Pushing for a Palestinian State

After seven frustrating years as the United Nations official tasked with promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace, Robert Serry was finally saying goodbye. Speaking to the Security Council for the last time about the future of the peace process last week, he dropped some of his customary caution. "Hasn't the time come," he asked, "for the council itself to lead?"

Many of the diplomats in the room nodded. Here in Turtle Bay, on New York's East Side, some have long hoped that the council will eventually replace the United States as the arbiter of Middle East peace. But the U.S. has always been reluctant to relinquish its role. Now, however, as relations have soured between Washington and Jerusalem, some diplomats wonder if the U.S. will finally step aside and let the U.N. lead the way. "The Americans," said Jordan's U.N. ambassador, Dina Kawar, "want the same thing we all want—the two-state solution, no?"

Until now, there have been two major forces preventing the council from taking over the peace process: Israel and the United States. Perhaps with good reason, both have long said that the Jewish state rarely gets a fair shake at the U.N. They've also argued that a peace deal must be made through direct negotiations, like the ones that led to the peace deals Israel made with Egypt and Jordan.

The signs of a possible shift in U.S. strategy at the U.N. come at a time when France is trying to pass a new resolution creating a Palestinian state within two years. Palestinians and their supporters are excited about the French proposal, and Serry's speech gave them new hope. "I've been involved in three negotiations" between Israelis and Palestinians, Serry said. "All three failed. I think we should draw a lesson from that."

Since the Israeli elections March 17, U.S. officials have hinted that they may change their stance toward the U.N. The main reason: controversial campaign statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which put in doubt Israel's commitment to serious peacemaking. "As the president said, we must now evaluate honestly how we manage Israeli-Palestinian relations over the coming period," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity. Still, he added that the U.S. "has worked hard to stand up to every effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or undermine its security, including at the United Nations. We have consistently and firmly opposed one-sided actions in international bodies, and will continue to do so."

The French effort began last fall, long before Netanyahu's campaign comments. At the time, "the Americans didn't say yes, but they didn't quite reject the idea either, as they've done so many times before," says a Western diplomat who closely follows the talks and also asked for anonymity.

The French and Palestinian goal is to replace Resolution 242, one of the most important pieces of U.N. legislation, which diplomats hashed out in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. Best known for the concept of land for peace, the resolution, adopted in November 1967, also established the principle of direct negotiations between the parties as the path to reconciliation.

The French have written drafts for a new resolution and distributed them to council members. Some have also been leaked to the press. The resolution would resolve thorny, fundamental issues such as borders and the status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.

Serry's public statement has led some diplomats to hope the French effort will quickly move forward. "It would be logical to pass a resolution during Jordan's presidency of the council" in April, said Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the U.N. But other diplomats said that it may take much longer.

One possible hitch: Great Britain. A key player in the negotiations, London is approaching a national election. According to British law, the government can conduct diplomacy before the May 7 election, but it's barred from making major policy changes. And British diplomats say they would rather wait until May before any vote on a new council resolution.

Another problem may be the current nuclear negotiations with Iran. It's unclear whether top powers want to be involved in a confrontation over Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking at the same time they are trying to sign a deal with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Jerusalem is concerned that the French plan lacks an explicit reference to Israel as the home of the Jewish people, and doesn't meet its security concerns regarding the eastern outskirts of the would-be Palestinian state, among other things. As Israeli U.N. ambassador Ron Prosor told me, "The distance between Jerusalem and Ramallah is much shorter than the distance between Ramallah and New York. The Palestinians should return to direct negotiations with us, instead of trying to create pressures at the U.N., which will get them nowhere."

Despite vague hints from the White House, it's still unclear whether Washington is ready to cede its role as the leader of the peace process. And at the U.N., many diplomats continue to wonder whether the American "reassessment" is merely a way to pressure Netanyahu as he forms his new government.

If Washington does agree to transfer the responsibility of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking to the Security Council, that may leave Israel feeling increasingly isolated and set up a clash with the U.N. Such a clash could prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, but it could also widen boycott attempts and sanctions against Israel at a time when Jerusalem is concerned about the growing power of its enemy Iran.

Either way, Serry has pushed what was once a backroom debate out into the open. Now it is up to Washington to decide, and Israel, one of America's closest allies, is anxiously watching.

Follow Benny Avni on Twitter: @bennyavni