Life, John Lennon wisely observed, is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans. For the latest evidence of that truth, consider the current moment in Middle East diplomacy.
Only yesterday, it seems, the chatter was all about freezing settlements and whether a Palestinian state still can or should be established alongside Israel. And then, faster than you can say Avigdor Lieberman, the subject was changed. Now the burning question in the inner sancta of Jerusalem and Washington is when Palestinian statehood will be declared and what if anything Israel will get to say about it.
There’s mounting evidence that the issue has alarm bells ringing in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office. American and Israeli officials are dropping hints that it was high on the agenda at the mysterious November 9 evening meeting between Netanyahu and President Obama.
The prospect of imminent Palestinian statehood was placed on the international agenda in August by Salam Fayyad, the pro-Western prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, in a 38-page policy paper titled “Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State.” The document offers a detailed, ministry-by-ministry outline for a future state of Palestine “on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.” Fayyad’s plan is “to establish a de facto state apparatus within the next two years.”
The document initially drew yawns. Most observers greeted it as just another in a long line of Middle East fantasies. In mid-October, however, a few influential Israeli pundits suddenly began taking it seriously, calling it a blueprint for a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence in 2011.
In a long Jerusalem Post essay, two scholars from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank with close ties to Netanyahu, warned that Fayyad’s paper “creates serious legal and security concerns for Israel.” They praised Fayyad’s plans for “ground-up” economic and governance reforms, as well as his “positive shift away from the politics of armed struggle.” These dovetail with Netanyahu’s ideas. But, they wrote, a unilateral statehood declaration “could end up derailing the peace process and lead to armed conflict between PA forces and Israel.”
The threat isn’t merely theoretical, they warned: Fayyad’s “state-building vision has already elicited Western enthusiasm and financial and political support from the Obama administration and European countries.”
There the matter sat for a month. Then, on Saturday night, November 7, Haaretz dropped an online bombshell: Netanyahu, who was leaving for Washington the next day to address the general assembly of Jewish federations, had been anxiously discussing the Fayyad plan with top aides for months.
Fayyad’s document, Haaretz reported, quoting unnamed Israeli officials, has a secret appendix detailing specific steps to unilateral statehood. What’s more, “reports reached Jerusalem” that Fayyad had a “secret understanding” with the Obama administration for diplomatic recognition once the Palestinian state is declared. American recognition, combined with a planned Security Council resolution, Haaretz argued, “would likely transform any Israeli presence” beyond the 1967 borders — including East Jerusalem — into an illegal incursion into sovereign Palestine. That would invite Palestinian defensive action. Netanyahu reportedly asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Middle East envoy George Mitchell for an American promise to veto the plan if it came to a vote in the Security Council. As of November 7, Netanyahu hadn’t gotten a “clear response.”
No major Israeli news outlet followed up on the Haaretz story over the next few days, either to flesh it out or to shoot it down. It wasn’t even mentioned except on blogs. Adding to the mystery, The Jerusalem Post published a long news analysis on Monday morning, just before the Obama-Netanyahu powwow, repeating the think-tank scholars’ earlier arguments against the Fayyad plan. The Post didn’t say the plan was alive or under discussion — only that it was a bad idea.
Was Fayyad’s plan a subject of the White House meeting? At press time, that was as opaque as the rest of the tale. Most of the world took the meeting’s cloak-and-dagger air as a sign that Obama was squeezing Netanyahu. That could be true, but Netanyahu wasn’t sounding contrite or peeved. He said the meeting was productive and that reports of bad blood were “ridiculous.” The White House press office said the main topic, besides Iran, was “how to move forward on Middle East peace.” And Rahm Emanuel pointedly told communal leaders gathered for the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America that peace must be negotiated, that “unilateral actions should be avoided and cannot dictate the outcome.” Memo to Fayyad: Watch your step.
No, we don’t know for certain what was said at that meeting. But in the days since, all hell has broken loose. In Ramallah, Fatah militants are up in arms over Fayyad’s plan. They claim he’s plotting with Washington and Jerusalem to depose Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and take over, perhaps together with former Gaza strongman Muhammad Dahlan. Abbas, of course, recently announced that he won’t run for reelection as president of the Palestinian Authority. As for Dahlan, he was happily channeling Fayyad to Israeli reporters, warning of a Palestinian bid for Security Council recognition if negotiations don’t succeed.
In Jerusalem, leaders of the opposition Kadima party are up in arms for much the same reason. The party’s number-two, former army chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, announced his own surprise plan for “provisional” Palestinian statehood on November 8, while Netanyahu was en route to Washington. Mofaz’s rivals call it a plot to depose party leader Tzipi Livni.
If you’re thinking that all this plan-making and name-calling looks a lot like the congressional health care debate, you’ve got a point. It’s not pretty to watch, but it seems to be headed somewhere. The end result surely won’t be what anyone had in mind at the start. But, as Lennon said, what you get isn’t always what you planned.
Contact J.J. Goldberg at goldberg@forward.com and visit his blog at blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
You've successfully signed up!
The founding of a Palestinian state is perceived by the Palestinians themselves as an interest of Israel. Indeed, it is our interest that a Palestinian state be founded. It will be expected to be the ultimate tool that will deal with all the issues of the Palestinian people, now the citizens of their own state. That is the very reason that the Palestinians will not declare the founding of their state. What stops the Hamas from declaring the establishment of a state in the territory over which they have control? When you declare independence, all the residents of the territory of the new state are understood to be its citizens. I understand that the founding of a Palestinian state, not within the framework of an end of conflict with Israel, will be by definition in conflict with Israel. Yet, how could a person be both a citizen of the new state of Palestine - and at the same time be a "refugee" (most likely, a descendant of refugees), demanding the right to live in Jaffa or Ashdod? No, the founding of a state will tie their hands in the fight against Israel. They won't go for it.
If palestians really want peace and their own state, the only thing they should do, is to declare the end of terror and to recognize Israel's right for existence . The day after such a declaration, the international community will put enormous pressure on Israel, so it will simply have no choice, but to withdraw.
But in this case, palestinians will have to start building their own economics, social institutions etc. And it seems to them much harder, then making home-made rockets and smuggling weapons from Iran (and to receive Iranian and Arab money for the "resistance" of course).
I'm starting to get the feeling that all the deals have been cut. The one thing that could sink them is if they were formally announced. By that I mean, the death of all agreements is the signing ceremony. Cut the deal in private. Live by it, and pretend nothing has been agreed to. That way, life can go on in a semi-normal way and no one can be accused of "selling out" because there is no "deal".
I kinda like it. I think.
The PNA plan is available for all to see & read at http://miftah.org/Doc/Reports/2009/PNA_EndingTheOccupation.pdf
The Lakota Sioux declared independence from the United States back in December of 2007 and issued their own passports. Has anyone taken notice? Maybe if they acquired some rockets and suicide belts from Iran somebody might. The Tamil Tigers seeking independence for the Tamil minority was finally crushed a few months back by the Sri Lankan army, and thousands of civilians were killed in the last days of that war. And the Tamils actually carried out more suicide bombings than all the Muslim suicide bombings combined! But did anyone outside of Sri Lanka know or care?
It doesn't matter what the Palestinians do or think. What matters is what Israel says and does about it. But the Jews and Israel are so internally divided that the outside world sees its weakness and division and takes advantage of it. The simple fact is, the world loves a winner and pities and actually despises a loser. When Israel looked like and acted like a winner, it was well recieved and treated well. But when Jews openly attack Jews, well, Lincoln said it best: A house divided must fall.
A fake Prime Minister for the a country and people that have never existed. The Fakestinian occupiers should go back to homeland of Arabia. Israel belongs to the Jews!