Yossi Mekelberg: UN Resolution falls short on peace for Palestine

Combing through UN Security Council Resolution 2803, I began to question whether it is the case of the international community purposefully coming together to achieve the elusive objective of at last resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or just another mirage? The proposal’s first aim is to consolidate the ceasefire in Gaza and then outline a path for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is vague on details and deadlines.

Admittedly, the success of the mediators to “encourage” Israel and Hamas to agree to a ceasefire deserves praise, even if long overdue. Yet, since the truce came into force at the beginning of October, at least 340 Palestinians and three Israeli soldiers have been killed, which can hardly suggest that Gaza is more secure or that its population should be convinced by what the international community has to offer.

At the end of the day, this resolution, as many before it in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, will be judged by results, not by its good intentions. The plan’s vagueness about its objectives or the path to achieving them leaves too many doubts about the political will and readiness to invest the diplomatic, intellectual, and physical resources needed to translate them into reality. To start from the end, there is no ironclad pledge of a two-state solution, but instead it sets out a series of conditions that, if fulfilled, may be “a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”

Hardly a convincing incentive, as it suggests that even if the Palestinian Authority is reformed and Gaza’s redevelopment gets underway, Palestinian self-determination “may” lead to a process which could “maybe” lead to a Palestinian state. To make things worse, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet colleagues have repeatedly said that they will never agree to a Palestinian state, while those who voted for this resolution offered no serious condemnation of the Israeli leadership for its intransigence.

There is also a justified concern that the UN resolution, in departing from custom, fails to mention previous resolutions on the issue, thereby denying it the historical context and legal framework established by the UN in its efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Failure to mention resolutions such as 242 and 338, which are seminal for the notion of peace based on “land for peace,” leaves open to doubt whether this is the defining principle of a future agreement as understood by the authors of this resolution. Moreover, unlike Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned the construction and expansion of settlements — one of the biggest, if not the major obstacle to a lasting peace — there is no mention of this in Resolution 2803. Continuity and consistency are essential for resolving such a prolonged and stubborn conflict, and they are missing on this occasion.

One of the particularly disturbing aspects of this UN effort — unwittingly, but more likely intentionally — is the removal of the agency of the Palestinians to determine their future. Creating a Board of Peace is one thing but leaving it with no clear mandate is entirely different, especially since there is no clear pathway to empowering a Palestinian leadership.

The plan’s vagueness about its objectives or the path to achieving them leaves too many doubts about the political will and readiness to invest the diplomatic, intellectual, and physical resources needed to translate them into reality.

Much of the language regarding the responsibilities of the board is that of a transitional administration, which facilitates the establishment of another transitional body, a Palestinian technocratic committee from the Gaza Strip, responsible for the day-to-day running of the territory’s civil service and administration. Palestinians are highly suspicious of words such as “interim” and “transitional,” and for good reason, as they have seen in the past that such terms bring them no closer to their aspirations to an independent state — and in many cases offers no improvement in their human or civil rights in the meantime. In a world saturated with crises and other challenges, there is a risk that as the situation becomes relatively calm, attention will turn elsewhere, leaving Palestinian statehood once again an unfulfilled aspiration.

And then there is the urgency of establishing an International Stabilization Force, with powers to stabilize the security environment in Gaza, including “the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups.” Hamas is adamant in opposing its disarmament, and in any case, it is an open question whether it will give up all weapons. This aspect is a major deterrent for Arab and Muslim countries from sending troops to join this operation, as it may result in a confrontation with Hamas and other militant groups, and possibly with Israeli troops as well. With such a small population and a politically explosive situation, being part of such an operation has serious operational risks that might also become reputational ones, domestically and internationally.

To make this resolution a success, the UN Security Council must move rapidly to address the lack of clear timetables for Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza, ensuring security on both sides of the border, and supporting Palestinians as they reform their institutions, and unifying the West Bank and Gaza under one governing body elected by the people of both territories.

Despite its faults, the UN proposal could de-escalate the security situation in Gaza and allow reconstruction to begin. However, regrettably, the resolution completely ignores the situation in the West Bank. More positively, the shift in Washington’s position over the past few months about the future of Gaza and the possibility of Palestinian self-determination is significant. It has gone a long way, and this should not be discounted.

READ: Dr Mustafa Fetouri: Tripoli’s power grab risks deeper division

Therefore, it was important that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reminded President Donald Trump during his recent visit to Washington that there must be a clear path toward a two-state solution to advance the US leader’s aspiration to expand the Abraham Accords. It was a timely reminder that translating the UN resolution into regional peace and security requires an end to fudging or delaying the Palestinian issue, while moving with a clear timetable towards a two-state solution.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Maghrebi.org. Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg

If you wish to pitch an opinion piece, please send your article to grace.sharp@maghrebi.org.