The fulminations over the attempt by the Palestinian Authority to receive at the United Nations a multilateral affirmation of the principle of Palestinian statehood have been so viscerally unrelenting that one should pause to note just how contrary to logic, to evidence, and even to language these fulminations are. First is the idea that action by the United Nations, which is as non-unilateral as international politics ever gets, is somehow  “unilateral.” This is a use of language that is something out of the stories of either Lewis Carroll or George Orwell, in which words mean whatever the user wants them to mean, even if that is the opposite of what they generally mean. Then there is the notion that such action by the United Nations is somehow a threat to, replacement of, or rejection of bilateral negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. As Abu Mazen has repeatedly pointed out, it is no such thing. Nothing that takes place at the U.N. will draw any boundaries or settle any of the specific issues.  All the final settlement issues would still be there to be negotiated bilaterally. Nothing that happens in New York will mean any less (or any more) negotiating work for Israeli and Palestinian diplomats.

All that could possibly result from action by the Security Council or General Assembly this month would be a partial leveling of the diplomatic playing field as Israel and the Palestinians address those issues in dispute and a reaffirmation of what the United Nations, the United States, the other members of the quartet, the Palestinians, and the Israelis—even, grudgingly, Benjamin Netanyahu—have all said should be the product of a peace process: a Palestinian state to live side-by-side in peace with the State of Israel. If, as many indications unfortunately suggest, Netanyahu and his government do not really accept that product or any Palestinian entity worthy of the name state, let him end the charade and say so.

The Israeli government has talked about “dire consequences” if an initiative at the United Nations goes forward. But the only negative consequences would be any that Israel itself chooses to impose, out of spite, revenge, to make a point or for whatever reason. The only reason Israel would be discomfited by U.N. action is the embarrassment that would come from a demonstration anew of how offensive the Israeli policy of clinging to, and colonizing, captured territory—the action that really is unilateral, and that really does damage the prospects for a negotiated settlement by creating even more facts on the ground—is to the community of nations. And the only reason the United States would veto any such action is that it is considered political poison within the United States for political leaders to go against strong preferences of the Israeli government, however inconsistent those preferences may be with the United States' own best interests.

None of this is about any threat to the security, integrity or legitimacy of the State of Israel. It is about Israel's continued grasp of occupied territories and the embarrassment that comes from Israeli policies toward those territories that are an affront to the sense of most of the peoples and countries of the world about what is right and just.

Although Israel's own policies have made the United Nations an inhospitable place for itself, Israelis would do well to remember that the closest thing to an authorization for the creation of their own state was an action by the United Nations. Any new action this month would effectively merely restate what that action back in the 1940s already stated: that two states should emerge from the mandate of Palestine, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The history and nature of the dispute between the Jews and Arabs of Palestine makes a United Nations role very appropriate, even if the specific issues still have to be settled through bilateral diplomacy. A less narrow-minded and more constructive approach by Israel and the United States would have embraced that role in response to the Palestinian initiative rather than pretending that the initiative is some kind of negotiation-killing rogue act, which it is not.

A U.S. veto of a Security Council resolution affirming Palestinian statehood would add to the harm the United States already has incurred by reflexively covering for whatever are the policies of the Israeli government of the day. It would be a direct, explicit rejection of what the United States has long said it supports: establishment of a Palestinian state. The harm of a vote against sovereignty for the Palestinians would be amplified by coming at a time when the demands for popular sovereignty by other Arabs throughout the Middle East are louder than ever before. A U.S. veto would be both shameful and damaging to U.S. interests.

---

LINDA HEARD

Palestinian bid will divide wheat from chaff

President Barack Obama has already knocked the proposed Palestinian bid to get a unilaterally declared Palestinian State recognized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) this Friday by declaring the US will use its power of veto.

But it appears that the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has firmly chartered his course and, for the first time, will not be derailed by Washington's threats and promises.

So what's the big deal, you may think? It's not going to happen even if four out of the five permanent UNSC member countries and all ten nonpermanent members vote in favor. The game may be lost even before the kick-off but this doesn't mean the attempt doesn't have great value.

In the first place, Abbas will discover which states are sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle and which are prepared to put their money where their mouth is whether the Obama administration likes it or not.

Secondly, this is his opportunity to show his people that he's no longer taking his marching orders from the White House as he has done to one degree or another throughout his presidency receiving absolutely nothing in return. He split Fatah from Hamas on the say-so of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as evidenced by a leaked memo. And his negotiating team — led by Saeb Erekat who has spent two decades fruitlessly talking with Israelis about peace — became so despondent that they were willing to allow Israel to keep Jewish settlements illegally constructed in East Jerusalem and to accept the return of just 10,000 refugees, according to leaked Palestinian Papers.

Thirdly, in the event America's Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice is the lone naysayer — as she was earlier this year to block a UNSC Resolution condemning Israel's settlement building ironically echoing the sentiments of her own administration — the US will be placed under an embarrassing spotlight.

More importantly, the fading superpower will likely lose friends in the Arab world as the Kingdom's former Ambassador to Washington Prince Turki Al-Faisal pointed out in his recent New York Times op-ed headed "Veto a state, lose an ally." Prince Turki hopes the US will support "the Palestinian bid for statehood else risk "losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. He warns that if the US doesn't choose the path of justice and peace, its regional influence "will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region." He also suggests that the Saudi leadership "would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy."

By failing to keep his promise that a Palestinian state would be in existence by September, turning a blind eye to Israel's frenzied settlement expansion and using his country's UNSC veto against Palestinian interests, President Obama has clearly taken sides — although prior to taking office he was sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle attending fundraisers and pro-Palestinian events.

But with Congress and the pro-Israel lobby breathing down his neck the man who reached out to the Muslim world and brought hope to the Palestinians has buried his personal principles to gain votes. Worse, he has recently tried to con President Abbas, sending two US envoys with a proposal that, if signed up to by the Palestinians would amount to their legalizing Israeli colonies on their own land. Abbas referred to this attempt to pull the wool over his eyes as the last straw.

There is no shred of doubt which side Congress is on when the House Committee on Foreign Affairs is discussing legislation that would punish the Palestinians by depriving them of US aid and closing down their mission in Washington. There are some in the committee who would like to go much further and are mulling cutting aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that acts as a lifeline to registered Palestinian refugees. The Committee Republican Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is campaigning to withdraw America's contribution to the entire UN operation, amounting to 22 percent, if its members don't conform to US and Israeli interests.

In other words, in the event the Palestinian Authority succeed in upgrading their nation status in the UN General Assembly to "nonvoting observer state" subsequent to its bid in the UNSC, Ros-Lehtinen would retaliate by stripping the UN of funding. Congress which is supposed to uphold the law is actively attempting to thwart the Palestinians' legitimate legal rights behaving more like a gang than representatives of a respected entity.

Israel's Netanyahu-led government is also plotting to make Palestinian lives miserable. There is plan to withhold all custom levies due to the Palestinian National Authority with one camp clamoring to cut-off security cooperation with the PA that could lead to its demise. Israel has also drafted emergency laws to the detriment of the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

Israel should understand such measures could boomerang eliciting increased worldwide empathy for the occupied people and the hardening of Arab resolve to hold out a hand to them on the diplomatic and financial fronts.

Israel is already feeling isolated. In recent weeks it has to recall its ambassadors from Turkey, Egypt and Jordan while the Egyptian Prime Minister has announced Camp David is not sacred. At the same time, there is an increased Turkish naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean and the possibility of a military confrontation should the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan carry out his threat to have aid-bearing vessels to Gaza escorted by Turkish warships. Erdogan is also trying to rally Arab states to join his own in sanctioning both Israel and the US if the blockade of Gaza endures.

Mahmoud Abbas may have much to lose by defying Washington and Tel Aviv but he may also have more to gain. After 60 years of oppression and humiliation, it's beyond time that he held fast to his principles, gained the respect of his people and let the chips fall where they may.