The Palestinian Statehood Thread

[MKSheppard]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15033357

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has submitted his bid to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state.

He presented a letter requesting full membership of the UN. He is addressing the General Assembly to argue the case, after a rapturous welcome.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is to speak soon afterwards. His spokesman said Israel regretted the step.

Israel and the US oppose it, saying a Palestinian state can only be achieved through talks with Israel.

President Barack Obama told Mr Abbas on Thursday that the US will use its UN Security Council veto to block the move, but Mr Abbas vowed to press ahead with the bid.

Meanwhile in the West Bank, Palestinians are holding mass rallies to coincide with the submission of the bid.

Giant TV screens have been set up in several cities so that people can watch Mr Abbas's General Assembly speech, expected at 16:30 GMT.

"I am going to listen to Abbas's speech because it will tell us our future and our destiny, and we are expecting so much from him, to declare our state," Khalil Jaberi, a 21-year-old university student in the city of Hebron, told the Associated Press news agency.

Mr Abbas has called for peaceful marches in support of his initiative, but some clashes were reported:

One Palestinian was shot dead by Israeli troops during clashes in the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, Palestinian sources say

At the Qalandiya checkpoint, Israeli troops fired tear gas on stone-throwing Palestinian youths

In the village of Nabi Saleh, protesters burned Israeli flags and pictures of President Obama

The process began with Mr Abbas presenting a written request for UN recognition of the Palestinian territories as a state to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Palestinian sources say the request is concise and short, and envisages a state based on pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.

Mr Netanyahu's spokesman Gidi Shmerling responded almost immediately, saying: "We regret the step. We believe that the only path to true peace is through negotiations and not unilateral steps."

The BBC's Kim Ghattas at the UN says that until the last minute Western diplomats tried and failed to stop the Palestinians making the request.

Even now, efforts are under way to restart direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians in an attempt to defuse tensions, our correspondent says.

If Mr Ban decides the application is in order, the Security Council will examine it and vote on it. In order to pass, it would need the backing of nine out of 15 council members, with no vetoes from the permanent members.

Analyst Yezid Sayigh argues that US and Israeli policies have forced the Palestinians to resort to requesting full UN membership.

Israeli commentator Yossi Klein Halevi argues that the Palestinians need to convince the Israelis that any state would not be a threat.

Abbas applies for UN recognition
A Security Council vote could take weeks to come about and the US may not even need to exercise its veto - Washington and Israel have been lobbying council members to either vote against the Palestinian plan or abstain.

But the Palestinians' application has given them some political initiative, putting their case for independence back on the international agenda in a much more urgent way than it was before, says the BBC's Middle East analyst Jeremy Bowen.

The move has focused diplomatic minds on restarting the stalled peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which broke down a year ago.

On Wednesday, Mr Obama told the General Assembly: "Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians - not us - who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem."

Egyptian foreign minister: "Another US veto wouldn't be helpful, it could inflame the sentiments on the streets"

It is politically embarrassing abroad for Mr Obama to be trying so hard to block the Palestinian application while the US praises the changes sweeping the Arab world, says our Middle East analyst.

But with a re-election campaign to fight, the president needs the votes of Israel's supporters in the US, our analyst says.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has urged a compromise, suggesting the General Assembly give the Palestinians enhanced status as a non-member state to allow a clear timeline for talks - a month to start negotiations, six months to deal with borders and security and a year to finalise a "definitive agreement".

Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN

They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)

Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN

They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza

Enhanced observer member status could be an interim option

A vote on enhanced status - enjoyed by others such as the Vatican - would not require a Security Council recommendation but a simple majority in the General Assembly, where no veto is possible.

Currently the Palestinians have observer status at the UN.

The "Quartet" of US, European, Russian and UN mediators has been working on reaching a framework agreement to restart talks, based on Mr Obama's vision of borders fashioned from Israel's pre-1967 boundary, with agreed land swaps.

Palestinians say their bid for statehood has been inspired by the Arab Spring, and is the result of years of failed peace talks.

While UN recognition would have largely symbolic value, the Palestinians argue it would strengthen their hand in peace talks.

[Thanas]

If Obama uses his veto, he will instantly plummet to Bush levels in the eyes of the arab world. They are already very disappointed in him and this will shoot any credibility the US has as a neutral observer in the foot.

[Force Lord]

Hopefully sanity prevails in this thread, though I don't have much hope.

My only opinion on this whole issue is that the potential of a diplomatic shitfest is very high.

[MKSheppard]

If Obama uses his veto, he will instantly plummet to Bush levels in the eyes of the arab world. They are already very disappointed in him and this will shoot any credibility the US has as a neutral observer in the foot.

I feel that BARRY will order us to vote "present", neither voting in favor or against it. We'll see....

[Thanas]

Different attitudes from the EU and US, from Salon:

Wednesday's doings in New York underscored the very strong differences between not just the U.S. and France, but between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to the way forward in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

At one level they are differences born in the mundane realities of domestic politics. Obama and Sarkozy both face elections next year. Both have a vested interest in dealing with the issue in a way that will positively effect their electorates.

America's Jewish community is politically aware and very active. For Obama that meant using his speech to remind the General Assembly that "Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses." The president added, "The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution and the fresh memory of knowing that 6 million people were killed simply because of who they were."

France, on the other hand has a sizable and well-established Arab minority. They also vote. Which may be part of the reason he addressed these remarks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "Listen to the cry of the youth in the Arab Spring," Sarkozy said. "They shouted, 'Long live liberty!' They didn't shout, 'Down with Israel!'" Sarkozy added, "You cannot stand still while the wind of freedom and democracy blows through your region."

But beyond politics there are intense differences at street level between America and Europe on the subject of Palestine and Israel. The online polling organization YouGov recently conducted a survey in Britain, France and Germany about the prospect of Palestinian statehood.

Asked "Do you think that the Palestinians have a right or do not have a right to their own state?" Eighty-four percent of Germans, 82 percent of the French and 66 percent of Britons answered yes. Around 5 percent said no, the rest were undecided.

Asked, "Do you think your government should vote in favor or against the U.N. resolution supporting recognition of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, 76 percent of Germans, 69 percent of French and 59 percent of Britons said vote in favor. Once again, the bulk of the other responses were undecided.

What is most interesting is that this is not a party political issue, if the British results are anything to go by. The 59 percent figure in favor of U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood reflects opinion in all three major parties.

I have not found similar polling in the U.S. but it is hard to imagine support for a Palestinian state anywhere near these levels.

It is likely that the views in Europe's big three countries are echoed across the EU. Certainly in Spain, where the process that led to the Oslo Agreement began, there is deep frustration at what is seen as America's blind support of the government of Netanyahu.

Lluis Bassets of the country's newspaper of record, El Pais, attacked Netanyahu in Thursday's paper for breaking "the architecture of alliances going back six decades." He praised Abbas's, "peaceful and legal ways" of conducting himself. Bassets wonders how the international community can turn away from those Palestinians who "wield the olive branch and not the gun."

He concludes, "This places the U.S. and Israel in a quandary."

Basset's conclusion about America's quandary is echoed by Christine Bergmann of Deutsche Welle, "The Americans, for so long, have been seen as the decisive power that can bring an end to the Middle East conflict, are now no longer alone in determining the situation. On the world stage, the balance has shifted."

How it has shifted and to whom is unclear.The Palestinian statehood question is under discussion today because of the U.N. meeting. But in a month's time? It is instructive to read the German papers this morning to see just how events at the U.N. are playing. Hardly at all is the answer.

The Pope -- a German -- is visiting Berlin today. And that little matter of Greece and the euro zone crisis dominate the front pages along with the breakup of REM and the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia.

But Bergmann is correct that attitudes are shifting. Die Zeit, Germany's most widely read newsweekly, and long a friend of Israel, in an unsigned article today writes: "Israel has been the only democracy in the Middle East, and yet it has tried to solve the conflict with the Palestinians by oppression, has responded to terror with injustice." It concludes, "There are reasons to vote out of solidarity with Israel against recognition of Palestine. But the Israelis have to realize how high the price is to deny a people something they deserve."

Whether America is losing its ability to shape the resolution of the conflict is open to question. But Obama's electoral timetable cannot be reconciled with Sarkozy's demand for agreement to be reached within a year.

What is absolutely clear is that on the question of Palestinian statehood, pressure is growing on this side of the Atlantic for it to happen much sooner than America -- and Israel -- would like.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So . . . he's made a wholly-symbolic gesture (since the current sitting American President managed to take Netanyahu's cock out of his mouth just long enough to say "Fuck you, we're going to veto this shit" to the Palestinians,) that will only demonstrate that the United States is the willing lapdog of Israel (which everybody already knows,) and that Israel is an enormous dick (which everybody already knows as well.) It will only serve to enrage people on both sides, but they're already pretty enraged to begin with.

tl;dr - The Palestinian UN statehood bid is a zero-sum game.

Of course, the United States and Israel have been busily lobbying the various members of the Security Council to vote "No" or "Abstain," so the current sitting American President might get away with merely being a hypocritical dick, rather than an enormous, raging, hypocritical dick.

But, if sanity prevails in the UN Security Council, I will go on record to predict that the current sitting American President will exercise the American veto to protect his own ass in the 2012 Presidential race (regardless of how it affects how he is perceived outside the US); as he has already shown himself to be something of a fan of American unilateralism and exceptionalism in foreign policy.

[Thanas]

Man listening to Abbas is freaking sad. Here is a member of a nation asking its occupying power for only a fifth of its territory.

Full statement - PDF warning.

[MKSheppard]

I like the seal/logo on the upper right corner of the cover page, to be honest.

[Thanas]

What's it supposed to be?

[MKSheppard]

What's it supposed to be?

It's the logo of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations



You know, maybe they could have co-ordinated the imagery a bit better; and rolled out a new POMP-UN logo for this, because it's a bit incongrugous to be talking about your goals being a Palestinian state in the West Bank, while your POMP-UN logo on your cover letter is showing the entire British Mandate of Palestine...

[Ace Pace]

If Obama uses his veto, he will instantly plummet to Bush levels in the eyes of the arab world. They are already very disappointed in him and this will shoot any credibility the US has as a neutral observer in the foot.

Only after a veto? I'm surprised he isn't more of a disappointment after this weeks speech.
I'm currently listening to Netanyahu give his own speech, it's basically a rehash of everything we know, standard talking points that either fit your world view, or don't.

[Thanas]

Yeah, standard doublespeak. "You must make peace with us first".

[Thanas]

Oh wow, he just equated the PLO with the SS. "judenrein" was what he called their goal.

EDIT: Oh, and Jerusalem is only a jewish city in his opinion.

[MarshalPurnell]

It is politically impossible for the US to not veto any recognition of Palestinian statehood. The Republicans and major elements of the Democratic Party would combine in crucifying Obama for letting such a development just happen. It is a serious pity, because only the United States has the ability to impose a peace. The Russians and the UN are rightfully distrusted by Israel, and Europe has no serious leverage nor can it apply pressure very successfully to any side with blunter tools of economic sanctions or military assistance. And make no mistake, peace will almost certainly have to be imposed on the Israelis and Palestinians, as neither will be very satisfied with a pragmatic and practical peace arrangement that both recognizes the facts on the ground and pays more than lip service to international law. The leak of proposed Palestinians concessions on the right of return, and Israel's complete failure to display any interest at all in using them as a starting point to revive negotiations, makes that clear.

For the time being Israel is quite happy with the status quo. They are hated around the world but feel (probably correctly) they will always be hated by the Arabs, the Russians, and the largest block of Third World nations. They are probably also correct that Europe will puts its natural interests in working with the Arabs ahead of Israel's security, and can only be restrained from outright anti-Israel partisanship by constant reminders of the Holocaust. Therefore the extra hate caused by the unilateral pursuit of Israeli security is only a minor downside, with marginal costs to them and even less in the way of opportunity costs. In exchange of course the Israelis can repress Palestinian terrorism their way (and have done so relatively successfully), intimidate their neighbors against giving support to the various anti-Israeli terrorists, and of course chip away at Palestinian holdings in the strategic ground around Jerusalem. They also still exercise control over water rights and allocation in the West Bank, which is a critical natural resource in the area. It is clear they can sustain the level of violence their present policies require almost indefinitely as long as the United States supports them.

The Palestinians on the other hand see no sign of Israeli willingness to negotiate seriously anymore. Certainly Palestinian terrorism and intransigence in the past has played into that. Palestinian aspirations are often unreal and a very significant portion of the population, perhaps a majority, favors continued violence and confrontation in the vein of Hamas in hopes of achieving even more unrealistic results. If that tendency is to be reversed the responsible elements of Palestinian society need to be shown that they can achieve concrete results through negotiation and at this point that requires Israel as the stronger party to make the first moves. If the Palestinians do not believe they can gain anything through negotiation they have no incentive to try, and every incentive to do whatever they can to make the international environment as unwelcoming as possible for Israel. And by extension, the United States. Suppressing them with violence is no long-term solution because you still face the problem of what to do with the West Bank and Gaza, with annexation, much less ethnic cleansing, completely out of the question. It is obvious that they can sustain the present level of violence at least as easily as Israel, as desperate young men and weapons to arm them are practically the only thing the Palestinians have in abundance.

The United States should have been much more proactive in trying to arrange negotiations and a solution, but it was frustrated for a variety of reasons. First certainly has been the failure of all prior efforts due to intransigent attitudes on both sides. Frankly the Bush and Obama administrations have had no reason to actually suspect anything could be achieved, so why would they waste their valuable attention and diplomatic resources on anything other than pro-forma efforts and putting out the odd fire? Secondly of course there is the large contingent of Americans, Jewish and Evangelical Christian, who will support Israel in anything it does and views putting pressure on them as blackest treason. This is a significant difference from American involvement in Northern Ireland, where Americans of various parties and backgrounds found sympathy for both sides (thoroughly misplaced in the case of the IRA) and which made it a more credible mediator. Instead the US is rightfully seen as backing the Israelis to the hilt in the end, in spite of ineffectual protests and efforts to convince Israel away from its more hardline and provocative actions, futile efforts which are regularly denounced by American partisans of Israel. The situation has actually gotten worse, as politicians of all stripes have found it increasingly necessary to embrace Israel to the bosom, as Arabists in the State Department have left or been replaced, and as the ability of American government to look at the long-term has been compressed as the election news cycle has sped up.

At this point I think the most productive path would be for the US to unilaterally work out the broad outlines of a final settlement and publicly present it as the basis for negotiation. The Right of Return is pretty much out of the question except for the most symbolic of executions, but Palestinian refugees should be compensated for lost possessions and property; this can be billed to the Arab states, who themselves ought to compensate the even larger Jewish population expelled from their countries over the 1950s and 1960s, in essence giving up Jewish compensation to have the Arab states pay off the Palestinians. Possession of Jerusalem should continue with Israel, as the last time the Arabs held the city they systematically forbade any Jewish presence in East Jerusalem and shut off pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall. The Palestinian Authority should however gain the right to appoint representatives to the bodies overseeing the Holy Sites as a custodian of Muslim interests and to maintain a symbolic presence in the city, perhaps with sovereign control over the Dome of the Rock mosque itself. The Israelis should be allowed to annex the most densely populated settlements contiguous to the present-day border, but only if the Palestinians are compensated with territory elsewhere along the border, of similar or greater value and in no case lesser land area. The Palestinians should gain a road and a rail connection between Gaza and the West Bank, under their sovereign control but surrounded by Israeli territory, as a concession similar to the transportation line granted to West Germany for Berlin. Water and resource rights should be worked out by a panel of international experts imposing mandatory arbitration on both sides. Palestine should commit itself to the suppression of all anti-Israeli violence conducted across the border, and should be given international assistance under the auspices of the UN in building up an armed police force suitable to the task. The state of Palestine should otherwise define itself as a legally neutral state, forbidden from hosting foreign military forces except under UN mandate, or of possessing military forces with offensive capabilities. The Palestinians should be assured of a large international aid budget directed to the construction of necessary infrastructure to be a viable state as well as to conduct international trade free of Israeli control.

Granted the specifics of what the plan looks like would inevitably be dependent on whatever the prevailing issues of the day are, the attitude of the president, and so on. And even the idea of such a plan would involve too much pressure on Israel to be palatable to the US, while being not expansive enough for the Palestinians. But until the US does something to force the Israelis to start negotiating seriously nothing will be done and nothing can be done, however the UN votes go or whatever stance the other powers take.

[Bacardi2]

I think the people who really are going to suffer is the Palestinian people themselves. I mean, Israel has been providing them infrastructure (electricity, sewer, trash disposal, etc) and when they become a state all those fringe benefits will go with Israel's withdrawl. The Palestinian people will be in a similar situation that the favelas in Brazil are - relying on faulty power grids and water facilities to provide essentially needed electricity and drinking water.

I hope that the US makes the right call for both the Israelis and Palestinians, one that doesn't leave the other in a shitty situation. That is, without power or other needed services.

[Darth Yan]

yeah the seal isn't a good move but from what I remember (granted the source is almost a year old) there's a situation where most palestinians want a one state (though when polled 50% said that if Israel actually does offer a fair deal in two state solution terms they'd be a lot more okay with the idea of israel existing as a jewish state, and might even be willing to push the PLO for it). the seal could be rhetoric though (both the far rightist israeli and the far right palestinians have been more pragmatic in practice than their rhetoric implies). though in all honesty given that all of congress cheered Netenyahu's speech Obama would probably have to agree if he doesn't want to piss his base off more than he has already. any politician would have to if they wanted to have a shot at reelection (look at bush sr when he actually had the balls to call Israel out on their utterly abominable settlement policy). Until the public finally starts withdrawing support for israel to the point where the supporters aren't a majority, than any politician will have to support Israel if they want a career.

also the palestinians were building up infrastructure during peace time. Israel annihilated it thanks to their reckless indifference and they gleefully withhold water and other neccissities for the sake of the settlements (composed of sadistic assholes).

[bobalot]

I think the people who really are going to suffer is the Palestinian people themselves. I mean, Israel has been providing them infrastructure (electricity, sewer, trash disposal, etc) and when they become a state all those fringe benefits will go with Israel's withdrawl. The Palestinian people will be in a similar situation that the favelas in Brazil are - relying on faulty power grids and water facilities to provide essentially needed electricity and drinking water.

I hope that the US makes the right call for both the Israelis and Palestinians, one that doesn't leave the other in a shitty situation. That is, without power or other needed services.

Citation required. Last time I checked Palestinian farmers in the West Bank could barely water their crops because Israel was diverting water back into Israel as well its West Bank settlements.

[Alphawolf55]

Part of me wonders if the Palestinians should've waited a year to try this bid. Wait for the US to have its election if Obama wins, he has nothing to fear from jewish voters, if he loses he still would be President long enough to be able to make sure a veto isn't blocked. Granted that assumes Obama supports the Palestinians in any real way but they must've known that a 1st term President would never against the Jewish voting block.

[Stark]

Given the Palestinian political situation, what is the likely makeup of the government of any independent state? What would their attitudes be?

[Ace Pace]

Given the Palestinian political situation, what is the likely makeup of the government of any independent state? What would their attitudes be?

A West Bank state would be composed primarily of moderates (relatively speaking) Fatah members who will be busy trying to keep their former lifestyles going (rich compared to the norm there) as Israel withdraws as much support as it cans. What this likely means is just another fake democracy, that will be busy setting up infrastructure. Security wise, I imagine that like today, they'll try to keep the population on simmer, and act all surprised and cooperative with the IDF when something boils over and they kill some people.

If we include Gaza in the equation, it's a much wider question. Gaza today is pretty much Somalia except with no awesome coast. Practically everything worth having there has been destroyed, and is smuggled in. There's no legit economy and the government is composed of the military wing of Hamas. Which might actually be better, since the political wing of Hamas is far more extremist (and based in Syria) and not as pragmatic.

[CJvR]

Perhaps the US should step aside from this one.

If China and Russia are so keen on setting a precedent that allow ethnic groups without meeting the requirements of a nation to claim a UN seat then let them vote it through - and then face dozens of simillar claims within their own territories. I doubt they are particulary keen to do that and are relying on the US the veto the proposal so they can get off the hook the easy way.

[Lord Zentei]

If Obama uses his veto, he will instantly plummet to Bush levels in the eyes of the arab world. They are already very disappointed in him and this will shoot any credibility the US has as a neutral observer in the foot.

Apparently, he's already below those levels, and has been for months.

A West Bank state would be composed primarily of moderates (relatively speaking) Fatah members who will be busy trying to keep their former lifestyles going (rich compared to the norm there) as Israel withdraws as much support as it cans. What this likely means is just another fake democracy, that will be busy setting up infrastructure. Security wise, I imagine that like today, they'll try to keep the population on simmer, and act all surprised and cooperative with the IDF when something boils over and they kill some people.

If we include Gaza in the equation, it's a much wider question. Gaza today is pretty much Somalia except with no awesome coast. Practically everything worth having there has been destroyed, and is smuggled in. There's no legit economy and the government is composed of the military wing of Hamas. Which might actually be better, since the political wing of Hamas is far more extremist (and based in Syria) and not as pragmatic.

It's pretty crazy when the political wing of an organization is less moderate than the military wing. How likely is Gaza to be included in this, anyway? Not that it will mean anything, since the bid will be vetoed by Obama.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

The United States needs to stop involving itself in the internal and external disputes of other nations especially on behalf of Israel. We should sure as hell not be their 'big brother protecting them' every time some spat erupts. They're supposed to be a Sovereign Nation and we do them and us a great disservice. I won't make predictions, but anyone want to take guesses that if we veto the Palestinian bid we will see a spike in attacks against our soldiers in Afghanistan and our 'observers' in Iraq?

[Knife]

I should probably know this, but I don't. Are they going for the West Bank and Gaza? How do you govern a country split in two with a hostile country running through you're country?

[MKSheppard]

Even more so if your country is split into two hostile governments which hate each other?
eg
Fatah/PLO vs Hamas