UN Palestinian Statehood Bid

In a few days, The UN General Assembly will vote on a resolution, proposed by the Palestinian Authority, for Palestinian statehood. It is extremely imperative that we all support this bid for statehood by the Palestinians, especially us here in the US. The bid for statehood has an overwhelming international consensus of support but unfortunately the US response is quite predictable; it follows an old pattern of rejectionism of which we have followed since the early 1970's. This path has put us squarely on the side opposing the rest world on this issue as well as the wrong side of history. Furthermore, in terms of national strategic and economic interests, it can be argued that this path is incredibly counterproductive, particularly in the post-Cold War world. Even in regards to more Right Wing priorities, it can be argued as counterproductive because of the Israel-Palestine conflict's effect on so-called War on Terror.

This is all well known to anyone who is sincerely interested in the truth of such matters; that the US-backed Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has always been considered an illegal venture, ever since the initial invasion in 1967, that the human rights of the Palestinian people have been continually and deliberately  violated since that initial invasion (and beyond), and that the US-Israeli coalition has held a position of rejection throughout. This newest happening is no exception to the rule. However, with the advent of the Arab Spring and the recent unification of the West Bank's Fatah and the Gaza Strip's Hamas leadership, amongst other factors such as increased international pressure and domestic unrest, the Palestinian side of the table has created a momentum that is hard to ignore. For better or for worse, Israel's reaction to this has been one of complete rejection. We'll see how this plays out.

In any case, I find it extremely important to point the hypocrisy in all of this. Aside from the obvious hypocrisy like the hypocrisy regarding Israel's refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians due to the unification with Hamas when before they refused to negotiate because the Palestinians were not unified, there are two I especially want to point out that are relevant to the upcoming UN vote. Both have to do the with the behavior of the United States.

Firstly, I want to point out the last vote in the UN regarding the conflict which took place in the UN Security Council, a body in which the US has veto power. The US essentially opposed its own national policy when it vetoed a very uncontroversial Security Council resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlement activity. Opposition to illegal settlement activity is already the official policy of the US government, so why veto a resolution reconfirming it?

Ambassador Susan Rice had an answer to this question, explaining that the UN Security Council is not the right forum for such a resolution, and that such things should be worked out through negotiations of the parties involved. Now, when I heard this answer I really thought about it; what exactly, then, is the function of the UN Security Council, if its not the correct forum for a resolution regarding something such as illegal settlement activity?

The answer lies in the Charter from which it was created and empowered, and you can find it right on the UN's official website. Indeed, the relevant information is immediately noticable, as it encompasses the two very first bullet points given:

• to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
• to investigate any dispute or situation which mightlead to international friction; 

-(From the UN's official website's Security Council's "Functions and Powers" section.)

It becomes clear after reading just these two points that the UN Security Council is exactly the right forum for such a resolution and that Ambassador Rice's answer was at least misinformed if not intentionally misleading. Indeed, if she was misinformed as to what the UN Security Council's purpose was, then obviously its time to find a new ambassador.

This, of course, takes us to the next great hypocrisy, and it is regarding the upcoming UN General Assembly vote on the Palestinian statehood bid, which, as stated earlier, the US is determined to oppose. The excuse by the Obama Administration is along the same lines as the excuse for the opposition to vote condemning settlement activity: Not the right forum. That Palestinian statehood should only be the outcome of negotiations; In fact, one spokesman for the Obama Adminstration recently stated that Palestinian statehood WILL only be the outcome of negotiations. Perhaps that was out of arrogance, or perhaps that was prophecy.

Regardless, it would be a good idea to check to see whether the bid for Palestinian Statehood is being carried out in the right forum; for this all we need to do is look at the UN's website once again, this time where the General Aseembly's powers and functions are located. Immediately, three points standout:

• Consider and make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security, including disarmament;
• Discuss any question relating to international peace and security and, except where a dispute or situation is currently being discussed by the Security Council, make recommendations on it;
• Make recommendations for the peaceful settlement of any situation that might impair friendly relations among nations;

-(From the UN's official website's General Assembly's "Functions and Powers" section)

Those three bullet points make it very clear that the bid for Palestinian Statehood is being carried out in the right forum, the General Assembly. So the statement that this resolution is inappropriate by the US is completely baseless. The real reasons for opposition are obvious to those of us who understand the issues and the history of the US's policy towards the Palestinians, as this has always been a US-Israeli occupation and nothing less than that. So the question is, why can't they at least be honest about it, rather than creating these red herrings about "right forum" or "wrong forum?"

In the realm of Israeli opposition, there is one very important element that shouldn't be ignored; one that shows incredible hypocrisy. Indeed, one only needs to recall the birth of Israel. One only needs to recall what was regarded as Israel's birth certificate by the nation's founding fathers: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. If a UN General Assembly resolution was viewed as a legitimate way of creating the Israeli state out of the home of the Palestinian people by the founding fathers of Israel, why are the same standards not applied to the Palestinians? Are they not merely following in the same, exact, footsteps as Israel did in 1948? Let's also not forget that the Partition Plan did not just call for an Israeli state but also a Palestinian state; one that never found its way into existence. If 181 was a "birth certificate" for the state of Israel, how come it wasn't for the Palestinians?


The hypocrisy is palpable. All this just further proves the US and Israel's rejectionist position towards the Palestinian cause. How do you handle a superpower and it's regional nuclear power client when they go rogue? It is important to remember that Abba Eban, a founding father Israel and the author of Israel's "birth certificate" Resolution 181, said Israel "tear[s] up its own birth certificate" whenever it ignores the UN. In this sense, by now Israel's 181 should be in shreds, as it has ignored General Assembly Resolution 194, Security council Resolution 242, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Security Council Resolution 446.

The most unfortunate part is that the people of the Occupied Territories continue to suffer, continue to be shackled, and continue to feel absolutely no security in their lives and futures. Lets keep them in our hearts and minds, show our solidarity and hope that one day soon they, too, will be free.