(Huffington Post) David Harris - For those interested in a two-state outcome, the Palestinian UN gambit should be opposed. First, it does an end-run around face-to-face talks. Responsible political leaders should be encouraging the Palestinians to return to the table with Israel, not undermining the prospect of direct negotiations. Second, if a Palestinian state is recognized along the 1967 lines (nothing more than the 1949 armistice lines), this undermines UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 and the Camp David Accords, which call for a negotiated outcome and do not predetermine final boundaries. Indeed, once the UN General Assembly (GA) endorses a Palestinian state's borders, how will the Palestinians ever accept the territorial adjustments diplomats know will be required to address the minimum needs of both sides to reach a deal? Third, countries that support the Palestinian strategy may well contribute to a resurgence of violence. Why feed false expectations? Countries should consider carefully if "Palestine" today has the necessary elements of statehood. If every secessionist, insurgent, or so-called independence group felt it might get validation from the UN General Assembly, regardless of actual conditions on the ground, all hell could break loose. Finally, a GA vote would say to Israel: we are prepared to hand over, among other land, Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter and sacred Western Wall to Palestinian control. We'll know soon enough what democratic nations have the courage to embrace principle in the pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace, and what countries are ready to throw it to the wind. The writer is the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee.
2011-09-01 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive