While Israel is threatening to collapse the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians seem determined to seek UN recognition of statehood in September, writes Khaled Amayreh in occupied Jerusalem Israel has threatened to revoke the Oslo Accords in the case that the Palestinian Authority (PA) goes ahead with plans to obtain UN recognition of a prospective Palestinian state in September. Sources at the Israeli prime minister's bureau were quoted as saying that Israel was discussing several alternatives, including cancellation of the Oslo Accords. In practical terms, this would mean a return to direct Israeli occupation of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip) the dismantling of the PA as well as the likely outbreak of violence in the occupied territories on a large scale. One of those strongly advocating the adoption of draconian measures to counter a successful Palestinian bid to seek UN recognition and membership is the extremist Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman believes the Oslo Accords were unnecessary, harmful to Israeli interests and gave Palestinians unrealistic hopes and aspirations. However, non-conformist officials in his ministry have been quoted as saying that reneging on the Oslo Accords would be highly unproductive, given the international reactions any revocation would generate. The Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) were struck between 1993 and 1995 and are considered the legal framework for the relationship between Israel, the occupying power, and the semi-autonomous PA. Most observers in Israel and the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967 dismiss the Israeli threat as just a manoeuvre, or hollow saber rattling meant to intimidate the Palestinians. Aziz Deweik, speaker of the unfunctional Palestinian Legislative Council, said the Palestinian people and its leaderships were not going to be scared by Israeli threats with regards to the Oslo Accords. "That infamous agreement has never been an asset for our national cause and interests; the opposite is quite true, it has always been a liability and it continues to be. If Israel unilaterally cancelled these accords, it would be a kind of good riddance for us," Deweik said. Even former PA negotiator Saeb Ereikat, an advocate of the accords, was quoted as saying that the Palestinian people and the PA itself wouldn't shed any tears if Israel carried out its threats. He warned that if the United States continued to stymie Palestinian efforts to get a state recognised by the UN, the PA itself should be dismantled. "President Abbas should throw the keys in their faces," he said. The PLO official added: "If the United States wants the Palestinian official to exist, then the price is the establishment of a Palestinian state in keeping with the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital," Al-Ayyam daily newspaper quoted Ereikat as saying. Ereikat was also reported as saying that "Israel's actions on the ground effectively canceled the Oslo Accords years ago." Hence, it is highly unlikely that Israel will seriously contemplate revoking the accords, especially given the immense assets the agreement enabled Israel to possess. These assets include more effective control by Israel over the lives of millions of Palestinians, tight Israeli control of Palestinian water sources and resources, as well as having the PA security apparatus pacify the Palestinian populace on Israel's behalf. Moreover, Israel invoked the mantra of the peace process to build more settlements and Judaise the occupied Arab city of East Jerusalem. Regardless, even if its threats to dismantle the PA are but words, Israel doubtless will continue to harass the PA and make daily life for the Palestinians ever more difficult. Israel could, for example, withdraw VIP cards from PA officials, stop transferring Palestinian tax monies that Israel collects on their behalf, and seriously restrict the Palestinian movement. In the final analysis, such measures would be aimed more at forcing Palestinians to give further concessions to Israel and less to stop their quest for statehood. But it is unlikely that even such stringent measures would convince the PA to reconsider its plans in September, as this would seriously undermined the Abbas leadership in the Palestinian people's eyes. "Israel is not against the principle of Palestinian statehood. Israel would be quite happy if the Palestinians settled with a deformed state that has no viability or territorial integrity. So Israel wouldn't mind the Palestinians having a state on some parts of the West Bank, probably with some neighbourhood in East Jerusalem, as long as such a deal would enable Israel to keep all or most of the Jewish settlements intact," said Fathi Zubeidi, professor of political science at Bir Zeit University. Israeli leaders, who caused peace negotiations to break down due to their insistence on continuing unmitigated settlement expansion, have been attacking Palestinian "unilateralism" and insisting that direct negotiations are the only to progress, including the establishment of a Palestinian state. However, for the PA, Israel is the last party that can evoke Palestinian unilateralism since the Zionist state itself has been behaving and acting unilaterally and single- handedly since its creation. And as far as negotiations with the PA are concerned, Israel always seemed to use these negotiations merely as cover for building more settlements and killing whatever prospects remained for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. Hence, Palestinian disillusionment and apparent determination to act against Israeli and American wishes by seeking UN recognition and membership. In short, the Palestinians seem to be in no mood to listen to Israeli proposals that would keep them from going to the UN in September. Their mistrust of Israeli intentions is total and complete.
