Israel warns of unilateral steps if PA seeks UN statehood

[Patria Antiqua]

I'd prefer it if Israel just took them all out to be honest. Nothing will ever get done until one side is annihilated. I prefer to see Israel left standing.

 

[Demon of Light]

The Jerusalem Post reported:

Israel will pursue its own unilateral steps if the Palestinians do not return to the negotiating table and instead seek UN support for unilateral moves to declare a state within the pre- 1967 lines, a government source told The Jerusalem Post late Thursday night.

“If the Palestinians think that unilateral moves are a one-way street, they are sadly mistaken. It is an option that both sides have,” said the source.

With the latest Palestinian boycott of negotiations having failed to extract additional unilateral Israeli concessions despite international pressure having been placed on Israel, the Palestinian leadership has been offering not too subtle hints that it could seek UN approval for a Palestinian state within pre-1967 war boundaries. Although the Security Council would very likely reject such a proposal as it would run counter to the terms of UNSC Res. 242, there have been some hints that the Palestinians could seek an end run through the reliably anti-Israel General Assembly.

Israel has now made clear that it could also pursue unilateral options should the Palestinians resort to such a course. IMO, the ideal outcome of this Israeli hint would be to deter Palestinian unilateralism, but that would only happen if the Palestinians believe that (1) Israel would be serious about pursuing such a course, (2) the Palestinians would only be able to gain a truncated state afterward, and (3) there would be no international "rescue" of the Palestinians from such a self-inflicted fate.

Ultimately, a settlement of the historic conflict should be agreed through negotiations. Such an outcome would be far preferable to unilateral arrangements. Hence, deterrence of a Palestinian resort to such moves would be a positive development.

If the international community, including the UN wish to act in a constructive fashion rather than hardening divisions, they should press the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible. Otherwise, so long as the Palestinians believe they can gain unilateral concessions--an expectation that is stoked whenever the international community misplaces blame on Israel for what is a Palestinian walkout and refusal to negotiate--they will avoid talks to see if they can gain such concessions. Avoidance of negotiations, of course, will only delay prospects for a settlement.

Do you really think inconveniencing the settlers, who shouldn't be there in the first place, is a greater loss than the results of restarting construction?

Israel should not pay any unilateral concessions be it on construction within settlements or, as has recently been hinted could become a fresh precondition down the road, unilateral prisoner releases.

If they do put that out a precondition I am going to have to say "I told you so." The Palestinians put out this precondition in part due to Netanyahu being initially unwilling to even accept a two-state solution and also because they have been burned by past negotiations. Even though Israel did not fully met the precondition the Palestinians still joined negotiations and only asked that Israel keep doing what it had been doing. Israel refusing to do this has only infuriated them more and as I have told you several other times, the longer Israel refuse to renew the freeze the more likely it is that new preconditions will emerge.

New preconditions will not be a result of accepting the one precondition they gave before, but for not continuing to honor that precondition.

 

[donsutherland1]

You see, I don't view the matter as being about whether Israel or the Palestinians are being 'generous' or not.

I used the term "generous" in the context that Israel has twice committed to giving the Palestinians virtually all that they sought.

Nevertheless, if you are going to make the claim, as you seem to be, that power equates to justifiability, or that restraint from using military power as political capital is generosity, I will not grant you that. That frameword for a discussion doesn't sit right with me. Let the use of power derived from military assets be the bald faced equation that it is, I say. If we are ok with that, then fine.

I believe you have misunderstood my point about deterrence. I have argued that I hope that an Israeli effort to deter Palestinian unilateralism will succeed precisely so that the situation does not get to the point where power becomes the sole arbiter of the dispute. The dispute should be resolved strictly through negotiations and I have noted that only an agreed solution would widely be viewed as legitimate. Anything else would not. Moreover, the seeds of instability would persist in anything but an agreed solution because historical grievances would be suppressed not overcome.

 

[Dezaad]

I used the term "generous" in the context that Israel has twice committed to giving the Palestinians virtually all that they sought.

I just have to say, I don't think the Palestinians saw it that way. It is difficult for me to evaluate how truly important the issue of Jerusalem and (separate) issue of the right of return is for them, but if I remember correctly, those two things were their 'reasons' or 'excuses', depending on your position. But, in any case, again, both matters are only dismissed with talk of generosity when you take into account the relative power balance of the parties to the talks. Really, from a perspective of justification, they have at least as strong a claim as Israel.

I believe you have misunderstood my point about deterrence. I have argued that I hope that an Israeli effort to deter Palestinian unilateralism will succeed precisely so that the situation does not get to the point where power becomes the sole arbiter of the dispute. The dispute should be resolved strictly through negotiations and I have noted that only an agreed solution would widely be viewed as legitimate. Anything else would not. Moreover, the seeds of instability would persist in anything but an agreed solution because historical grievances would be suppressed not overcome.

First, let me say that I do see your point, its plausibility, and how it is a thoughtful way to look at the situation. However, the Palestinians obviously see the possibility of getting more of the concrete things they want if it does devolve into a bald power struggle. Either that, or they see some opportunities in delaying the matter. It may be that the Palestinians don't have an accurate grasp of the situation.

The fact remains that at this time, Israel is taking actions and positions that take advantage of their greater military capability. It may be that the Palestinians should pragmatically cut their losses and accept it. But, I can't get past this: I wouldn't.

I simply cannot see a viable state being formed for the Palestinians, even out of the 1967 borders. Nor do I see, with any kind of redrawing that makes it viable for Palestinians, a viable Israeli state. In other words, with the current (roughly conceived) placement of peoples, the formation of two states doesn't seem viable. It almost seems a pipe dream when I consider it. Or rather a nightmare from which we cannot awake.

This, I believe, is what makes the whole situation somewhat hopeless, and is the true source of the intractability of both parties. I think we avoid seeing the conflict in this way because we want to believe there is a way out.

Security, in all its forms, is what people most want. It is a lot to ask, too much in fact, for either party to countenance living without a certain level of it.

Assuming my assessment is correct, where do they go from here? Well, devising radical or 'outside the box' solutions to the issue is probably outside the scope of this thread. So, I'll just leave the question hanging.

 

[24107]

:duel

I'd prefer it if Israel just took them all out to be honest. Nothing will ever get done until one side is annihilated. I prefer to see Israel left standing.

What a useless post,

 

[donsutherland1]

The demand for a "right" of return was a big issue for the Palestinians. Such terms would create, at a minimum, legal obligations that would pose an existential threat to Israel. There are ways to accommodate each party's needs with respect to East Jerusalem. With the demand for a "right" of return, it either is accepted (creating the aforementioned legal obligations at a minimum) or defined so as to refer only with respect to a Palestinian state.

First, let me say that I do see your point, its plausibility, and how it is a thoughtful way to look at the situation. However, the Palestinians obviously see the possibility of getting more of the concrete things they want if it does devolve into a bald power struggle. Either that, or they see some opportunities in delaying the matter. It may be that the Palestinians don't have an accurate grasp of the situation.

Given past "good faith" gestures, the Palestinians reasonably expect that Israel will blink yet again. Unfortunately, while such gestures have been well-intended and often succeeded in starting talks, the problem is that they tended to create incentives for seeking more such gestures. Hence, short-term benefit (launch of talks) was superseded by long-term cost (delays in making the difficult tradeoffs that will be required to reach agreement). That's why I argue that there is nothing wrong for the Palestinians to raise the issue of settlements except that the issue should be raised in the negotiations, not as a precondition to negotiations.

I simply cannot see a viable state being formed for the Palestinians, even out of the 1967 borders. Nor do I see, with any kind of redrawing that makes it viable for Palestinians, a viable Israeli state. In other words, with the current (roughly conceived) placement of peoples, the formation of two states doesn't seem viable. It almost seems a pipe dream when I consider it. Or rather a nightmare from which we cannot awake.

As smaller, more vulnerable states have become viable e.g., Singapore, I'm not so pessimistic. Were an agreement reached, I believe mechanisms could be developed to help address that matter. Of course, there are always risks. But one won't know for sure until after prolonged negotiations have been pursued and sustained.

 

[William Rea]

You see, I don't view the matter as being about whether Israel or the Palestinians are being 'generous' or not. An argument could be credibly made, has indeed been made, that Palestinians have every right to claim all territory outside of Israel's 1967 borders....If the framework for discussion is to be justifiability of claims, then it can be that. But, if we are going to be that civilized, then, to be clear, conflating the two is ludicrous.

Excellent post that concisely summarises what many of us have been saying and thinking for some time on here.

Justice should not be a matter of who has the most might. The only fair way to judge issues like this is based upon natural justice. What is the right thing to do, not what might can do.

 

[Tashah]

Justice should not be a matter of who has the most might. The only fair way to judge issues like this is based upon natural justice. What is the right thing to do, not what might can do.

Might is only relevant in the absence of negotiations. It's a shame that Abbas abandons the only equalizer available to him.

 

[donsutherland1]

What is the right thing to do, not what might can do.

That's an issue that can only be developed in negotiations. Each side has its narrative. Accommodating their core needs, finding the trade offs that are mutually acceptable, etc., will provide the answer as to what the right thing to do is.

 

[Dezaad]

Might is only relevant in the absence of negotiations. It's a shame that Abbas abandons the only equalizer available to him.

That is untrue. A group can use their relative superiority in power to influence the outcome of negotiations. This is obvious. The more powerful side can also take concrete actions which will change a situation so that their aims are furthered at the expense of the other side. For example, increasing the number of dwellings in occupied land.

 

[donsutherland1]

That is untrue. A group can use their relative superiority in power to influence the outcome of negotiations. This is obvious. The more powerful side can also take concrete actions which will change a situation so that their aims are furthered at the expense of the other side. For example, increasing the number of dwellings in occupied land.

Power helps shape outcomes. Indeed, it would be abnormal if it didn't. However, I believe Tashah was talking about power, alone, becoming the sole arbiter of a solution. That happens when there are no negotiations. Then, non-power-related considerations become irrelevant as the best channel for applying those considerations does not exist. As noted previously, that is not an optimal solution.

 

[Tashah]

That is untrue. A group can use their relative superiority in power to influence the outcome of negotiations. This is obvious.

Then you'd better inform everyone involved that their presence is superfluous.

The direct I/P negotiations are closely monitored by US mediators and Arab emissaries.

 

[Gardener]

Power helps shape outcomes. Indeed, it would be abnormal if it didn't. However, I believe Tashah was talking about power, alone, becoming the sole arbiter of a solution. That happens when there are no negotiations. Then, non-power-related considerations become irrelevant as the best channel for applying those considerations does not exist. As noted previously, that is not an optimal solution.

How we view relative power is influenced heavily by the way we frame the conflict. When Israel was created, the prevailing understanding was that the conflict involved Arabs and Jews. Indeed, most of the Arab world viewed the conflict likewise. Over the years, however, and due to a concerted effort on the part of Arabs to change world perception, people gradually shifted their framing of the conflict to where it stands today -- as involving Israel vs the Palestinians. This change in perception has resulted in a changing of sympathies, but the conflict remains one of group identity and loyality. What are the two groups and what represents a fair solution?

 

[Dezaad]

The demand for a "right" of return was a big issue for the Palestinians. Such terms would create, at a minimum, legal obligations that would pose an existential threat to Israel. There are ways to accommodate each party's needs with respect to East Jerusalem. With the demand for a "right" of return, it either is accepted (creating the aforementioned legal obligations at a minimum) or defined so as to refer only with respect to a Palestinian state.

I'm not bringing up these matters as an advocate of the Palestinian position. I brought them up because they are the points on which the Palestinians apparently tack some importance, and as such, may have been the issues that made it impossible for Palestinians to view Israel's offer as 'generous'.

Given past "good faith" gestures, the Palestinians reasonably expect that Israel will blink yet again. Unfortunately, while such gestures have been well-intended and often succeeded in starting talks, the problem is that they tended to create incentives for seeking more such gestures. Hence, short-term benefit (launch of talks) was superseded by long-term cost (delays in making the difficult tradeoffs that will be required to reach agreement). That's why I argue that there is nothing wrong for the Palestinians to raise the issue of settlements except that the issue should be raised in the negotiations, not as a precondition to negotiations.

I can't see why it would be so difficult for Israel to 'blink'. When Israel started creating settlements on occupied territory, the Palestinians 'blinked'. The fact that they had little other choice is beside the point. The Israelis certainly expect the Palestinians to 'blink' yet again with regard to the resumed construction, and based on past history, they are probably correct. Finally, you seem to be expecting the Palestinians to accept the resumed construction as a de facto precondition to negotiations, but reject Palestinian's making their halt a precondition for the negotiations. In short, there is absolutely no reason that continued construction should be the environment under which negotiations ought to begin. Well, other than the fact that Israel has the might under which to give cover to them.

As smaller, more vulnerable states have become viable e.g., Singapore, I'm not so pessimistic. Were an agreement reached, I believe mechanisms could be developed to help address that matter. Of course, there are always risks. But one won't know for sure until after prolonged negotiations have been pursued and sustained.

Singapore is not in the ME. Due to this, a comparison between a potential Palestinian state and Singapore does not in any way provide a model on which to address Palestinian concerns. Putting it forth as such is to create an illusion which delays any real consideration toward a viable solution.

 

[Dezaad]

Then you'd better inform everyone involved that their presence is superfluous.

The direct I/P negotiations are closely monitored by US mediators and Arab emissaries.

Surely you don't really believe that I meant that Israeli negotiators were pointing guns at the heads of the Palestinian negotiators.

 

[Tashah]

What are the two groups and what represents a fair solution?

Netanyahu and Abbas represent the two groups. The only way a fair solution can be attained is via mutual negotiations and agreement. Neither side will be able to acquire or retain every item on their long list. A successful outcome would consist of the respective core needs satisified (security/sovereignty), with mutual trade-offs balancing out the remaining issues.

 

[Dezaad]

Power helps shape outcomes. Indeed, it would be abnormal if it didn't. However, I believe Tashah was talking about power, alone, becoming the sole arbiter of a solution. That happens when there are no negotiations. Then, non-power-related considerations become irrelevant as the best channel for applying those considerations does not exist. As noted previously, that is not an optimal solution.

She made two claims in her post. One was that power only matters outside of negotiations, and the second was that the Palestinians were abandoning the only equalizer available to them. Her assertion that power "only" matters outside of negotiations is untrue, as you have just acknowledged. The second claim is what you are referring to, and I didn't address it in my response. I indicated what I was responding to by bolding the first claim.

The reason I didn't address the second claim is that I already have done so in earlier posts in this thread, by describing other ways to acquire and channel power, and that the Palestinians are not without resources in that regard.

The only thing I can add to that is that Palestinians are not equalized with respect to Israel by participating in negotiations, as is obvious from the fact that relative power shapes outcomes of negotiations. Since they are not equalized by their participation, and they are not without power resources outside of them, Tashah's assertion doesn't really make sense to me. In neither case are they on an equal footing, and in either case power could tip in their favor, however unlikely that might be.

 

[donsutherland1]

...and the second was that the Palestinians were abandoning the only equalizer available to them... The only thing I can add to that is that Palestinians are not equalized with respect to Israel by participating in negotiations, as is obvious from the fact that relative power shapes outcomes of negotiations.

There is little doubt that the Palestinians have less leverage than Israel. However, they have greater leverage inside a negotiating process than outside it where power would become the main or sole arbiter, as it is very unlikely that the Palestinians would be able to construct a balance of power that would allow them to impose their desired solution.

 

[Dezaad]

There is little doubt that the Palestinians have less leverage than Israel. However, they have greater leverage inside a negotiating process than outside it where power would become the main or sole arbiter, as it is very unlikely that the Palestinians would be able to construct a balance of power that would allow them to impose their desired solution.

To be sure, their leverage changes its level as they make moves to join or leave negotations. I am sure that they are doing their own calculus as to whether they achieve any additional leverage by operating outside negotiations at this time, or by threatening to do so.

But, I doubt it is a matter of them thinking that, within negotiations or outside of them, that they are thinking about being allowed to impose a solution. Bend additionally toward their favor? Yes. Impose? No.

To be clear, this is precisely what Israel is also doing. They cannot impose a solution either, precisely because they do not hold all of the power. Israel also seeks to bolster their advantage, by offering to negotiate all the while increasing their hold and presence over occupied lands. They aim to either A) retain occupied territory in which they have habitation and/or B) Use their presence as residents as a bargaining chip.

I cannot criticize the Palestinians for seeking to gain additional leverage. I could criticize them for being mistaken about how to do so, but at this time I leave that to others.

 

[William Rea]

Might is only relevant in the absence of negotiations. It's a shame that Abbas abandons the only equalizer available to him.

It is demonstrably untrue that might is not relevant in negotiations.

What is the only equaliser that Abbas has available to him?

 

[Mika-El]

There is little doubt that the Palestinians have less leverage than Israel.

I used to think that DS now I wonder given the fact that the U.S., Euorpean Union, United Nations, world press and world opinion are clearly against Israel.

 

[Mika-El]

It is demonstrably untrue that might is not relevant in negotiations.

What is the only equaliser that Abbas has available to him?

The same equaliser Netanyahu does. That "equaliser" is for me an illusion. Call it what you want but to me it comes down to threats to pull out of talks or act out an ultimatum or use terrorism. Israel can't threaten terrorism but it can pull out of talks or act out ultimatums no differently then Abbas which leaves us down to terrorism v.s. the IDF and terrorism has proven pointless and useless and has achieved nothing.

This is why I circle back and repeat what Tash stated earlier.

 

[William Rea]

The same equaliser Netanyahu does. That "equaliser" is for me an illusion. Call it what you want but to me it comes down to threats to pull out of talks or act out an ultimatum or use terrorism. Israel can't threaten terrorism but it can pull out of talks or act out ultimatums no differently then Abbas which leaves us down to terrorism v.s. the IDF and terrorism has proven pointless and useless and has achieved nothing.

This is why I circle back and repeat what Tash stated earlier.

Israel can threaten "terrorism" and arguably it has carried out such acts but the question for me is who gains in any of the scenarios. I don't believe that the strategists on either side have not thought this through and to me it looks like Israel has nothing to lose if Abbas walks away, they just shrug their shoulders, play the propoganda and it's business as usual. Abbas on the other hand has entered these talks with no mandate to represent a large proportion of the Palestinian population and he has put what little reputation he has left with the remainder of the Palestinian population on the line. I don't want to be the harbinger of doom but I really believe that if Israel forces this one down the pan then they will have effectively pulled the rug from under the current Palestinian regime and far worse will come.

 

[Mika-El]

Israel can threaten "terrorism" and arguably it has carried out such acts but the question for me is who gains in any of the scenarios. I don't believe that the strategists on either side have not thought this through and to me it looks like Israel has nothing to lose if Abbas walks away, they just shrug their shoulders, play the propoganda and it's business as usual. Abbas on the other hand has entered these talks with no mandate to represent a large proportion of the Palestinian population and he has put what little reputation he has left with the remainder of the Palestinian population on the line. I don't want to be the harbinger of doom but I really believe that if Israel forces this one down the pan then they will have effectively pulled the rug from under the current Palestinian regime and far worse will come.

Sorry I did not have a chance to reply. I was not ignoring your statement. Look I am on the opposite side of the debate than you true, but I will say this. I personally myself, believe, continued settlements are an obstacle to peace negotiations and cause Abbas to lose face and look weak and if he continued to negotiate with Israel while they continue to settle on the West Bank, this to me is the equivalent of telling Israel it should sit down with Hamas. I am not saying what Israel is doing is the same as Hamas, but I am saying Israel no more can sit and talk with a terrorist until they first disarm just as mr. Abbas can't negotiate while settlements continue. The continued settling is like Hamas refusing to step down with arms in the sense it leaves the status quo in an unfavourable position to one side as they sit.

I hope that makes sense.

I am just saying realistically settlements have to be frozen and until terrorist cells like Hamas disarm and are brought into the negotiations, we are far off from a comprehensive settlement.

So I do not necessarily disagree with your take that talks may not achieve anything right now, but I am an optimist and do not think they are doomed for the same reason I believe people thought it was not possible in Northern Ireland and they proved them wrong there so why not again here?

Too optimistic? Maybe.

 

[William Rea]

Sorry I did not have a chance to reply. I was not ignoring your statement. Look I am on the opposite side of the debate than you true, but I will say this. I personally myself, believe, continued settlements are an obstacle to peace negotiations and cause Abbas to lose face and look weak and if he continued to negotiate with Israel while they continue to settle on the West Bank, this to me is the equivalent of telling Israel it should sit down with Hamas. I am not saying what Israel is doing is the same as Hamas, but I am saying Israel no more can sit and talk with a terrorist until they first disarm just as mr. Abbas can't negotiate while settlements continue. The continued settling is like Hamas refusing to step down with arms in the sense it leaves the status quo in an unfavourable position to one side as they sit.

I hope that makes sense.

I am just saying realistically settlements have to be frozen and until terrorist cells like Hamas disarm and are brought into the negotiations, we are far off from a comprehensive settlement.

So I do not necessarily disagree with your take that talks may not achieve anything right now, but I am an optimist and do not think they are doomed for the same reason I believe people thought it was not possible in Northern Ireland and they proved them wrong there so why not again here?

Too optimistic? Maybe.

Hopefully as with everyone else on here, there is absolutely no time limit on responding to my posts, I don't consider a lack of response to indicate anything. We are all on different time zones and different schedules and... I'm just saying that your apology is completely unecessary but I appreciate the thought behind it.

We may be on opposite "sides" whatever that means but we are perhaps only in opposite cities in the same country whereas I often feel like I am on a different planet with some people but I guess that's how it is.

Just one thing to add to what you said, London was carrying out covert talks with the IRA while the official Government line was "We don't talk to terrorists". At some stage a dialogue has to be opened up that includes the extremists, otherwise the extremists on both sides will win. It was de rigeur for the IRA to talk only in terms of outright surrender of the northern Counties to a united Ireland and look at where we are now. Considering the partition of Ireland occurred in the 1920s, it took the best part of 70 years for the real process to start and it hasn't ended yet. This could have been avoided if the British had not become drowned in the dogma of the extreme Protestants during the 1950s leading into the 1970s. The IRA was nothing but a Marxist talking shop before the British decided to deal violently with genuine civil rights concerns voiced by the "Catholic" population.

Do the parallels not jump out at you?

It is unfortunate that on here you have to be extremely bullish to counteract those that are in denial about what is happening. As on many others forums I have participated in, being moderate gets you nowehere fast in the face of a revisionist machine that is preprogrammed to deny, deny and then deny some more just to be sure. Speaking for myself, I am far more moderate on this issue than my posting might suggest but I think that demonstrates how destructive dogma is to any dialogue whether it is our self indulgent ramblings on an internet forum or serious international talks that effect millions of lives.

I am not optimistic. The human condition seems to be condemned to keep repeating the mistakes of history. I will be genuinely amazed if anything comes from the current talks but everything tells me that we will still be talking about this at the end of 2030 but we will probably be disussing what happens to the diplaced West Bank Palestinians. I say this because the West has procrastinated on this issue for so long that it has taken on a life of its own. This is no longer just about a just settlement for Palestinians and Israelis, it is a point of focus for EVERY faction in the Middle East theatre, the moderate and the extreme ones alike.