Obama, at U.N., Explains Rationale for Opposing Palestinian Statehood Bid

[Poll_Blind]

Source: New York Times

UNITED NATIONS — President Obama declared his opposition to the Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood through the Security Council on Wednesday, throwing the weight of the United States directly in the path of the Arab democracy movement even as he hailed what he called the democratic aspirations that have taken hold throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

“Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N.,” Mr. Obama said, in an address before world leaders at the General Assembly. “If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.”

--snip--

For Mr. Obama, the challenge in crafting the much-anticipated General Assembly address on Wednesday was how to address the incongruities of the administration’s position: the president who committed himself to making peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians a priority from Day One, who still has not been able to even get peace negotiations going after two and a half years; the president who opened the door to Palestinian state membership at the United Nations last year ending up threatening to veto that very membership; the president who was determined to get on the right side of Arab history ending up, in the views of many on the Arab street, on the wrong side of it on the Palestinian issue.

The Arab Spring quandary, in particular, has been enormously troublesome for Mr. Obama. White House officials say that he has long been keenly aware that he, like no other American president, stood as a potential beacon to the Arab street as the ultimate symbol of the hopes and rewards of democracy. But since he is the president of the United States, he has had to put American interests first.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/obama-united-nations-speech.html

---

It wasn't a bad speech as far as speeches go and certainly a worthy attempt to somehow explain America's position which, it is worth noting, requires quite a bit of explanation in order to at least give the impression of being sensible.

PB

[teddy51]

1. I have a problem with this, because it doesn't give the Israeli Authority's

any incentive to negotiate with the Palestinian's and will just be business as usual.

[Blue Meany]

2. Palestinians have the same basis for statehood that Israelis

do -- the UN mandate. Why should the US condition recognition one on negotiate peace but recognize the other without conditions? This is a clear double standard.

[JDPriestly]

8. Israel accepted the original UN Resolution 181 in principle.

It left details to be negotiated such as the government of Jerusalem.

The Palestinians, as I understand it, rejected that Resolution. That is why Israel was recognized by the UN but Palestine was not.

Palestinians simply have to show a willingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The rest can be negotiated. But Obama is correct about this. Israel does not reject the idea of a Palestinian state at its side. The problem is that Palestine rejects the idea of a Jewish state of Israel at its side.

So it is up to Palestine.

Also, Palestine has to show a willingness to secure the rights of Israelis. There should be no rock throwing or firebombing. And the US can reign in Israel if Israel does not respect the peaceful conduct of Palestinians.

The fact is that Palestine as a nation did not officially exist before 1947. Neither did Israel. The area was under British Protectorate until that time. So, neither country has a particular historical claim to the country.

A lot of Palestinians claim to have lived in what is now Israel prior to the UN Resolution of 1947. Those who can prove their claims should be compensated in some way to be negotiated. Similarly, Israelis who can prove that they were exiled from land or homes in other places in the Middle East such as Morocco, Iraq or Gaza should be compensated for their losses.

[U4ikLefty]

11. Spin baby spin.

Obama will lose a lot if he denies statehood.

[vminfla]

12. His statements were factually correct

Obama's chances for re-election are hinged squarely on his ability to manage the economy and sell his vision.

[U4ikLefty]

13. Yeah it's all about Obama's re-election, thanks for admitting it

newbie. That's all that some care about anyway.

BTW, there are few facts in that post, mostly spin supported by half-truths.

[vminfla]

14. Obama could never mention it

Will Israel help Americans create jobs? Granted, Israel has had a positive impact on technology and econonomic issues in the past for the US. But, I do not think that Israel could create enough jobs in the US to improve the macro picture in the US.

[U4ikLefty]

29. but the issue of "Israel" is one that Dems do NOT DARE touch.

They know where their votes are found & many of them are dependent on turning a blind eye to Israel's human rights violations.

[No Elephants]

20. It's one side's version of events, anyway.

[No Elephants]

15. "There should be no rock throwing or firebombing.".: How can any nation guarantee that?

IMO, making a condition of statehood that no one throws a rock at an Israeli is the same as telling Palestinians Israel will never recognize Palestine or, via its hold on the US, allow anyone else to do so.

Which I believe to be the reality of the situation. Israel has nothing to lose by continuing to say it would love a two state solution, but never actually move toward it.

Much like a married person who keeps telling his or extra marital lover that they are considering a divorce.

And sStill considering.

And still considering.

The longer you can manage to string along the lover, the longer you get to have your at least seemingly intact family and your lover, too.

Why ever decide, unless your hand is forced? And with the US at its side, who will force Israel's hand?

[vminfla]

17. The great thing about analogies is everyone can make one

Giving the failed PA a state is akin to dropping the restraining order on a wife beater so that he can reconcile with his wife. After all, how could he rebuild his relationship with his spouse if he is required to maintain a 500 foot distance. The wife has nothing to lose by stating she would love to reconcile with her spouse, but never actually drop the restraining order until he demonstrates that he is getting the counseling that he needs.

See? See how that works? Pretty neat trick with analogies.

[No Elephants]

19. Is your point that analogies are not an appropriate form of communication?

Or that you disagree with the substantive point that I was making?

If the latter, why imply that something about analogies is inherently bad?

ETA: If you really want to rebut, maybe you could explain what Israel has to lose by continuing the status quo until it is forced to do otherwise?

[vminfla]

23. Negotiation begins with Negotiation

You made no substantive point. You implied that somehow, after all failed negotiations, granting more concessions will somehow miraculously bring the arab population to the negotiation table. Meaningful negotiations can have occurred at any time before, during, and even after Camp David. Yet, we have seen, time and time again the arab leadership deny Israel's right to exist in peace.

[JDPriestly]

24. If someone stands in the US and throws rocks at people in Mexico,

the US government will arrest them. That is how you stop rock-throwing from one country into the other. You arrest someone who breaches the security of another country just as you would arrest someone who breached the security of your own country.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. That's incorrect...

Resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution that outlined the end of the British Mandate and the plan to divide Palestine into two states. There is nothing whatsoever in it that states the Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state. The PLO has long recognised the right of Israel to exist inside the Green Line, and that 'as a Jewish state' was tacked on later in an exercise in moving the goalposts. Israel applying to the UN for statehood and now turning round and opposing a Palestinian state is not because of Resolution 181. When the Palestinians made their Declaration of Independence in 1988, the document referred to Resolution 181 as giving the claim to a Palestinian state legitimacy. Which is what it does every bit as much as it did for Israel. There's no expiry date on it...

[msongs]

3. Israel buys influence, Palestinians don't have the cash to pay off politicians nt

[Blue Meany]

5. I think it has more to do with Jewish votes. Arab-Americans are

not geographically concentrated in the way Jews are in Florida and New York, so they do not have the same political leverage.

[No Elephants]

16. Unless you count Dearborn. More than a few Arabs in New York as well, and numbers are growing.

Whatever will NY politicians do if keeping their seats depends on both Arabs and Jews at the same time?

[SugarShack]

10. Have you looked at congress lately?

[EFerrari]

4. Undermining a Palestinian state AND the UN in one speech.

How efficient.

[defendandprotect]

9. So true ---

[dipsydoodle]

25. ditto

.

[hack89]

28. That second goal is an admirable one. nt

[Tesha]

6. "'cause if I don't take this stand, I'll really get my ass kicked in 2012!" (NT)

[LiberalLovinLug]

7. ie. ....

We haven't found a way yet to get top Palestinian leaders on our payroll such as in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the new Libya.

[No Elephants]

18. Talk to the hand.

[DonCoquixote]

21. The real rationale

"well, Ed Koch and a bunch of Zionists made it clear they were mad at me for not wanting enough dead arabs, using New York to scare me and make press so I caved."

[Matilda]

22. The Palestinians should be encouraged to take the road to statehood.

This is much better for their image than suicide bombings. They look serious and responsible, and should be supported.

FWIW, I believe that Australia is going to abstain on this vote - that way we won't piss off the U.S., but won't actually vote against Europe either.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. If Australia abstains, that means Rudd has won out over Gillard about it...

Mind you, I think it's incredibly wishy-washy to abstain. Australia's voting placing the importance of pissing off the US over that of the self-determination of the Palestinian people shows how insincere our leaders are. But if Gillard has her way, Australia will vote against recognising Palestine as a state, which is even worse than being a wishy-washy abstention. I wish the ALP had someone capable in the wings to stab her in the back the same way she did to Rudd. Our first female PM is a massive disappointment, imo...