Sometimes in International politics things move quickly, striking with such force that they shake the world. Of course, these "sudden" movements are really the result of long build ups over time but, the forces these movements employ seem quick and sharp. In the long running conflict between Israel and it's Arab/Palestinian neighbors such a moment is at hand.
In April the New York Times reported that Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit (someone the NYT calls an "Israeli Political Centrist") wrote,
He wrote that “2011 is going to be a diplomatic 1973,” because a Palestinian state will be recognized internationally. “Every military base in the West Bank will be contravening the sovereignty of an independent U.N. member state.” He added, “A diplomatic siege from without and a civil uprising from within will grip Israel in a stranglehold.”
This week the Palestinian Authority unveiled it's unilateral strategy to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.
It's strategy is simple as outlined here in the Israeli Daily Haaretz is relatively simple yet could be very effective.
That said, once something like this occurs, the question then follows... What happens next? It's all well and good to seek rhetorical answers but honestly what good do they do.? Perhaps it would be better to explore what happens after this shift takes place.
THE PLAN:
To better understand this let's break down exactly what the Palestinian unilateral plan for statehood will be. As stated in the Haaretz article referenced above:
The document, whose contents reached Haaretz, sets a timeline for the stages the PA must go through according to the UN Charter. The General Assembly opens on September 15 in New York. Thus, to complete the procedural requirements that would lead to a General Assembly vote, the Palestinians must apply by mid-July at the latest.
According to the Palestinian plan, in mid-July Palestine will submit an official letter to the UN secretary-general asking that it be accepted as a full member of the United Nations on the basis of the June 4, 1967 borders. In this letter, the Palestinians are expected to declare that the state of Palestine accepts the principles of the UN Charter.
The secretary-general will then pass on the request to the rotating president of the Security Council, which in July will be Germany.
Following this Germany, (who on May 5th, 2011 indicated it would not vote "yes" on this request) will present the question of Palestinian Statehood to the UN Security Council for vote in the UN General Assembly should the proper conditions for Statehood be met. Most of the Security Council will then vote and most likely only the U.S. will veto while its main European Partners abstain citing disapproval of unilateral action but unwilling go on record for vetoing a popular motion.
At that point the vote would be dead and it would not go to the UNGA (where there is undoubtedly overwhelming support for the measure). In turn the Palestinians are positing that the UNGA will try to resolve this and override the U.S. veto by invoking U.N. Resolution 377 which states:
"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Aside from the myriad of ways to interpret this resolution and that this gambit not only could fail a procedural test much less a vote. For arguments sake though (and given it is Israel and U.N. we are talking about) let's assume that this indeed is what happens (the UNGA uses U.N. Res 377 to override the UNSC veto).
THE EFFECTS:
For the Palestinians, this is a move that bolsters Presidents Abbas' (and I would believe the plans architect Salam Fayyad) standing within the Palestinian polity particularly as it regards an end to the Israeli Occupation of lands gained in the 1967 Six Day War, more over it further bolsters his idea of a "Government of Technocrats" as something that can gain international recognition and support for the Palestinian Polity.
Further, with this move it strengthens Abbas' (and Fateh's) hand with regards to Hamas for upcoming elections. Hamas' intransigence and refusal to recognize Israel is getting nowhere with the international community and frankly is a "millstone" around the necks of the Palestinians when it comes garnering support outside of the third world. One can be sure (and the polls seem to support this) that if this comes to pass Hamas will be relatively marginalized in the eyes of the Palestinian Polity because for all the admiration that people have for them for "standing up to the Israelis", people also know that this policy has brought them nothing but hardship and misery.
However, there is one unintended consequence to all of this. Should the Palestinians gain statehood in this manner with U.N. standing, the question of the Palestinian Refugees becomes a front and center issue. It is my belief that should this happen Israel will then have international cover to deny Palestinian Right of Return to what would be the UN recognized borders of Israel. It will then put the onus on the new Palestinian State to accomodate those refugees in whatever manner they see fit, though, most likely will also force Israel into a compensatory role for those refugees removed from their homes in 1948. Once there is a U.N. declared Palestinian State the refugees no longer become stateless. I would at this point expect that the Palestinian Government would then offer a similar "Law of Return" to Israel's Hoq Ha'Shvut to Palestinian refugees from Israel's War of Independence.
At the same time the Israeli government and Right Wing coalition of Binyamin Netanyahu has already made it's answer which in effect is "So... they declare a State. Congratulations". The Prime Minister said as much here:
"They can decide that the world is flat, there's nothing we can do about it," said Netanyahu. "We have no way of blocking a decision by the assembly. We will get support there from only a few countries."
This intransigence is built on a few things. The first is that if Prime Minister Netanyahu even remotely considered a plan that offers any more compromise than the one he proposed to the Israeli Knesset and outlined to President Obama and the U.S. Congress his government coalition would fall apart faster than Superman stopping a speeding bullet.
The second is an Israeli / Jewish cultural aspect. When pushed to the wall (figuratively so to speak), Israelis will unite to push back. If they see the (or perceive) the world "attacking them" they will come together and not budge. People in many places downplay the effect of 2,500 years of persecution ending in the Shoah and the removal of Jews from Arab Nations during and immediately after the founding of Israel, on the Israeli psyche. Never again will Jews/Israelis sit back and watch a potential second shoah. Whether, one agrees with this or not, this is how most Israelis see this conflict.
The final thing is that acceptance of the June 4, 1967 borders posits the turning over of East Jerusalem with it's Jewish Quarter and the Kotel (the Western Wall) to the Palestinians. This is something no Israeli government should or would ever consider. This is such an emotional issue I cannot see any Israeli (and 97% of the worlds Jews) would consider that this would be worth any peace agreement.
So in Israel, if this government stays in power and the Palestinian plan comes to fruition all that happens is that Israel simply entrenches. IDF chief Benny Gantz has laid out their strategy for what he thinks is to come:
"The IDF is preparing for demonstrations in the West Bank, the Gaza strip and Israel's borders by training relevant forces, forming the right MO and readying equipment. These threats warrant an extended budget framework for the security establishment."
Gantz estimated that the next conflict will be brief but intense. "The IDF is preparing for a multiple-front threat. In fighting groups operating out of urban areas, we shall be forced to exercise a lot of force, even if it will see the other side paying a painful price."
This is most likely in response to Palestinian plans to march on Israeli borders in commemoration of the 1967 War which if the Palestinians crash the border they will be met most likely with at best severe riot control measures, at worst live fire.
The question here is what will the international community do in the face of a massive move against the borders of Israel, and their response. Probably nothing, as most countries don't want their borders crashed as well, but, one never knows. The Israelis however, don't have the luxury of waiting to see. If they open the borders they sign the end of Israel as a Jewish State. If they fire, they risk scorn from non-allied countries.
Now in all of this, what will the U.S. do? Most likely if our veto is overridden in the UNGA we will continue to back the Israelis with financial and military aid (which we would do whether it was overridden or not). Since, Israel is a longtime friend and has support (or at least sympathy) from the majority of the U.S. population any sanctions, or military action proposed by the UNGA would never make it out of the UNSC. Further, any military action or economic sanctions proposed by other nations would probably face active resistance from both the E.U. and U.S.
As for the rest of the world... well it seems that Israel is banking on their making the calculation that they can maintain the status quo with with just the U.S. and the E.U. in their "corner". This might be so in the short run, but in the long run the Europeans will not hold on and honestly U.S. support would fade in light of intrasigence against peaceful opposition. If the "resistance" however, turns into a violent intifada that will risk both European as well as future American goodwill.
One argument is that the U.S. will be seen as an increasingly irrelevant regional should they go against the U.N. in this case. I disagree with this premise. U.S. economic and military power render this argument ineffective. And this is the main thrust of President Obama's plan for the Middle East. Don't forget that the President laid out a definitive program for U.S. aid to the region. Those dollars buy a lot of cooperation particularly as oil runs out, rich economies start to crash and poorer economies struggle to keep their "heads afloat". What other country in reality is ready to undertake a "Marshall Plan" type role. The Chinese? Why would they do that? They don't operate like that in general. The Russians? Good luck there.
This is the genius of the President's speech earlier this month. He will keep the U.S. relevant by trying to stimulate economies throughout the region. Generally, people that are not hungry, employed, have a modicum of political freedom and enjoy a modest standard of living don't take to the streets to overthrow their governments. The President is counting on this and weighing it against anything else in our policy towards Israel.
In the end however, this move and its aftermath will force hard decisions on both the Palestinians and Israelis if they truly want to strive for Peace (which neither side may particularly want - I am becoming more and more convinced that this is the way it is). Both sides will simply have to compromise on core principles if they want this solved in a non-military way. Personally, I feel that it will bring the two sides closer to the negotiating table one way or the other. First though, the sides have to get through, the June protests (which will most likely cause bloodshed) and Israel's stopping of the next Gaza flotilla. Until then all is simply specualtion.
So please - given this dose of reality, how far close do you think this is or how far off do you think this is.