The big news in Israel yesterday was Netanyahu’s speech in which he declared, for the first time in his political career, willingness to support a Palestinian state. He conditioned that it must be “demilitarized.” But would such work? Would the Palestinians agree to not have full sovereignty? What about after they become a state? Would the agreement be binding? What if they, and I know this would never happen, changed their minds and rejected the agreement?
These are questions asked and answered in an Op-Ed in today’s JPost:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agreed on Sunday to creation of a Palestinian state, but he made this acceptance dependent upon its demilitarization. "In any peace agreement," he said, "the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel." Although this position represents a substantial concession on his part – largely because he is now under intense pressure from US President Barack Obama – it has absolutely no chance of success.
Neither Hamas nor Fatah would ever negotiate for anything less than full sovereignty. Supporters of full Palestinian statehood can find proper legal support in certain international treaties. For example, international lawyers, seeking to "discover" helpful sources of legal confirmation, could cleverly cherry-pick provisions of the (1) Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (the 1933 treaty on statehood, sometimes called the Montevideo Convention), and (2) the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Israel has the right to endure. It was correct for Netanyahu to previously oppose a Palestinian state in any form. Nonetheless, any new arguments for demilitarization will be a nonstarter. International law would not necessarily expect Palestinian compliance with prestate agreements concerning armed force. This is true even if these agreements had included certain US guarantees. Also, because authentic treaties can be binding only upon states, a nontreaty agreement could be of no real authority.
Read the rest here.
If it “has absolutely no chance of success,” then how much of a concession was this, really? This seems to have been a very clever move on Netanyahu’s part. He appears to be budging, but has only offered something the other side does not want to accept.
A.D. – making such an offer can expose the true intentions of the Palestinians. Do they really want peace and prosperity, or do they want the freedom to start another war with Israel? Do the Palestinians want a military for a war with Jordan or with Israel? Also, I think it is a big concession for Netanyahu to admit that a Palestinian state could exist west of the Jordan River, given all that he has said and written previously.
The reality here is that you offer something that the other side cannot accept or something that you cannot stomach. Netanyahu was elected to defend Israel not to support Palestinian national aspirations. As long as the Palestinians continue to pursue that which would destroy Israel, they will not find willing partners in Israel’s majority government.
“. . . given all that he has said and written previously.”
His actions don’t match his words; remember Hebron. He’s Bill Clinton’s twin who was separated at birth.
Thanks for the bittersweet chuckle, Craig! I guess if Bill & Bibi are twins, then so are you & David Wilder!