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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
No, but their treatment of the palestinians are.
I think this is exactly what what captain zombie was implying we might be doing.
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.
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.
Slow motion ethnic cleansing?
the whooshing, it hurts.
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”.
I was referring to the ‘lit fuse’ language.
Completely irrelevant. It is absurd to “recognize” a state because you don’t like how a group of people has been treated.
If so, he’s wrong.
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.
In short, to recognize them as a state. When they aren’t one, and there is no reasonable prospect of them becomming one.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
Well, multiquote doesn’t work for me and I don’t know what you mean by cut and paste function.
I believe they have embassies.
Absolutely. Or at least to put an end to Jewish sovereignty democratically.
To achieve a bona fide negotiated peace, then yes the Palestinian Arabs must be demoralized, as far as the conflict with Israel goes.
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?
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.
So you don’t think that America’s threat to veto Palestinian membership is the result of our desire to support Israel?
really?
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?
From your quote of the process:
As for the montevideo convention adopted by the league of nations:
How does an oppressed population achieve statehood?
Exactly.
Point is, such threats cannot be allowed to dictate policy.
Exactly right. So why are you dragging Israelis treatment of Palestinians into this?
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.
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?
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!
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’.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Again, US foreign policy should not be dictated by obtaining popularity in the ME - a hopeless task in any event.
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.
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?
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?
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?