ICSPR organized a workshop about the American decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and its consequences
On Wednesday, the International Commission to Support the Palestinian Rights (ICSPR) organized a workshop to discuss a statement entitled The American Decision to Recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli Capital and Transferring the US Embassy: its Political and Legal Implications and the Palestinian Options to Respond.
Many academics, politicians, researchers, lawyers and journalists attended the workshop in ICSPR headquarter in Gaza city. The researcher and political analyst Dr. Alla Abu Taha opened the discussion saying, the American decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and announcing the city as the Israeli capital was not born at the moment of announcing it. The decision came to reflect the change in the official American political position on the status of Jerusalem.
He added the Palestinian Authority (PA) remains committing to the political settlement project as a strategic option, and it is committed to all its responsibilities under Oslo Accords. The PA has not yet announced any measures that would exceed the limits of the American political settlement. Therefore, filling the case in the United Nations or the so-called internationalizing strategy cannot be alternative strategic option.
Abu Taha said, Trumps recent decision to consider Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a catalyst for the Palestinian political mind to get out of the political calcification that hit the American political settlement, and to counter this new American trend that does not only pay attention to the international legitimacy, but also came as a coup against the American political settlement project.
He stressed that the option of dissolving the authority was long ago, when the Israeli occupation forces invaded the areas that had been redeployed under the Oslo Accords, after the Israeli warplanes targeted all the headquarters of the Authority and reoccupied all the West Bank cities and after Netanyahus declaration since his victory in the 1996 elections to rethink all understandings with the Palestinians. Then the Palestinians could in turn give up their commitments towards the settlement.
Taha said the official Palestinian position was consistent with the authority and the agreements that organized its role and function. With the successive obstacles of the so-called peace process and with the escalation of the Israeli aggression on the Palestinian areas and the spread of settlements, the Two-State solution is realistically impossible on the ground especially after undermining the Palestinian Authority power and its vital functions to be limited to what the occupation sees as its interest.
He mentioned that there are three approaches to dismantle the Palestinian Authority. The first one is to call for dismantle it and put the responsibility of administrating the occupied territories on Israel who should assume its legal responsibilities towards the Palestinian people. All of this should be accompanied with enhancing the foundation of self-sustainability, and resisting the occupation by all available means.
The second approach considers the PA as a national achievement and it is the outcome of the long and arduous Palestinian political struggle to activate the identity and the political entity of the Palestinian people, so it cannot be dismantle. The third approach tries to reconcile the two previous approaches.
