The 29th of November

Still more politics, still few answers.

29 November is an important day in this part of the world.  On 29 November 1947 (here known as kaf-tet beNovember, there's a street named after it),  the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 on the Partition of Palestine. And that's where much of what happens here these days has its roots.

This year on 29 November, the United Nations General Assembly voted 138 to 9 (with 41 abstentions)  to grant the Palestinian Authority non-member observer status. The US and Canada were among the 9 that voted against the motion.

Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli PM (2006-2009, and yes, he was convicted of breach of trust in July this year) is getting lots of press for having written that the PA's UN bid is “congruent with the basic concept of the two-state solution”.

Netanyahu (aka "Bibi") said the UN vote was "meaningless"; then he said that the speech Abbas (aka "Abu Mazen") delivered at the UN that was "defamatory and venomous".  This is probably because Abu Mazen made mention in his speech of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Briefly, this is super controversial. Ethnic cleansing may refer to ongoing Israeli policies and-or more particularly to the 1948 Independence War. For Israelis 14 May 1948 is Independence Day; Palestinians call it Al-Nakba -- the Catastrophe. One of the leading Israeli historians researching and writing on what happened at the end of Mandatory Palestine is Ilan Pappe. And, if the PA has status at the UN it might start applying to join UN Agencies including the International Criminal Court...and it might pursue claims against Israel there.  The UK abstained from the vote because it couldn't get sufficient assurance that the PA would, after a successful bid, return to the negotiating table and refrain from prosecuting Israelis through the ICC.

As for the Canadian position, John Baird said:

Yesterday’s unilateral action does nothing to further the Middle East peace process. It will not change the reality on the streets of the West Bank or Gaza. This unilateral step is an impediment to peace.

Ummmm...exactly how is a vote at the UN General Assembly a unilateral action? And, why should it be assumed to be an impediment to peace? In fact, it has been said that with clear borders, the separation barrier wouldn't be needed. 

According to Haaretz earlier in November, Abu Mazen made the bid at the UN to pursue the Palestinian right to self-determination and to get back to the negotiating table to move toward a two-state solution:

Abbas, however, is determined to go ahead with his bid to the UN. The way he sees it, this is the last best chance to negotiate with Israel, backed by a sweeping international decision on the borders of the Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. It is clear to him that, when they have their own state, the Palestinians will not be able to demand the return of refugees to Israel. This order of priorities has accompanied the Palestinian position since 1988. The territorial issue is the most substantive, while the refugee issue is the main bargaining chip.

It's a beyond me to unpack this much, but you get the idea that the two sides have really different ideas -- maybe something like a chicken and an egg -- on how to move to resolution.  

In the words of Abu-Mazen "a birth certificate for the State of Palestine has been issued". Some Palestinians are celebrating; those who would prefer a single state solution are unhappy. (A single state is untenable to most Israelis because the difference in demographics makes it unlikely that a Jewish majority could be maintained.)

And, the next day Bibi ordered the building of 3000 new homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. According to Haaretz,

If built, the controversial plan would prevent territorial contiguity between the northern and southern West Bank, making it difficult for a future Palestinian state to function. 

Territorial integrity as affected by settlements is a big issue already -- the Israeli state is a mostly east-west contiguity (Tel Aviv, Modi'in, Jerusalem) and the Palestinian state is mostly north-south (Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Bethelem, Hebron).  Anyway, I don't know how to evaluate this news -- politics or policy? -- or whether it will impact anything at all.

What does it mean to Bibi's quest for re-election in January? Probably not much. He seems to have victory sealed up already. The trend in Israeli politics is to lean further to the right . What does it mean to peace talks? What does it mean to the ceasefire? Do they have any relationship?