Palestinian Statehood attempt at the UN

Amp34 · 21 Sep 2011 at 16:30

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14997936

...[The Palestinian leader] Mr Abbas is set to launch the statehood bid on Friday, after his address to the UN General Assembly, with a written request to the secretary general.

If his request is approved by Mr Ban, the Security Council will then examine and vote on it. In order to pass, the request must get the votes of nine out of 15 council members, with no vetoes from the permanent members.

The US has vowed to veto the request, and correspondents say Western diplomats are exploring ways to put off the voting process to buy themselves more time.
...

Personally I think it's an excellent idea. We (the west and UN) created Isreal over 50 years ago so we should be able to create another nation for the Palestinians. Unfortunately Isreal would never abide by the conditions I would suggest are the most fair, pushing the Isreali borders back to when it was created, or the 1967 border. On the other hand would the Palestinians agree to this either...?

It would certainly give more legitimacy to the Palestinian claim and quite possibly reduce the amount of extremist views of some of the Palestinian groups (having a proper legitimate government). Such a shame the US are just going to Veto it...

(And please no anti Zionist ranting, I'd rather have a proper discussion about it...)

qqg3 · 21 Sep 2011 at 16:31

How big of an effect will a US veto have on this?

Participant · 21 Sep 2011 at 16:32

Amp34 said:
I'd rather have a proper discussion about it...)

Well you've come to the right place.

My view is that anyone not Palestinian or Israeli should stay the hell out of it (in political terms rather than this thread).

Amp34 · 21 Sep 2011 at 16:36

qqg3 said:
How big of an effect will a US veto have on this?

I'm guessing it will take years/decades before something like this would be tabled again, alongside even more anti US/west feeling amongst the Palestinians and other Arab Nations.

Robbie G said:
Well you've come to the right place.

My view is that anyone not Palestinian or Israeli should stay the hell out of it (in political terms rather than this thread).

Yeah, well unfortunately SC is just as bad, except generally the anti and pro Zionists have to put a bit more effort into their rants...

I disagree, we created a state out of nothing 60 years ago and that has pretty much caused the current instability there so...

Participant · 21 Sep 2011 at 16:42

Amp34 said:
I disagree, we created a state out of nothing 60 years ago and that has pretty much caused the current instability there so...

That may be true but sometimes getting involved can make things worse, even if we were to blame in the first place. We simply can't win as whatever deal was brokered, there'd be people on both sides that wouldn't agree with it and would carry on fighting etc.

arknor · 21 Sep 2011 at 16:49

israel the only terrorist state sponsored by the west ... we even gave them nukes.....

Participant · 21 Sep 2011 at 16:59

I'm all for the UN stepping in in certain scenarios, but this issue is just too complicated and deep-rooted for a bunch of suits from other countries to sort out sitting round a table. Imho.

Castiel · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:05

It simply will not happen. The United States will veto it. The US administration has already been piling on the pressure to the UK, France and other European allies to vote against or abstain so that the veto will be unnecessary and while I suspect the UK will vote yes, I suspect that US pressure will garner the votes it needs from the remaining security council members.

The US know that using their veto will damage their standing in the Middle East, possibly beyond repair, but Obama really has little choice given the pressure he has at home from both Republicans and the powerful pro Israel lobby.

The Palestinians may well have been better off going to a full UN vote which they would have almost certainly won although that would have only given them UN observer status, but it would have been a positive step, if they fail on Friday, which is extremely likely, they will have forfeited US aid for little more than a footnote.

Castiel · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:11

Robbie G said:
I'm all for the UN stepping in in certain scenarios, but this issue is just too complicated and deep-rooted for a bunch of suits from other countries to sort out sitting round a table. Imho.

Unfortunately given the situation the native populations are incapable of finding common ground, for one Israel is largely made up of immigrants and the Palestinians have no way to negotiate given that Israel holds all the cards.

Without an externally tendered peace treaty and two state solution the two peoples will never find a solution to their animosity, it is exactly the deep rooted issues between these peoples that calls for outside arbitration and negotiation, whether the United States is the right choice to be that arbiter is very debatable and if they use their veto on Friday I will expect there position to become untenable in the region.

This move by the Palestinians, while I support their cause for statehood, is full of pitfalls and will, if the US are forced to veto, do untold damage to the peace process.

Amp34 · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:15

Robbie G said:
I'm all for the UN stepping in in certain scenarios, but this issue is just too complicated and deep-rooted for a bunch of suits from other countries to sort out sitting round a table. Imho.

I wouldn't suggest it was. Depending on the contents of the request for statehood all it may do it strengthen the rights of the Palestinians. At the moment the Israelis can get away with settling and gradually taking bit by bit the "palestinian land". If a definitive border was created for both states (such as the one already created 50 years ago or in 1967) the encroachment would be encroachment onto another sovereign state. That's one of the main reasons I can see Isreal not wanting it.

On the other hand this defined border and true statehood would come with certain conditions for the Palestinians, state responsibility and the need for a fully powerful government. This should increase the stability of Palestine, with the splinter groups having to work with the true government, creating less posturing and attacks against Isreal.

Unfortunately Isreal has all the might of the US with it so no chance of this ever happening unless it's on Isreali terms due to the US veto.

mmj_uk · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:18

Without intervention there will never be a solution because Israel will simply continue to expand its borders.

Al Vallario · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:23

footman · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:28

Castiel said:
do untold damage to the peace process.

I actually don't believe there has ever been a meaningful "peace process".

There is absolutely no way that the present Israeli government would accede to any of the more radical Palestinian proposals for full and recognised statehood.

Very naively I believed that Obama would put some pressure on the Israelis when he was elected.
He is now mouthing the usual platitudes "the Palestinians deserve their own state, but that this would only be achieved through talks with Israel."

Considering the enormous domestic pressure he must be under from the different lobbies he is now in no position to do otherwise especially looking at his precarious electoral standing.

Broadie · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:40

Robbie G said:
I'm all for the UN stepping in in certain scenarios, but this issue is just too complicated and deep-rooted for a bunch of suits from other countries to sort out sitting round a table. Imho.

Perhaps it is too complicated now, after 60 years of the establishment of the state of Israel and a succession of land-grabs in that interim.

Remember that it was a bunch of suits sitting around a table which formed the Sykes Picot Agreement, and another bunch of suits who later dissolved the British Mandate of Palestine

As for that robot in the White House, well in today's statement he has effectively made a U-turn on previous statements (I'll link 'em when I find 'em) about the establishment of a Palestinian state in order to appease the pro-Israeli lobby as well as displaying a shameful hypocrisy about the right for self-determination and democracy at the end of a year when the democratic rights of individuals were worth defending in the wider Middle East and beyond.

Tefal · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:42

qqg3 said:
How big of an effect will a US veto have on this?

stop it dead.

end of really if it needs to pass the security council all it takes is one of the permanent five (UK, USA, France, Russia or china) to say no and that's it it's stopped.

Tefal · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:43

Castiel said:
Unfortunately given the situation the native populations are incapable of finding common ground, for one Israel is largely made up of immigrants and the Palestinians have no way to negotiate given that Israel holds all the cards.

Without an externally tendered peace treaty and two state solution the two peoples will never find a solution to their animosity, it is exactly the deep rooted issues between these peoples that calls for outside arbitration and negotiation, whether the United States is the right choice to be that arbiter is very debatable and if they use their veto on Friday I will expect there position to become untenable in the region.

This move by the Palestinians, while I support their cause for statehood, is full of pitfalls and will, if the US are forced to veto, do untold damage to the peace process.

Doesn't matter what the UN say though really does it.

Israel can do what it likes because there's no way in hell the UN would dare send "peacekeepers" in a full on offensive war against Israel.

Tefal · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:45

Amp34 said:
I wouldn't suggest it was. Depending on the contents of the request for statehood all it may do it strengthen the rights of the Palestinians. At the moment the Israelis can get away with settling and gradually taking bit by bit the "palestinian land". If a definitive border was created for both states (such as the one already created 50 years ago or in 1967) the encroachment would be encroachment onto another sovereign state. That's one of the main reasons I can see Isreal not wanting it.

On the other hand this defined border and true statehood would come with certain conditions for the Palestinians, state responsibility and the need for a fully powerful government. This should increase the stability of Palestine, with the splinter groups having to work with the true government, creating less posturing and attacks against Isreal.

Unfortunately Isreal has all the might of the US with it so no chance of this ever happening unless it's on Isreali terms due to the US veto.

So in your solution any attacks launched by Palestinian groups over the new fixed "border" would what constitute an act of war?

would the Palestinian government be forced to go to civil war with al lthe group who want to fight or would Israel be allowed to go in and counter attack like the US does in Pakistan?

Castiel · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:56

Tefal said:
Doesn't matter what the UN say though really does it.

Israel can do what it likes because there's no way in hell the UN would dare send "peacekeepers" in a full on offensive war against Israel.

It matters because recognised Statehood and UN membership opens up access to a myriad of UN agencies and support which it current does not.

It would also give the Palestinians legitimacy internationally, something that Israel would find difficult to ignore and will also mean other UN members such as China and Russia could support Palestine openly. Not to mention the recognition of Palestinian borders as Sovereign, causing some difficulty for Israeli settlements, especially in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Also Palestinian Statehood would mean the repatriation of millions of refugees that Israel currently doesn't recognise.

Tefal · 21 Sep 2011 at 17:59

Castiel said:
It matters because recognised Statehood and UN membership opens up access to a myriad of UN agencies and support which it current does not.

It would also give the Palestinians legitimacy internationally, something that Israel would find difficult to ignore and will also mean other UN members such as China and Russia could support Palestine openly.

Also Palestinian Statehood would mean the repatriation of millions of refugees that Israel currently doesn't recognise.

Pakistan is a county, why don't the UN stop unauthorized American incursions?

It may change something for men in suits in airconned offices who spend all day bickering but it won't change anything in reality.
heck if they're a state can Israel declare war on them and invade and occupy for the next decade like we did Iraq/Afghanistan?

Castiel · 21 Sep 2011 at 18:12

Tefal said:
Pakistan is a county, why don't the UN stop unauthorized American incursions?

It may change something for men in suits in airconned offices who spend all day bickering but it won't change anything in reality.
heck if they're a state can Israel declare war on them and invade and occupy for the next decade like we did Iraq/Afghanistan?

This isn't about declaring war on anyone Tefal, it is about recognising the Palestinian State as declared by Yasser Arafat in 1988 unilaterally. With United Nations recognition of a Palestinian Sovereign State based on 1967 Borders The PLO would have legitimised their claim internationally and with full UN member status they will also be able to join UN agencies including the ICC opening up the possibility of Israel being charged with war crimes against the Palestinians under international law.

While it is largely symbolic, in negotiations over borders, Jewish settlements, Jerusalem, the al important right of return and water and security full UN membership and recognition would strengthen Palestinian legitimacy and weaken Israel's.