(MintPress) – In the aftermath of Israel’s incursion into Gaza last week, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas will present his case before the community of nations in an attempt to achieve non-member observer status at the United Nations. The Gaza attacks that left 160 Palestinians dead continue an ongoing conflict that has consumed thousands of lives in the decades old struggle for Palestinian self-determination.
While the bid will likely pass with a resounding “yes,” the measure will do little to change the realities on the ground as Israeli settlements continue to be built throughout the West Bank — consuming both Palestinian land and the ephemeral chance of an enduring two-state solution in accordance with international law.
Increasing the visibility and legitimacy of Palestine within international bodies, like the U.N., may not change this reality, but it will lay the groundwork for creating more international support and donor aid to the beleaguered territories.
Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the PA, has secured billions in funding to strengthen the economy and bolster Palestinian institutions. However, a future Palestine will likely be beset by a bevy of economic and developmental challenges. The disunity of the territories and the disparate governments ruling the respective territories will continue to be the most immediate challenges limiting negotiation with increasingly hawkish Israeli governments.
The statehood bid
“Because it is going through the General Assembly, there is a good chance the bid will pass.
The U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) is a forum where the U.S. cannot stop this kind of bid with veto power,” said Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Palestine Center, in a recent MintPress interview.
As a member of the Permanent Security Council, the U.S. used its veto privilege last year to block a Palestinian bid for statehood despite strong support for the measure from the international community. The opposition is not surprising given the extensive history of U.S. vetoes blocking unfavorable or critical resolutions of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
In fact, from 1976-2002, the U.S. vetoed 46 U.N. resolutions critical of Israeli settlement expansion and occupation of Palestinian land. Over the same period, Russia exercised its veto just twice.
Despite the best laid plans of the optimistic Palestinian leadership, Palestine would become exactly what the title implies: an interested observer on the periphery of the community of nations, like the Vatican, should the UNGA vote to upgrade Palestinian status.
However, even this limited, mostly symbolic gesture appears necessary in advancing the cause given the current deadlock in moribund peace negotiations.
Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have not taken place since 2007, and with little hope of advancing the dialogue beyond the terms outlined in the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, exercising unilateral legal actions of recourse have become one of the few ways to advance the cause of Palestinian independence.
Although the historical and legal justification for a Palestinian state is self-evident, U.S. and Israeli officials have nonetheless tried to thwart the effort through diplomatic and economic pressures.
Earlier this month, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called for the overthrow of Mahmoud Abbas should his government press forward with the bid, saying, “Although this step is not simple, considering the implications that Israel will have to deal with, the only other option in this case would be the toppling of Abbas’s government.”
Additionally, both Washington and Tel Aviv have tried to soften the language of the Palestinian statehood bid by pressuring Mahmoud Abbas to abandon the right to try cases at the International Criminal Court (ICC), a right granted to members and observer states at the U.N.
Although the ruling of international tribunals, like the ICC, is unlikely to end the occupation and break the siege on Gaza, the very action will likely sway international public opinion, which already is decidedly in favor of Palestinian statehood.
The numerous cases of legal and human rights violations in the 65 years of Israel’s history — including the annexation of land, dispossession of Palestinian residents and construction of illegal settlements — would significantly bolster the case for Palestinian sovereignty as a means of self-defense.
Dating back to last year’s failed statehood bid, at least 112 countries have formally recognized Palestine as a state within pre-1967 borders. Around 150 countries maintain some level of diplomatic and economic cooperation with the PA. Although defeated in its statehood bid, Palestine was accepted into UNESCO, the cultural and education branch of the U.N. in October of last year.
After joining UNESCO, U.S. lawmakers threatened to withhold critical funding to the Palestinian Authority. Worse yet, the U.S. cut off $60 million in annual funding to UNESCO after Palestine was admitted as a member.
Similarly, the PA could be jeopardized should the U.S. and Israel cut off funding. “The PA is in a financial crisis at this point. The PA could collapse if there are further reductions,” notes Munayyer.
Support for this latest bid appears to be strong, as hundreds of countries appear poised to welcome Palestine as an observer state. France became the latest, and arguably the most influential, country on Tuesday to support the resolution, announcing that if put to a vote, France would vote “yes.”
Procedure: new states through law
Although the U.N. is fraught with internal schisms and antiquated institutional barriers, like the Permanent Security Council, the legal path to statehood is possible through the standard channels.
Of the 16 former U.N. observer states, 14 later went on to become full-fledged countries, including Austria, Kuwait and Vietnam. Some states, including South Sudan in 2011, were successful in bypassing the “observer” step, becoming a full-fledged state recognized as such under international law.
For all the criticism of being singled out by the U.N. Human Rights Council, Israel was created as a result of U.N. partition and referendum. As Munayyer notes, the legal channels for resolving this conflict have been established decades ago. It is a matter of creating sufficient leverage to use these channels and implement the law.
Imagining future statehood
Looking forward, the main challenges for any Palestinian state will be economic and developmental. Although Arab governments have often expressed a common solidarity with Palestinian national aspirations, their actual support will be driven insofar as they can derive some national benefit from the process.
With large Palestinian refugee populations in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and other Arab Gulf states, one of the critical questions will regard refugees and their right of return to a land that millions of exiled Palestinians know of only as an ancestral land.
The proposed state, with few natural resources, consists of only 22 percent of historic Palestine and will be just three-quarters the size of Puerto Rico, and the struggling economy will have to rely on donor aid for a considerable length of time. Approximately 25 percent of Palestinians currently live in poverty and 16 percent are unemployed, although this number is likely much higher.
Munayyer adds, “The realities on the ground are going to dictate where this is going. If the Israelis are going to continue colonizing Palestinian territory unabated, this will endanger statehood.”
The inevitable retaliation for a non-violent, legal right of recourse for Palestinian leadership remains to be seen. Like exhuming Yasser Arafat’s body for forensic examination, this maneuver could very well happen more out of curiosity than an actual means to advance statehood and peace.