Getting the timing right in Palestine.

US wants peace, Israel wants peace, Palestine wants peace, the world wants peace. That much we all agree on. But neither wanting peace, nor agreement on a 2- state solution is the problem. The problem, sadly for the millions Palestinians, is timing.

Of all the years to pressurize the US administration, forcing a yes/no stance on the issue of UN membership for Palestine a year before an uncertain US reelection campaign hardly seems like a wise choice. So why do it? Surly, the Palestine leadership must have known that US will veto such a reckless move. Its done so time and again on issues half as magnanimous as this.

Mr. Abbas must have surly known his low odds of getting this resolution passed. But by charging head on with his demands he has forced the burden of action (or inaction) on Israel and the US. Internally, there is a growing support for the end of settlement, and mutual peace and recognition in Israel. Polls conducted by PSR in March, 2011 shows that 52% of those polled in Israel want a mutual recognition of identity as part of a permanent status agreement. Further, among Israelis, 74% oppose settlers’ actions which damage Palestinian property and block roads (labeled “price tag”) in response to removal of illegal outposts by the Israeli government. Nethanyahu has to answers to this growing section of his constituency.

Externally, the growing isolation of the Israel is old news. Weakening relations with historically supportive Arab states, and questionable legitimacy amongst US and European public is documented. Most members of the community of nations support Palestinians claim for statehood; and at least 11 members of the Security Council are in favor for such.

US too is in a bind. Obama must tip-toe the line between losing the Jewish vote (79% of the Jewish vote went to Obama- Biden in 2008), and hurting larger American interests in the Middle East. Also, the moral question of supporting an occupying state over the occupied is increasingly weighing on American conscience. And while avoiding the veto in the Security Council might the help save face, all doubts of Americans flip flopping on the Palestine question will be put to rest. Critics will argue that USA and Israel are thick as thieves and it will take more than a liberal president and couple of democratic revolutions to change their thinking.

As I said earlier, it all about the timing. “Last week, the Quartet of mediators - the US, the UN, the European Union and Russia - called on Israel and the Palestinians to resume peace talks within one month and aim for a deal by the end of 2012.”, reports BBC. The end of 2012 will show us the results of the US Presidential elections. The diplomatic gamble for UN membership for Palestine depends highly on an Obama reelection. Once reelected, Obama does not have to worry of a third term in office. He will be relatively freer to pursue the goals laid out by him in the famous 2009 Cairo speech.

So the best option for Palestine is to come back in 2 years, September 2013, having negotiated the details of statehood with Israel. This way Israel and USA will have exhausted all excuses, everybody can save face, and legitimate concerns of statehood can be addressed. We will then see Palestine as a nation among the community of nations.

Palestine must continue to use the wave of international legitimacy to force Israel to the table under the conditions of "no new settlements". Israel must get serious about settlements and an inevitable Palestine state, and US must realize that the new political reality in the Middle East demands it ensure a fair solution.

The Palestine leadership can take these two years to resolve some of the questions that are bound to be raised after a state is created : better their case for a state, remove all doubts. They should address detailed peace based upon 1967 border, and security agreement with Israel; address concerns about Jerusalem, and settlements, trade agreements, economic restructuring, political restructuring, securing of loans. Securing its boundaries from non-state extremists and pacifying legitimate concerns about Israel’s security. It can and must also raise concerns about Israel refusal to give a police or a military force.

For the next two years, an increase in violence between Israel and Palestine would be unwise for Palestine. Another problem will be the election of a hardliners in Israel and US.

Timing is the key. It always has been. Mr. Abbas played his hand wisely, lets hope he continues to do the same.