hotline header

An e-newsletter delivering updates and analysis on current issues about Israel and the Middle East conflict

November 23, 2010

What would the U.S. do if the Palestinians skip peace negotiations and just declare a state?

Dear Friend of FLAME:

The Palestinians, despite all efforts of the Obama administration, have steadfastly resisted entering into serious peace negotiations with Israel. Now, to circumvent negotiations, they are threatening to declare a state unilaterally and then go to the United Nations Security Council or the General Assembly for ratification.

In this week's Hotline, the ever-articulate John Bolton warns of a possible United States abstention on a United Nations Security Council resolution affirming a Palestinian state. Such U.N. support would effectively save the Palestinians the trouble of negotiations on a two-state solution with Israel, and perhaps even be a ploy to force Israel to accept 1967 cease-fire lines as its borders.

Clearly such a development would not bode well for Israel's security. However, the Obama administration recently offered Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu an assurance that the U.S. would block any Palestinian attempt to obtain international recognition of statehood. Naturally, in order to get this assurance, Israel must pay a price---yet another Israeli building freeze in the West Bank (though only for 90 days and not in Jerusalem).

President Obama's response to this new deal was, "I think it is promising." Promising? Thanks to Mr. Obama, the two sides are not even speaking to one another, yet he considers it promising that his strong-arming of Israel may, possibly, bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table, at least for a period of time.

Wouldn't it be promising if President Obama could persuade the Palestinians to publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist? Or get the Palestinians to announce that they are giving up the unrealistic notion of the right of return of refugees' relatives?

As ambivalent as Mr. Obama has been in supporting Israel, another world leader just to our north has shown himself to be avidly pro-Israel. In a bold speech at an anti-Semitism conference, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently said:

"Harnessing disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, [the attack on Israel's legitimacy] targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so . . . We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is. Of course, like any country, Israel may be subjected to fair criticism . . . But when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand . . . As long as I am prime minister . . . Canada will take that stand, whatever the cost."

What an amazing breath of fresh air. As the peace process hobbles along, President Obama can learn both from Prime Minister Harper and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton. Mr. Harper's words should convince him of the righteousness of Israel's cause. Mr. Bolton's article, below, should fortify him for dealing with the rogue notions of the Palestinians about the best way to achieve statehood.

As always, we hope you'll pass this FLAME Hotline along to friends and colleagues.

Best Regards,

Dave Nogradi
FLAME Hotline Contributor


It's critical that Americans---and especially our president and congressional representatives---understand the value of our steadfast alliance with Israel. For a concise explanation as to why it is in the U.S.'s best interests to support Israel, please read FLAME's position paper, "Israel and the United States: Is Israel an asset or a burden to our country?" We have recently published this piece in magazines and newspapers with more than 5 million in circulation and have sent it to every member of congress. If you agree that this kind of public relations effort on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to support us. Remember: FLAME's powerful ability to influence public opinion comes from individuals like you, one by one. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able---with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs---from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people.

Obama and the Coming Palestinian State

by John Bolton, The Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2010

Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, for 21 months the centerpiece of Obama administration Middle East policy, are moving inevitably toward collapse. The talks may limp past our Nov. 2 election, but they are doomed to fail.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) fully understands that the talks—and the "two state solution"—will fail. It needs a plan B. Accordingly, several ideas are circulating to skip bothersome negotiations with Israel and move immediately to Palestinian "statehood."

Two different tactical approaches have emerged. In one, the PA would persuade the United States to recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, within the pre-1967 cease-fire lines (often characterized, wrongly, as "borders"). The other option would have the United Nations Security Council call upon U.N. members to recognize "Palestine" within those lines. Critical to this second tactic is a U.S. commitment either to support such a Security Council resolution or, at a minimum, not to veto it.

In many respects, these and related gambits hearken back to the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) 1988 declaration of statehood, which was recognized by dozens of U.N. members, including many in Europe. The PLO then tried capitalizing on the declaration by seeking membership in U.N. agencies like the World Health Organization, which require members to be "states." In this way, the PLO sought to create "facts on the ground" in the international arena that it hadn't been able to establish through force.

Those efforts failed because of Washington's determined opposition within the U.N. system, and the overall effort faded away. The PLO gained no new legitimacy, although it did change its General Assembly nameplate from "Palestine Liberation Organization" to "Palestine," which passes for substance at the U.N.

This time is different. Once past Nov. 2 and faced with the impending and embarrassing collapse of direct talks, President Obama may well be moved to punish Israel or at least fashion a teachable moment out of his diplomatic failure.

The Obama administration has a jaundiced view of Israel, but actual U.S. recognition of "Palestine" seems a remote prospect in the near term. The domestic political firestorm for the president—already likely to be badly wounded in midterm elections and deeply concerned about his own prospects in two years—would simply be too much.

A more indirect but still effective course is to let statehood emerge through a Security Council resolution. Prior U.S. administrations would unquestionably have voted "no," thus vetoing such a proposal, but Mr. Obama's penchant for publicly pressuring Israel is a foreshadow that Washington may decide not to play its traditional role. While even Mr. Obama is unlikely to instruct a "yes" vote on a Security Council resolution affirming a Palestinian state and subsequent U.N. membership, one could readily envision the administration abstaining. That would allow a near-certain majority, perhaps 14-0, to adopt the resolution.

Israel would then confront a dramatic change in its international posture, facing a political equivalency with the new state of Palestine. What's more, customary international law's definition of "statehood" requires that a putative state have clear boundaries. This is why the potential Security Council resolution would refer to Palestine as a state within the "1967 borders," or some such language.

Border delineation is a zero-sum game. Right now, as in 1988-89, "Palestine" has no real borders, other than those around the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Moreover, Israel has long contended that it would never return to its pre-1967 configuration, and would instead insist on secure and defensible borders. Its extensive West Bank settlements and fortifications are concrete proof of its determination.

A Security Council resolution fixing the 1967 lines as borders would call into question even Israel's legitimacy, dramatically undercutting prospects for security and defensibility. By defining "Palestine" to include territory Israel considers its own, such a resolution would delegitimize both Israel's authority and settlements beyond the 1967 lines, and its goal of an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.

Mr. Obama has unmistakably left open the possibility of defaulting to the 1967 borders. In his September 2009 speech at the U.N., for example, he supported a Palestinian state "with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."

No one should underestimate the gravity of this threat to Israel's position, although Mr. Obama could eliminate it at a stroke if he chooses to speak out. We will soon see how hostile to Israel he is prepared to be.


How many times have you heard someone lament that Israel doesn’t have good public relations? By supporting FLAME, you help one of the world’s most powerful information efforts to spread the truth about Israel and the Middle East conflict. Please note that because FLAME is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, your donation is tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation.


If you have received this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE from a friend or colleague and you'd like to subscribe, please click here.

Our Ads and Positions | Donate | Our Letters to Editors | Our Acquisition Letters | FLAME’s Purpose | Subscribe to Hotline Alerts | Home

©2010 FLAME. All rights reserved. | Site Credits | Contact Us