| ... more
Israel's Response to UN Recognition of a Palestinian State
Summary ... It appears that the answer to how Israel should react to the General Assembly resolution to recognize a Palestinian state is to focus on the international arena rather than on practical steps on the ground.
On November 29, 2012 the United Nations General Assembly approved the Palestinian [sic] request for recognition of Palestine as a non-member "observer" state.
Substantive claims can be made to contest the legal basis of the Palestinian claim to statehood. Before an entity may be called a state it must meet certain conditions, including the establishment of effective governance over a certain territory and population. The Palestinians themselves, however, claim that the area of the West Bank [sic] is de facto under Israeli occupation. In addition, it cannot be claimed that the Palestinian government in Ramallah has control over the Gaza Strip. Therefore, a valid claim could be made that the Palestinian entity does not meet the criterion for effective governance. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority has avoided declaring itself a state. While the PLO issued such a declaration in 1988, it was evident at the time that the PLO met none of the criteria for statehood, and most of the world ignored the declaration. It could now be claimed that absent a current formal declaration of statehood by the Palestinians themselves, there is no place for recognition from the UN.
Clearly, however, political considerations alone, rather than legal reasoning, shaped the position of most of the voting nations. Some of the nations voted as expected, in line with their automatic support of any resolution supporting the Palestinians as well as any resolution opposing Israel. Others voted for the resolution to express their dissatisfaction with the lack of progress toward resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
With the UN recognition, the Palestinians are able to seek participation in international organizations and treaties open only to states. In addition, they are able to resubmit to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) the request to investigate allegations of all war crimes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the basis of the previous prosecutor's opinion, which stated that UN recognition of a Palestinian state would provide sufficient grounds for a Palestinian request for such an investigation. This is liable to raise the issue of the legality of the settlements in context of the relevant paragraph in the court's constitution. The request would likely refer to all the events since July 2002 (when the ICC constitution entered into force), although some have countered the validity of a retroactive case. It should be pointed out that an ICC investigation would cover all actions by all parties, that is, including those by the Palestinians.
At the same time, it is unlikely that General Assembly recognition of a Palestinian state will lead to any change in the reality in the territories, first and foremost given the continued IDF [Israel Defense Force] presence in the area and the existing limitations on the PA. Legally too, there will be no practical change: UN recognition means that "Palestine" is seen as a state, but a state still — according to most if not all countries in the world — under Israeli occupation. The test of occupation is a factual test, based on the question of who has effective control of the area. The recognition of a Palestinian state will not change this reality, and therefore Israel will continue to have both the rights and obligations of the occupier (at least in all that pertains to the West Bank; it is debated whether the Gaza Strip remains under Israeli occupation). In addition, there are limitations on both sides rooted in mutual agreements, and while there is controversy as to their legal status — and the possibility exists that Israel might revoke them — it seems that the international community would likely continue to view them as binding.
Against this background, it appears that the answer to how Israel should react to the General Assembly resolution to recognize a Palestinian state is to focus on the international arena rather than on practical steps on the ground. As demonstrated below, however, the two are related.
Regarding the international community, Israel must minimize the possible damage that an upgrade in the PA's status could cause by working in various organizations — for example, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Telecommunications Union, and others — to make sure that Israeli interests are not at risk. This needs to be in conjunction with intensive diplomatic activity, as a significant rise in the scope and intensity of Palestinian claims against Israel can be expected. It is also necessary to work with the ICC, directly or indirectly, to allay the concern about legal action against Israeli citizens. While it is clear that the ICC is not eager to get involved in this charged conflict and deal with explicitly political issues, it would probably face pressure to open such investigations. Israel's main message to the international community must be to avoid actions liable to complicate resolution of the conflict, e.g., actions that widen the gap in the Palestinian population between expectations and fulfillment or measures that add obstacles to a conflict that is already complex enough. It would also be appropriate to consider how to use the positive implications of the recognition of a Palestinian state, e.g., by pointing out the Palestinian responsibility for what develops in its territory.
Regarding the domestic arena, as mentioned above, the concept of a Palestinian state has no viable possibility of generating practical changes. Therefore, the response to the PA should be passive, ignoring the change that is meaningless from Israel's point of view. In this context, two points are important: first, actions liable to topple the PA — e.g., cutting off funds and severing contact on important issues — run counter to Israel's interests. Israel has no desire to control some two million Palestinians again, run their day-to-day affairs, see to their education, healthcare, and welfare needs, and so on. Toppling the PA would return the responsibility to Israel. Second, legally (and one could also say morally) Israel has obligations to the Palestinian population in the West Bank by virtue of controlling it (whether one contends that Israel is an occupying force or that Israel is there because of sovereign right, as posited in the report of the committee headed by Justice Edmond Levi's). Steps damaging the welfare of the Palestinian population or constituting collective punishment of the Palestinians are illegal.
As for decisions regarding the expansion of settlements, the legal reasoning raised against them is not changed by the UN recognition, nor are the arguments based on political considerations, which view the settlement expansion as an obstacle to future reconciliation. However, the Palestinians will have a stronger status and additional forums to sound condemnations, and therefore the criticism over such actions can be expected to intensify.
The international and domestic levels are related: the more Israel acts in a way that harms Palestinians in the West Bank or is perceived as narrowing the chances of a political agreement, the more it will further reduce its chances of success in the international arena.
Finally, an analysis of the practical ramifications of UN recognition of a Palestinian state is not complete without addressing the potential impact of a renewal of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Clearly direct talks can help reduce tensions on the ground and might help to manage the conflict, if not to resolve it. Yet there is also significance to negotiations in the international arena. The international community could be more easily persuaded not to take actions in international forums that are detrimental to Israeli interests if this could give negotiations a chance to progress.
[ Published: December 3, 2012 ]
There are no comments yet
Kerry said what everyone really knows. That is, Egypt may not be in a state of war with Israel right at this moment. And Egypt may have not taken overt military action against Israel since the 1970s but that is a far cry from peace.
The State of Israel is in God's hand and the fact that its leaders and governments are the worst of the scoffers and deniers and corrupters of Judaism has no relevance vis-à-vis the meaning of the State in the prophetic vision of the era of the redemption. The incredible rise of the State of Israel and all the miraculous events that surround it are indeed facts that cannot negated by any man's words or deeds.
According to a recent report, anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe, especially in France, Greece, Hungary, and Ukraine, as well as in the US, Canada, and Australia. This rise in anti-Semitism in Europe was attributed to several factors, including the economic crisis, a rise in the radical Right's political power, and a backlash against Israel's November Gaza offensive.
Irena Sendler was a Polish Gentile who rescued more than 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto. The Life in a Jar project celebrates her accomplishments in defeating Hitler's intended murder of these children.
Despite what Yasir Arafat said, and what Mahmoud Abbas and other members of the Palestinian National Council continue to allege, the PLO Charter still remains, to this day, unchanged. They believe they have fooled the world; however it only takes a bit of research to find out they haven't.
The mainstream media, politicians, and others, prefer to use the term "militant" instead of "terrorist," especially in the case of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Doing so fulfills many different agendas, in addition to furthering the user's cause. Whatever the case may be, the usage generally distorts the story and causes confusion for the reader, which many times is its exact intention. As with much post-1970s journalism, the longer news media use such language, the less they sound like journalists and the more they are heard as political partisans.
Critics and enemies of Israel, including members of the UN and organs such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have come to use the Geneva Convention as a weapon against Israel, even when statements by authoritative analysts, scholars and drafters of the document contradict everything said by those who distort history for politically motivated reasons.
After keeping a low profile for a few years, the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades — part of PA/PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah terrorist group, has resurfaced on the streets in Judea and Samaria. It's time for the US and EU, who fund and train the PA/PLO "security forces", to demand that Abbas rein in his Fatah-paid terrorists. (Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is also on the US list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.)
It appears that the answer to how Israel should react to the General Assembly resolution to recognize a Palestinian state is to focus on the international arena rather than on practical steps on the ground.
Ten spies were arrested around the same time as Jonathan Pollard or years later. They sold sensitive secrets, passed technology, and did not hesitate to expose other US agents. Dozens of spies have been caught operating on US soil. They received substantial sentences which were followed by reductions and early release. They are all free today. Only Jonathan Pollard remains in prison.
Under the auspices of Egypt, delegations from the Fatah and Hamas terrorist groups met in Cairo on April 27, 2011 to discuss the issues concerning ending the political division and the achievement of national unity. Both political parties mutually agreed that the basis of understanding made during the meeting are committing to both parties in the implementation of the Palestinian National Reconciliation Agreement. This is the basis of understanding agreed upon by Fatah and Hamas.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has released the first-ever study mining the Arabic-language "Palestinian" social media environment to determine Arab public sentiment and its potential impact on US foreign policy. At FDD's direction, the Washington, D.C.-based Web analysis company Constrat viewed approximately 10,000 Arab social media entries between May 3 and August 3, 2010, of which it analyzed approximately 20 percent for relevancy. In the end, the company analyzed 1,788 statements contained within 1,114 unique posts across 996 threads written by 699 authors.
When an armed force holds territory beyond its own national borders, the term "occupation" is usually used to describe its holding on the land. However, not all the factual situations that we commonly think of as "occupation" fall within the limited scope of the term "occupation" as defined in international law.
Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs. PDF Format