This next week could tell the future of the Palestinian application for full UN membership – by next weekend it will be 50 days since submission. Although France has indicated that it will abstain on vote for Palestinian state membership, the Palestinian leadership intends apparently to force a vote although it is uncertain that there are currently 9 positive votes necessary, with or without a US veto. The UNSC’s standing Committee on Admission of New Members will hold a formal meeting at permanent representative level on Palestine’s application for UN membership (unlike Council formal meetings, Council Committee formal meetings are not public). After Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ submitted the application (9-23-2011), the UNSC referred the matter to the Committee on September 28, 2011. The Committee then met approximately five times to discuss the issue. (From UN Security Council Report). See FILM REPORT –“Palestine/Israeli Confrontation at UN Security Council” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/palestineisraeli-confrontation-un/28688 TRANSPARENCY in WORK of COUNCIL? The Secretariat will apparently deliver a report of the discussion reflecting members’ positions. However, it seems the report will not include a specific recommendation either for or against Palestine’s admission as a UN member, according to UN Security Council Report and my sources. The Report then is expected to be reviewed at the next formal Committee meeting scheduled for November 11, 2011. If Committee members accept the Report, it appears likely that it will be transmitted to the UNSC as a public document. Moving the application from the Committee to the UNSC without a recommendation was apparently a Russian proposal that had US agreement. Apparently this proposal satisfied those who wanted to avoid a US veto while keeping Palestinian Authority engaged in the peace process. The proposal also addressed the concern regarding the lack of transparency in the Committee’s proceedings. (Previous meetings had been mostly informal and at expert level with no records by the Secretariat.) This also may have satisfied some Council’s members desire to avoid any action which might pre-empt Quartet initiatives on restarting direct negotiations. WHO SUPPORTS PALESTINE ADMISSION? Brazil, China, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Russia and South Africa have recently indicated some support for Palestine’s application. Gabon may also be supportive, although reluctant to expose itself to the extreme pressure. Bosnia & Herzegovina is also under intense Washington pressure. The Presidency in Sarajevo is badly divided, even as the State Department is unrelenting. Other UNSC members are either hesitant to expose their positions and/or waiting for some compromise to develop. France did vote for Palestine membership to UNESCO. It appears that this was not just an isolated action. (READ – “Palestine Membership to UNESCO” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/palestine-membership-us-cuts-unesco-funding-by-ambassador-mo/39095). Rather, France is trying to convince the Palestinians to accept status as observer-state in the UN General Assembly, a similar status to the Vatican and once held by Switzerland. (READ – “Will Palestine Seat this Chair at UN” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/will-palestine-seat-this-chair-at-un-photo-tells-the-story-by-ambassador-mo/35254). ISRAEL/PALESTINE DIPLOMATIC TRENCH WARFARE: What, if any, action the Council will take on Palestine’s application is still not evident (according to UN Security Council Report). The UNSC could vote on the application and if it is rejected it would then need to send a report to the UN General Assembly on its decision not to admit Palestine as a member. The General Assembly could then ask the Council to reconsider its decision. It could also vote to postpone consideration of the application. (Since membership is a substantive issue, at least nine of the fifteen members of the Council, with no permanent members casting a veto, must agree to the admission of the new state.) It appears that some members may be inclined to simply receive the report from the Committee but take no further action. However the Palestinian Representatives appear neither inclined to accept this route silently nor the French “compromise.” My opinion is that the Palestinians have no confidence in either the current Israeli Government or Washington to deliver any viable alternative to a peace they could live with. Much of the negotiations about negotiations as well as conditions for Palestinian membership is about establishing leverage in the final talks, whenever they happen. The Palestinians have come to the conclusion that they currently do not have the leverage to achieve any acceptable result. (READ – Palestine UN Membership – What’s at Stake?” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/palestine-un-membership-whats-at-stake-by-ambassador-mo/35385 The Palestinians view that neither Washington or Quartet have the ability or will to stop expanding Israeli settlements. (READ –“East Jerusalem Settlements, Israel/Palestine Prisoner Exchange Crowd Palestine UN Membership Debate” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/east-jerusalem-settlements-israelpalestine-prisoner-exchange-crowd-palestine-un-membership-debate-by-ambassador-mo/36341 ) The Quartet’s mediation is not much more than a reflection of this reality. Think that the Israeli/Palestinian divide is entering a new phase of diplomatic trench warfare – the Palestinians will press with creeping statehood at UN and other international institutions while Israel does similarly with settlements. By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey Facebook – Become a Fan at “Diplomatically Incorrect” Twitter – Follow us at DiplomaticallyX “WarCrimesJustice” Channel - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/war-crimes-justice