Time isn’t right for statehood bid
By Irwin Cotler, Montreal Gazette
MONTREAL – Any negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – as part of wider Arab-Israeli peace and reconciliation – should be based on the principle of two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security. Accordingly, a premature, unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would undermine rather than resolve the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and would constitute a standing affront to the integrity of the United Nations, international agreements and international law.
It is not surprising, therefore, that U.S. President Barack Obama, in a speech May 19, warned that a just and lasting peace is possible only through a negotiated approach that involves mutual concessions. “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state,” stated the president, a position reaffirmed in a communiqué by the G8 on May 27.
A similar position was also taken by the president of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek. During a press conference with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on June 15 in Ramallah, Mr. Buzek declared that the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would be “dangerous.”
On July 27, Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians as “a very unhelpful development.” He said a two-state solution should be predicated on “mutual recognition, including recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.”
What has gone largely unnoticed is that opposition to the proposed unilateral declaration has recently come from disparate – and unlikely – Arab and Palestinian leadership. First, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Nabil Al-Arabi, said the statehood bid “could be a very dangerous move for the Palestinians during this period.” Second, Hamas leadership – which presumably would be part of a proposed Palestinian state – has called the whole exercise a “sham.” Third, the Palestinian team responsible for preparing this initiative has been given an independent legal opinion – by its own counsel – that argues against such an initiative and warns of the serious risks involved to the Palestinian people, a position echoed by Jordan’s King Abdullah II.
These declarations opposing UN recognition of a unilateral Palestinian statehood bid – whether they emanate from western political leaders or from Arabs and Palestinians themselves – can be said to be anchored in a series of foundational principles and related precedents of international law, including:
Such a unilateral declaration would undermine all accepted international frameworks for peace, such as UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338, and 1850; the Roadmap for Peace; and various statements by the Quartet (the UN, the U.S., the European Union and Russia), all of which call for a mutually negotiated and agreed-upon resolution of the conflict while rejecting unilateralism.
It would violate existing Israeli-Palestinian bilateral agreements, most notably the Oslo II agreements, which state that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations” (Article 31).
While the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement was signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, it was witnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the U.S., Egypt and Norway. It would be highly inappropriate for such witnesses to now authorize a UN measure that would effectively violate this agreement, while undermining major resolutions of the UN Security Council and the Quartet itself.
Such a unilateral declaration would unravel the institutionalized legal and administrative framework that underpins existing Israeli-Palestinian relations, which include bilateral arrangements in over 40 spheres of civilian activity, and which serve as a basis for economic, legal and security co-operation.
Such premature and precipitous recognition – which would prejudice, rather than enhance, Palestinian rights and Palestinians’ legitimate claim to statehood – might well precipitate new and violent confrontations. Palestinians’ aspirations will be frustrated rather than realized.
If such UN unilateral recognition were to take place while Hamas is the ongoing authority in Gaza, in partnership with Fatah, it would effectively constitute recognition of Hamas – a terrorist organization outlawed in Canada, the U.S. and European countries – while Hamas continues to reject the basic requirements of the international community, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, forswearing terrorism and accepting previous international agreements.
The Palestinian Authority does not yet meet the traditional test for statehood – particularly the test of effective government, effective representation, control over a defined territory and adherence to the rule of law. A premature and unilateral recognition of an “unripe” Palestinian state could have a prejudicial effect on other regional conflicts.
Only an immediate return to direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – based on the principle of mutual recognition of two states for two peoples – will invite the establishment of a just and lasting peace.
Irwin Cotler is MP for Mount Royal and a former minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada. He is emeritus professor of law at McGill University and has taught and written widely on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Opinion+time+right+statehood/5367311/story.html#ixzz1XSrrhnSV
Please release my last comment from moderation limbo.
I am not impressed with Cotler’s article.
He essentially correctly sets out the potential significance and consequences of this upcoming UN vote, which presumably will be passed. He then argues in vain that the only sure path to peace is through a negotiated settlement premised on UNSCR 242, 338 & 1850, the spirit of Oslo and the pontifications of the quartet on the 2 state solution.
I say in vain because none of those Western conceived factors that make up the idea of a 2 state solution have been embraced by the Palestinians. Whatever words they utter to say they agree, is belied by their words largely in Arabic and their actions, that amount to an outright rejection of the Western conceived idea of a 2 state solution. The Palestinians/Arabs are not any closer to giving up on their Jew/Israel and Western hatreds and dreams of ultimately defeating Jewish Israel and taking the land of Israel for themselves as they were in Haj Al Amin Hussayni’s time. The only thing that has changed is their strategies and tactics to emphasize propaganda and diplomatic duplicity which they have been thus far more successful at than genocidal motivated wars.
The majority of Jews who support the Western nations’ clamoring for a 2 state solution are either brain dead or willfully blind to what the Palestinian/Arab agenda is. Those Jews are seeking to gain favor in the court of elite political and public opinion – they are going along to get along. What spineless sycophants they are!
There have been plenty of chances for the Arabs to say yes to the 2 state solution, since the idea was first presented even before the UNGA Partition Resolution and that singular solution has been the only one on the table, in all its variations, ever since.
If the idea was such a great idea as the West believes as an article of faith, it would have been snapped up by the Arabs long ago. As great an idea as it is to the West’s way of thinking, it just ain’t so for the Arabs and Palestinians.
The West, perhaps in their ethnocentric arrogance, simply refuses to accept that while the 2 state peace solution between the Jews/Israelis and Palestinians/Arabs is for Western minds, doubtlessly the absolute right and best solution, that they could be so wrong as regards the Arab/Palestinian way of thinking.
H. Bender. Yes. It is never too late to fix a mistake. When Israel was given back to the Jewish people over 60 years ago there should have also been a plan implemented to relocate the Palestinians back to the Jordan area.
Salomon. This may be true but it is a step in the right direction.
It is ironic that Irwin Cotler would insist on “accepting previous international agreements” (meaning the Oslo Accords) in his quest to defuse the Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood, while the one and only way to stop this never-ending Palestinian charade is precisely to bring forward the internationally recognized agreements going back to the 1920s (the San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine).
Regrettably, Mr. Cotler never refers to the latter.
A unilateral declaration of statehood by the so called ‘Palestinians’ is akin of a DECLARATION OF WAR against Israel. Now PALESTINE is the name of an Area that encompass Syria Lebanon and now Jordan… I think these Arabs should all move to Jordan and rename this country the ‘Democratic State of Palestine since 79% of the inhabitants of Jordan today are of Palestinian stock. The King’s ancestry comes from the Hedjaz (Arabia) and is ruling a country that has no relations to his family tree since the British unilaterally installed Abdullah an upstart from the Hedjaz to temporarily govern Eastern Palestine… Abdullah’s progeny are still governing this part of Palestine… Abu Mazen’s wish is to ad Judea and Samaria to the expand of Jordan and rule it by dethroning the present Monarch.
Go Canada Go! Me, a soon to be Israeli who already thinks like one KNOWS that Israel needs allies who seriously examine the implications of a 2 state plan.