictate the terms of negotiations, and eliminate any "constructive ambiguity" as in UN 242.

Israel could just withdraw from all Arab occupied areas but not the Jewish ones. Allow them to declare their state, allow the Arabs to set up government and govern themselves. To all intents and purposes, the conflict will then become a border dispute between two sovereign countries and in such circumstances, Israel would no longer be required to supply them with electricity or with a communication network of anything else for that matter ...

Of course, the usual suspects will be screaming otherwise and will demand that Israel should look after them from cradle to grave ...

[Mediocrates]

You are not going to move 300,000 people because the UN says you should. Period.

[Reffo]

Yes, I said Israel would continue controlling those areas where 300,000 Jews live ...

[Kachah]

Israel could just withdraw from all Arab occupied areas ...

Sorry, Reffo, my answer to this is Gaza and Hamas, South Lebanon and Hezbollah.
Apparently, Israel cannot "just withdraw".

[Ahakon]

Sorry, Reffo, my answer to this is Gaza and Hamas, South Lebanon and Hezbollah.
Apparently, Israel cannot "just withdraw".

More to the point, Israel cannot allow a "sovereign" PA state to invite Iran to set up shop. No way, no how. The world will not be able to say squat, what with all the talk about "Israel living in security side-by-side" with the devil.

[Reffo]

Kachah, Ahakon

I am not advocating withdrawal. I just mentioned that as an option to counteract a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. It would demonstrate to them and to the world that such a state would not viable without the cooperation from Israel if Israel would stop supplying to them the essentials of life such as electricity, water, telecommunications etc. By withdrawing, Israel could no longer be considered as an occupier and therefore it would no longer be obliged to supply those essentials to them.

Has that option got hairs on it? Maybe ... but we need to look at all eventualities and options and discuss the up and down sides of each...

Sorry, Reffo, my answer to this is Gaza and Hamas, South Lebanon and Hezbollah. Apparently, Israel cannot "just withdraw".

Not the same scenario. Read my above ...

More to the point, Israel cannot allow a "sovereign" PA state to invite Iran to set up shop. No way, no how. The world will not be able to say squat, what with all the talk about "Israel living in security side-by-side" with the devil.

I agree, that could be a real risk. Conversely, it could be an opportunity to bring things to a head with Iran. Stretch their supply lines and bloody their nose.

By the way, how do you think Jordan would feel about that? Might put them too in a very awkward position. Who knows, they might even be forced to rely on Israel to keep them out of the claws of the Shiite power ...

[Mediocrates]

Yes, I said Israel would continue controlling those areas where 300,000 Jews live ...

That flies in the face with unilateral 'decisions' to create Palestine on the 1949 Armistice lines.

[Reffo]

Like I said, I am not necessarily advocating it. It is something to consider as an option in the face of unilateral decisions by the UN against Israel.

Like any option, it has ups and downs. The real question is whether it's detrimental or beneficial overall. So let's hear all the down sides ... Personally I don't think that the word "unilateral" should be considered a down side. Only what might result from it could be a downer ...

Here is an obvious one: Violence will break out. My answer to that is that the way things are going, with or without the UN, it seems to me that the region is heading towards another cycle of violence. Unfortunately.

[curlyg]

Reffo's option actually has some merit, in that it would demonstrate to the Palestinians that such a unilateral declaration would backfire on them.

[wat0n]

Israel could just withdraw from all Arab occupied areas but not the Jewish ones. Allow them to declare their state, allow the Arabs to set up government and govern themselves. To all intents and purposes, the conflict will then become a border dispute between two sovereign countries and in such circumstances, Israel would no longer be required to supply them with electricity or with a communication network of anything else for that matter ...

Of course, the usual suspects will be screaming otherwise and will demand that Israel should look after them from cradle to grave ...

It could be rather problematic, though. I mean, rockets flying to Tel Aviv from Ramallah and such, once Hamas toppled Fatah.