The push for a new state for the Arab Palestinians may be attained by September of this year. The way this could be achieved is outside of the current peace process and could lead to negative results. A lengthy article has been written by David Horovitz of the Jerusalem Post explaning how this could come about. In essence if the UN Security Council reaches an impasse on its ability to maintain order and stability, the process can then go to General Assembly where resolutions are passed via two-thirds majority. Although non-binding, this “Unity for Peace” Resolution has been used before where the dynamics on the ground affected the related parties (for example, boycotts and sanctions). The article states,
The Palestinian leadership, that is, anticipating that the US will veto its unilateral bid for statehood at the Security Council, will take the matter to the General Assembly. There it will push for the necessary two-thirds GA support for recognizing “Palestine,” presumably along the pre-1967 lines and with a “right of return” for refugees, under a “Uniting for Peace” resolution to ensure global action.
If this were to transpire, critical issues that normally are solved through consensus could become flash points of contention and further world condemnation. Horovitz adds
Most Israelis may well believe that the failure to make progress in negotiations with the Palestinians stems from the other side’s refusal to take positions that would guarantee Israel’s physical and demographic security alongside the proposed Palestine. Most Israelis may well believe that the Palestinian leadership has neither encouraged its people to accept the Jewish right to statehood, nor accepted this right itself, and has maintained an environment in which terrorists who target Israelis are regarded as role models.
But the sad fact is that most of the international diplomatic community simply doesn’t accept this narrative, and tends increasingly to blame strong, sovereign Israel for failing to grant independence to the weak, stateless Palestinians. Rocket attacks from Gaza, bombings at bus stops in Jerusalem, even horrific murders of fathers, mothers, children and babies in their homes, are evaluated in that context.
So there is certainly no automatic, or even readily attainable, blocking vote in the Security Council for the Palestinians’ demand for statehood, even if the establishment of that “state” is being sought while the core issues of dispute with neighboring Israel remain unresolved.
No Jews were allowed in Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967 while the region was under Jordanian control. Currently there are many established Jewish communities in this same region. What would happen as result of this machination to these communities? Do any of the recent terror attacks give us a clue as to the attitude of some Palestinians?
Another area of incitement being reviewed is the attitude to peace: “They say that Jews have no right to be in this region, Jews have no right to be here. This is especially noticeable in school text books, where Israeli presence isn’t even mentioned. There are no maps with Israel. (Ynet News).
If such an event were to occur the security of an estimated 200,000 Jews would be of immediate concern. Just as a point of fact, other items that have been in negotiation are water, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.
It is unclear what the position of the US is in this regard. With the recent vote on the settlements, it was stated that the US ‘ was “very, very close” to not vetoing the anti-settlement resolution’.
The manner in which this Administration has conducted its foreign policy over the past few years, allowing others to take the lead in domestic and international affairs, may pave the way for this potentially historic event in September.
John Paul is is an Associate Editor for Voice of Revolution, overseeing Jewish Issues.
© John Paul for Voice of Revolution, 2011. | Permalink