On the 21st of September the UN begins its annual General Assembly General Debate. Now, it can be assumed that this is not circled in red on your calendar, but this year’s debate is one to watch for one reason.

Negotiations between Israel and Palestine fell apart once again a year ago and have not recommenced with any success. Abbas has stated that he will, as part of his speech to the general assembly on the 23rd, request that the UN Security Council recognise Palestinian independence. This move could not have been more controversial, particularly because of its impossible audacity. The Security Council will almost certainly not approve this; America is expected to veto it. The UK and France most probably will abstain due to a desire to not upset the Israel, with whom they hold strong diplomatic relations, or to harm their standing in the Arab world, which has been improving since the Arab spring.

However what is the right move to make in this situation? The Israelis are angry as they feel that they are being forced to agree to things they would rather negotiate over if Palestine where to gain internationally-recognised independence. The Palestinians feel that this will level the field at the negotiation table and help continue negotiations between the two parties over the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once again it seems that the world is being forced into defining itself in black and white terms, either supporting Israel or Palestine with no place for constructive neutrality.

Ultimately what the world desires is a return to the negotiation table. Although Israel has said Abbas’ move will ruin any future negotiations, if you read between the lines, it seems that the peace process which has so dramatically stalled in the past years is now being forced into action again with more pressure than before. American and European diplomats, with the help of Tony Blair, are running around frantically attempting to stop this confrontation by trying to find a compromise between the two states. Compromise involves an acknowledgement of one another’s demands and thus contains elements of discussion which could lead to a return of negotiations. Sceptics may feel that this move by Abbas is aimed at further isolating Israel, a state in a precarious position of political solitude having lost established allies and friendly regimes in the recent uprisings in the Middle East. It feels in reality to be a desperate attempt to force the issue back into diplomatic discussions. Abbas is forcing the issue of Palestinian statehood into the center of mainstream media and diplomatic attention, after focus shifted dramatically to the Arab spring that occurred around it.

This move is risky and commentators are right to feel worried about the way Israel and its allies will respond. However what has been picked up on by academics has been the reality that, though Palestinians care about the peace process, their fundamental and most prominent concern is the quality of their day-to-day lives. If Israel cuts funding to the Palestinian Authority out of anger, then unrest and anger can be expected leading to violent clashes and possible loss of life and a harsher crackdown by Israeli security forces in the occupied territories.

What Abbas seems to want to do is draw attention back to the plight of his people and force discussions to resume, but he risks alienating what support he has, resulting in real consequences that could lead to violence. The tightrope he is walking has the possibility of getting very wobbly very quickly if he miscalculates his move this week.

Originally published 20 September 2011