While putting the case for Palestinian statehood at the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly on 23 September 2011, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas raised the emotional pitch and argued, ‘the Arab Spring must be followed by the Palestinian Spring.’ Recalling late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Abbas exhorted the members of the international body to realize ‘inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,’ and help fulfill the Palestinian dream to be 194th member of the United Nations Organization (UN)…The Palestinian claim for statehood is not something new; the Palestine leaders have earlier also staked their claims the notable being in 1988 which was supported by many countries of the UN, though not formally approved by it. One of the major players in the Middle East process the US has also reiterated on many occasions to facilitate the Palestinian case of statehood. The incumbent President of the US, Barack Obama as well as his predecessor George W. Bush reiterated their promise to facilitate the Palestinian demand. In fact, it was September 2010 when Obama revealed his plan for peace process towards Palestinian statehood within twelve months. The period ends in September 2011; probably further enhancing the exasperation on part of Palestinians that peace process is going nowhere. Abbas told the members of the UN, “I do not believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for full admission in the United Nations,” because “the time has come.”
However, the issue has become more contentious and subject to conflicting interpretations due to global changes such as the transformations that took place in Arab countries this year, the apparent stalling of the peace process between Palestine and Israel, and also the domestic politics in the US which has witnessed heated debates at home prior to elections. The Arab Spring that finally led to toppling of dictators in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya with bottom-up movements in these countries and changing political discourse in other countries too had its impact in Palestine. Though Israel-Palestine conflict may be older than the discontents in other Arab nations and subsequent upheaval, the developments have seen increasing isolation of Israel in Arab and beyond. The stand-off between Israel and Turkey aftermath the Gaza incident last year, the increasing isolation of Israel from Arab neighbors, and also the rigid positions by the current regime of Israel have motivated the Palestinians to seek solution beyond the stalled peace process. In May this year, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu had told the US Congress that Palestinian statehood respecting 1967 border cannot be an option to resolve the contentious issues. He called the idea ‘unrealistic’ and ‘indefensible’ as almost half a million Israelis live in more than 200 settlements and outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Netanyahu and his more hard line Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman have opposed the idea of Palestinian statehood, at least in the present juncture, which has been viewed by Palestinians as denial of their basic rights. The Arab Spring might have infused hope in the mind of Palestinians that the wind of transformation and change will sweep from Egypt to Palestine, and Palestinian will emerge as a new state.
Barack Obama’s foreign policy particularly in the context of Middle East cannot be delinked from domestic politics in the US. It was Obama who pledged a Palestinian state within twelve months last September, which could have been achieved through bilateral negotiation process with the support of major players like the Middle East Quartet comprising the UN, EU, Russia and the US. The last one year witnessed a troubled phase in the peace process as Obama could not sail much to broker peace mainly due to strong lobbies in Washington. Obama who stakes claim for another term may not risk losing the game. One of the Republican members, Texas Governor Rick Perry, likely to challenge Obama in presidential elections, has called the Obama policy towards Middle East as ‘naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous.’ Netyanahu during his visit to US few months back, while speaking at the US Congress, openly challenged Obama policy by stating that the two-state formula is not solution of the crisis. Hence, while Obama spoke at the 66th session of UN General Assembly, which opened on 21 September, his tone appeared to betray his intent. It has been widely reported that at present the US will not risk supporting Palestinian statehood idea, as it will severely compromise Obama’s chances of winning next elections. Abbas’s speech at the UN reflected the desperation of Palestinians, when he observed that Palestinians had entered into negotiations with Israel last year ready with documents, papers and proposals, but the talks had broken down within weeks.
Israel’s concerns are understandable in views of tumultuous history of its existence since last sixty and odd years. Some of countries in the region have not recognized Israel, and openly threatened to wipe it out from the map. The 1967 war, which ultimately helped Israel to occupy parts of territory of Palestine in Gaza and East Jerusalem, has increased the constituency of fear in Israel and sharpened its aggressiveness. While the Fatah Party, led by Mahmoud Abbas has adopted a moderate approach towards the resolution of the crisis, other parties like Hamas have taken a hard line extremist position. Addressing Friday prayers in Gaza on 23 September, the day Abbas submitted Palestinian application to UN for statehood, the Hamas leader and Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya told the people that the UN membership bid was a mistake because the “Palestinian people do not beg for a state,” because the state has to be ‘snatched from the Zionist occupation, not the United Nations.’ Such hard line statements further complicate the already complex situation, and strengthen hard line constituency in Israel. The Israeli hard liners too have contributed to the stagnation in the peace process. In the past, moderate leaders in Israel have been sidelines or killed. The killing of Yitzhak Rabin, a moderate leader and prime minister, in 1995 is a case in point. It is mistrust swelled by years of animosity and hatred that seem to have further complicated prospects of a peaceful resolution of Israel-Palestine conflict.
There is also a perception divergence in the context of Palestinian statehood. While Palestine argues that statehood is the beginning of a comprehensive peace process, as it will provide Palestine the status of an equal party, Israel argues that the peace process is the mechanism which can lead to the solution of the conflict and confer on Palestine the status of statehood. The recognition of Palestine as it existed prior to 1967 war as 194th member of the UN will confer many advantages on Palestine. The UN subsequent to the war of 1967 had passed the resolution 242 to the effect that Israel should return all the territory of Palestine occupied during the war. The matter is further complicated as Israel has already established settlements in these areas, with Israeli citizen inhabiting these settlements. Though mutually agreed land swaps have been discussed between the two rivals, they have not yet worked out. With the recognition as a new state, Palestine with its increasing clout (currently it has observer status) can appeal to the UN and other mechanisms for the return of its territory. It can, even if it is granted the status of a non-member state, initiate proceedings against Israel in international bodies like International Criminal Court. These are the factors which have raised apprehensions in the mind of Israeli leaders.
Can the Palestinian bid for a new member state of the UN will be fulfilled in the current session of the international body? It is really a complicated issue. However, despite its complicated nature, it appears that the members of the UN have largely expressed support to the Palestine demand. If the demand gets two third members support at the General Assembly, and nine out of fifteen members support in the Security Council, then Palestine will add its name to the comity of nations at the UN. The UN debates will likely witness deep polarization, with countries like BRIC group taking a similar position. Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh has already declared India’s support for Palestine’s candidature for statehood. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Hong Lei has stated, “China understands, respects and supports Palestine's bid for UN membership.” Similarly, Russia has adopted a favourable approach to the Palestine issue. As formulated by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Russia ‘intends to vote in favor of recognizing Palestine as an independent state in the United Nations but would prefer this issue to be solved through consensus.’
The ideal situation as envisaged by the Middle East Quartet will be the emergence of Palestine as a new nation state on the basis of mutual understanding, deliberations and cooperation between Palestine and Israel with support of the international community including the UN. Emergence of a Palestine state amidst strong opposition from Israel and its allies may fulfill the legitimate Palestinian aspirations, but it may not likely usher permanent peace in the Middle East. The complex issues demand more intense cooperation between the two rivals, as well as between international players including Middle East Quartet and also BRIC towards an amicable resolution of the Middle East crisis.
