Despite the Obama administration’s continued efforts to persuade the Palestinian
Authority to avert its plans ask for full admission as a state at the UN in September, and
resume direct negotiations with Israel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has
refused to meet with Israel since September 2010. Abba’s refusal to talk with Israel and this
proposed action at the UN is widely regarded as a way to isolate the Jewish State. President
Obama said on May 22 that “no vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent
Palestinian state.” And his Administration has maintained that it would veto any attempt by
the Palestinians to declare Unilateral Statehood.
Would a leader whose Organization is heavily dependent upon foreign aid proceed with actions that cause pecuniary loss to its own interests?
Abbas’ Unilateral move to declare statehood paralleled with their nefarious unity pact with,
Iranian backed Hamas has brought already weak relations between PNA, US and Israel to a
tipping point. Should they continue declaration plans the PNA is challenged with developing
a state wholly dependent on US and Israeli foreign aid. The Catch 22 is that, The US, the
single largest donor to the PA, seeding over $400 million per fiscal year, is prepared to cutoff foreign aid
to the PA.
Furthermore, Israel already warned that should the PA seek to establish a Palestinian
state, agreements reached through the Oslo Accords will be null and void. Israel would no
longer collect taxes on behalf PA, and that would mean that the Israeli aid to the PA and
to Gaza would draw to a close. Under such circumstances the Authority would not survive.
Its Arab partner states have not shown in the past that they are enthusiastic about sharing
their wealth either.
How would a Palestinian state develop and exercise effective control over its territory
The chief aim of the Palestinian Liberation Organization would be undermined by
going to the UN to seek membership. It has already failed to gain vital support from key
Security Council members to pass. Now, at best the greatest status is could receive is a
Non-member Status, which is not the intended goal.
Mahmoud Abbas is now torn between pressures within his organization to continue the fight
from those who long await a promised “Palestinian Statehood” and from Hamas, who is
against this political maneuver and characterizes it as a “fata morgana.” If this plan fails,
which it will we will see a revival of Fatah - Hamas clashes. What will we see and what does
that mean for Israel and the United States?
Today, The Palestinian Authority enjoys independent leadership controls of the West
Bank while Hamas controls Gaza- an area the Palestinian Authority claims for its state.
How would the leadership dynamic play out between PLO and Hamas? Iranian president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and is sworn to support Hamas until the destruction of Israel as a
Mahmoud Abbas has called for a series of peaceful demonstrations leading to September
21 when the, General Assembly convenes. A failed attempt as statehood sets the tone for
a bevy of potential violence by raising unrealistic expectations, one that a symbolic Non-
Member status would not satisfy.
Should the PLO receive Non-member State status, it would give them access to
International bodies in which to wage all types of allegations and legal wars against Israel.
Considering no border agreements have been reached. This will not bring enduring peace.
By granting PLO UN Sanctioned statehood, the world would reward Hamas for its terrorist
actions, rather than condemn them. A move would undermine efforts and investment the
US, and international community has put into Peace between Palestine and Israel. There
would be no interest in engaging Israel in dialogue.
Palestine and Israel have true Partners in Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia,
the United States of America, and the Czech Republic. Palestine must further reject Hamas
who has no interest in Peace with Israel. Hamas is one of 48 organizations classified as
a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” by the U. S. State Department. The danger of setting pre-
conditions as a precursor to direct negotiations is that Israel is not going to give in to that it
forces the PLO into drastic swift decisions that have adverse effects for themselves.
Israel has investment and interest in the wellbeing of Palestinians. Both nations
are capable of working out their issues and coming to an agreement that are mutually
beneficial. History has proved this through successful peace treaties between Israel and
Egypt (1978) and Israel and Jordan (1994), these were only achieved through direct negotiations.
The Best Way forward is for President Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw his campaign.
And return to the table to hold direct talks Israel. With talks at a standstill there is a
significant threat to both Israelis and Palestinians. If a two-state agreement is the desired
solution, Israel and the PLO should discuss what would look like, and how both sides
could be satisfied. There has been enormous sacrifice and investment by the US to find a
permanent, peaceful solution reached through direct negotiations. These investments and
initiative should not be thwarted through reckless unilateral decisions.