Palestinians to unilaterally declare independence in the West Bank?

[GiladS]

Erekat: We seek state on '67 borders

By JPOST.COM STAFF (updates@jpost.com)

The Palestinian Authority is considering asking the UN Security Council to recognize the existence of a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines with its capital in east Jerusalem, top PA negotiator Saeb Erekat told the Palestinian Al-Ayyam newspaper in an interview published Saturday.


Erekat said that, in light of the long-stalled negotiations with Israel, the PA was currently busy enlisting the support of various countries for such a move. The Palestinians have already received the backing of Arab nations, and Erekat said he believed that Russia and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would also support the call.

The Palestinian negotiator added that in recent meetings with EU and UN officials, responses to the idea had been positive. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, he noted, was in support of the idea and had voiced it himself at a recent event.

Erekat said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would be lobbying for support of the plan in his upcoming visits to South American and European nations.

He noted that he had brought the idea up several times in meetings with US officials, and said that he would continue to do so.
Meanwhile, London-based Asharq Alawsat on Saturday quoted unnamed American officials as saying that the US will not push for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians if the two sides are not interested in doing so themselves.


The US will not negotiate over negotiations, the officials said. They explained that the Obama administration would rather wait for now than progress on a track that may fail.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027286557&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[GiladS]

Analysis: PA would breach Oslo if it declared a state unilaterally

By DAN IZENBERG (daniz1@netvision.net.il)

From a practical point of view, the question of whether or not the Palestinian Authority can declare "Palestine" an independent state is more political than legal.


It is clear from the provisions of the 1995 Oslo Interim Agreement that the Palestinian Authority would be perpetrating a material breach of the treaty by declaring an independent state.

According to Article 23 of the internationally recognized accord, "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
Therefore, a unilateral declaration of independence by the PA would constitute a clear and serious violation of the agreement.


According to attorney Allen Baker, a former legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, on the basis of that breach, Israel could declare the entire agreement void.
Baker added that the 1995 accord not only determined the administrative and security arrangements in all of the West Bank according to areas A, B and C, but is also the source of authority for the PA itself.


Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad's program not only declares that a Palestinian state will be established in 2011, but also says its borders will be those of June 4, 1967, in other words, it will include all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

In the plan, entitled "Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State," Fayyad wrote, "This [proposal] is the path to the creation of the independent state of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital."

Hebrew University Professor Emeritus Ruth Lapidot told The Jerusalem Post that according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no state can abrogate a bilateral treaty unless it declares that the other partner is guilty of a "material breach" of the agreement.

Although the PA is not a state, the same principle should apply to it.
So far, the PA has not accused Israel of any material breach. Nevertheless, when he introduced his proposal to building up the Palestinian institutions for the establishment of an independent state, Fayad reportedly added that Oslo had been signed 16 years earlier, yet there was still no end to the Israeli "occupation."

And pointing to the more than 100 settlements in the West Bank, which he said were built in violation of international law, Fayad added, "Look who's talking about unilateralism."

Lapidot explained that there was no international body or institution that recognized states. Individual countries did so according to their own national considerations.

There are, indeed, four conditions that an entity should fulfill in order to be regarded as a state. It must have a population, a territory, an effective government and it must be able to conduct relations with other countries.

But each country determines for itself whether the criteria have been met. Lapidot estimated that the PA would have no trouble finding countries to recognize Palestine as a state, despite the constraints of the Oslo Accord.

The experts with whom the Post spoke on Sunday agreed, however, that the most important question for Israel is whether the US would do so.
Dan Diker, a foreign policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, said he was worried that the American administration is heading in that direction and is ready to abandon the peace negotiations which have been stalled since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came to power.
But Baker said he was not overly concerned that this would happen because the US, along with Russia, Norway, Egypt and the European Union, co-signed the Oslo Accord. Baker said he found it difficult to believe that any of them would be prepared to support a material breach of the treaty by the PA and recognize a Palestinian state.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1257455213467&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Octavariable]

So by them declaring a state on de-facto uncontrolled territories, (Old Jerusalem and other "eastern" parts, main settler blocks, the valley) means they will forfeit those lands or declare war on Israel (armed struggle to liberate yada yada yada) p-)

Funny enough, in the current political mess, I think Hamas will be the first ones to claim that that state is illegal :roll: (and then over run it)

[gaijinsamurai]

Didn't they declare "statehood" a long time ago, like in the early '90s?

[GiladS]

Didn't they declare "statehood" a long time ago, like in the early '90s?

True, in 1988.

However the borders of the declared "State of Palestine" were not specified by Arafat.

[dracon49]

It will be a declaration of war i think.

[Octavariable]

True, in 1988.

However the borders of the declared "State of Palestine" were not specified by Arafat.

Oddly enough, It happened tomorrow, November 15, 21 years ago

[gaijinsamurai]

It will be a declaration of war i think.

I think most people will just ignore it.

But then again, you are in a position to know more about it than me.

[Ordie]

It would be interesting to see how many nations will recognize Palestine's Independence. Most specifically nations that recognizes Israeli soveriegnty.

[TallGuy]

Let them declare independence and see how long they will last relying on their own infrastructure....

[Octavariable]

It would be interesting to see how many nations will recognize Palestine's Independence. Most specifically nations that recognizes Israeli soveriegnty.

Me thinks it will be similar to this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Palestine-recognition-map.png

[Unixnut]

Someone should tell them that unilateral declerations of independence only work if you have the power to enforce them. Works in Kosovo case (USA support), Abkhazia and S.O (Russia support). Palestine does not have the power itself, and somehow I don't see NATO or any other major power enforcing it against Israel. Especially if they claim parts of current Israeli territory.

So to sum up, if it's done at all, it will be a bunch of empty words.

[Sootan]

It will be a declaration of war i think.

But then you won't be asking who you occupied the territory from, eh?

[dracon49]

What do you mean?...we liberated it from Jordan in 1967 not from any 'Palestinians'.

[Ordie]

So to sum up, if it's done at all, it will be a bunch of empty words.
The legitimacy of a nation state depends upon diplomatic recognition.

What makes this situation unique is that you have two entities, both have legitimate claims to the same space, and time.

[GB_FXST]

It would be interesting to see how many nations will recognize Palestine's Independence. Most specifically nations that recognizes Israeli soveriegnty.

I think that any state, such as the US, which has accepted UNSC 242 as the basis for peace negotiations between Israel and her neighbors cannot recognize a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence.

A unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence is inconsistent with UNSC 242.

For that reason alone, UNSC recognition of a unilateraly declared Palestinian state is not possible.




The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.




But then you won't be asking who you occupied the territory from, eh?

There was no Palestinian state when the Six Day war was fought 42 years ago.

Nothing that the Palestinians do today will change the fact that Israel established sovereignty over the West Bank after defeating Jordan in a defensive war.

[Ordie]

If Palestine were to recognize Israel, would Israel do the same?

[Octavariable]

If Palestine were to recognize Israel, would Israel do the same?

That was one of the main topics in Netanyahu's speech earlier this year, a formal recognition of Israel by the palestinians, as a pretext to "two countries for two peoples"

full text here (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371096849&pagename=JPArticle/ShowFull)

The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: "Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace." I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.

Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.

The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries.

Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel's borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.

So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognize our rights. In a moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognize their rights.

[GiladS]

Mohammed Dahlan was quoted as syaing that if the U.S would veto a recognition of a Palestinian state on the 67 borders then a third Intifada would be launched. :roll:

[dracon49]

Like i said many times here.....for them the talks are only a tactic ,but they have the same Goal like Hamas. If they will have a state in the 67 borders the conflict will move to the 48 borders until they will get it also.

[Derbedeu]

I'm not to well versed in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but is this call for independence only for the West Bank? What about the Gaza Strip? Isn't the Palestinian leadership torn in two right now (PLO and Hamas)? What would be the implication to the Gaza Strip if such an independence was granted?

Any answers would be appreciated!

[GiladS]

I'm not to well versed in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but is this call for independence only for the West Bank? What about the Gaza Strip? Isn't the Palestinian leadership torn in two right now (PLO and Hamas)? What would be the implication to the Gaza Strip if such an independence was granted?

Any answers would be appreciated!

Simple...

Hamas will not recognize the Fatah Palestinian state in the West Bank while the Fatah will not recognize the Islamist Hamas state in the Gaza Strip... while each will try to overthrow the other.

Business as usual in other words.

[GiladS]

Wonder what about the 200,000-300,000 Israelis that would be living within the "Palestinian state's" new borders... will they have dual citizenship, Israeli and Palestinian? rofl

[Derbedeu]

Simple...

Hamas will not recognize the Fatah Palestinian state in the West Bank while the Fatah will not recognize the Islamist Hamas state in the Gaza Strip... while each will try to overthrow the other.

Business as usual in other words.

Thanks GiladS.

Sounds like the prospects of any peace are small. :|

How can you expect to have peace when one of the two sides (i.e. the Palestinians) is gripped in a power struggle? http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/3660/shake.gif (http://img688.imageshack.us/i/shake.gif/)

[GiladS]

How can you expect to have peace when one of the two sides (i.e. the Palestinians) is gripped in a power struggle? http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/3660/shake.gif (http://img688.imageshack.us/i/shake.gif/)

Excellent question...

Nonetheless it's the settlements that are the biggest obstacle on the way to reaching a lasting peace... rofl

Reading that cracks me up everytime (helps brighten my day when I feel down).

[Zeev]

No chance. A unilateral declaration of indepandance would like a recognition of the current situation, there are no chances that palestinians declare any kind of indepandance before they returned to the green line border. Minimum.

[dracon49]

One thing that little bit worries me is that more countries will recognize them then not(probably even more countries that recognize Israel).

[kamaz]

I think its great, let them declare a state. Next time they send a rocket or a suicide bomber over to Israel or shoot at Israeli citizens, Israel can declare a state of war against an actual country. Not some pathetic corrupt organization that created hijackings and international terrorism and now survives on european handouts.

[GB_FXST]

I think its great, let them declare a state. Next time they send a rocket or a suicide bomber over to Israel or shoot at Israeli citizens, Israel can declare a state of war against an actual country. Not some pathetic corrupt organization that created hijackings and international terrorism and now survives on european handouts.

The problem is that if 1) they do unilaterally declare a state, and 2) it is recognized by major powers, such as the US, or the UNSC, international calls for Israel to evacuate the entire WB (to the green line) will be more urgent and will carry more weight.

[AZZenny]

But then dismantling UNRWA, and undercutting the pathos of the poor Palestinians can begin -- they'd have to stop being victims! They have a LOT to lose by declaring themselves an independent state -- at this point, I think much more than they have to gain.

Israel will never stand for turning the Western Wall over to the Arabs again.

Threatening a Third Intifada -- Dahlan is, and always has been, a simple terrorist. This is the next generation of Palestinian leadership?

[Eventine]

That was one of the main topics in Netanyahu's speech earlier this year, a formal recognition of Israel by the palestinians, as a pretext to "two countries for two peoples"

full text here (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371096849&pagename=JPArticle/ShowFull)

The problem is that this doesn't address the issue of Israel's borders. It's fine for Netanyahu to say that "we two peoples must live side by side," but what will be the border between them? It also calls for a demilitarized Palestine, but assumes that Israel will be militarized. Somehow that is hard to imagine:

"... the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized - namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory; real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts."

Is such a state still a state? I suppose so, since Japan is considered a state (though Japan does have its own armed forces). I suppose negotations can occur later for Palestine's right to militarization and its own airspace, once the current issues have been settled and "good behavior" has been shown.

[ZZEZ]

I believe all the signs are leading toward another intifada, recent riots and economic boom in WB...

[dracon49]

If they will do another intifada their economy will be ruined.

[GiladS]

Netanyahu: Unilateral steps by PA will lead to unilateral Israeli moves

There is no alternative to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and any unilateral moves by the PA would only break the existing framework and lead to unilateral moves by Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday evening at an address to the Saban Forum in Jerusalem.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027295871&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[AZZenny]

If they will do another intifada their economy will be ruined.


That's the idea. The last thing all varieties of Palestinian extremists want is a prosperous, comfortable, functioning West Bank... A WB population who see less point in producing and supporting 'martyrs' and who start to return to the more secular, interesting lifestyle they had begun to develop some time ago. Heck, a capitalist WB that may start tolerating more joint ventures with Israel, may also let demands for 'right of return' fade.

In fact, wouldn't a unilateral declaration of statehood pretty much end their requirement that right of return is a necessary component of any 2-state plan?

[dracon49]

Well ,on that i would say-a dog that barks doesnt bite...and if they will declare a state-their temporary borders that they have right now without an access to the sea will become permanent in the international consciousness as the state of the Palestinian people and it will uproot their continuation struggle against Israel. Its only for media reasons.

[Mastermind]

Like a little kid running away from home...it will last until supper time.

Palis are about as independent as a new born kitten. They have no export items (except for their idiotic "Jihads of the day"), they have no power stations, no highway systems, no health departments, medical bureaus, no electrical grid, no safe water production and purification systems, no sewage systems...all this needs to be self maintained and governed not provided and supported by outsiders, most of which is currently supplied by their avowed enemy, Israel.

They have been so damn busy with their hatred and terrorist activities, they have long ago forgotten anything about governing themselves as a civilized nation. Not suggesting they ever knew how to do that in the first place. They have relied on the rest of the world for their "humanitarian" needs so long, I doubt seriously they will be able to care for themselves very long. They will be a nation of pitiful paupers with their palms perpetually up to anyone who will part with some grain and powdered milk...and guns and RPG's, of course.

[Connaught Ranger]

It will be a declaration of war i think.

Please do not, as it seems to be a great effort especially if that's the best you can come up with.

[dracon49]

Our premier said that if they will do a unilateral action will response with a unilateral action..we can for example annex the West Bank and give blue ID'S to the arabs there like we did in East Jerusalem.

[Octavariable]

Our premier said that if they will do a unilateral action will response with a unilateral action..we can for example annex the West Bank and give blue ID'S to the arabs there like we did in East Jerusalem.

LOL, and what? "steal" all of the citizens of "Palestine".

I'm not the first one to tell you this, but please, STFU:bash:

[GiladS]

Our premier said that if they will do a unilateral action will response with a unilateral action..we can for example annex the West Bank and give blue ID'S to the arabs there like we did in East Jerusalem.

You give the West Bank Palestinians blue IDs then they'll have a Palestinian state including the Green Line.

In other words you think Israel's unilateral action would be national suicied... ehm, no.

P.S
How about we agree to the "Palestinian right of reurn" while we are at it?

No one will see that comming. :roll:

[dracon49]

LOL, and what? "steal" all of the citizens of "Palestine".

I'm not the first one to tell you this, but please, STFU:bash:
So with what unilateral action we can response with?...military operation?...

[dracon49]

You give the West Bank Palestinians blue IDs then they'll have a Palestinian state including the Green Line.

In other words you think Israel's unilateral action would be national suicied... ehm, no.

P.S
How about we agree to the "Palestinian right of reurn" while we are at it?

No one will see that comming. :roll:
That is indeed problematic because then they will be allowed to buy houses here. The only thing they wouldnt be allowed to do is to vote for the Knesset(and maybe other things that i dont know about them).

[GiladS]

So with what unileteral action we can response with?...military operation?...

Setting up the checkpoints we took down, closing the pedestrian/cargo terminals on the West Bank barrier.

This would wreck havoc on the PA economy and I believe Jordan can expect an immigration wave from the West Bank.

[GiladS]

That is indeed problematic because then they will be allowed to buy houses here. The only thing they wouldnt be allowed to do is to vote for the Knesset(and maybe other things that i dont know about them).

After granting permanent residency to some 2 million people, you can be sure it won't take long untill you'll be forced to grant them full citizenship.

[dracon49]

After granting permanent residency to some 2 million people, you can be sure it won't take long untill you'll be forced to grant them full citizenship.
So to its not possible to annex..will have to make their live miserable like you said.

[GiladS]

'The Palestinian Water Authority wouldn't last a day on its own'

By YAAKOV KATZ (yaakovk@jpost.com)

While Palestinian officials continued to threaten Sunday to unilaterally declare independence, one senior Israeli defense official summed up the growing assessment in the defense establishment by saying, "Just let them try."

Behind the dare is a belief in the IDF and Defense Ministry that even though the past year has seen an unprecedented improvement in the performance of Palestinian security forces and civilian institutions - largely due to increased cooperation with Israel - the Palestinian Authority is still far from being able to hold it together on its own.

One official gave the water situation in the West Bank as an example. While Israel has recently come under growing international criticism for allegedly denying Palestinians adequate access to water, according to Israeli officials the situation would be far worse without Israeli assistance. "The Palestinian Water Authority wouldn't last a day on its own," an IDF source said. "We allocated them a piece of land on the coast to build a desalination plant and they have decided not to build it."

Another example focuses on security cooperation, which has significantly increased over the past two years, since Hamas violently took control of the Gaza Strip. Next month, the fifth Palestinian battalion trained by US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton in Jordan will return to the West Bank for deployment. Another one will then depart for four months of training in Jordan.

Despite the deployment of these forces - which IDF officers openly admit are doing a good job cracking down on Hamas infrastructure in the West Bank - whenever PA President Mahmoud Abbas travels outside of Ramallah to another Palestinian city, the IDF, Shin Bet and Civil Administration are all involved to coordinate and ensure his safety.

"When Abbas travels it is like a military operation," one officer explained. "Everyone is involved since the PA forces cannot yet completely ensure his security."

The understanding in the defense establishment is that with all the hype surrounding the possibility that the Palestinians will unilaterally declare a state, it is more likely a ploy aimed at getting Israel to be serious about negotiations on the two-state solution. The idea is to get other countries to put pressure on Israel to start making real concessions - such as a freeze on settlement construction - so the talks can begin.

While this may be true, the corridors of the IDF's Central Command and Planning Division were buzzing with talk about the potential fallout, both diplomatically and militarily.

If the Palestinians declare statehood, then Israel will likely come under major international pressure to take action to show it recognizes the new state. The government will then go knocking on the IDF's door. Ultimately though, Israeli moves will be dictated by political decisions. Israel cannot order the IDF to completely pull back from the West Bank while settlers still live there. It can, on the other hand, lift more roadblocks and even allow the Palestinians in the interim to "have" their new state in Area A parts of the West Bank which are already, for the most part, under Palestinian control.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027297260&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[GiladS]

Analysis: Unilateral statehood hurts Palestine, not Israel

By HAVIV RETTIG GUR (updates@jpost.com)

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat's statements on Saturday that Israelis were stalling on implementing a two-state solution and the Palestinians would soon ask the UN to recognize a Palestinian state in the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip may have been meant as a grave threat, or perhaps they were intended as bluster for internal consumption.

But for most Israeli analysts and observers, his threat appears more like a self-made trap for Palestinian leaders. Why shouldn't the Palestinians declare their state
unilaterally?

In principle, little would change. The Palestinian Authority would have real control over barely 40 percent of the land it hopes to gain in negotiations, representing major Palestinian population centers in the West Bank but little beyond that.

Meanwhile, nothing would be solved on the thorny issues that face negotiators, such as Jerusalem, refugees, Palestinian disarmament and borders. These would simply transform from the subject of internationally backed (though not yet started) negotiations between Israel and the PA to bilateral negotiations between Israel and the state of Palestine. The issues themselves would remain unchanged.
While gaining nothing, the Palestinians stand to lose much.

It is often forgotten that during his first term as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999, Binyamin Netanyahu drew the ire of the Right and eventually lost his government because he felt compelled to fulfill obligations toward the Palestinians undertaken by previous governments. He turned over a majority of Hebron to Palestinian control and agreed to further steps toward Palestinian autonomy in the Wye River Accords.

At the time, he was angrily critical of the Palestinian government of Yasser Arafat for failing to implement its part of Oslo, including ending incitement, cutting support for terror organizations and establishing security and the rule of law in PA-controlled areas. But whatever his qualms or political ideals, he faithfully implemented past agreements.

Shortly after returning to the Prime Minister's Office in March, Netanyahu publicly offered the Palestinians statehood. It is impossible to read his mind to determine if the offer was sincere, but it is fair to assume from past experience that he feels obligated to past Israeli agreements, including Oslo and the road map, both processes that have as their logical conclusion a Palestinian state.

If the Palestinian leadership renounces Oslo in favor of unilateral statehood, it will break the international agreements that have obligated Israeli governments and driven a process that, in the final analysis, already sees much of Palestinian life under Palestinian control.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027297926&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[dracon49]

They say it to make Israel afraid...they know that without Israel's support they wouldn't survive for too much. They will not have water ,their economy will collapse their regime will be in a serious risk that Hamas will overthrow them like it did in Gaza.

[LRPV]

It would be interesting to see how many nations will recognize Palestine's Independence. Most specifically nations that recognizes Israeli soveriegnty.

Quite so, Australia recognises Palestinian passports despitre there being no Palestine...

[LuKaZz]

They should have more people like this, with entrepreneurial spirit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/02/taybeh-palestinian-brewery-west-bank

[NimDod]

So to its not possible to annex..will have to make their live miserable like you said.

FFS, what are you? 12?

[GiladS]

How do you say 'chutzpah' in Arabic?

How do you say "chutzpah" in Arabic? Because PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat showed unbelievable gall in telling Army Radio: "We're fed up with your time-wasting. We don't believe that you really want a two-state solution."

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

The Palestinian idea of negotiations goes something like this: Agree to our position in its entirety and then we can talk about the modalities of implementation. Lo and behold, this approach has not borne fruit so a frustrated PLO may turn to the UN Security Council to ask it to impose Palestinian demands on Israel.

To give Erekat and Mahmoud Abbas their due, today's Palestinian demands sound positively reasonable compared to those of PLO founder Ahmad Shukeiry, who in the days leading up to the 1967 war - when the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab hands - declared: "The Arab people's decision is unfaltering: to wipe Israel off the face of the map…"

And they're an improvement over what Yasser Arafat, post-Oslo, reportedly told a gathering of Arab diplomats in Europe: "We plan to eliminate... Israel and establish a Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare…"

NOW Erekat and Abbas are wasting time and torpedoing a two-state solution with their intransigence.

Successive Israeli governments have offered to recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank and in Gaza. But Abbas rejected Ehud Olmert's offer of 93 percent of the West Bank, plus additional lands from Israel proper to make up the difference, all of Gaza, and a free passage scheme between the Strip and West Bank. Under Olmert's proposal, Israel would retain its strategic settlement blocs - but all other settlements and outposts on the "Palestine" side of the border would be uprooted.
Ehud Barak made slightly less generous offers to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in July 2000 and at Taba in January 2001.

Barak, like Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his June 2009 Bar-Ilan address, asked that Palestine be demilitarized so that it does not again become a launching pad for fedayeen attacks or a base for Iranian aggression - a real worry if Palestine falls to the Islamists.
Israel is also asking that Palestine absorb any "returning" Arab refugees within its territory.

Finally, Israel wants the Arabs to recognize it as the homeland of the Jewish people just as Palestine would be recognized as the homeland of the Palestinian people.

Any fair-minded observer would acknowledge that the Israeli position is not unreasonable, especially given our awful experience after the Gaza disengagement.

As for Jerusalem, the city cannot simply be divided by UN fiat, because north, south, east and west, Jerusalem is an organic whole. It will take tremendous goodwill to come up with a livable compromise.

Today's publication by Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi in cooperation with Al-Quds University of Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem's Sacred Esplanade, might have suggested a modicum of helpfulness on the Palestinian side. Unfortunately, that Arab institution is now joining a PLO boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

BACK TO Erekat's chutzpah. The Palestinians created an artificial deadlock by suddenly insisting that they would not negotiate without a settlement freeze. Now Erekat's self-inflicted stalemate supposedly compels him to lobby the UN Security Council to, in effect, junk Resolution 242 - the edifice upon which the entire peacemaking process is constructed - and give its imprimatur to a new Palestinian declaration of independence claiming 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza (though the Strip is under Hamas suzerainty) plus all of east Jerusalem including the Jewish holy sites. As it happens, Tuesday is the 21st anniversary of the PLO's unilateral declaration of statehood issued in Algiers.

It's clear why Erekat wants to abandon 242. The resolution's masterfully crafted language insists on an exchange of land for peace using the formula - "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" - that deliberately does not call for a pullback from all territories.

So rather than bargain in good faith to build a viable accord, Erekat and Abbas are betting on an outside imposed solution. Their way will not bring reconciliation, mutual security and peace, but doom yet another generation of Israelis and Palestinians to more bloodshed.

Would it not be better if the Palestinians returned to the bargaining table and the sooner the better?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027296604&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[the_Wicked]

I can already imagine how it will go:

"We the Palestinian people declare independence blah blah blah destroy Israel blah blah blah liberate Palestine blah blah blah"

Headlines in the newspapers: "Worldwide recognition of Palestine" etc etc

Then the newly born Palestine launches a rocket or a suicide bombing, and Israel declares war on Palestine... WHAM! All water supply and electricity cut off, in 3 days they are begging Israel for peace. They want to play independent, let them, let's see how long it lasts.

[GiladS]

Notion of Palestinian declaration of independence should be met with laughter

By Hagai Segal

Without us noticing it, Mahmoud Abbas’ (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/unescape(this.href)) term in office expired two weeks ago. On January 24th he completed a term of five years as Palestinian Authority chairman.

Without general elections, there is no longer a legal basis for the continuation of his term. Indeed, Abbas continues to serve as chairman only because of circumstantial pressures and inertia, rather than because of a democratic decision.

Similarly, the Palestinian parliament’s term in office had also expired. Its honorable members did not put themselves up for re-election, and will not be doing so in the foreseeable future.

And so, an extremely brief democratic tradition had been cut short. There is no longer an elected parliament in Palestine or an authorized president. The whole thing is falling apart. All that is left are two cantons embroiled in deep divisions, Ramallah and Gaza. US Special Envoy George Mitchell is not even trying to bring peace between them; meanwhile, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has already despaired.

Nonetheless, pretend-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad festively announced (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/unescape(this.href)) at the recent Herzliya Conference that the Palestinians will be declaring the establishment of an independent state within two years, regardless of what happens in that time. He is unable to properly maintain an autonomic entity, yet he threatens us with a state.


No way of creating ethnic separation

Amazingly enough, the audience in Herzliya responded with whispers instead of bursting out in laughter. Defense Minister Ehud Barak (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/unescape(this.href)) even expressed general support for the idea. Barak is of course opposed to unilateral moves of independence, yet he believes that the establishment of a Palestinian state is an immense Zionist challenge. The ancient demographic fear paralysis him to the point of clinging to an impossibly foolish idea.

God did not carve out a natural border in the midst of the land, so there is no technical possibility of creating ethnic separation between the two population groups. A million and a half Israeli Arabs will continue to live and reproduce amongst us. The abstract vision of a Jewish and democratic state will remain abstract.

In any case, we cannot ignore the security problem. The wave of explosive barrels (http://www.militaryphotos.net/articles/0,7340,L-3842783,00.html) this past week proves that our neighbors will not be sitting by idly after we converge into the Green Line borders. They will find a way to continue to harass us. Without IDF presence deep in their territory we will not be able to prevent them from doing so, just like we cannot save Gilad Shalit (http://www.militaryphotos.net/home/0,7340,L-4244,00.html). Indeed, the Herzliya Conference in 2020 will have to be held in a bomb shelter.

Even theoretically speaking, if we put aside for a moment the Palestinian difficulties in ruling themselves and the security problem, it would be very hard to crowd two states in the tiny area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3844847,00.html

[chauncy republicans]

Personally I think the two sides are too emotionally driven for a solution to ever be found, so I'll admit I don't waste much time following details over the squabble, but I would like to know what tangible changes a declaration of independence would bring about for either side?

[GiladS]

Personally I think the two sides are too emotionally driven for a solution to ever be found, so I'll admit I don't waste much time following details over the squabble, but I would like to know what tangible changes a declaration of independence would bring about for either side?

Well, off the top of my head... it would mean that Israel doesn't need to honor any past agreements with the Palestinian Authority. Read those agreements and you would get an idea what this could mean to the Palestinians.

[chauncy republicans]

Thanks for the reply, are you talking about the agreements made at Oslo ect.?

[GiladS]

Thanks for the reply, are you talking about the agreements made at Oslo ect.?

Correct...

[GB_FXST]

Personally I think the two sides are too emotionally driven for a solution to ever be found, so I'll admit I don't waste much time following details over the squabble, but I would like to know what tangible changes a declaration of independence would bring about for either side?

The PA cannot declare unilateral indepence without an UNSC revocation/nullification of 242.

Nullification of 242 presents interesting problems. What becomes of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty? What becomes of a future settlement with Syria? On what basis will Israel grant any part of the West Bank to the PA?

Nullification of 242 will be a pandoras box whose effects cannot be predicated or appreciated. Abbas and Erekat should be very careful for what they wish; they may get it.

[chauncy republicans]

I appreciate the help GiladS. GB FXST as well. Thanks.