WORLD VIEW:A game of diplomatic chicken is being played on Palestine's request for full UN membership
MAHMOUD ABBAS, the president of the Palestinian Assembly and chair of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), has painted himself into a corner. As the UN general assembly looms at the end of the month he faces a crucial decision about an initiative described histrionically by Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak “as an impending diplomatic tsunami” but which will pitch Palestinians sharply against the US and Israel.
On July 15th Abbas formally submitted to the UN secretary general a request that Palestine be granted full membership of the world body. Palestinians are currently observers at the UN, represented by the PLO.
It is a move in truth that is imbued with more symbolism than practical effect, seen by them as a means of pressuring the Israelis to reopen talks – in practice, however, the latter will not want to “reward” such a diplomatic coup.
The move, a reflection of Abbas’s frustration at a peace process going nowhere since talks collapsed last autumn, is seen as tantamount to recognition of Palestine as a state. Although widely backed by UN member states, to be agreed it must be endorsed by the security council where the US has said it will exercise its veto.
An alternative would be to forgo full membership for now, but to apply for an enhanced status as a “non-member state” observer, akin to the Vatican, Kosovo and Taiwan. That would require only a simple majority in the general assembly, one they would get with ease.
Israel’s diplomats have been lobbying intensively against the move, including visiting Dublin, and despite claims by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that it would be a “meaningless” gesture. Israel argues that recognition, based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as a capital, would pre-empt peace negotiations by giving quasi-legal status to the Palestinian negotiating position and raising unrealisable expectations.
Palestinians argue that they are not seeking statehood at the UN – their statehood is currently recognised by 120 states – but its recognition. Nor would the move “delegitimise” Israel as Barack Obama and Netanyahu have claimed – Israel’s status at the UN would remain unaffected.
Reuters on Thursday reported a senior Israeli official warning that the move would be a “strategic mistake by the world”, and threatening that Israel is preparing diplomatic sanctions that could range from revoking the travel permits of leading Palestinians to unspecified diplomatic “declarations”.
In that context the Israeli media has speculated Netanyahu may counter with a formal declaration permanently annexing settlements built in the occupied territories, what might be called a “parity of pre-emption” of talks. The official ruled out another moratorium on settlement building in a bid to reopen peace talks.
Should a resolution be passed, Israel would also likely seek the exclusion of the PLO from the UN, a move that would formally, though not in practice, deprive Palestinian refugees outside the territories of a voice.
The truth is, of course, that neither the diplomatic coup of political endorsement of Palestinian statehood, in whichever form, nor the annexation of settlements already under Israeli control will change the facts on the ground.
It may raise Palestinian morale and expectations, increase Israeli diplomatic isolation, and raise tempers on both sides, but will not create a state or change the reality that Israel will eventually have to make concessions on settlements and that both issues remain to be negotiated through a currently non-existent peace process.
Ireland finds itself in an uncomfortable position on the issue. Traditionally among the EU states most favourable to Palestinian aspirations, it could have been expected to support their initiative. But the Department of Foreign Affairs has been reserving its position until the detail of the Palestinian position is made clear and in the hope that the EU can reach a common position. Among those likely to be most sympathetic to the Palestinians are the Belgians, Swedes, Maltese, Cypriots Slovenians and the Austrians, while those most opposed to a resolution are the Germans, Italians, Dutch and Czechs.
In the face of a certain US veto it appears that Palestine’s friends internationally are quietly urging on it the less ambitious general assembly “non-member state” option, understood to be supported by their own UN delegation.
But Abbas is the one who will make the decision, weighing the advantage of a limited diplomatic advance against the political price of alienating the US and which he will pay in his own community if he appears to retreat on expectations he has himself raised. That calculation is made more difficult by the PLO’s reconciliation with Hamas which controls Gaza, a cornerstone of the Abbas claim for statehood. The group is likely to make hay over any prevarication.
A game of diplomatic chicken is being played in the run-up to the general assembly when Abbas is expected to make his position clear.
The rhetoric on all sides is being ramped up and positions exaggerated, unfortunately with all the potential for violence that brings. And, however meritorious the Palestinian case – in the face of Israeli intransigence and US silence it is undoubtedly strong – one is forced to ask of this proxy conflict, in truth a sideshow, “what then?” Back to square one.