In the twenty first century international relations, one truth has become more phenomenal -- states are getting divided into smaller parts in the quest of gaining the right of self determination and self independence. In many aspects ‘two states solution’ has become an automatic choice. This truth, in the recent past, is apparent for South Sudan and now many leaders are considering for ‘New Libya’ and Iraq to bring an end to protracted inter-ethnic conflicts. Now ‘two states solution’ will turn into remarkable ‘panacea’ if Palestine gets recognition of statehood in the ongoing UN summit. Senior members of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) went to the Security Council. Senior members of the PLO said that they would go to the Security Council beside General Assembly to achieve their goal. The bid was opposed by Israel and the United States, with the latter threatening to veto any bid for full UN membership of Palestine.
Background of this bid
Why this bold step was taken this time, though belatedly? Many regional developments which were weakening Israel’s position and support in Middle East might have encouraged Palestine to go for the bid. Israel’s one of the most valuable friends in Europe and Middle East, Turkey has shown its back side. In recent past, both countries’ relationship status downgraded to the lowest rung. Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador, just a few weeks back. Turkish Premier Recap Tayyip Erdogan gave a rousing speech to Arab foreign ministers in Cairo last week, declaring support for Palestinian state. On the other hand, recent Middle East developments have placed the US in an acid test like situation. In this circumstance, the US could not play double role. If the US does not support Palestine cause, it will worsen more its ever bad image in the Middle East. So, Palestine authority was expecting that there could be a miracle in its way. But the reality is totally different as we know the strong Israeli lobby within America would never allow letting it. But many prominent citizens within Europe and even the US have also spoken up. Former Finnish President and Nobel Laureate Martti Ahtisaari and the European Commission’s former foreign policy Chief Javier Solana published an article on ten reasons why European countries should vote in favour of the Palestinians in the UN.
Harsh realities
This Palestinian move has raised a range of questions from optimism to skepticism. Many are skeptical of the move, and several questions remain unanswered. Will it bring an end to the Israeli occupation? Will it alter the US’ diplomatic role in the region? Will it get Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table? Or will it inspire a grassroots Palestinian mobilisation? Experts on international affairs and legal affairs have found many potholes in this move. Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and writer in the US, says that one of the greatest concerns and the reason that the statehood bid has created polarisation in the Palestinian community has been that it is not clear what the objective of the statehood bid by the PLO is. There was no PLO meeting to go to the UN; it was just an executive decision by the president to go through with statehood. Hassan Jabareen, a legal expert of Palestinian citizens in Israel, denoted the legal side. He found the inevitable and impending conflict between the recent bid for one state solution and the previous UN Resolution 181 of 1947 which asked for two state solutions. Despite the fact that the Arabs were against the resolution, it formed the legal basis for Israel as a sovereign state. Now Palestine would seek the demarcation according to 1967 resolution.
Going to the UN, by the Palestinians would make more sense as step one in a multi-pronged strategy to bring about a national achievement. The only viable Palestinian path to full UN membership is via the Security Council, and that route is blocked by the certainty of a US veto. Failure at the Security Council may itself be a drawn-out process. The bid for statehood is not changing anything on the ground, but in the international arena. It will change the terms of the debate and tilt the balance of power internationally against Israel and in favour of Palestinians. It is mainly a symbolic act. It will change the dynamics in a very symbolic way.
So it is clear that the realities are very much cruel for the Palestinians. The biggest obstacle is that it does not have any reliable friend in the permanent Security Council. But the helpless Palestinians can hope for some political gains, at least. If it could manage the US by hook or by crook, the result could have been positive. But at the end I think this decision of going UN is a bold step and will work as a moral boost for its future gain.
The writer is a member of fairbd.net group.
Harsh realities
This Palestinian move has raised a range of questions from optimism to skepticism. Many are skeptical of the move, and several questions remain unanswered. Will it bring an end to the Israeli occupation? Will it alter the US’ diplomatic role in the region? Will it get Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table? Or will it inspire a grassroots Palestinian mobilisation? Experts on international affairs and legal affairs have found many potholes in this move. Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and writer in the US, says that one of the greatest concerns and the reason that the statehood bid has created polarisation in the Palestinian community has been that it is not clear what the objective of the statehood bid by the PLO is. There was no PLO meeting to go to the UN; it was just an executive decision by the president to go through with statehood. Hassan Jabareen, a legal expert of Palestinian citizens in Israel, denoted the legal side. He found the inevitable and impending conflict between the recent bid for one state solution and the previous UN Resolution 181 of 1947 which asked for two state solutions. Despite the fact that the Arabs were against the resolution, it formed the legal basis for Israel as a sovereign state. Now Palestine would seek the demarcation according to 1967 resolution.
Going to the UN, by the Palestinians would make more sense as step one in a multi-pronged strategy to bring about a national achievement. The only viable Palestinian path to full UN membership is via the Security Council, and that route is blocked by the certainty of a US veto. Failure at the Security Council may itself be a drawn-out process. The bid for statehood is not changing anything on the ground, but in the international arena. It will change the terms of the debate and tilt the balance of power internationally against Israel and in favour of Palestinians. It is mainly a symbolic act. It will change the dynamics in a very symbolic way.
So it is clear that the realities are very much cruel for the Palestinians. The biggest obstacle is that it does not have any reliable friend in the permanent Security Council. But the helpless Palestinians can hope for some political gains, at least. If it could manage the US by hook or by crook, the result could have been positive. But at the end I think this decision of going UN is a bold step and will work as a moral boost for its future gain.
The writer is a member of fairbd.net group.
No comments:
Post a Comment