Abbas sticks to the script in UN General Assembly speech

Apartheid and occupation

The president also addressed Israel's defiance of United Nations resolutions and its violation of international law and established norms. Abbas accused it of racing to alter historical, geographical, and demographic realities to perpetuate apartheid and occupation.

Nonetheless, these words came from a Palestinian leadership that signed landmark agreements with Israel – the Oslo Accords of 1993 –  despite Tel Aviv's failure to adhere to what the UN required.

Neither was there a clear definition of Israel as an occupying state, identifying demarcated borders or acknowledging the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories.  

The Oslo Accords did not insist on an end to Israeli settlers coming into Palestinian lands, or its recognition of UN resolutions on the partition of Palestine and the right of return.

This prompts vital questions: Why did the Palestinian leadership fail to raise these concerns during the Oslo negotiations before signing the agreement?

Does the UN have the power to implement its resolutions, particularly those about the 1948 Nakba, the 1967 occupation, and the 1993 Oslo Accords? Is it realistic to expect Israel to commit to these resolutions now?

Why did the Palestinian leadership not address the colonial and racist policies of the Israelis, which have continued under various governments regardless of their rhetoric on the subject?

Violence and aggression

These policies include the ongoing resettlement process and aggression against Palestinians from the military and security services on top of violence from the settlers themselves.

Palestinians have had their homes and property destroyed and their resources stolen, while the bodies of their martyrs have not been returned. Sacred sites such as Jerusalem, the al-Aqsa Mosque, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron continue to be violated.

With all this going on, President Abbas called for an international peace conference, which he said could be the last chance to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution.

But after such a long run of failure to help the Palestinians, it is difficult to see how the UN might now succeed now that local and international circumstances are even worse.

At home, Abbas pointed to peaceful, popular resistance as a means for Palestinians to pursue their rights and a restored homeland. But once again, there are contradictions.

A leadership with limited potential

The leadership he represents has limited the potential for a functioning civil society to develop, undermining the chances of success from this route. Setting up the Palestinian Authority did not lead to greater unity or boldness among Palestinians in their struggle; it marginalised inclusive political entities as it exercised authority in the West Bank and Gaza.

The president is in his late 80s and has been in charge of his people for 18 years. He has been criticised for concentrating decision making in his own office, cutting out the Legislative Council and the Supreme Judicial Council, as well as the Palestinian Liberation Organisation's National Council. He has also called off elections.

This all raises doubts over the message the Palestinian leadership is actually sending to the world, even as Abbas talks of comprehensive reform and development in Palestinian institutions.

At the UN this time around, the president adhered to both the form and content of the international system's expectations.

In doing so, it may be that he has secured more support and sustainability for the Palestinian Authority and himself, than for the hard-pressed people both are supposed to represent.