Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Defying U.S., Palestine Seeks U.N. Recognition for Statehood

UN delegates from the United States and Israel were noticeably quiet as the rest of the General Assembly rapturously applauded.

If there were any lingering doubts the Palestinians would not be able to garner the support of an overwhelming majority of member states at the United Nations, they were laid to rest when the 193-member General Assembly Friday gave a rousing and rapturous welcome to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

As delegates from the United States and Israel sat glum-faced, the cavernous General Assembly Hall reverberated to more than a dozen rounds of sustained applause, including rare standing ovations, when Abbas made a plea for a separate nation state for Palestine.

After having submitted an application to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon seeking full U.N. membership – in defiance of unrelenting U.S. pressure – Abbas kept the General Assembly riveted as he recounted the killings and destruction caused by the "occupying power" – and pleaded for recognition of statehood by the United Nations.

"I say: The time has come for my courageous and proud people, after decades of displacement and colonial occupation and ceaseless suffering, to live like other peoples of the earth, free in a sovereign and independent homeland," he said.

"Your support for the establishment of the State of Palestine and for its admission to the United Nations as a full member is the greatest contribution to peacemaking in the Holy Land," he said amidst loud cheers from delegates who are traditionally restrained, as diplomatic protocol demands.

Abbas submitted the application in the full knowledge that even if Palestine does get the required nine votes in the 15-member Security Council, the United States has vowed to negate the diplomatic victory by vetoing the request for statehood.

The United States is only one of five countries with veto powers, the others being Britain, France, China and Russia.

Conscious of any politically motivated delays, Abbas said, "I call upon Mr. Secretary-General to expedite transmittal of our request to the Security Council, and I call upon the distinguished members of the Security Council to vote in favour of our full membership."

"I also appeal to the states that have not yet recognised the State of Palestine to do so," he said.

Currently, more than 125 countries recognise Palestine as a state, outside the precincts of the United Nations.

Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies and author of several publications on Middle East politics, told IPS the danger now is that the Security Council may, rather than moving towards a rapid vote schedule and an inevitable U.S. veto, instead create a committee, start an investigation, and otherwise move to bury the Palestinian application in the depths of the U.N. bureaucracy.

"It's even possible," she predicted, "that it might not resurface for months – perhaps even after the November 2012 U.S. election, which would of course mean President Barack Obama would not face the international consequences of the veto he has promised for domestic political reasons."

John Quigley, professor of international law and comparative law at Ohio State University, told IPS the key practical point in Abbas's speech was his statement that he had, earlier in the morning, conveyed an application for membership to the secretary-general, and that he had requested that its transmission to the Security Council be expedited.

His statement about expediting the transmission suggests that Abbas is not acceding to the U.S. request that action in the Security Council on the application be delayed for some period of time.

"Abbas did not mention proceeding at this time to the General Assembly for a resolution that would declare that the Palestine observer mission is the mission of a state," he said.

Hence, that approach is apparently not being taken at this time, said Quigley, author of a 2010 publication titled "The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict" (Cambridge University Press) where he argues Palestine is a "state" – in all its political realities.

Bennis told IPS that Abbas's speech was very careful to include the rights of refugees as a continuing right, being careful to acknowledge the continuing position of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

"That's important because there has been much fear among Palestinians, especially refugees, that the transfer of representation in the U.N. from the PLO to the government of an inchoate 'state' of Palestine could lead to the disenfranchisement of refugees both in terms of representation and in terms of fighting for their right of return, as guaranteed by U.N. resolution 194," she pointed out.

Whether a "government" of Palestine acts on that right, of course, remains difficult, but it is a matter of political will far more than U.N. rules, said Bennis, author of the best-selling "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer".

Bennis also said the most important aspect is the broadest – that this means the end of the failed U.S. backed "peace process" as the only diplomatic game in town.

She said it places the diplomacy squarely where it has always belonged – in the United Nations, not in Washington under U.S. control.

"And while that may be weakened by Abbas's seeming commitment to continue to engage in this long-failed process, there is at least the basis for recreating the diplomatic basis away from the continuation of Israeli power and inevitable acceptance of occupation, apartheid and inequity, to a new basis of international law and human rights – based on an end to occupation, equality for all inside Israel and all states, and the right of return of refugees," she said.

Speaking later in the afternoon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel still desired peace with the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state, but only through negotiations.

In a joint statement following his speech, Robert G. Sugarman, national chair of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director, said Netanyahu effectively made a strong case for an immediate return to negotiations.

Netanyahu's suggestion that he and Abbas meet "here and now in New York represents the polar opposite of Abbas's message to the world", they said.

The international community should urge Abbas to take up this offer, the statement added.

Thalif Deen is a correspondent for Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share