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

[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.

 

[klimatos]

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.

I think such reacquisition stands a very good chance of coming about. The Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Here's Wiki on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank

The United Nations Security Council,[66] the United Nations General Assembly,[67] the United States,[68] the EU,[69] the International Court of Justice,[70] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[71] refer to it as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel.

General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area.[72]

According to supporters of Israel's rights, since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no legitimate claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which is Israel. This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel's activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 242 notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive. Prominent Israeli human rights organizations such as B'tselem also refer to the Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation.[73] John Quigley has noted that "...a state that uses force in self-defense may not retain territory it takes while repelling an attack. If Israel had acted in self-defense, that would not justify its retention of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action were defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not."[74]

International law (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) prohibits "transfers of the population of an occupying power to occupied territories", incurring a responsibility on the part of Israel's government to not settle Israeli citizens in the West Bank.[75]

 

[russ_watters]

Israeli settlements are in both areas are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations.

Utter nonsense. A country that does not exist cannot sign a treaty.

 

[klimatos]

Utter nonsense. A country that does not exist cannot sign a treaty.

I believe my post spoke of Israeli settlements. Are you saying Israel does not exist? My position on the legality of Israeli settlements is that shared by most of the world--including the United States Department of State. It is based on blatant violations of The Fourth Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations. I'll let Wiki speak to these:

"The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population."

These conventions are quite specific, and I can see no way in which you can argue that Israel is not in contravention of them. Perhaps your "Utter nonsense" comment referred to your opinion of these legal conventions.

 

[klimatos]

I spent five years in the Middle East as a U. S. intelligence officer. During that time, I had occasion to visit quite a few Israeli government offices. One of the common features of these offices was a wall map entitled "Greater Israel" It showed the State of Israel stretching from the "Nile to the Euphrates". This "Greater Israel" took in large portions of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. It took in smaller portions of Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.

Whenever I commented on this map, I would be informed that this was the "true" Israel, and that the present borders were only temporary. I collected several copies of this map, and I know that at least one of them went to the Library of Congress. It should still be available in their Map Room.

Megalomania, of course, is not unknown in other countries in the Middle East.

 

[klimatos]

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.

To the best of my knowledge, the United States has no military presence in either Egypt or Libya. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is being phased out. We do have a military presence in Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We also have a major highly classified presence on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. We have both overt and covert intelligence personnel in virtually every country in the world. Sometimes these personnel have military training and sometimes they don't.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Just a short note: The United States Air Force has many of its personnel stationed in Egypt. They live inside Egyptian Air Force bases in special "American Compounds" and provide the EAF with training in the operation and maintenance of the hardware the US has given them.

 

[ThomasT]

I think such reacquisition stands a very good chance of coming about.

I've tended to think that it doesn't, if only because it hasn't happened yet. Israel wants all of Jerusalem, and as much contiguous area of old Palestine (that it didn't get in the 1948 partitioning) as it can get, doesn't it? If Israel really is in violation of laws and agreements, then why is the situation what it is? Does the international community have the power to change the status quo in opposition to the apparent (inferred from actions or inactions, not necessarily stated) Israeli aim to perpetuate the status quo (steady de facto Israeli annexation via Israeli settlement of areas partitioned to Palestinian Arabs).

So, why do you think Palestinian reacquisition stands a very good chance of coming about? How will a US veto (or not) affect the situation?

Thanks for your contributions to the thread.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe my post spoke of Israeli settlements. Are you saying Israel does not exist?

Palestine does not exist and did not sign the treaties you referenced. Israel can't be violating them by settling land that is not associated with any country, much less a country that isn't a signatory of the treaties!

My position on the legality of Israeli settlements is that shared by most of the world--including the United States Department of State.

[edit] After researching, I see much of the international community disagrees with me. I still think they are wrong - and that they are making politically motivated judgement (particular wrt UN resolutions, which are beyond the scope of their authority), but I withdraw from arguing it.

 

[klimatos]

Just a short note: The United States Air Force has many of its personnel stationed in Egypt. They live inside Egyptian Air Force bases in special "American Compounds" and provide the EAF with training in the operation and maintenance of the hardware the US has given them.

Thanks, Bobbywhy. I stand corrected. Although training personnel are not supposed to take any active military role, it has been known to happen. In the world of international politics, dividing lines that are sharp in theory are often quite blurred in practice.

When I lived in Egypt, the US also had a small Naval medical unit that specialized in research on tropical diseases.

 

[klimatos]

Palestine does not exist and did not sign the treaties you referenced.

Quite true. However, I was not referring to Palestine. Israel did sign those treaties as a condition for joining the United Nations. They are therefore legally bound by them.

For the benefit of those readers who are not up on international Law, the Geneva Conventions govern the behavior of combatants engaged in war. The Hague Regulations govern human rights, including the rights of the people in territories occupied by military forces.