-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By David Bosco
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 10:06 AM
Share
The Palestinian leadership has now made clear that they will seek full UN membership through the Security Council (rather than opting for something less by going directly to to the General Assembly).
The ultimate outcome here is not in doubt: if necessary, the United States will use its veto. But it may not come to a veto. If the Palestinians cannot muster nine votes, the 15-member Council cannot act. It's very possible that their supporters will at that point choose not to introduce a formal resolution. From a political perspective, the distinction between a resolution that fails to gain nine votes and one vetoed by the United States is significant, and the United States undoubtedly will be pulling out the diplomatic stops to see that the Palestinians do not muster the magic nine votes.
Here's my current assessment of where the current Council members stand (note: I'm updating this assessment regularly as new information becomes available):
Bosnia and Hercegovina: Very likely to Might support Palestinian membership. Arab ambassadors to Bosnia have reportedly been lobbying Bosnian leaders, reminding them of their support to Bosnia's Muslims during the 1992-1995 conflict. Update: An informed reader says Bosnia's position is more complicated than I allowed initially:
Bosnian Serb leaders strongly oppose the Palestinian initiative due to ties with Israel and, especially, belief that this action could lead to a similar move by Kosovo. Both Bosnian Serbs and Serbia regard Kosovo as having wrongly declared a "unilateral" independence from Serbia and are thus likely to be against any remotely analogous action. (This is more about Balkan-specific issues than about Orthodoxy vs. Islam).
In addition, BiH has tended to follow EU positions when voting on the UNSC and to take US views very much into account, as seen in voting on Libya earlier this year. Absent an EU consensus and given apparent US opposition, abstention seems more likely than a "yes" vote.
I'm convinced that Bosnia's situation is uncertain and that abstention is a real possibility. I've adjusted the count below accordingly.
Brazil: Likely to support membership. Brazil surprised Washington late last year by recognizing Palestine.
China: Likely to support membership. Beijing has recently indicated its support for the Palestinian membership bid.
Colombia: Likely to oppose membership. Israel has had good relations with Colombia recently and has lobbied the Colombian government to oppose the Palestinian bid.
France: On the fence, although these comments from foreign minister Alain Juppe do not sound very favorable to the membership bid.
Gabon: On the fence. More: France should have a significant impact on Gabon's position (for recent allegations of financial entanglements between French politicans and Gabon, see here). This Ha'aretz report suggests that Gabon will support the Palestinian bid.
Germany: Unlikely to support. Often supportive of Israel, Germany's foreign minister recently signaled his displeasure at the Palestinian membership campaign.
India: Very likely to support membership.
Lebanon: Almost certain to support membership.
Nigeria: Likely to support membership.
Portugal: On the fence, but Ha'aretz reports that Lisbon is leaning toward supporting the bid.
Russia: Likely to support membership.
South Africa: Likely to support membership
United Kingdom: On the fence. British leaders appear to still be undecided.
United States: will not support membership.
That leaves eight seven members who are likely to support, two leaning in that direction, four three who are probably on the fence, two likely to oppose, and one certain to oppose. As one Security Council diplomat told me last week, this is shaping up to be a very close call. There are several quite important considerations. First, Council members need not take a position; abstention is an option, and one that will work against the Palestinians and their supporters, who need affirmative votes to force a U.S. veto. Second, the European Union (which accounts for four votes) may be in a decisive position if it adopts a common position. Finally, it is well documented that foreign aid has been deployed in the past to sway Council votes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in the State Department were hurriedly checking on Gabon's aid package to see what leverage might exist.
More: For an interesting argument that the Palestinian decision to approach the Security Council may actually defuse a dramatic showdown, see here. The basic point is that the Council can sit on the issue while the rest of the General Assembly meetings proceed.
Even more: Some readers are skeptical that it matters much whether a membership resolution fails in the Council by lack of nine votes or by U.S. veto. I understand the skepticism but I do think the cause of death matters at the level of public perception. And, ultimately, that's what the whole membership drive is about.
Possibly, but from another perspective if it does go down to a Security Council vote Palestine needs to win just one more vote somehow. I wonder who else is actively lobbying on Palestine's behalf.
I think by your count that's actually 8 likely to support and 4 on the fence.
Remind me again what was the result the last time the Palestinians brought a resolution to the UNSC for a vote (again, very much against the wishes of the USA).
14-1, wasn't it?
The very best that Israel can hope for is 13-2, with Germany siding with America.
There is no way that Britain and France are going to do anything other than vote "Yes", and the idea that Columbia will side with Israel merely because Lieberman has been lobbying them is a nonsense.
much different action this time
not a resolution against settlement building, potential decision to recognize a state. and remind me again if britain and france have even BILATERALLY recognized palestine.
nope.
That the reason why the EU can not come up with a united front on this issue is because Germany insists that it will vote "NO", and Britain and France wants the EU to vote "YES".
You DO know that, don't you?
Johnboy4546: Your certainty is impressive.
Can you give ONE reason why they should vote "No"?
Apart, of course, from "Uncle Sam is twisting my arm!" can you give me ONE reason why it is in either Britain or France's national interest to vote this thing down?
I'll toss two into the ring John
And that is the UN Security Council resolution #242, which predates the Palestinian drive by 40+ years and deals directly with the transfer of land and borders.
The entire Oslo negotiations were premised on UN#242. Now, the Palestinians are threatening to unilaterally walk away from those negotiations and try to claim land without paying the real coin of peace.
The second issue is Palestine's proposed government. As things stand, the last 'victor' in the PA elections, was HAMAS. HAMAS goal remains an Islamic state at perpetual war with Israel until they can destroy it, and kill its Jewish inhabitants. This, according to HAMAS, is a sacred duty for all time.
For the past six years, since Israel left Gaza, the world has tried to figure out how to shift HAMAS towards a more moderate and acceptable view and action, with no success, even as all responsible states have rejected HAMAS extremism and violence.
A Palestinian state led by HAMAs essentially shreds the idea of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
As things stand now, the Palestinian Authority stands on the brink of financial ruin due to the fact that its Arab backers have not sent the dollars pledged to run the Authority. If the PA falls, and/or Salim Fayed gets shoved aside, you have an immediate future of HAMASISTAN in the West Bank.
Nothing in this bid violates UNSC242
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"
Tick. This move is clearly intended to end the occupation.
"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; "
Tick.
The Palestinians are making ZERO claim on any territory belonging to Israel, and are making ZERO threats of belligerency towards Israel, and is clearly and concisely demanding that the boundaries between Israel and Palestine be recognized and that its right to live in peace and security within THEIR side of that boundary be acknowledged by EVERYONE.
Israel, on the other hand.... keeps making threats, keeps insisting on claiming Territory That Does Not Belong To It, keeps refusing to acknowledge ANY boundaries, and will not acknowledge that the Palestinians have ANY right to live in peace without having Israeli colonists shoved in their face.
So, remind me again who is violating UNSC Resolution 242?
dont they kind of owe us? and arent they trying to get in nato and the eu? seems like a toss up.
Yes, interesting point. But Bosnia's also a plurality Muslim state that owes many of the Arab states for support during the war.
Owe us? Are you kidding me, the US caused the wars in the 90's.
America is the reason over 10,000 inocent people died in the Srebrenica Genocide.
I'm a Bosnian i know what happend. You need to stop watching FOX news and get your facts straight. We dont owe you anything. America owes us big time.
This Anti-Islam Double Standard needs to stop.
I am a Bosnian and i support a free Palestinian state 100%
The US caused the Yugoslavia civil war in the 1990's? Do tell
Sorry, but Yugoslavia was Europe's own debacle. And the massacres occurred on Dutch time.
But its nice to know that whenever anyone has a complaint, the first stop is always in Washington DC. No matter what we do.
The US has vetoed a number of resolutions on Israels behalf. Why is it such a big deal this time around? Can somebody write an analysis on the fallout?
It seems the result is nearly irrelevant at this point, Palestinians have already achieved their primary objective, which is to embarrass the US and publicize world opinion on the matter. No?
"Can somebody write an analysis on the fallout?"
The USA (and Israel, but nobody really believes them) claims to support a two-state solution, yet it is going to vote against international recognition of one of those two states.
There is only so many times that the USA can do that before everyone is forced to admit that the USA is simply not being honest.
From Abbas' point of view this is very simple: his first preference would be to have an HONEST broker in the room, but if the USA isn't actually willing to walk the walk (however much it talks the talk) then he has to get them out of the room, since they are far more hinderence than help.
And the best way to do that is to shame them into admitting that they are DIShonest brokers.
Hence this move i.e. once Obama lays down that veto he can't pretend that he is anything OTHER than Bibi's Bitch.
Thanks for the response.
A veto will be embarrassing to the US, but at this point most of the world has already formed an opinion on the matter. I don't think anybody, who to this day denies US policy is subservient to Israel, will change their mind because of one more veto.
As for being Bibi's Bitch. I think that is also well established, besides, those credentials are regularly and enthusiastically brandished to the public.
I think we may be missing something else here? Assume there is a Veto next week. US policy is exposed for what it is. It's an official confirmation for those who needed one. And So? The world has shrugged it off for decades.
This time around Israel and the US have been sweating bullets about the veto months in advance. What has changed? What will be the tangible repercussions?
http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/29/is_israel_facing_legal_peril?wpisrc=obinsite
"I think we may be missing something else here?"
Here's what you are missing: the USA has owned this "peace process" since at least the very early 1990s and owned it so completely that nobody else dared to even try to muscle in on the action.
Indeed, the USA's "ownership" of this issue was so complete that it felt the need to set up the Quartet to rubber-stamp its decision i.e. the Quartet's sole purpose was to give some "international" patina to the decisions that were being made by the President of the USA.
So the USA could be as hypocrital as it wanted - or as one-sided as it liked - and nobody was willing to call them out on it.
But look at what has happened in the last 6 months
1) The USA kept calling its Palestinian Poodle to come to heel, and he has refused.
2) The USA called a meeting of the Quartet to rubber-stamp a new "joint statement", and none of those Quartet "partners" would sign off on it.
Get it?
Not only is the USA losing its iron grip on this issue, but the Other Guys are no longer willing to to nod and mouth "You're the Boss, Boss".
They are learning to say "No", and therefore to expose the USA as An Emperor With No Clothes.
Gosh, I wonder who they learnt that from?
So the world has moved forward to fill the void. Urgghh...I'm going to Beirut next week and I'm going to hear it.
"So the world has moved forward to fill the void"
Look, you asked what difference all this "UN stuff" will make, and the answer has been staring you in the face for months now i.e. ever since the Quartet refused to put their name on the LAST American initiative, even though the ONLY purpose of the Quartet is to rubber-stamp just such things
Get it? The USA is losing its iron grip on its "ownership" of this issue to such an extend that even its own hand-picked poodles are no longer willing to play pretendies.
And that grip is being loosened because of
(a) the PLO's increasing tendency to take its grievences to New York instead of Washington, and
(b) the increasing willingness of Everyone Who Isn't In Washington to run interference for them.
The first part is not the game-changer, the second part is.
Here's a prediction: the latest Tony Blair/Dennis Ross Very Cunning Plan that they are now hawking around will come to nought, and NOT because Abbas will reject it but because the Quartet will vote it down 1-3.
The USA **is** being sidelined, and it's simply too stupid to see it.
Wow, that's disappointing.
India hasn't exactly shown much interest in coordinating international strategies with the U.S. So far our cooperation has really just been economic and some hedging against China. Personally I'm of the opinion that Bush was far too fast in helping India get an exception in the NPT.
Thankyou David for making this post, I know this is a touchy issue but as I read the situation I find no objections with your points. They all seem in line with what I've read on the issue.
The only question I would have is when or if the possibility of a Veto being used by the US.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: It's Complicated
Great to see attention to the head counts for the possible UNSC action, but the piece overstates the likelihood of a BiH "yes" vote. While Bosnia's Muslims (Bosniaks) are likely to back the Palestinian cause for a number of reasons, foreign policy decision making is supposed to made by consensus within the Tri-Presidency, elected to represent BiH's three main ethnic groups--Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.
Bosnian Serb leaders strongly oppose the Palestinian initiative due to ties with Israel and, especially, belief that this action could lead to a similar move by Kosovo. Both Bosnian Serbs and Serbia regard Kosovo as having wrongly declared a "unilateral" independence from Serbia and are thus likely to be against any remotely analogous action. (This is more about Balkan-specific issues than about Orthodoxy vs. Islam).
In addition, BiH has tended to follow EU positions when voting on the UNSC and to take US views very much into account, as seen in voting on Libya earlier this year. Absent an EU consensus and given apparent US opposition, abstention seems more likely than a "yes" vote.
If BiH does end up supporting the Palestinian cause in he UNSC and rejecting the Bosnian Serb position, significant political fallout within BiH is probable.
Council can sit on the issue while the rest ....
Ahem.
If the UN Security Council shunts this membership application to committee then that actually helps the Palestinians, precisely because this will be one of the rare occasions where the "facts on the ground" will be moving in the Palestinian's favour.
Think about it: the application will be brought to the UNSC by the PLO, which is currently nothing more than an "observer entity".
So if the Security Council votes immediately then it will actually be voting on two inter-related propositions:
1) Is Palestine "a state", or isn't it?
2) If Yes to (1), then can that state join the UN?
But if the Security Council shunts this to committee then Q(1) will be decided in its absence i.e. the PLO will have gone to the General Assembly and will have had its status elevated from "observer entity" to "non-member state".
At which point Abbas can interrupt the committee and say: "Ahem, you don't even need to consider the first question any more, because the UN has already recognized that we are a state".
That greatly simplifies the Security Council committee deliberations, because from that point on it will be deliberating only on THIS question:
Q: OK, Palestine is a state, so do we want this state to join our club?
That's a MUCH simpler question, and its also a MUCH harder question to answer with "Hell, no! No way!".
welcome to http://www.lovetoshopping.org
Wonderful.
Share a website with you ,
(======= http://www.lovetoshopping.org =======)
Believe you will love it.
accept paypal free shipping
Cheapest DG Shoes,Discount Brand Purses,Baby Phat Clothing
uipouuio
Santos has made some surprising changes in fundamental direction towards "inegrating" with the general trend in Latin America - domestic concentration on the "nationalistic center", and increasing "independence" from U.S. supervision....thanks!
Ar Condicionado Imoveis Acompanhantes Massagistas
The entire Oslo negotiations were premised on UN#242. Now, the Palestinians are threatening snowblowersreview to unilaterally walk away from those negotiations and try to claim land without paying the real coin of peace.
For the past six years, since Israel left Gaza, the world has tried to figure out how to shift HAMAS towards a more moderate and acceptable kindle fire tablet view and action, with no success, even as all responsible states have rejected HAMAS extremism and violence.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(30)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE