Back to the UN with the Palestinian question

After much procrastination, the Palestinian Authority has finally decided to head to the UN Security Council seeking a resolution to end the Israeli occupation of the land designated to be the seat of the envisaged Palestinian state.

This move has been under consideration since the Israeli attack on Gaza five months ago. The brutal Israeli attack, which occurred just after the collapse of the American-brokered Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, had dashed any remaining hopes that the so-called peace process could be salvaged any time soon.

Left exposed, while Hamas’ steadfastness in the face of the massive Israeli onslaught enabled PA to confidently occupy much of the political space abandoned by those involved in the peace process, as well as discrediting the entire PA negotiations strategy, President Mahmoud Abbas had to reinvent his staggering scheme. He decided to demand from the Security Council an end of the occupation within a specified time limit, so that the Palestinian state can finally become reality.

Clearly anticipating American obstruction at the Security Council right from the start, the Palestinians declared their intention to turn to the General Assembly for the same purpose, where veto does not apply.

As a result of dissuasive pressure from Washington, the PA agreed to delay its UN bid until after the US midterm elections, which occurred in November.

The death of minister Ziad Abu Ein last week at the hands of Israeli soldiers attempting to quell a peaceful Palestinian demonstration must have awakened a process that was virtually put on hold.

As reported, the PA is planning to present a draft resolution to the Security Council via Jordan’s UN ambassador. Jordan is the current occupier of the Arab seat at the 15-member UN Security Council.

The resolution will have the full backing of the Arab group at the UN.

The atmosphere at the UN is favourable to such a move, and has been so for years.

Late last month, I was at the UN participating in a special session in “Observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”. With the exception of the Israeli ambassador, of course, all speakers were fully supportive of the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian rights and the need for a just solution to the problem.

They also condemned Israeli occupation, demanding that it end, and said that Palestinians must be liberated in their own independent state.

But while that is generally the mood at the General Assembly, it is not the same at the Security Council.

Actually, out of the 15 council members, many do also support the Palestinian rights. The problem at the council, however, is the veto. The veto, a right reserved for the five permanent members, can block any action without explanation. Usually the US delegation vetoes resolutions that run against Israeli desires.

This is what awaits the Palestinian resolution this time.

Israel has been fiercely campaigning against the Palestinian UN bid. They argue that this is the wrong way to resolve the issue, claiming that the path of negotiations is the only right course of action that could enable the Palestinians to have their own state. Israel’s persistence on such futile logic ignores more than 20 years of not only sterile, but also counterproductive negotiations. 

This absurd logic also ignores the fact that the UN was specifically created to resolve conflicts, particularly conflicts of such complicated nature, not to be banned from performing its basic duties.

Reportedly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travelled to Rome to meet US Secretary of State John Kerry to secure a promise from him that Washington will oppose the Palestinian move and will veto it at the Security Council.

That is not going to be a difficult mission. Netanyahu justifies his country’s rejection of ending the occupation of the Palestinian land with the claim that pulling out of the West Bank now would bring the “Islamic extremists to the outskirts of Tel Aviv and to the heart of Jerusalem”.

Israel is using the chaos currently prevailing in the region as another excuse to maintain its occupation, its oppression, its denial of the Palestinian rights and its defiance of international law and UN resolutions.

Once more Israel struggles hard to conceal the reality that the spreading chaos and instability in the entire region is a direct product of its very aggression and its continued occupation.
The expected obstacles should not discourage the Palestinian move, even if the council fails to act.

During the past months, many European countries took bold measures, recognising or recommending their governments to recognise the future Palestinian state.

Though symbolic, the significance of such diplomatic gestures should not be belittled.

The way Israel conducted its war on Gaza in the summer caused its image enormous damage.

World political leaders still tend to hesitate before loudly and openly criticising Israel’s crimes against the defenceless population of Gaza, the continued illegal settlement expansion on occupied Arab lands, Israel’s flagrant effort to block any peace opportunity, as well as its continued violation of the basic rights of the Palestinians.

What matters, though, is that many such leaders harbour a lot of hidden loathing and condemnation for Israel and its reckless leadership. 

They store a lot of anger against Israel that one day will have to come in the open.

While the Palestinians are right to seize the moment, it will be a mistake if they would dilute the language of the resolution to the point of emptying it of any meaningful content to make it acceptable to some council members.

That would be dangerous as it would officially reduce further the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

Equally dangerous would be a European resolution that France, along with the UK and Germany, might propose as an alternative. Such European resolution, if it materialises, will only pass if it is vague and elusive, and this would be the last the Palestinians would need.

Unless articulate, unless clearly calling for a total end of the occupation right to the lines of June 1967, unless all of East Jerusalem is recognised as the Palestinian capital, unless the right of return of Palestinian refugees, in accordance with UN resolutions, is accepted and unless all the other rights of the Palestinians are recognised, the planned resolution better not be presented.

It is much better for the Palestinians to present a good text, even if it is going to be refused, than to end up with an approved bad text.