A no vote at the UN will boost Netanyahu, wound Fatah and
discredit the Europeans as useless hypocrites
By Jonathan Freedland
Illustration by Belle Mellor
Britain
doesn't usually count for much in the Middle East, but this time it could make
all the difference. As the Palestinians seek United Nations recognition as a
state, a quirk of diplomatic algebra leaves Britain with a chance to play the
decisive role – and to complete some unfinished business dating back more than
60 years.
Barack
Obama has already said the US will vote against any Palestinian move towards
statehood at the UN general assembly now gathering in New York. Large swaths of
Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East plan to vote for it. Which
leaves Europe as the diplomatic battleground. If the leading European powers
side with the US, the Palestinian initiative will be seen as a failure. If an
EU majority backs recognition in some form, the Palestinians can claim symbolic
victory.
Already
negotiations are under way, both among the European nations and between the EU
and the Palestinians, aimed at reaching a common, compromise position. France
and Spain want to say yes, Germany and Italy are wary. Which leaves Britain
with something akin to a casting vote in the "quintet" of leading
European nations. How David Cameron jumps will be crucial in determining
Europe's stance, and therefore the fate of the Palestinian effort itself. For
decades Britain has talked about punching above its weight. Now its weight
really counts.
The
backroom haggling concentrates on which UN body will make the decision – the
general assembly or the security council – and what exactly they'll be voting
on. If the Palestinians aim high, they'll apply to the security council for
full UN membership, where Obama has promised they will be greeted by a US veto.
Or they could go before the general assembly, where 140-odd countries are ready
to grant the lesser prize of an upgrade in UN status, from observer to
"non-member state", with access to some of the major international
institutions. Devil's in the details and all that, but Britain's attitude
should be clear: we should say yes.
That's
because UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by
Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite
everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace – a
two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the
UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of
conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two
states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than
enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution – so-called because while
it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that
would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides.
The
two-state solution has been on life support for years now, its health
deteriorating since Binyamin Netanyahu returned to the prime minister's office.
Officially he subscribes to two states, yet his every policy action, typified
by unceasing settlement building in the West Bank, puts that goal further out
of reach. A loud yes vote at the UN would reverse that trend, renewing what has
long been the global consensus: that the land of historic Palestine has to be
shared between the two peoples who live there.
Here's
where Britain and Europe can give a little extra help. A new and insightful
policy document by the European Council on Foreign Relations – titled Why
Europeans Should Vote Yes – suggests the new UN resolution could explicitly
support the idea of "Israel alongside a Palestinian state, thereby
entrenching Israel's legitimacy and its permanence". Having the general
assembly, including its Arab and Muslim member states, vote for such a
resolution would amount to de facto recognition of Israel – and reassure those
who fear the country's "delegitimisation". The text might even
reconfirm UN resolution 181, the original 1947 partition of Palestine into two
states, one Jewish and one Arab. Renewing 181 would complete two items of
unfinished business. First, that Palestinian state promised 64 years ago never
materialised: its land was gobbled up, the West Bank taken by Jordan, Gaza by
Egypt and much of the rest by Israel. A yes vote next week would finally
acknowledge the Palestinian right to lands they were meant to govern decades
ago. Second, Britain abstained in 1947; now it has a chance to say yes to the
partition of the land it once ruled.
Still,
it's the future we should be imagining, specifically the day after a US- and
Europe-led no vote. Palestinian public opinion would surely conclude that the
path of nonviolence and diplomacy had failed, shunned by the very countries who
had repeatedly urged them to take it. In the ongoing argument within
Palestinian society, the advocates of armed resistance would appear vindicated,
their opponents humiliated.
Imagine
the contrasting scene in Israel, where Netanyahu would be doing a victory
dance. As Daniel Levy, co-author of that ECFR paper, told me, a European no
vote would reward the Israeli PM's stubbornness: "He will respect the EU
even less, and it would entrench his rejectionism even more." Bibi would
taunt those who had warned of a September diplomatic tsunami as "liberal
crybabies", unable to see that tough intransigence always wins the day. A prime
minister who should be on the ropes – assailed for watching as two former
allies, Egypt and Turkey, make common cause against Israel – would instead be
hailed as a maestro of international power politics.
If
the prospect of boosting Bibi and discrediting Fatah does not deter European
governments contemplating a no vote, perhaps they should think on their
reputations in the region if the Palestinians are thwarted. Having praised
those peoples who seized their own destiny through the Arab revolutions, they
would have denied, however symbolically, that same path to the Palestinians.
Obama is already fated to be condemned as a hypocrite by the Arab world, thanks
to his promised veto. If the Europeans make the same mistake, they will lose
whatever influence they retain in the Middle East. No one will listen to a word
they say.
There
are misgivings among Palestinians and their supporters, of course. Some worry
that recognition of the Palestinian Authority would diminish the PLO, which
represents the wider Palestinian diaspora. The glib answer is that the
Palestinians of the occupied territories have been dominant since at least the
Oslo accords, signed 18 years ago today, and that a UN vote will only formalise
what is already true. More subtly, such a usurping of the PLO would only be in
prospect if the Palestinians started implementing practical statehood,
declaring interim borders on the West Bank and the like. And no one believes
that is likely.
The
truth is that, by itself, a positive UN vote will not change the lives of too
many Palestinians. But a negative response would be a disaster, boosting
Israeli hardliners, weakening Palestinian peacemakers and choking the near-dead
two-state solution. All three of those arguments should resonate in European
capitals, but the last two should hit home in Israel itself. That is why a wise
Britain would vote yes at the UN – and why a shrewd Israeli government, one
that understood the best form of security is peace, would vote exactly the same
way.
-This commentary was published in The Guardian on 13/09/2011- Jonathan Freedland writes a weekly column for the Guardian. He is
also a regular contributor to the New York Times and the New York Review of
Books, and presents BBC Radio 4's contemporary history series, The Long View
No comments:
Post a Comment