Eugene Mark
Life in the disputed territories amidst the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Palestinians are considering an application for recognition as a full member state at the United Nations (UN) next week, under the name of a ‘one-state solution’ rather than a ‘two-state solution’. This move by the Palestinian Authority could prove to be a risky strategy, where there would be consequences for throwing down a challenge at both Israel and the United States (US).
It is a move that, Palestinians hope, could change the diplomatic game decisively in their favour. What Palestinians want, most immediately, is leverage over Israel. If Palestine is recognized by the UN as a member state, Israel would be considered as an ‘occupying force’ in the lands of a sovereign state, and hence, would have to face legal consequence for its settlements in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.
The US, under the Obama administration, has expressed concerns over Israeli settlements and had urged Israel to stop building settlements, without much success. Frustration with President Barack Obama’s failure led to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s latest move towards UN recognition.
Consequently, Obama has to choose between ingratiating himself with Israel’s friends in the Jewish world while stepping on the toes of his allies in the Arab world, or vice versa. This is, in effect, providing the President with a dilemma which could potentially throw his administration’s foreign policy into the line of heavy criticism, with possibly no return.
Even though the US supports the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, its long-held position is that it would only happen after the resolution of peace negotiations with Israel. The US has warned that it would veto the expected bid, if brought to the Security Council. Essentially, it is being forced to oppose a vote for an outcome it ultimately supports: the recognition of a Palestinian state.
Even if the Palestinian Authority obtains UN recognition, it only serves to raise temperatures in the Arab world already beset by political upheavals and unrest, without even resolving any outstanding issues. Furthermore, potential side-effects would also include the pulling-out of economic aid.
Some Republicans in the US Congress are already threatening to cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority, and the potential shortfall of cash is particularly troubling against the backdrop of a problematic world economy. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has predicted a potential fiscal crisis and declining economic growth, if foreign aid is withdrawn.
A move that seeks to isolate Israel also makes its leaders less amenable to compromise. Israelis are especially sensitive to allegations of wrongdoings leveled by international organizations. The Palestinian Authority aims to play the game on an equal footing with Israel, but unfortunately the negotiating table might be filled with no one except Palestinians. What should have been a ‘two-state solution’ turns out to be a ‘one-state solution’.
What about issues of security arrangements, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees? These would remain unresolved. If the expected bid succeeds, UN representation would shift from the global Palestinian Liberation Organisation to a state based in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and small areas along the West Bank frontier. It should be noted that there are millions of Palestinian refugees outside the stated areas, and they could lose representation at the UN if the Palestinian Authority succeeds in winning recognition of its state.
It is not my aim to solely pour ‘cold water’ over the Palestinian Authority’s latest move. In fact, the Obama administration has to shoulder some responsibility over the recent development. Shortly after assuming office, Obama begun pushing Israelis and Arabs to undertake certain confidence-building measures to develop trust. The Obama administration relies on good-will and building trust when there is neither.
What resulted from building trust is an on-off process to the peace negotiations with no sight of any success in the future. When Israel has the opportunity to promote peace with Palestinians, it fell short, just as Palestinians have fallen short in efforts to promote peace with the Israelis.
Instead, parties should leverage progress towards peace on the narrow self-interest of the contending sides. They should consider whether what they propose is a self-enforcing strategy from which no one has an incentive to deviate. But the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral bid for UN recognition is nothing more than an impulsive move, which only serves to worsen the conflict.
