Abstract
The purpose of the research “How has Palestinian application for UN membership and statehood recognition affected the advancement of the peace process between Israel and Palestine?“ was to provide a thorough examination of the Arab-Israeli conflict and estimate the possible courses of its development in case of UN interference into the matter.

The method used in the process of investigation consisted in accessing English and Israeli websites, including the official website of the Parliament of Israel, in order to collect the necessary information on the issue. A vast amount of opinions was gathered and applied in the research, that helped to create the holistic picture of the problem under consideration.

As a result of the investigation the conclusion has been drawn that at the present moment Palestinian bid for statehood and membership rather added to the problem than helped to solve it. Although each of the UN members has its own interests to pursue in this conflict, the majority of the UN member states still refrain from any steps towards the conflict resolution and consider the admission of Palestine to the UN impossible until certain agreement is achieved between the two countries.

Page numbers

Introduction to the Essay 2 Subheading 1: The attempts to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine. 4 Subheading 2: The official standpoints of the sides involved. Reasons for obtaining UN membership and statehood. Public response in Palestinian and Israeli society. 7 Subheading 3: The position of the USA. The attitude of the UN member states to the Palestinian policy. 11 Conclusion 13 Works Cited 15

Introduction to the Essay

The research focuses upon one of the most urgent issues of the world politics - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The necessity for close investigation arises from the controversial character of the issue, which involves a whole variety of an opinion on the origin and reasons for the conflict, on the policy of its participants, and on the reaction of the world community. The research is relevant because the issue of Palestinian autonomy remains open and is still one of the principle items on the world agenda. Thus, the main goal will be to study possible consequences of Palestinian application for statehood recognition for the advancement of the peace process between Israel and Palestine.

But before we investigate the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it seems appropriate to provide a brief historical overview upon the subject in order to make clear the essence of the existing opposition.

For many centuries Palestine was inhabited by the Jews - first Jewish settlements on the territory date back to the XIth century B. C. But in 638 the country was conquered by the Arabs, whose rule lasted almost 1000 years. In 1917 during World War I Great Britain invaded Palestine and issued Balfour Declaration which recognized the establishment of the Jewish homeland on the Palestinian territory. That triggered a protest resulting in more than 60 years of the armed confrontation. “The Arabs resented the Jews coming in to take their land…. they rioted repeatedly and later revolted, creating a history of enmity between Jews and Arabs in Palestine” (MidEastWeb).

The idea of possible coexistence of the two separate countries within the borders of Palestine first emerged in 1937. The UK suggested the following project of land parceling: the whole land was to be divided into three sectors, two of which went to the Arabs and the Jews while the remaining one (including Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth) stayed under the British rule and preserved neutrality. Unfortunately, the plan was not fulfilled, as the war broke out.
Immediately after World War II Britain – under the pressure of the world community – had to allow the Jews to immigrate to Palestine. In 1948 the state of Israel was declared. It occupied a larger territory than that belonging to the Arabs who greatly outnumbered the Jewish people. Peaceful coexistence of the two enemies with different religious and cultural backgrounds and without clearly defined borders became impossible.

The aggravating conflict underwent several basic stages: * 1948 Arab-Israeli War (the first war) * 1956 the Suez Crisis (the second war) * 1967, 1973 (the third and the forth wars) * 1978-1979 Camp David peace process * 1982 Lebanon War (the fifth war) * 1993-2000 Oslo peace process * 2000-2005 The Second Intifada (the sixth war)

Despite the long history of confrontation the main points of controversy remained unchanged. They are: * the status of Jerusalem * Palestinian refugees * the Israeli settlements * the borders

Each period of the conflict was characterized by either escalation or reduction of tension, but since it’s not the main concern of this research, we will only consider some of the agreements signed by the opposing sides, in order to show what attempts had been made to resolve the conflict before Palestine turned to the UN for assistance.

Subheading 1: The attempts to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine.

One of the main attempts to resolve the conflict was the Oslo Agreement that was signed in September 1993 in Washington and was supposed to settle the arguments between the two countries. For Israel, that always considered PLO to be a terrorist organization and refused any diplomatic contacts with it, it was a tough political decision. According to the agreement the PLO had to stop any terroristic action towards the Jewish people, recognize Israel as a country and enter into peace negotiations. It was presupposed that this arrangement would last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated. Permanent issues such as positions on Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders were deliberately left to future negotiations. In essence, the accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority. Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition, according to which the Israeli government recognized the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state. The Oslo agreement was the first major breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian relationships, as it ensured the Palestinian people their own independent government in Jericho and inside Gaza Strip for five years.

In 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who offered Palestine about 95% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip under the condition that 69 Jewish settlements be ceded to Israel. The largest part of East Jerusalem would also have fallen under Israeli rule, with the exception of the suburbs with the majority of non-Jewish population surrounded by the areas annexed to Israel. The remaining area would pass under Palestinian control. However the borders, the airspace, and the water resources of the Palestinian state would have been left in the full possession of the Israeli nation. President Arafat rejected this offer and did not propose any counter-offer. No tenable compromise was achieved which would satisfy both Israeli and Palestinian demands, even under the considerable U.S. pressure. Clinton blamed Yasser Arafat for the failure of the Camp David Summit.

The Cairo agreement granted Palestine the governance over West Bank and Gaza Strip and also ensured economical co-operation between Israel and Palestine.

The Taba agreement (also known as “Oslo 2”) focused on security arrangements and land parceling. According to it the West Bank was divided into three parts: part A which included cities and large villages of the area, part B embracing smaller villages fully controlled by the Palestinian government and part C – the remaining territories under the Israeli rule. It was quite a promising attempt to define clear boundaries of the two countries.

In July 2002, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia outlined the principles of a "road map" for peace, which also included an independent Palestinian state. The road map was released right after Mahmoud Abbas was appointed the first Palestinian Authority Prime Minister. This happened mainly because both the US and Israel called for a new Prime Minister position, as both refused to negotiate peace with Yassir Arafat anymore.
The plan called for independent actions by Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority must undertake efforts to arrest and restrain individuals and groups conducting or planning violent attacks on the Israeli people, while the reorganized Palestinian Authority security apparatus should begin carrying out the operations aimed at confronting all those who were engaged in terroristic activities performed on the territory of Israel. In its turn Israel was required to dismantle the Jewish settlements established after March 2001, freeze all its settlement activity, remove its army from Palestine which was occupied after 28 September 2000, end ease the restrictions put on the trade.
Neither of the countries has yet fulfilled its obligations under this peace agreement. Israel has dismantled only a small number of its settlements and has actually expanded others. Though all Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip were indeed dismantled and the citizens evacuated despite their occasional resistance. The Israeli army also withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip and the control over it passed over to the Palestinians. Palestinians in their turn have not succeeded in reducing violent actions of Palestinians and terrorist groups against Israel and Israelis.

We can now see that unfortunately in every above mentioned case each side was constantly violating certain points of the agreements. The Israeli people continued settling on the territory of the West Bank while the Palestinian terrorist groups didn’t stop their attacks upon the Jews.

From this we can conclude that the history of the conflict proved that each side was willing to negotiate a lasting peace treaty from which both countries could benefit. Both countries were also ready to recognize the statehood of the opponent. But still every attempt of peaceful regulation without the interference of the world community failed. In order to see the reasons of it we will now pass on to the present-day situation. First of all we will outline the main standpoints of the sides involved in the conflict and their claims to each other. We will also try to account for the desire of Palestine to obtain statehood and UN membership.

Subheading 2: The official standpoints of the sides involved. Reasons for obtaining UN membership and statehood. Public response in Palestinian and Israeli society.

Now having a general idea of the historical development of the Palestinian-Israeli relationships we can come down to essentials and give a closer examination to the standpoints of the opposing sides. However it should be noted that neither of the two sides holds a single position. In both communities there exist moderate and extremist views on the possible ways of conflict resolution.

The basic arguments brought forward by Israel are the following: * Palestine is the historical homeland of the Jewish people. According to different archaeological and anthropological evidence the Jews inhabited the area since the XIth century B.C. * According to the Bible this area was promised to Jacob and his descendants as Land of the Covenant * After the Holocaust years the Jews have to unite for purposes of self-defense. The Israeli nation needs its own territory to ensure protection from anti-Semitism * Social organizations protecting interests of the Jews driven out from Arab countries in 1948-1970 claim, that the territory which the Israeli people now possess is inadequately smaller than the real estate that they lost being excluded

Their opponents’ objections are: * The Arabs from the very beginning were totally against the establishment of the Jewish State on the territory of Palestine * Certain radical political parties and governments still deny Israel the right to existence * According to Mohammed Palestine initially belonged to the Arabs * The Israeli policy on the occupied territories grew into racism and apartheid depriving the Palestinian people of their land and violating their rights

As we see, the peaceful settlement of the dispute seems next to impossible. The claims advanced by both sides are unacceptable. The main demands of the Palestinian government run as follows: * “The Palestinian borders should be represented in their natural borders” (Council on Foreign Relations, Palestinian Statehood at the UN), i.e. the borders of 1967, including Gaza, The West Bank and the East Jerusalem * The eastern part of Jerusalem should acquire the status of the capital * About 4 mln of refugees should be repatriated to Israel * All Jewish settlements on the territory of Palestine should be eliminated
Any of the above listed claims fulfilled, Israel will lose its independence. The return of 4 mln of Palestinian refugees would drastically change the ethnodemographical situation of the country, while East Jerusalem is very likely to become the center of terroristic activities. The overwhelming numerical superiority of the Arabs as well as the small territory of the Jewish state are the main threats to the existence of Israel.

Now that we have outlined the main standpoints of the opposing sides of the conflict we can give proper consideration to the advantages that Palestine expects to gain from UN membership and statehood recognition. It is appropriate at this point to recall that the role of the UN as of an international organization which could contribute to the settlement of the conflict was always limited to passing resolutions, often ignored by both Palestinian and Israeli governments. So it is not by chance that the Palestinian Authority (the PA) decided to request assistance of the UN.

First of all the Arabs feel that the peace process between Israel and Palestine in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem has come to a dead end. The PA believes that further negotiations with Israel will take them nowhere and now the statehood can only be obtained through the UN resolution. Palestinian policy at the West Bank proved to be very successful, which makes them feel ready and positive for statehood recognition.

This decision has evoked wide public response in both Arab and Jewish communities. Since opinions vary to a great extent, for our purpose we will cite only the basic pros and contras of UN membership and recognition of the Palestinian autonomy in the estimation of the public.
The main advantages pointed out by the Arabs are the following: * UN membership will give Arab states an opportunity to join different UN organizations, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It will strengthen the legal position of the Palestinian people both in their country and beyond its borders and thus will help enhance the mobility of the nation. * The official status of Palestine as a full UN member will bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the global scale, so that the whole international community will be concerned with its consequences and early settlement. * UN membership also suggests a more active humanitarian assistance to Palestine on the part of the UN powerful member states.

But some hard Palestinian observers say that there’s hardly any chance of the positive outcome of the statehood bid. “We all know that there is no possibility whatsoever that Palestine will become a full member of the UN, so long as the U.S. has veto power in the Security Council”, said Sela Abdel Jawad (Middle East Policy Council, Reaction to the Palestinian UN Statehood Bid), whose statement was supported by a large number of Palestinian people. In order to be accepted as a UN member Palestine should meet the approval of the nine members of UN Security Council, which is impossible because the USA is ready to put veto on Palestinian application. Barak Obama believes that the conflict could not be resolved with the help of UN resolutions – all the issues of controversy should be settled without any intervention.

The Jewish people are mainly opposed to the admission of Palestine to UN, because its independence is likely to undermine the security of Israel. Some of the Israeli people are afraid that in case of success Palestine will be able to turn the international court against Israel. The history shows that the Jews have good reasons for concern. But the fact that a lot of countries support the Palestinian bid makes it harder for Israel to delay its application until the peace negotiations have been brought to a desirable conclusion. The only possible way out for Israel is to win the support of the US and other UN members that have the right to veto the application until the conflict is settled.

But it doesn’t mean that the attitude of the Jews to UN membership issue is totally negative. The proponents of the admission could be found even within the Israeli community. Their basic argument is that the acceptance to the International Court will force Palestine to punish terrorist groups according to the laws of this court. At the same time the laws of human rights could improve the treatment of the Jewish people living on the Palestinian territory.

From the second part of the research we can draw the conclusion that though the Arab-Israeli peace process hasn’t yet been greatly affected by the Palestinian application for UN membership the main consequences are yet to come. The final verdict of the UN member states, whether Palestine will be granted autonomy and join the UN, can lead to realignment of forces and drastically change the political landscape of the Middle East.

In the third part we will make clear the position of the USA and other UN countries which now play the key role in the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Subheading 3: The position of the USA. The attitude of the UN member states to the Palestinian policy.

The policy of the United States is crucial for both sides involved in the conflict as it can turn the balance of power in the Middle East. Israel, being the strategic ally of the US, can count on its support in the attempts to delay the Palestinian application. Five more votes are necessary for the application to be declined. But, as it was previously mentioned, in case the Palestinian bid meets the approval of the majority, the US will have to use its veto power. In September 2011 Barak Obama said to the UN General Assembly "One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves”(Council on Foreign Relations, Palestinian Statehood at the UN). But there are sure to be other grounds for this decision. One of them is connected with the official Palestinian religion – Islam. The majority of Americans belong to the Protestant or the Catholic church, so there is no point for the government to support the Islamic country. Moreover, huge American weapon storages are located on the territory of Israel and it would be extremely dangerous to relocate them.

The position of the UK is in most cases the same as that of the US. The British Prime Minister David Cameron knows that if he accepts the Palestinian bid, the relationships between Israel and the UK will be harmed. Besides, it will also aggravate tension between the UK and Saudi Arabia. That’s why the UK holds the opinion that Israel and Palestine must negotiate peace without the UN interference. Although there are some countries that support the Palestinian application for statehood (Russia, South Africa, China, Brazil, India, Nigeria, Lebanon are among them), most of the member states still adhere to the viewpoint that the admission of Palestine is hardly possible until certain agreement is achieved between the two countries.

So we see that the UN members, each having its own concern in the Arab-Israeli confrontation, generally tend to refrain from any acts of coercion leaving the matter at the disposal of the main opposing sides. From this viewpoint it is fair to state that the Palestinian application only added to the problem. Now that the negotiations are inevitable both the Jews and the Arabs have to guard not only their own interest but also those of their political allies, having no actual support from them so far.

Conclusion

We have attempted to investigate one of the most disputable issues of the present day politics –the Arab-Israeli conflict. Our main focus was upon the Palestinian application for UN membership and its possible consequences for the advancement of the peace process between Israel and Palestine. As a result of the research we have come to the following conclusions:

* The history of the confrontation falls into several basic periods, each characterized by the successive escalation and reduction of tension * A lot of attempts have been made by the Israeli and Arab governments to negotiate peace before Palestine turned to the UN for assistance. Most of these attempts failed because of the violation of the certain points of the agreement achieved * Each side was ready to recognize the statehood of the opponent but at same time unwilling to sacrifice its own interests, that made the compromise almost impossible to achieve * The role of the UN in the settlement of the conflict was reduced to passing resolutions, which the Arabs and the Jews rarely obeyed to * Since the peace process between Israel and Palestine in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem has come to a deadlock, the only possible way to negotiate peace and obtain statehood for both sides was to request the UN assistance * The majority of the UN member states including the US and the UK consider the admission of Palestine impossible until certain agreement is achieved between the two countries * Although each of the UN members has its own interests to pursue in this matter, they still refrain from any steps towards the conflict resolution leaving the matter at the disposal of Israel and Palestine. It gives ground to state that the Palestinian bid for statehood and membership only added to the problem, as both sides now feel the pressure of their UN allies without getting any significant support from them * The final decision of the UN whether Palestine will be granted autonomy and accepted as a new UN member can lead to realignment of forces in the Middle East
Most researchers of the conflict came up with the proposal of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, which presupposes the establishment of an independent sovereign Israeli state and an Arab state on the territory of Palestine. This resolution entails the mutual recognition of an Israeli and an Arab state which will further promote amicable relations between the opposing nations. That could become the first step towards the conclusion of the conflict. However, this cannot be fully realized without demilitarization of both sides, together with the allies of both sides.

The Israeli Palestinian conflict has lasted for a long time, and peace has long been desired. The UN, being a neutral party, must make sure that its policy will not aggravate the already dangerous status of the countries, as reconciliation for both the Jews and the Arabs is essential to promote and eventually maintain peace. At this moment, the intervention of other states is being put in doubt, either altruistic or egoistic. That’s why the compromise would be the only and the nearest road to amicable settlement of the conflict.

Works Cited

MidEastWeb. MidEastWeb. 26 06 2012 <http://www.mideastweb.org/nutshell.htm>.

Work Cited * Commentary. " Reactions to the Palestinian UN Statehood Bid ". September 21, 2011. July 7, 2012. < http://www.mepc.org/reactions-palestinian-un-statehood-bid >

* Robert McMahon. "Palestinian Statehood At The UN ". November 1, 2011. July 7,2012. < http://www.cfr.org/palestinian-authority/palestinian-statehood-un/p25954 >

* http://www.inss.org.il/search.php?all=&text=palestine+statehood+bid&x=21&y=13

* < http://www.amalnet.k12.il/activities/atsmaut/shalom.htm> It’s an information site.

* Herschel V. Johnson. "United States Position on Palestine Question". October 11, 1947. July 7,2012. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad164.asp

*
- “Oslo Agreement” Ynet.com April 23,2012. http://www.ynet.co.il/yaan/0,7340,L-91355-OTEzNTVfMjgxOTE2NjZfMTQ4Njg3MjAw-FreeYaan,00.html