Palestine is seeking recognition as a state from the U.N., again. Last week, they were granted membership in the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This week, they pledge to seek admission to one of the most important bodies within the U.N., the Security Council. Their acceptance would change the nature of peace talks, allowing Palestine to vote on resolutions without having continued an effort to restart negotiations with Israel directly. Granted, the likelihood Palestine would be granted full membership is quite slim.
I personally advocate a two-state solution that’s negotiated by the two sides. The current (and recent) Prime Ministers of Israel have made multiple agreements with which they have complied until the Palestinians revoked cooperation through violent action.
Israel recently released hundreds of prisoners who had been held on charges of murder through acts of terror, manslaughter, incitement, and more in exchange for the release of one Israeli prisoner.
The reaction Israel received was one of rocket attacks. In fact, that seems to be the prevailing reaction to any cease-fire, peace offer, or conciliatory Israeli action.
Cease-fires and truce agreements are frequently reached, and then broken by Palestinians launching rockets and setting off suicide bombs, which often target Israeli women and children.
Palestine continually rejects peace plans and solutions posed by Israel and the U.S.
With what can only be perceived as a Palestinian desire to continue war until some unknown fairytale solution appeases them, it’s difficult to believe that U.N. recognition of statehood would in any way appease Palestinians, or foster a more earnest or unilateral peace process.
Palestinian leadership continually rejects peace. They rejected the proposals of former President Bill Clinton and his administration in 2000, which were accepted by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Israeli Ehud Olmert’s peace offer based on a 2007 summit in Annapolis, Maryland. The outcome supported a return to 1967 borders — the plan Pres. Obama supports — with a Jerusalem solution allowing all religious groups access, and let’s not forget that Palestine rejected the 1947 U.N. Resolution recommending the partition of Palestine.
If none of these solutions are acceptable to the people of Palestine, what is? I’m sure many of us would love to know what Palestinian leadership and militants would require to stop the sanctioning of murderous attacks on Israeli schools, markets, buses and homes.
If Palestinians are seeking justice and international recognition, their methods are certainly confusing. Their desire to join the U.N. could be considered somewhat admirable, and it would likely aid in legitimizing their attempts to reach equal footing with their arch nemesis.
Their participation and acceptance depend upon compliance with certain resolutions, which might offer comfort to some. Though, we have seen how ineffective enforcing resolutions with nations like Iraq and Iran has been.
The million-dollar question is this: If their bid is accepted, will they comply with resolutions affecting their boundaries and actions, especially if they haven’t accepted U.N. resolutions in the past?
My predicted answer to this that, no, they won’t comply. If their conduct of the past is any indication of their conduct in the future, acceptance to the U.N. in any fashion — even UNESCO — would fly in the face of peace talks and Israel’s earnest attempts to fashion a peaceful two-state solution.
If Palestinians really want peace, they should cease all violence and come to the table with a willingness to negotiate. This bid is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent an honest pursuit of statehood through diplomacy, and I hope it is soundly rejected.
Reach the columnist at page.gerrick@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
