The Palestinian Authority (PA) will submit a formal petition to the U.N. next week for admission. It is unclear whether they will submit a petition to the Security Council for full membership or to the General Assembly for an "observer status." It appears that the U.S. is intent on preventing both, including by the use of its veto. I want to suggest that the U.S. would be both imprudent and in violation of international law if it chooses to use its veto.
It must be first stated that the recognition of a state is different from admission to the U.N. A state may be admitted to the U.N. by the votes of many other states, some of whom may not recognize the existence of the member bilaterally and may not have the intention of establishing diplomatic relations. There is ample international practice to prove this, stretching all the way back to the League of Nations. Therefore, even an affirmative vote of the U.S. in favor of admitting Palestine to the U.N. does not imply recognition of Palestine as a state by the U.S. Though Palestine declared independence in 1988 and has been bilaterally recognized by over 120 countries, international law does not compel the U.S. to recognize Palestine.
But international law does compel the U.S. to do two things: first, it imposes a duty on the U.S. not to recognize as lawful a situation created by the illegal use of force or other serious breaches of jus cogens (peremptory norms) obligations. This duty is recognized in numerous authoritative legal findings, including by the International Law Commission and the International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion on the legality of the Israeli wall. This means that the U.S. may not recognize as lawful any acquisition of territory by Israel in territories outside the borders as they existed in 1967. This has indeed been the consistent position of the U.S. through many administrations, and forms the bedrock of President Obama's formula for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. The PA's petition to the U.N. is also based on the recognition of the 1967 border with Israel, thus in fact recognizing the right of Israel to exist, a frequent demand of the Israeli government. In fact, Hamas is reported now to reject the PA's attempt to force a U.N. vote, precisely because it wants historic Palestine and rejects the 1967 border.
There is a second duty imposed on the U.S. under international law that most commentators have missed noticing so far. That is that the U.S. is also under a duty to support the exercise of Palestine's right to self-determination under international law. Contrary to the first negative duty above, which is a duty not to recognize illegal acts, there is a concomitant positive duty to support legal acts. A main legal channel for the exercise of self-determination is to seek membership of international organizations like the U.N. This is precisely what the Palestinians are seeking.
This duty to support the exercise of self-determination has many aspects -- a duty to support admission to the organizations of which one is a member, a duty not to prevent admission (including through the use of veto), and a duty to assist the people and government of the new state to fulfill the duties and purposes of the U.N., including how they could safeguard all human rights and freedoms. If the U.S. uses its veto to block membership admission to Palestine, whose right to self-determination has been affirmed in hundreds of resolutions of the General Assembly, Security Council and Human Rights bodies, including many in which the U.S. also voted in favor, it would breach international law. At the very least, the U.S. is under an obligation under international law not to prevent a positive vote in the Security Council or an affirmative vote in favor of Palestine in the General Assembly. Such a vote -- or abstention, as the case may be -- will in no way amount to a legal recognition of Palestine by the U.S. as already indicated.
It is also imprudent for the U.S. not the do what is proposed here. The vote in the General Assembly is certain to endorse observer status for Palestine by all accounts. What, then, is the political gain in voting against admission, especially when voting in favor can only reinforce the long-standing U.S. support for a Palestinian State, as well as its stand on the 1967 borders? A veto or a negative vote at the General Assembly, on the other hand, will infuriate world public opinion and lead to further negative feelings against the U.S. throughout the Islamic world. Domestic political fall out can be minimized by pointing to the fact the U.S. has not recognized Palestine but could not prevent its admission to the U.N. That is both the correct legal and moral posture on this critical issue.
If the US votes against the Resolution it will only cause more instability and consequences.
With all that is currently going in Egypt, Lybia, Syria and now Yemen, reported as the "rebels, protesters, or freedom fighters, and knowing who is supporting them for their call for "democracy,"
the US is walking a fine line already. This is politics coming down to the wire and an elections
coming up. Alot at stake for the politicans and the president. Damned if you do and damened if you don't...Question is "which" long term consequences does the US politicans/administration want to indure? Thank you Huffpost for this article!
Moreover, self-determination is a principle of international law that may upset the power structure maintained by enemies of democracy.
1)Those "borders" were never recognized by the arabs who rejected UN 181 estabishing those borders.
2) Those borders were with Jordan and Egypt...neither of which has made any petition to retore those borders
>>international law
International law also applies to the palestinians whose political charters call for the extermination of a sovereign nation and UN member state. Such a call for aggressive war to exterminate a nation is also contrary to the UN charter itself.
>>the U.S. is also under a duty to support the exercise of Palestine's right to self-determination under international law.
The arabs, inclusive of the palestinians have spent the last 63 years waging an illegal war on Israel in order to deny Israelis/Jews that very same right.
>>What, then, is the political gain in voting against admission,
Because numerous UN resolutions laid out the path to this state, and that was via negotiations between the parties. The reason previous UN resolutions all stipulated negotiations was because the goal was PEACE.
Granting statehood while the palestinians still refuse peace is a grave error, as the UN knew when it issued its advisory resolutions. That is why the US as well as Germany, Canada, Italy and others, object to this reversal of previous UN policy.
This simply shows your lack of understanding, total bias against Israel or both.
perhaps you are not understanding the nature of the topic
The Palestinians are not given a seat at the UN. How could they possibly have rejected any Un resolution?
Next transparent attempt to deflect the issue please.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ufp/ufp.html
But, just because a way for the world to get around the US casting an ideologically driven veto exists does nothing to mitigate the damage to the US image and influence casting such a veto will cause.
How Israel's "security" gets enhanced by wanting the Palestinians to disappear and be permanently dependent on Israel's charity is truly childish. The Muslim world is being reorganized very fast, mostly against Israel, and all Israel can think of is holding down the Palestinians, humiliating them every day with an illegal occupation, and stealing another piece of Palestinian land. Many aspire to lead the modern muslim world: Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The US (and therefore Israel) have only one reasonably sure ally there (Saudi Arabia). It looks like Turkey is going to win, mostly because it doesn't have problems with the others. And the Palestinian issue (which starts with internationally recognized statehood) is their first topic on the agenda. The US and Israel are going to have less and less to negotiate with as time goes on, because the Muslim world is slowly, clumsily if you like, closing the difference in development. So, it seems to me downright stupid not to support what is, by all accounts, the best the Palestinians have to offer.
he can't because he doesn't have a business card from AIPAC...all the ME groups are littered with AIPAC or ex-AIPAC...look at the person who is negotiating with Palestinians to abandon US vote on behalf of US...Ross an ex-AIPAC, hawk and founder of think tank advocating status quo...
By this argument, you *must* be taking the position that the Palestinians' failure to recognize Israel, and their efforts to destroy Israel (which has been a Palestinian policy position since at least 1967 and remains one today among many sectors of the Palestinian leadership, including, of course, Hamas, which many people apparently regard as the legitimate government) has been a breach of international law.
Moreover, many factions of the PLO, which is the actual source of power for the PA, and Hamas do not recognize Israel, which is also a real problem.
But the question that I have is why you object to a question directed at finding out if the author is willing to apply his principles equally?
Do you agree with them? If so, do you take the position that...let's start with an easier one....Hamas' failure to recognize Israel (no to mention their efforts to destroy Israel and kill Israelis) is a breach of international law? If not, how do you differentiate?
UN voting unanimously for a sovereign Palestine will invigorate their people and help them live in peace with the neighbors. A seat in UN will depend on their good behavior and their ability to control Jihadists.
I hope the vote will help progress to the two state solution. Both parties need that to happen.
And the Palestinians are making their bid for statehood during the presidential election cycle here. The president is already reeling from attacks from those who claim he is no supporter of Israel. Not likely he would do anything to give such attackers ammunition. I will be happily surprised should we not veto the Palestinian bid.
But I expect, all foreign complications and outrages notwithstanding, to see our veto exercised. Foreign policy here remains mostly a show we put on for local consumption.
That will likely show up at the next G20 meeting, where the US will be pushing for countries that it will have attempted to 'lord it over' on this matter to grant the US indulgences when it comes to setting the tone of global economic policy. There is also the matter of the presidency of the World Bank to consider. Pressure to end the duopoly of US/EU when it comes to the World Bank and the IMF is already high, given the shift in economic power away from those two economies, and might not Europe, having just suffered a certain amount of rebuke from the US on this matter (yes, there are a few holdouts amongst the EU who will likely not vote against the US on this matter, but even the populations of those countries will likely see the US veto as a slap in their faces) strike a deal with TROW (the rest of the world) to back non-American candidates for World Bank presidency (at least in 2012, maybe on an ongoing basis) in exchange for not facing challenges to ongoing EU control of the IMF directorship