Palestine's Admission To UN Can Be Positive, Say Advocates On Both Sides

As the upcoming United Nations (UN) General Assembly creeps closer, Israeli policy experts across the world are hurrying to gather information about Palestine’s potential declaration of statehood. Many wonder if such an act will hinder or advance the Arab-Israeli peace process. 

After peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine were stalled for almost two years, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat announced in March to AFP (Agence France Presse) that the Palestinian leadership planned to request full membership to the UN, along with recognition of a Palestinian state at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September. 

Omar Dajani, former adviser to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), told reporters today that such a request has three anticipated favorable outcomes for Palestinians:

1. Palestinian legal position in negotiations will be greatly improved.

2. Pressure will be placed on the Israeli government to return to the negotiating table and halt construction on settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.                  

3. Mass mobilization and non-violent resistance will be promoted in the West Bank and Gaza strip. 

“It is important to look at these goals and see how they can be coextensive with the Israel peace camp and conversely, how they can be turned to a destructive direction in the process of peace,” Dajani said. 

The “destructive direction” Dajani referred to is that Palestinian leaders will be violating existing agreements between them and Israel if they involve the UN. Past agreements, such as the Declaration of Principles and the Roadmap, require that disputes between Israel and Palestine be settled via direct negotiations and not through third parties, such as the UN.

Consequentially, by involving the UN and violating existing peace agreements, spectators fear it will destroy any hope of further peace negotiations. 

Gadi Baltiansky, former press secretary for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and director-general of the Geneva Initiative, however, believes that the Israel advocacy community is making too big of a deal out of this.

“Every year so many resolutions are taken by the UN and no one pays attention,” he told reporters. “The Palestinians are just trying to upgrade their status in the UN…It is not a dramatic move that will change history.”

“I am not sure this will be a constructive move that leads towards a better future,” Baltiansky continued. “But when we think about the other options without negotiations, this can be better.”

Both Baltiansky and Dajani agreed that the UN vote can be a positive experience if used as an opportunity to relaunch peace talks. 

“See it as a potential resolution that is good for both sides,” Baltiansky said. “Use language that both sides can live with. Imagine a resolution that says the world will recognize a capital in Jerusalem and Palestine with a border in between them. For the first time the world will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

“Make it into a resolution that references territory swaps,” Dajani said. “Such a resolution will move them forward with the peace process since they will understand that whatever territorial concessions were made to accommodate settlement growth would be compensated for them.”  

While many are worried about the UN General Assembly in September, it is clear that the sequential step is most important. It is after the UN vote that both sides will need to work together toward future peace talks.

Israel,Turkey Brace For UN Flotilla Report

By Joshua Kolb

The UN investigation into 2010 Gaza Flotilla, set to be released August 20th, could ease, or damage, relations between Israel and Turkey. 

Geoffrey Palmer, former prime minister of New Zealand, is leading the investigation for the UN.

Turkey has in the past played a significant role in trying to bring sides together in the Middle East conflict, but its relationship with Israel was severely strained in May 2010 after the raid of the Mavi Marmara left nine Turkish activists dead and wounded several others.

The report was initially supposed to be made available last month, but Israeli and Turkish officials have been unable to agree on a way forward in the dispute.  

In a UN press conference on July 29th, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel regretted the loss of life, but maintained that the ultimate responsibility for the violence lied with the IHH, the Turkish based group that led the flotilla, and that Israel was well within its right to prevent it from reaching Gaza.

Barak said he believed it was important for Israel to settle the dispute and move forward with its relationship with Ankara and hoped a solution could be achieved. 

Reaction to the 2010 Flotilla 

At the outset of last year’s crisis, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to justify the force used by Israeli commandos against protesters but the UN Security Council, in a statement, nevertheless condemned Israel’s interception of the ships and asked Tel Aviv to immediately release passengers and crew and allow for the passage of humanitarian goods to Gaza. 

The United States, Israel’s strongest ally at the UN, supported the Security Council statement while also acknowledging the legitimate concerns of the Israeli government. The Human Rights Council also denounced the attack and called for Israel to free those who were detained and help them return home safely.

Debate intensified over the issue of the legality and effectiveness of the Gaza blockade. President Barack Obama stated at a meeting with President Abbas shortly after, “We agree that Israelis have the right to prevent arms from entering into Gaza that can be used to launch attacks into Israeli territory. But we also think that it is important for us to to explore new mechanisms so that we can have goods and services, and economic development, and the ability of people to start their own businesses, and to grow the economy and provide opportunity within Gaza.” 

Fouzi El-Asmar, an Israeli-Palestinian poet and journalist who lives in the US, says Israel could have found other more acceptable solutions, such as having an international committee search boats and ships before they reached Gaza, but that Tel Aviv was trying to make a statement about the blockade. 

“I think the Israelis wanted to have such an attack as to be a lesson for others not to come and do the same thing. They wanted it as an example for others,” he told Talk Radio News.

El Asmar says Israel would have had a legitimate reason to take preventative action if any arms, missiles, weapons and/or fighting materials were found but their actions were proved to be unjustified.

The Gaza Blockade 

In his support of the blockade, Prime Minster Netanyahu said in the weeks following that: “Israel cannot allow the free flow of weapons, rockets and missiles to the terrorist base of Hamas in Gaza … Our policy is simple. We say any goods, any humanitarian aid to Gaza, can enter. What we want to prevent is their ability to bring in war material - missiles, rockets, the means for constructing casings for missiles and rockets.”

Terri Ginsberg, an American Jewish academic and activist, says Israel’s characterization of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and threat of weapons smuggling is exaggerated. 

“Israel was really, I believe, violating international law and ethics because the ships, the flotilla ships, didn’t carry weapons at all. They were bringing humanitarian aid, and humanitarian aid can be brought anywhere. … There is no reason why humanitarian aid cannot be delivered to Gaza. Gazans need it,” she told Talk Radio News. “Israel, by attacking the flotillas, is implicitly saying, ‘Gazans don’t need this aid and we’re protecting Gazans and Gaza.’ And this is false because they’re blockading Gaza and they’re starving the people of Gaza.”

Seemingly influenced by the controversy, Israel announced later in June of 2010 that it was easing the blockade by releasing a list of all banned goods, which was then limited only to weapons and materials used to make them. All items not on that list would be allowed. The White House welcomed the change, saying that, “[the] implementation of the policy announced by the government of Israel today should improve life for the people of Gaza and we will continue to support that effort.”

The 2011 Flotilla 

At the beginning of 2011, the organizers of the 2010 Gaza Flotilla decided to launch another flotilla to breach the Gaza Strip blockade. The IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation announced that it would once again participate in this second flotilla project, but later it dropped out due to alleged “technical difficulties.”

The international community, and a bipartisan group of US congressmen, spoke out against the flotilla and asked all governments to use their influence to stop it.

Eventually, on June 27, 2011, the Greek government detained six ships that were supposed to be a part of the Second Gaza Flotilla. The organizers of the movement said that the Israeli government had sabotaged the ships and needed at least a few days to repair them. During the next few days, the Greek government intercepted and arrested the captain of one of the ships, named “The Audacity of Hope;” banned the departure of another ship, the “Tahrir” and intercepted a French boat with pro-Palestinian protesters on it.

Could Arab Spring Force US Hand On Palestinian Statehood At The UN?

Palestinian leaders say they will not halt their drive for full membership in the United Nations, despite facing a likely United States veto of such move.

“We know what the position of the United States of America is, they say it openly and they say it in closed meetings.” Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian Authority envoy to the world body, told a briefing today after addressing the Security Council.“The decision is to ultimately acquire membership at the United Nations. We know that it requires passing through the Security Council, and we know what the position of the United States of America is.”

The Obama administration has promised to oppose and even veto any attempt to give Palestine full membership at the UN.

“They can obstruct our effort through the Security Council now, but will that position remain the same for ever? I think that remains to be seen.”

 He also raised the idea a mass movement by Palestinians in the style of the Arab Spring movements in Cairo and elsewhere might force the hand of the US.

“What would be the argument of anyone, anyone in the Security Council of stopping in the path of the Palestinian people of acquiring their legitimate right of being a full member of the UN? We are not there yet but are marching in that direction. “

Mansour said that by continuing to expand settlements and refusing to recognize pre-1967 borders as the basis for the new Palestinian state, the Israeli government was displaying an “extremely right wing and anti-peace agenda” and called on Security Council members to exert more pressure on Tel Aviv.

Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor contested these views, arguing that even the most basic conditions for Palestinian statehood did not exist.

“On behalf of whom will you present a resolution in September? Mr. Abbas? or Hamas?” Posor asked the Palestinian representative, alluding to the divide between Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank. “Will it be on behalf of both the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas terrorist organization?”  

Robert Serry, Special UN coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process briefed Council Members earlier in the day about the ongoing situation in the Occupied Territories.

Serry told Council members the Palestinian Authority’s institutions in the West Bank had made unprecedented progress on issues like economic growth and security and were now sufficiently ready to assume all the responsibilities brought on by statehood.

But Serry also said tensions between Gaza and Israel have increased in the past month. Since June 23rd, armed militant groups have fired 18 rockets into Israel, while the Israeli military has carried out 3 land incursion and 16 air strikes in Gaza, killing one civilian and injuring 14 others.

The UN Coordinator for Middle East Peace Process condemned the rocket attacks as  “unacceptable” and called on Palestinian militant groups in Gaza to stop indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas.

Serry also said he was alarmed over the Israeli governments “negative actions” in Gaza and the West Bank, where he says the demolition Palestinian structures, often water and sanitation services, are at their highest rate in five years.

While Gaza is experiencing a small economic recovery, unemployment remains at 31%. Serry says growth is mainly driven by donor aid and an increase in consumer good imports brought on last year after Israel revised its blockade guidelines.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza still remains bleak, with 54 % of the population being “food insecure” and over one third of the population living in poverty.

White House Press Gaggle With Jay Carney

Aboard Air Force One

En Route Memphis, Tennessee 

10:30 A.M. EDT

     MR. CARNEY:  Good morning, everyone.  Welcome aboard Air Force One as we make our way to Memphis, Tennessee, where the President will deliver the commencement address at the Booker T. Washington High School, winner of the 2011 Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge.

     While in Memphis, as you know the President will meet with family affected by the flooding, state and local officials, first responders and volunteers. 

     And with that, I will take your questions.

     Q    Jay, what is the President’s reaction to the violence along Israel’s borders and the violence and the killings of Palestinian protestors?

     MR. CARNEY:  Jim, we regret the loss of life, and our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of those killed and wounded.  Israel, like all countries, has the right to prevent unauthorized crossings at its borders.  Its neighbors have a responsibility to prevent such activity.  We urge maximum restraint on all sides.

     We are also strongly opposed to the Syrian government’s involvement in inciting yesterday’s protests in the Golan Heights.  Such behavior is unacceptable and does not serve as a distraction from the Syrian government’s ongoing repression of demonstrators in its own country.

     Q    Does the President think that Assad is doing this in order to deflect attention from his own problems?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, we certainly think that there’s a history of that and it seems apparent to us that that is an effort to distract attention from the legitimate expressions of protests by the Syrian people and from the harsh crackdown that the Syrian government has perpetrated against its own people.

     Q    — the degree to the incitement yesterday is sort of heightened as a result of the Arab Spring, I’m wondering if you could sort of put the President’s address on Thursday in the context of that and also in the context of this week with Abdullah and Netanyahu being in Washington.

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, obviously the President will deliver an address on the Middle East on Thursday and he will discuss, among several topics, the dramatic change we’ve seen in the Middle East and North Africa this year.  He will also discuss the Middle East peace process and the need for that process to continue and succeed.  Beyond that, I don’t want to preview too much of what he’s going to say.

     Q    What does the President think about what’s going on with Dominique Strauss-Kahn in New York?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, we obviously won’t comment on a legal matter. I can say obviously that we — I think I have something here on that.  One minute, I thought I had something on it.  We remain — we note that the IMF has said that they have appointed an acting director and the IMF remains fully functional and we remain confident in the institution of the IMF and its ability to continue to execute its mission effectively.

     Q    Is the President worried that this will somehow hinder the efforts at securing certain packages for European countries that are —

     MR. CARNEY:  No, we’re confident that the IMF will continue to function effectively.

     Q    Given, though, that the situation in the Middle East and North Africa is still changing and evolving, is the speech going to sort of lay out where we are at this moment in time, the President’s sort of a broader vision for what he sees —

     MR. CARNEY:  I think the President will obviously address where we are in this remarkable period and will also address how he approaches the kind of historic change we’ve seen in the region and how — where he thinks we’re headed, both as the United States in terms of our policy towards the region and the region itself.

     Q    Along those lines, Jay, the departure of Senator Mitchell — former Senator Mitchell as a special envoy, does this signal a change in the approach that the President is going to take?  Is there going to be a new Cairo speech that kind of outlines his vision?

     MR. CARNEY:  No, not at all.  I think the President is very appreciative of Senator Mitchell’s remarkable service and effective service, and — but it does not signal any change in that regard.

     Q    Did the President watch the Endeavour launch?

     MR. CARNEY:  I think we were on Marine One.  We don’t have a — well, we did not watch it.

     Q    Does the President still think that —

Q    — area today?

     MR. CARNEY:  We are, as you know, meeting with first responders, families and others today, and that’s what we have on the schedule.

     Q    Does the President still think that we are in the midst of a new beginning with the Muslim world in terms of the relationship that the U.S. has?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that he does — I mean, he believes that the history, as he said, of — the future of that region will be written by the people of the region, and that what we’re seeing is an expression of long pent-up desire for greater freedom, greater prosperity, greater engagement in the political process in these countries.  And obviously that has an effect on our engagement as the United States with the region. 

He is optimistic.  It’s obviously a very fluid situation, and every country is different.  But he is optimistic about the potential for positive outcomes in the various countries in the region.

     Q    Can you preview the meetings with Abdullah and Prime Minister Netanyahu this week — will he discuss specifically steps —

     MR. CARNEY:  I think at each case they’ll discuss the events in the region as well as the prospects for progress in the Middle East peace process.

     Q    Will the President address the flooding in his remarks today at the school?  And what sort of updates has he been getting or receiving on the situation in Mississippi?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, he’s been getting regular updates on the flooding in general, not just — I mean, with regard to the Mississippi River, and the effects — the impact it’s had down river, as you would say.  And I don’t want to preview his remarks on that.  I’ll do a readout of his meeting with the families and others, but beyond that, I don’t have a preview.

     Q    Jay, there’s some — been downgrading on the economic growth numbers from 3.3 to 2.8 today.  Any reaction to that and how that affects a long-term view for the recovery?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t have any reaction to the specific prognoses, except to say that we obviously focus very much, the President is, on continuing to do the things that promote economic growth.  Obviously the growth that we’ve seen in the wake of the contraction has been very positive and beneficial.  We are doing everything we can to ensure stronger growth, including investing in those programs that will — and those areas that will allow us to grow and thrive economically and create jobs.  But there’s nothing that matters more to him than that.

     Q    Any worries about gas-price-driven inflation?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, we obviously focus very much on the impact that higher gas prices have had on family budgets.  The President has spoken to this and continues to monitor that.  He understands that for families that are, like the country, emerging out of a very tough economic time, and those who still are struggling, the sharp rise in prices at the pump is — it was and is a very unwelcome development.  And he’s very focused on that.

     And obviously, I’ll note, as you all probably wrote about,  the decision to speed up some of the leasing and the decisions he made to expand in development, oil development, in the United States is part of his long-term commitment to make sure that we produce as much oil as possible, safely and responsibly in this country.  And that’s part of that goal, to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

     Q    I believe that today was the day the debt limit was supposed to hit.  Is there any statement from the White House?  And has the President made any calls over the weekend for the budget —

     MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything on any calls he might have made.  But it is true that we are now in that period where we have essentially some cushion provided by the extraordinary measures the Treasury Secretary is able to take, as previous Treasury Secretaries have taken in a situation like this.  But it is a reminder that we need to have a vote to lift the debt ceiling because the consequences of not doing so would be quite serious, indeed.  And those who suggest otherwise are whistling past the graveyard.  It is a foolish thing to suggest that we could somehow as the United States of America default on our obligations and that it would not have seriously negative consequences if we suddenly stop paying our bills on a third of our obligations.

     Q    Jay, will the President take up AIPAC’s invitation to speak to them before he leaves for Europe?

     THE PRESIDENT:  The President will address AIPAC on Sunday morning, May 22nd, to stress the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

     Q    On the debt limit, what has the President’s involvement been in the Gang of Six talks?

     MR. CARNEY:  We have been in regular consultations with those members of Congress who are approaching this issue seriously and looking at the need to address it in a balanced way.  And that includes members of gangs and those who are unaffiliated with gangs.  So I hope that’s vague enough for you. But obviously we’ve been in consultations with those members who are seriously interested in this issue.

     And we see this — just to address the broader point — the President views the current situation as an opportunity.  Some of you who’ve been in my office have heard me say for a long time that this President is committed to doing something significant and serious about our long-term deficit and debt problem and this is an opportunity to address that.  That’s why he did the fiscal commission; that’s why he laid out his plan; and that’s why he asked the Vice President to oversee these negotiations. 

And he really thinks that this is an opportunity for the President, for Republicans and Democrats, to come together, find some common ground, and do something about a problem that we all recognize, which is that we need to reduce our deficit and our long-term debt in order to ensure that we have the kind of economic vitality in the 21st century that will allow us to win the future.

Q    If he’s addressing AIPAC on Sunday, does that mean that the speech on Thursday will have less on the Mid-East peace process?  Would he be saving that —

MR. CARNEY:  No, the major speech of the week is Thursday.  I think — I would not expect a major policy speech on Sunday.  I think he looks forward to talking about the unshakeable bond between the Israelis and the Americans and the importance of that relationship.

All right, anything else?  Great.  Thanks, guys.

Q    Thank you.

US Vetoes Security Council Resolution On Israeli Settlements

The Obama administration Friday made its first use of its veto at the UN Security council, blocking a resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

The United States was the lone UN Security Council member to veto the resolution that identified Israeli settlements as illegal and called for an end to further construction in the Occupied Territories. 

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said her country believed a Security Council resolution would further complicate negotiations between parties, but insisted the US veto was in no way a sign of support for Israeli settlements.

“Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties and threatens the prospects of peace. “ Rice told the Security Council,  “Every potential action must be measured against one overriding standard; will it move the parties closer to negotiation and an agreement. Unfortunately this draft resolution risks hardening the position of both sides. It could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiation, and if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse.”

Media reports through out the week indicated Rice had been working to convince Palestinian and Arab leaders not to introduce the resolution, offering instead to issue a Security Council Presidential statement and further promises of diplomatic pressure on Israel as alternatives.

“In recent days, we offered a constructive alternative course forward, that we believe would have allowed the council to act unanimously to support the pursuit of peace. We regret that this effort was not successful”

Negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials broke down in again in September, after the Israeli government refused to extend a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank