Palestinians will seek through the Arab League the recognition of a Palestinian State by the United Nations next September.
Although the Palestinian State does not exist at the moment and never existed, it would be defined by the so-called 1967 borders, which are not such, but armistice lines, and would include the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which bear no territorial continuity, and East Jerusalem would be its capital city.
In order for a new state to be admitted in the United Nations it is necessary to submit an application to the General Secretary, who transfers it to the Security Council where a majority of nine out of its fifteen members is required. Among the mentioned majority, the vote of the five permanent members of the Security Council is required, since they have the right of veto.
Once approved by the Council, the motion is voted in the General Assembly and a majority of two thirds of the 192 member countries present is required.
The Palestinians have been making the maximum efforts to avoid direct negotiations with Israel for a long time and they focus their efforts on fighting a diplomatic battle and one in the public opinion, which obviously does not lead to the establishment of a Palestinian State regardless of their hits and misses.
It is like a chess game, whose board unfolds in the frame of international relations.
The idea is not to advance towards their own State, but, on the contrary, to preserve the status quo, but trying to hold the State of Israel responsible for the stagnation and the lack of peace.
This is due to the fact that the real objective is not the struggle for independence, but the fight against the legitimacy of Israel. The demand that refugees return is irrefutable proof of this. The demand is that the refugees return, not to Palestine, but to Israel. It does not seem to be the claim of those who intend to create a new State to send its potential citizens to the neighbour country.
Therefore, when approaching the topic of the refugees, the date of reference is 1947, which implies that the root of the problem is the creation of Israel. But to refer to the borders they adopt 1967, because those territories were in Arab hands before and they never expressed the least intention of establishing a State there.
The last move has been to go to the UN to request their State be recognised.
As in a chess game, this move entails risks, and its effects may exceed the previsions.
In the first place, the United States has repeatedly expressed its opposition to a recognition of this nature, without Israel’s previous consent. Needless to say that the United States has the right of veto in the Security Council, and therefore this first initiative would be unable to eliminate the first obstacle.
Therefore, although within the General Assembly the Palestinians have the support of the majority, the proposal would not be considered.
Or at least, were it to be treated, its resolution would not have compulsory effects for its members, but only declaratory effects.
In that way the Palestinians would get a victory in the diplomatic field, but with few or no effects in the field of concrete reality.
And that is exactly what they intend to do. The effects of such a statement are discussed in Israel.
The government of Israel has not considered it a lost battle despite giving some consideration to its real importance, and Prime Minister Netanyahu is travelling around many countries, mainly European, looking for support and giving his arguments concerning the negative aspect of this recognition and its consequences.
Firstly, it is obvious that a statement does not resolve the conflict in the field. The Palestinians continue lacking the necessary elements to establish a State.
What is more, this action infringes on the Oslo Accords, in which both parties undertake not to change unilaterally the existing statute, without it being the result of bilateral negotiations. Such a violation would have the immediate consequence that Israel would not consider itself bound by them.
The world would be legitimizing the power of a terrorist organization like Hamas, which has been a member of the Palestinian government for a few months and that rules over the Gaza Strip.
Hamas, close ally of Iran, condemned the death of Bin Laden who was considered a holy warrior, and its objective is the destruction of Israel.
If the enemies of Hamas were not the Jews, it would be unthinkable that the world would grant them such credit. But since the potential victims of their terrorist attacks and targets of all types of missiles are the inhabitants of Israel, nobody seems to care and they even accept granting that terrorist entity international recognition.
Finally, these actions not only do not contribute to the termination of the conflict, but on the contrary, they make it more complicated. The resolution of these complex topics can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties, and these actions discourage them.
All the above mentioned goes against peace and also against the Palestinian interests. If Palestine were to be recognized within fictitious borders, how would the Palestinians sit to negotiate the real and final borders? No Palestinian Government would yield a millimeter of what has been obtained according to a UN resolution.
This becomes worse if we consider that the Palestinian leadership has never been famous for its pragmatism. And in order to reach a real agreement it is essential to adapt the Palestinian demands to historic and demographic realities and to the needs of security of Israel.
Therefore, what seems a short term victory, may become another defeat and more postponement for the Palestinian people.
In the battlefield, the defeat of some implies the triumph of others. In the field of peace, the defeat of some is the defeat of all.
As the Israeli representative Meron Reuben stated at the meeting of the Security Council: “We need solutions, not resolutions”.