The European Union is a witness signatory to the Oslo Interim Accords which continue to govern relations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel until a negotiated final peace deal. If the EU were to back a premature resolution at the UN to endorsing a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines, it would severely undermine its integrity as an honest broker. Europe’s credibility test is whether or not it will reject the Palestinian unilateral gambit.
Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, explains in the documentary entitled, "Give Peace a Chance" produced by European Coalition for Israel (ECI) :"The original Oslo agreements, the first one in 1993, the big Oslo agreement in 1995 - known as the 'Interim agreement', had a clause in them known as 'Article 31' and it said,Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Srip pending (or prior to) the outcome of the Permanent Status Negotiation. (Oslo Interim Agreement, September 29, 1995)
"If the Palestinians try and change the status of the territory, without negotiating with Israel, that is a unilateral act which violates this commitment."Dore pointed out that this was particularly important for Europe: "When the interim agreement was signed with that Article (31) clause, at the White House with former president Bill Clinton, the European Union signed the agreement, as well, as a witness. Therefore, Gold said, "If EU countries decide to support the Palestinian move in the UN - in contravention - of that Palestinian commitment in Oslo, what they're essentially doing is lending a hand to a violation of an agreement to which they're also signatories. The immediate question in Israel will be, who would ever rely on the European Union again to be involved in the peace process when they violate the very agreement that it itself signed?"European Union foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton has not committed the EU to a position on the upcoming planned bid for statehood by the Palestinian Authority at the United Nations in September, but she has clearly expressed support to the PA's side in a meeting with Palestinian officials, " I know from everything that has been said already today that your strong desire to put in place the institutions for your state is a key part of the work that you're doing, as you build towards that moment, when you will have your state."While the world continually asks of Israel, "why don't you recognize the rights of the Palestinians to a Palestinian State? That same demand is not being made of the Palestinian side, by telling the Palestinians 'You must recognize the rights of the Jewish people to a nation state of their own whose roots are in International Legitimacy and International proposals going back to San Remo, and to the British Mandate (Mandate for Palestine ) by the League of Nations.'In fact, the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas maintains that he will not accept the Jewish State of Israel. The chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) told a Jordanian newspaper in August, 2011: "Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it."The Legal Foundations of Modern IsraelDr. Jacques Gautier, an International Human Rights Lawyer, whose focus for the past 25 years has been on the Legal status of Jerusalem in International Law, writing his doctorate on this topic, and Dr. Howard Grief, also an International Lawyer who wrote the book, " The Legal Foundations and Borders of Israel under International Law", both strongly agree and conclude that The San Remo Resolution is the basic Constitutional document of the state of Israel under International Law.The Great Powers, The League of Nations (the 'UN 'of that particular period) met together in Villa Devachon, San Remo Italy from April 18 to 26 of 1920 and it was there that the Legal Foundation of Modern Israel is initially traced. 3 Mandates were decided here: one for Syria and Lebanon, as apportioned to the French, one for Mesopotamia (Iraq today) placed under British Supervision, and one for Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine, entrusted to Great Britain in 'respectof the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish People' was a legally binding resolution in International Law.Dr. Howard Grief: "The civil and religous rights of the Arab people as well as individuals were fully protected in the Mandate documents, but as so far as the national and collective political rights, these were reserved exclusively for the Jewish people because the Arabs were given those same rights, not in Palestine, but in neighboring countries. That is why today you have 21 Arab states, and one Jewish State."It is very important to note, that in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, relying on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, resulting from the San Remo conference, a special resolution that recognized the Historic rights of the Jewish people to 'Reconstitute' their National home, was made. Paying particular attention to the language used, the pre-existing right, and not a 'new right' of the Jewish people to their Historic homeland, was recognized. The boundaries of Palestine included territories west and east of the Jordan River. The most significant purpose of the Mandate would be the "creation of an autonomous commonwealth." "provided that nothing must be done that might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities at present established in Palestine"The Mandate for Palestine was approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July, 1922. It was an international treaty, and thus was legally binding. The Jewish people and the Jewish state have not recsinded these rights, nor have they done anything in International Law to ever surrender these rights. Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations later took up these committments and thus make it relevant to this day.