News Should the US veto a UN resolution granting Palestine statehood?

[Bobbywhy]

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/

 

[russ_watters]

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?

 

[Bobbywhy]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

You still need to support the claim!

 

[Jack21222]

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?

 

[MarcoD]

I wonder what the reasons for the US are, or would be, to veto the claim?

 

[klimatos]

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."

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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.

 

[tiny-tim]

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" …

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"

 

[Bobbywhy]

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

 

[Bobbywhy]

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

 

[DoggerDan]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[tiny-tim]

A viable Palestinian state would likely be contrary to US interests.

how??

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

(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?

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?

-- as Western-secular principles and ideals steadily infiltrate the minds of Middle Eastern youth -

oooh, and a verb …

infiltrate! ​

 

[AdrianZ]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

... 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.

... 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.

... 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.

... 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?

 

[klimatos]

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.

 

[tiny-tim]

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

 

[nobahar]

Netanyahu bragged about undermining the talks at Oslo.

Hi Proton. Out of interest, where did you find this information?

 

[Proton Soup]

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/

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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!

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

 

[KingNothing]

Palestine should be denied coverage as it's a pre-existing condition.

 

[tiny-tim]

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.

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

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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

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.

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.

 

[tiny-tim]

yes, he wants to colonize all the territories and convert it to israeli territory.

this is completely untrue

why are you saying this?

… he's very clear about this

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

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".​

 

[Proton Soup]

this is completely untrue

why are you saying this?


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

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

...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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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?

 

[Bobbywhy]

“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”.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

That sounds self-contradictory to me, but more importantly would require a reversal of current trends.

You were replying to the bolded portion of my statement. Which part seems self-contradictory?

I agree that current trends do seem to suggest a sort of large-scale attitudinal adjustment among Arab-Muslim youth, toward Western values.

 

[tiny-tim]

A viable Palestinian state would not only be contrary to Israeli interests, it would be a direct threat to Israel's existence.

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.

It would, of course, also help Middle East peace generally.

A non-viable, essentially Israel-controlled, Palestinian state is the only sort of Palestinian state that Israel is going to allow.

Why do you make these things up? ​

Even Netanyahu (Israel's most hawkish prime minister) supports a viable Palestinian state, uncontrolled by Israel except for its airspace, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#June_2009_peace_address.3B_.22Bar-Ilan_Speech.22" …

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".​

 

[ThomasT]

A state which can't defend itself, or pursue legitimate historical claims, isn't a viable state. Calling a Palestine that acquiesced and formed according to Likud demands a viable state would be like calling the various American Indian 'nations' viable states. Netanyahu can say he would be quite happy to allow, and has been pursuing, the formation of a Palestinian state according to the terms he's offered, because they're absurd terms (for the Palestinians).

The current status quo is ok for Israel and the US. Palestinians present no serious large-scale, or organized threat. Things can remain more or less as they are indefinitely with the Israeli encroachment and building and extending of settlements continuing.

 

[tiny-tim]

A state which can't defend itself … isn't a viable state.

Many small states can't defend themselves (Luxembourg, Monaco, Greenland, Nepal, most pacific states …).

Many more (Kuwait, the Baltic states, Malawi …) can't defend themselves against a large neighbour, and rely on treaties, either with that neighbour or with another large state.

A demilitarised Palestine, with a peace treaty with Israel, and treaties of alliance with the Arab League countries, would be perfectly viable.

(btw, Israel has never broken a treaty)

… , or pursue legitimate historical claims …

oh that's what this is all about!

You want any Palestinian state to be free to pursue a "legitimate historical claim" to take over Israel!

This is precisely what the UN Security Council will not accept.

They have to preserve the peace, and you don't do that by allowing a state to be created (still less admitted to the UN) with a "historical claim" against another state.

Historical claims are settled by treaties, and become extinct once the treaty is signed by the claimant.

The UN Security Council will never allow Palestine to be created while it still claims to pursue your dream of absorbing Israel.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

why does the US need the israeli presence in the middle east? we have several presences there, including egypt, saudi arabia, iraq, afghanistan, and now libya.

what are the US interests that the current situation favors, and how does israeli domination of palestinians further that interest?

 

[russ_watters]

You were replying to the bolded portion of my statement. Which part seems self-contradictory?

It cannot be both stable and united against the west.

 

[lisab]

It cannot be both stable and united against the west.

Why not? Do you think internal stability is incompatible with conflicts with other nations?

 

[russ_watters]

The Middle East is not a single country: we're talking about external/regional stability, not internal stability.

 

[lisab]

The Middle East is not a single country: we're talking about external/regional stability, not internal stability.

Yes, the ME is not a single country; I think that's understood by everyone here.

Why do you think regional stability is incompatible with conflict? There can be situations that have both stability and conflict. Think of Germany and Greece, for example. Very stable but lots of problems, too.

 

[russ_watters]

are you serious? you really think the US should leave the UN over that?

Yes.

the US has been presiding over a farce for many decades now.

I get that you believe in a grand, mult-generational conspiracy between the US and Israel to say one thing while doing another, but I'm not a member of either government, so what those governments say and do and your interpretations of their statements and actions are not relevant here. The thread asks and my posts answer what *I* think they should do. If you want to have any hope of even following the discussion, you need to start recognizing what the discussion is about and who you are talking to.

Since *I* believe that what is being being proposed is an attempt to legislate into reality a factual falsehood and I think the general issue is a critically important one to world peace and development, I believe it so de-legitimizes the UN that we should leave. And this isn't a stretch for me - I already believe the UN has serious flaws that de-legitimize it.

...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?

Because these are not just "two small nations". The conflict involves many nations, as you well know, seeing as how you listed several right here:

why does the US need the israeli presence in the middle east? we have several presences there, including egypt, saudi arabia, iraq, afghanistan, and now libya.

Israel is a country. The US has military presences in several countries there (setting aside the factual incorrecness of your list... ), it would be better to have allied countries and a stable ME so we could reduce our military presence there. That should be obvious.

 

[russ_watters]

“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".

Agreed...

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”.

They may, yes...

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.

Yes, it is wrong, and maybe the third time is the charm...

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.”

Still needs to be supported to not still be wrong, but let's see how you did...

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.”

Hold Israel accountable for what? He doesn't say. Presumably, it's "violating the sovereign rights of [Palestine]". But just as for you, that's something that cannot simply be stated, it must be proven and he doesn't attempt to do that. If this were a crime, you're saying arrested=guilty without actually trying to prove the guilt.

So what Erekat can actually do is to take the matter to the ICC and attempt to prove that Israel is "violating the sovereign rights of [Palestine]". That's all that can be said about this move, assuming they don't actually write the resolution with a retroactive factual falsehood or finding that should be decided by a court or negotiation.* So here's your statement, with corrections to make it accurate:

'If this bid is successful, it would give the PA direct access to the International Criminal Court where they can attempt to prove the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a matter of one UN state violating the sovereign rights of a non-member state.'

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”.

Yes! That's the flaw in your thesis! It grants them access to air their perceived grievances. It doesn't grant them that their perceptions are correct, unless it specifically states that in the resolution (in which case, you wouldn't even need the ICC to rule!)!

*And as I said - that's how it works if all the resolution does is grant recognition of statehood. There is, of course, the possibility that the resolution could say other things, such as what you're apparently hoping to see. That's why it is important to frame this correctly: It's your thread and you asked the question and if you want answers that are meaningful, you need to ask the question properly. That's why my answer is:

If the UN simply grants/recognizes Palestinian statehood and nothing more, the US should not veto it. But if the UN attempts to codify a factual/historical falsehood or judgement about the implications, the US should veto it.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do you think regional stability is incompatible with conflict? There can be situations that have both stability and conflict. Think of Germany and Greece, for example. Very stable but lots of problems, too.

Huh? What conflicts are you talking about with Germany and Greece? I'm talking about political stability and political conflict. Saying it the other way around: if the countries of the ME are at in conflict with the US, then the ME is not stable.

 

[ThomasT]

Many small states can't defend themselves (Luxembourg, Monaco, Greenland, Nepal, most pacific states …).

Many more (Kuwait, the Baltic states, Malawi …) can't defend themselves against a large neighbour, and rely on treaties, either with that neighbour or with another large state.

A demilitarised Palestine, with a peace treaty with Israel, and treaties of alliance with the Arab League countries, would be perfectly viable.

Good point about the word, 'viable'. It's probably not the best word to use here. Too vague, for one thing. My apologies.

As has been mentioned, and I agree with you that, a Palestinian state formed under Likud demands and with Israeli settlements continuing is in line with Israeli and US interests, and also highly unlikely to happen. The problem is that, while it might be a 'viable' state in a certain sense, it certainly wouldn't be an optimal or desirable state from the Palestinian point of view.

The conundrum for Palestinians is that they want to be recognized as a state so that they can legally pursue the reacquisition of certain Israeli controlled territories. But if their stated aim is such reacquisition, then they have little hope of being recognized as a state.

oh that's what this is all about!

You want any Palestinian state to be free to pursue a "legitimate historical claim" to take over Israel!

I couldn't care less. But this seems to have been one of the bargaining points of importance to Palestinians. Not 'to take over Israel', but just to get back what they lost -- the 'right of return' stuff.

As the Palestinian population is replaced via deaths and births, this particular point is increasingly less important, I would guess.

The UN Security Council will never allow Palestine to be created while it still claims to pursue your dream of absorbing Israel.

Where did you get this "your dream of absorbing Israel" stuff? If I dream of anything wrt this stuff it would be the steady replacement of orthodox religious based beliefs and values with rational secular scientifically based beliefs and values (facilitating the demise of theocracies and eventual true separation of church and state).

Anyway, I think that a strong Palestinian state that might be even remotely capable of being on an even footing with Israel and getting back any of the land that some Palestinians feel was unjustly taken from them (via the post-WWII partitioning, or following that) is not in the best interests of either Israel or the US. And I think, in line with what you said, that the UN isn't going to allow a Palestine with stated anti-Israel goals.

Getting back to the specific question in the OP. Should the US veto a bid by the PA to be recognized as a state? Well, imo, insofar as it's possible that such a recognition might legitimize, and thereby possibly successfully facilitate, any sort of action aimed at getting control of certain Israeli occupied/controlled territories (or even just stop the Israeli settlements), then it wouldn't seem to be in the best interests of the US to allow such a recognition. But since this is a moral consideration for some who see Palestinians as being an unjustly injured group, then I wonder if the US might withhold its veto on the matter, appearing to take the moral 'high road', while actually going along with Israel's steady encroachment onto geographical areas partitioned to the Palestinians.

 

[ThomasT]

why does the US need the israeli presence in the middle east? we have several presences there, including egypt, saudi arabia, iraq, afghanistan, and now libya.

I think of Israel, insofar as it's aligned with the US, as a gigantic US military base in the ME, with more potentially pro-US force than all of the other places you mentioned combined. Of course this doesn't mean that Israel is going to just do the US's bidding, but it's a rather large heavily armed entity in the middle of the ME that the US doesn't ever have to worry about being a haven for extremist Muslim terrorists.

what are the US interests that the current situation favors ...

The US interests in the ME are oil and the prevention and diffusing of any potential large scale Arab-Muslim motivated anti-US threats. For example, Israel is just as interested, even moreso, in keeping Iran (or anybody else in the ME) from having any serious
nuclear military capability as the US is.

... and how does israeli domination of palestinians further that interest?

Israeli domination of Palestinians facilitates the furthering of Israel's Zionist goals. From the US point of view, a bigger Israel which dominates Palestinians is preferable to a smaller Israel on a more or less equal political footing with a historically anti-US, anti-Israel, organized and growing Palestinian state. The current situation poses no serious threat to either Israel or US interests. That's essentially why Israel and the US have perpetuated that situation rather than genuinely working toward a two-state situation. A two-state solution carries with it potential problems that are precluded by the current status quo.

These are just my opinions Proton Soup. Any criticism of them by you or anyone else is welcomed.

 

[klimatos]

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.

Such renunciation would indeed be a nice thing. An equally nice thing would be an Israel that renounces violence and any territorial claim to lands outside the recognized 1967 boundaries of that state.

The United Nations does not recognize any Israeli claim to either Jerusalem or the West Bank. Except for Israel, no significant nation does. Israeli settlements are in both areas are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations. They are also in contravention to any number of United Nations resolutions.

The United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and most of the world's nations recognize Jerusalem as international territory, not subject to Israeli law or administration.