It appears that Palestine is taking a proactive approach and is strongly considering putting forth a resolution in the UN that would make it the next officially recognized state by the international body. This development comes after another state, Sudan, recently succeeded in separating into two.
If the vote goes ahead and Palestine succeeds, they will become UN’s 194th member state.
The UN has been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1947 when the UN Special Committee on Palestine was mandated to the region. The first UN peacekeeping mission began operations in Palestine in May 1948. And peace operations across the area over the years have not resolved a number of issues surrounding the conflict.
Ignoring some of the controversial debates such as the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as Palestine’s proposed capital and so forth, I recently returned to South Africa after an eight-day research visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Its my third visit to the Middle Eastern region in recent months, which has included United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, and Jordan, but this one was vastly different to the others. It is not just about the thousands of years of important historical events and the dozens of monotheistic religious sites. It is about this peculiar feeling of ‘tension’ that comes over you when you are walking around Jerusalem that you don’t get when you are in other cites like Dubai, Doha or Istanbul.
Moreover, a visit to the West Bank gave me a much better perception of the peace operations currently taking place and exactly how reliant they are on humanitarian aid. In the Middle East, expenditure is dominated by Palestine. Overall they are the second largest recipient of humanitarian aid over the last ten years; second only to Sudan. According to the 2011 Global Humanitarian Assistance Report by Development Initiatives released in July of this year, Palestine received US$1.3 billion dollars in international humanitarian aid; Sudan, US$1.4 billion.
I was personally shocked when I saw garbage trucks with the giant U and N on the sides. It also appeared as if every second car driving on the roads was part of the UN.
The garbage trucks (and garbage bins for that matter) are part of the UN Relief for Palestine Refugees or UNRWA, which was set up in November 1948 as a temporary organization to extend aid and relief to Palestine refugees. Since then, the General Assembly has renewed UNRWA's mandate repeatedly and will most likely continue to do so until the issue of Palestinian refugees is resolved.
America was UNRWA’s largest donor in 2009 (US$268 million), followed by the European Commission (US$232.7 million). These contributions made up 53 percent of UNRWA’s total income. And according to the 2011 Global Humanitarian Report, the US was by far the largest global international donor, supplying US$4.4 billion of humanitarian aid.
However, if Palestine decides to “go for it” and apply for full UN state membership, this could drastically change its relations with the US.
But before we engage in that debate, one needs to first understand the procedures. The process of applying for UN membership is straightforward. The proposed state applies through the UN Secretariat’s Office of Legal Affairs who then analyzes the application, and makes a recommendation. If the recommendation is positive, it goes in front of the UN Security Council. Palestine needs nine affirmatives out of 15 possible votes. But, the kicker is not one of the permanent five members (US, France, Russia, Britain or China) can vote against it. If Palestine gets through that hurdle, then they need an affirmative vote of at least 2/3 or 129 ‘yes’ votes from the total of 193 UN General Assembly members.
This is an issue of high importance for not only the people of Palestine and Israel, but for Jews, Christians, and Muslims around the world.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) originally declared a State of Palestine on 15 November 1988. Since that declaration, Palestine has established embassies in more than 130 countries and numerous countries have recognized Palestine. This includes a P5 member Russia, when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recognized Palestine during a visit to Jericho in January of this year, although this has been the position of Moscow since 1988.
It appears that US negotiations, and negotiations and efforts put forth by Russia, EU, South Africa and every other country in the world for that matter, has ultimately failed. Some Palestinian leaders such as Gabriel Fahel, a legal adviser to the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, feel a softer approach is needed: asking the UN General Assembly to upgrade the current status of Palestine from “observer entity to “observer state.” It is a symbolic move, but one that would most likely pass since it would not have to go through the Security Council and there are no vetoes in the General Assembly. Moreover, this would highlight the global support for Palestinian independence, which in turn puts immense pressure on Israel. Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak has described this particular scenario as a “diplomatic tsunami.”
Nevertheless, it appears other key Palestinian leaders, such as Palestinian president Abbas, are prepared to push for a full UN vote. Other Palestinian leaders are worried about the effect of such a decision on relations with Washington and European allies, whose aid money is really the only thing keeping Palestine going.
If Abbas gets his way and it comes down to a vote, will America veto?
The US vetoed a PLO led resolution at the UN Security Council in February condemning Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace. This lead to United Arab List MK Ibrahim Sarsour stating, “Obama can go to hell” in an open letter to Abbas. Then there appeared to be a change when Obama said in a May 19 speech "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states…The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.” However, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington a week later advocating for America to use its veto power and block Palestine from reaching its dream. Netanyahu was also clear that Israel would not go back to the 1967 lines, as Obama stated in his speech. A senior White House adviser, however, later clarified that America had not intended to imply that Israel would have to go back to the 1967 lines, but rather that they would be adjusted to take into account security needs and new facts on the ground as part of negotiations. Overall, Washington backs Israel's position that the situation is best handled in bilateral negotiations and not by the Security Council.
Again, if Abbas gets his way, it would appear that President Obama is in quite a predicament. Support Netanyahu and the potent US-Israel lobby? Support the small but militarily powerful player and old ally in the region? Or do you support your other old allies in the Middle East such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, of which most are rich in oil and have stood by you even after the 2003 invasion of Iraq? And your newer allies like Qatar who hosts your largest military base in the region rent-free and is the location for Centcom, the US military command centre for the Middle East and Central Asia? How long will they support you if you veto? And we must not forgot relations with states who have already recognized the State of Palestine set up in 1988.
There is only one thing I can say for certain if the UN vote situation unfolds: I am glad I am not President Obama!
Regardless of what happens over the coming weeks and months, the bigger picture is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just about aid money, nation-states and international relations. It is ultimately about love, hate, life and death. If these issues are not dealt with first, can there ever truly be peace?
Dr. Scott Firsing is an American living in South Africa, and a lecturer and acting head of the Department of International Studies at Monash University. His areas of focus are US foreign and defense politics, international security, South Africa and Southern African politics, resource wars, and ethnic conflict management.
Photo courtesy of Michele Benericetti, Creative Commons with Attribution license.
a global affairs media network
Palestine: the next South Sudan?
August 4, 2011
It appears that Palestine is taking a proactive approach and is strongly considering putting forth a resolution in the UN that would make it the next officially recognized state by the international body. This development comes after another state, Sudan, recently succeeded in separating into two.
If the vote goes ahead and Palestine succeeds, they will become UN’s 194th member state.
The UN has been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1947 when the UN Special Committee on Palestine was mandated to the region. The first UN peacekeeping mission began operations in Palestine in May 1948. And peace operations across the area over the years have not resolved a number of issues surrounding the conflict.
Ignoring some of the controversial debates such as the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as Palestine’s proposed capital and so forth, I recently returned to South Africa after an eight-day research visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Its my third visit to the Middle Eastern region in recent months, which has included United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, and Jordan, but this one was vastly different to the others. It is not just about the thousands of years of important historical events and the dozens of monotheistic religious sites. It is about this peculiar feeling of ‘tension’ that comes over you when you are walking around Jerusalem that you don’t get when you are in other cites like Dubai, Doha or Istanbul.
Moreover, a visit to the West Bank gave me a much better perception of the peace operations currently taking place and exactly how reliant they are on humanitarian aid. In the Middle East, expenditure is dominated by Palestine. Overall they are the second largest recipient of humanitarian aid over the last ten years; second only to Sudan. According to the 2011 Global Humanitarian Assistance Report by Development Initiatives released in July of this year, Palestine received US$1.3 billion dollars in international humanitarian aid; Sudan, US$1.4 billion.
I was personally shocked when I saw garbage trucks with the giant U and N on the sides. It also appeared as if every second car driving on the roads was part of the UN.
The garbage trucks (and garbage bins for that matter) are part of the UN Relief for Palestine Refugees or UNRWA, which was set up in November 1948 as a temporary organization to extend aid and relief to Palestine refugees. Since then, the General Assembly has renewed UNRWA's mandate repeatedly and will most likely continue to do so until the issue of Palestinian refugees is resolved.
America was UNRWA’s largest donor in 2009 (US$268 million), followed by the European Commission (US$232.7 million). These contributions made up 53 percent of UNRWA’s total income. And according to the 2011 Global Humanitarian Report, the US was by far the largest global international donor, supplying US$4.4 billion of humanitarian aid.
However, if Palestine decides to “go for it” and apply for full UN state membership, this could drastically change its relations with the US.
But before we engage in that debate, one needs to first understand the procedures. The process of applying for UN membership is straightforward. The proposed state applies through the UN Secretariat’s Office of Legal Affairs who then analyzes the application, and makes a recommendation. If the recommendation is positive, it goes in front of the UN Security Council. Palestine needs nine affirmatives out of 15 possible votes. But, the kicker is not one of the permanent five members (US, France, Russia, Britain or China) can vote against it. If Palestine gets through that hurdle, then they need an affirmative vote of at least 2/3 or 129 ‘yes’ votes from the total of 193 UN General Assembly members.
This is an issue of high importance for not only the people of Palestine and Israel, but for Jews, Christians, and Muslims around the world.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) originally declared a State of Palestine on 15 November 1988. Since that declaration, Palestine has established embassies in more than 130 countries and numerous countries have recognized Palestine. This includes a P5 member Russia, when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recognized Palestine during a visit to Jericho in January of this year, although this has been the position of Moscow since 1988.
It appears that US negotiations, and negotiations and efforts put forth by Russia, EU, South Africa and every other country in the world for that matter, has ultimately failed. Some Palestinian leaders such as Gabriel Fahel, a legal adviser to the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, feel a softer approach is needed: asking the UN General Assembly to upgrade the current status of Palestine from “observer entity to “observer state.” It is a symbolic move, but one that would most likely pass since it would not have to go through the Security Council and there are no vetoes in the General Assembly. Moreover, this would highlight the global support for Palestinian independence, which in turn puts immense pressure on Israel. Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak has described this particular scenario as a “diplomatic tsunami.”
Nevertheless, it appears other key Palestinian leaders, such as Palestinian president Abbas, are prepared to push for a full UN vote. Other Palestinian leaders are worried about the effect of such a decision on relations with Washington and European allies, whose aid money is really the only thing keeping Palestine going.
If Abbas gets his way and it comes down to a vote, will America veto?
The US vetoed a PLO led resolution at the UN Security Council in February condemning Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace. This lead to United Arab List MK Ibrahim Sarsour stating, “Obama can go to hell” in an open letter to Abbas. Then there appeared to be a change when Obama said in a May 19 speech "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states…The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.” However, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington a week later advocating for America to use its veto power and block Palestine from reaching its dream. Netanyahu was also clear that Israel would not go back to the 1967 lines, as Obama stated in his speech. A senior White House adviser, however, later clarified that America had not intended to imply that Israel would have to go back to the 1967 lines, but rather that they would be adjusted to take into account security needs and new facts on the ground as part of negotiations. Overall, Washington backs Israel's position that the situation is best handled in bilateral negotiations and not by the Security Council.
Again, if Abbas gets his way, it would appear that President Obama is in quite a predicament. Support Netanyahu and the potent US-Israel lobby? Support the small but militarily powerful player and old ally in the region? Or do you support your other old allies in the Middle East such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, of which most are rich in oil and have stood by you even after the 2003 invasion of Iraq? And your newer allies like Qatar who hosts your largest military base in the region rent-free and is the location for Centcom, the US military command centre for the Middle East and Central Asia? How long will they support you if you veto? And we must not forgot relations with states who have already recognized the State of Palestine set up in 1988.
There is only one thing I can say for certain if the UN vote situation unfolds: I am glad I am not President Obama!
Regardless of what happens over the coming weeks and months, the bigger picture is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just about aid money, nation-states and international relations. It is ultimately about love, hate, life and death. If these issues are not dealt with first, can there ever truly be peace?
Dr. Scott Firsing is an American living in South Africa, and a lecturer and acting head of the Department of International Studies at Monash University. His areas of focus are US foreign and defense politics, international security, South Africa and Southern African politics, resource wars, and ethnic conflict management.
Photo courtesy of Michele Benericetti, Creative Commons with Attribution license.
