Consequences?

There should be consequences as a result of the unilateral move for Palestinian statehood by Pres. Abbas of the PA and PLO. There must be consequences for such a unilateral move against all previous bilateral agreements and negotiations. Some might applaud Abbas for taking a bold step, for drawing attention to the Palestinian cause after there has been more attention to the other Arab countries and for creating a new momentum or atmosphere. But, this maneuver was largely a PR move and an attempt to avoid serious negotiations with Israel. At all costs he must avoid an "end of conflict" agreement or recognizing Israel as a Jewish State, that would be the end of the Palestinian cause and could spell "curtains" for him. Even now, before the Security Council has voted, Hamas who rejected his initiative, are planning his downfall and replacement. Woe be to Israel if Hamas ever gets control of the West Bank.

Now immediately after the application has been submitted the Quartet (US, Russia, EU and UN) came up with an appeal, that supposedly took them four days of intense meetings to craft (?), that asks both sides to go back to the negotiating table. Israel immediately accepted this invitation, in line with PM Netanyahu's speech last Friday. Once again Abbas rejected the invitation. But, that gives Abbas the possibility of no consquences following his unilateral application. How can Abbas accept, after he has justified his application for UN recognition on the grounds that negotiations have been a waste of time as far as the Palestinians are concerned and Israel is still building and occupying settlements on what they consider Palestinian land. But the Quartet request made no mention of preconditions, indeed they oppose preconditions to negotiations, so Abbas refused. Then negative consequences should follow for him. But, once again the Palestinians may get away with it unless Israel takes action.

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz has stated that there should be negative economic consequences for the PA from its unilateral statehood bid. He refers to the monthly tax rebates that Israel pays the PA. He suggests that once the PA made such a bid, without
reference to Israel, then they broke all agreements and Israel should withhold these payments. Others have urged that the US Congress reconsider payments that the US makes to the PA, that basically allows it to survive. Why should they continue to support an organization that in effect no longer exists, but has moved unilaterally to change its status. If the Congress judges that the move by Abbas was intended to avoid negotiating peace with Israel, why should US taxpayer monies continue to be paid to support such policies.

Israel must await the vote in the Security Council in about a month, when at least because of the US veto, the application will be rejected. Then Israel must wait to see if there is a Palestinian application to the General Assembly, which there is likely to be and which will be passed by a large majority. But, while this will not have any actual legal standing, it is only advisory without the SC vote, nevertheless the Palestinians and their supporters will hail it as an actual recognition. Then Israel must act, Netanyahu must order the IDF to occupy all of the West Bank except area A, the Palestinian cities, and Netanyahu must declare those areas of dense Jewish settlement part of Israel and not part of the Palestinian State. There will be criticism of Israel as usual, but Netanyahu must make it clear that he was forced into this action by the Palestinian's unilateral maneuver. At that point the future looks uncertain. Let's hope that no country wants to go to war for the Palestinian cause and for this tiny area of land. But, it could happen. Israel must hope for the best but prepare for the worst.