UNITED NATIONS - If a vote for full U.N. membership in the Security Council were held today, the Palestinians would not have the minimum support needed, thereby sparing the United States the onus of a veto. But either way, the action will fail and eventually the Palestinians will have to go to the General Assembly where they will easily be admitted as a non-voting observer state.
In the meantime, the United States and Europeans are working on the slim chance of a deal with Israel and the Palestinians that would allow an upgrade in the status of Palestine in the U.N. General Assembly. But diplomats said Israel would need an assurance that the Palestinians would not go to the International Criminal Court, something they refused to relinquish.
Of course, one could ask why this was not done at the outset rather than the hullaballoo and divisiveness that have emerged in the Middle East and a lot of Obama-bashing in the United States.
Facts and developments
The Palestinians will apply for full U.N. voting membership on Friday, which means an application to the 15-nation Security Council. That date does not mean a vote but the beginning of a procedural process that will delay any action for weeks, if not longer.
For a resolution to be adopted in the Council, nine votes in favor are needed and no veto from the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. At this point, the Palestinians do not have the nine votes needed, two Council diplomats told this reporter.
The procedure is for the president of the Council to first ask for those voting "yes." Russia, China, Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon are expected to raise their hands while the United States, Britain, France and Germany would stay silent. Council members said to be wavering are Portugal, Bosnia, Nigeria, Gabon and Colombia. The resolution would fail if not enough countries voted in favor. Then those opposed would not have to vote.
Of course, anything could change depending on events on the ground and the world as well as the speeches of Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday. However, the bottom line is there will not be a vote in the Security Council for weeks, and it will fail, no matter what.
So the question is whether the onus would be put on the United States to cast a veto -- and why the Palestinians would want to put Washington on the spot when there is nothing to gain and much to lose. A "no" vote in the General Assembly by the United States would also set Washington against the tide of world opinion.
The second question is why Israel did not agree weeks ago to negotiate an upgrade in the status of Palestine in the 193-member General Assembly, where no one has veto rights and the measure was bound to be adopted.
The biggest difference is that the new status as a non-voting observer state, rather than Palestine's current status as an "observer, " uses the word "state." This is an increase in prestige, and allows the Palestinians to sign treaties, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). And that is a worry for Israel.
"Morally, politically, legally"
Dr. Nabeel Shaath, advisor to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen), told a news conference that Palestinians would give the Security Council "some time" to consider the request and then go to the General Assembly. He said Palestinians wanted to make a "serious attempt" at full membership "without closing any doors," noting that Israel itself had waited over a year for full membership.
"Our people need to see action -- morally politically legally," he said. "When you see the world standing with you, it gives you hope" after 20 years of failed U.S.-facilitated negotiations.
One precondition to reopening talks, he said again, was a moratorium on Jewish settlements in the West Bank which Israel had done but then lifted. He said Israeli leaders had been talking to Palestinians regularly but no progress was made. "There is no peace if the land is vanishing piece by piece."
The Quartet for Mideast mediators -- the U.S., the European Union, the U.N. and Russia -- have been meeting with their envoy, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, over the past few days to draft a statement to advance the case of a return to negotiations. Blair is searching for a deal that would include a resumption of talks with agreed-upon parameters.
The major sticking point, informed sources said, is the issue of "Israel as a Jewish state." There are attempts to finesse that by referring to previous resolutions.
Obama and Sarkozy
President Obama, for the first time since he took office, received a lukewarm reception at the General Assembly, mainly because he offered nothing new on the Palestine controversy.
A year after standing on the same podium and announcing that he hoped to see a Palestinian state born by now, Obama said creating such a state alongside Israel remained his goal. However, he said the conflict could only be resolved by negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
"But the question isn't the goal we seek -- the question is how to reach it. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades," he said. "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N. -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now."
Said Jeffrey Laurenti, fellow at the Century Foundation think-tank:
"Far from offering a blueprint for the future, his address seemed more to look backward to celebrate the transformations of the past year, and over his shoulder to his conservative opponents' bid to play the Israeli card against him."
In contrast, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy used his entire speech to say it was time for a definitive agreement. He asked the Palestinians not to seek a Security Council seat but said he would support observer state status in the General Assembly.
He proposed direct negotiations within a month; a decision on borders and security within six months; and a resolution of all other issues that would create Palestinian state within a year. Amid it all was a conference in Paris, which is an annual suggestion by French governments on a variety of issues.
The sad story is that no one can really agree on the future. Israel has good reason to worry about its security, having been attacked by its Arab neighbors from the moment it was created. And the Palestinians cannot be expected to accept a life under occupation and settlements.
Follow Evelyn Leopold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/evjournalist
Steve Clemons: Obama Tells Palestinians to Stay in Back of the Bus
Sarwar Kashmeri: Mr. Abbas Should Awe the UN, Not Just Shock It
Israel obviously will find some excuse to sabotage any meaningful move toward peace, or approve a small thing for show only and then retract it on the slightest excuse. Unless real, lasting action is taken on the part of the united states there will be no solution.
As I see it the only action the UN can take is to cast the 1967 borders of Isarel in stone and uproot all the settlements and woads and walls defying it. This will mean an occupation by UN forces. It should also require Israel to reveal it's nuclear capacity verified by the international body already existing for that purpose. This, after all is our main point of contention with Iran and Israel should not be exempt from it.
While the Israelis may overplay their security conerns there is no question that they are legitimate - no country has been under this kind of military pressure since its founding.
1) The radical difference between the sentiment of the UNSC and the UNGA will put an intense spotlight on the the unrepresentative nature of the UNSC,
2) Unlike mules, humans tend to only chase a carrot as long as they don't see the stick that keeps it impossibly out of reach no matter what. Telling people who have put a lot of effort into trying to create a non-threatening climate for Israel that no matter how much they do, their work is going to be judged solely by those who have no reason to find it anything but a failure is a pretty surefire way of encouraging them to abandon that effort and adopt an alternative strategy. The most likely alternatives are abandoning the 'negotiation' route in favour of the 'legal' route (taking the position that things such as borders, right of return etc will be decided by the ICJ) or the 'ungovernable' route (civil and uncivil protests aimed at making it more trouble than it is worth for the Israeli army to try and stay in the territories), or combining both.
3) Justifying other states/parties with interests in the outcome to abandon the notion of working through the UN, and instead taking direct actions themselves.
And rightly so.
If one doesn't commit a crime, one has nothing to fear. But we all know that Israel just got used to get away with impunity.
1) Full statehood --voting rights in the UN will not happen because the Europeans and others are not going to vote for it in the Security Council, according to today's snapshot. Read France's Sarkozy speech. Therefore the US will not have to veto. So one raises the question as to why the Palestinians are going that route. They did answer in the above story.
2) The PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist for quite some time. What it has not recognized is Israel as a Jewish state, which defines its raison d'etre rather than the identity of all residents. This is linked to the right of return which the Palestinians cannot give up and which will not happen.
3) The partition if Palestine is more complicated than a few lines can explain. Fighting broke out immediately and afterwards Arab neighbors did not allow a Palestinian state either.
If they have their way (which they always do) the status quo will never change-something they rely on.
What is your analysis of what change come and what can be the means whereby it can be achieved?
We (the United States) are on the wrong side of both history and human rights here.
When Israel was recognized as a Jewish state were the people living in the area even given a voice in the matter? Was there even a plebiscite to discern their consent or disapproval? As I understand it there was none. The UN created Israel by fiat, which is exactly how they should deal with the current conundrum. Set Israel's borders in stone, and enforce it by removing the illegal settlements and walls and roads. Right of Return for all refugees. Demand reparations for the refugees and others displaced by the establishment of Israel and an equality of armaments for the Palistinians. A UN occupation seems to be a given if we really want this resolved.
Israel knows full well that they are engaging in criminal acts. If they have nothing to hide then why would they ask for guarantees not to face JUSTICE.
Once the world court starts to put serious pressure on Israel to start tearing down even the largest illegal settler population centers in the West Bank, I think true negotiations can begin, as Israel will no longer be incented to keep the conflict growing
RIP "facts on the ground", 2011. The corrupt concept of "facts on the ground" is about to be put to rest forever.
The actual question is one of human rights. When will the millions in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, and the millions of people living abroad, be given the basic human right of having a homeland and government they can choose for themselves that isn't a captive of a foreign power? When will a people be allowed to live without barbed wire, walls, and occupiers hemming them in from all sides? Maybe we should chuck the alleged "two-state solution" and just campaign for Palestinian rights in a greater Israel. This seems to be where the right wing is heading - no Palestinian state in Judaea and Samaria - so let's just give them citizenship and the same basic rights any ordinary Israeli. What defense is there against that idea?
There is, however, something for Israel to lose and that is freedom from the reaches of the International Criminal Court. Israel's cry that the Palestinians will become more deadly as a state is a joke when you look at the disproportionate deaths and misery visited upon Palestine by their occupying neighbor.
Palestine will gain there statehood and it won't be through the wrangling of Israeli and American politicians who seem dead-set to keep Palestinians away fro the ICC. It will be through the humanitarian intervention of world opinion. If Israel is as clean as they constantly claim they are then they should invite a Palestinian state.
When he first came into office he declared that he didn't care if he was a one term President, he would do what needs to be done. And now he is selling himself on all sides to be re-elected. Power corrupts and also blinds.
US Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama said Wednesday that Jerusalem must remain the "undivided" capital of Israel in a speech to a powerful US-Israel lobby group here.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080604153023.crgzcbw7&show_article=1
That's a no brainer.