Israel threatens to take action if UN recognizes Palestinian statehood

<snip>

"Israel informed the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council last week, as well as several other prominent European Union countries, that if the Palestinian Authority persists in its efforts to gain recognition in September as a state within the 1967 borders, Israel would respond with a series of unilateral steps of its own.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials said the ministry's director general, Rafael Barak, sent a classified cable last week to more than 30 Israeli embassies, directing them to lodge a diplomatic protest at the highest possible level in response to the Palestinian efforts to gain international recognition for statehood at the UN General Assembly session in September.

The Israeli diplomatic corps conveyed the message that support for international recognition, particularly by most of the members of the European Union, encouraged the Palestinians to forgo negotiations with Israel and to move more quickly toward recognition at the UN of Palestinian statehood. Israeli diplomats stressed that such a move violates the Oslo Accords and will not lead to a Palestinian state even if the General Assembly grants recognition, but could lead to violence on the ground.

European diplomats have confirmed to Haaretz that such a message was conveyed several days ago. One diplomat said his country did not receive a serious response when asked what unilateral steps Israel might take. Another diplomat, from a European country, said in light of the current deadlock in negotiations, international recognition of Palestinian statehood appeared unavoidable in September."

more

:hi:

:thumbsup:

Does that make the 1948 UN recognition of Israel invalid?....I seem to remember that Israel declared UDI in 1948, obtained UN recognition which then lead to violence on the ground......No one seems to have insisted that Israel actually negotiate with the Arabs before declaring UDI........

In 1948 the U.N. divided "Palestine" into three sectors: Israel, Palestine, and a U.N. controlled Jerusalem.

But did the UN demand that Israel negotiate with the Arabs before it recognized Israel?.....

It certainly did not ask Israel to recognize the Arab state of Palestine with the 1948 partition borders, nor to accept demilitarization to avoid violence.

I seem to remember that it did not even ask Israel to delineate its borders as part of the recognition, so why is Israel getting so upset?

It certainly did not ask Israel to recognize the Arab state of Palestine with the 1948 partition borders, nor to accept demilitarization to avoid violence.

Do you think that might have been because by accepting the idea of the Partition Resolution, that the Jews had already recognized Palestine within the UN recommended borders? Or that it was the Arab rejection of the UN compromise, or any compromise, which doomed the Palestinian state?

I seem to remember that it did not even ask Israel to delineate its borders as part of the recognition, so why is Israel getting so upset?

The UN did not recognize Israel. It couldn't and can't. What it did was admit Israel into UN membership. That isn't recognition. Recognition comes from other states, not the UN. The reason Israel was not asked to delineate its borders, is that by rejecting the Partition recommendation, and starting a war against Israel, the Palestinians and their Arab allies had voided the Partition Plan recommendations. That meant that the borders would have to be set by negotiation between the parties (which is what still has to happen now). There was no cause to require Israel to declare a set of borders that were only going to be changed by the eventual negotiations.

First, the UN resolution was passed in 1947, not 1948. More importantly, the UN only made recommendations to the British government as to what it should do. Except that the British had already told the world that it would do nothing regarding Palestine (other than leave it), unless both Arabs and Jews agreed. And since the Arabs refused to agree to anything other than getting everything that they wanted, the UN effectively did absolutely nothing. It did not divide any territory at all.

1. The UN create Israel in the first place with their partition plan. There was no requirement for Israel to negotiate with the Arabs - the UN drew the borders.

2. Israel exists. The UN can't un recognize a legitimate state - they don't want to set that dangerous precedent.

There was no requirement to negotiate with the Arabs ......so why is Israel insisting that the Palestinians (but not Hamas) negotiate with them now?......Why not ask the UN to produce another partition plan?

and lost territory in the process. The present negotiations are per UN Resolution 242. The UN cannot produce another partition plan - they have no way to enforce it short of war.

Interesting......You think a mendicant to the tune of US$3billion a year can hold the world to ransom?......

America is the only ally that it needs. America will never let the UN subvert what it thinks are it's national interests. Right now America thinks that supporting Israel is in it's national interest and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

some key politicians? IMO the later is more likely, the 'Arab street' is rapidly changing and it 'could' be in America's interests to keep that in mind while it solidly allies itself with apparently whatever Israel chooses to do 'this week' as it were

and it will make the ME more complex and hazardous. American policy makers will not be confronted with a black and white decision as to which side to support - which makes it even more likely that they will stick with the one country they are familiar and comfortable with.

Consider this potential scenarios regarding the revolutions sweeping the ME and Israel:

1. Egypt becomes more radicalized as the Muslim Brotherhood starts winning elections. With a border with Gaza, the potential for Hamas to receive more powerful weapons increases. Which means war between Hamas and Israel.

2. In Syria the Sunni majority overthrows Assad and his Shia minority. This brings Syria under the influence of Saudi Arabia and weakens Iranian power in the region. Hezbollah is kicked out of Syria and loses influence in Lebanon. Considering that Lebanon had secret talks with Israel in 2006 about Israel destroying Hezbollah, the potential for an Israeli campaign to destroy Hezbollah is pretty high.

What is happening in the ME is truly momentous but extremely unpredictable. There is no reason to believe that broadly supporting the Arab street will ever be in our interest. Supporting Israel in this situation makes sense if for nothing else then their ability to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah. The Sunni Arab states would certainly support anything Israel does to destroy Iranian influence in the region.

One thing for sure - what is happening in the ME is a disaster for the Palestinians. Don't think for a second that Saudi Arabia doesn't see this as an opportunity to strike a blow against Iran - they could care less if the Palestinians and their state are collateral damage.

the question is how will that opportunity pan out, as of yet there is no conclusion in any direction and the US is making 'black and white' decisions in it's support of Israel's continued occupation and colonization of the West Bank, and a few words from US politicians as to the 'settlements' being 'unhelpful' do not speak as loud as US actions

All the big players are jockeying for advantage. None of them care a whit for the Palestinians. I doubt for a second that any of them relish a country with Hamas in charge. The Palestinians are in real danger here - any of their so called friends would abandon them in a heartbeat. Israel is not the only danger to Palestinian statehood.

The only friend the Palestinians have is Iran - which makes the present situation even more acute for them because Iran could be the big loser here.

o Palestinian statehood the US IMO is however

they would kill a Palestinian state in a second if it meant the end of Iranian influence in the region.

about a great many things. First, the UN did not recognize Israel. In fact, it can't recognize any state at all. Recognition of a state is an act of sovereignty, and the UN is not a sovereign. Only another state can recognize the government of Palestine as a separate state. That's why the recognition by various South American governments is meaningful. State recognition of another state is meaningful. UN recognition does not exist.

"I seem to remember that Israel declared UDI in 1948, obtained UN recognition which then lead to violence on the ground......" This is not what happened. What you are probably referring to is UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (the "Partition Resolution") which passed at the end of November, 1947. That resolution did two things. First, it acceded to the request of the British government that the UN declare an end to the Palestine Mandate so that the British could evacuate their troops and other people from Palestine. Second, it recommended to the British that they assist the locals to establish two states; one Jewish, and one Arab along certain lines. It was essentially a call for negotiation and compromise. The British had insisted that they would not do anything with Palestine other than leave it unless both Arabs and Jews agreed. Since the Arabs refused to agree, the proposal died then and there. Instead, in response to the UN call for compromise, the Arabs of Palestine started a war in December, 1947, the purpose of which was to drive out the Jews and take all of Palestine for themselves. Israel declared its independence about five and a half months later, in mid-May, 1948. It was recognized by a number of governments, including those of the US and USSR. Immediately, after Israel declared its independence, the surrounding Arab states joined the war, and invaded. At the time, most governments believed that the Jews would lose the war with disastrous consequences for themselves, however, they managed to win. Thereafter, Israel was admitted to UN membership (which is not a recognition of Israel by the UN).

"No one seems to have insisted that Israel actually negotiate with the Arabs before declaring UDI........" This is because the Jews had been trying to negotiate with the Arabs for decades, so there was no point in trying to get them to do what they were already trying to do. In fairness, no one tried very hard to get the Arabs to negotiate with the Jews, even though the Arabs had rejected negotiations and every compromise put to them since the late 1920's.

Finally, in answer to your question. No, the Partition Resolution is not invalid. The UN General Assembly has every right under the UN Charter to make whatever meaningless non-binding declarations it wants to support whatever political theater the controlling governments are trying to create. In fact, that is the purpose of the General Assembly; to supply political theater at the behest of the member governments. So, no the Partition Resolution is not invalid. It's merely irrelevant.

That's why those who do care have to be mighty.

but the second was to clean it up some, but keeping 'those who care' from ever being truly mighty is part of the progamn of those who are already mighty and loud

"One diplomat said his country did not receive a serious response when asked what unilateral steps Israel might take."

That would have been an interesting discussion.

Assuming that you are, what do you think that it means that Israel is making a threat that isn't much of a threat?

The intended audience is the Israeli public, or parts of it, and the Palestinians, not the UN.

An alternative theory is that he is employing the "crazy guy" strategy, which Israel does very credibly, but that is not likely to work on the UNGA like it does with nearby countries that are potentially affected, and the nearby countries are all in an uproar already, so threatening them is not a good idea.

So I favor the local audience theory, if fits very well with business as usual, and I cannot convince myself that such a resolution would amount to much unless it came from the UNSC, which is not going to happen as things stand.

See this quote:

"Israeli diplomats stressed that such a move violates the Oslo Accords and will not lead to a Palestinian state even if the General Assembly grants recognition, but could lead to violence on the ground."

That is absolutely correct, isn't it? And it's sound to want to prevent that from an Israeli government point of view, and the best way to stop that is to encourage nearby non-Israeli "leaders" to speak against it, sort of like what was done when the PA stopped the airing of the Goldstone report the first time.

I must say it is most amusing to see them using Oslo as a justification at this point.

I think that the main audience is the Israeli public rather than the Palestinians. If you are right that the threat isn't much of a threat to them, then I think that the Israeli government is smart enough to see that, which would mean that it isn't directed at the Palestinians. Unless it's a signal to them that the Israeli government won't do very much if they make the declaration. That's possible, but I think you'd agree that it is unlikely. In any event, I don't think that UN recognition means very much in in direct practical terms. UN General Assembly Resolutions are political theater. What matters is what the Palestinians do in response to "world recognition."

bemildred> I must say it is most amusing to see them using Oslo as a justification at this point.

Ever hear of a movie called, "Weekend at Bernie's"? It's about two guys who drag their dead boss around for the weekend trying to convince some people that he's still alive.

To go along with the proof already provided by the settlements and the Occupation.

You can't claim to support a two-state solution AND insist that the Palestinian state be as small and helpless as possible.

The two states MUST be two states of equal prestige and equal respect.

Annex large parts of the west bank that have settlements, adjust the walls around them, then leave the west bank to itself, sort of like Gaza, but this time Israel keeps a buffer between it in Palestinians in the form of settlements. It would be Israel washing their hands of the west bank and the Palestinians would probably be free to form their own state on the land Israel doesn't annex.


Then again that is just what I've heard the plan could be.