UN resolution may be building block in statehood bid

Israelis and Palestinians are preparing for a showdown at the United Nations in September, when the Palestinian leadership will ask for recognition of a Palestinian state within the borders that existed before the Six Day War in 1967. The details of the bid remain unclear, and the effort entails serious risks. But a sober assessment of what might follow a UN endorsement of Palestine’s borders allows for some cautious optimism.

The Palestinian plan has already resulted in a diplomatic frenzy. While Palestinians travel the world soliciting votes, Israeli officials are engaged in last-minute efforts to dissuade countries from supporting what they perceive as Palestinian unilateralism.

The diplomatic push has so far yielded somewhat predictable results. While the United States has declared its intention to veto a declaration in the Security Council, several European countries, including the UK and France, intend to back the Palestinian move should negotiations with Israel remain elusive. In a show of broad Third World solidarity, the majority of states represented in the UN General Assembly have signalled clear support for the Palestinians.

These global disagreements reflect competing assessments of the UN move in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. In Jerusalem, minister of defence Ehud Barak has repeatedly warned of a “diplomatic tsunami” and a new wave of violence if the Palestinians do not change course. Voices on the Israeli right have threatened to respond to a UN vote by immediately cancelling the 1993 Oslo Accords.

So far, these warnings have had only a limited effect in Ramallah, the seat of the Palestine National Authority. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas remains determined to move forward.

From Mr Abbas’s perspective, the ground is well prepared. State-building efforts have reformed previously defunct Palestinian institutions, and have enabled significant economic growth. Of course, there are serious budgetary problems. Paying bills is difficult, not only because Israel is slow in transferring customs revenues, but also because promised aid from Arab countries often never arrives.

Currently, Palestinians oscillate between two options that imply either addressing the Security Council in a bid for full UN membership, or appealing to the General Assembly, should a US veto render success in the former impossible. While the Security Council would be able to grant legally binding membership status, a vote in the General Assembly would simply upgrade a Palestinian entity to the status of a “non-member state” – like the Vatican.

Confronted with the prospect of a US veto, an increasing number of international observers flatly oppose the Palestinian plan, on the grounds that it is unlikely to generate concrete political gains and would merely deflect attention from the main requirement of Middle East peace-making: a return to the negotiating table.

But a nuanced Palestinian resolution that moves beyond a zero-sum mindset and embraces legitimate Israeli concerns is possible, and could increase the likelihood of a return to constructive negotiations.

The lack of detail about the UN resolution allows room for manoeuvre. Such an approach would begin with refraining from forcing an immediate vote – and a dramatic US veto – in the Security Council. Instead, a carefully drafted motion in the form of a non-member state bid in the General Assembly could mark the way forward.

Drafted with reference to UN Resolution 181 (which partitioned Palestine in 1947), such a motion would reaffirm the establishment of a Palestinian state and a state for the Jewish people, based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements.

While such an approach would fall short of maximalist Palestinian demands, it would embrace the parameters outlined in May by US president Barack Obama. It would also address the Israeli government’s demand that the Palestinians recognise a “Jewish state”.

As such, the UN bid might well transform a confrontation into a potentially constructive tool of diplomacy.

l Michael Bröning is director of the East Jerusalem office of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a political group affiliated with Germany’s Social Democratic Party. He is the author of The Politics of Change in Palestine: State-Building and Non-Violent Resistance.