The pan-Arab newspaper Ashraq Alawsat based in London reported on December 25, 2010 that the Palestinians have adopted another strategy in an attempt to gain international recognition of a Palestinian state. “Indeed, the Palestinian side has achieved success in this regard, particularly in Latin America, with Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia officially recognizing an independent state of Palestine …, and Uruguay, Ecuador, and Paraguay expected to officially recognize the State of Palestine,” the paper said.
And it now appears that the 27 incorporated states of the European Union are ready to follow the Latin American states in recognizing a Palestinian State along the 1967 borders, with France and Norway in the lead.
This hasty and deliberate act of support for a Palestinian state can only be attributed to the following: a) an act of defiance against the U.S., and the triumph of the radical axis of Chavez (Venezuela), Ahamdinejad (Iran), their new friend Lula of Brazil, and others (such as Cuba’s Castro); b) the failure of the Obama administration to exert its influence in South America. Obama’s appeasement of the aforementioned radicals convinced Argentina, Uruguay and other traditionally friendly states to go with the “strong horse” represented by Chavez in Latin America; c) the Latin Americans, much like the Europeans, seek to ingratiate themselves with the Arabs, and the greater Muslim world, and they do so believing that such action – which will be harmful to Israel — poses no serious consequences to them.
Given the large Arab populations in many of the Latin American countries, especially Argentina and Brazil, recognition of a Palestinian state will not have any negative domestic consequences either. It will, however, adversely impact the prospects of a real peace between Arab Palestinians and Israeli Jews.
The Fatah-led Palestinians of the West Bank, apart from their rivals, the Islamic Hamas of Gaza, are seeking to declare statehood unilaterally. They deliberately pulled out of negotiations with Israel, despite Israel’s concession of a 10-month building freeze, which ended last September.
In truth, Abu Mazen’s (Mahmoud Abbas) unelected regime, which failed to stand for elections last January, has chosen the same path Arafat took in the aftermath of the July 2000 Camp David Summit with President Bill Clinton and Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
When the moment of truth arrived, and all that was left to do after Barak had offered deep unilateral Israeli concessions was for Arafat to agree to a declaration of “End of Conflict,” Arafat turned away. He, the revolutionary who fought the Jews all of his adult life and encouraged others to join him, could not end the bloody conflict – possibly for fear it would end him.
For Arafat, much like Abu Mazen, real peace with Israel was a non-starter. The dream for Arafat, and now for Abu Mazen, was to delegitimize the Jewish State and take it over – if not at once, then in stages. And the only deal Abu Mazen would sign is one in which he does not have to make a real peace: a people-to-people peace, or a real end of conflict. He could sign on to a “sort-of-peace,” that we in the West would consider a long cease-fire, but he will never agree to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jews, as he recently stated.
Pages: 1 2