Javier Solana desperate for two states

Posted: July 12, 2009 by Jonathan Boyko in European Union, Hamas, Israel, Own Articles, Palestinians, Politics, United Nations

European Union's Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana

IT IS SAD to see the downfall of certain public figures. It is true, EU’s Solana never was particularly strong or fair person, but he did earn certain degree of respect for his work. Going through several high-ranking positions (including that of Secretary General for NATO), he is one of the best-known officials in Europe. His name constantly pops up in newspapers and in websites; his face is familiar to many.

Yet, some would say he is a desperate man – desperate for attention, that is. To some extend, they might be correct. Latest stunt pulled by the High Representative for EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy panel would hardly earn him respect in understanding circles. Solana proposed the UN to set a deadline, after which it would officially recognize the Palestinian state, even if no agreement is reached between the newly-established entity and Israel. Solana suggested that the United Nations  would "proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution". He also said that such ‘proclamation’ would include decisions on borders, status of Jerusalem, security and Palestinian refugees. Palestine would be accepted as full-fledged member of the UN, placing additional leverage on Palestinians, as well as the Israelis.

Recognition of Palestine would serve several purposes: first and foremost, Israel would be left out of deciding on nature of Palestine. You might remember Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state. However, if recognized by the international community, it would be up to it – not Netanyahu and Abbas – to decide on nature of such state. The UN is not likely to see Israel’s security needs as first priority, and would be more likely to impose – at least in writing – establishment of Palestine, with the power to sign defense treaties with Syria and Iran. Moreover, the UN – not Israelis and Palestinians at the negotiation table – would decide on Israel’s borders – again, Israel’s needs would likely be sacrificed to the new entity. Let’s not forget, that UN is now populated mostly by anti-Western states, who could be expected to side with the Palestinians. With all honesty, we could say that only two states would take Israel’s side – the United States (who, in spite of differences, would not risk destruction of the Jewish state) and Micronesia. 190 other states will either abstain or proclaim such step a "victory for democracy". Swell.

Secondly, Solana’s solution would inflict certain pressure on Palestinians. "You are now part of the modern world. You have to play by the rules". But then, again, with the UN’s largely pro-Palestinian agenda, such pressure would be all but considerable.

The there’s the issue of internal Palestinian struggles. No one yet speaks of it, but it might as well be said out loud – currently, there is a clear possibility of two Palestines – Palestine One and Palestine Two. That is, one in West Bank, controlled by Mahmoud Abbas’ FATAH party – mostly secular, somewhat West-inclined – and one in Gaza, run by HAMAS, fanatical, dangerous and a terror-breeding ground in Israel’s and Egypt’s back yard. Hopefully, he realized it the instant he said it: at this moment, Solana’s solution is as irrelevant as last years’ snow. Without certain unity within Palestinians themselves, enforcing establishment of Palestine would just as likely lead to massacres and infighting – comparable (but probably much worse) to armed struggle between HAMAS and FATAH in Gaza, which left hundreds of dead and wounded on the streets. HAMAS has little incentive to fight FATAH now outside Gaza; establishment of the state and rule of it would introduce motivation for Ismail Haniyeh’s terrorists. Don’t forget – the new state, backed by dozens of nations worldwide, will likely bring vast injection of cash straight into Palestine’s bloodstream.

Lastly, let us paint the scenario: on October 22, 2015, United Nations proclaims establishment of Palestinian state. According to the accepted scenario (with softening touches by US, France and Britain), Palestine’s borders mostly adjoin the 1967 armistice line. Jerusalem, the UN states, should be under international control – no one would risk the efforts to remove the Muslim Waqf’s control of the Temple Mount, though. FATAH being in control of the West Bank, its leader – still, likely, Mahmoud Abbas – declares himself the President, officially welcoming hundreds of thousands of new citizens – Jewish settlers that is (in Arabic, however, his aides would call on struggle against the "occupants" and "pigs").

Immediately, HAMAS’ activists in West Bank organize riots, protesting FATAH’s move, with former renewing armed campaign to eradicate and expel and FATAH members from Gaza. No doubt, Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal would immediately welcome interviews with international media, decrying UN’s favoritism of FATAH.

See where I’m going here? Those are likely to be the first days after Solana’s plan goes from paper to reality. Bloody war would follow.

Maybe the critics are correct. Responsible consideration of facts might not be Solana’s strongest point.

  1. […] is probably ecstatic right about now, as he was the first high-ranking official around the world to offer establishment of Palestine without Israel’s consent. I wouldn’t repeat my previous article on […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s