Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: UN recognition of Palestinian statehood

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 19:17, 24 September 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(External links)
← Previous diff
Current revision (14:13, 27 September 2011) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
 
Line 5: Line 5:
===Background and context === ===Background and context ===
-The issue of Palestinian statehood has been debated for years between Israel and the Palestinians. After decades of impasse, the Palestinians have decided to take their case to the United Nations. A majority of member states throughout the international community appear willing to approve the creation of a Palestinian state with or without approval from Israel.[[Image:Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations.jpg|left|230px]][[Image:UN General Assembly.jpg|right|220px]] This would allow the Palestinians to gain recognition and negotiation power within the United Nations. But, it would not necessarily change the reality on the ground, where the Israelis might still control Palestinian land. The United States pledged to veto any vote in the Security Council, where the Palestinians have taken their issue. They decided to avoid the General Assembly, where no country can veto a vote, but where the benefits of recognition are not necessarily as great. There are a number of questions in this debate: Would a vote, and possibly passage of a resolution in support of Palestinian statehood, undermine or accelerated peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians? Is it encouraging that the Palestinians are pursuing a non-violent means of diplomacy through the UN, versus previous violent campaigns? Do the Palestinians have a moral case for self-determination? What are the practical gains of UN membership? Would supporting a UN vote be within Israeli's interests, both security and otherwise? And, would a US veto of the efforts in the Security Council be within the country's interests? The pros and cons are outlined below. +The issue of Palestinian statehood has been debated for over sixty years between Israel and the Palestinians. After decades of impasse, the Palestinians have decided to take their case to the United Nations. A large majority of UN member states throughout the international community appear willing to recognize a Palestinian state with or without approval from Israel.[[Image:Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations.jpg|left|230px]][[Image:UN General Assembly.jpg|right|220px]] Such recognition would offer the Palestinians negotiating and voting power within the United Nations, and perhaps pressure the Israelis to agree to a final agreement. But, it would not necessarily change the reality on the ground, where Israel would still control Palestinian land in the West Bank and elsewhere. The Obama Administration pledged to veto a push to recognize Palestine in the Security Council, where approval is required to enter the UN as a full member. If that effort fails, Abbas has pledged to pursue recognition within the General Assembly, where they could achieve a lesser form of recognition akin to what the Vatican has received. There are a number of questions in this debate: Would a vote, and possibly passage of a resolution in support of Palestinian statehood, undermine or accelerated peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians? Is it encouraging that the Palestinians are pursuing a non-violent means of diplomacy through the UN, versus previous violent campaigns? Do the Palestinians have a moral case for self-determination? What are the practical gains of UN membership and voting powers? Would supporting a UN vote be within Israeli's interests, both security and otherwise? And, would a US veto of the efforts in the Security Council be within US interests? The pros and cons are outlined below.
|} |}
Line 20: Line 20:
====Pro==== ====Pro====
-*'''Push for UN recognition IS diplomacy, doesn't undermine it.''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "The biggest contradiction of all is the assertion that the Palestinian attempt to resolve their conflict with Israel at the United Nations represents a threat to diplomacy -- rather than diplomacy itself. After all, what is the United Nations other than an arena for conflict resolution by means of diplomacy? Having abandoned the effort to end the occupation through violence, the Palestinians are turning to the UN. What could be wrong with that?"+*'''[[Argument: UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution| UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution]]''' [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/13/britain-yes-to-palestinian-statehood Jonathan Freedland. "Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel." guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011]: "UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace – a two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution – so-called because while it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides."
-*'''Palestinian push at UN demonstrates nonviolent approach.''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "Taking their case to the United Nations is a powerful statement by the Palestinian leadership that they have rejected terrorism once and for all and are determined to live in peace alongside Israel. It is also a sign that the 'hard men' of violence who once dominated Palestinian politics are relics of the past. The future belongs to people like Salam Fayyad who, in the words of renowned New Republic writer and life-long Zionist, Leon Wieseltier, is the man who 'all Israelis and Palestinians, who are not maniacs, have dreamed' of."+*'''UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution.''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "Recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state."
-*'''Israel's refusal to halt settlements has prevented negotiations.''' Nabil Shaath, leader of the foreign affairs department of Fatah, the main party of the Palestinian Authority: “We want to generate pressure on Israel to make it feel isolated and help it understand that there can be no talks without a stop to settlements. Without that, our goal is membership in the United Nations General Assembly in September.”[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?pagewanted=all]+*'''Push for UN recognition IS diplomacy, doesn't undermine it.''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "The biggest contradiction of all is the assertion that the Palestinian attempt to resolve their conflict with Israel at the United Nations represents a threat to diplomacy -- rather than diplomacy itself. After all, what is the United Nations other than an arena for conflict resolution by means of diplomacy? Having abandoned the effort to end the occupation through violence, the Palestinians are turning to the UN. What could be wrong with that?"
-*'''[[Argument: UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution| UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution]]''' +*'''Palestinian push at UN exemplifies nonviolent diplomacy.''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "Taking their case to the United Nations is a powerful statement by the Palestinian leadership that they have rejected terrorism once and for all and are determined to live in peace alongside Israel. It is also a sign that the 'hard men' of violence who once dominated Palestinian politics are relics of the past. The future belongs to people like Salam Fayyad who, in the words of renowned New Republic writer and life-long Zionist, Leon Wieseltier, is the man who 'all Israelis and Palestinians, who are not maniacs, have dreamed' of."
-*'''Jews went to UN for Israel, Palestinians can for Palestine.''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "The Jews of Palestine (who would later become Israelis) knew that the United Nations was the only forum to achieve recognition of a state when they turned to it in 1947. As any Israeli will tell you, it was the United Nations General Assembly that granted Israel its birth certificate. Israel's own Declaration of Independence says as much: On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. The Israelis went to the United Nations for precisely the same reason the Palestinians will. Attempts at negotiations had failed. The Palestinian leadership in the late 1940s was dominated by extremists who had no interest in compromise with the Jews. The Israeli leadership today is similarly inflexible."+*'''Statehood would break from status quo and impasse.''' President Carter said, "the only alternative [to statehood] is a maintenance of the status quo." Securing statehood, on the other hand, could shake up the calculations by Israel in the negotiations, and help force a peaceful resolution to the crisis. “As an alternative to a deadlock and a stalemate now, we reluctantly support the Palestinian move for recognition,” Carter said at the Carter Center in Atlanta in early September 2011.[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63481.html#ixzz1YLJX01s9]
-*'''UN recognition would simply force final negotiation of borders.''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "In fact, recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state."+*'''Lack of other plan justifies UN recog of Pal statehood.''' President Carter says that he would not have been in favor of the U.N. recognition bid had the Obama administration, “put forward any sort of comprehensive peace proposal.”[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63481.html#ixzz1YLJzQq4f]
*'''UN initiative fosters helpful state-to-state negotiations.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/veto-a-state-lose-an-ally.html Turki Al-Faisal. "Veto a state, lose an ally." The New York Times. September 11th, 2011]: "The Palestinian statehood initiative is a chance to replace Oslo with a new paradigm based on state-to-state negotiations — a win-win proposition that makes the conflict more manageable and lays the groundwork for a lasting solution." *'''UN initiative fosters helpful state-to-state negotiations.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/veto-a-state-lose-an-ally.html Turki Al-Faisal. "Veto a state, lose an ally." The New York Times. September 11th, 2011]: "The Palestinian statehood initiative is a chance to replace Oslo with a new paradigm based on state-to-state negotiations — a win-win proposition that makes the conflict more manageable and lays the groundwork for a lasting solution."
-*'''Statehood would break from status quo and impasse.''' President Carter said, "the only alternative [to statehood] is a maintenance of the status quo." Securing statehood, on the other hand, could shake up the calculations by Israel in the negotiations, and help force a peaceful resolution to the crisis. “As an alternative to a deadlock and a stalemate now, we reluctantly support the Palestinian move for recognition,” Carter said at the Carter Center in Atlanta in early September 2011.[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63481.html#ixzz1YLJX01s9]+*'''Over 120 countries have already recognized Palestine.''' Many of these states are in the developing world. This means that nearly two-thirds of the UN General Assembly already supports Palestinian statehood. A vote in the UN is a logical next step.[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/15/129888805/u-s-ambassador-to-u-n-ahead-of-referenda-sudan-situation-precarious]
- +
-*'''Lack of other plan justifies UN recog of Pal statehood.''' President Carter says that he would not have been in favor of the U.N. recognition bid had the Obama administration, “put forward any sort of comprehensive peace proposal.”[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63481.html#ixzz1YLJzQq4f]+
 +*'''Israel's refusal to halt settlements has prevented negotiations.''' Nabil Shaath, leader of the foreign affairs department of Fatah, the main party of the Palestinian Authority: “We want to generate pressure on Israel to make it feel isolated and help it understand that there can be no talks without a stop to settlements. Without that, our goal is membership in the United Nations General Assembly in September.”[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?pagewanted=all]
Line 44: Line 43:
*'''Palestinian UN statehood push undermines bilateral talks.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63607.html John Barrasso. "Block Palestinians' end run at U.N." Politico. September 15th, 2011]: "President Mahmoud Abbas plans to formally request full-member-state status in the United Nations. This move intentionally puts prospects for peace in jeopardy. I oppose the decision of the PA to circumvent the peace process and seek a change in status from the United Nations. Along with the PA’s other recent actions that undermine peace, this decision demonstrates why Congress must terminate funding to the PA. Should a status change be passed, Congress must evaluate and significantly cut funding to the U.N.The best path to a true and lasting peace is through direct negotiations between the two parties — not through manipulations at the U.N. The consequences to the peace process are grave. The ability to move forward with an agreement is greatly diminished by these tactics. Instead of embarking on a time-consuming campaign to gain support in the U.N., the Palestinian leadership should be working directly with Israel on creating a real and sustainable peace agreement. 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." *'''Palestinian UN statehood push undermines bilateral talks.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63607.html John Barrasso. "Block Palestinians' end run at U.N." Politico. September 15th, 2011]: "President Mahmoud Abbas plans to formally request full-member-state status in the United Nations. This move intentionally puts prospects for peace in jeopardy. I oppose the decision of the PA to circumvent the peace process and seek a change in status from the United Nations. Along with the PA’s other recent actions that undermine peace, this decision demonstrates why Congress must terminate funding to the PA. Should a status change be passed, Congress must evaluate and significantly cut funding to the U.N.The best path to a true and lasting peace is through direct negotiations between the two parties — not through manipulations at the U.N. The consequences to the peace process are grave. The ability to move forward with an agreement is greatly diminished by these tactics. Instead of embarking on a time-consuming campaign to gain support in the U.N., the Palestinian leadership should be working directly with Israel on creating a real and sustainable peace agreement. 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."
 +:US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "If it accelerated the negotiations, we would say yes. The reality is quite the opposite. The process that must occur will be that much more complicated in the wake of this kind of one-sided action."[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/22/140712053/ambassador-rice-palestinian-bid-is-unwise-and-counterproductive]
-*'''Peace can only be achieved by Israel and Palestine.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63607.html 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."+*'''UN vote is just paper; it doesn't change anything on ground.''' US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "they want a state and they want a state that has defined borders, that has a capital, that has the viability to deliver goods and services and benefits to the people. That's what we want to see. But there's no way to accomplish that through a vote in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. A vote here is merely a statement on a piece of paper. It doesn't change anything on the ground for the Palestinian people the day after.[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/22/140712053/ambassador-rice-palestinian-bid-is-unwise-and-counterproductive]
-:President Obama said to the United Nations: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN - if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. 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."[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/21/140663207/live-blog-obama-addresses-un-general-assembly]+*'''[[Argument: Peace can only be achieved by Israel and Palestine, not UN| Peace can only be achieved by Israel and Palestine, not UN]]''' President Obama said to the United Nations on September 21st, 2011: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN - if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. 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."[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/21/140663207/live-blog-obama-addresses-un-general-assembly]
-*'''Failure of negotiations is largely the Palestinians' fault.''' The Palestinians have consistently refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, for example.+*'''History shows conflicts need resolving by parties involved.''' President Obama said to the United Nations on September 21st, 2011: "Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state -- negotiations between the parties."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/21/remarks-president-obama-address-united-nations-general-assembly]
 + 
 +*'''Palestinian move not just symbolism; it's counterproductive.''' US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said to NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "This is not just a neutral, symbolic action. In our view it is unwise and counterproductive."[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/22/140712053/ambassador-rice-palestinian-bid-is-unwise-and-counterproductive]
 + 
 +*'''Failure of negotiations is largely the Palestinians' fault.''' The Palestinians have consistently refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. This obvious, basic step would meet one of the Israeli's main preconditions for negotiations and would likely restart talks immediately.
*'''Palestinian Authority move in UN undermines legitimate PLO.''' [http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/how-palestinian-authoritys-un-statehood-bid-endangers-palestinian-rights Ali Abunimah. How Palestinian Authority’s UN "statehood" bid endangers Palestinian rights." The Electronic Intifada. August 8th, 2011]: "Protecting self-determination for all Palestinians. The Western-backed Palestinian Authority’s (PA) effort to seek UN recognition of 'statehood' unilaterally, without consulting the Palestinian people from which the PA has absolutely no mandate, has raised fears among Palestinians that the move could actually harm Palestinian rights. If the UN votes to admit the 'State of Palestine,' it is likely that the unelected representatives of the Palestinian Authority would be seated in the General Assembly instead of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which currently holds the Palestine observer seat at the UN. This would be a severe blow to the potential for realizing Palestinian rights in the long run through international bodies: whereas the PLO ostensibly represents all Palestinians, the PA 'state' would only represent its 'citizens' – residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [...] A 'State of Palestine' must not be allowed to replace or usurp the right to representation and self-determination of the whole Palestinian people through a reconstituted PLO." *'''Palestinian Authority move in UN undermines legitimate PLO.''' [http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/how-palestinian-authoritys-un-statehood-bid-endangers-palestinian-rights Ali Abunimah. How Palestinian Authority’s UN "statehood" bid endangers Palestinian rights." The Electronic Intifada. August 8th, 2011]: "Protecting self-determination for all Palestinians. The Western-backed Palestinian Authority’s (PA) effort to seek UN recognition of 'statehood' unilaterally, without consulting the Palestinian people from which the PA has absolutely no mandate, has raised fears among Palestinians that the move could actually harm Palestinian rights. If the UN votes to admit the 'State of Palestine,' it is likely that the unelected representatives of the Palestinian Authority would be seated in the General Assembly instead of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which currently holds the Palestine observer seat at the UN. This would be a severe blow to the potential for realizing Palestinian rights in the long run through international bodies: whereas the PLO ostensibly represents all Palestinians, the PA 'state' would only represent its 'citizens' – residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [...] A 'State of Palestine' must not be allowed to replace or usurp the right to representation and self-determination of the whole Palestinian people through a reconstituted PLO."
Line 64: Line 68:
====Pro==== ====Pro====
-*'''[[Argument: Supporting Palestine at UN would bolster Israeli security| Supporting Palestine at UN would bolster Israeli security]]'''+*'''[[Argument: Supporting Palestine at UN would bolster Israeli security| Supporting Palestine at UN would bolster Israeli security]]''' [http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68271/isaac-herzog/why-israel-should-vote-for-palestinian-independence Isaac Herzog. "Why Israel should vote for Palestinian independence." Foreign Affairs. September 16th, 2011]: "rather than oppose the resolution, Israel should seize the initiative and use it to its advantage by agreeing to support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN. Voting for Palestinian statehood may finally open the door for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, strengthen the possibility of a two-state solution, and greatly improve Israel’s position in the region and in the international community."
*'''Denying Palestinian rights undermines Israeli claims/rights.''' [http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/12/3089347/op-ed-israel-should-support-the-palestinian-statehood-push Michael J. Weil. "Op-Ed: Israel should support the Palestinian statehood push." JTA. September 12th, 2011]: "Our doomed attempt to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations will only serve to bolster the cause of those who are trying to delegitimize Israel's national rights." *'''Denying Palestinian rights undermines Israeli claims/rights.''' [http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/12/3089347/op-ed-israel-should-support-the-palestinian-statehood-push Michael J. Weil. "Op-Ed: Israel should support the Palestinian statehood push." JTA. September 12th, 2011]: "Our doomed attempt to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations will only serve to bolster the cause of those who are trying to delegitimize Israel's national rights."
Line 75: Line 79:
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"|
====Con==== ====Con====
 +
 +*'''[[Argument: Israel's security concerns are not recognized by many at UN| Israel's security concerns are not recognized by many at UN]]''' [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/21/remarks-president-obama-address-united-nations-general-assembly Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011]: "Let us be honest with ourselves: 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. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied. The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine." [Extended quote in [[Argument: Israel's security concerns are not recognized by many at UN| argument page]]].
*'''UN vote on Palestinian independence would flare tensions.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/palestinian-statehood.html?_r=1 "Palestinian Statehood." New York Times Editorial. September 11th, 2011]: "A United Nations vote on Palestinian membership would be ruinous." *'''UN vote on Palestinian independence would flare tensions.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/palestinian-statehood.html?_r=1 "Palestinian Statehood." New York Times Editorial. September 11th, 2011]: "A United Nations vote on Palestinian membership would be ruinous."
 +*'''UN vote would not change reality on the ground.''' US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "While we are very consistent in our principled stand that we want to see freedom, democracy, respect for human rights everywhere in the world, including throughout the Arab and Muslim world — that is the goal, of course, for the people of Palestine. But they want a state and they want a state that has defined borders, that has a capital, that has the viability to deliver goods and services and benefits to the people. That's what we want to see. But there's no way to accomplish that through a vote in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. A vote here is merely a statement on a piece of paper. It doesn't change anything on the ground for the Palestinian people the day after. If it accelerated the negotiations, we would say yes. The reality is quite the opposite. The process that must occur will be that much more complicated in the wake of this kind of one-sided action."[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/22/140712053/ambassador-rice-palestinian-bid-is-unwise-and-counterproductive]
 +*'''UN recognition of Palestine would not deliver lasting peace.''' [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/21/remarks-president-obama-address-united-nations-general-assembly Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011]: "it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.... let us make peace, but a peace, most importantly, that will last."
Line 89: Line 97:
====Pro==== ====Pro====
-*'''[[Argument: Palestinian self-determination, statehood is morally justified| Palestinian self-determination, statehood is morally justified]]''' Carter supports the Palestinian push at the UN and says that their statehood is "a basic moral commitment" for the U.S. [http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/12/3089347/op-ed-israel-should-support-the-palestinian-statehood-push Michael J. Weil. "Op-Ed: Israel should support the Palestinian statehood push." JTA. September 12th, 2011]: "As an Israeli and a Zionist, I have a moral duty to support any people that desires national self-determination. This was our dream for 2,000 years, and we began the journey toward realizing that aspiration in Basel 120 years ago. We achieved statehood in 1948, and yet we still struggle to have our right to self-determination accepted. Today, especially as the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement works to challenge Israel's national legitimacy, we need not only to defend our Jewish state but also to support others seeking self-determination. Is there any moral reason to deny that right to the Palestinians? True, they have only become a people in recent times, but what right do we have to say that they are not a nation entitled to their own state?"+*'''[[Argument: Palestinian self-determination, statehood is morally justified| Palestinian self-determination, statehood is morally justified]]''' Carter supports the Palestinian push at the UN and says that their statehood is "a basic moral commitment" for the U.S.
- +
-*'''Palestinian UN push is consistent with the Arab Spring.''' Mr. Abbas at the UN in late September of 2011: “The time has come also for the Palestinian spring, the time for independence.”[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/palestinians-submit-statehood-bid-at-un.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&hp]+
*'''Opposing statehood push denies basic Palestinian freedoms.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63611.html Ahmad Tibi. "Rejection of Palestinian statehood denies freedom." Politico. September 15th, 2011]: "President Barack Obama is delaying another people’s freedom. He’s joined by a Congress following the lead of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and also many members of both parties that implicitly — and sometimes explicitly — back Israeli colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem." *'''Opposing statehood push denies basic Palestinian freedoms.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63611.html Ahmad Tibi. "Rejection of Palestinian statehood denies freedom." Politico. September 15th, 2011]: "President Barack Obama is delaying another people’s freedom. He’s joined by a Congress following the lead of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and also many members of both parties that implicitly — and sometimes explicitly — back Israeli colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem."
 +
 +*'''[[Argument: Jews went to UN for Israel, Palestinians can for Palestine| Jews went to UN for Israel, Palestinians can for Palestine]]''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "The Jews of Palestine (who would later become Israelis) knew that the United Nations was the only forum to achieve recognition of a state when they turned to it in 1947. As any Israeli will tell you, it was the United Nations General Assembly that granted Israel its birth certificate. ... The Israelis went to the United Nations for precisely the same reason the Palestinians will."
 +
 +*'''Palestinian UN push is consistent with the Arab Spring.''' Mr. Abbas at the UN in late September of 2011: “The time has come also for the Palestinian spring, the time for independence.”[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/palestinians-submit-statehood-bid-at-un.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&hp]
*'''Palestinians are rightly pursuing nonviolent option at UN.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63611.html Ahmad Tibi. "Rejection of Palestinian statehood denies freedom." Politico. September 15th, 2011]: "After 20 years of failed negotiations caused largely by Israel’s insistence on retaining parts of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as refusing to allow Palestinians the right of return, the Palestinians of the occupied territories are taking their case to the United Nations. They are refusing to allow Washington to kick the can endlessly down the road. More than 130 nations are expected to side with the Palestinians. Only a small number are expected to stand in the way. Yet Washington is determined to place the blame for the coming confrontation on the Palestinians. This is unfair. It is unreasonable to expect Palestinians to give up this nonviolent option." *'''Palestinians are rightly pursuing nonviolent option at UN.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63611.html Ahmad Tibi. "Rejection of Palestinian statehood denies freedom." Politico. September 15th, 2011]: "After 20 years of failed negotiations caused largely by Israel’s insistence on retaining parts of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as refusing to allow Palestinians the right of return, the Palestinians of the occupied territories are taking their case to the United Nations. They are refusing to allow Washington to kick the can endlessly down the road. More than 130 nations are expected to side with the Palestinians. Only a small number are expected to stand in the way. Yet Washington is determined to place the blame for the coming confrontation on the Palestinians. This is unfair. It is unreasonable to expect Palestinians to give up this nonviolent option."
Line 102: Line 112:
*'''Euphoria of UN vote would wear off w/ Israel still in control.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/palestinian-statehood.html?_r=1 "Palestinian Statehood." New York Times Editorial. September 11th, 2011]: "Israel would still control Palestinian territory, leaving the Palestinians disaffected after the initial euphoria." *'''Euphoria of UN vote would wear off w/ Israel still in control.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/palestinian-statehood.html?_r=1 "Palestinian Statehood." New York Times Editorial. September 11th, 2011]: "Israel would still control Palestinian territory, leaving the Palestinians disaffected after the initial euphoria."
 +
 +*'''Arab Spring doesn't change fact that bilateral solution required.''' [http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/156816.htm Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Palestinian UN Vote. February 18th, 2011]: "The great impetus for democracy and reform in the region makes it even more urgent to settle this bitter and tragic conflict in the context of a region moving towards greater peace and respect for human rights. But there simply are no shortcuts. We hope that those who share our hopes for peace between a secure and sovereign Israel and Palestine will join us in redoubling our common efforts to encourage and support the resumption of direct negotiations.
 +
 +*'''Settlements issue does not justify unilateral UN push.''' [http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/156816.htm Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Palestinian UN Vote. February 18th, 2011]: "While we agree with our fellow Council members—and indeed, with the wider world—about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians. We therefore regrettably have opposed this draft resolution."
 +
Line 122: Line 137:
====Con==== ====Con====
 +
 +*'''[[Argument: US supports two-state solution, but not via UN| US supports two-state solution, but not via UN]]''' [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/21/remarks-president-obama-address-united-nations-general-assembly Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011]: "One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. [...] the question isn’t the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem."
 +
 +*'''America's commitment to Israeli security is unshakable.''' [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/21/remarks-president-obama-address-united-nations-general-assembly Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011]: "But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day."
 +
|- |-
Line 152: Line 172:
*[http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68271/isaac-herzog/why-israel-should-vote-for-palestinian-independence Isaac Herzog. "Why Israel should vote for Palestinian independence." Foreign Affairs. September 16th, 2011]: *[http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68271/isaac-herzog/why-israel-should-vote-for-palestinian-independence Isaac Herzog. "Why Israel should vote for Palestinian independence." Foreign Affairs. September 16th, 2011]:
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/13/britain-yes-to-palestinian-statehood Jonathan Freedland. "Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel." guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011] *[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/13/britain-yes-to-palestinian-statehood Jonathan Freedland. "Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel." guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011]
 +*[http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/21/obamas-muted-un-message/ James Lindsay. "Obama's muted UN message." CNN.com. September 21st, 2011]
 +
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"|
====Con==== ====Con====
 +
 +*[http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/156816.htm Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Palestinian UN Vote. February 18th, 2011]
*[http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/how-palestinian-authoritys-un-statehood-bid-endangers-palestinian-rights Ali Abunimah. How Palestinian Authority’s UN "statehood" bid endangers Palestinian rights." The Electronic Intifada. August 8th, 2011] *[http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/how-palestinian-authoritys-un-statehood-bid-endangers-palestinian-rights Ali Abunimah. How Palestinian Authority’s UN "statehood" bid endangers Palestinian rights." The Electronic Intifada. August 8th, 2011]
*[http://electronicintifada.net/content/case-un-recognition-palestine/10079 Victor Kattan. "The case for UN recognition of Palestine." The Electronic Intifada. June 13th, 2011] *[http://electronicintifada.net/content/case-un-recognition-palestine/10079 Victor Kattan. "The case for UN recognition of Palestine." The Electronic Intifada. June 13th, 2011]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/palestinian-statehood.html?_r=1 "Palestinian Statehood." New York Times Editorial. September 11th, 2011] *[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/palestinian-statehood.html?_r=1 "Palestinian Statehood." New York Times Editorial. September 11th, 2011]
*[http://www.ydr.com/nation-world/ci_18950238 Ben Feller. "Obama, Europeans press Palestinians to drop UN bid." YDR.com. September 22nd, 2011] *[http://www.ydr.com/nation-world/ci_18950238 Ben Feller. "Obama, Europeans press Palestinians to drop UN bid." YDR.com. September 22nd, 2011]
- +*[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/22/140712053/ambassador-rice-palestinian-bid-is-unwise-and-counterproductive "Ambassador Rice: Palestinian Bid Is 'Unwise And Counterproductive'" NPR.org. September 22nd, 2011]
|- |-

Current revision

[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Background and context

The issue of Palestinian statehood has been debated for over sixty years between Israel and the Palestinians. After decades of impasse, the Palestinians have decided to take their case to the United Nations. A large majority of UN member states throughout the international community appear willing to recognize a Palestinian state with or without approval from Israel.
Such recognition would offer the Palestinians negotiating and voting power within the United Nations, and perhaps pressure the Israelis to agree to a final agreement. But, it would not necessarily change the reality on the ground, where Israel would still control Palestinian land in the West Bank and elsewhere. The Obama Administration pledged to veto a push to recognize Palestine in the Security Council, where approval is required to enter the UN as a full member. If that effort fails, Abbas has pledged to pursue recognition within the General Assembly, where they could achieve a lesser form of recognition akin to what the Vatican has received. There are a number of questions in this debate: Would a vote, and possibly passage of a resolution in support of Palestinian statehood, undermine or accelerated peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians? Is it encouraging that the Palestinians are pursuing a non-violent means of diplomacy through the UN, versus previous violent campaigns? Do the Palestinians have a moral case for self-determination? What are the practical gains of UN membership and voting powers? Would supporting a UN vote be within Israeli's interests, both security and otherwise? And, would a US veto of the efforts in the Security Council be within US interests? The pros and cons are outlined below.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]

Diplomacy: Does the bid continue or undermine peace negotiations?

[Add New]

Pro

  • UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution. MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "Recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state."
  • Push for UN recognition IS diplomacy, doesn't undermine it. MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "The biggest contradiction of all is the assertion that the Palestinian attempt to resolve their conflict with Israel at the United Nations represents a threat to diplomacy -- rather than diplomacy itself. After all, what is the United Nations other than an arena for conflict resolution by means of diplomacy? Having abandoned the effort to end the occupation through violence, the Palestinians are turning to the UN. What could be wrong with that?"
  • Palestinian push at UN exemplifies nonviolent diplomacy. MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "Taking their case to the United Nations is a powerful statement by the Palestinian leadership that they have rejected terrorism once and for all and are determined to live in peace alongside Israel. It is also a sign that the 'hard men' of violence who once dominated Palestinian politics are relics of the past. The future belongs to people like Salam Fayyad who, in the words of renowned New Republic writer and life-long Zionist, Leon Wieseltier, is the man who 'all Israelis and Palestinians, who are not maniacs, have dreamed' of."
  • Statehood would break from status quo and impasse. President Carter said, "the only alternative [to statehood] is a maintenance of the status quo." Securing statehood, on the other hand, could shake up the calculations by Israel in the negotiations, and help force a peaceful resolution to the crisis. “As an alternative to a deadlock and a stalemate now, we reluctantly support the Palestinian move for recognition,” Carter said at the Carter Center in Atlanta in early September 2011.[1]
  • Lack of other plan justifies UN recog of Pal statehood. President Carter says that he would not have been in favor of the U.N. recognition bid had the Obama administration, “put forward any sort of comprehensive peace proposal.”[2]
  • Over 120 countries have already recognized Palestine. Many of these states are in the developing world. This means that nearly two-thirds of the UN General Assembly already supports Palestinian statehood. A vote in the UN is a logical next step.[3]
  • Israel's refusal to halt settlements has prevented negotiations. Nabil Shaath, leader of the foreign affairs department of Fatah, the main party of the Palestinian Authority: “We want to generate pressure on Israel to make it feel isolated and help it understand that there can be no talks without a stop to settlements. Without that, our goal is membership in the United Nations General Assembly in September.”[4]


[Add New]

Con

  • Palestinian UN statehood push undermines bilateral talks. John Barrasso. "Block Palestinians' end run at U.N." Politico. September 15th, 2011: "President Mahmoud Abbas plans to formally request full-member-state status in the United Nations. This move intentionally puts prospects for peace in jeopardy. I oppose the decision of the PA to circumvent the peace process and seek a change in status from the United Nations. Along with the PA’s other recent actions that undermine peace, this decision demonstrates why Congress must terminate funding to the PA. Should a status change be passed, Congress must evaluate and significantly cut funding to the U.N.The best path to a true and lasting peace is through direct negotiations between the two parties — not through manipulations at the U.N. The consequences to the peace process are grave. The ability to move forward with an agreement is greatly diminished by these tactics. Instead of embarking on a time-consuming campaign to gain support in the U.N., the Palestinian leadership should be working directly with Israel on creating a real and sustainable peace agreement. 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."
US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "If it accelerated the negotiations, we would say yes. The reality is quite the opposite. The process that must occur will be that much more complicated in the wake of this kind of one-sided action."[5]
  • UN vote is just paper; it doesn't change anything on ground. US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "they want a state and they want a state that has defined borders, that has a capital, that has the viability to deliver goods and services and benefits to the people. That's what we want to see. But there's no way to accomplish that through a vote in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. A vote here is merely a statement on a piece of paper. It doesn't change anything on the ground for the Palestinian people the day after.[6]
  • Peace can only be achieved by Israel and Palestine, not UN President Obama said to the United Nations on September 21st, 2011: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN - if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. 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."[7]
  • History shows conflicts need resolving by parties involved. President Obama said to the United Nations on September 21st, 2011: "Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state -- negotiations between the parties."[8]
  • Palestinian move not just symbolism; it's counterproductive. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said to NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "This is not just a neutral, symbolic action. In our view it is unwise and counterproductive."[9]
  • Failure of negotiations is largely the Palestinians' fault. The Palestinians have consistently refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. This obvious, basic step would meet one of the Israeli's main preconditions for negotiations and would likely restart talks immediately.
  • Palestinian Authority move in UN undermines legitimate PLO. Ali Abunimah. How Palestinian Authority’s UN "statehood" bid endangers Palestinian rights." The Electronic Intifada. August 8th, 2011: "Protecting self-determination for all Palestinians. The Western-backed Palestinian Authority’s (PA) effort to seek UN recognition of 'statehood' unilaterally, without consulting the Palestinian people from which the PA has absolutely no mandate, has raised fears among Palestinians that the move could actually harm Palestinian rights. If the UN votes to admit the 'State of Palestine,' it is likely that the unelected representatives of the Palestinian Authority would be seated in the General Assembly instead of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which currently holds the Palestine observer seat at the UN. This would be a severe blow to the potential for realizing Palestinian rights in the long run through international bodies: whereas the PLO ostensibly represents all Palestinians, the PA 'state' would only represent its 'citizens' – residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [...] A 'State of Palestine' must not be allowed to replace or usurp the right to representation and self-determination of the whole Palestinian people through a reconstituted PLO."


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Security: Would a UN vote bolster Israeli security?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Palestinian statehood via the UN would undermine Syria, Iran. Turki Al-Faisal. "Veto a state, lose an ally." The New York Times. September 11th, 2011: "The only losers in this scenario would be Syria and Iran, pariah states that have worked tirelessly — through their support of Hamas and Hezbollah — to undermine the peace process. Saudi Arabia recently played a leading role in isolating Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal government by demanding an end to the killing of protesters and recalling the Saudi ambassador from Damascus. The impending fall of Mr. Assad’s barbarous regime provides a rare strategic opportunity to weaken Iran. Without this vital ally, Tehran will find it more difficult to foment discord in the Arab world. Today, there is a chance for the United States and Saudi Arabia to contain Iran and prevent it from destabilizing the region. But this opportunity will be squandered if the Obama administration’s actions at the United Nations force a deepening split between our two countries."


[Add New]

Con

  • Israel's security concerns are not recognized by many at UN Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011: "Let us be honest with ourselves: 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. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied. The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine." [Extended quote in argument page].
  • UN vote would not change reality on the ground. US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "While we are very consistent in our principled stand that we want to see freedom, democracy, respect for human rights everywhere in the world, including throughout the Arab and Muslim world — that is the goal, of course, for the people of Palestine. But they want a state and they want a state that has defined borders, that has a capital, that has the viability to deliver goods and services and benefits to the people. That's what we want to see. But there's no way to accomplish that through a vote in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. A vote here is merely a statement on a piece of paper. It doesn't change anything on the ground for the Palestinian people the day after. If it accelerated the negotiations, we would say yes. The reality is quite the opposite. The process that must occur will be that much more complicated in the wake of this kind of one-sided action."[10]


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Morality: Is UN recognition morally justified?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Palestinian UN push is consistent with the Arab Spring. Mr. Abbas at the UN in late September of 2011: “The time has come also for the Palestinian spring, the time for independence.”[11]
  • Palestinians are rightly pursuing nonviolent option at UN. Ahmad Tibi. "Rejection of Palestinian statehood denies freedom." Politico. September 15th, 2011: "After 20 years of failed negotiations caused largely by Israel’s insistence on retaining parts of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as refusing to allow Palestinians the right of return, the Palestinians of the occupied territories are taking their case to the United Nations. They are refusing to allow Washington to kick the can endlessly down the road. More than 130 nations are expected to side with the Palestinians. Only a small number are expected to stand in the way. Yet Washington is determined to place the blame for the coming confrontation on the Palestinians. This is unfair. It is unreasonable to expect Palestinians to give up this nonviolent option."


[Add New]

Con


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

US veto: Should US allow UN recognition of Palestine, or veto it?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Pres Carter succeeded in ME peace, supports Palestine in UN. President Jimmy Carter, and the mediator of the Camp David Accords and peace deal between Israel and Egypt: "If I were president, I'd be very glad to see the Palestinians have a nation recognized by the United Nations. There's no downside to it."[12]
  • US veto of Palestinian UN vote would undermine relationship with Arabs. Turki Al-Faisal. "Veto a state, lose an ally." The New York Times. September 11th, 2011: "The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region."
  • US veto would undermine strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia. Turki Al-Faisal. "Veto a state, lose an ally." The New York Times. September 11th, 2011: "Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people. Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy. Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States, including opposing the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq and refusing to open an embassy there despite American pressure to do so. The Saudi government might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well."


[Add New]

Con

  • US supports two-state solution, but not via UN Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011: "One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. [...] the question isn’t the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem."


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

UN membership: Is UN membership valuable to the Palestinians?

[Add New]

Pro

  • UN membership is sufficient justification; independence is extra. Abbas: "We are going to the United Nations to attain full membership ... that we are not going to bring independence. Let's not exaggerate ... We will continue to negotiate. We want a seat at the United Nations, and we don't want anything more."[13]
[Add New]

Con

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con sources

[Add New]

Pro


[Add New]

Con

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.