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.

Netenyahu, Abbas Agree To Meet Again In Two Weeks

UPDATE - 5:00pm - Both heads of state, Prime Minister Netenyahu and President Abbas, agreed today to meet for another round of talks in mid-September, according to U.S. President Barack Obama’s special Mideast peace envoy, George Mitchell. The meeting will take place in the Middle East, though an exact location has not yet been specified.

WASHINGTON - After two years of silence, direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin today.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will meet at the State Department, presided over by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to begin discussions of compromise and long-lasting peace.

A major factor in these negotiations is the expanded settlement of Israel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  There is currently a moratorium on the settlement expansion that played a major role in building the trust for advancing Thursday’s peace talks. The moratorium, however, is scheduled to expire September 26 and if it is not extended, peace talks between Israel and Palestine will take a heavy blow.

President Barack Obama met with the two leaders yesterday, along with the leaders from Jordan and Egypt, to emphasize that this is an opportunity that must be seized. Despite lingering skepticism, Obama said he believes both countries are looking to achieve a peaceful resolution.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas are two leaders who I believe want peace [and] both sides have indicated that these negotiations can be completed within one year,” Obama said in an address following meetings with both Netanyahu and Abbas. “Now is the time for leaders of courage and vision to deliver the peace that their people deserve.”

Settlement Moratorium A Deal Breaker For Egypt, Palestine

Ambassador Soliman Awaad, spokesman for the Egyptian Presidency, told reporters at a briefing Wednesday that he, along with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, believe that newly launched peace talks between Israel and Palestine will only be successful if Israel ends their settlement expansion.

President Mubarak said in a New York Times Op-Ed that the success of these negotiations is contingent upon whether or not the current moratorium on Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is extended. 

“For its part, Israel should make no mistake; settlements and peace are incompatible,” Mubarak said. “A complete halt to Israel’s settlement expansion… is critical if the negotiations are to succeed.”

Awaad reiterated to the press that the moratorium’s extension plays a very pivotal role in bridging the gap between Israel and Palestine.

“This twenty-sixth day is of crucial importance,” Awaad said. “If [the moratorium] is not extended, all bets are off.”

The spokesman said Egypt wants the moratorium extended and would sympathize with Palestine in breaking negotiations if Israel does not comply. If the 10-month expansion moratorium, scheduled to expire on Septermber 26, is not extended, Awaad said negotiations will likely cease and a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine will end once again.

“The expansion of Israeli settlements have led to a collapse of trust on both sides,” Mubarak said. “For the talks to succeed, we must rebuild trust.”

New Israeli government brings hope for peace with Syria

Yoram Peri, head of the Chaim Herzog Institute for Media, Politics and Society at Tel Aviv University gave a lecture today at the Library of Congress titled, "A New Administration Israel and the U.S.: A New Hope for Peace?" He focused on the results of the recent Israeli election and what the likely repercussions will be concerning the peace process.

One outcome of this election is an apparent shift to the right in Israeli voting, with the right-wing and center parties gaining the most seats, and the left-wing party lagging behind. Peri believes that this is based on a philosophy started by Ariel Sharon, that the Israeli government's first priority should be security and tranquility within Israel, and peace talks should come as a secondary outcome. Therefore people vote for the parties that they believe will keep Israel's safety first. This shift, therefore, does not mean that Israelis do not want to pursue peace, as public opinion polls show more people than ever supporting a two-state solution with the Palestinians.


Peri was not optimistic that the new Israeli administration will be able to bring about peace with the Palestinians because of Hamas' control in Gaza, and the lack of national unity within the Palestinian territories. However, Peri believes that peace talks with Syria are highly likely within the next two years, and that this could change the dynamic of power in the entire Middle East. He views Syrians as a good candidate for peace negotiations because the border disputes are not tied to religion, and because the Syrian government presents a united front and can stand by their word. Peri believes that Syria wants to pursue peace with Israel so that they can improve their relation with the United States. He sees this as changing the relations of Syria and Iran, meaning that Syria will also no longer support Hamas. Peri called this possibility "the silver lining" in the prospects for peace in the upcoming years.

AEI panel on tense situation in Lebanon

The American Enterprise Institute hosted a panel on Lebanon highlighting many of the issues affecting the country. The panel consisted of Danielle Pletka and Michael Rubin of AEI, Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group, Lee Smith of the Hudson Institute, and Hassan Mneimneh, Iraq Memory Foundation.

Hassan began by giving a brief history of the two governing bodies within Lebanon. He said that since the 1970's the country of Lebanon has been functioning under two different governments, one that is pro western influence, and one that is aligned with Syria and Iran, called Hezbollah.

Smith said that the fight for Lebanon is not over, that Hezbollah has been stopped in the north and the south. Smith said that the peace talks between Syria and Israel will play part in the continued conflict in Lebanon and the U.S. needs to broker these talks if they want any sort of presence in the middle east.

Malley talked mostly of news from the last two weeks in Lebanon, along with his opinions on U.S. involvement. He said that there have been three recent events in Lebanon that should concern the U.S. He said the Doha Agreement, the peace talks between Syria and Israel, and Egypt's failure to broker a peace deal between Israel and Syria were losses for the U.S. campaign in the Middle East.

Pletka said that the U.S. doesn't necessarily need to create a new policy for Lebanon, but needs to work on implementation of the current policy. She said that Iran and Syria send foreign ministers to Lebanon on a regular basis and the U.S. rarely sends a representative of that caliber. She said that in order to influence politics in the Lebanon the U.S. must have a presence in Lebanon