Overwhelming Approval

Yesterday’s UN General Assembly vote saw 114 of the 192-seat body yesterday come out in favour of a resolution that lends support to the controversial Goldstone report, named after its principal author, South African judge Richard Goldstone, the former lead war crimes prosecutor for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Eighteen countries, including a number of European states and Israel’s principal ally, the United States, opposed the resolution, while another 44 countries, many of which were European states that had sought amendments to resolution’s text, abstained from voting. The report calls on Israel and the Palestinians to investigate allegations of war crimes committed during the 22-day Israeli military onslaught on the Gaza Strip in retaliation for sustained rocket attacks launched from the Hamas-governed territory. The war led to the killing of 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. Critically the report accuses both sides of war crimes, although the brunt is mainly borne by Israel which is accused of a disproportionate use of violence, among other crimes. The Goldstone report recommends that war crimes accusations be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands if either party fails to investigate and subsequently bring to justice those responsible for carrying out crimes of war within six months.

The adopted resolution calls for internal investigations ''that are independent credible and in conformity with international standards'' to be conducted within three months of its passing. Furthermore, it paves the way for action by the UN Security Council if Israel and the Palestinian authorities fail to take timely action, calling on the UN secretary-general to check back with the Assembly to that effect "with a view to considering further action, if necessary, by the relevant United Nations organs and bodies", according to the BBC. Surprisingly, the resolution has not faced vehement rejection from the Israeli government, which has objected to the alleged one-sidedness of the Goldstone report from day one. Today the Israeli foreign ministry called the resolution ''completely detached from realities on the ground that Israel must face''. Earlier this week the U.S. House of Representatives condemned the Goldstone report, calling it ''irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy'' according to Agence France-Presse (AFP). The United States voted against the resolution yesterday.

Abbas Bows Out

For the Palestinians the resolution’s passing is a limited vindication, but a victory nonetheless, which was quickly overshadowed by Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas’s announcement yesterday that he would not stand for re-election. The long-embattled leader, who was first elected president in January 2005 after Yasser Arafat’s passing, made a televised statement from Ramallah in the West Bank confirming that he would not seek a renewal of his term in elections slated by Fatah for January. Although there have been some reports that Abbas’s announcement is merely a political manoeuvre to strengthen his ailing popularity, he refuted this, saying: ''This decision does not at all amount to bargaining or political manoeuvring'', a way to indicate that his decision was final. Furthermore, citing disappointment with the development of U.S. president Barack Obama’s policy and the dismal of prospects for re-starting the peace process with Israel, Abbas said: ''We were optimistic when President Obama announced the need for a complete halt to settlements including natural growth...we were surprised by his support for the Israeli position.'' Coming on the back of the controversy stirred by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this week while in Jerusalem when she praised Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu's ''unprecedented'' moves on limiting settlement activities in the occupied West Bank, they also reflect a general sense of apprehension and disappointment over what is perceived as an easing in the U.S. tone with regards to Israel’s settlement activities. There is little doubt that the momentum built with the coming to power of President Obama has significantly slowed in pace and strength, despite ongoing diplomatic efforts including numerous dispatches of Middle East envoy George Mitchell to the region.

However, it would be erroneous to think that Abbas’s decision is solely reflective of the lack of movement on the peace-talks front. His decision should also be viewed in the light of failed unity talks with Hamas, criticism over the PA’s lack of progress in purging corruption, its silence over the Gaza war, initial decision to defer UN action on the Goldstone report and the Fatah party’s failure to inject fresh dynamics and young blood into Palestinian politics, among an array of political challenges. Not to mention disappointment with his personal rule, as reflected in a recent polls showing that his popularity had dropped by 12.1%. At the moment Fatah is scrambling to reach a reconciliation deal with Hamas ahead of their preferred date for elections in January. Indeed, reconciliation with Hamas, which captured a key majority in the 2006 legislative elections, is a critical precondition for elections being held before the term of the Palestinian Legislative Council runs out as Hamas has banned elections in Gaza until such time. However, prospects remain grim as efforts led by Egyptian negotiators have so far yielded limited progress and continuous backtracking. Having long opposed Mahmoud Abbas and having deemed the PA as illegitimate, Hamas will no doubt view his resignation as a limited victory at least. Nevertheless, given that Abbas has agreed to continue to lead until elections are held, his decision may not result in a sense of urgency for holding elections, meaning that an agreement could stall further. Furthermore, Abbas’s move has also thrown into disarray the leadership of Fatah, highlighting internal difficulties faced by the movement amid disillusionment in the party’s top ranks. Critically, there is no clear idea who in the Fatah leadership would be best placed to run for president.

Outlook and Implications

The UN Assembly’s passing of yesterday’s resolution has accentuated Israel’s sense of isolation in the face of the international outcry at the Gaza war. For now, it is unclear what practical effect the resolution will have, particularly given that it is unlikely to be taken up by the UN Security Council, where the United States has a permanent seat. Meanwhile, Abbas’s decision has disturbed the fragile Palestinian Authority and accentuated its internal difficulties. For some time it will be business as usual as Abbas will remain in power until a unity deal has been reached with Hamas or an alternative means of holding elections is reached if talks break down. Indeed, sceptics may argue that Abbas could remain on the scene and reverse his decision if conditions permit. For now however, efforts to revive peace talks with Israel have been significantly complicated.

Global Insight (Reino Unido)