Wednesday, January 19, 2011

If Middle East Stability Needs Israel-Palestine Peace--Why The Rush To Create A Palestinian State Without It?

David Solway writes about the 7 concessions that Abbas would have to make in the interests of Israeli-Palestinian peace, noting that
none of the desiderata I have listed resolves the dilemma of a Hamas terrorist government solidly entrenched in the Gaza Strip and committed to the destruction of Israel. Neither do these terms take into account a bellicose Hezbollah, equipped with 40,000 Iranian and Syrian supplied rockets, camped on Israel’s northern border. The creation of a Palestinian state would do nothing to defuse the tensions in the area and would conceivably only serve to exacerbate them. For even should the above provisions be settled upon, there is no guarantee that the new Palestine would not join the Islamic axis.[emphasis added]
Think about that for a second.

If, as reported on Israel's Channel 10, Russia is expected to recognize a Palestinian state within 'the 1967 borders', then they will be joining the South American countries that have gone on record doing the same the last few weeks.

The problem is that they will be working towards the creation of a country whose government has continued to incite its people against Israel on a regular basis. As a result, such an arbitrarily created state would become one more threat to the security of Israel. This is all the more true since in addition to expelling the Jews from a Palestinian state, Abbas has also said that he will not want Israeli troops either:“
We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah.

He was commenting on unconfirmed reports suggesting that the PA leadership might agree to the presence of the IDF in the West Bank after the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Considering Abbas's weakness and corruption, without an Israeli presence there is nothing to guarantee that such an entity would exist peacefully next to Israel--the UNIFIL troops in Lebanon are a reminder of that.

Of course, besides the issue of security, there is the legal problem with creating a second Palestinian state with "the 1967 borders"--namely the fact that there is no such thing as "1967 borders". As Solway points out, the Palestinian Arabs:
will need to be reminded that the “green line” is not an officially ratified international border but merely a temporary armistice line, allowing for adjustments that ensure Israel’s retention of strategic depth. For the Palestinian Authority to assume that its proposed or unilaterally declared state would abut the pre-1967 borders is a violation of UN Resolution 242. Moreover, Clause 5(2) of the Rhodes Armistice Agreement of 1949 stipulates that “In no sense are the ceasefire lines to be interpreted as political or territorial borders” and that they do not affect “the final disposition of the Palestine question.”
But as we've come to expect, questions of international law are never invoked when they benefit Israel.

So now we watch the procession of countries coming out in recognition of a state that never existed, which is supposed to be the fruit of peace negotiations--but whose unconditional declaration will lead to anything but.

Technorati Tag: .
Post a Comment