The Palestinian Authority has renewed its threat to declare Palestinian Independence unilaterally, and without negotiations. This would entail a rejection of all previous agreements and accords, and would constitute a profound threat to peace in the region and to the welfare of the Palestinian people. Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) has been rejected by both the United States and the European Union.
Talking Points
- The surest path to peace lies in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. UDI would move the region away from peace, and towards renewed conflict.
- UDI would constitute an abrogation of all accords and agreements since United Nations resolution 242, including the agreement known as the Oslo Accords that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority.
- UDI would effectively suspend a host of administrative agreements between the PA and Israel on such essential issues as access to health care, water sharing, banking, security, border control, and postal services.
- The PA has rejected successive Israeli government offers for a political-territorial settlement, including last year’s offer by PM Olmert of 93% of the West Bank plus additional lands from within Israel and free passage between the West Bank and Gaza.
- The PA has placed a series of unprecedented preconditions on any negotiations, whereas Israel has said repeatedly that it is prepared for negotiations without preconditions.
Backgrounder
Leaders of the Palestinian Authority have begun to threaten a withdrawal from peace diplomacy with Israel and a unilateral declaration of political independence as a sovereign state.
The “unilateral declaration of independence” (UDI) approach is reckless and dangerous. It would not advance the region towards peace. On the contrary, it would likely lead to increased suffering for both Palestinians and Israelis, and would create conditions that might lead to renewed violence between Israel, Palestinians, and Israel’s Arab neighbours.
UDI undermines real progress towards Palestinian Statehood and leads away from peace.
As noted by the Jerusalem Post in an editorial on November 15th, 2009, successive Israeli governments have made it clear that they are willing to support the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and in Gaza; and that they view the establishment of a stable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state as a prime Israeli strategic interest.
Successive Israeli governments have also made generous political-territorial offers for the emergence of such a Palestinian state. These offers have been rejected:
- Last year former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert made an unprecedented offer that included divided sovereignty over Jerusalem’s Arab and Jewish neighborhoods and international control of the “Holy Basin” area, Palestinian control of 93.5 percent of the West Bank, plus additional lands from Israel proper to make up the difference; all of Gaza; and free passage between Gaza and West Bank. Under Olmert’s proposal, Israel would retain some strategic settlement blocs – but all other settlements and outposts on the “Palestine” side of the border would be uprooted.
- Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak made slightly less generous offers to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in July 2000 and at Taba in January 2001.
UDI means abrogating the Oslo accords and other agreements.
The threat of UDI reflects a maximalist approach by the Palestinians that precludes any compromise around legitimate Israeli concerns and rejects commitments made under previous accords.
- UDI would effectively lay waste to UNSC Resolution 242 and the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (the Oslo accords) – the edifices upon which the entire regional peacemaking process is constructed and which were guaranteed by the international community – which call for secure and recognized borders to be negotiated between the parties.
- Specifically, the Interim Agreement established that “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.” This meant that the Palestinian side was not to declare a unilateral state, and the Israelis were not to annex the territories.
- An outright rejection of negotiations through UDI would risk throwing the region back into a period of open hostilities similar to that preceding 1967.
UDI means scuttling all existing economic, humanitarian and security accords between Israel and the PA.
There are hundreds of active agreements and protocols, including accords on access to health care, water sharing, banking cooperation, travel and borders. UDI would end these accords.
It is highly likely that Palestinian unilateralism would also lead to collapse of the PA, a Hamas political takeover, and renewed Palestinian terrorism. This would draw concomitant and harsh Israeli responses.
Israel is prepared to begin peace negotiations immediately.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday that “The way to achieve peace is through negotiations, cooperation and the agreement of both sides…There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority… and that these negotiations should be a good faith effort to reach a final peace agreement … there is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and any unilateral attempt outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us, and could entail unilateral steps by Israel…
“For Palestinians, peace will mean the dignity that comes from an independent national life and living standards that skyrocket from cooperation in tourism, trade, the economy and many other fields. In the age of peace, we will see towers rather than missiles rising up from the Palestinian territories.”
/cijainfo
@CIJAinfo