I really don’t want this to become an Israel/Palestine topic, although mention either one and it seems inevitable.
Anyways my question is this: why is Palestine taking the request to the UN security council? They know the US will veto, and that’s bad publicity for America and all. But I read in a BBC article they could just take it to the general assembly and would only need 129? countries to vote in favor in order to be officially recognized by the UN, and they are already recognized by 126? countries. If they want an official status, wouldn’t that be easier? I’m guessing it’s all political, but maybe I’m missing something.
It isn’t just political grandstanding, they are pushing for full legitimacy and by doing so are going to put a hell of a lot of pressure back on the US. It is a way to get their supporters to bring the issue front and center and place the US in a hard position; good for them.
If the US has been the Soviet Union or Maoist China in their streotypical mode the entire State Department would have been shot by now for incompetance.
The State Department and the United States Government generally should not have let the situation get to this point where it is going to be such a diplomatic debacle.
The interesting thing is the Palestinians are in an odd place. They are quite a few places like, Kosovo, Somaliland, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus and South Ossetia which actually control their territory but have very limited or no recognition. But Palestine doesn’t even really control their territory claimed.
Outside of forcinig the issue, it could lead to these other places which actually control their territory asserting their de jure independence.
Look when you are in the kind of situation that the US find itself in over this issue, it is clear that your diplomacy has failed. One of the purpose of diplomacy is to avoid no win situtations like this one. The US could have avoided it; say by first creating and employing leverage.
In the Soviet Union or Maoist China in their stereotypical mode a scientist could would have been shot for not being able to turn lead into gold. What is your point, again?
And pray tell concretely what leverage that was not used do you posit existed? In real world concrete terms, not magical abstraction. Really, would like to know. Else, it is rather engaging in empy blowhardism.