UN-successful: How Mahmoud Abbas is Using the UN
October 17, 2011 No CommentsMitch Boynton
College of Arts and Sciences
Class of 2015
To many, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may seem as old as time itself. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st the two groups have been consistently struggling over disputed territory. Recently, a new development arose in the history of this conflict, the consequences of which are still unfolding. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah, the party which controls the Palestinian National Authority and governs the West Bank, has put a bid for statehood before the UN. Previously, the only way to Palestinian statehood was considered to be through an agreement with Israel. Can Palestine achieve recognition by unilateral action without Israel? How would Israel deal with an internationally accepted Palestine?
The bid’s prospects for success are very minimal, at least at the Security Council level. The US has made it clear that it will exercise its veto power to prevent it, essentially assuring its defeat. As the Security Council is the only UN body which can give a state full recognition and membership privileges, a passing vote in the General Assembly would be a hollow success. Therefore, if Abbas is extremely unlikely to actually attain his goal, membership in the UN and legitimacy thereby, he must have other objectives to fulfill using the UN bid.
He is playing politics.
Forcing the US to explicitly veto Palestine, followed by approval for Palestine from the GA (a likely event), would make it apparent that the general international community does not see eye-to-eye with the US, isolating it and Israel. In this sense, the bid for UN membership becomes not only a way to receive some international recognition, but to demonstrate to the world that the US and Israel are the powers standing in the way, placing them in opposition to a general consensus. Additionally, the very act of going to the UN makes Abbas appear like the one searching for any road to peace, frustrated by Israeli intransigence. While he is apparently striving to find a solution through the UN, the United States and Israel are literally blocking any progress. Who is truly at fault for the derailed peace process is a hotly debated topic (and both parties ultimately share the blame), but the image Abbas is trying to project could align much of the world with his version of affairs. In addition, Abbas personally becomes more integral to the peace process, possibly helping him maintain power against domestic pressures.
But what if the UN did grant Palestine full membership? Even if Palestine were to be recognized by the UN, the conflict between Israel and Palestine would not be solved. The two nations would not have reconciled their disputes. There would be no peace. Therefore, if the UN is not an end in itself, it must be being used as a means.
The Palestinians need Israel to accept its existence as a state. Otherwise, Israel is likely to continue to act as though it has true control over Palestinian affairs and only allows the West Bank a measure of autonomy. Israel will refuse to give Palestine full sovereignty. So if the only way to peace and a Palestinian state is through negotiations, then the UN bid must be understood in light of how it will impact the larger peace process. The history of the peace negotiations may indicate motivations for Palestine to initiate the bid.
Ever since the 1940s Israel has been generally internationally recognized (except by Arab states). Palestine lacks that status. The status quo has always been in Israel’s favor during the negotiations, since it held international favor and had US backing (in addition to a powerful military). But if Palestine attained international recognition, it would no longer be the politically junior partner in the negotiations. The negotiations would suddenly be between two sovereign nations.
The UN bid could potentially be used as a threat and deployed as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. The Palestinians could say, in effect, that they would go over Israel’s head to get what they wanted. In order for Israel to prevent Palestine from circumventing them and remain a part of the process, they would have to come to the bargaining table under Palestine’s terms. Of course, Palestine could not actually achieve its objectives without dealing with Israel, but the threat of trying to do so could carry some weight in Tel Aviv.
It is almost certain that the US will veto the Palestinian bid for statehood before the Security Council. But even in losing, Abbas and the PA have something to win. They are taking a political step to change the status quo and perhaps gain a negotiating edge. In the long run, therefore, the UN bid will not end the game, but it might change it.
Thoughts on the consequences of Palestine’s UN bid
Read further in The Economist about the significance of Palestine’s UN initiative.
“Israel, Palestine, and the UN: The War over Statehood.”
News