Palestine's Admission To UN Can Be Positive, Say Advocates On Both Sides

As the upcoming United Nations (UN) General Assembly creeps closer, Israeli policy experts across the world are hurrying to gather information about Palestine’s potential declaration of statehood. Many wonder if such an act will hinder or advance the Arab-Israeli peace process. 

After peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine were stalled for almost two years, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat announced in March to AFP (Agence France Presse) that the Palestinian leadership planned to request full membership to the UN, along with recognition of a Palestinian state at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September. 

Omar Dajani, former adviser to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), told reporters today that such a request has three anticipated favorable outcomes for Palestinians:

1. Palestinian legal position in negotiations will be greatly improved.

2. Pressure will be placed on the Israeli government to return to the negotiating table and halt construction on settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.                  

3. Mass mobilization and non-violent resistance will be promoted in the West Bank and Gaza strip. 

“It is important to look at these goals and see how they can be coextensive with the Israel peace camp and conversely, how they can be turned to a destructive direction in the process of peace,” Dajani said. 

The “destructive direction” Dajani referred to is that Palestinian leaders will be violating existing agreements between them and Israel if they involve the UN. Past agreements, such as the Declaration of Principles and the Roadmap, require that disputes between Israel and Palestine be settled via direct negotiations and not through third parties, such as the UN.

Consequentially, by involving the UN and violating existing peace agreements, spectators fear it will destroy any hope of further peace negotiations. 

Gadi Baltiansky, former press secretary for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and director-general of the Geneva Initiative, however, believes that the Israel advocacy community is making too big of a deal out of this.

“Every year so many resolutions are taken by the UN and no one pays attention,” he told reporters. “The Palestinians are just trying to upgrade their status in the UN…It is not a dramatic move that will change history.”

“I am not sure this will be a constructive move that leads towards a better future,” Baltiansky continued. “But when we think about the other options without negotiations, this can be better.”

Both Baltiansky and Dajani agreed that the UN vote can be a positive experience if used as an opportunity to relaunch peace talks. 

“See it as a potential resolution that is good for both sides,” Baltiansky said. “Use language that both sides can live with. Imagine a resolution that says the world will recognize a capital in Jerusalem and Palestine with a border in between them. For the first time the world will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

“Make it into a resolution that references territory swaps,” Dajani said. “Such a resolution will move them forward with the peace process since they will understand that whatever territorial concessions were made to accommodate settlement growth would be compensated for them.”  

While many are worried about the UN General Assembly in September, it is clear that the sequential step is most important. It is after the UN vote that both sides will need to work together toward future peace talks.