by Jose V. Ciprut
Times have changed. The PLO’s duplicity, at long last, just might blow up in its face.
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 657, November 26, 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: By refusing to be
Israel’s direct interlocutor, and by turning instead to third parties in
the hope of cornering Israel into submission, while also demanding that
it be prosecuted for “war crimes,” the PLO manifests inordinate
duplicity vis-à-vis Israel. It disqualifies itself entirely from the
trust of the Jewish state. The PLO will have to face the consequences of
its actions: for, short of imperiling its own legitimacy, no “honest
broker” could abet the PLO’s double dealings much longer.
“The General Delegation of the PLO (Palestinian
Liberation Organization) to the US” – to use its formal name – is
located at 1732 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington DC. In the good old days
of the Obama administration, the delegation was granted permission to
display a flag at that address, a courtesy it has used to declare
the building an “Embassy.” This appears to be yet another case of “fake
hat, no cattle.” It is a mystery why no one bothers to refute this
illegal pretense, phony self-arrogation, abusive self-aggrandizement,
and deliberately misleading grandiloquence.
On November 22, 1974, UNGA Resolution 3236
recognized “the right” – not “of Arabs of, or in, Palestine,” not even
“of Palestinian Arabs” – but “of the Palestinian people” to
self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty “in
Palestine” (a “people,” on “its own exclusive land,” as this callously
monopolized generic name seeks to suggest). Recognizing the PLO as the
sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, UNGAR 3236
conferred upon it “observer status” at the UN.
Though it still flies the flag of a non-state, and
despite the fact that its “peoplehood” remains a project in the making,
the PLO has managed to ratchet up its status at the UN and in UN
institutions such as UNESCO and the ICC. Little wonder then that the
organization is in no hurry to settle directly with Israel the
parameters of the statehood it covets.
This phenomenon does a disservice to genuine
peoples, like Catalans and Kurds, who are by far more amply qualified to
govern themselves.
The designation “Palestine” for the PLO was
adopted by the UN – as recently as 1988 – in acknowledgment of the PLO’s
unilateral declaration of “Palestinian independence,” even though the
proclaimed Palestinian state has no formal status in the established
international system. Yet non-statehood did not disqualify the “State of
Palestine” from being “recognized” by developing countries in Africa
and Asia (the 21 member countries of the Arab League; the 56 states of
the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; and many formerly communist and
“non-aligned” G-77 states, among them) as soon as the PLO declared its
“independence” – without a referendum.
Beyond tailored lies designed to promote
“Palestine” as an entity that it is not, what the PLO seems to need
right now is self-sufficiency and well-governed societal stability. That
combination would be conducive to modern democratic rule that can
integrate rival factions, disarm rival militias, and steer a viable
economy with a capacity to generate – and to redistribute – income
fairly to its geographically, culturally, and traditionally disparate
tribal subjects.
Despite the fact that a “State of Palestine” does
not exist, it was, by September 14, 2015, already “recognized” by
136 (70.5%) of the 193 member states of the UN and two non-member
states. The label does not guarantee Palestine’s viability as a
functional entity until and unless it can also reach a “mutually just
and durable peace” agreement with the democratic Jewish state of Israel,
with which it must sincerely want to coexist. The sad realities on the
ground indicate that the conditions for such mutual concordance and
fraternal coexistence are not only nonexistent right now but
unattainable for the foreseeable future, owing to the persistent absence
of a shared ethical foundation.
The PLO can no longer credibly pretend to be
amenable to negotiating peaceful coexistence with Israel at the same
time that it refuses direct contact with it; waits for “an acceptable
final deal” to be served up by a third party; and instructs yet another
third party to prosecute its future peace partner for “serious war
crimes” – in utter disregard of binding agreements to the contrary long
known to all the stakeholders.
One cannot pretend to be ready in good faith to
engage in peace negotiations with a putative future partner whom one
formally asks the ICC to pursue and condemn for matters that should be
resolved through direct negotiation. One must not expect to continue
duping all of the parties all of the time by simultaneously undertaking
actions and contradictory counteractions. One should not abuse the
generous tolerance shown for too long by an honest broker whose patience
is not endless. And one most certainly should not get on one’s high
horse by suggesting that the foreseeable – and lawful – closure of PLO
headquarters in the US capital as a result of the PLO’s defiance of the
law of the land would result in the PLO’s irreversible discontinuation
of all peace talks to be held via US mediation. Times have changed. The
PLO’s duplicity, at long last, just might blow up in its face.
The Middle East is transforming. Lebanon’s
double-speak about the need to keep its “South” aligned with the UN
Resolution’s exigencies (“no militias”) while also asking its troops not
to provoke a conflict with Hezbollah or a war with Israel; Saudi
Arabia’s labeling of Hezbollah as a terror group; the Arab League’s
recognition of Iran as a warmonger, exporter of terror, and meddler in
regional countries’ internal affairs; Qatar’s role in the Gulf’s
disquiet; Iran’s opportunistic pursuits and direct threats to Israel’s
longevity; Assad’s gratitude to Moscow for “saving [whatever little is
left of] Syria” are not good omens for stable peace or sustainable
prosperity in this fragile, volatile, and divided region.
For the moment, the PLO’s US office will not be
closed. If it knows what’s good for it, the PLO would be well advised
henceforth to behave honestly.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family
Jose V. Ciprut is a conflict analyst, social systems scientist, and international political economist.
Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/palestinian-double-dealing/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment