I like to think that I am reasonably well informed about world events

[pennylane100]

but the Palestine State issue has me totally confused.

I would love to hear but only from totally unbiased people why we (the United States) do not want statehood for the Palestinians. What would change, I know I must be missing the big picture but I do not see how a Palestinian state would change anything. I know that they must eventually acknowledge Israels right to exist and it would not solve the problems between the two countries but what I I do not understand is how it would make the situation any worse.

Just for the record, I think both sides are acting irresponsibly and not in the best interest of their citizens and I feel sorry for all the innocent people involved.
It's just that I do not see the harm in a Palestinian State.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Good luck with the 'totally unbiased' thingie

That's not snark; I truly hope you're able to find what you seek. I've long held that bias is unavoidable - even down to seemingly 'non-controversial' topics. With a subject as fraught with controversy as the Palestinian question, I consider any discussion biased in some way.

[Kennah]

2. One factor has to be religion

Israel is a Jewish state, Christianity sprang from Judaism, ergo Israel is right and anyone opposed is wrong.

Of course, that's usually the view held by far RW Christian Conservatives, and I don't know how they come to grips with the fact that Israel is very much a Democratic Socialist state.

[holdencaufield]

4. That must be why...

...millions upon millions of Jews have met with violent death at the hands of European Xtians for centuries. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Kennah]

9. Where did that come from?

The OP asked why we, and I inferred the U.S. collectively, opposes Palestinian statehood.

But thank you for a good example of why this issue is not free of bias, regardless of how disconnected from the conversation it may be.

[holdencaufield]

10. To infer that...

...Xtians ALWAYS take a pro-Jewish position as you did is not only absurd, it's not supported historically. And I believe the current administration has been MOST clear on their position - they support a Palestinian State that is negotiated with their neighbour Israel and not unilaterally declared.

[Kennah]

11. There's a difference between pro-Jewish and pro-Israel

The U.S. is far from being pro-Jewish, but it is very pro-Israel.

[holdencaufield]

12. Here is my confusion

"Israel is a Jewish state, Christianity sprang from Judaism, ergo Israel is right and anyone opposed is wrong"

You clearly make the connection that Xtians in the US support Israel because of Judaism. I respectfully disagree.

[Kennah]

13. They hate Jews, but they hate Arabs and Muslims more.

[vminfla]

14. 0 for 3

The hatred is not manifest to any ethnicity or religious belief, but to the violent acts perpetrated by individuals and groups.

[aranthus]

3. I will try and explain.

We aren't against the Palestinians having a state. What gave you the idea that we were?

First problem. The proposed UN vote is not about creating a Palestinian state, and it won't actually create one. The UN can't create states and can't recognize them. It's not even about saying that the Palestinians should have a state. All that the UN can do is allow the Palestinians to be a member of the UN as a state, or upgrade their membership to an observer as a state. So first things first. Do the Palestinians actually have a state right now? No, they don't. So what the UN vote is about is pretending that the Palestinians have a state. Do you think it's a good idea to play "let's pretend" when so many lives are on the line?

Second problem. What government is going to get the seat at the UN? The PA? Hamas? The PLO? That's a big concern. Of course Abbas wants it to be the PA, because that saves his job. But then, what about Hamas? They don't even want this vote to happen.

Third problem. What will the UN vote actually do if it won't create or recognize a state? The Israelis think that it's an attempt to do an end around the negotiations that were supposed to lead to a Palestinian state. The idea would be that the UN resolution would not only admit Palestine as a member, but that it would also set out the "borders" of the new Palestinian state. Except those borders are one of the things that were supposed to be negotiated. Also, the Israelis want to use the promise of a state to force the Palestinians to make real concessions on other issues such as Jerusalem and the Right of Return. If the Palestinians get a state without having to give up those issues, then why would they ever?

Fourth problem. How will the Palestinians react to the UN vote? There are smart people on the Palestinian side who know that it won't actually get them a state. But what about the people on the street? There are lots of people who believe that the UN actually does things. For example, how many people do you know, or how often have you heard, that the UN created Israel? I would bet lots. But the UN didn't create Israel. That's just a myth that a lot of people believe. That's the real power of the UN; that a lot of gullible people believe that it has real power. So what if the Palestinians in the streets believe that the UN has given them a state? They have heard in the media that that is what is going to happen. Lot's of people outside of Palestine think the vote is about giving the Palestinians a state. Why shouldn't the Palestinian man in the street think the same? What will they do? Will they tell their government to go back to the negotiating table and make it happen, or will they take to the streets to drive the Jews out of their country? Or something else that no one has thought of?

So the short answer is the US isn't against the Palestinians having a state. We are against a vote admitting them to the UN as a state when they aren't, and when it seems to be a substitute for negotiations.

[shaayecanaan]

5. Its all about power politics, basically...

The United States generally wants statehood for the peoples that it likes, but not for the people that its not particularly keen on.

For example, the US supports the UN membership bid of Kosovo, because Kosovo is a pro-Western ally that is aligned against American rivals in the region (particularly Russia). On the other hand, the US opposes statehood for South Ossetia, which is a pro-Russian breakaway province of US-allied Georgia.

It is the same around the world. China supports independence for the Palestinians but not the Tibetans or Uyghurs.

The problem in the case of Palestine is that the US maintains alliances both with Israel and with the Arab countries that support Palestine. It attempts to accommodate both but generally not very convincingly.

Ultimately, domestic politics sway the day. Arab Muslims account for about 0.5% of the US population, and they are generally not very organised as a rule. Jewish Americans account for about 2.5% of the population, and they are often well organised, and are well represented amongst business leaders and the sorts of people who tend to have access to politicians. So US leaders inevitably find themselves on the side of Israel, even if, like Obama, they try to be more principled initially. The fact is that the Palestinians are a losing issue for pretty much any US politician, except for a few like Rep John Conyers from Detroit, whose district is predominantly Black and Arab.

This tends to be the main influence on the politics of Western countries. A country like France with relatively few Jews but quite a few North African Muslims tends to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians. And a country like the United Kingdom with an established Jewish minority but also a Muslim minority tends to oscillate between the two.

Very few people will admit to opposing a Palestinian state in the abstract. Even the most right-wing members on this forum will say that they support a Palestinian state, but just not today, tomorrow, or the year after that. Yitzhak Shamir (a particularly right-wing Israeli PM) once said: "I love peace negotiations. I hope that they go on forever."

Israel's current strategy is simply to stall. Amongst Israelis there is very little enthusiasm for peace with the Palestinians. The problem is that the occupation is not really an inconvenience for them in the same way that it is a burden to the Arabs.

The objections to the Palestinians making a "unilateral" application to the UN are a bit of a red herring. Generally, applications to the UN for membership are unilateral. When Israel applied for membership it did so unilaterally. The US supports the Kosovo bid for membership even though it is unilateral. Applications for UN membership are obviously made by the party seeking membership. After all, no one expects the Kosovars to get permission from the Serbs before applying to the UN for membership - and they probably wouldnt get it if they asked.

The point is that Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state. At least not now. And for political reasons the US would prefer to go along with that.

[holdencaufield]

6. The source of your confusion isn't bias...

...it's your assumption, "why we (the United States) do not want statehood for the Palestinians". That assumption is wrong. There ARE people who don't think there should be a Palestinian state (there are already 22 Arab homelands in the region) but they are in the minority. Most people in Israel and the US accept that there will be a Palestinians state in Gaza and the West Bank in the near future and would welcome it if it put an end to the nonsense.

What Israel and the current administration are objecting to is not a Palestinian State, but a state that is declared unilaterally without agreement with Israel on borders, right of return, the disposition of the settlers, the future of Jerusalem and the protection and access to holy places -- none of which will be addressed by a UN declaration of statehood.

Also, it should be noted that one of the goals of the state declaration is to put an end -- once and for all -- the fighting. This resolution would in no way addresses that.

[pennylane100]

7. Well thank you for all your answers.

One thing I had not considered is the fact that there are two leaders, Abbas and Hamas, and they both want different things. That in itself is a problem.

The problem seems to be that the longer the conflict exists, the worse it gets. The boundaries that Israel established when it declared independence were never acceptable to the Arabs who still want the right to reclaim their land. Further wars have also changed those boundaries. It all seems so hopeless unless both sides are willing to make meaningful concessions and I do not think that will happen.

I did read that one solution to the statehood bid would be to grant the Palestinians non-member status would would be an upgrade from their current situation and would allow all sides to save face.

[holdencaufield]

8. Actually not factual

"The boundaries that Israel established when it declared independence were never acceptable to the Arabs who still want the right to reclaim their land."

In fact, those boundaries were established by a partition plan accepted by the provisional Israeli government but rejected by the Arab League. It's worth noting that the Arab League was (and is) made up of states neighbouring Palestine and North Africa, but Palestinians Arabs have no voice in that league. The Arab League didn't even recognize a Palestinians State until 1988 but the PLO was not allowed membership in the Arab League.

Palestinians Arabs never rejected the partition plan -- it was done for them by their neighbours.