Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: UN recognition of Palestinian statehood

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 15:49, 19 September 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Pro)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 16:23, 19 September 2011 (edit)
England4ever (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
Next diff →
Line 38: Line 38:
*'''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." *'''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."
 +
 +*'''The failure of negotiations isn't just Israel's fault.''' The Palestinians have consistently refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, for example.
 +
 +
 +
|- |-

Revision as of 16:23, 19 September 2011

Background and context

Arguments

Pro

  • Pres Carter succeed in ME peace and 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."[1]
  • 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.[2]
  • 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.”[3]
  • 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."


Con

  • Unilateral statehood push will undermine peace efforts. 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."
  • The failure of negotiations isn't just Israel's fault. The Palestinians have consistently refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, for example.



Arguments

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Pro/con sources

Pro


Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.