Obama’s unwise campaign against Palestinian statehood

[Better Believe It]

Obama’s unwise campaign against Palestinian statehood
By Ghassan Michel Rubeiz
Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, a social scientist and political commentator, is the former secretary of the Middle East for the Geneva-based World Council of Churches.
September 22, 2011

President Obama is staging an unwarranted diplomatic battle against the Palestinian attempt at statehood recognition through U.N. membership.

In his speech to the United Nations on Sept. 21, Obama opposed the Palestinian bid for membership without giving any good reason. Instead, he urged a focus on the peace process without showing how he plans to creatively impact Arab-Israeli relations.
According to Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian effort at the United Nations is unilateral and threatening to peace. In fact, Palestinian statehood would affirm the security of Israel and serve the peace process.

Is the Palestinian move really unilateral? The move is unilateral only as an act of self-determination, but its intention is not to be disruptive. The United Nations is the widest possible platform for peace. And the Palestinian approach to the United Nations is long overdue.

For many years, the Palestinians have relied on the United States to promote a two-state solution. The result has been a dismal failure, primarily because America has not been able to act as a neutral broker. The Obama administration is doing peace a disfavor by its obdurate approach.

Read the full article at:

http://www.progressive.org/palestinian_statehood.html

[Hoosier Daddy]

1. IBT

See you in I/P! ;-)

[Better Believe It]

2. Do you have an opinion on the article or is this just a thoughtless "drive-by"?

[Hoosier Daddy]

5. I recommended it

And that is all I have to say to you. Good day.

[Better Believe It]

9. Well I just don't understand the intention of your brief comment.

Didn't mean to offend but I just don't get the purpose of your comment.

[pintobean]

14. I unrecced

and this is a thoughtful drive-by.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Oops posted the wrong place

[NNN0LHI]

4. Why didn't Abbas do this right after his buddy Bush put him into office?

Why did he wait until now to pull this stunt?

He is a Republican puppet. That is why.

Don

[Better Believe It]

6. Self-determination is a "stunt". So was the American revolution for independence a bigger "stunt"?

Move along folks .... nothing to see here .... just a little stunt.

[NNN0LHI]

7. You avoided answering my question

[Better Believe It]

10. So Abbas and Bush are buddies? Just like Bill Clinton and Bush?

I think you need to do more than present a brief "drive-by" comment.

Credible sources and more information to back up your statement would be a good start.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Read post 11

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. A little paranoid aren't we?

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians could care less about US internal politics except as they affect them and vice versa.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Short memory Leopold?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005015,00.html

How Bush Got Religion

Hamad/Jerusalem Monday, June 16, 2003

<snip>Bush's evolution--some might call it a conversion--on the road to peace began last June when he gave a speech declaring his support for the creation of a Palestinian state. But that support came with a catch: a change in Palestinian leadership. Critics charged that this was just a convenient excuse for doing nothing. Over the past two years the Administration has been content to stand by as Palestinian militias continued to take a heavy toll with suicide bombs and Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Palestinian towns in the West Bank. But Bush's aides argue that disengagement was a strategy designed to force changes in the Palestinian Authority. Only when the unreliable Yasser Arafat was shunted aside would the President act. That happened in April, when U.S. pressure, Israel's isolation of Arafat and a sense of hopelessness among senior Palestinians combined to force Arafat to agree to the appointment of Abbas. "What took place last week never would have been possible if Abbas hadn't happened," says a senior Bush aide. "And Abbas happened because of the President."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. A Republican puppet? Yeah, he'd really like an anti-Palestine Republican in office.

Try checking what the Republican candidates think about Palestinian statehood.

[NNN0LHI]

16. My question is still why didn't Abbas do this in 2003 after Bush had him installed as president?

He had the better part of 5 years to do it didn't he?

Don't have an answer that passes the smell test do you?

Don

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. So, you think it's some sort of anti-Obama plot?

Your question about his timing is like asking why the colonies didn't declare independence in 1770 rather than 1776. My opinion is that the Palestinians decided to do it now because it would have the most impact in forwarding their desire for an independent state.

Why do you think Obama promised to veto the resolution in the face of world opinion and his own platitudes about the Arab Spring?

[NNN0LHI]

19. You don't have an answer that will pass the smell test

Do you?

Don

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. You don't have a question that will pass the smell test.

Your theorizing that Abbas is a stooge of the Republican party is absurd on the face of it. We can only speculate on why Abbas chose this time to push for statehood at the UN. My guess is that he did so because he thinks the time is right to get the force of world opinion to force the US and Israel to make some real concessions and break the stalemate. Which I think is a helluva lot more likely than he being partnered with the Republicans.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Obama was playing to the domestic audience. It was a campaign speech.

It contained the usual platitudes and excuses for denying the Palestinians statehood which were echoed by Netanyahu.

[Martin Eden]

17. A Sovereign Palestinian State is Not Viable ...

... while Israeli settlements and roads connecting them slice and dice the Palestinian West Bank.

Will the Israelis voluntary abandon those settlements (where some have been living for decades), or will they accept becoming residents of a Palestinian state subject to Palestinian authority?

If not, how will the Israelis be compelled to abandon the settlements?

I ask these questions not because I oppose a Palestinian state, but because these facts on the ground are a nearly insurmountable obstacle to a sovereign Palestinian state. It is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that never seems to be adequately addressed in all the talk of a "two-state solution."

I think it is quite obvious the Israelis will never negotiate in good faith towards the establishment of a Palestinian state because they have no intention of abandoning the settlements. In fact, construction continues.

There will never be a viable two-state solution with those settlements intact, and the Israelis will never be compelled to abandon them as long as their influence in Washington keeps the dollars flowing regardless of Israeli actions.

[Better Believe It]

26. A independent Palestinian state will demand the withdrawl of foreign troops occupying their nation.

[Martin Eden]

27. Demanding and Compelling are two different things.

The Palestinians do not have the power to compel the Israelis and the Israeli security forces to abandon the settlements. I think the current bid for sovereign recognition in the UN is an effort to enlist the help of that body and of international diplomacy to put pressure on the Israelis to end the occupation.

However, the United States stands in the way. Obama will veto UN recognition, and US military/financial aid to Israel will continue -- regardless of Israeli actions on the ground -- as long as AIPAC and the Israeli lobby continues to exert their influenece in Washington. This will continue as long as a good chunk of the American public views Israel as an important Democratic ally in the region rather than an albatross fueling anti-American hatred.

[demigoddess]

20. stupid, stupid

I said years ago that if Israel were smart they would make friends of Palestine, support its right to be a country of its own. And make friends and help it along. That would be the best security policy of all.

[Rex]

21. Yep, but no profit in peace.

[Poll_Blind]

22. Indeed- and even that war is not meant to be won...but to be continuous.

PB

[Rex]

23. If we could just get control over the war mongers on Wall Street

maybe both nations would have a chance, but currently money trumps human life. Maybe one day we will evolve as a species beyond material desires, but I seriously doubt it PB.

[dtotire]

25. He is delaying it until after the election

Ifhe supports the Palestinians now, he might lose some votes, After the election, he can then pressure the Israelis to make concessions.