The Palestinian UN Gamble – Irresponsible and Ill-Advised
One might also say the Jewish Oslo gamble was irresponsible and ill advised.
On reading the article below, I wrote the following to Alan Baker.
I read your excellent article and wanted to ask you a specific question.
In the Oslo Accords, did Israel agree to limit itself to negotiating “secure and recognized borders” pursuant to 242 rather than to demanding its rights to Judea and Samaria under the Mandate.
In other words did she explicitly waive any claims she had pursuant to the Mandate?
PM Netanyahu talks about our historical rights but never our legal rights from the Mandate. Although he mentions our historical rights he claims nothing which might flow from them with respect to Judea and Samaria.
If I am right in believing that we waived our rights, can we reassert them if the UN violates 242 and if the PA violates the Oslo Accords.
You wrote that for the PA to declare a state would be a fundamental breach of the Accords. It seems that there has been a number of fundamental breaches. Namely I refer to their incitement and violence. But Israel chose not to act on them.
I am also of the belief that the UN and the international community and Obama care nothing about the law and certainly don’t want to be bound by it. The UN just has to declare that our actions are a threat to peace and then pass a Chap VII resolution.
I would appreciate your detailed comments on the above.
The Palestinian leadership has announced its intention to abandon the negotiation process and to unilaterally seek a UN resolution that will impose a solution upon Israel. Facing a possible veto in the Security Council, the Palestinians are aiming to impose a UN resolution through the General Assembly “Uniting for Peace” procedure, which they hope will be supported by the UN member states.
While such a resolution would not have the authority to alter the legal status of the territories, the negative consequences of such a course of action would nevertheless serve to void the very basis of the peace process. It would undermine the legal existence of the Palestinian Authority and violate commitments by Yasser Arafat to settle all issues by negotiation.
Such unilateral action outside the negotiation process would constitute a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, thereby releasing Israel from its reciprocal commitments.
Such unilateral action would undermine the international community’s reliance on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 which form the foundation of all the agreements between the parties. It would also place into question the integrity and credibility of any Security Council resolutions or agreements resolving conflicts between states.
It would render as meaningless the signatures of the major powers as witnesses to previous negotiated agreements. It would also be incompatible with provisions of resolutions and agreements requiring negotiated solutions to the Jerusalem and refugee issues.