Should the US veto a UN resolution granting Palestine statehood?

  • News
  • Thread starter Bobbywhy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Resolution
In summary: United States has already said it would veto this effort.If the USA does veto the Palestine request it would seem to contradict what President Obama said this past May:“So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. 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. We believe 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 full potential, in a sovereign and
  • #1
Bobbywhy
Gold Member
1,733
52
Should the US veto a UN Security Council Resolution for the creation of a Palestinian State?

M. Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority (PA), plans to petition the UN Security Council on September 20 for the recognition of Palestine as a full UN member state. The US has already said it would veto this effort.

The PA has said it expects the US veto, and plans to then appeal to the full UN General Assembly for status of a “non-member” state, the same status as Kosovo, Taiwan, and Vatican City. If this bid is successful, it would transform the Israeli-Palestine conflict into a matter of one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another. The Palestinians could then access the UN’s human rights bodies, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court with any grievances. The PA has stated it would prefer direct negotiations with Israel, but not even a partial moratorium on settlement construction on Palestinian land could be arranged with Israel.

Background info:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/world/middleeast/06palestinians.html

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-...es-not-shy-from-his-record-on-israel-1.382720

http://www.onislam.net/english/news...-seeks-to-abort-un-palestinian-statehood.html

If the US does veto the Palestine request it would seem to contradict what President Obama said this past May:

“So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. 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. We believe 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 full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/19/text-of-obamas-speech-on-the-middle-east/
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bobbywhy said:
If this bid is successful, it would transform the Israeli-Palestine conflict into a matter of one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another.
On what do you base this claim?
 
  • #3
Oops! Made a “cut and paste” mistake when composing my post. The following would be true ONLY if Palestine was accepted in the UN as a member state:

“If this bid is successful, it would transform the Israeli-Palestine conflict into a matter of one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another. The Palestinians could then access the UN’s human rights bodies, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court with any grievances.”

And it would NOT apply if Palestine was a “non-member” state like Kosovo, Taiwan, and Vatican City.

Thanks Russ, for your observation.
 
  • #4
You still need to support the claim!
 
  • #5
russ_watters said:
You still need to support the claim!

Really, russ?

If the USA rolled into Canada and started bulldozing houses, that'd be one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another. So when Israel rolls into Palestine and starts bulldozing houses, that'd also be one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another.

Satisfied?
 
  • #6
I wonder what the reasons for the US are, or would be, to veto the claim?
 
  • #7
Bobbywhy said:
Should the US veto a UN Security Council Resolution for the creation of a Palestinian State?

I do not see how such a veto would benefit the people of the United States in any way. Therefore, I would vote "No, we should not."
 
  • #8
Jack21222 said:
Really, russ?

If the USA rolled into Canada and started bulldozing houses, that'd be one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another. So when Israel rolls into Palestine and starts bulldozing houses, that'd also be one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another.

Satisfied?
In your scenario, Canada existed before the US "occupation".

But that was, in any case, what I saw in the OP and in Abbas's statement: an attempt to legislate historical fact. Sorry, but just because something gets written down, that doesn't automatically make it fact - no matter who writes it.
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
In your scenario, Canada existed before the US "occupation".

But that was, in any case, what I saw in the OP and in Abbas's statement: an attempt to legislate historical fact. Sorry, but just because something gets written down, that doesn't automatically make it fact - no matter who writes it.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean in this post. Can you be a little more explicit in what you feel the historical facts are, and what you think they're attempting to be changed to? Please show your work.
 
  • #10
from http://www.thejc.com/blogs/geoffrey-paul/from-oxford-ramallah"
An unexpected spanner has been thrown into the intention of Ramallah to seek recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN later this month. A leading Oxford academic and legal expert has warned that, by pushing ahead with their bid for recognition of a Palestinian state, the PLO leadership may well hazard any right of Palestinians to return to what is now Israel and disenfranchise every Palestinian living outside the area currently under the control of the Palestine Authority.​

And http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201183095140933572.html" [Broken] …
The recent release of an authoritative legal opinion highlighting certain unexpected, unintended, and serious political and legal dangers in the September initiative, has created useful popular discussion and public debate. The opinion assesses the implications arising if the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) replaces itself by the State of Palestine as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at the UN.

The opinion was authored by Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, perhaps the world’s foremost authority on international refugee law, and commissioned by his colleague at Oxford University, Karma Nabulsi. It appears to have been discussed with the relevant political figures within the PLO leadership, and its constituent parties and movements. A few individuals, including PLO Executive Committee members, have responded to the issues raised in this expert legal opinion. However, the main questions have still not been addressed by the PLO, and it is important to raise them again for the sake of an honest public debate on a matter of such critical concern to all Palestinians.

The main thrust of the Goodwin-Gill memorandum, that replacing the PLO at the UN with the state will undermine the political and legal position of the Palestinian people - especially the rights to return and to self-determination - remain unaddressed.​

Professor Goodwin-Gill's opinion is available in full on the Jadaliyya website at http://50.16.193.68/pages/index/2530/guy-s.-goodwin-gill-legal-opinion-on-palestinian-s"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
To further support the claim in the OP, please see the following two articles:

“A successful General Assembly vote for the Palestinians could increase boycott and sanctions pressure on Israel as well as international legal proceedings in forums like the International Criminal Court.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html?ref=mahmoudabbas

“Israel is lobbying against the Palestinian bid, which it sees as an effort to isolate and delegitimize it and extend the conflict into new arenas such as the International Criminal Court.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/us-in-mideast-diplomati_n_951104.html
 
  • #12
To further support the claim in the OP, please see these excerpts from the LA Times dated 6 September 2011:

"Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization's executive committee, discussed with The Times what Palestinians are planning and why he thinks the U.N. bid, if unsuccessful, could spell the end of the Palestinian Authority.

If the Obama administration vetoes the application in the Security Council as expected, Palestinian officials are likely to turn to the General Assembly to upgrade their status from non-member "entity" to non-member "state." Gaining de facto statehood recognition from the international body could allow Palestinians to join key U.N. institutions, such as the International Criminal Court."

LAT: "Assuming there is a veto, what would you gain by upgrading your status in the General Assembly?"

Erekat: "The advantage is that you can be a full member of UNESCO, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court, and you may be able to hold Israel accountable."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-palestinians-un-qa-20110907,0,4589846.story
 
  • #13
Bobbywhy said:
Should the US veto a UN Security Council Resolution for the creation of a Palestinian State?

I think the US should veto the UN. The only reason they're sticking their nose into it is because we (globally) are allowing them to.

The problem involves too much land and not enough people. All the talk about whose land it was first is largely justification, but only slightly more couture than saying "It's mine. Get off." The matter put before the UN is only slightly more elevated than that.

So what are we supposed to do? Reward whoever can express themselves with the most elegance? What does that have to do with forcing people to leave their homes?

I say freeze the borders as they exist. If things become too crowded, forcing your neighboring country to give up land is a no-no. Instead, either tough it out or most.

Middle Eastern refugees have been immigrating to foreign countries by the millions for decades. Any change in borders will only provide for a very short (few years) relief in population pressure while simultaneously ruffling tons of feathers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Bobbywhy said:
Should the US veto a UN Security Council Resolution for the creation of a Palestinian State?
That's a hard question. A viable Palestinian state would likely be contrary to US interests. But a veto makes the US look bad.

The US might not veto, and even publicly condemn Israeli intransigence, and then continue to surreptitiously support the status quo (increasing Israeli settlement of land mandated as Palestine, decreasing the possibility of a two-state solution).

As with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, this isn't a moral, or even a legal, consideration for the US government -- though it will try to make it appear as such.

The idea, it seems, is to keep the Arab-Muslim Middle East as fragmented, chaotic, and 'nonviable' as possible -- as Western-secular principles and ideals steadily infiltrate the minds of Middle Eastern youth -- primarily to increase the possibilities wrt US control of the significant oil reserves there. And of course the cultural, 'way of life', conflict which has been going on for ~ 1.5 millennia probably has something to do with it as well.
 
  • #15
ThomasT said:
A viable Palestinian state would likely be contrary to US interests.

how?? :rolleyes:

the US wants a stable middle east, and a permanent two-state solution, with palestinian guarantees to stop attacking israel, would make that much easier :smile:

(the veto would be because the US is aware that statehood without guarantees would lead to increased attacks on israeli civilians, resulting in regional war, which as a security council member it feels it has a duty to avoid)
The idea, it seems, is to keep the Arab-Muslim Middle East as fragmented, chaotic, and 'nonviable' as possible

where are all these adjectives coming from? :rofl:

the middle east is no more fragmented than africa or asia

it's been chaotic for only a few weeks, and even that will settle down soon

and how is the middle east non-viable? :biggrin:
-- as Western-secular principles and ideals steadily infiltrate the minds of Middle Eastern youth -

oooh, and a verb

infiltrate! :tongue2:​
 
  • #16
I think the USA shouldn't veto the UNSC resolution. the Arab world is in a chaotic and unpredictable situation now and the outcome of the current uprisings, especially Egypt, is not so clear. if the USA vetoes the resolution that would harm the US popularity among the Arabs and that might strengthen the support for Islamic movements in Arabic countries to rise to power. if Arabic countries went to the dogs, not only that would threaten Israel's security more than now, but that would threaten the US interests in the region too.
 
  • #17
tiny-tim said:
... the US wants a stable middle east ...
What the US wants is control of Middle Eastern oil, and a replacement of traditional Arab-Muslim values with Western-secular ones. The US doesn't want a stable Middle East dominated by Muslim values united against the West.

tiny-tim said:
... and a permanent two-state solution ...
I don't think the US government cares whether there's a two-state solution or not, as long as it can, to a large extent, control things. It would seem that a Palestinian state would make that more difficult than the current situation does. I think it's pretty clear that the Israeli government doesn't want a two-state solution. They're not going to get Palestinian guarantees, because they're not going to stop the settlements.

tiny-tim said:
... the veto would be because the US is aware that statehood without guarantees would lead to increased attacks on israeli civilians, resulting in regional war ...
There's not going to be any sort of regional war between Palestine and Israel, because there's not going to be a two-state resolution to the problem -- at least not in the foreseeable future, and not because of anything that the PA does in the UN, whether the US vetoes anything or not.

tiny-tim said:
... which as a security council member it feels it has a duty to avoid ...
I don't think the US government operates according to feelings of moral duty toward avoiding war. It seems to be mostly concerned with perpetuating a way of life, eliminating or minimizing threats to that way of life, and maximizing its control over certain resources. To the extent that regional war between Middle Eastern states would be seen as furthering those goals then the US would support it, and to the extent that it would be seen as detrimental to those goals then the US would oppose it. Do you think the US invaded and occupied Iraq out of some sense of moral duty?
 
  • #18
ThomasT said:
That's a hard question. A viable Palestinian state would likely be contrary to US interests.

Why would a viable Palestinian state be contrary to US interests? It would certainly be contrary to Israeli interests, but that's their lookout not ours. What is good for Israel is not always good for the US, and vice-versa.


Foreign Service officers like to refer to what they call Rules One and Two in international relations: Rule One - Nations do not have friends, they have allies. Rule Two - All alliances are temporary.
 
  • #19
klimatos said:
Why would a viable Palestinian state be contrary to US interests? It would certainly be contrary to Israeli interests …

A viable Palestinian state which renounces violence and any territorial claim to Israel would be very much in Israel's interests, and Israel has been trying to achieve this ever since Oslo.
 
  • #20
tiny-tim said:
A viable Palestinian state which renounces violence and any territorial claim to Israel would be very much in Israel's interests, and Israel has been trying to achieve this ever since Oslo.

Netanyahu bragged about undermining the talks at Oslo.
 
  • #21
Proton Soup said:
Netanyahu bragged about undermining the talks at Oslo.

Hi Proton. Out of interest, where did you find this information?
 
  • #22
nobahar said:
Hi Proton. Out of interest, where did you find this information?

you'll have to forgive me if i can't participate much now, but internet here hasn't fully recovered from deluge of water dumped on my state a couple of days ago. but just search google for netanyahugate for a few entries such as here and from cheesus http://cheesusofnazareth.com/2010/08/26/netanyahugate-bad-pr-gone-awry/ [Broken]

or simply search "netanyahu undermines oslo" for a lot of links such as aljazeera, et al.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/201071834019513292.html

and if you want to do a little more work, you can find out for yourself that netanyahu's party likud also does not recognize a palestinian state, which is only one of the reasons that recognition arguments are a bit dodgy.

as for the original question, i think it is fast becoming irrelevant whether the US vetos the resolution. Obama tried to warn Netanyahu about this, but hubris won over. and now, people with real power over the situation, the Turks are demanding an apology for the men they lost in the 2010 Gaza Flotilla protest. add in internal strife in israel, and it seems obvious that things are going to get interesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Jack21222 said:
I have absolutely no idea what you mean in this post. Can you be a little more explicit in what you feel the historical facts are, and what you think they're attempting to be changed to?
Canada exists and has been recognized to exist for quite some time. Palestine does/has not. You cannot occupy a country that does not exist. If the UN, today, retroactively recognizes the existence of Palestine going back 63 years, it does not change the historical fact that the country of Palestine has not, in fact, existed for the past 63 years.

A government can pass a resolution saying that the sky is purple with pink polka dots if it wants, but that doesn't make it true - and a responsible member of the government should vote against a factually wrong resolution.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Bobbywhy said:
To further support the claim in the OP...
None of those subsequent posts address the claim you made, which was:
If this bid is successful, it would transform the Israeli-Palestine conflict into a matter of one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another.
Let me be more direct: Why would recognition of the existence of a Palestinian state transform the conflict in the way you have claimed? There are some obvious problems with your claim:

1. Not all occupations are illegal/sovereignty is not absolute.
2. The territory that makes up what could become the country of Palestine has not been defined.

Please support/defend your claim!
 
  • #25
russ_watters said:
Canada exists and has been recognized to exist for quite some time. Palestine does/has not. You cannot occupy a country that does not exist. If the UN, today, retroactively recognizes the existence of Palestine going back 63 years, it does not change the historical fact that the country of Palestine has not, in fact, existed for the past 63 years.

A government can pass a resolution saying that the sky is purple with pink polka dots if it wants, but that doesn't make it true - and a responsible member of the government should vote against a factually wrong resolution.

but that is irrelevant. israel did not exist before 1948. Canada became independent in 1982.

the UN can proactively declare Palestine a state in 2011.
 
  • #26
Palestine should be denied coverage as it's a pre-existing condition.
 
  • #27
tiny-tim said:
A viable Palestinian state which renounces violence and any territorial claim to Israel would be very much in Israel's interests, and Israel has been trying to achieve this ever since Oslo.
Proton Soup said:
Netanyahu bragged about undermining the talks at Oslo.

Are you seriously suggesting that Netanyahu does not want the Palestinians to renounce violence and any territorial claim to Israel? :confused:

This private comment (to bereaved settlers, at the height of the intifada violence) was made by Netanyahu in 2001 when he was not in office at all.

A viable Palestinian state which renounces violence and any territorial claim to Israel would be very much in Israel's interests, and the Israeli government has been trying to achieve this ever since Oslo. :smile:
 
  • #28
tiny-tim said:
Are you seriously suggesting that Netanyahu does not want the Palestinians to renounce violence and any territorial claim to Israel? :confused:

This private comment (to bereaved settlers, at the height of the intifada violence) was made by Netanyahu in 2001 when he was not in office at all.

A viable Palestinian state which renounces violence and any territorial claim to Israel would be very much in Israel's interests, and the Israeli government has been trying to achieve this ever since Oslo. :smile:

yes, he wants to colonize all the territories and convert it to israeli territory. this is not a peaceful action by netanyahu. he's very clear about this, so i don't know why you're confused.
 
  • #29
Proton Soup said:
yes, he wants to colonize all the territories and convert it to israeli territory.

this is completely untrue :redface:

why are you saying this? :mad:
… he's very clear about this

this must be a new use of the phrase "very clear" that I'm not familiar with :frown:

unbiased readers may like to peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#June_2009_peace_address.3B_.22Bar-Ilan_Speech.22", including …
On June 14, 2009, Netanyahu … endorsed for the first time the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel …

As part of his proposal, Netanyahu demanded the full demilitarization of the proposed state, with no army, rockets, missiles, or control of its airspace, and said that Jerusalem would be undivided Israeli territory. He stated that the Palestinians should recognize Israel as the Jewish national state with an undivided Jerusalem. He rejected a right of return for Palestinian refugees, saying, "any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people."… He did not discuss whether or not the settlements should be part of Israel after peace negotiations, simply saying that the "question will be discussed".​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
tiny-tim said:
this is completely untrue :redface:

why are you saying this? :mad:


this must be a new use of the phrase "very clear" that I'm not familiar with :frown:

unbiased readers may like to peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#June_2009_peace_address.3B_.22Bar-Ilan_Speech.22", including …
On June 14, 2009, Netanyahu … endorsed for the first time the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel …

As part of his proposal, Netanyahu demanded the full demilitarization of the proposed state, with no army, rockets, missiles, or control of its airspace, and said that Jerusalem would be undivided Israeli territory. He stated that the Palestinians should recognize Israel as the Jewish national state with an undivided Jerusalem. He rejected a right of return for Palestinian refugees, saying, "any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people."… He did not discuss whether or not the settlements should be part of Israel after peace negotiations, simply saying that the "question will be discussed".​

i say it because i don't believe he's changed. he didn't seem too pleased with Obama's talk about '67 borders with agreed land swaps did he? so one has to wonder exactly what he does mean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Proton Soup said:
but that is irrelevant. israel did not exist before 1948. Canada became independent in 1982.

the UN can proactively declare Palestine a state in 2011.
You're separating the issue into two parts: one moving forward and the other backwards. The OP didn't say he wanted to focus on the moving forward part (he can clarify...), but Abbas was explicit in talking about the retroactive part.

If we focus on the moving forward part, it's an academic exercise, not an analysis of the real issue, but we can still do it as long as people acknowledge it is a hypothethetical...of course, until a resolution is written, no one knows what it says, I guess.

Anyway, if the UN passes a resolution that simply declares Palestine to exist, but doesn't comment on the borders or legality of the occupation, then it isn't doing what the OP claims: that would require additional action.

If the UN passes a resolution that says 'what you are doing was legal yesterday, but is now illegal', and ignores the two points I made above, I think any logical person should have a big problem with that. That sort of legal farce would be big enough that the US should go beyond just vetoing the resolution, but should leave the UN.
 
  • #32
ThomasT said:
...a stable Middle East dominated by Muslim values united against the West.
That sounds self-contradictory to me, but more importantly would require a reversal of current trends.
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
You're separating the issue into two parts: one moving forward and the other backwards. The OP didn't say he wanted to focus on the moving forward part (he can clarify...), but Abbas was explicit in talking about the retroactive part.

If we focus on the moving forward part, it's an academic exercise, not an analysis of the real issue, but we can still do it as long as people acknowledge it is a hypothethetical...of course, until a resolution is written, no one knows what it says, I guess.

Anyway, if the UN passes a resolution that simply declares Palestine to exist, but doesn't comment on the borders or legality of the occupation, then it isn't doing what the OP claims: that would require additional action.

If the UN passes a resolution that says 'what you are doing was legal yesterday, but is now illegal', and ignores the two points I made above, I think any logical person should have a big problem with that. That sort of legal farce would be big enough that the US should go beyond just vetoing the resolution, but should leave the UN.

are you serious? you really think the US should leave the UN over that? the US has been presiding over a farce for many decades now. what has been termed the "peace process" is little more than a delaying process to slowly disenfranchise the Palestinians and take all their land. don't you realize that this is really about the Palestinians saying "no more" to the US because we have mediated in bad faith? these are just two small nations aren't they? why would it be in our interest to take our ball and go home over it?
 
  • #34
“The Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, occupied by Israel with parts of them governed by the Palestinian National Authority, are referred to by the United Nations as "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The current status of Palestine in the United Nations is a "non-member entity".

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations

If the Obama administration vetoes the application in the Security Council as expected, Palestinian officials are likely to turn to the General Assembly to attempt to upgrade their status from “non-member entity" to “non-member state”.

From the OP: “If this bid is successful, it would transform the Israeli-Palestine conflict into a matter of one UN state violating the sovereign rights of another.”

This claim cannot be supported because it is wrong. I apologize for taking so long to discover the error. Please replace it with:

“If this bid is successful, it would transform the Israeli-Palestine conflict into a matter of one UN state violating the sovereign rights of a non-member state.”

This claim is supported by the statement by Saeb Erekat, the head Palestinian negotiator, during the following interview:

LA Times: “Assuming there is a veto, what would you gain by upgrading your status in the General Assembly?”

Erekat: “The advantage is that you can be a full member of UNESCO, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court, and you may be able to hold Israel accountable.”

From: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-palestinians-un-qa-20110907,0,4589846.story

From the above statement by Erekat it seems clear that the Palestinian National Authority, if successful in being upgraded to “non-member state”, plans to use the new status to petition the above named institutions for redress of their perceived grievances…a privilege they do not have now as a “non-member entity”.
 
  • #35
klimatos said:
Why would a viable Palestinian state be contrary to US interests?
The US needs the Israeli presence in the Middle East. A viable Palestinian state would not only be contrary to Israeli interests, it would be a direct threat to Israel's existence.

A non-viable, essentially Israel-controlled, Palestinian state is the only sort of Palestinian state that Israel is going to allow. The current status quo is a situation which highly favors Israeli (and US) interests.
 
<h2>1. Should the US veto a UN resolution granting Palestine statehood?</h2><p>The decision to veto a UN resolution is a complex and highly debated issue. There are valid arguments for both supporting and vetoing a resolution granting Palestine statehood. Ultimately, the decision will depend on the current political climate and the US government's foreign policy goals.</p><h2>2. What are the potential consequences of the US vetoing a UN resolution for Palestine statehood?</h2><p>Vetoing a UN resolution for Palestine statehood could have significant consequences for both the US and the international community. It could damage relationships with other countries and potentially undermine the US's credibility as a global leader. It could also have implications for peace negotiations in the Middle East.</p><h2>3. How does the US's relationship with Israel play a role in the decision to veto a UN resolution for Palestine statehood?</h2><p>The US has a strong alliance with Israel and has historically supported their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This relationship could influence the US's decision to veto a UN resolution granting Palestine statehood, as it may not want to go against the wishes of its ally.</p><h2>4. What are the arguments for and against the US vetoing a UN resolution for Palestine statehood?</h2><p>Some argue that the US should veto the resolution as it could potentially lead to instability in the region and harm Israel's security. Others believe that the US should support the resolution as it would promote peace and stability in the Middle East and give Palestinians the right to self-determination.</p><h2>5. What other factors should be considered before making a decision on whether to veto a UN resolution for Palestine statehood?</h2><p>In addition to the US's relationship with Israel, other factors that should be considered include the potential impact on international relations, the potential consequences for the US's reputation and standing in the global community, and the potential effects on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace negotiations.</p>

1. Should the US veto a UN resolution granting Palestine statehood?

The decision to veto a UN resolution is a complex and highly debated issue. There are valid arguments for both supporting and vetoing a resolution granting Palestine statehood. Ultimately, the decision will depend on the current political climate and the US government's foreign policy goals.

2. What are the potential consequences of the US vetoing a UN resolution for Palestine statehood?

Vetoing a UN resolution for Palestine statehood could have significant consequences for both the US and the international community. It could damage relationships with other countries and potentially undermine the US's credibility as a global leader. It could also have implications for peace negotiations in the Middle East.

3. How does the US's relationship with Israel play a role in the decision to veto a UN resolution for Palestine statehood?

The US has a strong alliance with Israel and has historically supported their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This relationship could influence the US's decision to veto a UN resolution granting Palestine statehood, as it may not want to go against the wishes of its ally.

4. What are the arguments for and against the US vetoing a UN resolution for Palestine statehood?

Some argue that the US should veto the resolution as it could potentially lead to instability in the region and harm Israel's security. Others believe that the US should support the resolution as it would promote peace and stability in the Middle East and give Palestinians the right to self-determination.

5. What other factors should be considered before making a decision on whether to veto a UN resolution for Palestine statehood?

In addition to the US's relationship with Israel, other factors that should be considered include the potential impact on international relations, the potential consequences for the US's reputation and standing in the global community, and the potential effects on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace negotiations.

Similar threads

Replies
36
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
259
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Back
Top