Late Tuesday evening Palestinian leader Dr. Mohammed Shtayyeh said his government intended to meet their Wednesday deadline of submitting a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution by handing the draft over to their Arab partner Jordan. Once Jordan receives the text it will be up to their representatives to file the resolution into the UNSC’s agenda for discussion. Dr. Shtayyeh added the resolution would be formally presented to the UNSC “hopefully tomorrow, maybe Thursday.” However, as of this morning the Palestinians are still making final changes to the content, according to Ashraf Khatib, a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiations Affairs Department. He added, the PLO hopes a vote will be reached “before Christmas or the end of the year.”
At the time of publication, the draft resolution has still not yet been presented to Jordan for formal submission to the UN, according to the PLO.
Substantive content changes were in progress yesterday over how to incorporate elements from two versions being circulated, a Palestinian version written in consultation with the Arab League and a French version with input from the United Kingdom and Germany. Dr. Shtayyeh, an official in the PLO Central Committee and the Fatah Central Council, said during a briefing outside of Bethlehem yesterday the two documents had already been “merged” into one draft and that “final touches” were being made.
Even still, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has a meeting scheduled in Ramallah Thursday afternoon, suggesting more deliberations on the content of the UNSC are forthcoming.
Combining the competing draft resolutions was the first hurdle the Palestinians needed to overcome after announcing Sunday evening they sought a UNSC resolution on ending the Israeli occupation of the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967 within two years. “We did welcome the French proposal,” said Dr. Shtayyeh, explaining that the substantive difference was whether a two-year deadline in the resolution “was for ending occupation or whether the time frame was for negotiations. The Palestinian side wanted a time frame for ending occupation rather than two years for negotiations.”
“France has accommodated the comments that the Palestinian-Arab party has made. And the comments really were minor comments,” said Dr. Shtayyeh without divulging the specifics of how the two drafts were reconciled. However, Dr. Shtayyeh hinted that the Palestinians have largely accepted the French resolution as the current draft relates “new terms for future negotiations” with Israel.
He added, “and the issue of the Jewish state has been accommodated in one way or another,” noting an Israeli request for their state to be recognized as a Jewish homeland had been solved. Although it is still unclear how the point was dealt with.
U.S. won’t veto if resolution is multilateral
While Palestinian officials have acted with urgency to produce a draft resolution that could earn enough votes to pass the nine-member UNSC, the U.S. has also stepped in to facilitate coordination. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erakat, Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Arab League and the French Foreign Minister over the past 48 hours. The State Department has said their role has not been to make changes to the draft resolution, rather to decide if they will support the resolution and to relay Israel’s objections.
“Palestinian Authority and President Abbas and those who are pushing hard, because they don’t see another course at this moment,” Secretary Kerry said Tuesday in London. “So the key is to try to find out whether or not there are other options, other ways, other courses; could something be done that helps to respect the process that the Israelis are about to undergo.”
“We’re not at a point where we’ve decided that a Security Council resolution is the way to go,” said a State Department official at a briefing in Washington on Sunday.
The official added if the final draft of the Palestinian text were “some kind of terms of reference in a Security Council resolution, that would not be what we would consider to be a unilateral step in the conventional sense of the term,” indicating if the Palestinians accept most of the tenets of the French version of the draft, the U.S. would not veto it.
While the status of the resolution is still in flux, both Khatib speaking on behalf of the PLO and Shtayyeh have said the resolution creates “terms of reference” that the U.S. would approve. However, as the draft resolution has not yet been submitted there are clearly outstanding issues, likely pressure to remove any deadline for action on Israel.
Handing the negotiations process to Europe?
“We are at a serious junction in the history of Palestine,” continued Shtayyeh stating the UNSC resolution is “not simply as part of a routine diplomatic issue. We are going to the Security Council because this is part of a strategic shift in the way that we are dealing with the struggle with the Israelis.”
Weeks ago France offered to take over assembling the Israelis and Palestinians in future negotiations, a role the U.S. has held since the Oslo Accords over 20 years ago. Under this process Washington has been adamant that no unilateral steps can be made by either party and have rejected pre-conditions on peace talks other than basing a final agreement on UN resolution 242 alone, which calls for Israeli troops to withdrawal from territories occupied in June 1967. The status of Jerusalem, refugees and settlement growth have been left out of the framework.
It is likely that negotiations under French leadership would produce a framework more amenable to Palestinian national aspirations. The French version of the UNSC resolution, relayed by Dr. Shtayyeh, incorporates a UN resolution that recognizes the Palestinian right of return for some 7 million refugees based on compensation and return, as well as an amendment on an immediate settlement freeze. “The French proposal speaks about negotiations with a total freeze of settlements starting day number one, which is also in the Palestinian proposal as well,” said Dr. Shtayyeh.
By requiring a settlement freeze, even if the UNSC resolution calls to return to negotiations and does not include a deadline to end the occupation as the Palestinians hoped, the French are seemingly more willing to impose boundaries on Israel during potential talks. Moreover, the Palestinian exercise to produce a UNSC resolution, whether it is effective or not, demonstrates the leadership is no longer looking to the U.S. to negotiate a final status settlement with Israel, and instead is shifting their efforts to partner with Europe.
Palestinian leaders also feel ultimately they must re-start the negotiations process with haste to reach a lasting agreement with Israel. “It will be extremely difficult to try and create an additional consensus, because today there are international pressures and a consensus for a two-state solution,” said Dr. Shtayyeh adding, “If we lose this opportunity today, God knows when will have an international consensus on anything else.”
Separately, today the High Contracting Parties met in Geneva for a conference on Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It was the third gathering of member states to the international accord. The conference re-affirmed the 2004 International Court of Justice’s ruling against Israel’s separation barrier. “This conference is not the end. It is the beginning of increased international mobilization and responsibility,” said a statement from the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Israel did not attend the convention.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said conference attendees were engaging in “staggering examples of European hypocrisy,” continuing, “It seems that too many in Europe, on whose soil six million Jews were slaughtered, have learned nothing. But we in Israel, we’ve learned.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said conference attendees were engaging in “staggering examples of European hypocrisy,” continuing, “It seems that too many in Europe, on whose soil six million Jews were slaughtered, have learned nothing. But we in Israel, we’ve learned.”
He really has lost the plot, poor chap.
While I wholly endorse the proposal to take the US out of its role of mediator here and replace it with Europe, the changing of what the 2-year deadline was from evacuating the OT to one of more mediation is a huge debacle. There is a chance, however, that if the negotiations were to be held under European auspices rather than the US one, there would be more likelihood of a resolution than what we have seen over the past decades, but I remain skeptical.
Extending the “talks” for another 2-years under US supervision would take us to the next elections and a reset of any progress that might have been made. Under European supervision, there could be a ray of hope.
Netanyahu is steamed. He is very irate, and we know how ugly it gets when he is angry. He is ranting about how mean the EU is now, since not only did they pass this resolution to recognize a Palestinian state, but the EU courts also did not include Hamas on the list of terrorists.
This is the Beebs worst nightmare, and just before his elections. He even brings up the holocaust to insult all Europeans. I am wondering what part the US played, or did not play, at the UN today. I think Bibi is feeling the annoyance of the world, and their patience wearing thin.
In a weird way, Bibi must have helped the Palestinian’s cause at the UN, for show and tell, the scenes from the Gaza massacre this summer, would have made their case for them in the minds of many Europeans. The mere fact that Hamas is not on that terrorist list, shows that perhaps the world now realizes they are only a resistance to the occupation. They do not operate outside the Palestinian territories, and put up a good fight against the brutal IDF.
I guess all this will be lost in the American media. The Cuba situation is also taking all the air time.
The leaked French/Palestinian proposal. http://t.co/Xa8Ost0jFy There is a rumor that a vote on this is imminent, although false rumors are the rule here.
I think Allison is correct to emphasize the importance of getting the Europeans more involved. Also this resolution, which is backed by Britain and Germany, puts them on the record as pushing back against the US and Israel who do not welcome this resolution.
That I feel is significant, even though this resolution will not directly lead to moving anything forward. The original Palestinian resolution would also not have been able to directly change anything even if it were passed.
Dr Shtayyeh said he welcomed the French proposals and that they were only minor. I disagree the French proposal is for a deadline of 2 years for an end to negotiations, remember the last one, 9 months. This will be another climb down by the PA leadership, the US have made it clear, no unilateral moves by either side will be tolerated, except of course continued settlement building. In my opinion the PA will fold, as usual.