Palestine’s Statehood: Let’s get it over with

Davin Ng

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said Friday his call for statehood was not meant to isolate Israel.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said Friday his call for statehood was not meant to isolate Israel.

The President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas announced on Friday, September 16 that he shall seek a vote from the UN Security Council for the membership of the United Nations on Tuesday, September 20. It is highly likely that the United States will veto this vote in the Security Council, and Abbas has the option to seek membership from the General Assembly, where there are no veto powers.

While it is predictable that such a move could be blocked by the US veto vote in the Security Council, Abbas plans to use a legal loophole in the UN General Assembly implemented by the US in 1950. Known as Uniting for Peace, the resolution was passed so that the UN could bypass repeated Soviet vetoes in the Security Council so that South Korea would not be left alone in their fight against the North. If Abbas is successful at convincing two-thirds of the General Assembly, the Palestine will find itself a member of the UN as an observer state – not unlike the Vatican.

In this particular vote, the United States seems determined to block the vote by any means necessary. While it will certainly wield its veto vote in the Security Council, US Ambassadors are trying to convince the international community that such a motion is useless and that they should not bother to vote for it. Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations asserted that nothing “will change in the real world for the Palestinian people” should the vote pass.

The US mainstream media has in general neglected to mention the legal ramifications of UN recognition of Palestinian statehood. Because of this, it is highly unlikely that the mood about the Israel-Palestine conflict within the US will change. As US foreign policy can be affected by domestic moods, with this critical information left out the Obama Administration can maintain the status quo with its position on Israel.

For the Palestinians, it appears that the results may be mixed, but yet may prove to yield a slight advantage. If the vote does fail at both the Security Council and General Assembly, the Palestinian cause fronted by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), or also known as the Palestinian Authority still gains from being placed on the world agenda once again.

Palestine has been under occupation for 63 years with approximately 4.7 million refugees (UNRWA, 2010) in Syria and other surrounding states. Following the First Intifada of 1987, the Palestinian cause for independence was galvanized, and the PLO capitalized on this surge. Then-Chairman of the PLO Yasser Arafat declared later at Geneva that the PLO would recognize Israel’s right to exist within pre-1967 borders, disavow armed struggle and condemn terrorism – effectively starting the peace process that eventually promised the two-state solution.

Hayley Libowitz, a moderate Jewish freshman had her reservations about the UN vote proposed by Mahmoud Abbas. The first concern she voiced was whether it will affect Israel as a Jewish country in terms of deprivation of land and freedom, and if the success of the vote would give the Palestinians no more motivation to negotiate further for peace. She remarked that, “Hopefully, it (the vote) won’t pass so that there is more time for negotiations.”

The main doubt on the vote for Palestinian statehood centered around the question for land: that the boundaries and the share of land had yet to be decided upon prior to such a move. Remarking that the Palestinian move was “messy”, Libowitz voiced out that both sides in the Israelis and Palestinians both want the same land in an all-or-nothing fashion. “Nobody recognizes that they can’t have everything,” she points out, “People are too caught up with what they want.”

Zahi Khamis, an instructor in Arabic of Palestinian origin at Goucher College, refutes Libowitz’s concern that both sides want all of the land. Citing Arafat’s acceptance of pre-1967 borders, it was a demonstration of the Palestinians’ recognition that they could not have all of the land and desired a resolution of the conflict.

Khamis also expressed his dissatisfaction with the peace process, calling it an endless series of broken promises and negotiations that kept the PLO busy with the peace process and executed land grabs for settlements in the process. He also noted that it is due to the peace process that allowed for the rise of Hamas.

While the PLO was heavily invested with negotiations with Israel, they neglected their services to the common Palestinians. Hamas capitalized on the vacuum and filled it by providing services to the poor and gaining legitimacy as a result, using it as a platform to spread their own Islamist vision.

“The two-state solution is impossible,” Khamis argued. “Due to the reality that Israeli settlements have created inside of Palestine land.” He developed the idea further by remarking that “the only solution is to live together. Jews are Semitic, and Palestinians are Semitic. They have always lived together in peaceful conditions for thousands of years.” He also emphasized on the theme of reconciliation, having seen “no reason to divide the people”.

Citing the South African model of reconciliation, Khamis proposed the mutual understanding of each other’s’ wounds – Palestinians ought look at the Holocaust, and Israeli Jews ought to consider the horrors they have created within their occupied territory. Asserting that the Western-led peace process is a fundamentally broken process, Khamis added that UN recognition of Palestine as a state will only accelerate the real peace process, and the increased media attention can allow the international community to pressure the US to back down from its stubbornly pro-Israel stand.

Considering the increasingly multipolar international community with the rise of China as a potential opposing influence, the US position on Israel does not seem as infallible as it used to be in previous decades. From the pro-Israel Jewish point of view, it is not difficult to empathize with a people attempting to eke out a national identity within a hostile environment. It is certain that the pro-Israel camp will oppose the vote, citing terrorism as the main cause for opposition.

If the vote were passed it would enable anti-Israel groups to continue operating within Palestinian territory and keep the Israeli military in deadlock with them. In order to have peace, more work is needed to address the militant anti-Israel activities of Israel’s neighbors like Syria and especially Iran. Peace and sanctions may mean nothing to non-state actors led by fanatics.

When it comes to international law, passing the UN General Assembly vote for statehood will accord a number of advantages for the Palestinian cause. Firstly, as an observer state Palestine may participate in General Assembly debates but cannot vote. Also, Palestine as an observer may exercise its right to agree to be placed under the purview of a number of international treaties and institutions. They include sovereignty over Palestinian airspace and the waters off Gaza, which can respectively hinder Israeli air strikes and render the Israeli naval blockades illegal under international law. Also, as a member of the UN Palestine may request the International Criminal Court to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Israel.

As Mahmoud Abbas declared in his op-ed published by the New York Times on May 16, there is no reason for the state of Palestine to be denied recognition. He claims to have satisfied all prerequisites to statehood listed by the Montevideo Convention, and challenges the United Nations to deny the right of self-determination to Palestine – where self-determination was recognized time and again by the United Nations, and also by the International Court of Justice.

The United States remains the central lynchpin to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. As long as it remains the uncompromising patron and sponsor of the state of Israel, there is little that can be done to resolve the conflict. That position is best exemplified by Rice’s attempt to downplay the significance and ramifications of the vote, warning nations voting for any Palestinian resolution have the “responsibility to own the consequences of their vote”, implying threats to them without giving specifics. With her continuous dismissal of the impending vote it is clear that the US has a separate agenda other than a genuine effort towards peace.

Photo courtesy of Tara Todras-Whitehill/Associated Press