A win-win strategy for the Palestinians

[bemildred]

Everyone knows that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' bid for statehood through the United Nations Security Council will fail. Even if the Palestinians get the nine votes needed , the United States will veto it. And yet the strategy is brilliant. Why? Because the Palestinians win even if they lose.

To understand how this seemingly doomed effort is designed to work, one has to recognize the strategic game Abbas is playing. Abbas knows that time and public opinion are on his side. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can denounce the move, President Obama can end it, those opposed to it can call it foolish and self-defeating. But world reaction to Abbas' request has been overwhelmingly positive and will become increasingly so with every move by Israel and the U.S. to block it.

The Palestinians are playing a long-term bargaining game, and any move toward the goal of statehood has to be considered a victory. Statehood will not come immediately, or when a vote is taken in the Security Council. What will happen is that support for it will slowly and surely increase among average citizens around the world. The extreme positions of Israel and the United States — their refusal to pursue real efforts to allow Palestinians to rule themselves and be free of military occupation — will be increasingly revealed, and tolerance for these positions, even among Israelis and Americans, will decline. Going to the Security Council knowing the bid will be publicly and persistently rejected, therefore, is an inspired strategy. Palestinians appear peaceful and reasonable. Israel and the United States do not.

In any bargaining game, the key to success is leverage. The Palestinian Authority has two broad sources of leverage. It can implicitly condone violence under the assumption that the more costly the conflict, the more likely Israel is to make concessions. Or it can pursue a nonviolent strategy mixing protest and diplomatic pressure.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-walter-palestinianbid-20110929,0,4509403.story

[aquart]

1. LOL!

Yeah. We're all going to start caring about the Palestinians. Especially, I would guess, Egypt.

And let's not forget every Muslim's best friend, Turkey.

[Jefferson23]

2. +1 succinct and nicely done. You can only say but, but, but, for so long, then you look like

the bullshitter you are to just about everyone.

[dtexdem]

3. It is an effort to use diplomacy, the international forum that SHOULD address such things.

And it is the U.S. that will come out of it as the big loser diplomatically.

[azurnoir]

4. Thank you a beautifully written analysis of the situation n/t

[bemildred]

6. Yes.

It is rare that I see something on this subject that does not jar my intellectual sensibilities to one degee or another, but this one pulled it off. And I quite agree with the way it is framed.

[azurnoir]

7. and the jarring of sensibilities has become part and parcel

to this arena

[bemildred]

9. The other thing is, Abbas can do this over an over.

If it doesn't work the first time, he can try again.

[azurnoir]

10. yes he can indeed perhaps that's the reason for the reports that the US

is trying to starve them out as it were

[bemildred]

11. I think that story is FUD.

Not saying we might not try to "starve them out", but that story is just a threat, based on nothing much, from what I can tell.

[azurnoir]

12. I hope your right about but they have been fist shaking about it

however now that you mention it I don't think they'd keep this quiet about it

[Violet_Crumble]

5. It's a smart strategy...

From the article: 'By asking for recognition at the U.N. while scrupulously avoiding violence, the Palestinians are, finally, pursuing an intelligent foreign policy that has the prospect of isolating their adversary and bringing international opinion on their side.'

For as long as I've been following the conflict, I've seen calls by people for the Palestinians to use non-violent means to oppose the occupation. Now they're doing that, some of the same people react to the non-violent tactics of diplomacy every bit as negatively as if it was a suicide bombing...

[bemildred]

8. Well, see, it's the unilateral non-violence, that's what really ticks them off.

Nothing is more purely annoying than an enemy who fails to follow the script.

[Mosby]

13. the authors are asserting that negotiations per 242 and oslo etal

Is an "extreme position".

That's what I call a flawed premise and to think these two are university professors.

Pathetic.

[bemildred]

14. No, that's no it.

They explain what they mean with a parenthetic clause between dashes:

"The extreme positions of Israel and the United States — their refusal to pursue real efforts to allow Palestinians to rule themselves and be free of military occupation — "

As far as I can tell, there is no mention of Oslo.

[Mosby]

15. I don't read it that way

but the vague way they worded it I guess could be interpreted to mean different things. Just the other day though in his UN speech Netanyahu said he would like to sit down with Abbas in NYC to start negotiations, the authors don't think that is a "real effort" if that's not a legit opportunity to start negotiations then what is?

I also disagree that time is on the Palestinians side, people like the authors are being really irresponsible by suggesting that dilatory tactics are going to help the Palestinians. Honestly if I were Israeli or a Palestinian leader I would pretty much ignore "pundits", they don't necessarily care about either side, just care about crafting a nice provocative oped like this one that gets published in a big american paper.

[azurnoir]

16. Perhaps time is on Israel's side because if1/2 a million isn't enough perhaps 3/4 million will be

the question is how long will it take Israel to transfer a substantial additional number of its citizens to the occupied territories, but with the price of housing in Israel being in the state its in who knows, maybe not so long at all?

[bemildred]

18. The parenthetical phrase is there to elaborate on what precedes it.

It serves no other purpose in the sentence, hence it clearly IS what they mean by "extreme position". One need not agree with their characterization, but one ought to admit that it is what it is.

Both Abbas and Bibi have stated their terms for startng negotiations, both have pre-conditions (for Abbas: 67 borders and settlement freeze, for Bibi: "Jewish State" etc.)

As for whom has time on their sides, only time will tell for sure.

[shira]

17. "The extreme positions of Israel and the United States".......hahahahaha!

Funny how the authors of the OP aren't aware of, nor do they mention the PA's application to the UN was based on the 1947 Partition borders......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x365993

It was most likely Hamas' idea, now that they're in the gov't with the PA and have a voice.....
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=221824

But of course it's Israel and the USA who are extreme, not Hamas and Fatah. The preferred "progressive" narrative demands that Palestinians - including Hamas - are reasonable and can make peace and that to criticize them is racist or bigoted. It's best to not even mention Hamas and their goals WRT the "reasonable" UN bid. Or that Palestinian refugees are against it. J-Street is against it. Better to just pretend and blame the USA and Israel instead. This is a progressive cause and we can't have anyone thinking Palestinian demands are extreme. Besides, who wants to admit that a cause they've supported so strongly is at its core evil?