The Way Out of This Mess
The Middle East conflict has once again cropped up in the United Nations. It threatens polarization, emotions and taking sides. At worst, there is actually talk of a new Intifada — a revolt that took place in 1987 between Palestine and Israel — and of violence and death.
International attention is now turning to New York, the next site of the drama, after the almost week-long exhibition of disaccord between U.S. president Barack Obama and Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in order to win the favor of U.S. voters concerning peace in the Middle East. In New York, at the United Nations, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas could place an application in September that will catapult peace between Israel and Palestine onto a new political path.
The application would cause a well-founded disagreement under international law about the state of Palestine, a dispute about the effect of international law, and — what is particularly serious — it would force people around the world to reveal their sympathies for or against Israel. It is about polarization, emotions and taking sides. At worst, there is actually talk of a new Intifada — a revolt that took place in 1987 between Palestine and Israel — and of violence and death. It is a development that causes great worry for diplomats the world over, which should be avoided at all costs.
It envisions an applicant — perhaps even the Palestinians themselves — asking Ban Ki Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, to begin to include the Palestinian state in the UN. Palestine was already declared its own state in 1988 by Yasser Arafat, who was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at the time, but it lacked any characteristics of statehood. The Palestinian National Authority has only recently achieved recognition from at least 100 countries in the world, sometimes simply as the representative of a people, sometimes as full-fledged country in accordance with international law. The UN cannot recognize Palestine as its own country; this right is reserved for individual countries themselves.
For mere membership in the UN, the international community’s Charter provides a clear procedure. First of all, at least 10 of the 15 Security Council members must vote in favor of it, and none of the five permanent members can use their veto. If the vote goes this way, the Security Council will recommend their inclusion. Once this hurdle is overcome, two-thirds of all 192 states in the General Assembly must vote yes to the inclusion. This step seems to be easier for the Palestinians: According to diplomats’ estimations, Abbas can count on up to 150 votes. The fact that the Arab Spring has given new impetus to their wish for statehood stands the Palestinians in good stead. There is a state; there is a state territory according to Palestinian interpretation — beyond the Israeli 1967 lines — and according to the World Bank, amongst others, the Palestinian Authorities are ready for statehood.
But what if the U.S. vetoes the procedure in the Security Council? It is being considered whether the General Assembly could make a judgment by bypassing the Security Council, which would have at least a strong symbolic significance. This could be made possible with a few legal tricks, but it would force a conflict on the international community that has not been seen since the Uniting for Peace resolution was adopted in 1950.
In the meantime, some countries — in Europe in particular — are trying to avoid this ultimate conflict. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, has made it abundantly clear that she thinks little of a one-sided act by the Palestinians and that peace can only be achieved in negotiations. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was ambiguous in saying that his country “will face up to its responsibilities.”
Germany, France and Great Britain — the three European Middle East negotiators — have written how this responsibility could be shaped out in a joint statement. Until now it has only been studied by experts. The statement was read out by British U.N. ambassador Mark Lyall Grant on Feb. 18. The reason for this was the Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements, which was simply vetoed by the United States. However, the resolution served as a warning to Israel and created bad blood, especially with Germany, who had never been so openly against Israel before. However, even U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice made it clear at the time that the United States sympathizes with the contents of the resolution, but did not want Israel to be in the dock for overriding reasons.
In any case, the European statement shows the way out of the trap. The key word in the text is “parameters”; principles that Israel and the Palestinians only need to agree to in order to set a peace process in motion. Four parameters were identified: First of all, an agreement on the borders, based on the border lines of 1967, which would have to be notably changed by land swaps in order to leave certain Israeli settlements untouched and to fulfill the Palestinian demand for land. The second parameter is an agreement to satisfy both parties’ security arrangements. The third parameter is a "just, fair and agreed solution to the refugee question,” and the final parameter is a negotiated settlement “to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both states.”
In the meantime, Obama has overcome the biggest hurdle for his country. For the first time he publicly declared the 1967 lines as the basis for the distribution of land. In his many talks in Europe and the U.S., Abbas has made it clear that he is only prepared to negotiate over the first two parameters: borders and security. The question of refugees and the issue of Jerusalem should not be touched upon any time soon, and he believes that a halt to the settlements is also no longer a precondition for talks — at least not in public. However, Israel's government is showing little willingness to compromise.
It would now be possible for the Europeans to agree with the United States on a Security Council resolution on the basis of these parameters. Then Israel would be put under pressure by the highest UN committee, including the protector state: the United States. Furthermore, a vote on the inclusion of the Palestinians in the UN would become less important and may not need to take place at all. Two weeks ago, Abbas had still thought that “negotiations remain our first option.” And during a visit to Berlin he said, whilst standing next to Angela Merkel: “We said recently that we were ready to accept without debate the proposal by the trio — Britain, France and Germany — given to the Security Council for a return to negotiations.”
Just less than four months remain until the showdown in New York. In these months, politicians are going to be intensely agonizing over an exit strategy. In Europe, they have put out the bait for Israel: Now, it is not just Angela Merkel who is talking about the right to a “Jewish state,” which ought to signify to the Israelis that a return of the many Palestinian refugees is not realistic. There is even talk of introducing security guarantees, approaching the EU and implementing a peace troop between the parties.
However, the U.S. was the only country to vote against Israel in the Security Council, and it was Netanyahu himself who made it clear that he does not believe there to be much room for compromise.
International attention is now turning to New York, the next site of the drama, after the almost week-long exhibition of disaccord between U.S. president Barack Obama and Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in order to win the favor of U.S. voters concerning peace in the Middle East. In New York, at the United Nations, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas could place an application in September that will catapult peace between Israel and Palestine onto a new political path.
The application would cause a well-founded disagreement under international law about the state of Palestine, a dispute about the effect of international law, and — what is particularly serious — it would force people around the world to reveal their sympathies for or against Israel. It is about polarization, emotions and taking sides. At worst, there is actually talk of a new Intifada — a revolt that took place in 1987 between Palestine and Israel — and of violence and death. It is a development that causes great worry for diplomats the world over, which should be avoided at all costs.
It envisions an applicant — perhaps even the Palestinians themselves — asking Ban Ki Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, to begin to include the Palestinian state in the UN. Palestine was already declared its own state in 1988 by Yasser Arafat, who was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at the time, but it lacked any characteristics of statehood. The Palestinian National Authority has only recently achieved recognition from at least 100 countries in the world, sometimes simply as the representative of a people, sometimes as full-fledged country in accordance with international law. The UN cannot recognize Palestine as its own country; this right is reserved for individual countries themselves.
For mere membership in the UN, the international community’s Charter provides a clear procedure. First of all, at least 10 of the 15 Security Council members must vote in favor of it, and none of the five permanent members can use their veto. If the vote goes this way, the Security Council will recommend their inclusion. Once this hurdle is overcome, two-thirds of all 192 states in the General Assembly must vote yes to the inclusion. This step seems to be easier for the Palestinians: According to diplomats’ estimations, Abbas can count on up to 150 votes. The fact that the Arab Spring has given new impetus to their wish for statehood stands the Palestinians in good stead. There is a state; there is a state territory according to Palestinian interpretation — beyond the Israeli 1967 lines — and according to the World Bank, amongst others, the Palestinian Authorities are ready for statehood.
But what if the U.S. vetoes the procedure in the Security Council? It is being considered whether the General Assembly could make a judgment by bypassing the Security Council, which would have at least a strong symbolic significance. This could be made possible with a few legal tricks, but it would force a conflict on the international community that has not been seen since the Uniting for Peace resolution was adopted in 1950.
In the meantime, some countries — in Europe in particular — are trying to avoid this ultimate conflict. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, has made it abundantly clear that she thinks little of a one-sided act by the Palestinians and that peace can only be achieved in negotiations. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was ambiguous in saying that his country “will face up to its responsibilities.”
Germany, France and Great Britain — the three European Middle East negotiators — have written how this responsibility could be shaped out in a joint statement. Until now it has only been studied by experts. The statement was read out by British U.N. ambassador Mark Lyall Grant on Feb. 18. The reason for this was the Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements, which was simply vetoed by the United States. However, the resolution served as a warning to Israel and created bad blood, especially with Germany, who had never been so openly against Israel before. However, even U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice made it clear at the time that the United States sympathizes with the contents of the resolution, but did not want Israel to be in the dock for overriding reasons.
In any case, the European statement shows the way out of the trap. The key word in the text is “parameters”; principles that Israel and the Palestinians only need to agree to in order to set a peace process in motion. Four parameters were identified: First of all, an agreement on the borders, based on the border lines of 1967, which would have to be notably changed by land swaps in order to leave certain Israeli settlements untouched and to fulfill the Palestinian demand for land. The second parameter is an agreement to satisfy both parties’ security arrangements. The third parameter is a "just, fair and agreed solution to the refugee question,” and the final parameter is a negotiated settlement “to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both states.”
In the meantime, Obama has overcome the biggest hurdle for his country. For the first time he publicly declared the 1967 lines as the basis for the distribution of land. In his many talks in Europe and the U.S., Abbas has made it clear that he is only prepared to negotiate over the first two parameters: borders and security. The question of refugees and the issue of Jerusalem should not be touched upon any time soon, and he believes that a halt to the settlements is also no longer a precondition for talks — at least not in public. However, Israel's government is showing little willingness to compromise.
It would now be possible for the Europeans to agree with the United States on a Security Council resolution on the basis of these parameters. Then Israel would be put under pressure by the highest UN committee, including the protector state: the United States. Furthermore, a vote on the inclusion of the Palestinians in the UN would become less important and may not need to take place at all. Two weeks ago, Abbas had still thought that “negotiations remain our first option.” And during a visit to Berlin he said, whilst standing next to Angela Merkel: “We said recently that we were ready to accept without debate the proposal by the trio — Britain, France and Germany — given to the Security Council for a return to negotiations.”
Just less than four months remain until the showdown in New York. In these months, politicians are going to be intensely agonizing over an exit strategy. In Europe, they have put out the bait for Israel: Now, it is not just Angela Merkel who is talking about the right to a “Jewish state,” which ought to signify to the Israelis that a return of the many Palestinian refugees is not realistic. There is even talk of introducing security guarantees, approaching the EU and implementing a peace troop between the parties.
However, the U.S. was the only country to vote against Israel in the Security Council, and it was Netanyahu himself who made it clear that he does not believe there to be much room for compromise.