Palestine statehood vote a predicament for Obama

[cali]

Joel Brinkley, © 2011 Joel Brinkley




As Palestinians head to the United Nations this week, President Obama faces one of the most excruciating dilemmas of his presidency, a predicament partly of his own making.

<snip>

But when they ask the Security Council to vote in favor of that, Obama vows to veto the request. That would be cataclysmic for the United States, for Israel and for the Palestinians.

Think about it. Even as Israel's traditional patron state, the United States is making tenuous gains in the Arab world by participating in NATO's action in Libya and providing aid to rebel groups in Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere.

With the veto, all of that would be undone. The United States would be a pariah once again. In fact, Saudi Arabia, another of Washington's traditional allies in the region, is warning that it would curtail relations with America and pursue policies that are anathema to Washington.


<snip>

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/17/IN9T1L3U4G.DTL#ixzz1YEqucSMT

[RZM]

1. I think the predictions and asseessments in this article have some problems

First, I haven't seen much to indicate that the US has made gains in the region during the Arab Spring. I could be wrong and maybe somebody has some before and after polls? But I haven't seen much to indicate that. Sure a veto wouldn't be appreciated, but I'm skeptical about it being an earth-shattering thing. We're already intensely disliked in the region. Sure, you don't want to make it worse, but how much worse would it really get because of this?

Anyway at this point, Obama really has no other choice. He's said he's going to veto it and he would take a double hit if he didn't - one for the action itself, another for flip-flopping. He's not about to let Israel/Palestine become a campaign issue in 2012.

[kelly1mm]

2. I think he may not control whether Israel/Palestine becomes a campaign

issue in 2012. In fact, I think Israel/Palestine and the Arab spring will be major issues in 2012.

[RZM]

4. But if the veto happens, I don't think there will be much for the Republicans to criticize

They might try here and there, but probably not hard because I don't see them getting much traction on that issue. Of course NOT casting the veto is a different story entirely. But I think the veto will be cast. Republicans know that if they are going to win in 2012, it's going to be on the economy so they won't focus on other issues as much unless they look like sure winners. And I/P won't be that for them with a security council veto under Obama's belt. One reason why I'm sure that's what he'll do.

[kelly1mm]

6. Thanks for the analysis. Seems likely. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. The Arab Spring doesn't extend to Palestine in the eyes of America.

[SlimJimmy]

5. I agree. I believe the US thinks of it in terms of possibly Egypt only.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. The Arab Spring doesn't exist in "Palestine."

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I'm curious. Do you support Palestinian statehood? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Let's see if he actually follows through or capitulates like on healthcare, etc.

[reformist2]

10. The Palestinians may use Resolution 377, a sort of "override" by the General Assembly.

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A,<1> the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity amongst its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international peace and security, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue any recommendations it deems necessary in order to restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time the General Assembly may meet using the mechanism of the emergency special session.

The Uniting for Peace resolution—also known as the "Acheson Plan"—was adopted 3 November 1950, after fourteen days of Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5 (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), with 2 abstentions (India and Argentina).<2>

In it, the General Assembly:

"Reaffirming the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the duty of the permanent members to seek unanimity and to exercise restraint in the use of the veto," ...

"Recognizing in particular that such failure does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security," ...

"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Peace

[hulka38]

11. It's difficult for this president to simply do the right thing.