I asked the opposite question: What are they going to do to make the U.N. state membership bid real instead of relying on more “negotiations”? Are they going to let the bid get bogged down in the Security Council, where the U.S. wields a veto or are they — asnoted international lawyers have recommended — move it in short order to the General Assembly, where an overwhelming majority of countries favor Palestinian state membership?
South Sudan recently went from application for U.N. state membership to admission in three days. It has been reported that the Palestinian delegation has given the Security Council two weeks to act. Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign Francis Boyle has said that U.N. state membership could be obtained within three weeks.
Ashrawi stated they are considering going to the General Assembly, including using theUniting for Peace resolution that the U.S. backed to get around the Soviet’s veto in the 1950s. She added: “If we see that the Security Council is stalling then certainly we will seek other options, yes.” But she did not specify a timeline.
Boyle stated: “The P.L.O. has given the U.N. Security Council a dead-line of two weeks to act favorably on Palestine’s Application to become a full-fledged Member State in the United Nations Organization. If for any reason the Security Council does not so act favorably by Monday, October 10, then the P.L.O. should invoke the Uniting for Peace Resolution and turn the matter over to the U.N. General Assembly for definitive action.The General Assembly can then admit Palestine as the 194th U.N. Member State no later than Friday, October 14. From the ovations President Abbas received in the U.N. General Assembly, it is obvious that the votes are there for Palestine’s immediate admission to the U.N. as a member state. The Palestinians have waited long enough for U.N. Membership.”
Asharawi said she understood those who thought the effort was a ploy by the Palestinian Authority to maintain its power, but mostly pointed to criticism of Israel, rather than criticism by Palestinians of the PA.
Ashrawi justified the U.N. bid saying that “U.N. is the natural home for the Palestinians” but didn’t seem to offer a compelling reason for why, if that were the case, gaining full U.N. state membership had not been sought before given that the Palestinian state was declared in 1988 and is recognized by over 100 countries. She said: “This is an incremental process.”
Other reasons she gave for the delay: “It’s a question of preventing Israel also from destroying the territorial base of the two-state solution” and that a sense of “hope” was needed. This seemed troubling — are these really the requisites? Preserving the two-state solution, preserving hope? Are not achieving the safety, well being and self determination the supposed goals of the Palestinian leadership? Hope here seems a euphemism for justification for the continuation of the present PA. The lack of a more compelling reason for the timing would seem to bolster the theory that the U.N. bid is largely a ploy to maintain the PA’s position.
Those who have advocated the big have stated that it could facilitate legal mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, which could hinder illegal Israeli attacks and settlements.
Identifying Ashrawi is somewhat problematic. She is a member of the appointed P.L.O Executive Committee. She’s sometimes referred to as a Palestinian legislator, but the Palestinian Legislative Council’s term expired over a year ago and required elections have not been held. Similarly, Mahmoud Abbas’s presidential term expired in 2009 and he had said he would not seek another term. These basic problems are all particularly ironic given that the NGO Asharwi heads, MIFTAH, is supposed to be ensuring “transparency” and “accountability“.
Here’s the transcript of our exchange:
Sam Husseini: Will you be applying for U.N. state membership, specifically to the UN General Assembly within three weeks if the U.S. blocks your application at the Security Council — either invoking United for Peace as international lawyer Francis Boyle has recommended or a simple two-thirds majority as professor John Quigley, another noted international lawyer, recommends?
Hanan Ashrawi: Yes, that’s the thing: now that we have applied to the Security Council we hope that better sense will prevail in the U.S. — that they will act wisely and not constantly isolate themselves with Israel on the wrong side of the law and they will not veto. But if they do veto then suddenly we have other options. As President Abbas said we will be going home; the leadership will [be] meeting to discuss different options and the General Assembly certainly is an option. And there are different ways. You could go Uniting for Peace, or you could ask — and we do have a two-thirds majority. Actually, most of the world recognizes the injustice done to the Palestinians and most of the world has already recognized the Palestinian state. The problem lies within the Israeli occupation and extremist hard-line policies and within the U.S., that has put on blinders and refuses to see the injustice of the situation.
SH: But what’s the timeline on this? What’s to stop this from dragging out just as the negotiations have dragged out?
HA: No we won’t allow this to drag out. –
SH: So what’s the timeline? –
HA: If we see that the Security Council is stalling then certainly we will seek other options, yes.
SH: Many Palestinians have criticized the U.N. membership effort as a ploy, basically, to preserve the position of the Palestinian Authority given the failure to provide for the safety, the well being and, much less, the self-determination of the Palestinian people. How do you respond to that?
HA: By saying that the U.N. is the natural home for the Palestinians. We are basing all our efforts on international law and we want the international community to be engaged. This is not subject to Israel unilateralism and party politics or American monopoly over peace talks. We need the international community to be engaged on the basis of legality. That’s why we see this as a process of rectification — a corrective move. Taking the issue back home to the international community. Those who are skeptical of course have the right to be skeptical because the U.N. so far has taken so many resolutions, they’ve all been shelved, none of which has been implemented on the ground because Israel enjoys immunity — it acts, as I said, with full impunity with no consequences, no accountability whatsoever. But we cannot in this sense reneg on all the agreements and say that’s it. But if the situation continues the way it is then certainly you will see a breakdown in Palestine. You will see probably even throughout the region a breakout of violence. But this case, to the Arabs as a whole, to the Palestinians, to people of good-conscience in the world, is a case of justice, and therefore justice has to be seen and also to be done. And if it continues then it threatens the stability and security of the whole region.
SH: That sort of begs the question — the PLO recognized Israel in 1988 –
HA: Yes.
SH: — and sought statehood from various countries — over 100 countries. Why the wait of more than 20 years to get that recognition at the U.N.? Why wasn’t that done forthwith?
HA: The PLO recognized Israel, Israel recognized the PLO but not Palestine.
SH: Right, but why didn’t –
HA: — We want the world to recognize Palestine to safeguard our rights so that our territory will be designated clearly, not as Netanyahu says “disputed land.” It is occupied territory. –
SH: — So why wasn’t it done 20 years ago?
HA: Well we tried to do it repeatedly but the thing is it’s not a question of getting membership now, it’s a question of preventing Israel also from destroying the territorial base of the two-state solution. So we have been engaged. Some people say, “Why have you talked so long? 20 years.” –
SH: It’s not a matter of talking –
HA: — And some people are saying: “You should talk some more. You haven’t talked enough.” The question is: when history evolves and develops, you have to find the right time and the right opportunity to do the right thing. As I said, conditions on the ground are deteriorating so rapidly that you have to intervene positively to give people a sense of hope that there is still a chance for a peaceful, nonviolent, legal human and moral solution. And if you don’t give them that hope, and if you don’t find means of finding Israel accountable, then certainly the current dynamic will run its course and it will be disastrous for everybody.
SH: But I’m not talking about negotiations or not negotiations. You got recognition from China, from India, from Brazil — why did you wait so long to get recognition from the U.N.?
HA: I just explained to you. We were engaged in negotiations.
SH: Why does that preclude it?
HA: We applied to the U.N. for upgrading our status in 1988 when we accepted the two-state solution and we upgraded the status of the P.L.O. And we are moving. This is an incremental process.
Many thanks to Chris Belcher for video work and Sam McCann for transcription.
[originally published on Washington Stakeout on Sep. 25, 2011; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]