Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has definitely
crossed an international red line to vindicate a swift and firm rejection from
Netanyahu risks a diplomatic confrontation that will not develop
into a diplomatic isolation of
Summoning Israeli ambassadors to protest
Netanyahu's plans by Australia, Brazil, France, UK, Sweden, Denmark and Spain
was nonetheless an unusual international outcry because "if implemented," his "plans would alter the situation, with Jerusalem
as a shared capital increasingly difficult to achieve," according to William
Hague, thus "seriously undermining the two - state solution" of the Palestinian
-- Israeli conflict according to the French foreign ministry spokesman Philippe
Lalliot, which is a "solution without which there will never be security in
Israel," according to the Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr .
The international outcry is not against the
Israeli policy of settlements on Palestinian occupied land per se, but against
this one particular E-1 settlement, which was Netanyahu's answer to the
overwhelming recent recognition of
Because, on the ground, the site of some 4.6 square
miles (12 square km) of this settlement on
the easternmost
edge of eastern Jerusalem will close the only territorial link between the
north and south of the West Bank and sever it from East Jerusalem, the
prospective capital of the State of Palestine, thus undermining any viable and
contiguous Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 and
turning the recognition of the UN General Assembly on
November 29, 2012 as merely a Palestinian paper achievement.
The
The White House and US State Department
described the plan as "unilateral," "counterproductive," "sets back" peace
efforts, " especially damaging to efforts to achieve a
two-state solution ," " complicate efforts
to resume direct, bilateral negotiations " and " risk
prejudging the outcome " of such negotiations,
and " contrary to US policy ."
The EU high Representative Catherine
Ashton on Dec. 2 said she was "extremely concerned," described the plan as "an
obstacle to peace," condemning "all settlement construction" as "illegal under
international law," a judgment shared by
All t he five permanent
members of the UN Security Council and the United Nations called on
However, when it comes to translating their
words into action they stand helpless, to render all their statements " an audio phenomenon" as described by Abdul Bari Atwan,
the editor--in--chief of the
It is no surprise therefore
that Netanyahu is encouraged enough to insist on pursuing his plans.
The international community's
inaction could not but vindicate the expected Palestinian reaction. President
Mahmoud Abbas late on Dec. 4 chaired a Palestinian leadership meeting in
Ramallah, attended for the first time by the representatives of the rival Hamas
and Islamic Jihad movements. They decided to ask the UN Security Council to
adopt a binding resolution obliging
Netanyahu's defiance and the
Palestinian leadership's decision will both put the credibility of all the five permanent members
of the UN Security Council to an historic test: They either decide to act on
their own words or their inaction will inevitably leave the Palestinians with
the only option of defending their very existence by all the means available to
them.
For Palestinians, to be or not to be has
become an existential issue that could no longer be entrusted to international
community.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).