By: Joshua Plaschkes

Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas’s United Nations (U.N.) proposal for the creation of a Palestinian state has brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back into the spotlight. All sides agree that the Palestinians should have a state of their own, one that lives side-by-side with Israel in peace, but the issues that have remained so divisive since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords consistently thwart any true steps towards a final agreement. The main question with regards to the current controversy is how should a viable Palestinian state be created, by a U.N. resolution or direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians?

Abbas’s current attempt to use the U.N. Security Council to forgo the peace process will not lead to the creation of a Palestinian State. Even before Abbas handed the proposal to Secretary-General of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, President Barack Obama made it clear that if nine members of the Security Council approved the Palestinian’s proposal, the U.S. would use its veto power. If it was certain from the beginning that the Palestinian proposal would fail, why would Abba‘s follow through with his submission? The Palestinians state that because the negotiations have failed to bear any fruit, this would increase the negotiating power the Palestinians have when negotiating with the Israelis. Also, throughout the negotiations, Israeli settlements have continued to expand in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the main areas where the PA envisions a future Palestinian state. If the Palestinians are granted statehood or observer status, the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) claims to the pre-1967 borders would gain international legitimacy. The current budding of institutions and the growth of the Palestinian economy are two reasons why Abbas believes now is the perfect time for the Palestinian’s to be granted statehood.

Yet, other explanations may be of greater relevance in explaining Abbas’s refusal to put a stop to his U.N. proposal and come back to the negotiating table. One possibility is Abbas is looking at the spread of the Arab Spring and fears that the Palestinian population will deem his leadership ineffective, warranting his removal. At the very least, Abbas can go back to his countrymen and say that he is doing everything in his power to bringing about the creation of a Palestinian state. The scenes of his return to the West Bank has shown that he has garnered significant popularity as a result of the U.N. proposal. An increase in Abbas’s popularity could strengthen his hand when negotiating with Hamas for control of the government. Also, a refusal by the Security Council could still lead to the U.N. General Assembly passing a non-binding resolution to recognize the PA as a non-state observer, which would give access to international judiciary privileges without becoming an actual state. Even without full statehood recognition, the Palestinian proposal could strengthen the hand of the PA.

The repercussions that could occur as a result of Abba’s U.N. proposal could cause more harm than good. Calls in the U.S. congress to end the approximately $500 million in financial aid to the Palestinian’s is gaining momentum. By going threw with the proposal, Abbas is breaking the agreement in the Oslo Accords, which states that neither the Israelis or Palestinians can unilaterally change the status of the West Bank. The Israeli’s could take measures against the Palestinians for breaking the Oslo Accords, such as annexing territory, imposing travel restrictions and asset freezes, and more. Frustration in the Palestinian territories, as a result of Abbas’s failure to create a Palestinian state through the U.N. could lead to the PA loosing legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinian population, giving Hamas a greater opportunity to take control of the divided government. Abba’s U.N. attempt could be extremely detrimental to the PA.

If Israel agrees with the rest of the international community that the Palestinians deserve a state of their own, why is there such strong disapproval for Abbas’s actions? Granting the Palestinian’s U.N. statehood or even observer status would give the PA access to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice, which could be used to prosecute Israel for war crimes. This would undoubtedly lead to Israel prosecuting the Palestinians for the continuous rocket attacks being fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip. This will further deteriorate any chance for peaceful relations between the two parties. Also, the tension created by Abba’s proposal could break down the security cooperation between the Israelis and Palestinians, which has been extremely effective in reducing the amount of deaths resulting from terrorist attacks since 2002. The frustration of the Palestinian population resulting from a realization that the U.N. proposal has not created a Palestinian state could create wide spread protests, undoubtedly leading to a resumption of violence between the two sides. If Israel were to take punitive measures against the Palestinians, relations with Egypt could be pushed to a new low, leading to a breakdown in security cooperation that has been essential for maintaining peace. Also, the Associated Press makes the point that even if the U.N. grants the Palestinians statehood, the two sides will still have to have direct negotiations in order to determine security arrangements, Palestinian right of return, state sovereignty, borders, and other state issues. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brought up the point that Israel has made several generous offers over the years to provide the Palestinians with a viable state, but has been denied each time, so is this an attempt for the Palestinians to gain a state without having to make the concessions needed to ensure Israel’s security? Also, what happened when Israel removed its forces from the Gaza Strip in an attempt to diffuse tensions between the two sides? The PA was almost immediately kick out of power and was replaced by the terrorist organization Hamas, which is currently gaining greater governmental control over the Palestinians, while they continue to attack Israel. What evidence is there to say that Israel’s removal from the West Bank without having created an agreement based on mutual security agreements, will not have the same devastating result? A U.N. mandated Palestinian state could severely inhibit Israel’s ability to successfully negotiate for its essential security requirements, which is unacceptable for a viable and long lasting peace between the two sides.

If the U.S. is forced to use it’s veto power, the detrimental effects from Abbas’s U.N. proposal will not be limited to the Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. could find itself isolated from the Arab and Islamic world at a time when the future of the Middle East is far from certain. It is imperative for the U.S. to create strong relations with the new governments in nations such as Egypt and Libya, where there is finally a chance to establishment representative democracies in nations that have only known the turmoil wrought by despotic dictators. Security relations could breakdown with nations the U.S. is reliant upon in its war on terror. On September 12, 2011, the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said that if the U.S. used its veto power, Saudi Arabia would be unable to cooperate with the U.S. as it has done in the past. This may be more bark than bite, but shows that there is a potential breakdown in the U.S.’s relationship with key allies in the fight against terrorism. Also, a tarnished U.S. standing in the Arab world would make it harder for the U.S. to mediate any meaningful peace process that could create a viable Palestinian state and would destroy the Obama administrations attempts to enhance the U.S.’s perception in the Arab world. A decreased U.S. influence in the Middle East at a time when there is such instability would be truly detrimental to U.S. interests.

As this discussion has shown the need for direct negotiations is essential. Forgoing direct negotiations will create unnecessary problems for all of the participants involved in the peace process. Both the Israelis and Palestinians should heed the Middle East Quartet’s (U.S., Russia, E.U., U.N.) call to create independent proposals detailing what each side wants out of the peace process within three months, and then have a final agreement by the end of 2012. A viable and lasting peace will require concessions by both sides and cannot be subverted by provocative unilateral actions. Direct negotiations are the only way for both sides to work out the issues needed for the creation of a Palestinian state that can live peacefully, side-by-side with the state of Israel.