The fulminations over the attempt by the Palestinian Authority to receive at the United Nations a multilateral affirmation of the principle of Palestinian statehood have been so viscerally unrelenting that one should pause to note just how contrary to logic, to evidence, and even to language these fulminations are. First is the idea that action by the United Nations, which is as non-unilateral as international politics ever gets, is somehow “unilateral.” This is a use of language that is something out of the stories of either Lewis Carroll or George Orwell, in which words mean whatever the user wants them to mean, even if that is the opposite of what they generally mean. Then there is the notion that such action by the United Nations is somehow a threat to, replacement of, or rejection of bilateral negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. As Abu Mazen has repeatedly pointed out, it is no such thing. Nothing that takes place at the U.N. will draw any boundaries or settle any of the specific issues. All the final settlement issues would still be there to be negotiated bilaterally. Nothing that happens in New York will mean any less (or any more) negotiating work for Israeli and Palestinian diplomats.
All that could possibly result from action by the Security Council or General Assembly this month would be a partial leveling of the diplomatic playing field as Israel and the Palestinians address those issues in dispute and a reaffirmation of what the United Nations, the United States, the other members of the quartet, the Palestinians, and the Israelis—even, grudgingly, Benjamin Netanyahu—have all said should be the product of a peace process: a Palestinian state to live side-by-side in peace with the State of Israel. If, as many indications unfortunately suggest, Netanyahu and his government do not really accept that product or any Palestinian entity worthy of the name state, let him end the charade and say so.
The Israeli government has talked about “dire consequences” if an initiative at the United Nations goes forward. But the only negative consequences would be any that Israel itself chooses to impose, out of spite, revenge, to make a point or for whatever reason. The only reason Israel would be discomfited by U.N. action is the embarrassment that would come from a demonstration anew of how offensive the Israeli policy of clinging to, and colonizing, captured territory—the action that really is unilateral, and that really does damage the prospects for a negotiated settlement by creating even more facts on the ground—is to the community of nations. And the only reason the United States would veto any such action is that it is considered political poison within the United States for political leaders to go against strong preferences of the Israeli government, however inconsistent those preferences may be with the United States' own best interests.
None of this is about any threat to the security, integrity or legitimacy of the State of Israel. It is about Israel's continued grasp of occupied territories and the embarrassment that comes from Israeli policies toward those territories that are an affront to the sense of most of the peoples and countries of the world about what is right and just.
Although Israel's own policies have made the United Nations an inhospitable place for itself, Israelis would do well to remember that the closest thing to an authorization for the creation of their own state was an action by the United Nations. Any new action this month would effectively merely restate what that action back in the 1940s already stated: that two states should emerge from the mandate of Palestine, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The history and nature of the dispute between the Jews and Arabs of Palestine makes a United Nations role very appropriate, even if the specific issues still have to be settled through bilateral diplomacy. A less narrow-minded and more constructive approach by Israel and the United States would have embraced that role in response to the Palestinian initiative rather than pretending that the initiative is some kind of negotiation-killing rogue act, which it is not.
A U.S. veto of a Security Council resolution affirming Palestinian statehood would add to the harm the United States already has incurred by reflexively covering for whatever are the policies of the Israeli government of the day. It would be a direct, explicit rejection of what the United States has long said it supports: establishment of a Palestinian state. The harm of a vote against sovereignty for the Palestinians would be amplified by coming at a time when the demands for popular sovereignty by other Arabs throughout the Middle East are louder than ever before. A U.S. veto would be both shameful and damaging to U.S. interests.
Comments
I disagree with your analysis of the situation concerning a veto by the USA. The USA does support a Palestinian State; however, the agreed upon rules are that it is to be worked out between the parties involved not the UN.
Moderator - please remove ikaluse from this web site. I thought it was for commenting on articles not advertisingd.
"that two states should emerge from the mandate of Palestine, one for Jews and one for Arabs"Wasn't Jordan formed for that purpose? It seems more like the ultimate realization of the UN mandate is the formation of 4 states: one for the Jews and 3 for the Arabs: Israel, Jordan, Gaza and The West Bank.
It seems to me that any U.S. vetos on this subject will represent somewhat of the open, irrefutable proof of what was, to some important lesser degree, the idea that the U.S. is really just a helpless slave to Israel. While of course that charge has long has resonance, I suspect people felt that it was only somewhat true, if only because it's so incredible that the U.S. could indeed be in such a subordinate position vis a vis little Israel. But there'll be no denying it anymore after these upcoming vetos—or even if the U.S. manages to avoid any of these votes totally given it's obvious hand in getting them aborted. And I suspect the reaction in arab capitols will be very disturbing indeed: They saw that one of the greatest gripes against Mubarek was that he had been suborned into being relatively soft on Israel for the sake of his U.S. patron, and they won't want to be the next Mubarek at the hands of their own people. After this weekend, I suspect, the historians will have to start a new chapter in their books detailing a far more openly hostile relationship between the entire arab/moslem Middle East and the U.S., and maybe the start of all the old balances there shifting decisively.
So long as the PLO adheres to the essence of its Charter, etched deep in the hearts and minds of its leaders, there is little chance of ever reaching an accommodation of peaceful coexistence with the Arabs of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel).And, sadly, the thrust of the PLO Charter is the motivating factor in the PLO's attempt to fool all of the world all of the time.To avoid this predicament we must do three things:1. Read the Charter and understand the PLO's goal.2. Realize that legally, based on the San Remo Conference decisions, 1920, accepted by the League of Nations, 1922, the entire land mass between the River and the Sea was designated as the national home of the Jewish people, and the UN, based on its Charter, can't change this.3. Any political accommodation that we reach must include an acceptance by the PLO of Israel as the independent nation-state of the Jewish people; and, an acceptance that a peace treaty represents the end of the conflict and the end of all future demands.
Excellent article. In any case, Israel's current position, posture and policy is unsustainable in the long run. They have tied their fortunes solely and inextricably to the US and the US's willingness and ability to maintain an artificial status quo in the region. They have taken an isolationist extremist position, agitating all of their neighbours, in a shortsighted and misguided estimation that the big brother will always be willing and able to provide the muscle for its malicious taunts of the somewhat bigger kids on the street. The leadership of Israel, both in the sovereign state itself and in New York and Washington, should step back and remember that stocks are most profitably sold when at a high point. The same applies for the signing of treaties. Given events in the region, and the natural exhaustion of the historical cycle with the US as global hegemon, Israel is fast running out of time to settle on favourable terms. It is an old story - wanting one more orange and spilling the rest - and one that Israel would be well advised to avoid.