The Palestinian issue is becoming more complicated

The United States gives Israel money, arms, and advice. Israel takes the money, it takes the arms, and it rejects the advice

The State visit to Bangladesh by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has underlined once again the commitment of our country for Palestine achieving sovereign statehood. Discussion carried out at various levels between the leadership of Bangladesh and Palestine also reiterated the willingness of both parties to further socio-economic engagement in different sectors. This was an important visit given the recent evolution taking place in the international arena with regard to Palestine.

The latest run of events started with the dramatic vote on 23rd December in the United Nations Security Council. It marked the final chapter in President Barack Obama's troubled relationship with Netanyahu. The vote - in which the United States allowed a resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction to pass-- offered a glimpse of how Trump, the then President-elect and the Israeli Prime Minister intended to overhaul the relationship between their two countries. They stood shoulder-to-shoulder and undertook tense diplomatic maneuvering ahead of the vote.  The Israelis enlisted Trump in a bid to stop the submission of the Resolution. They influenced Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, whose government originally drew up the resolution and tried to persuade him to withdraw the Resolution. This effort however did not prevail. The resolution passed on a 14-0 vote, with the US abstaining. The vote was a blow for Israel as the world effectively lined up to censure its settlement building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which many nations see as an obstacle to stalled peace talks and the ever more elusive notion of a Palestinian state. Samantha Power, the former US Permanent Representative to the UN at the time of the vote also took the opportunity to caution the Trump Administration that it should refrain from flouting decades of US foreign policy. She stated- "The United States has been sending the message that the settlements must stop privately and publicly for nearly five decades, through the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush -- and now Barack Obama." 
The resolution exacerbated divisions between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump Administration.
The response from Trump, Netanyahu and some members of the US Congress was most unfortunate. Trump tweeted after the vote that in the “U.N. things would be different after January 20th (2017)” when he would be sworn in as President. Netanyahu’s Office also issued a statement that "Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution".  Obama's foes in Israel and in the U.S. Congress also remarked angrily that that by failing to veto the resolution, the outgoing President had turned his back on diplomatic precedent under which Washington had shielded Israel at the UN. 
Analysts felt that the Obama administration through this action had constructed a footnote for history. The US decision not to veto the move was not only a clear statement of frustration with Israel from the departing Obama Administration but also their indication that the Administration believed that its two failed efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians had foundered on a refusal by the Israeli government to renounce settlement building. Trump and Netanyahu on the other hand used the UN resolution to make a statement about the future and the clear intention of the Trump Administration to engineer a sharp shift in US policy toward Israel, aligning his administration closer to Netanyahu's right-wing Likud-led coalition.
The sensitivity of the situation has increased with President Trump’s expressed vow of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, breaking with the practice of several of his predecessors who campaigned saying they would move the Embassy during their campaigns but refrained from such action once they were in the White House. Trump's nominee to become the next Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has also been an outspoken supporter of Israeli far-right settler groups and has repeatedly cast doubt on the notion of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.  Such a measure is being considered despite critics pointing out that moving the Embassy, in all likelihood would inflame Arab opinion and make it difficult for the US to ever broker a peaceful accord between Israel and the Palestinians in future. It needs to be remembered here that the Palestinians see Jerusalem, which is sacred to Islam, Christianity and Judaism, as the future capital of their proposed future state. It is also generally agreed within more than one hundred countries who have recognized Palestine as an independent entity that a decision to move the US Embassy might cause outrage among Palestinians and could erupt into violence. It is also felt that this measure would likely pile pressure on Arab allies of the US to condemn the move, complicating Trump's other priorities - notably getting more involvement from US allies in the Gulf for an escalated operation to crush ISIS. It has also been observed by political commentators that moving the U.S. Embassy and undertaking such an open shift toward Netanyahu could cause fissures in Trump's relations with some European allies already deeply perturbed by several of his recent decisions. It could also increase interest around the world in the boycott, divestments and sanctions movement (BDS) led by Palestinians to punish Israel. 
It would be pertinent to recall here the initial efforts of former President Obama in this regard. In April 2009 in Cairo Obama had solemnly pledged to do everything in his power to bring about Palestinian statehood. He had also identified the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank as the principal obstacle to the emergence of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. In this context Obama had subsequently confronted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu several times with a demand for a complete settlement freeze but each time the President had backed down. Netanyahu demonstrated through his action that he was more interested in land than in peace. Obama initiated his effort through George Mitchell, the architect of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland but he resigned two years later. This was carried forward by John Kerry who succeeded Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State but he was also unsuccessful. Between 2009 and 2014, settlements in the Palestinian occupied areas were expanded by at least 23 percent under Netanyahu's leadership. There have also been a record number of Palestinian home demolitions in 2016. Despite this flagrant abuse of international law, last September. President Obama signed an agreement to give Israel US $ 38 billion in military aid for the period (2018-2028). This was a reflection of Israel’s degree of influence within the different corridors of U.S. power.  
One commentator has observed in this regard that US gives Israel money, arms, and advice. Israel takes the money, it takes the arms, and it rejects the advice.
Despite the controversy created by Trump and Israel, the adoption of the U.N. Security Council Resolution of 23 December encouraged nearly 70 countries and members of different civil society groups to convene a Conference on Palestine in Paris in the third week of January, 2017. It was directed towards the exploring of ways to restart long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts which has placed leaders from the two sides at odds. Participants led by French President Francois Hollande tried to agree on measures aimed at ensuring the support of the international community for the two-state solution as a reference for future direct negotiations. The summit ended with delegates warning that neither side should take unilateral steps that could jeopardise future negotiations. 
Abbas termed the effort as positive but Netanyahu dismissed the Conference and said that Israel was not bound by the outcome of the meeting.  He also characteristically, assured of support from the new U.S. Administration, stated that the meeting "is not going to obligate us. It's a relic of the past; it's a last gasp of the past before the future sets in."  This was a reflection of the views of the the settler movement which not only holds important political power in Israel as key constituents of Netanyahu's coalition but also is pushing hard for more construction in the West Bank. In response to Netanyahu's comments, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an Abbas aide, commented that the international community must "stress to the Israeli government that its rejection of the international resolutions will not bring anything but more instability to the area".  
It would be significant to mention here in this regard two important data- that since October 2015, 247 Palestinians, 40 Israelis, two Americans, a Jordanian, an Eritrean and a Sudanese national have been killed in a wave of violence in the disputed areas, according to an AFP news agency count and that a poll conducted last year suggests that a slight majority of Palestinians - 51% - and Israelis - 59% - still support the two-state solution. This is despite the high degree of mutual mistrust. 
Al-Jazeera interestingly on 19 January informed that Russia has been very involved in trying to build bridges between the different factions within the Palestinian community- Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, as well as those existing within the Palestinian diaspora. This is being attempted to create a Palestinian unity government given the new global reality that is unfolding after the US Presidential election. The re-emergence of Russia as a key player in the intra-Palestinian political domain is indicative of this new global order. The Moscow declaration in the third week of January about forming a Palestinian unity government was an outcome of intense meetings over the past month in Doha, Montreux in Switzerland, Cairo, Lebanon, and finally Moscow. Alaa Tartir of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network has reported that such a government would be political and not technocratic in nature, and would be responsible for fulfilling three main goals: unifying the public-sector institutions between Gaza and Ramallah; addressing the urgent issues related the Palestinian security sector, electricity and reconstruction of Gaza; and preparing for Palestinian National Council, Palestinian Legislative Council, local and presidential elections. 
Despite all these developments the existing stakes have been raised once again by Israel on 6th February through the Israeli Knesset controversially voting and approving by 60 to 52 a contentious Bill. It retroactively legalizes thousands of settler homes built on privately owned Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank. This has drawn widespread anger from Palestinian leaders and rights groups. We have an interesting year ahead. President Abbas’s visit to Bangladesh so soon after the Moscow initiative has underlined the importance that Palestine attaches to Bangladesh and the constructive role that Bangladesh can play in upholding Palestinian interests within the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other international bodies. 
The writer is a former Ambassador and Chief Information Commissioner of the Information Commission, is an analyst specialized in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance, can be reached at )

 

 

The Palestinian issue is becoming more complicated

The United States gives Israel money, arms, and advice. Israel takes the money, it takes the arms, and it rejects the advice

The State visit to Bangladesh by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has underlined once again the commitment of our country for Palestine achieving sovereign statehood. Discussion carried out at various levels between the leadership of Bangladesh and Palestine also reiterated the willingness of both parties to further socio-economic engagement in different sectors. This was an important visit given the recent evolution taking place in the international arena with regard to Palestine. The latest run of events started with the dramatic vote on 23rd December in the United Nations Security Council. It marked the final chapter in President Barack Obamas troubled relationship with Netanyahu. The vote - in which the United States allowed a resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction to pass-- offered a glimpse of how Trump, the then President-elect and the Israeli Prime Minister intended to overhaul the relationship between their two countries. They stood shoulder-to-shoulder and undertook tense diplomatic maneuvering ahead of the vote. The Israelis enlisted Trump in a bid to stop the submission of the Resolution. They influenced Egypts President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, whose government originally drew up the resolution and tried to persuade him to withdraw the Resolution. This effort however did not prevail. The resolution passed on a 14-0 vote, with the US abstaining. The vote was a blow for Israel as the world effectively lined up to censure its settlement building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which many nations see as an obstacle to stalled peace talks and the ever more elusive notion of a Palestinian state. Samantha Power, the former US Permanent Representative to the UN at the time of the vote also took the opportunity to caution the Trump Administration that it should refrain from flouting decades of US foreign policy. She stated- The United States has been sending the message that the settlements must stop privately and publicly for nearly five decades, through the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush -- and now Barack Obama. The resolution exacerbated divisions between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump Administration. The response from Trump, Netanyahu and some members of the US Congress was most unfortunate. Trump tweeted after the vote that in the U.N. things would be different after January 20th (2017) when he would be sworn in as President. Netanyahus Office also issued a statement that Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution. Obamas foes in Israel and in the U.S. Congress also remarked angrily that that by failing to veto the resolution, the outgoing President had turned his back on diplomatic precedent under which Washington had shielded Israel at the UN. Analysts felt that the Obama administration through this action had constructed a footnote for history. The US decision not to veto the move was not only a clear statement of frustration with Israel from the departing Obama Administration but also their indication that the Administration believed that its two failed efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians had foundered on a refusal by the Israeli government to renounce settlement building. Trump and Netanyahu on the other hand used the UN resolution to make a statement about the future and the clear intention of the Trump Administration to engineer a sharp shift in US policy toward Israel, aligning his administration closer to Netanyahus right-wing Likud-led coalition. The sensitivity of the situation has increased with President Trumps expressed vow of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, breaking with the practice of several of his predecessors who campaigned saying they would move the Embassy during their campaigns but refrained from such action once they were in the White House. Trumps nominee to become the next Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has also been an outspoken supporter of Israeli far-right settler groups and has repeatedly cast doubt on the notion of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Such a measure is being considered despite critics pointing out that moving the Embassy, in all likelihood would inflame Arab opinion and make it difficult for the US to ever broker a peaceful accord between Israel and the Palestinians in future. It needs to be remembered here that the Palestinians see Jerusalem, which is sacred to Islam, Christianity and Judaism, as the future capital of their proposed future state. It is also generally agreed within more than one hundred countries who have recognized Palestine as an independent entity that a decision to move the US Embassy might cause outrage among Palestinians and could erupt into violence. It is also felt that this measure would likely pile pressure on Arab allies of the US to condemn the move, complicating Trumps other priorities - notably getting more involvement from US allies in the Gulf for an escalated operation to crush ISIS. It has also been observed by political commentators that moving the U.S. Embassy and undertaking such an open shift toward Netanyahu could cause fissures in Trumps relations with some European allies already deeply perturbed by several of his recent decisions. It could also increase interest around the world in the boycott, divestments and sanctions movement (BDS) led by Palestinians to punish Israel. It would be pertinent to recall here the initial efforts of former President Obama in this regard. In April 2009 in Cairo Obama had solemnly pledged to do everything in his power to bring about Palestinian statehood. He had also identified the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank as the principal obstacle to the emergence of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. In this context Obama had subsequently confronted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu several times with a demand for a complete settlement freeze but each time the President had backed down. Netanyahu demonstrated through his action that he was more interested in land than in peace. Obama initiated his effort through George Mitchell, the architect of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland but he resigned two years later. This was carried forward by John Kerry who succeeded Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State but he was also unsuccessful. Between 2009 and 2014, settlements in the Palestinian occupied areas were expanded by at least 23 percent under Netanyahus leadership. There have also been a record number of Palestinian home demolitions in 2016. Despite this flagrant abuse of international law, last September. President Obama signed an agreement to give Israel US $ 38 billion in military aid for the period (2018-2028). This was a reflection of Israels degree of influence within the different corridors of U.S. power. One commentator has observed in this regard that US gives Israel money, arms, and advice. Israel takes the money, it takes the arms, and it rejects the advice. Despite the controversy created by Trump and Israel, the adoption of the U.N. Security Council Resolution of 23 December encouraged nearly 70 countries and members of different civil society groups to convene a Conference on Palestine in Paris in the third week of January, 2017. It was directed towards the exploring of ways to restart long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts which has placed leaders from the two sides at odds. Participants led by French President Francois Hollande tried to agree on measures aimed at ensuring the support of the international community for the two-state solution as a reference for future direct negotiations. The summit ended with delegates warning that neither side should take unilateral steps that could jeopardise future negotiations. Abbas termed the effort as positive but Netanyahu dismissed the Conference and said that Israel was not bound by the outcome of the meeting. He also characteristically, assured of support from the new U.S. Administration, stated that the meeting is not going to obligate us. Its a relic of the past; its a last gasp of the past before the future sets in. This was a reflection of the views of the the settler movement which not only holds important political power in Israel as key constituents of Netanyahus coalition but also is pushing hard for more construction in the West Bank. In response to Netanyahus comments, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an Abbas aide, commented that the international community must stress to the Israeli government that its rejection of the international resolutions will not bring anything but more instability to the area. It would be significant to mention here in this regard two important data- that since October 2015, 247 Palestinians, 40 Israelis, two Americans, a Jordanian, an Eritrean and a Sudanese national have been killed in a wave of violence in the disputed areas, according to an AFP news agency count and that a poll conducted last year suggests that a slight majority of Palestinians - 51% - and Israelis - 59% - still support the two-state solution. This is despite the high degree of mutual mistrust. Al-Jazeera interestingly on 19 January informed that Russia has been very involved in trying to build bridges between the different factions within the Palestinian community- Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, as well as those existing within the Palestinian diaspora. This is being attempted to create a Palestinian unity government given the new global reality that is unfolding after the US Presidential election. The re-emergence of Russia as a key player in the intra-Palestinian political domain is indicative of this new global order. The Moscow declaration in the third week of January about forming a Palestinian unity government was an outcome of intense meetings over the past month in Doha, Montreux in Switzerland, Cairo, Lebanon, and finally Moscow. Alaa Tartir of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network has reported that such a government would be political and not technocratic in nature, and would be responsible for fulfilling three main goals: unifying the public-sector institutions between Gaza and Ramallah; addressing the urgent issues related the Palestinian security sector, electricity and reconstruction of Gaza; and preparing for Palestinian National Council, Palestinian Legislative Council, local and presidential elections. Despite all these developments the existing stakes have been raised once again by Israel on 6th February through the Israeli Knesset controversially voting and approving by 60 to 52 a contentious Bill. It retroactively legalizes thousands of settler homes built on privately owned Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank. This has drawn widespread anger from Palestinian leaders and rights groups. We have an interesting year ahead. President Abbass visit to Bangladesh so soon after the Moscow initiative has underlined the importance that Palestine attaches to Bangladesh and the constructive role that Bangladesh can play in upholding Palestinian interests within the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other international bodies. The writer is a former Ambassador and Chief Information Commissioner of the Information Commission, is an analyst specialized in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance, can be reached at )