The latest Palestinian obfuscation: Unilateralism

Unilateralism is bad when Israel practices it. Go read back a few years to hear the left shrieking about Ariel Sharon withdrawing from Gaza unilaterally, instead of working with the PA (or at least, pretending to work with them so they could get the credit for it). Hamas would claim victory, everyone said. Yes, they were right, but the point is—unilateralism is bad.

It was bad when George Bush the elder wanted to invade Iraq. He had to build a multinational force, including using pretend-Saudi pilots, in order for the war to get the go-ahead.

It was bad when George W. Bush wanted to track down the al Qaeda murderers and take them out. Didn’t matter if he was heading for Afghanistan or Iraq, the world shrieked about unilateralism and said that Cowboy George should not go it alone, but should get the world on his side first.

Now the Palestinians are threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state. (They already did in 1988, and you can see how far that declaration got them.) But I hear no chorus of pundits and heads of state insisting that unilateral actions are the wrong way to go. In fact, the silence is deafening. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is misdirection. Why are the Palestinians suddenly threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state? Because they refuse to come back to the negotiating table with Israel. And since the Obama administration has made it clear that it will no longer accept the excuse of settlement building as a reason not to negotiate, the Palestinians have come up with a little bit of misdirection that the media and Israel’s enemies can latch onto: Going to the UN to declare a state.

Oh, they don’t really believe it can happen. But that’s not the point. The point is, they’re hoping to get the world to back them on this, and to blame Israel for the lack of progress in negotiations. Will it work? Well. So far, everything else has. So let’s see how well this has worked so far today. We have three stories, three headlines, via the AP. Let’s take a look. First:

Palestinians to seek UN endorsement of statehood
Nov 15, 11:27 AM (ET)

The update:

Frustrated Palestinians to appeal to UN for state
Nov 15, 2:52 PM (ET)

And the last updated story last night:

Netanyahu Threatens to Retaliate if Palestinians Declare Statehood
Updated: Sunday, 15 Nov 2009, 10:46 PM EST

Yep. It’s working.

This entry was posted in AP Media Bias. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The latest Palestinian obfuscation: Unilateralism

  1. Sabba Hillel says:

    The “last updated story” link is invalid (http:///) Of course I always find it interesting that they keep trying to push back to the original 1947 U.N. partition plan that had a contiguous Arab section and separated Jewish sections.

  2. Michael Lonie says:

    Hmm, maybe Israel should go along with it. Call their bluff. Tell the world that Israel will recognize a Palestinian Arab state in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (not Jerusalem). Withdraw the “settlers”. The Palis may have a police force but no heavy weapons like tanks, missiles, and artillery. An infringement of sovereignty? Too bad, that’s the way it will be. If they wanted full sovereignty they should have stuck with the Oslo Accords instead of violating all their obligations. Also announce that the first time there is an attack on Israel or Israelis from Palestinian Arabs after the Pali state is established de facto (to get around the Arabs claiming that the state hasn’t really been established yet when they commit some atrocity) then Zahal will sweep in and drive everybody out of the place and take over everything from the river to the sea (to use the Arabs’ favorite expression). If they behave themselves they are safe. If they attack Israel they will be punished with the same threat that they constantly hold over Israel’s Jews.

    Oh yes, entry of non-Pali Arab/Muslim/non-Muslim military forces or import of heavy weapons (including missiles of any type) into the PA’s new state will also be a casus belli. No Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Egyptian, Russian or any other units there. No heavily armed military formations there. So long as the Palis don’t make war on Israel they will have nothing to fear from Israel. This state must not be used as a base to build up an overwhelming army to attack Israel some day.

    If some ill-intentioned other state invaded the new PA state, Zahal will come to the rescue. Having Zahal to protect them will mean the Palis have a better army protecting them than any army they could possibly build themselves. So they won’t need an army. Lucky them.

    The rest of the world will scream bloody murder, but they do that anyway, no matter what Israel does and no matter what restraints Israel fetters herself with. If the Palis cannot live at peace with Jewish neighbors let them go find neighbors with whom they can live at peace. If they want a state they can damn well live at peace with Jewish neighbors, or pay the price.

  3. Joshua says:

    Technically, I don’t think the PA is acting unilaterally, if they get the approval of the UN to declare a state. They might not have Israel’s permission, but with UN approval they could claim international support for their action. The opponents of unilateralism appear to be consistent, but to a ridiculous degree.

    The ridiculousness comes in with regard to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Yes, Israel withdrew from Gaza on its own terms, without authorization from the Palestinians, so that’s unilateral action. Yet Israel withdrawing from Gaza was something that the Palestinians had purportedly wanted for decades, and which primarily benefited the Palestinians rather than Israel. When you get something you want, you are not supposed to complain that you weren’t asked permission to have it given to you. If Bill Gates slides an envelope under my door with a million dollars in cash inside, I am not going to complain that he had unilaterally decided that he had the right to slip an envelope under my door.

Comments are closed.