|
|
About Mark Silverberg
Mark Silverberg is an attorney
with a Masters Degree in Political Science and International
Relations from the University of Manitoba, Canada. A former
member of the Canadian Justice Department and a past Director of
the Canadian Jewish Congress (Western Office) based in
Vancouver, he served as a Consultant to the Secretary General of
the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem during the first Palestinian
intifada. He is a member of Hadassah's National Academic
Advisory Board, a foreign policy analyst with the Ariel Center
for Policy Research (Israel) and the International Analyst
Network (U.S.), and has been interviewed on Israel National
Radio as an authority on American foreign policy in the Middle
East. His editorials and articles on Middle East affairs have
appeared in the Hebrew and English editions of the NATIV Journal
of the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel), American
Thinker, Israel Insider, the Conservative Voice, Israel Unity
Coalition, Midstream and Outpost magazines and Arutz Sheva
(Israel National News). He has lectured extensively on subjects
of counterterrorism, jihadism, homeland security issues and
intelligence matters and is a Featured Writer with the New Media
Journal
(Chicago) and a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters.
He is the author of "The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia
and the Global Islamic Jihad (Wyndham Hall Press, 2005). |
|
|
Recent Articles
Fayyad's
Gamble
Decoding
Netanyahu
Obama’s
Two-State Fantasy
Israel’s Annapolis Nightmare
Obama’s Faustian Bargain
The Banality of Evil
Advice for George Mitchell
Gaza’s Quandry
Israel’s
Conundrum |
Books:
The Quartermasters of Terror |
Social Bookmarking
|
Mark Silverberg
Fayyad's Gamble
November 21, 2009
Concerns are growing in Israel’s government over the possibility of a
unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the June 4,
1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the U.S.
and the United Nations Security Council. On August 26th, Palestinian
Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad issued a 54-page plan ("Palestine:
Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State") that proposed the
establishment of a de-facto Palestinian state within two years –
a state to be established regardless of negotiations with Israel and
outside the framework of the performance-based March 2003 Roadmap and
the Oslo Agreement. [1]
While the Plan adopts an anti-Fatah posture by discarding the
traditional PLO position of “armed struggle to liberate Palestine” (a
position that was reaffirmed at the Sixth Fatah Congress in Bethlehem in
August by the way), it is based on the tenuous assumption that the
Palestinians can adopt Western-style institutions and standards and
thereby re-shape their social, economic, legal, political and
institutional order over a two-year period. Problem is, Fayyad has
little or no political backing to effect such reforms.
In bringing forth his Plan, he failed to seek prior approval (for good
reason) from the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Legislative Council or the
PLO governing bodies, without whose support such an initiative cannot
possibly be implemented. Nevertheless, on November 14th, the Israeli
newspaper Ha’aretz revealed that Fayyad has already reached a
secret understanding with the Obama administration which would provide
for U.S. recognition of such an independent Palestinian state within two
years.
According to the Fayyad Plan, the borders of the new Palestinian state
would be based on the June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its
capital - an action that would not only violate the written undertakings
made between Israel and the Bush administration in 2004 concerning
promised border adjustments that would be taken into account in any
future Palestinian state, but would detrimentally affect the status of
hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in several major West Bank
cities and the Arab districts of Jerusalem.
It calls for a reconnection of Hamas-controlled Gaza to the Fatah-ruled
West Bank implying that Hamas would have to accede to holding elections
in January 2010 (which it currently opposes), relinquish its de facto
rule over Gaza, and once again accept living under Fatah control.
Even if Hamas agreed to such terms publicly, few believe they would
honor them in practice. As enticement for gleaning Hamas support, Fayyad
has stated that the Palestinian state so created will be an Islamic
state and will “promote awareness and understanding of the Islamic
religion and culture and disseminate the concept of tolerance in the
religion through developing and implementing programs of Shari’a
education as derived from the science of the Holy Koran and Prophet’s
heritage.” How “Shari’a education” can be balanced with “religious
tolerance” given Hamas’s ideological refusal to accept Israel as a
Jewish state may represent an insurmountable challenge.
The Plan also calls for massive Palestinian development in Area "C" of
the West Bank including the strategically vital Jordan Valley and the
high ground surrounding Jerusalem and overlooking Israel's vulnerable
cities along the Mediterranean coast. These areas are currently under
Israeli civil and security control. The Plan advocates building an
airport in the Jordan Valley, taking control of Atarot airport in
Jerusalem, establishing new rail links to neighboring states, and water
installation projects near Tulkarm and Kalkilya, both of which are close
to the pre-1967 border, and all of which represent a threat to Israel’s
security requirements.
As Alan Baker, former legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry and one of
the chief architects of the Oslo Accords notes - Fayyad’s Plan
contravenes Article 23 of the 1995 Oslo Interim Agreement 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." Consequently, any unilateral declaration
of independence would constitute a clear and serious violation of Oslo –
an agreement that not only determines Israeli-Palestinian administrative
and security arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza, but represents the
source of authority for the Palestinian Authority itself. Dan Diker and
Pinhas Inbari write in the Israeli-based Independent Media Review
Analysis (IMRA), the effect of such a violation would free Israel
from the restrictions and obligations it accepted under the Oslo
agreements, with all that implies including annexation of West Bank
territory and suspension of existing accords.
These are not academic concerns for the Israelis since Fayyad is also
seeking a new Security Council resolution to replace Resolutions 242 and
338 – resolutions that recognize Israel’s right to secure, recognized
and defensible borders which the June 4th, 1967 borders do not
represent. From Israel’s perspective, these resolutions were passed in
the wake of the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War and have governed all
Arab-Israeli peace negotiations since then, including the Oslo process,
the Roadmap and Annapolis. Resolution 242's language requires an
exchange of land for peace using a specific formula - "withdrawal of
Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
It does not call for a pullback from all territories. So rather
than bargain in good faith to build a viable accord, the Palestinians
are betting on an outside imposed solution.
It should be noted that Fayyad’s plan is not only opposed by Israel, but
by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and even Iran who fear it would lead to
violent secessionist movements within their own ethnic and religious
minorities. Such challenges to the international order have already
surfaced in Indonesia, and could also potentially erupt in China (in the
case of Tibet), in India (in Kashmir), and in the Russian Federation.
And there would also be significant political ramifications to such a
declaration. According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention
that set out the international criteria for statehood: "The state as a
person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) effective and independent government control over a permanent
population; (b) a defined territory over which that control is
exercised; and (c) the capacity to enter into foreign relations with
other states." The last criteria is of special concern to Israel since
any Palestinian state would not only have the power to freely engage in
foreign relations and sign military pacts with Israel’s enemies, but
would enable such a state to establish its own army, navy and air force,
and maintain control over its ports, borders, checkpoints and airspace
thereby making the issue of secure, recognized and defensible borders
for Israel even more critical - not to mention hindering the ability of
Israel to defend its citizenry from future Palestinian terrorist attacks
emanating from the new state. According to the Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs: “In a September 17th interview, Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu reiterated his rejection of the Palestinian demand
that the pre-1967 lines will become Israel's eastern border, which is a
central part of Fayyad's plan. Netanyahu told the Yisrael Hayom
daily: "There are those who prophesied that the 1967 lines would be
(Israel's eastern) border, but these are indefensible borders,
something that is unacceptable to me. Israel needs defensible borders
and also the ongoing ability to defend itself."
Given the failure of the Palestinian Authority to end incitement, cut
support for terror organizations, establish security and the rule of law
in PA-controlled areas together with its continuing refusal to recognize
Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East, the
culture of hate in its media, the sermons it allows in its mosques, the
anti-Semitic and anti-Israel tracts set out in its school textbooks, the
anti-Semitic diatribes of many of its leaders in idealizing murder as
martyrdom, and allowing its charities to offer over a million dollars to
Arabs who kidnap Israeli soldiers - Palestinian statehood, under
current circumstances, would threaten the stability of the entire
Middle East.
If accepted, Fayyad’s plan will lead directly to Palestinian statehood
in two years, regardless of whether the Palestinians are fulfilling
their obligations under the Roadmap or the Oslo Agreements. If the
Palestinians understand that they will receive a Palestinian state in
two years time – especially one that is based on the 1967 border lines,
why should they bother to negotiate or make a single concession?
Fayyad’s strategy requiring Israel to agree to his position in its
entirety before talking about the specifics of implementation is a
non-starter. His attempt to enlist U.S. and European support for his
unilateral steps to pressure Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines
could very well backfire. Israel does not respond well to ultimatums. It
is now deeds, not words that matter. Israelis have learned the
irrelevance of giving away territorial assets in exchange for security
arrangements, guarantees, demilitarization and the like. Far from
building the foundations of a stable Palestinian state, a
unilaterally-declared Palestinian state that claims the pre-1967 lines
as its borders could well end up thrusting Israel, the PA and others
into another regional war. Contrary to past agreements signed between
Israel and the PA, the Fayyad plan unilaterally transforms the
diplomatic framework established between the PA and Israel from a
legally sanctioned, negotiations process to a unilateral Palestinian
initiative that would have far-reaching and dangerous legal, political,
and security implications for the entire region.
It should be remembered that concerns regarding regional peace and
security motivated the international community to withhold recognition
from the former republics of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union until
there was stability. These same concerns should lead to a refusal to
recognize a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state and to demand that
the future status of the Palestinian entity be resolved only through
direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. As
Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote
recently: “Israel should be insisting on protecting its rights that have
been recognized in the past in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338, and in the (April 2004) bipartisan-backed Bush letter guaranteeing
that any future settlement would include border adjustments that would
take into account Israel’s major West Bank cities, rather than allowing
these past guarantees to slide away...Otherwise, Israel will be forced
to accept a process whose terms of reference only protect the interests
of the Palestinians and leave the State of Israel increasingly exposed.”
If the Palestinian leadership renounces Oslo in favor of unilateral
statehood, it will destroy an agreement that has obligated Israeli
governments and driven a process that already sees much of Palestinian
life under Palestinian control.
Endnote
[1] This would not be the first
declaration of "independence" the Palestinians have issued. In 1948, the
Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini declared Palestinian independence. Again, in
1988, the Palestinian National Council issued a similar declaration.
Neither declaration worked despite a hundred states recognizing
"Palestine" in 1988. That is because then as now, “Palestine” lacks one
of the most essential elements of statehood - effective control over its
territory - specifically, the West Bank and Gaza. |
