# Obama to Palestinians: "No short cuts" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 21, 2011, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068 "2011-09-21T14:49:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/201 "2011-09-28T17:39:24Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Do you really not know what changed in the UN between 1948 and today? Really? [bauhaus] Elanor Roosevelt’s Dead…[/bauhaus] > > Did it ever occur to you that Obama actually wants to do what’s best for Israel, (which also happens to be what’s best for the US) and bring about a negotiated peace with land swaps, and that this will be more difficult if the UN recognizes Palestine? How so? I have some Jewish friends who hate Netenyahu and support a two state solution along 1967 borders who also say this but I can’t figure out why they believe this. the closest I can get is that it will harden the positions of the nutjobs in israel. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/202 "2011-09-28T17:43:44Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Well, I think everyone knows it is more “rightly” than everyone is willing to admit. Even yesterday some US pundit on local Canadian radio said that, simply put one cannot win presidency in US without so called “Jewish vote”. The “Jewish vote” is not just votes from jews. Its votes from people who can’t distinguish Hamas from al Qaeda. These are folks who never had any love for Jews (or anyone who wasn’t exactly like them), but who now see all arabs as enemies and see Jews as the enemy of my enemy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/203 "2011-09-28T17:57:06Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Holy shit, for a guy who has repeatedly shot off his mouth about the situation you clearly are embarrassingly ignorant about it. > … > Please don’t keep pretending you give a fuck about the Palestinians or their plight because you obviously don’t or you wouldn’t be so embarrassingly ignorant of basic facts surrounding them. You do this a lot. You seem to think that people cannot have opinions or a position on an issue on which they know the relevant facts because they don’t also know a bunch of irrelevant facts. Why can’t I have an opinion on Israeli settlement activity without an intimate under5standiong of the various cultures in teh region or some Cliff Claven factoids? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/204 "2011-09-28T17:58:31Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I think that would be a good idea. But would the Arabs themselves accept it? I’m under the impression that they would resent the idea of Israel claiming their land (Arab land) as Israeli land. Really, because I get the feeling that this resolves almost all the issues the palestinians have with teh jews other than perhaps some compensation for stuff that was confiscated 60 eyars ago. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/205 "2011-09-28T17:59:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How so? Well for the conflict to end with a peace deal, the Arabs need to give up on their goal of putting an end to Jewish Israel. If they achieve a perceived victory without having to make any concessions in return, it will likely embolden them to make more demands and to be more recalcitrant. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/206 "2011-09-28T18:05:54Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well for the conflict to end with a peace deal, the Arabs need to give up on their goal of putting an end to Jewish Israel. If they achieve a perceived victory without having to make any concessions in return, it will likely embolden them to make more demands and to be more recalcitrant. It is interesting to note that previous unilateral concessions, such as ceding control over Gaza, have had this effect. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/207 "2011-09-28T18:22:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Dunno how your post relates to mine. I was just trying to point out that its not a threat. There is a lot going on with teh arab spring and noone is threatening us with an explosion of anger and violence but we can form some lasting impressions based on our actions at this time and we might be letting our unthinking loyalty to israel push us into positions that are good for Israel but bad for America. > [@](#): > > The UN vote on Palestinian statehood is not “bullshit pulled” by Israel. No, but their treatment of the palestinians are. > [@](#): > > Nor should it be voted against, in my opinion, as a gesture of support for Israel. I think this is exactly what what captain zombie was implying we might be doing. > [@](#): > > If you have read any of my posts, you would know why I’m against it - because the UN should not be “recognized” as a state, when its present government has neither of the bedrock aspects of state-hood - namely, unity and control of its territory. Split between Hamas (elected, against recognition, rules Gaza) and the PLO (unelected, for recognition, rules the WB), “Palestine” simply isn’t a state, and would not be even if Israel loved the idea. So we should exercise our veto? Even if 2/3 of the UN member states already recognize Palestine? Even if the general assembly recognizes Israel as a state, we should stand up and not only threaten to veto the recognition, we should also withdraw UN funding and all foreign aid to the Palestinians? That’s what we should do because we don’t think they have achieved the level of self governance that we think they should have before they can be recognized as a state? Its not clear to me but it looks like the UN already recognizes Palestine in some way, they are now talking about accepting them as a member state with 1967 borders. > [@](#): > > The “trajectory of the Arab spring (including its relationship with Israel)” can no more instantly make Palestine a state when it is not, than it can make poor people not-poor when they are. If the threat is that the populations of Arab nations will explode in righteous anger if the vote does not go as they wish - well, even _really angry_ people cannot, by fiat, declare that 2 + 2 = 5. It seems like you are are saying that the UN cannot recognize a state unless it meets your definition of a state. I thought the UN could recognize whatever it felt like recognizing and fail to recognize whatever it didn’t want to recognize (see Taiwan). Accepting Palestine as a state doesn’t make 2+2=5, it makes Palestine a member of the UN. Thats all. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/208 "2011-09-28T18:26:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How is the West Bank ever going to have a Jewish majority? Slow motion ethnic cleansing? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/209 "2011-09-28T18:27:17Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The stupid, it hurts. > > The stupid, it almost kills. "They” used to starve themselves to death for TV crews? As opposed to because they were you know, starving? the whooshing, it hurts. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/210 "2011-09-28T18:36:04Z")
Damuri: on the Dope for the better part of half a decade… still too stupid to use the “cut and paste” function let alone “multiquote”. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/211 "2011-09-28T18:53:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I was just trying to point out that its not a threat. There is a lot going on with teh arab spring and noone is threatening us with an explosion of anger and violence but we can form some lasting impressions based on our actions at this time and we might be letting our unthinking loyalty to israel push us into positions that are good for Israel but bad for America. I was referring to the ‘lit fuse’ language. > [@](#): > > No, but their treatment of the palestinians are. Completely irrelevant. It is absurd to “recognize” a state because you don’t like how a group of people has been treated. > [@](#): > > I think this is exactly what what captain zombie was implying we might be doing. If so, he’s wrong. > [@](#): > > So we should exercise our veto? Even if 2/3 of the UN member states already recognize Palestine? Even if the general assembly recognizes Israel as a state, we should stand up and not only threaten to veto the recognition, we should also withdraw UN funding and all foreign aid to the Palestinians? That’s what we should do because we don’t think they have achieved the level of self governance that we think they should have before they can be recognized as a state? What does aid have to do with anything? And yes, I think Obama would be correct to exercise the US veto - where the GA is committing folly. > [@](#): > > Its not clear to me but it looks like the UN already recognizes Palestine in some way, they are now talking about accepting them as a member state with 1967 borders. In short, to recognize them as a _state_. When they aren’t one, and there is no reasonable prospect of them becomming one. > [@](#): > > It seems like you are are saying that the UN cannot recognize a state unless it meets your definition of a state. I thought the UN could recognize whatever it felt like recognizing and fail to recognize whatever it didn’t want to recognize (see Taiwan). Accepting Palestine as a state doesn’t make 2+2=5, it makes Palestine a member of the UN. Thats all. If the UN “recognizes” things that are not states as states, it is committing folly. Taiwan is an instructive example of the sort of silliness that the UN is capable of–in that case, denying what clearly _is_ a seperate nation status, because it would piss off China, which holds a veto. The fact that the UN has committed the folly of failing to recognize what is clearly a state a state, does not mean that it should commit the opposite, but equally foolish, mistake of “recognizing” what _isn’t_ a state, a state. From the decision on Taiwan: > [@](#): > > With the understanding of the Governor and the Chairman, I will briefly mention that membership into the UN ultimately needs to be decided by the Member States of the United Nations. **Membership is given to a sovereign country.** The position of the United Nations is that the People’s Republic of China is representing the whole of China as the sole and legitimate representative Government of China. The decision until now about the wish of the people in Taiwan to join the United Nations has been decided on that basis. The resolution (General Assembly Resolution 2758) that you just mentioned is clearly mentioning that the Government of China is the sole and legitimate Government and the position of the United Nations is that Taiwan is part of China. Emphasis added. What you are saying is that the UN should simply ignore the bolded part, when it suits. Which is fine, but makes the whole exercise meaningless - hence folly, as it undercuts the UN’s reason for being. In any event, here’s the process: > [@](#): > > The criteria for admission of new members are set out in the United Nations Charter, Chapter II, Article 4, as follows:[3] > > 1.Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. > > 2.The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. > > A recommendation for admission from the Security Council requires affirmative votes from at least nine of the council’s fifteen members, with none of the five permanent members voting against. The Security Council’s recommendation must then be subsequently approved in the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority vote.[4] > > In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members, and currently all UN members are sovereign states (although a few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN). Vatican City is the only sovereign state with general international recognition that is not a UN member (the Holy See, which holds sovereignty over the state of Vatican City and maintains diplomatic relations with other states, is a UN permanent observer). Because a state can only be admitted to the UN by the approval of the Security Council and the General Assembly, a number of states that may be considered sovereign states according to the Montevideo Convention criteria are not members because the UN does not consider them to possess sovereignty, mainly due to the lack of international recognition or opposition from certain members. Note that it requires Security Council recommendation - which the US has stated will not be forthcomming. The Montevideo Convention defines a “state” thus: > [@](#): > > The convention sets out the definition, rights and duties of statehood. Most well-known is article 1, which sets out the four criteria for statehood that have sometimes been recognized as an accurate statement of customary international law: > > The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. > > Furthermore, the first sentence of article 3 explicitly states that “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.” This is known as the declarative theory of statehood. > **[Montevideo Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention)** > > The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933, during the Seventh International Conference of American States. At the conference, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull declared the Good Neighbor Policy, which opposed U.S. armed intervention in inter-American affairs. The convention was signed by 19 states. The acceptance of three of the signatories was subject to minor res Th... Palestine is not a “state” as it lacks the basics - a unified government capable of dealing with other states. No amount of UN General Assembly nonsense can _make_ it one, as state-hood is not dependent on recognition, and the UN General Assembly cannot, on its own, even declare states to be members. The whole exercise is horribly misconceived from the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/212 "2011-09-28T19:50:20Z")
I wonder if the countries that recognize “Palestine” actually have “Palestine” embassies staffed by accredited diplomats with diplomatic immunity. Also, I’m still wondering what unilateral concessions the Palestinian Arabs are being pressured to make for the sake of peace. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/213 "2011-09-28T19:50:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well for the conflict to end with a peace deal, the Arabs need to give up on their goal of putting an end to Jewish Israel. If they achieve a perceived victory without having to make any concessions in return, it will likely embolden them to make more demands and to be more recalcitrant. So if they achieve any victories without sacrificing somethign, they might be encouraged to drive Israel into the sea? It seems like you are simply saying that it is important to keep Palestinians demoralized because any increase in their morale will lead to calls for the elimination of the state of israel. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/214 "2011-09-28T19:51:43Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Damuri: on the Dope for the better part of half a decade… still too stupid to use the “cut and paste” function let alone “multiquote”. Well, multiquote doesn’t work for me and I don’t know what you mean by cut and paste function. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/215 "2011-09-28T19:53:39Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I wonder if the countries that recognize “Palestine” actually have “Palestine” embassies staffed by accredited diplomats with diplomatic immunity. > > Also, I’m still wondering what unilateral concessions the Palestinian Arabs are being pressured to make for the sake of peace. I believe they have embassies. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/216 "2011-09-28T19:57:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So if they achieve any victories without sacrificing somethign, they might be encouraged to drive Israel into the sea? Absolutely. Or at least to put an end to Jewish sovereignty democratically. > [@](#): > > It seems like you are simply saying that it is important to keep Palestinians demoralized because any increase in their morale will lead to calls for the elimination of the state of israel. To achieve a bona fide negotiated peace, then yes the Palestinian Arabs must be demoralized, as far as the conflict with Israel goes. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/217 "2011-09-28T20:05:55Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I was referring to the ‘lit fuse’ language. You mean lit match language? Like there is a lot of pent up resentment and suspicion that would be reinforcced by a US veto of Palestinian membershipdepite the general assembly being in favor of Palestinian mebership? > [@](#): > > Completely irrelevant. It is absurd to “recognize” a state because you don’t like how a group of people has been treated. The bullshit pulled by Israel is their treatment of the palestinians. It has nothing to do with the vote. I think our lines got crossed at some point. You seem to think this I am saying taht Isdrael’s treatment of palestine has some bearing on Palestinian membership in the UN. UN memebrship isn’t a sympathy vote. > [@](#): > > If so, he’s wrong. So you don’t think that America’s threat to veto Palestinian membership is the result of our desire to support Israel? really? > [@](#): > > What does aid have to do with anything? > > And yes, I think Obama would be correct to exercise the US veto - where the GA is committing folly. That UN membership doesn’t depend on anything more than a UN vote on the matter. And in what way is allowing UN memebrship ofr Palestine = committing folly? > [@](#): > > If the UN “recognizes” things that are not states as states, it is committing folly. Taiwan is an instructive example of the sort of silliness that the UN is capable of–in that case, denying what clearly _is_ a seperate nation status, because it would piss off China, which holds a veto. > > The fact that the UN has committed the folly of failing to recognize what is clearly a state a state, does not mean that it should commit the opposite, but equally foolish, mistake of “recognizing” what _isn’t_ a state, a state. > > From the decision on Taiwan: > > > [@](#): > > > > …Membership is given to a sovereign country… > > Emphasis added. > > What you are saying is that the UN should simply ignore the bolded part, when it suits. Which is fine, but makes the whole exercise meaningless - hence folly, as it undercuts the UN’s reason for being. > > In any event, here’s the process: > > Note that it requires Security Council recommendation - which the US has stated will not be forthcomming. > > The Montevideo Convention defines a “state” thus: > > [Montevideo Convention - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention) > > Palestine is not a “state” as it lacks the basics - a unified government capable of dealing with other states. No amount of UN General Assembly nonsense can _make_ it one, as state-hood is not dependent on recognition, and the UN General Assembly cannot, on its own, even declare states to be members. > > The whole exercise is horribly misconceived from the beginning. From your quote of the process: > [@](#): > > In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members, and currently all UN members are sovereign states (although a few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN). As for the montevideo convention adopted by the league of nations: > **[Montevideo Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention#Criticisms)** > > The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933, during the Seventh International Conference of American States. At the conference, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull declared the Good Neighbor Policy, which opposed U.S. armed intervention in inter-American affairs. The convention was signed by 19 states. The acceptance of three of the signatories was subject to minor res Th... How does an oppressed population achieve statehood? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/218 "2011-09-28T21:04:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You mean lit match language? Like there is a lot of pent up resentment and suspicion that would be reinforcced by a US veto of Palestinian membershipdepite the general assembly being in favor of Palestinian mebership? Exactly. Point is, such threats cannot be allowed to dictate policy. > [@](#): > > The bullshit pulled by Israel is their treatment of the palestinians. It has nothing to do with the vote. I think our lines got crossed at some point. You seem to think this I am saying taht Isdrael’s treatment of palestine has some bearing on Palestinian membership in the UN. UN memebrship isn’t a sympathy vote. Exactly right. So why are you dragging Israelis treatment of Palestinians into this? > [@](#): > > So you don’t think that America’s threat to veto Palestinian membership is the result of our desire to support Israel? > > really? Yes, really. No doubt Obama is facing domestic pressure to support Israel, and that pressure is as mindlessly _against_ statehood, as some here are mindlessly _for_ it - because people on both sides see everything in manechian terms as a zero-sum game, with everything Israel wants being bad for Palestine and vice versa. However, above and beyond all the partisan bull, Obama makes a good logical point – there is “no shortcut” to statehood through a UN declaration. He’s simply … right. I’m willing to believe that his motive is what he says it is. > [@](#): > > That UN membership doesn’t depend on anything more than a UN vote on the matter. And in what way is allowing UN memebrship ofr Palestine = committing folly? Because Palestine isn’t a state, and the UN recognizing things that aren’t true is bad for the UN’s role as a useful organization as well as contrary to its process? In this specific case, there are many, many reasons why this is folly - above and beyond the fact that it is doomed to failure. Assume it succeded. Specifically, giving the PLO a highly symbolic victory completely devoid of substance will encourage the PLO in exactly the wrong way: it will encourage them to think that they need not deal with their very serious leadership problems (the split with Hamas, the incredible corruption that partly motivated that split, the fact that Hamas is more popular than them and won the last election, etc. etc.) because “the world” will recognize them _anyway_. So much for responsible government and so much for democracy. Secondly, it will raise expectations bound to be dashed. Your average Palestinian could be forgiven for believing the UN gesture actually makes Palestine into a state. Since this is not true, the stage is set for further conflict. Why should the Palestinains go through the hard choices of actually governing themselves and making painful concessions _when they are already a state_? Thirdly, it encourages everyone to pack up and go home. Like the UN declaring “victory” in the war on hunger - if victory is declared, what need to keep fighting? > [@](#): > > From your quote of the process: Well, certainly, many were not fully “sovereign” at the time - for example, while undergoing the process of decolonization. But they all possessed the attributes of states in embryo - such as a united gov’t-in-being capable of dealing with other states. See for example Israel itself. Hence the UN SecGen’s quote that " …Membership is given to a sovereign country…". Which could be expanded to ‘and those proto-countries, not yet fully sovereign, that have the indicia of a soverign country’. To my knowledge, none has been granted 'recognition" the the behest of a political entity that failed to gain the majority vote in a more or less free election, and _against_ the wishes of the political entity that _did_ gain the majority - and continues to rule part of the “state’s” territory. The whole point of customary international law (see the section you cited as “criticisms” of the Montevideo Convention, which merely codifies it) is that “statehood” is not something declared by outsiders, it is a state of being based on objective criteria. Some may quibble with the criteria, but none with the general proposition! > [@](#): > > As for the montevideo convention adopted by the league of nations: > > [Montevideo Convention - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention#Criticisms) > > How does an oppressed population achieve statehood? By forming a state of course, through its own efforts - the way it has always been done. If it is unable to do so, that’s a tragedy for the oppressed peoples, but again simply having the UN _declare_ them “no longer oppressed” does not free them from oppression. Once again, this argument is equivalent to ‘why are you opposing the UN’s righteous declaration that no starvation exists anymore? is it because you don’t care about starving people?’ to which the answer remains ‘declaring that people are not starving does nothing about starvation - in fact, it is folly’. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/219 "2011-09-28T22:08:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Exactly. > > Point is, such threats cannot be allowed to dictate policy. Shouldn’t our foreign policy be dictated by what is good for America? We are not adopting a policy because some terrorists demand it. So tell me why it would be good for America to stand up to the UN and veto Palestinian mebership in the UN and reinforce all the suspicions that people in the region have about our impartiality in middle east affairs? > [@](#): > > Exactly right. So why are you dragging Israelis treatment of Palestinians into this? Our unflinching support of Israel is the root cause of a lot of the suspicion and antipathy in the area concerning us. > [@](#): > > Yes, really. > > No doubt Obama is facing domestic pressure to support Israel, and that pressure is as mindlessly _against_ statehood, as some here are mindlessly _for_ it - because people on both sides see everything in manechian terms as a zero-sum game, with everything Israel wants being bad for Palestine and vice versa. > > However, above and beyond all the partisan bull, Obama makes a good logical point – there is “no shortcut” to statehood through a UN declaration. He’s simply … right. > > I’m willing to believe that his motive is what he says it is. I think the entire middle east will (correctly) see it the veto as a sign America’s unflinching support for Israel even to the point of denying membership in the UN (which in and of itself does little more than provide a stymbolic victory). Moreover, I think Obama intends for folks like AIPAC to see this veto exactly that way. > [@](#): > > Because Palestine isn’t a state, and the UN recognizing things that aren’t true is bad for the UN’s role as a useful organization as well as contrary to its process? > > In this specific case, there are many, many reasons why this is folly - above and beyond the fact that it is doomed to failure. > > Assume it succeded. > > Specifically, giving the PLO a highly symbolic victory completely devoid of substance will encourage the PLO in exactly the wrong way: it will encourage them to think that they need not deal with their very serious leadership problems (the split with Hamas, the incredible corruption that partly motivated that split, the fact that Hamas is more popular than them and won the last election, etc. etc.) because “the world” will recognize them _anyway_. So much for responsible government and so much for democracy. > > Secondly, it will raise expectations bound to be dashed. Your average Palestinian could be forgiven for believing the UN gesture actually makes Palestine into a state. Since this is not true, the stage is set for further conflict. Why should the Palestinains go through the hard choices of actually governing themselves and making painful concessions _when they are already a state_? > > Thirdly, it encourages everyone to pack up and go home. Like the UN declaring “victory” in the war on hunger - if victory is declared, what need to keep fighting? So people would stop paying attention to the palestinian/israeli conflict? Pffft!!! All it does is put some pressure on Israel. Being a state doesn’t relieve the state from governing, if anything it emphasizes the need to govern. And like you said, this does very little, the whole damn thing is symbolic and the US is symbolically standing up to the rest of the world to snub the Palestinians int order to show support for Israel. > [@](#): > > Well, certainly, many were not fully “sovereign” at the time - for example, while undergoing the process of decolonization. > > But they all possessed the attributes of states in embryo - such as a united gov’t-in-being capable of dealing with other states. See for example Israel itself. So a state involved in civil war couldn’t be a member? Can Abbas not deal with other states? How do they operate the Palestinian embassies in almost 100 countries? At least at one point China had two governments that both claimed to be “the” chinese government. Did we disqualify the Chinese? > [@](#): > > Hence the UN SecGen’s quote that " …Membership is given to a sovereign country…". Which could be expanded to ‘and those proto-countries, not yet fully sovereign, that have the indicia of a soverign country’. > > To my knowledge, none has been granted 'recognition" the the behest of a political entity that failed to gain the majority vote in a more or less free election, and _against_ the wishes of the political entity that _did_ gain the majority - and continues to rule part of the “state’s” territory. So now democracy is a requirement of statehood? There are states right now with government that hold power in contravention of the democratic process. Fucking hell, North Korea is a UN member. > [@](#): > > The whole point of customary international law (see the section you cited as “criticisms” of the Montevideo Convention, which merely codifies it) is that “statehood” is not something declared by outsiders, it is a state of being based on objective criteria. Some may quibble with the criteria, but none with the general proposition! And some people (in fact the majority of people on this planet) think Palestine is a state, at least enough to give them an embassy. > **[Palestine 194](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_194)** > > Palestine 194 is an ongoing diplomatic campaign by the Palestinian National Authority to gain membership in the United Nations for the State of Palestine. The name of the campaign is a reference to Palestine becoming the 194th member of the UN. The UN campaign is part of a strategy to gain international recognition of the State of Palestine, based on the borders prior to the Six-Day War, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The initiative developed during a two-year impasse in negotiations with... ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068/220 "2011-09-28T22:30:17Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Shouldn’t our foreign policy be dictated by what is good for America? We are not adopting a policy because some terrorists demand it. So tell me why it would be good for America to stand up to the UN and veto Palestinian mebership in the UN and reinforce all the suspicions that people in the region have about our impartiality in middle east affairs? America’s foreign policy should be dictated by America’s long-term interests, which are not served by acceeding to a sham “recognition” bound to end badly and for which, rightly or wrongly, the US will be blamed. > [@](#): > > Our unflinching support of Israel is the root cause of a lot of the suspicion and antipathy in the area concerning us. > > I think the entire middle east will (correctly) see it the veto as a sign America’s unflinching support for Israel even to the point of denying membership in the UN (which in and of itself does little more than provide a stymbolic victory). Moreover, I think Obama intends for folks like AIPAC to see this veto exactly that way. Again, US foreign policy should not be dictated by obtaining popularity in the ME - a hopeless task in any event. > [@](#): > > So people would stop paying attention to the palestinian/israeli conflict? Pffft!!! > > All it does is put some pressure on Israel. > > Being a state doesn’t relieve the state from governing, if anything it emphasizes the need to govern. And like you said, this does very little, the whole damn thing is symbolic and the US is symbolically standing up to the rest of the world to snub the Palestinians int order to show support for Israel. No, generally UN membership isn’t “merely symbolic”. It usually (in fact, always until now) had some sort of reality to it. The “folly” here results directly from making what should be meaningful into something meaningless and symbolic. What _good_ do you see comming out of this? Israel will simpy ignore it - as it has countless purely symbolic acts of dislike eminating from the UN. It will not affect Israel in the slightest. The Arabs will be happy over their symbolic victory? But most of them probably don’t know it is purely symbolic - and why should they, when UN recognition meant something (up till now)? Their happiness is gonna prove short-lived, and their anger all the worse, when they realize this changes nothing. Western supporters get a righteous glow? Far as I can see, that’s about it. > [@](#): > > So a state involved in civil war couldn’t be a member? Can Abbas not deal with other states? How do they operate the Palestinian embassies in almost 100 countries? A state involved in a civil war couldn’t _become_ a member, over the whole of the territory claimed by the state. How can it, when it doesn’t control its own territory? > [@](#): > > So now democracy is a requirement of statehood? There are states right now with government that hold power in contravention of the democratic process. Fucking hell, North Korea is a UN member. No, you can have the most grotesque and horribly repressive entity imaginable, and it can still be a “state”. But what you can’t have, is a government that does not govern. The key here is “holding power” over “territory” - something the PLO does not do in Gaza. Now, some governments may have problems, but still have democratic legitimacy. This one neither governs nor has democratic legitimacy. What’s the point of “recognizing” it? > [@](#): > > And some people (in fact the majority of people on this planet) think Palestine is a state, at least enough to give them an embassy. > > [Palestine 194 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_194) I just finished telling you that, under internatonal law, whether people think Palestine (or anything) is a state or not matters not in the slightest. What matters is whether, on objective criteria, it _is_ a state. Which it is not. Or is international law, like the UN’s own processes, something to be simply ignored to gain this (meaningless) goal? Can you not see that throwing over the system has bad long-term effects, the game is not worth the candle? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-palestinians-no-short-cuts/597068.md?page=12)