MIDDLE EAST: The Big Mad RushTo Nowhere

Global Geopolitics Net Sites / IDN

BY FAREED MAHDY*

IDN-InDepthNews Service

ISTANBUL (IDN) – All of a sudden, everybody began running in a new Middle East big chaotic rush, as soon as the Palestinian Authority (PA) announced on Nov. 14 its intention to address the Security Council with a request that the international community re-endorse what it had already endorsed — the two-state solution based on the borders previous to the June 5, 1967 Middle East war.

Regardless of its usefulness, PA decided to take such a step, convinced as it is, like everybody else in the region, that 18 long years of U.S.-sponsored negotiations with Israel have not led anywhere.

Not only — hopes that the Barack Obama’s “new U.S.”, Europe and the international community can bring to reality the agreed solution of creating an independent, sovereign Palestinian state on all occupied Palestinian territories with occupied East Jerusalem as its capital, have now hit the bottom.

NOT UNILATERAL

The Palestinian legitimate intention to ask the UN Security Council to confirm its own decisions has been backed by the Arab League which groups all 22 Arab countries. Consequently, it is about an Arab collective initiative not a Palestinian unilateral one.

Legitimate as it is, just an intention as it has been announced and endorsed as it has been by 22 Arab states, the PA announcement unleashed a spectacular Israeli fury.

In fact, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Nov. 15 that such a Palestinian “unilateral” action would provoke an Israeli “unilateral” reaction.

Both Netanyahu and his ministers have since been threatening with annexing the Palestinian territories on which Jewish settlements have been and continue spreading like an oil spot.

OCCUPYING OCCUPPIED TERRITORIES?

Top Israeli officials also talked about re-occupying all the Palestinian occupied territories, including those (only 22 per cent of the total) left under strictly Israeli-controlled Palestinian internal day-to-day administration.

In fact, Israel already occupies 78 per cent of Palestinian territories, as stressed by PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat. In addition, over 500,000 Jewish settlers reside in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, which is strictly controlled by thousands of Israeli army and security forces.

High-ranking Palestinian officials have been insistently clarifying that it is not about declaring unilaterally a Palestinian state, but seeking international re-endorsement of what the International community has already and repeatedly recognised as Palestinian right to have a state living alongside with Israel, with jurisdiction over all Palestinian territories that Israel occupied during the June 1967 war.

On Nov. 15, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad clarified that it is about his plan to prepare for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state “in the future” through building Palestinian institutions and gaining international support.

From his side, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat repeatedly denied reports that the Palestinians were seeking to unilaterally declare an independent state.

"We are not planning to declare our state unilaterally,” Erekat said. "All what we intend is to take to the Security Council a request that the international community re-endorses the two-state solution based on the pre-Jun. 5, 1967 borders."

‘THERE IS NO WORSE DEAF THAN THE ONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR’

Useless. Following a Spanish saying “There is no worse deaf than the one who does not want to hear”, Netanyahu insisted on Nov. 15: “There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and any unilateral attempt outside that framework could entail unilateral steps by Israel.”

Netanyahu took advantage of the move to spell out what he called the “three challenges to Israel’s security that must be addressed to achieve our goal of a lasting peace.”

“First, Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear military capability. Second, a solution must be found to the threat of missile and rocket attacks. And third, Israel’s right to defend itself must be preserved not only in principle but in practice”, said Netanyahu.

Such furious Israeli reaction to PA intention to address the UN Security Council went further. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak warned that Israel “risked being alienated” by the international community if it supports the Palestinian initiative to seek the re-endorsement of UN’s own resolutions.

U.S., EUROPE JOIN THE BIG RUSH

Both the U.S. and Europe decided to immediately join the big rush.

In fact, U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said that the U.S. supports the establishment of Palestinian stated geographically connected, but that will happen only through bilateral negotiations with Israel.

Simultaneously a number of U.S. Congressmen unveiled that the U.S. will use its veto against any Security Council resolution recognising an independent Palestinian state.

On its turn, the European Union has rejected the Palestinian initiative saying it was "premature". Sweden’s foreign minister Carl Bildt said on Nov. 17 that the EU was discussing “other steps” to demonstrate its support for Palestinian aspirations.

"I would hope that we would be in a position to recognise a Palestinian state, but there has to be one first, so I think that is somewhat premature," said Bildt. Sweden holds the current rotating EU presidency.

NETANYAHU TAKES ON THEM ALL WITH A NEW CHALLENGE

Not happy with U.S. and European support to its policies, the Israeli government authorised the 900 new housing units in Gilo in occupied East Jerusalem.

The decision, which represents a new strong challenge to Obama’s reiterated request to freeze all Jewish settlements activities as a condition for resuming peace negotiations, was rapidly rebuked by both the U.S. and the UN.

"We are dismayed at the Jerusalem planning committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Nov. 17 from Beijing where was accompanying Obama.

“At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed,” said Gibbs while accusing Israel of undermining the floundering US-led peace process.

“Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations,” he added.

OBJECTION!

Gibbs went further on to saying “The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes."

"Our position is clear," he continued. "The status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties." Then he warned: "Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations."

At the same time, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has deplored “the government of Israel’s decision today (Nov. 17) to expand Gilo settlement, built on Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war," said a spokesman for the UN chief.

Also the UK joined the wave of criticism. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband "has been very clear that a credible deal involves Jerusalem as a shared capital, a Foreign Office spokesperson said.

"Expanding settlements on occupied land in east Jerusalem makes that deal much harder. So this decision is wrong and we oppose it," Foreign Office spokesperson stressed.

WHY ALL THAT MAD RUSH?

Being based on UN Security Council resolutions since 1967, being in line with the 1993 Oslo Accords as well as with the previous U.S.-sponsored Road Map, and being reaffirmed by president Barack Obama and European leaders let alone the UN General Assembly, why all that furious reaction? Why has Israel been so fast riding the tide and threatening with new land annexations?

All Palestinian Authority leaders have explained to the point of exhaustion that all what they want is for international community to endorse its own decisions and be stand up to its own commitments.

Moreover, Palestinians had already declared their independent state on two occasions: one in 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and one in 1999 coinciding with the Oslo Accords deadline for a final settlement leading to an independent Palestinian state.

Why all this new big chaotic rush? What is it all about? According to Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, continuing Israeli refusal to implement Security Council resolutions and international community decisions, does not give Palestinians any choice.

But what if a miracle happens? That’s, the Security Council endorses its own decisions and the international community recognises its own commitments to create a sovereign Palestinian state on the pre-June 1967 borders.

What kind of a state Palestinians would have under full military occupation? Where would it be physically based?

Tragic as it may sound, hopes that Palestinians will have a homeland on their occupied homeland do vanish more and more as times passes by.

Unless they go back to the only option they seem to have: armed resistance.

But how? With which weapons? Such resistance would have anyhow be smashed by the powerful Israeli machinery, with United States — the biggest military engine on Earth – looking after it. (IDN-InDepthNews/18.11.2009)

* Fareed Mahdy is special correspondent of IDN-InDepthNews Service

Copyright © 2009 IDN-InDepthNews Service

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission the original author or copyright holder.