The "Uniting for Peace" resolution 377 states that if the Security Council fails to act to maintain world peace and security, the General Assembly should consider the matter in an emergency session. The session can be called at the request of seven members of the Security Council or by a majority of UN member states. Palestinians would need the support of 129 countries to implement Resolution 377 and secure a General Assembly vote on UN membership.

This U.N. Resolution 377, which  was first  passed in 1950, as an initiative by the United States to thwart the Soviet veto in the matter of Korea, would presumably be invoked by a majority of UN member states that will support the creation of a Palestinian state.

Prof. Shalev  has suggested that the cabinet in Jerusalem should take very seriously the possibility that Resolution 377 will be invoked. She  has noted it was used in 1956 during the Sinai Campaign and led to the ceasefire. This happened after France and Britain imposed a veto in the Security Council on a resolution condemning the attack on Egypt.(As an aside, Prof Shalev was appointed as Israel's Ambassodor to the  UN by Kadima.) 

The Foreign Ministry of Israel, however, is skeptical the possibility of activating Resolution 377 in this context---and for that reason, Miriam Ziv has no doubt  been instructed not to refer to Resolution 377 when she discusses this issue.

In an article in Ha'aretz, Prof. Eyal Benvenisti, a expert on international law at Tel Aviv University, indicated he doubted the General Assembly’s’ ability to use Resolution 377 to override the instructions in the UN Charter conditioning acceptance of a country to the organization on approval by the Security Council. However, added Benvenisti immediately, the Generally Assembly can call upon the member states to recognize the state of Palestine, call for sending a multi-national force and call for imposing sanctions on Israel.(emphasis added)

It is because of this Resolution 377,  (in addition ot the fact that President Obama does not really want to use his veto) that there are many in Israel who believe that  Prime Minister Netanyahu ought to ditch his right-wing coalition and form a national unity government with Tzipi Livni's Kadima. Few think that  there is a real chance for a peace agreement with the Palestinian leadership (as they  are not ready to  give up the right of return and make the compromises necessary for an agreement). However, the possible advantage of such a unity government is that when peace talks fail, the US and the world will not  blame Netanayahu-Livni  but the Palestinians ( just like Clinton blamed Arafat, not Barak, after the failure of the peace talks in 2000.) 

 Ari Shavit,  in an article in Ha'aretz laid out this posiiton most eloquently in an article "There Will Be No Peace With The Palestinians"http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/there-will-be-no-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.365453 :

"In the coming years the Palestinians will not compromise on the right of return. They will not recognize the Jewish national state. They will not turn their back on Hamas. Even before the Arab Spring there was not much chance for a long-lasting peace with the Palestinians. But because of the Arab Spring even that flimsy chance has been lost.

"The democratization in the Arab world is wonderful, but it has killed the peace. In the coming years no moderate Palestinian leader will have the required legitimacy to make the historic '48 deal with Israel in exchange for '67. In the coming years no moderate Palestinian leader who will be able to face the refugees and persuade them to give up their homes and villages. No Palestinian Anwar Sadat will rise in the foreseeable future and there will be no Israeli-Palestinian peace [emphasis added].

"So the really important question is different - will there be peace with the world?

"Ehud Barak has many defects. But by going to Camp David in 2000 Barak made certain the world would stand beside Israel in the second intifada. Ehud Olmert also has some defects. But by going to Annapolis in 2008 Olmert made certain the world would stand beside Israel in Operation Cast Lead.

"Both Barak and Olmert proved to the world in acts that the conflict is not about the settlements but about survival. Both Barak and Olmert proved to the world Israel is not an occupying power but a democratic Jewish state that wants to end the occupation.

"Both these unpopular men served Israel not by acting to achieve peace with the Palestinians, but by achieving peace with the world. Thanks to them, when Israel had to exercise force it had the right and the ability to do so. Thus Israel defeated Yasser Arafat and deterred Hamas. Thus Israel gained years of quiet, prosperity and growing strength.[emphasis added]"

Shavit goes on to argue that  in all likelihood there will be violence in the future--a third intifada or worse, (an assessment with which I unfortunately agree ) and  in order for Israeli society to be united and stand by the measures that will need to be taken  it will be important for the  Israeli "center" to know that Israel did really try to put forth a reasonable peace plan (like Barak and Olmert), and the Palestinians rejected it. 

In this regard, I am struck by the fact that David Horowitz,  the editor fo the Jerusalem Post who just stepped down this week, in one of his last editorials said that for the good of  the State of Israel, Netanyahu and Livni ought to have put aside their differences and formed a national unity government.  That , of course, is not something  Miriam Ziv would have been able to say, but readers should know that it is being said.

Whether Shavit or Horowitz are correc is difficult to know. But that is what those in the"centrer" of the political spectrum in Israel are saying. 

Although there is much  I do not know,  I believe I would be doing  a disservice to my  readership if I did not point out  the issues around UN Resolution 377, when it comes to discussing Palestinian strategy at the UN this September.