Since Fall, the Palestinian Authority has again been talking about unilaterally declaring a state. They’ve done this at least four times before. However, several nations–100 by Palestinian claims– have jumped at this opportunity to say they would recognize a self-declared Arab state in the middle of Israel. Some have said such a proposal wouldn’t pass the Security Council, but it was the UN and the US who encouraged Palestinian Authority PM Fayyad to take the steps. It would be very surprising if a declaration of PA independence brought to the UN in August 2011 or before, would be vetoed.
The US demand and preparation for a Palestinian State is also not new. General Dayton’s PA troop project was obviously a case of the US preparing a better army for a state run by Fatah and the PLO, put in place by George Bush. The Oslo Peace Process itself, begun by George Bush Senior and put in place by Bill Clinton, was the start of an official world policy of carving an Arab state out of Israel, a sort of death by dissection. It did not begin with Bush Sr., though. Reagan actively pushed the idea of Israel surrendering Judea and Samaria to Jordan or some other Arab entity as written in the Reagan-Israel peace plan of 1982. This was a continuation of Carter’s previous efforts at satisfying the Arab League at the expense of Israel. But before Carter, Nixon had proposed the same land for peace idea to the Israeli government: to go back to the 1949 Armistice lines and accommodate the PLO, shortly before the Yom Kippur war of 1973.
On what grounds would anyone think the US would now veto the plan they’ve pushed for two or three generations?
The US House of Representatives, on the other hand, resolved the US would not recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. That same resolution called for continued peace negotiations, which is nonsensical, but to be expected in such a resolution. As always, we have the broad American support for Israel, reflected in support for Israel in the House and Senate, vs. the State Department and executive support for the Arab League objectives.
So far the PLO is feeling out the reaction to their statements and looking for fresh allies. The Arab League is cautious about it. At the recent Arab League meeting in Cairo on Palestinian issues, they did not endorse rushing to declare a state unilaterally, and racing ahead of EU or US support.
The EU’s official position is muted, insisting that an Arab nation should be carved out of Israel, but only after negotiations. Israel’s coerced surrender should have some semblance of legality to the EU mind. Since the PA will not negotiate with Israel, the negotiated settlement they desire must be one negotiated by world organizations and the Arab Terrorist groups about Israel, rather than one negotiated between Israel and the terrorists.
Israel hasn’t said that much about it publicly. There would be considerable advantages to Israel if the Arab terrorist groups who were given control much of Judea and Samaria in 1993 pushed their declaration of independence as their main goal. What would be a far greater advantage to Israel would be to annex Judea and Samaria before it came to a UN vote.
The obvious advantage to the Palestinian Authority declaring that they are through with the “peace process” is that Israel could feel perfectly free to annex Judea and Samaria, as it should have done in 1967. It would be something of a Kol Nidre moment for Israel, released from past promises, free to continue in a wiser and more practical direction, if the Israeli government had the will to do so. It appears that the end of the “peace process” would be a relief for both Jews and Arabs, although Arabs derive considerable profit from the venture. At this point, however, the money would still roll in, as they have the support of the majority of nations and international organizations. The end of the “peace process” would simplify and clarify the real issues, and allow for more direct action.
A recent poll of Arabs living in Judea and Samaria under the Palestinian Authority says that 58% would like to see the PA dissolved if negotiations fail, to return to the pre-1993 arrangements. This poll is not a poll on the question of independence. Some people will be thinking of a one state solution, which is favored by many Arabs under the assumption that they will be able to overcome Israel by population and the careful use of liberal Israeli institutions, such as the High Court and Left Wing political parties, as well as the foreign pro-Arab forces funded by foreign sources. That group believes Israel would sooner or later cease to be a Jewish state. Others will be thinking of keeping the satus quo minus the PA. Others think of continued attacks on Israel and taking Judea, Samaria and eventually all of Israel through force. A member of the Palestinian Authority recently suggested the PA should disband and give the infrastructure of Arab towns to Israel to maintain.
The total abandonment of the “peace process” would be a game changer, and would be to Israel’s benefit, as things stand now. That’s why the Arab League didn’t encourage Abu Mazen to carry through with the plan, and why members of the Palestinian Authority alternate between declaring that they’ll make their own Arab state any day, and saying they are exploring their options, and looking for sponsors to help give that appearance of legality. Various PLO members are saying contradictory things, the sort of things that can be denied if they don’t have a favorable effect. Abu Mazen spoke to Lebanese Ya Libnan news, saying the PA was looking for international sponsors to help them be recognized as an independent state, and Fayyad was aiming for August, 2011 at the latest, in line with his agreements with the US. However, even if circumstances changed to make the idea less appealing to the PA, after they’ve refused to negotiate any further, and having gone this far out on the limb of declaring a unilateral state, they can’t backtrack very far and must continue with that plan.
Meanwhile, Qassam news reports that Mahmoud Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas, in trying to one-up Fatah and the PLO, says it is busy building a nice country in Gaza, and when they are done it will be so respectable that the international community will simply hand them a state in amazement. In actuality, with the help of Iran and others, Hamas is regrouping after being crippled, although not destroyed in Operation Cast Lead in January, 2009. They are also waiting to see what political success “Viva Palestina” and “Free Gaza” have.
Hamas’ political and military fortunes are better right now by not going on a major offense. Likewise Hamas in Gaza has been given similar reassurances to those given to the PLO and Fatah, that Gaza is theirs. Hamas’ position is slightly more complicated and their rewards depend in part on how Fatah fares in its independence project. Consequently Hamas can bide its time until next summer and see whether “reunification” or an offensive on Israel would serve it better.
Various Israeli Knesset members have recently introduced bills to annex parts of Judea and Samaria. Uzi Landau wants to annex the larger Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria. MK Danon says all of Judea and Samaria except Arab cities should be annexed. Of course anyone can tell you there would be difficulties with any annexation. Some would say it isn’t worth keeping any of Judea and Samaria, or even parts of Jerusalem, just let them have it.
The Israeli Left and those of the Globalist bent apparently want to shed Judea and Samaria, as they did Gaza. Nothing changes there.
MK Danon would say that if Israel annexed the Arab cities, it would immediately result in a rash of terrorist attacks and riots, which would take years of fighting to control, and it would probably bring other nations and the UN into the fray. However, it is no solution to annex all of Judea and Samaria except Arab cities, or even only Jewish cities and towns. There will be the same war either way, and nothing would have changed for the better as long as there is a no-man’s land claimed by Arabs in the middle of Judea and Samaria.
There are other practical and just ways to handle ethnic and religious minorities in a country. This is a common situation throughout the world. In most cases such areas, if they are large enough, have a limited local rule and self-government. Life is good as long as they remain a part of the nation and their members don’t conduct attacks on the nation or ally with enemies. The main exception to this rule is religious minorities in Muslim countries, where the minority groups are usually badly persecuted. This has not been the case with minorities in Israel, however. While life may not be ideal for minorities in Israel, they are not deprived of the chance for education, livelihood, voting, fair access to the courts or freedom of worship.
Establishing a tiny independent and hostile nation in the midst of the host nation is not one of the practical and just arrangements for national minorities. Peace can only begin if Israel annexes all of its territory up to the Jordan River. To do otherwise leaves a dangerous and disputed no-man’s land in Judea and Samaria which precludes any practical chance for peace and leaves Israel at a great disadvantage. If Israel itself recognized the Palestinian Arabs as a separate nation on their own terms, it would leave Israel too small to defend, with a hostile and interwoven nation to the east. As long as Israel refuses to annex Judea and Samaria, this untenable situation will remain.
This one state idea is gaining favor among both Arabs and Jews, although it is far from a majority view on either side at this point. The Arabs mostly hope that by being included as citizens, they will be able to end the Jewish character of Israel, so that it eventually becomes a Muslim Arab state. Jews would leave, be killed, or become dhimmis. Given the current policies of other Arab and Muslim nations, this would not be a protected status, but one of shame and persecution and possibly genocide.
Jews who hold this view, on the other hand, believe Jews will remain the majority in such a state, and Arabs who launch attacks and ally with enemies will be defeated, so that Israel would remain a Jewish state, and Arab citizens would either accept the fact and decide to quit fighting and lead normal lives, leave, or be handled as internal enemies under Israeli law.
There will be a war whether Israel annexed Judea and Samaria or not, unless Israel simply surrenders and agrees to give up everything to Arab or Iranian entities. Short of surrender, there will be a war where there would be many casualties: Jews and even more Arabs. Since when has the Western or Muslim world really been concerned with the death of either Arabs or Jews, human rights, or peace and justice? It’s all just politics.
