Today is one of these days when I wish I was working in International Relations (my passion) rather than in law school. With the United Nations General Assembly convening this week, there’s so much on the table for top leaders and diplomats to discuss–from health issues affecting the entire world, the fragility of the global economy and the politics of the Arab world, particularly Libya’s transition to democracy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On September 23, Palestinian leader President Mahmoud Abbas will submit a bid to the United Nations Security Council for full membership in hopes of the Palestinian territories being recognized as an official state. However the United States, one of the Permanent 5 has vowed to veto it, insisting the Palestinians can only achieve official statehood through negotiations with Israel and not through international organizations. As that day rapidly approaches, senior American and European diplomats are in increased talks with the Palestinian Authority to convince them not to submit this bid.
My immediate question was why were American diplomats so concerned with preventing the bid from even being voted on when they had pledged to veto it? The US could simply veto the bid and everyone could move on. If only it was that simple. The Palestinians must know what the US government knows–that the US may have veto power in the Security Council, but the Palestinian bid for statehood is one that most of the international community feels should already be on the books. The US can certainly use its veto power, but to do so would put the American government at odds with the rest of the world and undermine American credibility.
To a lesser extent, Britain is in the same predicament. British and French leaders Cameron and Sarkozy respectively were just in Libya congratulating the transitional government. Both leaders are acutely aware of their newly elevated status in the region and would be wise not to upset it. At home, although British Conservatives traditionally support America’s close ties with Israel, Cameron cannot risk alienating the Liberal Democrats who overwhelmingly support Palestine. Supporting Palestine would also fall in line with increased Anglo-French cooperation. However it would upset Britain’s ties with Israel.
The Palestinians are turning to the UN out of frustration for the lack of progress in talks with Israel, which stalled last year. The Palestinians wants a 2-state system according to the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as a shared capital, but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu continues settlement construction in east Jerusalem and in the West Bank. No matter the outcome in the Security Council, the Palestinians could seek ‘observer’ status in the General Assembly, a lesser form of recognition but would be a symbolic victory and give them leverage in future talks. Israel on the other hand, is growing increasingly isolated as its relations with regional neighbors Jordan, Turkey and Egypt are deteriorating.
Even with ‘Observer’ status at the General Assembly, the US and Israel fear any recognition by the UN will allow the Palestinians to join the International Criminal Court. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Maliki has said if the Palestinians were allowed to open proceedings, they would, against Israel.
It’s interesting that Republicans accuse of President Obama of ‘abandoning’ Israel and Rick Perry accused the president of ‘appeasing’ the Arab world at the cost of Israel, when compared to Carter, Clinton and the most recent Bush, Obama has been more staunchly ‘pro-Israel’ than his predecessors. On CNN today, former president Clinton said the government should act to contain the damage that vetoing this bid will cause. Clinton also said that the Israeli government needs to get honest about it’s intentions. If it has no interest in working towards a two-state solution it needs to say that loud and clear rather than claiming it wants negotiations when it’s actions clearly say otherwise.
I agree with Clinton and would take it further. When this bid is vetoed, Obama needs to press Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to return to the bargaining table and make concessions to bring the Palestinians back. If Obama is going to risk America’s fragile image in the Middle East, Netanyahu needs to make it worth his while.
The other side of this is the American Jewish voting bloc. Although only 2% of the national electorate, the bloc is important in swing state Florida. Pressing the Israeli government could mean isolation at home and with Obama’s reelection not assured, he needs all the votes he can get.
