Abbas may circumvent Israel, ask U.S. to recognize Palestinian state

[Violet_Crumble]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has told Arab leaders he may seek U.S. recognition for a Palestinian state, which would include all of the West Bank, should peace talks with Israel break down, an aide said on Saturday.

The idea, raised during Arab League deliberations in Libya on Friday, would place new pressure on Israel to extend a recently expired freeze on construction of settlements in the West Bank - a Palestinian condition for continuing recently relaunched direct peace negotiations.

Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said "alternatives" to the face-to-face talks launched five weeks ago had been discussed, among them "ask(ing) the United States to recognize the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders."

" is to study the possibility of going to the Security Council to get a resolution that calls upon member states to recognize the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders," he told Reuters by telephone from the Libyan town of Sirte.

Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Gaza Strip - territory that Israel captured from Jordan and Egypt in the 1967 war. Israel quit Gaza in 2005 but insists on keeping all of Jerusalem and swathes of West Bank settlements under any peace accord.


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-may-circumvent-israel-ask-u-s-to-recognize-palestinian-state-1.318005

[Tripmann]

1. It looks like the only way the palestinians will ever have a state is declare it themselves

So why not?

[oberliner]

2. What is the word after the quotation mark in the fourth paragraph?

Unclear what is being said there - was there an abrupt cut?

Anyway, this idea seems unlikely to yield positive results for the Palestinian people.

Will anything change?

[Tripmann]

3. Well, entering peace talks hasn't yielded squat. In fact it has made a 2 state solution less likely.

Personally, I'd like to see the world do for the palestinians what they did for the jewish people and impose statehood on the west bank and gaza. Both sides get 2 years to sort borders and land for the settlements and then theres a de facto palestinian state.

[oberliner]

5. And if an all-out war follows as a result - what then?

After all, that is what happened previously.

[Tripmann]

6. If it was imposed by the UN with the US and arab leagues approval there would not be an all out war

[oberliner]

14. I very sincerely beg to differ

When half a million Israelis wake up to find they are living in Palestine and not Israel - what do you imagine will happen next?

And what about when the rest of Israel finds that the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is no longer part of Israel?

[Tripmann]

35. The half million illegal settlers knew they were moving onto land they were temporarily occupying

Jerusalem is a separate matter.

[oberliner]

36. 200K of them are in Jerusalem so that is hardly a separate matter

Also, I dispute your claim regarding what the settlers knew. Many of them believed and still believe that many of the settlements would eventually become part of Israel.

In a peace agreement such as the Geneva Initiative, supported by President Carter, that is in fact precisely what would happen.

[Tripmann]

37. I meant discussions about the status of jerusalem should be treated entirely separately to

the rest of the territories.

[oberliner]

38. But this state declaration would include Jerusalem

From the article:

Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said "alternatives" to the face-to-face talks launched five weeks ago had been discussed, among them "ask(ing) the United States to recognize the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders."

"(Another) is to study the possibility of going to the (United Nations) Security Council to get a resolution that calls upon member states to recognize the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders," he told Reuters by telephone from the Libyan town of Sirte.

[Tripmann]

39. The state declaration is only at the talking stages. A special arrangement for jerusalem could

easily be negotiated in exchange for the US not to veto recognition of a palestinian state.

[oberliner]

41. I still favor face-to-face talks

I think there is a better chance of reaching a mutually-acceptable and lasting peace that way.

[azurnoir]

8. Are the Palestinians going to attack Israel or what?

or will it be the settlers in which case a war of some sort is likely no matter how the Palestinian state is formed

[oberliner]

15. You've got it backwards

Hundreds of thousands of people who are currently Israeli would become what exactly?

And Jerusalem gets re-divided? You don't think this will lead to military conflict?

[whosinpower]

40. But Oberliner.....

The military conflict is already here.

Jerusalem is already divided. If this is not so, then East Jerusalem would not be under occupation. Both negotiating parties agreed in principle at the Taba Summit that Jerusalem would be the capital of both Israel and Palistine.

The palistinians have no military, no army.....it remains to be seen exactly how they would secure their sovereignty while facing a militarized Israel in the absence of a working army.

When Lieberman made his proposal to the UN, I admit that there are aspects of the peace process and defining Palistinian and Israeli borders give rise to questions that never occured to me. So, it is much more than just peace between two parties.

You bring up a good question - what happens to all the people who are faced with living in a country that is not the same as their citizenship once the borders are finally defined? This dilemma is not only with the settlers residing in the west bank, but also the Israeli Arabs living in East Jerusalem. That dilemma WILL occur regardless of how the two state solution is implemented. It would be better if Abbas and Netanyahu could forge a relationship that was strong enough to deal with this equitably. But, it appears that they cannot....and do not really want to. Both say publically how they are committed to a peace process, and both drag their heels kicking and screaming - one demanding that the settlement building stops, and the other demanding that the other acknowledge Israel is a jewish state.

[oberliner]

42. I share your frustration

I really feel that if Livni had been given a chance to form a government instead of Netanyahu, we'd be in a much better position right now.

[shira]

43. I'm not sure Livni could have pulled off a settlement freeze. n/t

[oberliner]

49. I wish she could have been given a chance

I'd feel a lot more hopeful right now if she was PM.

[whosinpower]

51. What do you think of the international mandate idea?

snip from Jpost - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday told leaders at the Arab League meeting in Libya that if peace talks remain stalled, he may ask the US to recognize a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, Reuters reported.

Another option was to demand that the United Nations place the Palestinian territories under an international mandate, AFP reported.

A Palestinian official quoted Abbas as saying, "What is the PA needed for if all these alternatives fail?" Ma'an reported on Saturday.


Oberliner - If the peace talks fail, and Abbas steps down and dissolves the PA......what do you think of the idea of an international mandate that would govern the West Bank?

[oberliner]

52. Are there more details available on that proposal?

The article doesn't really define what that would entail.

[whosinpower]

53. It is the first I have heard of it

So, no I have no further details. Did a quick yahoo search - but did not come up with anything.

He(Abbas) always maintained that if he could not succeed at the peace talks - he would step down. I just assumed that the PA would hold elections and have someone else take the reins. It did not occur to me that they would simply fold.

[shira]

55. Abbas has said he's stepping down over a dozen times over the years. n/t

[whosinpower]

56. Yes - that is true

But this is the first time I have heard the leader of the PA question the legitimacy/authority of the PA if the peace talks fail.....

edited typo in subject

[shira]

54. Me too, but remember, rooting for Kadima to win is to root for war criminals who brought us OCL.

:eyes:

[whosinpower]

57. Are you now suggesting

That Netanyahu's ascent into the position he is....was to alleviate accusations of war crimes during operation cast lead?

My understanding was that Kadima could not form government because Livni (not sure about the spelling) could not come to an understanding with Lieberman and form a coalition. Are you suggesting that the reason for this was because of Operation Cast Lead?

Obviously, if Abbas steps down and dissolves the PA - it will not matter. Even if the government of Netanyahu falls and Livni takes over - the opportunity is gone. Puts a different perspective on what the Arab League said when they explained this set of peace talks would be the last. It could be postering......it could also be real. I guess time will tell. It always does.

Having said that, and I am just speculating....it may mean that UN forces would have to take over the responsibilities and governance of Palistine. That is my understanding of demanding a UN mandate should the PA dissolve. And at least that would deter Hamas from filling the void.

[shira]

58. No, I'm parroting the anti-zionist narrative with Kadima and OCL. And Abbas won't step down. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

7. If you click on the link to the article, you'll be able to read it there...

It fell off when I copied and pasted it, but I assume most people do click on the links in OPs and read the article anyway. I would have gone back and fixed it but the editing period's expired...

[oberliner]

21. Why would you omit it in the posting?

How could it have "fallen off" when you copied and pasted it if the quotation mark itself was included.

That makes no sense.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I have no idea why it fell off...

Consider it a lesson learnt and that you should really click on the links for OPs and read entire articles before commenting :)

[oberliner]

26. Oh indeed I did read it

And I think it was a nefarious attempt on your part to obsfucate the true meaning of the quoation by removing key words which amplify its meaning.

Or it was just an innocent mistake.

I'll let our readers decide!

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Okay, so yr just trying to waste my time...

If you already knew what the word was, it's pretty ridiculous to ask what it was. I make the assumption (wrongly in yr case) that the people I do talk to in this forum are interested in genuine and civil discussion about the conflict, so I'll leave you to yr own devices as I'm finding yr posts to be quite petty...

[oberliner]

28. No just trying to lighten the mood

Wasting time is pretending that someone thinks the IDF operates prisons in other countries when that was clearly not the intention of the post!

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I don't consider snarkiness to be lightening any mood...

btw, I didn't waste any time. I suggest in future you write yr posts more clearly and don't make the assumtpion that everyone can read yr mind. While you might think yr writing style is clear, I find it quite muddy at times...

[oberliner]

30. That is a startling remark

Do you not consider yourself to be a snarky poster?

And do you not do so, occasionally, to be amusing?

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I dislike it intensely when people aren't straight with me...

And when that's coupled with nasty comments from someone I thought better of than that, that's when I pull the pin on things. Sorry, but I don't see anything funny in petty stuff like you pretending you didn't know what a word was that dropped off a copy'n'paste and asking what it was, nor in some of the other stuff you've posted tonight. There's nothing constructive about any of that kind of thing, so I'll leave you to it...

[oberliner]

34. Agreed!

I very much dislike that as well.

There was no "pretending" here - the only joke I made was with respect to the fact that people might be following our exchange - that we might have "readers".

Also some embellishment in terms of the language was used which I guess was meant to be funny too.

I have no idea, seriously, why the word was left out and if there was any reason behind it other than carelessness.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. I'm missing the humour in yr posts...

I'm just not spotting it in this earlier one: 'Why would you omit it in the posting?
How could it have "fallen off" when you copied and pasted it if the quotation mark itself was included.

That makes no sense.'

That doesn't strike me as humour, but more rather petty niggling about something that's not an issue. Maybe you should go and try yr 'humour' out on someone who'll appreciate it. I don't...

[oberliner]

61. There was no humor in that post

The lightening of the mood came in the post that followed.

The humorous post was #26.

I still don't know why you posted the article with the weird absent word after the quotation - so I just thought I'd make a joke about it, implying that people might be following our exchange, and, therefore, elevating the level of discourse into something that might make our readers/followers more apt to be such.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Okay, so that post was pure time-wasting. Gotcha...

I thought so. What I said about yr 'humour' still stands.

[oberliner]

63. It wasn't time wasting - it was a geniune question

There was a lack of understanding on my part as to why you did what you did and/or how your explanation could have been valid.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. No, I'd already told you what happened...

It was petty, and a follow-up from a question from you that wasn't genuine and was an attempt to waste time. A reasonable person would have not asked what the missing word was when they already knew what it ws...

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

4. well that is good news and a better solution than simply quitting

the talks, now the question is will the US approve?

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Of course the US won't approve it.

The US is no more interested than Israel is in the Palestinians having a state and Israel withdrawing back to the Green Line in order for that state to emerge. And I'm pretty sure that the second option of going through the Security Council would end up with the US vetoing any attempt to recognise a Palestinian state.

I'd be interested in knowing what the process is for declaring statehood and whether a lack of cooperation from the US and Israel can stop a new state coming into being...

[azurnoir]

11. If it goes before the UN first it will pass and then US is in the

position of having to refuse to recognize the Palestinian state, but that is about all it do, unless of course the UNSC can do something which I am not sure about

[oberliner]

16. Did you read the article?

They are talking about the UN Security Council - where the US has veto power.

[azurnoir]

18. yes which is exctly why they should go beforethe UNGC first

and the Senate and Congress do not have authority what would thy do write another cross letter

[oberliner]

20. There is no such entity

[azurnoir]

22. there is no UN general consul eta general assembly

besides the as I added to my other post the Senate and Congress do not have authority where the UN is concerned

[wuushew]

67. Obama as a lame duck could do the morally right thing in 2012

after losing the election. It would probably be the single greatest act that could resuscitate his legacy/image.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Do you have anything constructive to add?

I don't need to be a mind reader. Anyone with any knowledge of the conflict and the behaviour of the US realises that given past history, the US won't approve something like that. I'm not sure at all why you'd think the US would. Do you know something everyone else doesn't know?

btw, if you get time I asked you a question in another thread and would be interested in seeing yr answer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=334484&mesg_id=334706

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. And when the US says no?

This is probably marginally less hopeless that talking to the current Israeli government, but I don't think it's likely to achieve anything, either.

[azurnoir]

12. the Palestinians should take this before the UN

if the US withholds it's approval but the rest approve it then there is little that can be done to stop it

[oberliner]

13. US has veto power in the UN Security Council

That is the only body of the UN that can pass binding resolutions.

[azurnoir]

17. And if the UNGC approves which it will ?

what can the UNSC do?

[oberliner]

19. What the heck is the UNGC? nt

[azurnoir]

23. It was my mistake I meant UNGA n/t

[oberliner]

24. What exactly are you proposing?

What should the UN General Assembly do exactly?

[azurnoir]

44. The UNGA will almostly approve which

could exert additional pressure on the US to follow suit or alternately could give the US an even stronger bargaining chip to exert pressure on Netanyahu in regard to the freezing the settlements

[oberliner]

46. What does "almostly approve" mean?

Are you suggesting that most will approve it or that they will almost approve it or what?

[azurnoir]

47. "almost certainly " I left out a word as

I think faster than I type, perhaps you never do it? However for me it's almost an affliction

[oberliner]

48. Got it

Just wasn't clear what you were saying - I understand now.

I don't think going to the GA will accomplish anything to be honest.

They cannot pass binding resolutions.

[azurnoir]

50. No they can not however it will give a consensus

and with Bans apparent support of Abbas perhaps some legitimacy

[Violet_Crumble]

60. I don't think a binding resolution is needed for recognition of a new state..

My understanding is that once a declaration of statehood is made, other states will recognise the new state. If a large number of states refused to do so, that would affect the legitimacy of the state, but if most states do recognise it and a few uncooperative states refuse to recognise the new state, then that doesn't stop the state from existing.

The very possible result of a unilateral declaration of independence could be that Israel would react with overwhelming force and annexe what's left of the West Bank, so a declaration of statehood is more a moral thing than something that would actually achieve anything...

[azurnoir]

45. In addition to my previous statement -UN chief urges support for Abbas

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Saturday urged Arab leaders to support President Mahmoud Abbas' refusal to negotiate while Israel expands settlements on Palestinian land.

Ban's message was delivered by his personal representative and UN Quartet envoy Robert Serry to leaders at an Arab League summit in Sirte, Libya.

At an emergency meeting of the Arab League Follow-Up Committee on Friday, Arab Foreign Ministers backed Abbas' stance that he would withdraw from talks unless Israel halted settlement activity. The ministers said they would give the US one month to resolve the crisis to avoid a total collapse of the peace process.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=322456

while Ban's statement does not say anything about unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state it does indicate support for decisions made by Abbas