The Palestinians Are Mounting An Audacious Bid To Transform The Terms Of The Peace Process

The diplomatic struggle between Israel and the Palestinians reached a fever pitch on Wednesday as Palestinian ambassadors and their Jordanian allies pressed forward with a copy of a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council. The resolution, in addition to calling for renewed negotiations, reportedly includes a 2017 deadline for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. 

The Palestinians have been riding a wave of recognition from parliaments in the UK, France, Spain, Ireland, and Portugal, and now even the European Parliament itself. At each step, the Palestinians have cheered on their newfound international allies while Israel has criticized the Europeans for threatening the parameters of the Oslo Accords.

The Palestinians insist their diplomatic initiative is meant to preserve the two-state solution. The Israelis maintain that any unilateral steps threaten the peace process. 

Both are right.

 The Palestinian campaign may be based on the vision of a two-state solution. But in circumventing negotiations with Israel and US mediation in favor of international bodies, the Palestinians risk destabilizing the peace process that started two decades ago at Oslo.

That may be exactly what they want. Ever since the collapse of US-sponsored talks this past April, Palestinian political rhetoric has shifted. No longer are the Palestinians talking about conditions for returning to the negotiating table, but about conditions for halting their diplomatic campaign.

“Palestine 194,” as it is referred to in Ramallah, is the Palestinian campaign to become the 194th full member state of the United Nations. It’s a plan with roots dating back to 2005 but it formally kicked off when the Palestinians threatened to take their case to the UN Security Council in 2011.

That plan was halted by the threat of a US veto. But the Palestinians returned a year later and upgraded their status to non-member observer state at the General Assembly in 2012. This campaign was brought up again before the latest round of talks, when the Palestinians shelved their initiative at Washington’s behest.

Now, after the failure of John Kerry’s 9-month round of negotiations and a devastating war in Gaza that helped shift world opinion against Israel, the Palestinians have fully committed to their campaign to fundamentally change the dynamics of the peace process. As one senior Fatah official professed candidly: “We are looking to replace the US as mediator with the UN.”

This transition may already be taking place.

The US is buckling under the weight of its many failed Middle East policies and the Europeans appear content to fill the void. On Wednesday, the EU parliament voted 498 to 88 in favor of a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution, affirming, “these should go hand in hand with the development of peace talks, which should be advanced.”

The EU’s resolution is actually a softer version of resolutions recently passed in various member parliaments, almost all of which have called for recognition of a Palestinian state regardless of negotiations with Israel. 

Also on Wednesday, the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention adopted a declaration among 126 of the 196 parties to the convention admonishing Israel’s settlement construction and calling on international law to be respected in the West Bank and Gaza. The US, Israel, Canada, and Australia all boycotted the Swiss-sponsored event, but it was otherwise well-attended.

Wednesday was also the day Jordan put forward a draft UN Security Council resolution on behalf of the Palestinians. France is said to be drafting a counterweight to the resolution, and their influence reportedly tempered the Palestinians’ initial draft resolution that was touted in October, revising the deadline for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank from two years to three, and calling for a 12-month window for finishing comprehensive final-status negotiations.

The draft resolution also reiterated the Palestinians’ commitment to the two-state solution, with a demilitarized Palestinian state along the pre-1967 borders and a capital in East Jerusalem. Palestinians have now changed their tone in calling for an immediate vote on the resolution and say that they will let the draft resolution sit while it is discussed by all members.

Israel, however, views the resolution as imposing a new set of negotiation parameters without their consent. Earlier in the week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a diplomatic counter-offensive, meeting US Secretary of State John Kerry and French President Francois Hollande to push back against the resolution.

Netanyahu’s protests are echoed across the political spectrum in Israel and even among his political foes. Tzipi Livni, a long-time negotiator, former minister, and new co-leader of the Labor party, has predicted that the new UN resolution would fail, either by insufficient votes or a US veto. Isaac Herzog, Livni’s Labor co-leader, echoed her sentiments: “Look at the record in the UN Security Council; we have only one real trustworthy ally.”

That the Israeli left finds the Palestinian diplomatic initiative unpalatable underscores the notion among Israelis that Palestine 194 is not helping matters. Though the Palestinians say their efforts are for the sake of preserving the two-state solution, their campaign alienates one of the two principal actors necessary for a comprehensive agreement.

The latest Palestinian gambit doesn’t kill the prospect of peace. But it doesn’t do much to bring a resolution to the conflict any closer.

Grant Rumley is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.