Five lessons learned from Palestinian UN bid

[Jefferson23]

The statehood bid didn't didn't change the occupation, but it did force international players to show their cards.

Yousef Munayyer Last Modified: 30 Sep 2011 14:42


Editor's note: In light of the recent show-down at the UN, analyst Yousef Munayyer makes some observations on the state of the Palestinian struggle.

1. Washington is broken and won't be fixed any time soon

The Palestinians came to the United Nations in the hopes of putting forward a membership application because they had come to understand that domestic dynamics in the United States made it impossible for Washington to be an even-handed broker. If the Obama administration can’t get Netanyahu’s right-wing government to halt settlement expansion -- an Israeli obligation under international law and the American-initiated Road Map for Peace -- how could they possibly press Netanyahu to dismantle settlements, divide Jerusalem and admit refugees when the time came to get serious?

The United States is an exceptional place and it is a country that believes in its exceptionalism. Washington likes to believe it can do anything, and it can do and has done many things. But there is one thing it simply cannot do and that is even-handedly broker a deal between Israeli and Palestinians. This has to do almost entirely with American domestic politics. Whether you blame the Israel Lobby or accept the narrative that Americans en masse have a special connection with Israel, there is no doubt that America is solidly in Israel’s corner.

The Israelis have long since recognised this; that is why they insist no other state or alliance of states mediates this conflict. Most Palestinians have long since recognised this and now, after 20 years of failed negotiations, even those among the Palestinians which have been most committed to an American-led peace process have come to the same conclusion.

in full: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201193013159242495.html

[oberliner]

1. Yousef Munayyer - generally the opposite of his analysis tends to be accurate

Have you seen any of the op-eds of his the Washington Post has run?

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. And that, at the core, is the problem.

The US has aligned itself with the State of Israel, not with the principle of democracy.

50 years ago, when Israel was the only democracy defending itself against monarchist and totalitarian neighbors, it was a simple choice. But over the decades that support of democracy morphed into support of Israel, so violations of Palestinian rights were ignored and democratic movements among the Palestinian people were also ignored or even actively suppressed.

Now, we insist that any agreement must be bi-lateral direct negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, only Israel is an established state while the Palestinians have an ad-hoc government at best - they are very unequal in weight. Israel has the weapons, Israel holds the territory, and Palestinians are reduced to the rank of petitioners to Israel, not equal partners in negotiation.

The US needs to re-affirm its adherence to the principles of democratic government, and call upon Israel to stop using anti-democratic methods for dealing with their neighbors. If we cannot do that, then we need to withdraw from the problem completely.

[dtexdem]

3. Excellent article. Great analysis.

And the important thing is not just the costs to Israel, as important as they are, but the increasing costs to the U.S.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. He makes a good point with #4

4. Israel is vulnerable to international isolation, but so is Washington

Remember in February when the US Ambassador to the United Nations essentially vetoed US policy on Israeli settlements when she cast the lone "no" vote in a UN Security Council session? Fourteen states voted for the resolution and only the United States voted against, even though the resolution was actually pieced together from statements made by US officials. It was not an unfamiliar position for the United States. In fact, before that veto, the United States has been the sole veto on 41 previous UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli violations of international law since 1972.

But something was different this time. The United States was furiously lobbying to secure "no" votes on the Security Council, precisely because it did not want to be seen as the primary obstacle to Palestinian statehood. Why do the optics suddenly matter after decades of automatic and contempt-free American vetoes for Israel's sake?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'd think if the US didn't want to be seen as the primary obstacle to Palestinian statehood they would have played their cards a bit more wisely and not loudly announced that they were going to veto the application if it got the required number of votes...

The writer referred in #1 to the US being an exceptional place. I strongly disagree with that comment as US exceptionalism is a concept created by the Neo-Conservatives during the Bushco era, and of individuals with no knowledge and little interest in the rest of the world...