+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Palestinian president outlines political identity of new Palestinian state

By presenting strategically calculated messages for all relevant audiences, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas used yesterday’s speech to outline the identity of the new Palestinian state he is to seek at the UN.

This post has been updated, 19 September, 2011

When Palestinian President and Chairman of PLO Mahmoud Abbas ended his speech on Friday to an audience of Palestinian dignitaries by stating that he was going to the present the Palestinian statehood bid to the United Nations Security Council, he received a heartfelt standing ovation. Yet going to the UNSC might be the biggest gambit yet in the whole diplomatic game of risk that has been set in motion.

On the surface, the speech said little that was groundbreaking. But a quick exegesis reveals a carefully and strategically thought out text full of addresses to specific audiences.

1.       To Washington and the international community, Abbas put an end to speculation about how the statehood bid would be made. Only in recent months and weeks has the plan begun to come clear. Up until yesterday, it was not definite whether the Palestinian leadership would bypass the UNSC, and instead go straight to the General Assembly. The UNSC has the power to recommend full statehood and membership into the UN, but an American veto seems inevitable. The latter would mean avoiding the humiliation and defeat of the veto; and perhaps going straight to the GA could also be subtle statement of American isolation, by sending the message that Palestine and its supporters do not need the superpower. I’ve come to believe that in fact the momentum of recognition and the increasing treatment of Palestine as a state through deepening diplomatic ties are more important than the seat in the UN, for on-the-ground change.

I was therefore surprised that Abbas placed much more emphasis on joining the UN, than state-building; in fact at the end, he specifically lowered expectations about independence. AP’s Mohammed Daraghmeh reported:

He also acknowledged that his U.N. move would not end the Israeli occupation and cautioned against outsize hopes.

“We don’t want to raise expectations by saying we are going to come back with full independence.”

Instead, Abbas also emphasized that the statehood bid is intended as a step towards restarting negotiations. Indeed, he has been toeing the negotiation line again recently; wisely showing himself to be the peace-seeking party, highlighting Israel as the intransigent.

A second aspect that I believe was addressed to the international community of observers was the emphasis on human rights, women’s rights, and the rule of law that will characterize the Palestinian state. Maybe it was for Palestinians too – but I heard a good deal of guffawing from Palestinian colleagues around this statement. The PA has a long way to go before they’ll believe him. But these are at least rhetorically the gold standard of in the current question of who deserves a state. Kosovo had to do a lot more to prove itself on these measures before it reached this stage – remember “standards over status.”

2.       To the Israeli and Jewish community, Abbas made three critical points (these are not in the order of his speech). First, he addressed oft-heard accusations that Palestinians do not yearn for peace, and emphasized his desire for peace unambiguously. Second, he drew another unambiguous distinction using the jargon du jour on the Israel debate:

“No one can isolate Israel. No one can delegitimize Israel. It is a recognized state,” he said. “We want to delegitimze the occupation, not the state of Israel. The occupation is the nightmare of our existence.”

Third, although he talked about the horrors of occupation “for 63 years,” the kind of statement that terrifies Israelis and delights Palestinian detractors, he repeated at various points that this statehood bid affirms the 1967 basis of borders, and the two-state solution.

3.       To the Palestinians, Abbas practically pleaded for two things: political reconciliation and non-violence. Reconciliation is key, and it’s not coincidental that Abbas emphasized repeatedly that the PLO is the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. He knows that he is using his last ounce of internal credibility on the statehood gambit, and fighting for his political life. If he succeeds in both advancing statehood and reconciling the Palestinians, he and his people will experience their greatest moment yet. If he fails at both, the results could be dire.

Finally, the non-violent approach he emphasized in his speech is the revolution of political, cultural and moral identity the Palestinians have undertaken. Many have asked if they are inspired by the Arab Spring and I think the answer is a resounding and joyful yes. And if the victims of Syria, Egypt, Libya and Yemen inspired the Palestinians to save lives by avoiding violence – while contributing to the creation of a peaceful Palestinian state – the tragedy of their deaths will have a sacred meaning far beyond their borders.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Ben Israel

      The “63 years of occupation” will be dismissed by the “progressives” as a slip of the tongue, or more likely, the old, racist excuse “you know Arabs, they don’t really mean what they say”. Well, he means it. Also important to remember that when he says he “recognizes” Israel, he is including an unlimited Palestinians “right of return” of refugees into that Israel. That’s why they say they support “the 2-state solution”, NOT the “2-states for 2 peoples” solution since they refuse to recognize the Jewish people’s rights, even while they used to have a conniption fit demanding that the Jews recognize a “Palestinian nation”. All he is doing is playing games and he has no interest in a true compromise peace. All we will have is continued political deadlock.

      Reply to Comment
    2. RichardNYC

      Palestine doesn’t fulfill the basic requirements of statehood under international law. If the UN is bent on undermining Israel through its various appendages because members have decided to ignore founding UN principles, the resulting tension between the UN, Israel, and the United States will do serious damage to the legitimacy of the UN system. I do not see how Arabs can possibly be happy about the prospect of confronting the United States on the question of Israel’s existence.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Marshall

      The ‘slip of the tongue’ regarding 63 years of occupation is no slip of the tongue. The early Zionist leadership sought from the very beginning to take more land than the international community was willing to recommend a la partition. During First Arab-Israeli War the Jewish armies conquered and usurped more than what was allotted to them per the partition plan. Thus, 63 years of occupation is accurate based on what the international community then thought should constitute the Palestinian state.

      Recognizing a Palestinian state isn’t anywhere near the same as recognizing a ‘Jewish state’ as a ‘Jewish state’ exists as the antithesis of democracy because it institutionalizes the greater worth and of Jews over Palestinians. Take either democratic or Jewish. Israel can’t have both! A Palestinian state on the other hand is not just for Muslims, it will also be a state comprised of Christians as well..There is a clear distinction so lets not muddy the waters with misleading statements.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Ben Israel

      The Palestinians and the other Arab/Muslim states of the Middle East DO EXACTLY what you say regarding defining one group of people as superior and discriminating against minorities. Both Egypt and the Palestinians define themselves as ARAB (i.e. the Egyptians call their country THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT and the Palestinians say in the first clause of their constitution that the Palestinians are ARABS and they are working for ARAB UNITY).
      They all define themselves as MUSLIM to one degree or another and they at least partially use Muslim Sharia Law as a basis of legislation, and this is discriminatory against minorities. For example, in Egypt the state will recognize people who convert from Christianity or Judaism to Islam but NOT the other way. The state will recognize marriages of non-Muslim women to Muslim men but WILL NOT recognize marriages of Muslim women to non-Muslim men. In Egypt, which defines itself as relatively secular at the moment, there are restrictions on building churches that do no apply to building mosques.
      You can’t have a “Muslim state” and a democracy at the same time and guarantee equal rights for all.

      Reply to Comment