Two can play at this game. Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have abandoned negotiations with Israel. They are seeking UN recognition of Palestinian statehood: statehood without peace. Already they have gained one victory: acceptance as a full member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Yet this victory may be their last.
The United States has cut off its support for UNESCO, a warning to other UN agencies to take care. Meanwhile, Israel and friends of Israel are emulating the Palestinian example: unilaterally settling issues that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate. One important example of this pro-Israeli approach is the legal case of Zivotofsky vs. Clinton, to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
The question in the case: Can a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem cite his or her birthplace as "Jerusalem, Israel" in his or her passport? Or only (as now) "Jerusalem," without any further mention of any country?
The issue might seem trivial. After all, how much does it matter what a passport says? Since the 1990s, U.S. citizens born in Taiwan have been allowed to carry passports that cite "Taiwan" as if it were a distinct country. That legal nicety neither adds to nor detracts anything from Taiwan's security with regard to its menacing neighbor on the Chinese mainland. Besides, the technical issue before the Supreme Court in Zivotofsky is not the status of Jerusalem itself. The issue is the balance of power between Congress and the executive. The Supreme Court will consider whether Congress can issue such a directive to the executive branch. And that issue is unaffected by whether the passports say "Jerusalem, Israel" or "Timbuctoo, TimHortonstan."
And yet of course everybody involved recognizes that the outcome of the Zivotofsky case will carry immense symbolic significance regardless of its practical effect. So much so, in fact, that the Obama administration has scoured the electronic records of the U.S. government to scrub every instance of any mention of "Jerusalem, Israel" in any previous administration document.
For example, until Aug. 9 of this year, the White House website carried a photo captioned: "Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, Israel, March 9, 2010." That day, the photo was recaptioned: "Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, March 9, 2010."
Why does the Obama administration care?
Think back to the president's big May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East peace process. The president identified four crucial issues for peace between Israel and the Palestinians: borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem. Previously, the United States had insisted that these issues be resolved between the parties. The United States would act as a broker, but it would not express its own view on how these issues should be resolved.
On May 19, the president departed from prior policy and expressed a view on one -- but only one -- of the four issues: borders. "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." In effect, the president allowed the Palestinian initiative at the UN to force his hand on the border question -- even as he held Israel at bay on the other three issues.
(The president's answer on security, although much vaguer than his answer on borders, was even more troubling:
"Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be co-ordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated."
Translation: In the future, Israeli security will ultimately depend on Palestinian co-operation. Good luck with that.)
The Zivotofsky case attempts to press the Obama administration on Jerusalem in exactly the same way that the Palestinians forced Obama's hand on borders: not by settling the status of Jerusalem, but by obliging the U.S. government to express an opinion on the status of Israel -- that status being, as Congress has long insisted, the rightful and permanent capital of the Jewish state.
This blog originally appeared in the National Post.
Follow David Frum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@davidfrum
‪Mahmoud Abbas's Empty Threats‬
Fatah official: Palestinians to devise new game plan
Mahmoud Abbas poised to demand prisoner releases to resume peace talks
And is Frum of the view that Abbas taking the Palestinian case to the UN this year somehow caused Israel to spend the last couple of decades taking things into their own hand and changing facts on the ground?
This article assumes that Israel has been acting in good faith. As Sarkovy just reminded us, there is not much evidence of that for the last few years anyway.
Unless Mr. Frum, thinks the application of Laws (because those are usually the basis for any legal dispute) ought to have different outcomes for different people.
In whatever case, this would prove something.
77% of "PalestineÂ" was handed over to the Arabs of the territory who have since named it Trans Jordan and then Jordan. Only 23% of the territory is controlled by Israel, and parts of it in an indirect way.
Legally, "PalestineÂ" was to be the "national home of the Jewish people" - see the Balfour DeclaratioÂn, 1917, and the San Remo Conference decisions, 1920, and has never been recognized as the national home of any other people.
And, legally, the League of Nations, with some modificatiÂons, adopted the Balfour DeclaratioÂn and the San Remo Conference decisions and designated the entire land mass between the River and the Sea as the "national home of the Jewish people", i.e. the Jewish people's nation-staÂte, a decision adopted by the United Nations, 1945, that in Article 80 of its Charter prohibit any changes to this status without the consent of the Jewish people, later to be representeÂd by the nation-staÂte of the Jewish people, Israel.
Mr. Abbas, in short, attempts to break this part of that which is dubbed 'internatiÂonal law', and some at the UN, cynically, appear to be ready to go along and spit at the UN Charter, the one under which they serve.
http://www.lastone.net.au/politics/whatbritishagreedto.jpg
You will note that Palestine is included in this area of Arab independence. The Arabs lived up to their part of this 1915 agreement. They revolted against the Turks and fought along side the British as allies.
The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a binding agreement between Great Britain and the Arabs that precedes the Balfour Declaration and invalidates it. The British could not offer Palestine as a Jewish Homeland Because they had already made an agreement to include it as part of an independent Arab state.
Trying to gain some sort of Legal legitimacy through the San Remo conference is an interesting ploy. I know of no other situation where colonial powers trade territories like spots on a monopoly board without the consultation and acceptance of the people involved is considered legal or moral of democratic.
As to the U.N. Charter I suggest that you read Article 1.2, 55, These articles relate to respect for equal rights and the right of self-determination. Which means that the Arabs of Palestine had just as much right to determine the future of Palestine as did the Jews of Palestine who were up until 1948 a minority of the population.
Furthermore, largely in the spirit of this correspondence 77% of the territory known as "Palestine" was handed over to the Arabs, while only 23% of it was written into 'international law' as being the "national home for the Jewish people"; the first represented by present day Jordan, while the latter consists of present day Israel-WestBank-Gaza.
Not really.
how about? "Jerusalem 50%, Israel"...doesn't hurt either right?
If not, you may wish to rethink what you think you know.
I mean, I support a two state solution and a shared Jerusalem, but when was that actually agreed upon as you claim above?
Nothing like seeking out objective opinion Huff (on two fronts, no less).
than South Sudan and Spain
As an aside, Jerusalem had a history prior to Judaeism. Should we priviledge neo-Egyptian religious people as the rulers of Jerusalem?
The answers to these problems are only easy as you make them seem if you arbitrarily priviledge Israeli interests over Palestinian interests, or vice-versa.
The U.S. wants an agreement where as few people have to die as possible.
I agree