fbpx

Analysis

BICOM Briefing: The failed Palestinian UN resolution

[ssba]

Last update: 31/12/2014, 09.00 GMT

Key points

  • The UN Security Council has rejected a Palestinian resolution to impose a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a three year time frame, with eight states in favour, two against and five abstentions.
  • The UK abstained, saying, “agreeing such a resolution requires proper time for consultation, and negotiation of the draft resolution, including on its timing.”
  • The US voted against, saying the text was, “deeply imbalanced” and established “unconstructive deadlines.”
  • The Palestinians are now threatening to follow through with plans to join more international treaties and institutions, including the International Criminal Court.

What happened in the Security Council?

  • On 31 December the Security Council rejected a Palestinian resolution, submitted by Jordan on their behalf, to impose a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a three year time frame. Only eight states voted in favour, short of the nine required. Whilst the US had said it would use its veto to block the resolution, this was not required. Of the EU states, Britain abstained along with Lithuania, whilst France and Luxembourg voted in favour. Australia joined the US in voting against.
  • The rejected draft was a more hard line version of one submitted two weeks ago. The Palestinians had apparently toughened up the text in the face of domestic criticism that the earlier version was too conciliatory. The updated version reportedly reworded references to Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements and prisoners.
  • The Palestinian draft called for negotiations on predetermined terms of reference for 12 months, followed by Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories by the end of 2017.

Why did the resolution fail?

  • Though the US was always going to veto a resolution that imposed a deadline for Israeli withdrawal, the Palestinians had hoped to put pressure on the US and isolate it by forcing it to use its veto. In the event they failed to do so. Despite considerable international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and a widespread frustration at the lack of progress towards a two state solution, it appears the Palestinians overreached with this resolution.
  • France had promoted an alternative version which set out terms of reference for an agreement and timeline for negotiations. Whilst some of those ideas were incorporated, the Palestinians insisted on including a deadline for withdrawal and other one-sided terms. In the two weeks following the submission of the 17 December draft, the Palestinians made amendments which only made the text harder for its opponents to support.
  • Though France surprised Israel by voting in favour, even though the text was much harsher than the version they had proposed, Britain was not willing to do so. In addition, the Palestinians expressed disappointment that Nigeria did not vote in favour, a move which apparently surprised them.
  • The UK ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said prior to the vote: “There’s some difficulties with the text, particularly language on time scales, new language on refugees. So I think we would have some difficulties.” After the vote he said: “agreeing such a resolution requires proper time for consultation, and negotiation of the draft resolution, including on its timing … But we are disappointed that the normal, and necessary, negotiation did not take place on this occasion.” He said the UK would like to work on a “parameters resolution” which would command full Security Council support in 2015.
  • One of the problems relating to timing is that Israel is now in the midst of an election campaign, with the possibility that a harsh resolution could have been used by Israeli opponents of the two-state solution to depict themselves as defenders of Israel against international attempts to impose a solution.

What is likely to happen next?

  • The Palestinian leadership is holding meetings on Wednesday. Though one Fatah official claimed they would sign the Rome Statute to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) immediately, it remains to be seen if this will happen. The Palestinians have already said they will sign it at some point, along with more than 500 other international conventions and treaties. Joining the ICC will likely illicit sanctions from both Israel and the US.
  • Palestinian accession to the ICC 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. The move has been opposed by the US and the UK.
  • The UK has suggested that it may be possible to pass a resolution setting out parameters for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2015, though it is unlikely that this initiative will develop before Israel’s March 17 election. Though the makeup of the Security Council will change in the Palestinians’ favour in January, the US is still sure to veto a resolution it considers imbalanced, or threatening to Israeli security.

What is the Israeli position?

  • Israel is now in the midst of a general election campaign, making this an inopportune moment for international interventions. Prime Minister Netanyahu took a strong stance against attempts to impose terms on Israel via the Security Council, which he said could endanger Israeli security in the face of Islamic extremism and terrorism. He has sought to demonstrate to the Israeli electorate his determination to stand up to any Palestinian or international attempt to impose terms on Israel.
  • Former lead Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni, who is running on a joint centre-left ticket to replace Netanyahu, had urged US Secretary of State John Kerry to block the Palestinian initiative. Centre-left parties in Israel were concerned that an international attempt to impose terms on Israel could strengthen the right in the election campaign.
  • Israeli political parties on the centre and left are calling for a more pragmatic and proactive Israeli approach to the Palestinian issue. However, if a UN resolution imposes terms of reference for a final status agreement which no Israeli government can accept, it may make it harder to resume the peace process after the Israeli elections, even if a more left-leaning government is elected.

How do these moves fit into a broader Palestinian strategy?

  • These moves reflect a strategy by the PA and its international supporters to secure endorsement in international forums for Palestinian demands without compromising 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 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 2014. 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, with tensions heightened by Israeli settlement announcements. The delayed prisoner release triggered a Palestinian application to join international institutions and conventions, which breached prior understandings with Israel and the US. As negotiators were exploring a way to overcome this crisis, the PA announced a new unity government 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.