Will the US abstain or veto? This is the key question, in the run up to Friday, writes Khaled Amayreh in Ramallah Despite tremendous pressure and last minute warnings from Washington, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is due to formally request of the UN full recognition of a prospective Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders. PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who arrived in New York Monday, 19 September, met with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, telling him he would submit a formal request to that effect on Friday. There are at least 126 states that would support the Palestinian request for full membership of the UN. Dozens of other states are still undecided or are expected to abstain. Member states of the European Union (EU) have not reached a unified position as to how they will vote, but several EU states have indicated that they will vote in favour of the Palestinian UN membership bid. Traditionally pro-Israel states, such as Germany, will either oppose or abstain. In an earlier speech in Ramallah, President Abbas said the Palestinians would seek both UN membership and Security Council recognition. The US has vowed to veto any resolution recognising a Palestinian state at the UN Security Council. Abbas urged Palestinians in the strongest terms to refrain from indulging in violence, saying: "This is exactly what Israel wants you to do." In the speech, which coincided with the 29th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Beirut, Abbas said: "For 63 years, we have been massacred and slaughtered. What I will take to the UN will be the suffering and concerns of our people�ê� over 63 years." He made it clear that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) would remain the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people until "everything is resolved, including the refugee problem". Abbas acknowledged the "pitfalls and difficult struggle awaiting us," suggesting the timing of the Palestinian move was most opportune. He explained that more states than ever were now supportive of Palestinian statehood and independence. He also hinted that the Arab Spring was an auspicious asset that would militate in favour of the Palestinian cause. Palestinian officials have rejected "flagrant American pressure," arguing that the PA is only trying to carry out the American vision for two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. PA official Saeb Ereikat was quoted as saying last week that the PA realised that its latest move at the United Nations might not produce a miracle. However, he hinted that the Palestinians wouldn't allow themselves to be hostage to America's internal politics, an allusion to the immense influence and control of pro-Israeli groups over Congress. Ereikat reportedly spoke of a "plan B", which he said the PA would seriously discuss if the current course of action didn't succeed. Sources close to the PA decision-making elite spoke of far-reaching steps the Palestinian leadership is likely to contemplate in case the US and Israel scuttle the Palestinian independence bid. This could include terminating security coordination with Israel, abandoning the Oslo Accords and even dismantling the PA apparatus. Most Israelis consider the Oslo Accords a security asset rather than a liability, since thanks to these accords Israel has been able to preserve its military occupation of the Palestinian territories without sacrificing Israeli interests, and in particular without undermining the settlement enterprise. Hence, it is widely believed that the dismantling of the PA would confront Israel (and the US) with a real dilemma whereby Tel Aviv would be forced to choose between annexing territories with millions of non-Jews, or reinstating the classical occupation, with the Israeli army becoming once again responsible for pacifying and controlling millions of Palestinians as well as catering for their welfare. The Palestinian decision to seek UN membership and Security Council recognition marks the first time since the conclusion of the Oslo Accords that the PA says "No" to Washington. The risk is real, since Washington pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the PA to keep it financially afloat. But the daring feat reflects mounting frustration, not to say despair and depression, on the part of Palestinians who over the years have watched an insolent Israel double, triple and even quadruple the size of its settlements in the occupied West Bank, especially in East Jerusalem. This happened while the United States, the supposed "honest broker", suggested one peace initiative after the other, all of which evaporated into nothing thanks to Israeli intransigence and American complacency, if not connivance, with Tel Aviv. It is uncertain how the PA will react after the Obama administration vetoes the Palestinian request for recognition at the UN Security Council. Some PA officials have voiced the hope that US concern about the bad impression and negative ramifications an American veto is likely to leave with the Arab masses would prompt Washington to abstain. However, other observers argue more convincingly that pressures by an Israeli-controlled Congress and electioneering considerations now facing the Obama administration are much more powerful a factor than whatever concerns vis-�-vis Arab public opinion the administration might have. Which would leave the ball squarely in the Arab court, at least for the time being. Meanwhile, the Israeli occupation army has introduced strict punitive measures against Palestinians throughout the occupied West Bank. The measures include erecting roadblocks and checkpoints, cutting off towns and population centres from each other and stationing concentrated troops and police forces at "friction spots" such as in Hebron. This is despite strong indications and assurances from the PA that marches and activities in support of the statehood bid would only be peaceful. The Palestinians said they would hold peaceful rallies and marches throughout the West Bank on Wednesday for the purpose of showing support for Chairman Abbas's efforts at the UN. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad said that while they support the goal of establishing a state based on the 1967 armistice line, they were strongly against recognising Israel or compromising the right of return for millions of refugees uprooted from their homes when Israel was created in 1948.
