A victory for Mahmoud Abbas.

We can not know for sure if his declaration that he will resign from the Palestinian Authority Presidency is honest, or if it is yet another public-relations trick by the Palestinian leadership. In any case, Abbas is a high-scorer on the political field.

Since his declaration, politicians and media around the world have been following the PA's activity, and analyzing every possible outcome. The media is broadcasting fear: What will happen if the PA will fall apart? How will the region stay stable?

Abbas's machinations don't impress us at The Israeli Initiative, and we certainly are not afraid. We remember that thousands of Palestinians lived peacefully in and adjacent to the State of Israel over the course of decades, many years before the Palestinian Authority. We remember that these residents had Jordanian citizenship until 1988.

We also remember that the State of Israel essentially founded the Palestinian Authority in 1994, as a part of the Oslo accords, hoping to end the conflict through "two states for two nations." This formula has only brought blood and battles. Even if it comes to fruition, it will not bring peace. All it will do is open a new chapter in the conflict: The Palestinian state will be economically and politically dependent, unable to rehabilitate the refugees, causing more frustration for those who hoped for its establishment. Eventually, this frustration will be taken out on Israel and Jordan.

So, what is everyone afraid of? The end of an illusion, propped up by funding from the international community?

The deep seated fear of Abbas's fall seems to come from a fear of recognizing the fall of the "two states for two nations" paradigm. Since the Oslo Accords, the world has continuously convinced itself that this solution is possible. Even Arafat and Abbas's refusals to Barak and Olmert's generous offers did not shatter this dream. Many still refuse to believe that this formula is a failure. Reality has slapped the world in the face over and over again, but the world turned the other cheek, continuing to stick to its belief that a Palestinian state will bring peace.

We must recognize that it is possible to dissolve the PA, and we must view such a possibility as a challenge that will force us to find a different solution - a solution that will bring a time of peace in the simplest, most basic meaning of the word, a time in which Arabs and Jews will live near each other and prosper once again.

For Ethan Bronner's article on the ramifications of Abbas's resignation and the possible collapse of the Palestinian Autority in the New York Times, see:
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10

Although the dissolution of the PA seems to be imminent to many, another option has cropped up – a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.

Some are for, some are against. Netanyahu threatened the Palestinians in return; Lieberman has proposed a new plan. It seems a political battle has begun.

The threat of a unilateral declaration means that we must be prepared. Does Israel have a diplomatic and legal response to this possibility?

Unfortunately, it seems not.

One proposed bill that has garnered much support in the Knesset, proposes to apply Israeli law to the Israeli municipalities located beyond the green line, rather than to the actual territory. In this way, Israel will not annex any of the Arab population, but will protect the status quo in Judea and Samaria and will give Israel a better legal position with the international community.

Few people know that the Israeli law is not valid in towns and cities beyond the green line (except for East Jerusalem) the way it is in the rest of Israel, although their residents are all Israeli citizens and legal residents. These areas are under martial law.

This is the main reason that, if a resident of Maale-Adumim or Ariel wants to add a room to his or her house, he needs permission from the Defense Ministry, which is under constant international pressure to stop "building in the territories." Civilian matters become political, simply because the State of Israel still has not recognized its own sovereignty over the municipalities it built.

This is not only discrimination against Israeli citizens (who, by the way, still have to pay taxes like anyone else), but also a main fault in Israeli policy.

We learn this lesson from the ruling in the Court of International Law in the Hague about the security fence. Israel asserted that building the fence in Judea and Samaria was necessary to ensure Israel's security; however, Israel did not say that the land on which the fence was built belongs to Israel. As a result, the court ruled that building the gate in "Palestinian territories" is illegal.

Even if the government decides to reach some sort of territorial compromise, Israel's avoidance of officially linking itself to Judea and Samaria will haunt the country. You can not give over territory that is not yours, and you certainly can not claim political gains from it.

Promoting this bill is an important step for Israel. Not only in granting equal legal rights for all of Israel's citizens, but also in cementing our legal and political claim over Judea and Samaria.

To read the bill proposed to the 17th Knesset, which was also signed by then Knesset-member Netanyahu:
www.knesset.gov.il
Signatures are currently being gathered for an identical bill in the 18th Knesset.

To read an article by Howard Grief on UN Resolution 242 and Israel's right to Judea and Samaria
www.acpr.org.il/pp173-grief-E.pdf