The Palestinian Authority government will, within the next 48 hours, try to achieve the nine votes necessary on the 15-member United Nations Security Council to recommend a vote on formal UN General Assembly approval of their establishment of a recognized state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States has already declared that they would exercise their right as one of the five permanent members of the Council to veto any such motion that happened to pass through it.
Apparently, the Palestinian delegation hopes, in that case, to bypass the Security Council and seek a stepped-up recognition as a non-voting member state of the United Nations with a vote of approval in the General Assembly. This would give them some advantages in securing membership to various committees from which they could seek to isolate, for instance, Israeli universities as they try to cooperate with their world-wide counterparts. However, more importantly, they would be able to bring cases before the International Criminal Court where they could continuously seek to prosecute individual Israelis for alleged War Crimes. But, it would also create a potential two-edged sword whereby the Palestinians could also face the ICC for terrorism-related activity.
In point of fact, the current Palestinian Authority Government and its economic, military and administrative apparatus exist only because of the Oslo Accords’ mandated principle of “land for peace,” a principle in favor of two separate states through Palestinian disarming and negotiations with Israel. Israel, by the Accords, recognizes the PA, and gives them land to establish the makings of a state. The Palestinians disarm their armies and seek only direct negotiation with Israel. Seeking a unilateral declaration of a state, and the military exercise on behalf of the creation of this state, is strictly an abrogation by the Palestinian Government of the Oslo Accords.
The 1948 Cease-fire lines, also called the Green Line, the 1967 cease-fire lines, Jerusalem, and all the territory of Gaza and the West Bank are temporary lines until set by negotiation between the parties to the Accords. Israeli settlements are not illegal and neither is Palestinian settlement of the land. Israel has the right to draw the eventual border lines in a way that will ensure its security, a right by mandates stemming from 1967 UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and the follow-on Resolution 338.
Today, the Palestinians say that Israel is not negotiating in good faith and they therefore must break the impasse by seeking to create their state by bypassing Israel. Is this true? No, not true. In fact, I would accuse the Palestinians and the Arabs of bad faith negotiation themselves. But how does one untangle this web of charge and counter-charge? Read the history; but better yet for now, watch this video narrated by past Israeli Ambassador to the United States and current Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon: