On December 15, 2010, the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-Up Committee convened at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo, in the presence of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, to address the future of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Several days prior to the meeting, the U.S. had announced that it had ceased its efforts to pressure Israel into freezing construction in the settlements – a PA precondition for the renewal of negotiations – claiming that such a demand would not create a solid foundation for a framework agreement.[1] The meeting concluded with a decision not to renew negotiations as long as Israel continued building in the settlements.[2]
The meeting also yielded a PA decision, supported by the committee, to launch an international diplomatic campaign and appeal to U.N. institutions in a bid to promote Palestinian interests. This decision was based on a March 2010 resolution by the committee, according to which, if the negotiations with Israel failed, the Arab states would call for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to reevaluate the Arab-Israeli conflict.[3] Following the March 2010 meeting, Arab League General-Secretary 'Amr Moussa mentioned the possibility of a unilateral declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state.[4]
The Palestinians have decided to appeal to the U.N. institutions in two stages: at the first stage, currently underway, they are working, with the committee's support, to obtain a Security Council resolution condemning the settlements. The second stage – considered as an option for the future – involves seeking a Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 borders. Since the Israeli settlements are widely condemned, the Palestinians assess that a Security Council resolution to this effect is feasible in the near future. The bid to obtain recognition of statehood, on the other hand, is likely to be met with reservations on the part of the world powers, such as the E.U., and to be rejected outright by the U.S.
The Palestinians' decision to halt the negotiations and turn to the international community is accompanied by a growing sense of disappointment on their part with the U.S.'s role in mediating and steering the negotiations, especially in light of the expectations created Obama upon his ascension to the White House. They allege that the U.S. is an unfair mediator, and question how it expects to pressure Israel into compromising on core issues in the permanent settlement, when it has failed to persuade Israel to extend the construction freeze by a mere three months. The Palestinians are also angered by the U.S. opposition to their appeals to the Security Council. Loss of faith in the U.S. has led them to seek help from other world powers. They have asked the Quartet (comprising the U.S., the U.N., the E.U., and Russia), to play a greater role in the negotiations, and have appealed to countries in Europe and elsewhere to recognize a Palestinian state.
Following is an overview of the Palestinian diplomatic moves, as described in the Palestinian and general Arab press, as well as a number of articles voicing Palestinian disappointment with, and challenges to, the U.S.
Stage One: Seeking U.N. Condemnation of the Settlements
Palestinians Assess U.S. Will Find It Difficult to Veto Condemnation of Settlements
As mentioned, the PA is currently confining its efforts to seeking a Security Council resolution on the settlements. They assume this aim should be relatively easy to achieve and, as PA officials have stated, might facilitate the renewal of negotiations. Indeed, a week after the Follow-Up Committee meeting in Cairo, the Arabs submitted to the Security Council a draft resolution that condemns Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, demands a halt to construction in these settlements as a precondition for resuming negotiations, and calls for the provision of international protection for the Palestinians, in accordance with the 1949 Geneva Convention.[5] The final draft resolution was submitted on January 19, 2011, but, as of this writing, the vote on it has not been held.[6]
The main obstacle facing the Palestinians is that the U.S. is likely to veto any initiative of a unilateral nature – whether Israeli or Palestinian. Acting U.S. Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner explained that a unilateral appeal to the Security Council would undermine efforts toward a two-state solution, and that, though the U.S. was opposed to Israel's settlements, it firmly believed that the only way towards a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was through negotiations.[7] According to the Palestinians, out of 15 Security Council members, the U.S. is the only member opposed to their draft resolution condemning the settlements.[8]
The Palestinians are nonetheless hoping that the U.S. will refrain from vetoing their motion, out of concern that such a move would result in international embarrassment and isolation. Abbas's political advisor Nimr Hammad said: "Washington will find itself embarrassed if its tries to use its [power of] veto against a Security Council resolution condemning the settlements, considering that [the U.S.] itself, as well as the rest of the world, regard [the settlements] illegal and have demanded a halt [to the construction] in them."[9]
According to the daily Al-Hayat, when U.S. Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell told Abbas that the U.S. intended to veto the Palestinian draft resolution, Abbas replied, "Let the American government use [its] veto power, and let the world look on and judge."[10]
Abbas: Continued Building in the Settlements Likely to Lead to Disaster
On another occasion, Abbas attacked the U.S. policy on the settlements, cautioning that dangerous wars could erupt if the current situation were allowed to continue: "We are not responsible for the failure [of the negotiations]. It saddens us that there are senior American officials who talk about both sides being responsible. One of the embarrassing absurdities is that senior American officials claim they do not recognize the legitimacy of the settlements and of Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, yet [in practice] we do not see any action against the continued [construction] there...
"While we are aware of the special and excellent relations between America and Israel, [the fact is that] there is an illegal Israeli occupation, and there are international resolutions that the U.S. [itself] supported or even drafted, which Israel is violating in a provocative manner. On many occasions, it even takes advantage of the unlimited [U.S.] support in order to become more obstinate, rigid, and extreme. This creates the impression among many regional and international forces that there is a double standard in the implementation of international law.
"The current stage of continued [building] in the settlements is very problematic and sensitive. Continued [building] in the settlements will prevent the [establishment] of a geographically contiguous independent Palestinian state, and will force us to choose other options whose end cannot be foreseen. Therefore, we insist upon an immediate [construction] freeze, so as not to let a few demented, extremist, and fundamentalist settlement pioneers, and the Israeli political parties that support them, determine the fate of this region, and drag it into disastrous religious wars."[11]
Abu 'Ala: Nobody has the Right to Restrict Our International Activity
PLO Executive Committee member and former PA minister Ahmad Qurei (Abu 'Ala) said that the Palestinians' appeal to the Security Council regarding the settlements was "a natural decision, and no reaction from Israel or [anyone else] should be heeded when we go to the Security Council." He went on to say: "The U.N. is one of [our] arenas of activity, as are the international community and the peoples of the world. We will not agree to any restriction of our activity in promoting our cause in these frameworks, as long as a serious peace process is impossible... The use of veto [power] by any element or elements will not, and must not, frustrate us. We must continue to act on a daily and weekly basis not only toward stopping [the construction in] the settlements, but toward stopping all of the violations in Jerusalem, as well."[12]
Hani Al-Masri, a senior official in the PA Information Ministry and a columnist for the PA daily Al-Ayyam, rejected the notion of appealing to the Security Council to recognize the Palestinian state, but was in favor of the draft resolution regarding the settlements, since the U.S. would be hard pressed to oppose the latter: "Substituting the [demand] for recognition of a state, which [the Palestinians] have threatened in recent weeks, [with the demand to condemn] the settlements can be a step forward, and from the outset is preferable to a motion regarding recognition of a state – as long as it is part of a broader alternative strategy to direct bilateral negotiations, and as long as it is implemented gradually, step by step, until the end – even if it leads to the PA's collapse... Adopting a new strategy will certainly lead to a confrontation with Israel and the American administration, [but] Palestinian rights will not be realized without such a confrontation...
"Appealing to the Security Council to attain a resolution on the settlements can be the first step on the long road toward realizing the Palestinian people's goals. The American administration will think long and hard before vetoing [such a resolution], since doing so would likely make it appear as though it supports the occupation in its ugliest forms while claiming to oppose the settlements. Therefore, there is a chance, albeit a slight one, that the U.S. will abstain... If the American administration uses its veto [power] against the draft resolution on the settlements, it will find itself isolated, since an overwhelming majority of the Security Council [members] is expected to support the resolution or to abstain..."
Al-Masri said further that such an appeal could lead to an additional draft resolution defining the terms of reference for the peace process: "Condemning the settlements in the international arena can clear the way for an additional step: appealing to the Security Council with a demand that it define the terms of reference for the peace process. It is impossible for [this process] to go on without [clearly defined] terms of reference, or for the terms of reference to be those same agreements that the Israeli administrations have failed to honor..."[13]
Stage Two: Combined Strategies toward Recognition of a Palestinian State
In contrast to the strategy on the issue of settlements – which the Palestinians are determined to bring to vote in the Security Council – the Palestinians' strategy on the issue of recognition of statehood is not yet fully formulated. They are currently operating on two fronts: appealing to U.N. institutions to officially recognize a Palestinian state, and seeking recognition of the state by various countries.
Regarding the appeal to the U.N. institutions, the Palestinians have made contradictory statements. Apparently, they are reluctant to make a unilateral declaration of statehood (a step that the PNC already took when it declared the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in 1988), and prefer to wait for further developments before reaching a decision in the matter. September 2011 will be a decisive time for the Palestinians, since it is the deadline that has been set by the U.S. and the Quartet for reaching a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and the end-point of the PA's two-year plan for laying down the infrastructures for a Palestinian state.[14] Also, in his September 2010 address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama said he hoped by that time to achieve "an agreement that will lead to [the addition of] a new member of the United Nations – an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel."[15]
Mahmoud Abbas has made conflicting remarks on the issue of declaring a state. On one occasion, he said: "The recognition of a Palestinian state [by the international community] comes to revitalize the peace process. It will not [however] be incentive for us to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state."[16] On another occasion, he stated: "U.S. President Barack Obama promised us that Palestine would be a full member of the U.N. It is important for us to have numerous political cards [to play] in September toward declaring statehood. Next year is suitable for a declaration of independence. We have grown weary of the occupation, and there is no escape from declaring statehood."[17] On yet another occasion, Abbas said that if, by September 2011, negotiations and appeals to the U.N. failed to bear fruit, the Palestinians would "take a decision that nobody could conceive of," while emphasizing that he was opposed to violence.[18]
PA chief negotiator Sa'eb 'Ereqat said that the Palestinians and Arabs had established a committee to consider an appeal to the Security Council regarding Palestine's acceptance to the U.N.[19] On another occasion, he said that in several months the Palestinians would request to be admitted to the U.N. as an observer state - defined as an occupied state with known boundaries, with Jerusalem as its capital.[20] It should be noted that the PLO was granted observer status by the U.N. in 1988.[21]
Fatah Central Committee member 'Azzam Al-Ahmad stated that in addition to the appeal regarding the settlements, and regardless of its results, the Palestinians would submit other appeals to the Security Council, including one on the Judaization of Jerusalem, while the final appeal would request recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.[22]
PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, for his part, has opposed the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. When asked in an interview on Israeli television about the Palestinians' plans to appeal to the U.N. on this issue, he answered: "What we are looking for now, and what we were looking for then [in 1988, when the PLO declared independence] is a state of Palestine. We are not interested in making another declaration of independence. We already have already made one... We are not interested in making a unilateral declaration of statehood... How will that contribute to our ability to establish a state?"[23] He added: "It is possible to achieve the reality of a state in terms of functional state institutions – but if the Israeli army is still in our territory that is not a sovereign state, that is a Mickey Mouse state."[24] These remarks sparked criticism from Fatah and PA officials, who saw them as contradicting the current efforts of the Palestinian leadership.[25]
Bid for Recognition of a Palestinian State by World Countries
Despite their conflicting statements, in practice the Palestinians have been working to improve their chances of passing a vote for recognition in the Security Council. To this end, they have accelerated their long-standing international campaign to gain support for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. It should be noted that more than 100 countries recognized the independent Palestinian state declared by the PLO in Algeria in 1988.
The Palestinians' efforts in this domain have been on two levels. On one level, they have been working to persuade more countries to declare their recognition. This effort has been concentrated in Latin America, where several countries have recently recognized a Palestinian state, with or without specifying the 1967 borders, and additional countries are expected to follow.[26] On the second level, the Palestinians are seeking to upgrade Palestinian missions in various countries to embassy status (as France and Greece recently did, with other European countries such as Ireland and Norway announcing they would follow). The Palestinians assess that countries which recognize the Palestinian state are likely to support a future bid for recognition in the Security Council.
Abbas's political advisor Nimr Hammad said: "Throughout 2010, Palestinian diplomacy skillfully succeeded in confirming the Palestinian people's right to an independent state, according to the legitimate international resolutions. The diplomatic campaign, which the president has skillfully run, has led to Israel's international isolation, has produced a series of declarations of recognition for a Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 borders, and has resulted in the upgrading of [our] diplomatic representation in several countries, including European ones, to embassy status."[27]
Mahmoud Abbas said: "Every day you hear that another state has recognized the Palestinian state... and countries in Europe are raising our diplomatic representation to embassy level, i.e., [regard us as] a state... Over 130 countries have recognized us, more than the number of countries that have recognized Israel – yet despite this, [Israel] refuses to [advance] the peace process."[28]
PA Foreign Minister Riyadh Al-Maliki has been a central player in the Palestinian's recent diplomatic campaign. He told the daily Al-Ayyam that, in his estimation, by the conclusion of the PA's biannual plan to build up state institutions in mid-2011, the Palestinians will have established diplomatic relations with most of the world countries, adding that the Palestinians would persevere in their diplomatic campaign despite Israel's attempts to thwart it. Al-Maliki stated further that the countries that were planning to recognize the Palestinian state, or had already done so, were "utterly convinced that the Palestinian state must be established [in 2011], whether through a serious diplomatic process to which Israel will commit itself... or through these countries' recognition of the Palestinian people's right to establish its own state."[29]
Al-Maliki said it was no coincidence that the PA had chosen to focus its efforts on Latin America, since most countries there had not recognized the Palestinian state declared in 1988. To exemplify the Palestinians' methods of operation, he described their campaign in Chile, the most recent country to have recognized the Palestinian state, as of this writing. He said that the Palestinians had promoted their cause by collecting signatures of Chilean organizations, political parties, mayors, and public figures, and had sent the signatures to the Chilean Foreign Ministry and Presidency. At the same time, they had harnessed the support of the Palestinian expatriate community there, which numbers 300,000-350,000, as well as the Palestinian members of the Chilean parliament, who comprise 10% of its MPs. Ultimately, Al-Maliki said, the meeting between Abbas and Chilean President Sebastián Piñera in Brazil, during both leaders' visit to that country, had produced the hoped-for decision within 24 hours.[30]
In an article on Al-Maliki's interaction with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the Palestinian news agency Maan said: "Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyadh Al-Maliki is a thorn in the side of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Riyadh Al-Maliki is a speaker of Spanish, but [he] has stormed the Latin American continent with such ease not because of his mastery of the language, but because the governments in this continent are revolutionary and support Palestinian liberties and the Palestinian cause." Al-Maliki himself proudly proclaimed that he steered the Palestinian diplomatic campaign, while Israel was forced to react to his moves: "From the outset, we understood that the Israeli Foreign Ministry was following our every move... and that, whenever we visited a country, Israel's ambassadors there would submit concerned reports to Lieberman. Every time I visited a country, Lieberman would visit it too, right after me... We do not have enough of a budget to compete with Israel in this race, but we are choosing our [own] course of action, not conducting our foreign [policy] through reactions, as [Lieberman] is doing."[31]
Recognition of a Palestinian State Will Increase Chances of a Permanent Arrangement
One of the PA's claims is that the recognition of a Palestinian state will expedite the Israeli-Palestinian political process, and even save it from collapse. Sa'eb 'Ereqat called on the international community "to rescue the two state solution by recognizing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Supporting international law and the Palestinians' national rights increases the chances of reaching a settlement based on negotiations."[32]
In an article in the Jerusalem-based daily Al-Quds, 'Aziz Abu Sarah wrote: "The PLO's [campaign] to create international pressure through the recognition of [a Palestinian state], in spite of Israel's opposition, is an attempt, perhaps the last one, to revive the principle of a two state [solution], in hopes that the international community will wake up [and play] its part in ending the occupation, before matters become even more complicated... If the settlements and the occupation continue, the dream of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders will become an impossibility, which will force the Palestinians to demand the establishment of a single democratic state for both the Jewish and the Palestinian peoples."[33]
In contrast, Fatah International Relations Commission advisor Nabil Al-Ramlawi claimed that the recent recognition of a Palestinian state by several additional countries proved that the Palestinian people had the right to self-determination and independent statehood, regardless of negotiations with Israel.[34]
Disappointment with the U.S.; The Search for European Help
As with the Palestinians' bid for a U.N. condemnation of the settlements, the U.S. has been decidedly opposed to the Palestinians' bid for recognition of a Palestinian state. In December 2010, shortly after the Follow-Up Committee's meeting, the U.S. House of Representatives declared that the U.S. would not recognize the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and that it would veto any attempt to do so in the Security Council.[35]
U.S. opposition to Palestinian diplomatic activity and the deadlock in the U.S.-brokered negotiations have greatly disappointed and angered the Palestinians, who have questioned the U.S.'s role as sole sponsor of the peace process, claiming that it has exhausted its potential as arbiter and ultimately failed to achieve results. Accordingly, they are appealing to others, in particular to European countries, for help in devising an alternative political process toward achieving statehood. The announcement of the E.U. foreign ministers that they would be willing to recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders "when the right time came"[36] is a source of optimism for the Palestinians. At the same time, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton stated: "There is no alternative to a negotiated solution. Urgent progress is needed towards a two state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security..."[37]
The U.S. Has No Right to Prevent Other Countries from Recognizing a Palestinian State
Sa'eb 'Ereqat criticized the U.S. House of Representatives' statement to the effect that it would not recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state: "We have made every effort in the past two decades to negotiate, but this path has not yielded the hoped-for result or removed the occupation from our territories... The Palestinian people will not stop striving to achieve its freedom through all [available] channels and peaceful ways. The American House of Representatives, in its last resolution, placed a new obstacle in the way of establishing peace between Palestine and Israel. Every country has [the right to take] a free, independent, and sovereign decision in recognizing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The U.S. can refrain from recognizing our state, but it has no right to prevent other countries from realizing their sovereign right [to decide the matter for themselves]."[38]
SUPPORT OUR WORK
The U.S. Itself Declared Independence Unilaterally
Fatah Central Committee member Nabil Sha'ath remarked sarcastically that that the U.S. too had declared its independence unilaterally: "The issue of appealing to the U.N. to accept us as a member need not wait until September [2011]. I believe that we have broken the barrier of fear regarding the bid for recognition of a Palestinian state. When we started this [campaign], and Israel started claiming it was a unilateral step, we studied the subject and discovered that the American [Continental] Congress had declared America's independence unilaterally, without the consent of Britain or anyone else, except for France..." Sha'ath also pointed out that when Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence in 2008, the International Court of Justice ruled that every country had the right to declare independence, and every country had the right to recognize this independence. He added: "It is absurd that among the world's nine largest countries in terms of population, the U.S. is the only one that has not recognized Palestine, and the only one that has recognized Kosovo..."[39]
Arab Forces Must Unite to Counterbalance U.S. Influence
In an article for the news agency Maan, Palestinian poet and academic Lutfi Zaghloul condemned what he called the U.S. monopoly over the U.N.'s institutions, which rendered any appeal to them pointless, and called on the Arabs to strengthen their influence in the international arena: "The Arab citizen discovered long ago that the Security Council is a 'council of the strong [countries]' who have appointed themselves custodians of the world and its affairs. As a matter of fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has become the sole superpower and therefore controls the international system and tyrannizes the Security Council, having turned it into an integral part of the American administration... The Arab regimes know that [any] interaction with the Security Council in its present state and in their present state is like [the appeal of] orphans begging at the tables of misers...
"The Arab world can become one of the active and influential powers in global policy, in order to serve our national goals. The U.N., the Security Council, and the General Assembly are no arena for the struggle of the weak. A diplomacy of running after additional resolutions, whatever they may be, is pointless, and [tantamount to] running breathless after a mirage. The Arab world may not have veto power, but its natural and other resources are the most important veto against all those who covet [its wealth] and underestimate is abilities..."[40]
The International Community Must Draft an Alternative Peace Plan
The Palestinians' disappointment with the U.S. has led them, as mentioned, to appeal to other international elements for support in advancing the peace process. Mahmoud Abbas called on the international community to devise an alternative peace plan to replace the present one, which he said had failed: "It is the interest of the U.S., the peoples of the region, and the Israeli people to rescue the peace process. We demand that the Quartet and the various international institutions, with the Security Council at their head, draft a peace plan that will suit the resolutions of international legitimacy, instead of perpetuating a peace plan that has, in fact, become a [means of] managing the conflict rather than resolving it...
"An overwhelming majority of the countries of the world demand an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel. And what are the international [declarations] of recognition [of this state], which have come one after another, if not proof of this [very fact]? It grieves us that some of the international elements who have declared their support for a two state solution, and who demand an end to the occupation [that has been going on] since 1967, criticize and oppose countries that have declared their recognition of our state."[41]
U.S. Sole Sponsorship of the Peace Process Must Be Rejected
In a similar vein, Palestinian columnists called on the Arabs to stop relying solely on the U.S. to broker the negotiations, since the latter had failed to achieve results. Muhannad 'Abd Al-Hamid, a columnist for the PA daily Al-Ayyam, wrote that "the stage of negotiations dependent solely on U.S. arbitration and involvement has been utterly exhausted. No one can be persuaded any longer that a resolution can be achieved through American efforts or through bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, after 20 years of failure and 43 years of ever-expanding settlement and increasingly rooted occupation."[42]
Al-Ayyam columnist Tallal 'Awkal wrote: "From a practical viewpoint, we must altogether stop gambling on the U.S. [playing] an active and positive role that will propel the Middle East peace process forward and bring about its success, and lay clear blame on the American administration, whose absolute inclination in Israel's favor has caused, and is [still] causing, the failure of every peace process. It is absurd to allow the U.S. to continue monopolizing this cause. The Palestinians must declare explicitly and wholeheartedly that they reject the U.S. as sole sponsor of the peace [process] – even though this could create difficulties [because] the U.S. could exert influential pressure on the PA, especially in terms of funding. While the U.S. is not the largest provider [of the funds], it alone controls their transfer to the PA. The issue of funding is clearly becoming an Arab issue, and the Arabs must bear responsibility for providing the money the PA, the PLO, and the Palestinian people need, without waiting for a green light from America. They must amass enough strength in order to repel the pressure from America."[43]
In an article in the daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 'Adel 'Abd Al-Rahman called "to demand from the international delegates in the Quartet [other than the U.S.]... to upgrade their international [role] to a level equal to that of the U.S., in order to influence the [drafting] of the political settlement, and force the option of a two state solution. [They must also] for two peoples; to hint at imposing economic and security sanctions on the extremist right-wing Zionist government; and to ultimately recognize a Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in order to get the [effort towards a] political settlement back on track."[44]
In contrast, PLO Executive Committee member Hana 'Amira explained that the Palestinians did not reject U.S. brokerage of the peace process, but refused to enter negotiations as long as Israel continued building in the settlements.[45]
The Palestinian Mission: To Undermine Ties between Israel and the U.S.
Yahya Rabbah, a columnist for the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, harshly criticized what he called America's absolute support for Israel, and suggested that the Palestinians actively fight the Israeli-U.S. ties: "We are currently engaged in extreme conflict with our true enemies, Israel and America, or America and Israel. We do not know who surpasses whom in enmity towards the Palestinian people! This confusion is nothing new. Anyone who has [tried to] explain America and Israel's relationship has encountered this conundrum – who is more Jewish, America or Israel?... As an [Arab] nation, it is inconceivable that we should always pay the price for this dubious and deviant relationship between America and Israel. This must be our mission: to extend our hand to anyone who is opposed to this relationship, even if it is Satan [himself]!... Go ahead and appeal to the Security Council, and let America implement its veto power. It is opposed to [the principle of] the 1967 borders that have been confirmed by international resolutions, and opposed to the state of Palestine it spoke of in the past. It is also against the Palestinian people and against the honor of the [Arab] ummah and its interests. Everything has a price, so why shouldn't the U.S. pay the price?"[46]
The Hope of European Support
As mentioned, the Palestinians consider Europe to be one of their most important spheres of operation. PA Foreign Minister Riyadh Al-Maliki explained that the Palestinian campaign is currently focused on politically influential western European countries that have not as yet recognized a Palestinian state. He said that a number of European countries (such as Spain), have promised to recognize a Palestinian state and to persuade additional countries to do so. Others (such as the U.K. and the Netherlands), he said, have promised to grant Palestinian diplomatic representation embassy status. Al-Malki added that international recognition of a Palestinian state and the raising of Palestinian diplomatic status set the stage for a future appeal to the Security Council for recognition of statehood.[47] On another occasion, Al-Malki expressed optimism that the E.U. member states would recognize the Palestinian state by next summer: "By then... the countries of the world will be ready to take this historical step of full recognition. Personally, I am hopeful, after what I heard from the European foreign ministers I met over recent weeks."[48] Similarly, Sa'eb 'Ereqat said that the status of Palestinian diplomatic representation would be upgraded in 10 European countries.[49]
In contrast, the daily Al-Quds Al-'Arabi cited Abbas as saying that he feared the Europeans had abandoned the Palestinians and would not meet their expectations in terms of recognizing their statehood.[50]
PA Columnists: Impose Boycott, Sanctions against Israel
Calls can also be heard in the Palestinian arena for international boycott and sanctions against Israel. This position has mostly been expressed by PA columnists, as Mahmoud Abbas and the majority of PA officials have refrained from addressing the issue.
Nabil Sha'ath, a Fatah senior official, has been among the few PA officials who have consistently raised the issue. According to Sha'ath, the Palestinians are waging "a popular [campaign], like that of South Africa, towards a boycott of Israel and [all] trade with it and investments in it, and towards the imposing of sanctions on it for violating [international] law."[51] Husam Zomlot, a member of Fatah's International Relations Bureau, said: "We no longer believe that the Israeli government can make peace and end the occupation through negotiations. The solution is a combination of popular struggle on the ground and a broad international campaign of boycott, and of demanding accountability from the occupation and imposing sanctions on it, until it ends."[52]
In a similar vein, Muhannad 'Abd Al-Hamid, a columnist for the PA daily Al-Ayyam, called for combining U.N. resolutions with a campaign for boycotting the settlements and imposing sanctions against Israel, in order to achieve maximum efficiency: "A resolution of the Security Council, or of the General Assembly in the case of an American veto [in the Security Council], which would proclaim all the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan illegal, would be of immense value, if accompanied by a boycott of the settlements, their goods, and companies that do business with them. In addition, if the Security Council or the General Assembly decides to recognize a Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 borders, it will provide international backing for exerting pressure on the occupation state, including the imposing of sanctions in various forms and degrees."[53]
Al-Hayat Al-Jadida columnist 'Adel 'Abd Al-Rahman wrote: "The international community must begin taking responsibility and forcing the Hebrew state to fulfill its obligations vis-à-vis the political settlement, by imposing economic, security, and diplomatic sanctions [on it]... On that note, the Arab states must develop their political-diplomatic, economic, trade, and security [abilities] in confronting the Israeli government [of] organized Zionist terrorism, so that they can, just once, wave the stick of severe sanctions in [Israel's] face. That way, [Israel] will know for certain that the Arabs have something to say, and that they have many weapons at their disposal in the struggle for peace."[54]
The Palestinians Welcome Latin American Recognition of their State
Al-Ayyam (PA), December 19, 2010
Israel Throws Its Weight against Palestinian Bid for Recognition of Statehood
Al-Ayyam (PA), December 22, 2010
* L. Barkan is a research fellow at MEMRI.
[1] AFP (France), December 7, 2010.
[2] www.wafa.ps, December 15, 2010.
[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Al-Hayat (London), March 4, 2010.
[4] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), March 4, 2010.
[5] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), January 9, 2011; www.kuna.net.kw, January 7, 2011; Al-Quds (Jerusalem), December 23, 2010.
[6] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 20, 2011.
[7] Al-Quds (Jerusalem), December 31, 2010.
[8] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), January 8, 2011.
[9] www.wafa.ps, December 27, 2010.
[10] Al-Hayat (London), January 1, 2011.
[11] www.wafa.ps, December 31, 2010.
[12] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 18, 2010.
[13] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 21, 2010.
[14] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 31, 2010.
[15] www.whitehouse.gov/blog, 23.9.2010.
[16] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 4, 2011.
[17] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 31, 2010.
[18] www.wafa.ps, January 23, 2011.
[19] Al-Hayat (London), January 1, 2011.
[20] www.maannews.net, January 6, 2011.
[22] Al-Quds Al-'Arabi (London), January 20, 2011.
[23] www.reshet.ynet.co.il, December 15, 2010.
[24] www.france24.com/en, December 18, 2010.
[25] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 20, 2010.
[26] The Palestinians are proud of these declarations and grateful for them. The Ramallah municipality recently decided to name streets in the town after eight of the Latin American countries that have recognized the Palestinian state. www.wafa.ps, January 25, 2011.
[27] www.wafa.ps, December 27, 2010.
[28] www.wafa.ps, February 14, 2011.
[29] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 22, 2010.
[30] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), January 10, 2011; www.wafa.ps, December 31, 2010.
[31] www.maannews.net, January 4, 2011.
[32] www.wafa.ps, December 17, 2010.
[33] Al-Quds (Jerusalem), December 28, 2010.
[34] www.wafa.ps, December 22, 2010.
[35] www.ynet.co.il, December 16, 2010.
[36] www.news.nana10.co.il, December 13, 2010.
[37] www.wafa.ps, January 7, 2011.
[38] www.wafa.ps, December 17, 2010.
[39] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 31, 2010.
[40] www.maannews.net, December 29, 2010.
[41] www.wafa.ps, December 31, 2010.
[42] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 21, 2010.
[43] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 6, 2011.
[44] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), December 30, 2010
[45] www.maannews.net, January 6, 2011.
[46] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), December 19, 2010.
[47] Al-Hayat (London), January 5, 2011.
[48] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 23, 2010.
[49] www.maannews.net, December 19, 2010.
[50] Al-Quds Al-'Arabi (London), January 5, 2011.
[51] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 8, 2010.
[52] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), December 28, 2010.
[53] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 21, 2010.
[54] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), January 8, 2011.
