BICOM

Key points

• A draft Palestinian UN Security Council resolution includes one-sided terms for addressing the conflict, which do not meet Israeli concerns.
• Israeli officials accuse Abbas of trying to win international support for Palestinian positions whilst avoiding having to face the difficult compromises necessary for a conflict ending agreement.
• The Palestinians do not currently appear to have a majority in the Security Council. Though this may change with new members joining in January. The US has said it opposes Palestinian attempts to advance their goals at the UN, as opposed to through negotiations.
• PA President Mahmoud Abbas has still yet to respond to a US framework document for Israeli-Palestinian peace presented to the parties in March, which Israel accepted with reservations.

What are the Palestinian planning to do?

• The Palestinians have distributed a draft text to UN Security Council members of a resolution they say they will submit to the UN Security Council in the near future. This follows a speech made by Mahmoud Abbas to the General Assembly in September in which he stated that the proposed resolution was intended to “correct the deficiency of the previous efforts to achieve peace … with a specific time frame for the implementation of these objectives.”
• A draft resolution seen by AP demands: “the full withdrawal of Israel, the occupying power, from all of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, as rapidly as possible and to be fully completed within a specified timeframe, not to exceed November 2016, and the achievement of the independence and sovereignty of the state of Palestine and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” It further calls for “an international presence” throughout the Palestinian territories to protect Palestinian civilians.
• The draft resolution does not address Israeli concerns. Three stand out. First, recognition of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people (i.e that the solution to the conflict is two states for two peoples). Second, that any agreement be final, entailing the end of the conflict and the ‘end of claims’ by the Palestinians. Third, Israel’s requirement for a special security regime along the eastern border of the West Bank.
• In promoting this resolution the Palestinians side-lined a separate draft resolution that focused on the needs for reconstruction in the Gaza Strip.
• It is unclear exactly when the Palestinians will seek to table the resolution. Abbas appears in no mood to wait, though it appears he will delay till after the US midterms on November 4, and may wait for the change of the makeup of the Security Council in January, which will be in the Palestinians’ favour. US Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly tried to persuade Abbas to give him time to develop new proposals to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians which collapsed in April.
• If the Palestinians fail to win Security Council support for this proposal, an alternative may be for them to seek a resolution in the General Assembly, where they enjoy an automatic majority. PLO officials say they also intend to resume their accession to more than 500 international conventions and treaties as a state. The most significant threat is to join the International Criminal Court (ICC). This could lead to the Palestinians, or even third parties, attempting to bring charges against Israelis in the court, and counter-efforts by Israelis and others to bring charges against Palestinians. Such a development would likely further embitter relations between the parties and side-line negotiations indefinitely, as well as potentially saddling the ICC with a host of politically motivated claims and counter-claims.

Why are the Palestinians doing this?

• This is the latest is a series of unilateral Palestinian moves to secure endorsement in international forums for their demands without having to compromise in negotiations with Israel. The strategy also involves gaining state membership of international bodies and treaties which they can use as forums to confront Israel. This approach has been pursued consistently since 2009 alongside a strategy to avoid negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
• Abbas and the PA hope to keep their issue high on the international agenda, build international support for their positions, acquire diplomatic tools with which to threaten to Israel, and demonstrate to their public their effectiveness in fighting Israel through diplomatic means.
• In November 2012, Palestine was recognised as a non-member state by the UN General Assembly (following a failed attempt to secure Security Council support for full UN membership). This paved the way for Palestine to join a number of international treaties and agencies.

What is the Israeli position?

• Israeli officials accuse Abbas of trying to win endorsement for Palestinian positions whilst avoiding having to face the compromises necessary for a conflict ending agreement. They stress that Palestinian initiatives to advance their goals unilaterally, rather than through negotiations with Israel, will move them no closer to the creation of a Palestinian state. They also point out that this initiative has side-lined attempts to secure a Security Council resolution which would have addressed practical measures for the Gaza Strip.
• Prime Minister Netanyahu has recently raised the possibility that a regional approach may be the way to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace, taking advantage of the shared interests of Israel and moderate Arab states in repelling the threat of militant Islam. He told the UN on September 29: “a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world may help facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace,” and adding that, “peace can be realized with the active involvement of Arab countries, those that are willing to provide political, material and other indispensable support.”
• More broadly there are a range of views within the Israeli cabinet about the peace process. Right wing elements are opposed to negotiations with Abbas so long as he maintains his reconciliation agreement with Hamas, whilst the centre-left parties in the government are calling for a more proactive approach. Lead negotiator and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said in a recent interview with Yediot Ahronot, “the process has to be restarted. The two leaders – Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas – have to do this for the sake of their people’s interests. As far as I am concerned, the talks can be resumed tomorrow morning.”

What is likely to be the international response?

• The Palestinians believe they currently have the support of seven of the 15 members of the Security Council, but January will see five new members join, including Malaysia and Venezuela, which may take them over the nine votes they need to pass a resolution, or force the US to veto.
• The US has already made clear that it opposes Palestinian attempts to advance their goals at the UN, as opposed to through negotiations, and will likely veto any Palestinian resolution which attempts to impose terms outside of the negotiations process.
• The British government has until now been cool to unilateral Palestinian moves at the UN. Britain abstained from the General Assembly vote to recognise Palestine as a non-member state in 2012, and the government did not support a recent Parliamentary motion to recognise a Palestinian state. However, it is likely that the UK will explore whether the Palestinian resolution can be moderated to something more balanced, which could find consensus in the Security Council.
• France has spoken warmly about the Palestinian move, with President Holland appearing to give general support to the approach in a joint press conference with Abbas on 19 September.

What happened in recent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

• Nine months of talks brokered by US Secretary of State John Kerry resulted in a US framework proposal presented by President Obama to both leaders in March. Whilst Israel was willing to accept, with reservations, the US framework as a basis for continuing negotiations, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas gave no response to Obama.
• The talks ultimately broke down in April. A crisis developed around the delayed implementation of the release of long-term Palestinian security prisoners, which triggered a Palestinian application to join international institutions and conventions. As negotiators were exploring a way to overcome this crisis and extend the talks, the Palestinian Authority announced a unity agreement with the backing of Hamas, leading Israel to suspend negotiations. Despite that, practical cooperation between Israel and the PA has continued, even during and after the recent conflict between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip.