The next chapter in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is about to be written.?On Thursday, the United Nations will vote on whether Palestine should be raised to the status of "non-member observer state" at the United Nations, rather than the status of "observer entity" which it currently holds. This seems like hair-splitting, but it is a contentious issue. To the Palestinians, it represents a move to coalesce international opinion behind their bid for statehood. To Israel, it is seen as an act of bad faith, a gazumping of the stalled peace negotiations. The UN must decide which view is more persuasive.
Britain has traditionally held a generally sceptical view of the bid, but ? like Spain, and many other European nations ? has not officially decided which way to vote. The Foreign Secretary, however, is expected to make a landmark statement later today in which he reveals that Britain will vote in favour of the enhancement if Palestinian leaders agree to modify their resolution, and commit to resume peace negotiations with Israel without preconditions.
This major shift in the British position looks to be symptomatic of a wider movement towards support for the Palestinian cause among European countries, the allegiance of whom is likely to decide the outcome. Although Germany is still anticipated to vote against, Austria has said it will vote for, and believes that more than half the 27 member states will do the same. Yesterday, France, which had also been dithering, came out in support of the Palestinians. Further afield, the story is the same; in Australia, the decision has been taken to soften from a no-vote to an abstention. It does look like Mahmoud Abbas is set for a win, despite the fact that America and Israel staunchly oppose the motion.
Although Israel is understandably disgruntled at being forced into a corner in this way, the fact remains that without a move like this, nothing would happen. The peace talks are all but dead; the Foreign Secretary is right to call on the Palestinians to return to the peace process, but it must be acknowledged that the peace talks collapsed in 2010 mainly because Israel refused to freeze settlement building in the West Bank. Since then, things have only worsened: with every passing month, the facts on the ground make the possibility of a viable state of Palestine on the West Bank even more remote.
As I wrote yesterday, the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, which has long been seen as weak by Palestinians, has been further undermined by the conflict in Gaza. In achieving negotiations with Israel by force, Hamas has convinced many Palestinians that it is better able to effect change than the more moderate regime on the West Bank. Should Abbas succeed on Thursday, it will be a victory for a man who has rejected violence and pursued a diplomatic path. Should he fail, the lesson to Palestinians will be clear: only the gun ? or rocket launcher, or bus bomb ? talks.
Operation Pillar of Cloud was remarkable in the level of international support that Israel enjoyed. Whereas most recent conflicts have sparked widespread condemnation of the Jewish state, in this case the international community recognised Israel's right to defend itself against sustained terrorist attacks on civilian population centres. This is good and right. The militants were clearly to blame, as they have been many times in the past. But the longer Israel remains intransigent on the West Bank, the more its arguments for self-defence will be undermined. The negotiations between Israel and Hamas may lead to an easing of the blockade, and a degree of normalisation being introduced to Gaza. But it must be remembered that for all its problems, Israel no longer occupies Gaza; the epicentre of the conflict lies on the West Bank. Given the more tolerant position of Mr Abbas, this should be a problem that is ? relatively speaking ? easier to solve, if Israel was only able to confront those on the hard right, impose a settlement freeze, and return to the negotiating table.
Peace will never be secured without painful concessions on both sides. For Israel, that pain will inevitably mean dismantling some of the settlements and recognising a state of Palestine. It would be naive to suggest that all threats to Israel would cease with the establishment of a Palestinian state. When the new borders are drawn up, Israel must not allow its security to be compromised. After all, the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was met with only more violence. But the West Bank is less volatile than Gaza, and the Palestinians are desperate for self-determination. The longer this need goes unfulfilled, the more insecure the region will become. True, the territory was won by Israel in defensive wars; true, there has never have been a Palestinian state at any time in history. But whatever the rights and wrongs, circumstances demand it now.
If the member states vote to enhance the status of Palestine on Thursday, this will send a clear message that the cause of Palestinian statehood is recognised by the international community, if it is still a long way off. It will not change the facts on the ground; the particulars would still needs to be negotiated, as before. But the hard truth is that the two-state solution is the only realistic endgame. As unlikely as it sounds, Israel would do well to swallow its pride and follow Britain's lead to offer conditional support for the enhancement of Palestine at the UN. Sooner or later, the Jewish state must recognise that this is the only means to solve this depressingly permanent crisis. And given the mounting death toll, sooner is better than later. As Yitzhak Rabin famously said: "enough of blood and tears. Enough!"
Read all Jake Wallis Simons' Telegraph Blog posts here
Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter
miami heat bulls california earthquake california earthquake tyson chandler tyson chandler stephen hill
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.