UN rep. backs declaration of Palestinian state in next year

[Reffo]

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

Yes, I agree, that's definitely one down side and it could be even worse than primitive rockets because undoubtedly Iran would try to supply them with more advanced weapons. But as I said, I for one believe that the region is heading towards violence no matter what happens short of a miracle last minute peace deal. And even then, I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that the region will turn into a new Scandinavia ...

I would think that Israel's best option to minimize any violence is to project deterrence and not just project ...

[Reffo]

Here is one that worries me though ...

If Israel pulls the plug on the West Bank, I wouldn't put it past the UN to mobilize the International community to quickly set up the infrastructure for the Palestinian Arabs to be self sufficient. On a practical level though it could still take some time and in the meanwhile Israel would have made it's point (that if the UN wants Israel's cooperation, then no unilateral action should be taken, leaving Israel out of the loop).

[Mediocrates]

There is no way to make the Palestinians self sufficient.

[wat0n]

Yes, I agree, that's definitely one down side and it could be even worse than primitive rockets because undoubtedly Iran would try to supply them with more advanced weapons. But as I said, I for one believe that the region is heading towards violence no matter what happens short of a miracle last minute peace deal. And even then, I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that the region will turn into a new Scandinavia ...

I would think that Israel's best option to minimize any violence is to project deterrence and not just project ...

Well, if there is no progress on the diplomatic front, there will be violence for sure.

It would be fairly hard for Israel to deal with this declaration of independence if it were to be recognized by the UN Security Council (unlike the 1988 declaration, which was ignored). In fact, I don't know how could Israel deal with it.

I don't think withdrawal is an option, even if Israel withdrew settlements. Israel should not withdraw its soldiers from the WB if there are no security guarantees - meaning an international force with a strong mandate down there, at least.

[Reffo]

It would be fairly hard for Israel to deal with this declaration of independence if it were to be recognized by the UN Security Council (unlike the 1988 declaration, which was ignored). In fact, I don't know how could Israel deal with it.

I don't think withdrawal is an option, even if Israel withdrew settlements. Israel should not withdraw its soldiers from the WB if there are no security guarantees - meaning an international force with a strong mandate down there, at least.

OK, I must admit, I find your above two sentences confusing because of their seeming contradiction. Are you saying that Israel should defy the UN by leaving it's soldiers in the WB even after the UN Security Council would declare an independent Palestine unless an international force is stationed in that independent Palestine? What if the leaders of an independent Palestine would order the international forces to leave their sovereign territory?

By the way, I don't share your confidence in the effectiveness of "independent" international "peace keeping" forces. Certainly not over the medium to long term. Their track record does not inspire confidence in me ...

[wat0n]

OK, I must admit, I find your above two sentences confusing because of their seeming contradiction. Are you saying that Israel should defy the UN by leaving it's soldiers in the WB even after the UN Security Council would declare an independent Palestine unless an international force is stationed in that independent Palestine? What if the leaders of an independent Palestine would order the international forces to leave their sovereign territory?

What are you talking about, Reffo? Are you serious about Israel defying the UNSC? It's not like Israel hasn't done so before, you know.

By the way, I don't share your confidence in the effectiveness of "independent" international "peace keeping" forces. Certainly not over the medium to long term. Their track record does not inspire confidence in me ...

Well, it's better than just leaving as done with Gaza. If the track record of just withdrawing the soldiers was better I'd have another opinion about it...

It's kind of odd that we share opposite opinions on this issue

[curlyg]

I am inclined to agree with wat0n, that Israel will not comply with such a Security Council resolution. With all due respect to the UN, I seriously doubt that Israel is going to sacrifice its vital security interests because of them.

The real question will be whether the passage of such a resolution will lead to greater international pressure on Israel, and what impact it will have on negotiations. In the case of the former, I think the answer is unclear. Short of outright sanctions, I have a difficult time seeing how there could be much more pressure on Israel. In the case of the latter, I suspect that such a resolution will harden the Palestinian position even more and effectively sabotage what little hope there might currently be for a peace agreement at some point in the future.

[dayag]

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said the PA will declare an independent Palestinian state in 2011, while picking olives with a reporter from Italian daily Corriere Della Sera, according to an interview published on Thursday.

"The deadline is next summer, when the Israeli occupation of the West Bank must end," Fayyad said. "In 2011, we will celebrate 66 years of the United Nations and the United Nations will celebrate the birth of our nation."
...

source: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=193093

[GratefulFred]

No one knows how the US will vote. There are no guarantees under Obama. If he doesn't care about reelection or Jewish support he can vote for it.
The bottom line is none of us know what'll be at that moment.

The West Bank is land locked and the dried up Jordan river and the few natural underground springs could never supply the people with the amount of the water required.

Shutting off electricity will be used against us. I don't think even the Iranians will need to come over as we will be constantly pummeled in the news.

They will carry on this long PR war against us begging for a viable state that everyone knows they could never support.

It'll be more of the same - just different.

Neither of us will give up on having Jerusalem so they'll only get it over our dead bodies which is something we won't accomodate.

[Mediocrates]

"Viable" is in the eye of the beholder. Israel needs to start a clock that counts down to the day when infrastructure services are disconnected. Be generous, give it 5 years. Give them some start up cash to build their own power and sewer. And when the clock goes to zero, zero is what they get. It doesn't matter that "Palestine" won't be Abu Dhabi. No one cares. Even when it's an independent state the same people will say it's an 'open air prison'. You know they will. Again, who cares?

[Reffo]

OK, I must admit, I find your above two sentences confusing because of their seeming contradiction. Are you saying that Israel should defy the UN by leaving it's soldiers in the WB even after the UN Security Council would declare an independent Palestine unless an international force is stationed in that independent Palestine? What if the leaders of an independent Palestine would order the international forces to leave their sovereign territory?

What are you talking about, Reffo? Are you serious about Israel defying the UNSC? It's not like Israel hasn't done so before, you know

Now I think we are both confused and are talking in cross purposes

I was asking you a question. I wasn't suggesting that Israel should not do what it's security considerations demand even if it contradicts the tawdry politics of the UN.

Well, it's better than just leaving as done with Gaza. If the track record of just withdrawing the soldiers was better I'd have another opinion about it...

It's kind of odd that we share opposite opinions on this issue

Actually we don't necessarily share an opposite view. I just floated an idea and I invited people to discuss the pros and the cons of it. And like I said, I don't really envisage carrying out this idea in the same way that it was carried out in Gaza. Read my earlier posts or even my feedback on Medio's post below ...

[Reffo]

"Viable" is in the eye of the beholder. Israel needs to start a clock that counts down to the day when infrastructure services are disconnected. Be generous, give it 5 years. Give them some start up cash to build their own power and sewer. And when the clock goes to zero, zero is what they get. It doesn't matter that "Palestine" won't be Abu Dhabi. No one cares. Even when it's an independent state the same people will say it's an 'open air prison'. You know they will. Again, who cares?

Food for thought ...

[wat0n]

Now I think we are both confused and are talking in cross purposes

I was asking you a question. I wasn't suggesting that Israel should not do what it's security considerations demand even if it contradicts the tawdry politics of the UN.

Actually we don't necessarily share an opposite view. I just floated an idea and I invited people to discuss the pros and the cons of it. And like I said, I don't really envisage carrying out this idea in the same way that it was carried out in Gaza. Read my earlier posts ...

Well, I don't think Israel should leave as long as there are no security guarantees.

If there were to be an international force in the WB, America (and some of its allies like Jordan, who has a direct interest on this) could pressure the UN so this recognition is under the conditionality of this force staying for several years. I don't think the PA will reject it.

[Reffo]

watOn

Like I said, Israel has no reason to trust the effectiveness of UN peace keeping forces. Here is just one example of how they behaved in the past:

Friday, July 6, 2001Haaretz Daily Newspaper - English Internet Edition

By Amos Harel, Yossi Verter and Shlomo Shamir

UN admits it has a videotape of soldiers' kidnap

Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer yesterday announced that United Nations officials last Friday acknowledged the existence of a video tape with information on the kidnapping of three IDF soldiers by Hezbollah guerrillas at Har Dov on October 7, 2000. Israeli security sources suspect the tape has scenes recorded immediately after the abduction. In a strongly worded letter, the government demanded that the United Nations immediately transfer the tape to Israel.

There are other examples too:

1. The case of the Norwegian commander of peace keepers who actively got involved and helped terrorists escape from the custody of Israel's ally (the SLA)
2. The UN peace keepers have done bugger all to stop Hezbollah rearming itself after 2006 in spite of the terms of the cease fire agreement and the mandate of the UN peace keepers to stop them.
3. The 1967 war was actually triggered by the fact that the UN meekly removed it's peace keeping forces after Nasser told them to scram when he felt ready to take Israel on militarily.

And it wasn't just in Israel. The UN peace keeping forces were worse than useless even in the Balkans. It was right under their noses that Muslim civilians were massacred I think in Srebrenica or somewhere ...

[curlyg]

Medio I disagree with you.

I think Israel should NOT cut off ties with a Palestinian state. I think that if 3 million refugees are going to be coming to the West Bank - they're going to need housing, electricity, mobile phone services, etc. There's a commercial opportunity there for Israeli companies which already provide many of these services, especially as tens of billions in international aid pour in to the country. Except, once they're a state, Israel won't be providing these services as charity - it will be for money.

In fact, I think Israel needs to make sure Palestine is so well integrated into the Israeli economy that it is entirely non-viable without Israeli backing. If Israel supplies all (or large percentages of) electricity, natural gas, telecom/hightech, food products, etc. AND Israeli investments in Palestine make up a significant % of total investment, so that, say, at least 10-20% of Palestinan GDP relies heavily on Israeli support, Israel will have good leverage over all Palestinian governments into the future.

Israel gains absolutely nothing by cutting off all economic ties. This leaves existing economic infrastructure unexploited, and leaves a vacuum which can only be filled by other Middle Eastern states - investment from the Gulf, trade through Jordan, and an opening for Iran which is the only state in the region with anything remotely resembling a real economy.

The aim should be to neutralise the Palestinian threat, by both military means (demilitarization) and non-military means (domination of their economy so that people are dependant upon Israel for their livelihoods, and governments are dependant upon Israel for the continued support of their people). Leaving a vacuum there is a bad idea.

EDIT:

And Reffo is right. UN peacekeepers are worthless.