US confirms it will veto Palestinian statehood bid in UN Security Council

Palestinian peace demo

Palestinian peace demo

The US has finally openly declared that it will veto any attempt at a Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN Security Council.

The US will veto a Palestinian request for state recognition if it is submitted to the UN Security Council later this month, a US official said Thursday.

Wendy Sherman, President Barack Obama’s nominee for undersecretary of state for policy, the department’s third-ranking position, told the Senate during confirmation hearings that “if any such resolution were put in front of the Security Council, then we would veto it.”

“The United States is very resolved to a veto threat in the Security Council,” Sherman said. “What we are very resolved about as well is urging the parties to enter into direct negotiations again.”

The US had previously voiced its opposition to the Palestinians’ unilateral move at the UN, but Wednesday’s statements were the first official confirmation that the administration would veto such an appeal.

Unfortunately, it is not all good news, and there is still a strong possibility that the Palestinians will not let this issue die.

While a Security Council veto would deny the Palestinians official member status, they could also seek upgraded observer status at the General Assembly as a non-member state.

This could be interpreted as implicit UN recognition of Palestinian statehood because the assembly would be acknowledging that the Palestinians control an actual state. The advantage of this option is that it would require only a simple majority of the General Assembly. Since around 120 countries have already recognized the state of Palestine to date, it would most likely win such a vote.

If the Palestinians were to be recognized as a non-member state, they would be able to sign certain international treaties, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which they cannot currently sign.

George Mitchell, the former US special envoy for Middle East peace, said Thursday there was little chance US officials would be able to persuade Palestinians leaders not to seek greater recognition at the United Nations.

Ynet adds:

While any UN vote will be largely symbolic, the Palestinians believe a strong international endorsement will boost their position and put pressure on Israel should negotiations resume. Israel has been lobbying the international community to oppose the vote, saying peace can only be achieved through negotiations.

And of course the ever present threat of violence from the Palestinians:

Although the Palestinians say their campaign will be peaceful, Israeli military officials fear that mass demonstrations in the West Bank could turn violent.

Security forces have been preparing for the possibility of violence, conducting exercises and stockpiling what they say is “non-lethal” riot-control equipment like tear gas, water cannons and stun grenades.

It’s going to be a hot September if not a black one.

This entry was posted in International relations, Mideast news and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to US confirms it will veto Palestinian statehood bid in UN Security Council

  1. Earl says:

    IL can also count on Canada to veto the “Palestinian” recognition bid. Conservative PM Stephen Harper “gets it”- he recently accurately used the terms “Islamofascism” and “Islamism” in an interview on the Ceeb’s leading news show. Much shrieking from the multicultis and Mohammedans ensued…no retraction from PMSH :-)!

  2. cba says:

    Earl, I guess you saw the comments on the CBC website… much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. However, I was delighted to see a lot of nicks (most that I didn’t recognize) saying words to the effect of, “Thank you! We finally have a PM with the guts to say what most of us are thinking.”

    And yes, Ceebers heads are exploding all over the place…

    • Earl says:

      Yes- all positive developments from Canada’s Conservative majority government. Certainly a direct assault on the “progressives'” agenda.

  3. Brian Goldfarb says:

    I’m sure that I saw an argument on one site/via a link, ditto (and no, that’s the closest I can get, people. It’s late, UK time), that suggested that any resolution by the Palestinian Authority for recognition as a state worthy of UN membership would, de facto, involve recognition of Israel. Why? The 1947 Resolution and, of course, the San Remo Treaty (or whatever it’s called), see anneinpt below
    which established the right for the Jews to have a homeland right where it is.

    That is, the Palestinians can only get their recognition by recognising Israel’s right to exist.

    The rest, as the saying goes, is detail, however difficult the detail is and however much the devil is involved in it.

    Perhaps they should think again (and again,and again…) about this oh so clever move at the UN, and go back to the real negotiating table, after all.

  4. Brian Goldfarb says:
  5. sahioniya says:

    America is a terrorist country, along with Israel, so no wonder to act so

  6. sahioniya says:

    jews came from europe and get their presence in palestine by force and under the encouragement of the british occupation tp palestine and later under the new charging super power of America. and the UN under the devastating influence of these two powers recognised the new-born illegitimate state of Israel in the palestinian lands, then when the neighboring arab countries tried to help the palistinians get their lands back , we saw many western countries went forward in their aggression through helping the zionist jews to win the wars and helping in bringing the jews from all over the world to leave their original countries and influx into the palestinian lands and the procedure continued to our current days.and the west blame arabs and muslims for their natural vibe toward the zionists and americans, its as you slap some one and ask him/her not to cry. peak of injustice

    • anneinpt says:

      If this comment isn’t turning history on its head I don’t know what is. I will leave this comment up for readers to see how Arab propaganda works.

  7. Andrea says:

    For the sake of good order Soviet Union supported Israel at the beginning ( maybe the first power recognizing the jewish state ) whilst UK and USA were almost tiepid. Isrel won the first official conflict in 1948 with airplanes coming from Czechoslovakia while Jordan’s Legions were lead by Englishman Glubb pascia, if my memory works well. Nevertheless the “ziyonists” did not conquer Gaza and what is called now West Bank. They reamain respectively in Egyptians and Jordan hands. Nobody claimed at the time that Gaza and West bank to be given back to Palestinians. Syria as well always considered Palestinians as South Syrians.
    All this up to 1956 when Soviets changed gradually their mind and it was clear that Israel would have never joint he Socialist field in spite of the fact most Israelis were Marxist at the beginning.
    1967 and consequences like September 1971 changed definetly the perspective in everyone minds. USA supported openly Israel ( but Nixon was fiercely Anti-semite ) and history started looking like you said Mr Sahioniya.
    Sorry if have simplified things

    • anneinpt says:

      Well said Andrea. If this was written in reply to “Sahioniya”, I wouldn’t bother. There is no convincing people like that. They just want to believe their own lies, otherwise the whole edifice of their identity will come crumbling down.

      But it’s very good that you have laid out the facts so clearly (you have saved me the work! 🙂 ) both to educate Sahioniya and for any readers who want to counteract the lies from the Sahioniya and his/her types.

  8. Andrea says:

    Thank you Anne.
    Mr Sahioniya gave me the opportunity to express a personal idea which could be – I admit – questionable under many different point of view. My idea is that June 1967 was the real turning point in Middle east conflict hisory, more than May 1948 or other also important dates.
    It was in fact after 1967 that Palestinians ceased to be an undefined community always confused with Jordans and Syrians. It was after 1967 that a regional conflict, yet important, became a cultural and worlwide known conflict and after that year the perception of Israel from the rest of the world changed.
    Most important of all it was after the six days war that the unanimous consent of the Jews to Israel began to break. I hardly remember that year but I have still the image of joy in front of my eyes after the withdrawn of Arab armies ; it takes only few months and a deep pass was created between the Jews who accepted the new military conquests and the Jews who accepted the right of Palestinians to have their identity ( something that even the other Arabs countries never accepted since the middle of eighties ) and claimed the withdrawn from the so called “occupied territories ”
    The point was crucial for the Jews supporting a Socialist credo. How human rights and social instances could be applied to Palestinians ? How socialism could work for Arabs – a genuine socialism not the Nasser’s socialfascism ? And most of all how a democracy like Israel could save its Socialist identity ( at the time ) whilst occupying Arab territories ? That was the dilemma of Jewish socialism that still is persisting in different forms and with diferent names.

    I wanted finally thank you for the kind hospitality you give to my opinions even so different from yours . You are a genuine democrat Anne and be sure of my deep respect for your culture and your love for Israel

    • anneinpt says:

      Andrea, thank you for expressing your viewpoint so clearly (and thank you for the compliment. Really, there is no necessity. I like to hear differing viewpoints, otherwise this would be a very boring blog!).

      I’m not sure that 1967 was the real turning point for the Palestinians: Yasser Arafat created the PLO already back in 1964. You see 1967 as the point where Jews started to split in their views about Israel, but I see 1967 also as the wake-up call for Jews worldwide to make Aliya to Israel. Indeed, in the 10 years or so after the 6 Day War there was a huge aliya from the West; people who were not fleeing persecution but people who left behind comfortable homes and well-paid jobs for an uncertain future in Israel – all they did know was that they were coming “home”.

      Certainly you are right though about Israelis and Jews being very divided about what to do with the West Bank, and it’s true that it started soon after 1967. Your comment about socialism, since Israel had been a socialist country until then and how Israelis didn’t know how to apply it to the Arabs in the West Bank is very interesting. I hadn’t considered that angle before. I thought that the split was more to do with liberal principles and human rights in general, not necessarily socialism; i.e. how do we absorb all these Arabs and yet stay democratic? Or if we don’t absorb them can we still call ourselves a democracy? It is a dilemma that we’re still struggling with, and probably always will. That’s what makes Israel such a vibrant interesting place.

Comments are closed.