PALESTINE DECLARE INDEPENDENCE.BY HENRY SIEGMAN

　　

The　outpouring　of　commentary　on　the　request　that　Palestinians　intend　to　submit　to　the　United　Nations　to　affirm　their　right　to　statehood　within　the　pre‐1967　borders　has　fallen　into　two　categories.　The　first　supports　the　Israeli　and　American　view　that　sees　the　Palestinian　initiative　as　endangering　the　Oslo　Accords　and　prospects　for　a　two‐state　solution.　As　described　by　President　Obama,　it　is　a　"distraction"　from　the　serious　business　at　hand.　The　second　view　supports　the　Palestinian　right　to　apply　for　UN　membership,　or　for　non‐member‐state　observer　status,　and　rejects　the　

notion　that　this　would　set　back　the　peace　process.

changing　the　rules　of　the　game　for　Israeli‐Palestinian　peacemaking.　According　to　the　prevailing　rules,　every　aspect　of　the　Palestinians’　existence　depends　on　Israel.　Whether　Palestinians　can　travel　from　town　to　town　within　the　areas　to　which　they　are　restricted,　open　a　new　business　venture,　see　their　homes　demolished　by　an　Israeli　bulldozer—indeed　whether　they　will　live　or　die—are　Israeli　decisions,　often　made　by　

However,　both　approaches　believe　that　UN　action　will　not　result　in　any　practical　changes　on　the　ground　and　that　Palestinians　will　have　to　return　to　the　U.S.‐orchestrated　"peace　process"　to　achieve　a　two‐state　solution.　And　both　have　in　common　a　profound　misreading　of　the　significance　of　the　Palestinian　initiative,　which　is　likely　to　be　transformative,　1　 　

armed　Israeli　eighteen‐year‐olds　just　out　of　high　school.　The　Oslo　Accords,　requiring　as　they　do　that　Israel　withdraw　its　occupation　in　stages　from　the　West　Bank,　were　intended　to　change　that　reality.　But　Oslo　was　quickly　undermined　by　Prime　Minister　Yitzhak　Rabin,　who　declared—"unilaterally"—that　the　dates　established　in　the　accords　for　the　withdrawals　are　not　"holy"　and　can　be　ignored　by　Israel.　Furthermore,　as　noted　by　Uri　Savir,　who　headed　Israel’s　Foreign　Ministry　at　the　time,　Rabin　had　no　intention　of　returning　the　Jordan　Valley　or　of　sharing　Jerusalem.　(He　might　well　have　changed　his　views　on　these　issues,　as　he　did　on　some　others,　had　he　not　been　assassinated　by　a　settler.)　

Although　the　Oslo　Accords　did　not　mention　a　Palestinian　state,　statehood　was　the　goal　implicit　in　the　agreement’s　terms　and　the　permanent‐status　issues　slated　for　negotiations　between　the　parties.　But　the　peace　process　overseen　by　the　United　States　was　based　on　an　unstated　principle　that　fatally　undermined　the　achievement　of　a　Palestinian　state:　that　any　change　in　the　Palestinians’　status　as　a　people　under　Israel’s　occupation　depended　entirely　on　Israel’s　consent.　This　effectively　excluded　everyone　other　than　the　occupiers　from　a　role　in　deciding　the　Palestinians’　fate.　The　UN,　which　was　established　to　assure　compliance　with　international　law　and　to　facilitate　the　self‐determination　of　peoples　living　under　colonial　domination,　was　shunted　aside.　Above　all,　this　principle　excluded　the　Palestinian　people　

themselves.　To　be　sure,　President　Obama　recently　proposed　that　negotiations　begin　at　the　1967　lines,　with　territorial　swaps.　What　he　failed　to　say　is　that　if　the　parties　cannot　reach　agreement　on　the　swaps,　the　lines　will　be　drawn　by　the　Security　Council.　Indeed,　he　said　the　opposite—that　peace　terms　cannot　be　imposed　on　Israel.　His　proposal　therefore　changed　nothing.　Netanyahu　can　continue　to　make　demands　he　knows　no　Palestinian　leader　can　accept,　and　

the　occupation　persists.　The　real　meaning　of　the　Palestinians’　decision　to　defy　the　United　States　is　that　they　will　no　longer　accept　their　occupier’s　role　in　their　quest　for　statehood.　They　demand　national　self‐determination　as　a　right—indeed,　as　a　"peremptory　norm"　that　in　international　law　takes　.　

precedence　over　all　other　considerations—and　not　as　an　act　of　charity　by　their　occupiersThe　American　insistence　on　aborting　the　Palestinians’　initiative　and　returning　them　to　a　peace　process　in　which　their　fate　remains　dependent　on　Israel　is　shameful.　It　stains　America’s　honor.　It　will　not　succeed,　for　the　Palestinian　decision　to　defy　the　American　ttle.　

demand　is　itself　a　declaration　of　independence;　that　genie　cannot　be　returned　to　the　boOn　the　ground,　little　will　be　changed　by　a　UN　affirmation　of　Palestinian　statehood.　But　nothing　will　be　the　same　again　in　the　Palestinians’　dealings　with　Israel　and　the　United　States.　The　notion　that　Israel　will　decide　where　negotiations　begin　and　what　parts　of　Palestine　it　will　keep　is　history.　It　is　sad　that　America,　of　all　nations,　has　failed　to　understand　this　simple　truth,　even　in　the　wake　of　the　Arab　Spring.　Sadder　still　is　Israel’s　continuing　blindness　not　only　to　the　injustice　but　also　to　the　impossibility　of　its　colonial　dream.　That　dream　may　now　turn　into　a　nightmare　as　the　international　community　increasingly　sees　Israel　as　a　rogue　state　and　treats　it　accordingly.　

　

Henry　Siegman　is　President　of　the　U.S./Middle　East　Project.　He　is　also　a　non‐resident　research　professor　at　the　Sir　Joseph　Hotung　Middle　East　Program,　School　of　Oriental　and　African　Studies,　University　of　London.　

　

2 　 　

PALESTINE DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM U.S. 

011　

September　22,　2Henry　Siegman