Five Reasons Palestine Is Not Ready To Be An Independent State
For those still in doubt, here are five reasons why the Palestinians should not be granted an independent country. Not yet, at least.
First, the latest gambit at the United Nations, to have the international community grant the Palestinians a country without having to negotiate for it with Israel, is clumsy and transparent. Israelis want peace with a Palestinian state whereas the Palestinians want a state albeit one that is not at peace with Israel. From where does one infer such a malicious intention? From the Palestinians' own statements. For example, when asked if obtaining a state of their own will spell the end of the conflict, Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, explicitly answered in the negative. In other words, by their own admission the Palestinians are laboring to create a state with the premise that they will be able to continue the conflict, only this time less than ten miles from Tel Aviv!
Second, the inaptly-dubbed "Peace Process" has been limping along for some 18 years, since the signing of the Oslo Accords, guided by a series of signed agreements and other understandings. The Quartet – that ensemble of major international actors: The U.S., U.N., the European Union, and Russia – is a signatory to the articles agreed upon by the Israelis and Arabs.
Chief among the points the Palestinians committed to in writing, is a pledge to not embark unilaterally on any major new policy. It is worth reiterating that all Quartet members have also signed this same pledge. Obviously, the Palestinian scheme of detouring direct negotiations by unilaterally appealing to the United Nations, where they enjoy an automatic majority, constitutes a major violation of existing, signed accords!
Third, the Palestinians have grown confident of the knee-jerk support from the international community forgiving whatever strategy they opt for. How else could one explain the Palestinians' latest prerequisite to start peace talks with the Jewish state only on the condition that the Israelis accept, in advance, key Palestinian demands? It is important to remind the reader that these demands, such as the final borders to be agreed upon or a complete freeze on all settlement activities in all of the territories, including Jerusalem, comprise core issues in the conflict.
The fourth point concerns the international law regarding the prerequisites for becoming a state. A paramount one is the requirement that a state must control its territory. As is well known, half of the Palestinian territories, namely the Gaza Strip, is controlled by a lethal opponent of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, internationally defined as a terrorist organization. Although the Palestinian Authority does not control all of the territories it demands for the soon-to-be state, it seems to enjoy a tacit absolution from accountability or from the rule of international law.
The fifth point denotes the dimension of hypocrisy so deeply ingrained in international politics. This infamous cynicism is nonetheless still breathtaking when seen in action. The Palestinians may someday deserve an independent state of their own, once they have satisfied the requirements of international law and demonstrated a genuine intention and ability to coexist peacefully with Israel. But one is left hard-pressed to explain the international rush to support a Palestinian state now, when there is no similar haste to vote statehood for Chechnya, or Tibet, or for the 30 million strong long-suffering Kurds, for example.
In sum, the shortcut to Palestinian statehood is not just wrong, but outright counterproductive to peace. If successful in their ploy, the Palestinians will have obtained an independent country some three miles from the Tel Aviv International Airport, from which to more conveniently pursue their battle to annihilate Israel.
First, the latest gambit at the United Nations, to have the international community grant the Palestinians a country without having to negotiate for it with Israel, is clumsy and transparent. Israelis want peace with a Palestinian state whereas the Palestinians want a state albeit one that is not at peace with Israel. From where does one infer such a malicious intention? From the Palestinians' own statements. For example, when asked if obtaining a state of their own will spell the end of the conflict, Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, explicitly answered in the negative. In other words, by their own admission the Palestinians are laboring to create a state with the premise that they will be able to continue the conflict, only this time less than ten miles from Tel Aviv!
Second, the inaptly-dubbed "Peace Process" has been limping along for some 18 years, since the signing of the Oslo Accords, guided by a series of signed agreements and other understandings. The Quartet – that ensemble of major international actors: The U.S., U.N., the European Union, and Russia – is a signatory to the articles agreed upon by the Israelis and Arabs.
Chief among the points the Palestinians committed to in writing, is a pledge to not embark unilaterally on any major new policy. It is worth reiterating that all Quartet members have also signed this same pledge. Obviously, the Palestinian scheme of detouring direct negotiations by unilaterally appealing to the United Nations, where they enjoy an automatic majority, constitutes a major violation of existing, signed accords!
Third, the Palestinians have grown confident of the knee-jerk support from the international community forgiving whatever strategy they opt for. How else could one explain the Palestinians' latest prerequisite to start peace talks with the Jewish state only on the condition that the Israelis accept, in advance, key Palestinian demands? It is important to remind the reader that these demands, such as the final borders to be agreed upon or a complete freeze on all settlement activities in all of the territories, including Jerusalem, comprise core issues in the conflict.
The fourth point concerns the international law regarding the prerequisites for becoming a state. A paramount one is the requirement that a state must control its territory. As is well known, half of the Palestinian territories, namely the Gaza Strip, is controlled by a lethal opponent of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, internationally defined as a terrorist organization. Although the Palestinian Authority does not control all of the territories it demands for the soon-to-be state, it seems to enjoy a tacit absolution from accountability or from the rule of international law.
The fifth point denotes the dimension of hypocrisy so deeply ingrained in international politics. This infamous cynicism is nonetheless still breathtaking when seen in action. The Palestinians may someday deserve an independent state of their own, once they have satisfied the requirements of international law and demonstrated a genuine intention and ability to coexist peacefully with Israel. But one is left hard-pressed to explain the international rush to support a Palestinian state now, when there is no similar haste to vote statehood for Chechnya, or Tibet, or for the 30 million strong long-suffering Kurds, for example.
In sum, the shortcut to Palestinian statehood is not just wrong, but outright counterproductive to peace. If successful in their ploy, the Palestinians will have obtained an independent country some three miles from the Tel Aviv International Airport, from which to more conveniently pursue their battle to annihilate Israel.
Source...