The necessity of mutual concessions
At the eleventh hour, the Palestinians are playing games with us. Their representative in Germany, Saleh Abdel-Shafi, suddenly proposed that Mahmoud Abbas give up his Security Council bid for recognition as a bona fide head of state. In exchange, the European Union would vote in the General Assembly to recognize Palestine as an observer state. This is a kind of barter, or quid pro quo: The Palestinians agree not to embarrass the U.S. at the Security Council and Europe agrees to crumble in the General Assembly.
Abdel-Shafi is offering up damaged goods. The Palestinians are fully aware that they don't stand a chance at the Security Council. Either a bloc of countries prevents them from getting the nine votes their resolution needs to pass, or the safety parachute of an U.S. veto kicks in.
On the other hand, there will be a genuine struggle in the U.N. General Assembly. Israel is certain to lose the vote but hopes to recruit a "moral minority" to oppose the unilateral Palestinian move. The emerging trend appears to indicate that countries voting in favor of a Palestinian state will be those that lack power and status in the international arena, while most of the world's democracies would oppose it. The Palestinians are trying to sidestep this barricade and let's hope the Europeans don't fall into their trap.
Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!
Both sides raise ideas like Abdel-Shafi's every day. Israelis and Palestinians both demand negotiations without preconditions, and then we set them. Can we stop hiding behind our flak jackets of suspicion and instead just engage in dialogue?
Abbas has demanded that Israel provide him with a map of final borders. Absolutely not. In December 2008, Ehud Olmert presented him with a generous offer, but Abbas fled to Ramallah and didn't return in 2009. Final borders are like a gift and gifts don't come for free.
For its part, Israel is demanding Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This is justified. Ever since the idea of dividing the land -- two states for two peoples -- was officially raised 74 years ago by the Peel Commission, it was presented as a means for granting sovereignty to both Jews and Arabs. Certainly the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 was intended in this way. The Arabs rejected it, because they refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Consequently, they have consistently rejected the central U.N. decision regarding the land of Israel.
Perhaps, in an attempt to get negotiations moving, we can achieve a balance of concessions. We can avoid defining Israel's national identity and postpone a commitment to final borders. Abbas will go on demanding the 1967 lines (with territorial exchanges) and Israel will insist on recognition of its Jewish character, but both issues can be postponed until the final stage of talks.
We can still avoid a bellicose U.N. session and return to the negotiating table. Yet for this, we need mutual concessions.
Like our newsletter? 'Like' our facebook page!
