Britain is keen to help Mahmoud Abbas but wants to avoid a damaging confrontation with US and Israel
Share 104
inShare1a
Email 
Mahmoud Abbas will address the UN General Assembly in New York nearly 40 years after his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, addressed the body wearing a holster. Photograph: Tara Todras-Whitehill/AP
Diplomats often get a little carried away and assume that negotiations on intricate details can change the world.
But diplomats have every right to think they will take part in dramatic events next week as Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, prepares to request recognition of statehood at the UN.
Harriet Sherwood and Chris McGreal reported on Wednesday night that the US, Europe and the Middle East quartet are embarking on a last ditch attempt to avoid a titanic bust-up the UN in New York. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, and Cathy Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, have been in touch with both sides to try and persuade them to resume negotiations.
Diplomats see no chance of a breakthrough before next week's annual meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York attended by heads of state and government. This means that Britain and all the other key players at the heart of the negotiations are having to work out what they will do.
Britain, which will be represented at the UN next week by David Cameron, William Hague and Andrew Mitchell, has not decided how to vote or abstain for one very simple reason. It does not know what tactics Abbas will follow. Will he table his demand for full recognition in the security council, inviting a confrontation as the US wields its veto? Or will he go for the UN general assembly where he would probably be able to muster the necessary two thirds majority for the lesser, "Vatican option", which would give the Palestinian Authority the sort of souped up observer status enjoyed by the Holy See?
As a friend of both Israel and the Palestinian authority, Britain finds itself in a delicate position. But Britain is prepared to risk a rift with Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, by crossing one of his "red lines". This is to vote at the UN general assembly in favour of the "Vatican option". That would mark a major step for Britain because this would describe Palestine as a "state".
In an ideal world Britain would not follow this route. But it would vote yes if it were able to water down one of Israel's main concerns in the "Vatican option" – the right of the International Criminal Court to claim jurisdiction in the West Bank. If Britain could mitigate the impact of the ICC, by ensuring that it could not apply the jurisdiction retrospectively, then it might be prepared to vote for the "Vatican option".
Britain believes that three options are in play as ministers prepare to descend on New York:
Option One
This is a package of measures Ashton and Tony Blair, the quartet envoy, have been trying to broker. This would involve a revised quartet statement and the right of the Palestinian Authority to lodge a request at the UN for statehood.
Ashton believes that Abbas will not accept this package.
Option Two
The General Assembly route, or the "Vatican option". This would see the upgrading of the Palestinian state to a permanent non member state, giving it the right to sit on many UN bodies.
Britain would be prepared to support if three conditions are met:
• Drops Option Three. See below.
• Agrees to negotiations without preconditions.
• Concerns about the ICC are met. The "Vatican option" would not automatically trigger ICC jurisdiction over the West Bank, but it does make it more likely that the hurdles would be overcome. Israel has talked of its fears about "lawfare".
Option Three
The Palestinian authority would table a demand for recognition of statehood at the security council. Britain regards this as a catastrophic route because it would trigger a major confrontation. The US would use its veto and moves would be made in the US Congress to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority. Israel would also cut off revenue from tax receipts to the PA.
Britain believes that if the Palestinians were really clever they would go for a fourth option – tabling the exact text that Barack Obama used in a speech in May. This is the key paragraph:
The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
Britain believes that this would be a smart move because every member of the security council would vote for this apart from one. Obama would order his diplomats in New York to veto his own words.
Britain is deeply nervous about the negotiations in New York. It fears that there could be a major confrontation which could do lasting damage to the peace process and kill of negotiations on a two state solution for years to come.
Ministers believe that the future of Israel and the Palestinian territories can, and should, only be decided in those negotiations which deal with the familiar issues of the status of Jerusalem, Right of Return and the West Bank. But Britain accepts that Abbas, who is under constant pressure from Hamas and from hardliners in his own Fatah faction, must not return home from New York empty handed.
But Netanyahu is under intense pressure. Britain fears that if Options Two or Three is passed then his hardline foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, would resign from the coalition.
The challenge is to ensure that Abbas wins some credibility next week but not at such a high price that the already perilous peace process is finished off for a generation.