Argument: Peace can only be achieved by Israel and Palestine, not UN
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
- Debate: UN recognition of Palestinian statehood - con argument.
John Barrasso. "Block Palestinians' end run at U.N." Politico. September 15th, 2011: "The U.N. must refrain from intervening on issues that are part of the direct negotiations by the parties. The decision about borders and statehood should be achieved through a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians."
Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Palestinian UN Vote. February 18th, 2011: "The United States and our fellow Council members are also in full agreement about the urgent need to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, based on the two-state solution and an agreement that establishes a viable, independent, and contiguous state of Palestine, once and for all. We have invested a tremendous amount of effort and resources in pursuit of this shared goal, and we will continue to do so. But the only way to reach that common goal is through direct negotiations between the parties, with the active and sustained support of the United States and the international community. It is the Israelis’ and Palestinians’ conflict, and even the best-intentioned outsiders cannot resolve it for them. Therefore every potential action must be measured against one overriding standard: will it move the parties closer to negotiations and an agreement? Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides. It could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations and, if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse."