Doc's Talk: Latin America's Support for a Palestinian State

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Latin America's Support for a Palestinian State

Stratfor

Summary

Argentina and Brazil recently recognized a “free and independent” Palestinian state, and Uruguay expressed its intention to do the same. The latest endorsements from Latin America are part of a campaign by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to rally support for his government and apply pressure on Israel to freeze settlement activity as a means of restarting the peace process. While Latin America has long been the scene of territorial recognition battles, there is little reason to believe this latest campaign will produce any meaningful change in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Analysis

In a letter to Palestinian National Authority (PNA) leader Mahmoud Abbas published Dec. 6, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said her country recognizes an independent Palestinian state as defined by the 1967 borders. On Dec. 4, Brazil’s Foreign Ministry announced that Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had sent a similar letter to Abbas recognizing the Palestinian state, a decision it said was “in line with Brazil’s historic willingness to contribute to peace between Israel and Palestine.” Earlier, on Nov. 12, Uruguay publicly announced its intention to recognize an independent Palestinian state and said it plans to set up a diplomatic mission there in 2011.

Nearly 100 countries recognize an independent Palestinian state, including most Arab countries, a large number of African countries and India, China, South Africa and Turkey. The latest wave of recognition on the part of Latin America stems from a campaign by Abbas to build pressure on Israel to commit to a settlement construction freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to break the current stalemate in peace talks. Abbas has upped his usual threat to resign with bolder threats to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state or dissolve the PNA altogether.

There are a number of pitfalls to Abbas’s plan. Adding more names to the list of countries that recognize a Palestinian state may add to the PNA’s credibility in pushing for Israel to act, but there is little reason to believe the Israeli government will respond favorably to these moves. The more Israel feels it is on the defensive, the more pressure will be put on the United States to fend for its ally. Indeed, the United States appears to have been taken by surprise by the latest announcements by Brazil and Argentina, and some lawmakers in the U.S. Congress are already lambasting these governments. U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has been trying to improve its image in the Middle East by appearing more forceful with Israel in demanding a freeze on settlement construction, but will find it more difficult to take a strong stance on the issue the more Israel feels isolated and the more pressure the administration faces in Congress to come to Israel’s defense. Moreover, rather than responding to low-level pressure from states that recognize a Palestinian state, Israel will typically make temporary concessions on settlement building as part of its broader negotiations with the United States, especially when those negotiations concern more pressing issues, such as Iran. In a more recent example, Israel’s decision to engage in peace talks hosted by Washington had little to do with the Palestinians themselves and was instead driven by Israel’s desire to mend relations with the Obama administration and seek help in dealing with both Turkey and the Iranian nuclear affair.

Israel fully understands that the Palestinians lack both a credible leader and a negotiating team. Not only are the Palestinian territories divided geographically, politically and ideologically between the Islamist Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the secular Fatah-controlled West Bank, but Abbas can barely speak for his own Fatah party. This is a situation that Israel would prefer to maintain, as it eases the pressure to engage in meaningful negotiations. Abbas’s latest set of threats are therefore likely hollow. Unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state will only create further problems between the PNA and its donors in Europe and the United States. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who met with Abbas on Dec. 6, is believed to have told the Palestinian leader that such a move would be counterproductive and would make it appear as though the Palestinians are politically immature and unfit for negotiations. Dissolving the PNA would also run the risk of producing a revolt within Fatah, giving Hamas more room to expand its power by exploiting fissures within Fatah.

Though Abbas is severely lacking options in trying to push negotiations forward, his plight could help countries that are seeking diplomatic attention, such as Brazil and Turkey. Both countries have been promoting themselves as mediators to the Middle East’s thorniest affairs, from the Iranian nuclear controversy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such promotion helps build broader diplomatic credentials as both countries seek to expand their regional prowess, while also providing the opportunity to present their foreign policy agendas as distinct from that of the United States. Turkey actually has enough influence in the region to involve itself in these issues, but Brazil is taking a leap across the Atlantic in trying to present itself as a credible stakeholder in the region. Though STRATFOR has heard some quiet consternation from some Brazilian diplomats, from the standpoint of the current Brazilian administration, recognizing Palestine is a relatively low-cost foreign policy move. Brazil would be the last of the BRIC countries (the emerging states of Brazil, Russia, India and China) to do so and has already asserted its support for a Palestinian state. Moreover, such a move could help Brazil garner more Arab support for its bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. Brazilian bilateral trade with Israel remains low — about $748 million in 2009 — so Brazil is not risking a major trade loss with this decision. Argentina’s trade volume with Israel likewise remains low, totaling $356 million in 2009. In announcing Argentina’s recognition of a Palestinian state, Fernandez mentioned that all Mercosur members (full-members include Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay) had reached a consensus on a Palestinian state. Conveniently, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay decided to move forward with Palestinian recognition after they had already signed a free trade agreement with Israel in late 2007.

Those countries that have taken part in this latest recognition campaign are likely to experience some diplomatic friction with the United States, but the timing may also be more conducive to make such statements now that Washington is acting more apologetic to its diplomatic partners following the Wikileaks affair. Just as the Taiwanese have discovered in their checkbook diplomacy with against China, Latin America has provided the PNA with an opportunity to expand its list of supporters. However, diplomatic grandstanding aside, these gestures are unlikely to have any real or practical impact on the current intractability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk