Palestinians gird for tough statehood battle at the UN

This September, the United Nations in New York will be the scene of a great political battle when Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority, submits a formal request to the Security Council for UN recognition and membership for the state of Palestine.

The Palestinian move has full Arab backing. On July 14, the Arab League pledged to ‘take all necessary measures’ to secure recognition of a Palestinian state via the Security Council.

Israel is mobilising all its friends and its own formidable energies to counter the Palestinian move, while US President Barack Obama has already indicated that he will use the US veto to block it. Why then are the Palestinians taking the grave risk of alienating the United States by doing battle with Israel on the international stage?

The reasons are clear: Israel’s relentless land-grab on the West Bank and in Occupied east Jerusalem; the total deadlock in Israeli-Palestinians negotiations; and the Palestinian sense that, with the Arab world rocked by revolution, it is time for them, too, to make some international headlines.

Another reason why the Palestinians are going to the UN — and perhaps the main one — is their utter disillusionment with America, now seen as a ‘dishonest broker’ in the iron grip of Zionist lobbies, a pro-Israel Congress and right-wing Jewish and Christian-Zionist forces. Obama’s defeat by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and America’s blatant pro-Israeli bias have driven the Palestinians to try to leap over the US-Israeli roadblock and seek a multilateral approach at the UN, now seen as the centre of international decision-making.

In the run up to the vote in September, both Israelis and Palestinians have been furiously lobbying. The Palestinians know that they will have no trouble rallying support from developing countries. Of the 193 UN members, 122 already recognise Palestinian statehood. This figure could rise to about 154, almost on a par with Israel, which has diplomatic relations with 156 states. The problem for the Palestinians lies with the rich, powerful and developed world of North America, Europe and Australasia. That is where Israel has the advantage. The European Union will be the real battleground for the coming diplomatic contest, and there the key swing votes are those of Britain, France and Germany.

It was anticipated that France would vote for the Palestinians — President Nicolas Sarkozy said as much. But he seems to have recently moved back to the pro-Israeli camp. Germany will as usual vote against the Palestinians, while Britain sits on the fence. Officially, the EU has long come out in favour of a two-state solution. But some European states may fear that a ‘unilateral’ Palestinian move might risk splitting the EU and deepen the transatlantic divide.

The UN vote could be of considerable significance for the United States. America’s influence in the Arab and Islamic world has already suffered a catastrophic decline. Together with its blind support for Israel, its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and its strikes against militant Muslim groups in Yemen and elsewhere, have aroused great hostility. According to James Zogby, the well-known Arab-American pollster, America’s favourable ratings have fallen to a minuscule 5 per cent in Egypt. Even in Morocco, a country traditionally close to America, they are down to 12 per cent. If Obama vetoes Palestinian statehood at the Security Council, as seems very likely, America’s alienation from the Arab and Muslim world will be very great.

In a recent article, an influential member of the Saudi Royal family, Prince Turki Al Faisal, former head of intelligence and former ambassador to London and Washington, warned the US that ‘there will be disastrous consequences for US-Saudi relations if the US vetoes UN recognition of a Palestinian state.’ He added that ‘the game of favouritism towards Israel has not proven wise for Washington... It will soon learn that there are other players in the region...’ This angry tone from America’s main Arab ally is highly unusual.

Among the actions which have shocked the Arabs are America’s veto last February of a Security Council Resolution condemning Israel’s continued building of illegal colonies; the resignation in May of George Mitchell, Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, after a frustrating two years in which he was unable to get Netanyahu to move an inch; Obama’s declared opposition to the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation; and his scornful dismissal of the PLO’s UN strategy.

The mechanics for securing UN recognition and membership for a Palestinian state are fairly tortuous. They would require a nine-vote majority in the Security Council as well as finding a way around a potential US veto. One way being considered by Palestinian strategists would be for the General Assembly to invoke Resolution 377 of November 1950. Known as the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution, it was adopted during the Korean crisis to overcome a Security Council deadlock. The solution found then was for the UN General Assembly, convened in an ‘Emergency Special Session’, to recommend collective action in order to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council was unable to block it. It might provide a model.

What would the Palestinians gain from UN recognition of their state? It would not at once end the Israeli occupation nor change much on the ground. But they would gain ‘virtual’ citizenship, a passport and sovereignty; legal protection against violence by Israeli colonists; the right to fight back in self-defence if attacked; potential backing for their claims from international tribunals such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

A favourable UN vote, however, could have dire consequences. The US Congress could cut US aid to the PNA of $550million(Dh2.02 billion) a year. Israel’s right-wing government might react aggressively by annexing Area C of the West Bank, amounting to almost 60 per cent of the territory, or by scrapping the Oslo accords, and therefore ending economic and security cooperation with PNA. Any of these moves could trigger an outbreak of Palestinian violence, even a third intifada. But determined at all costs to keep his coalition intact, Netanyahu will fight to the end. His fanatical far-right, national religious and colonist constituency wants nothing less than a ‘Greater Israel’ — whatever the cost to Israel’s international reputation and long-term security.

The Palestinians are still a long way from exercising their basic right of self-determination. But the battle at the UN will alert the world to the gross injustice they are suffering. The jailed Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti — perhaps the most famous of the many thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons — wrote a recent letter from his prison cell calling for ‘a peaceful million-man march during the week of voting in the UN in September.’ Israel promptly placed him in solitary confinement — a punitive response which betrays its nervousness at the Palestinians’ UN strategy and also its contempt for Palestinian human rights.

The Palestinians hope to swap the charismatic Barghouti and a 1,000 other prisoners for Gilad Shalit, the Israel soldier being held by Hamas in Gaza. But the last thing Netanyahu wants is to face a Palestinian leader who could unite his people behind a non-violent programme for statehood. That would be a real threat.

Patrick Seale is a commentator and author of several books on Middle East affairs.