Americans could lose a lot if the US exercises its planned veto in the Security Council vote on the Palestinian application for admission to the United Nations. The question that is not being discussed is whether the loss is worth it.
The first thing to know is that the issue is not about Palestinian statehood. The media essentially has it wrong when it describes the UN vote as one creating a Palestinian state. The UN does not have the power to create a state. The issue is whether the Palestinian Authority will be admitted as a member to the UN. There are non-states who are members of the UN, such as the Vatican, and there are states that are not members of the UN, such as Taiwan and Kosovo. Being a member of the UN is not the same as being a state. Thus, the US is really opposing a membershp application, not a referendum on statehood.Second, to gain admittance to the UN, the Palestinian Authority would have to accept the tenets of the UN Charter. Among other things, this would require a recognition of Israel's right to exist and a rejection of violence. Since Hamas rejects Israel's right to exist, the Palestinian Authority will be placed in a difficult dilemma. It can join the UN and accept Israel's right to exist, or it can reject membership and continue to oppose Israel's right to exist. The unintended consequences of the Palestinian Authority admission to the UN might actually work to the benefit of the US and Israel.The media doesn't talk much about this important issue either. Third, a US veto against a symbolic membership application that does not have the force of law and may actually advance US and Israeli interests will be very, very costly. A veto will dispel any notion of the US's impartiality as a mediator in the Middle East peace process. A veto will be seen as an implicit endorsement of continued settlement construction in the West Bank. A veto will be seen as implicit endorsement of the non-peace regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. A veto will be viewed as inconsistent with the professed American values of freedom, self-dtermination, and democracy. Thus, a veto may cause important moderate elements the Arab world to turn away from the US as a model of peace, democracy, and protector of human rights. A veto will be used by radical political Islamists to incite further violence against the US, particularly the US military. A veto will harm US efforts to find peaceful solutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. A veto, in short, will make foreign policy initiatives in the Islamic world much more difficult. The cost to ordinary Americans will be reflected in continued unpopular military expenditures and a possible decline in national security, at least overseas.The pro-Israel lobby and American Jews supporting Israel would say that all of this does not matter. What is important is the survival of Israel. However, they do not explain how the Palestinian membership in the UN threatens Israel's survival. This is a classic example of reactive devaluation: If it's good for the Palestinians, it must be bad for Israel. Israel's supporters are automatically and emotionally rejecting anything that could concievably benefit the Palestinians. Since they see the conflict in purely distributive terms--one side's gain must mean the other side's loss--any Palestinian gain must cause harm to Israel. However, a reasoned examination of the effects and implications of admission to the UN fails to uncover a cost to Israel. How, exactly, is Israel injured by the Palestinian admission to the UN? The media isn't asking this question either.Finally, President Obama has precious little negotiation leverage over Netanyahu. To remedy the lack of leverage, he should withdraw the US threat of a veto. The more strategic approach might be to say, "The US has not decided on its position on the application of the Palestinian Authority for UN membership. Whether the US votes in favor, opposes, or abstains will depend largely on the willingness demonsrated by the Israelis and the Palestinians to progress towards a durable peace. The US is committed to peace in the region and will support those who aspire for it through their concrete actions. It will not support those who merely talk peace, but are unwilling to compromise." From this position, the US may leverage the parties to the peace table. Netanyahu has to know that the US may not oppose the Palestinian bid for membership in the UN. If he backs off of his hawkish, aggressive positions and compromises with the Palestinian Authority, great. If he remains opposed to compromise, including cessation of settlement construction, he bears the consequences in the Security Council vote. The same is true for the Palestinians.That kind of sophisticated negotiation strategy seems unlikely because the domestic political costs at the beginning of a presidential electiion cycle will be too high. However, the cost of not alienating the pro-Israel special interests will extract a higher cost for world peace. Ultimately, American taxpayers will have to foot the bill for that price.Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).In the lull after the media frenzy around Irene, it is a good time to reflect on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. In a few weeks, the Palestinians will submit a resolution to the UN General Assembly that asks that Palestine be declared a new nation-state. Regardless of where you might stand on this issue, there are a lot of practical problems with the resolution. Besides the fact that the US will veto it in the Security Council, it is politically meaningless as long as Hamas and Fatah remain irrconciliably opposed to each other on fundamental issues of economic reform, governance, and recognition of Israel's right to exist. It's pretty hard to organize a nation-state when there are two bitterly opposed parties that cannot agree on what that state will look like.
Khaled Mashaal, who leads Hamas as its political bureau chief, must be wondering what the future will bring. Although safely enscounced in Damascus, he is at the epicenter of the Syrian uprising. He has been watching the revolutions in the Arab world as one corrupt regime after another is challenged by the people. In his Damascus headquarters, he has a front row seat to the violent and brutal repression of the Sunni majority by the al-Assad brothers. Maschaal appears to be a smart man, so he must be aware that the uprisings have had some effect on the Palestinian people in Gaza. Is Hamas' rule strong or tenuous? Hard to say, but life is not improving in Gaza due to Hamas. I wonder how long the Palestinian people will put up with the deprivation? Mashaal's power is based on war and violence, not peace. He is able to hold up the Israelis has evil oppressors, occupiers of sacred homeland, and opposed to justice for the Palestinian people. Take away the conflict and his power evaporates.
Fatah, in the West Bank, is slightly better off. Its non-elected "prime minister" Salam Fayyad has worked hard to created the beginning of a nation state, with economic reforms, a vastly improved security system, and relatively clean government. The head of Fatah, Mamoud Abbas, continues to take criticism for Fayyad. Despite the incursions of Israeli settlements, the Palestinians in the West Bank seem much better off than their counter parts in Gaza. Abbas and Fayyad seem to be the moderates in the triangle. While not overt peace leaders, they will endorse any agreement that is decent, fair, and sensible.
The Palestinian Authority, the nominal "government" of a nascent Palestinian state, has limited capacity as a self-governing body, both in policy and implementation. It lacks control over natural resources, borders, revenue generation, and the movement of persons, goods, and services within its walled, fragmented, and colonized territory. It lacks the material resources and institutional infrastructure to be a redistributive and interventionist state. Most of its public revenue comes from other countries, notably the United States (about $600 million per year), and its economy remains under the grip of Israel.
Netanyahu's government in Israel is facing economic protests over policies that have made the Israeli rich wealthier and have decimated the middle and lower economic classes. Netanyahu has used the conflict with the Palestinians as justification for many of his policies. In addition, Israel sucks up 20 percent of the total US foreign aid dollar. In 2011, the US will give Israel $3 billion in direct foreign aid or about $500 per Israeli citizen. This suggests to me that, like Mashaal, he cannot make peace with the Palestinians for the simple reason that his biggest reason for political existence will disappear with a decent peace agreement. Yes, the Zionist extremists are trying to drive the Israeli bus. At the end of the day, however, a strong peace leader will tell them to shut up, sit down, and behave themselves, and they will.
In the larger context, word is coming out of Egypt that a segment of the Egyptian population wants to revisit the Israeli peace accords. Other countries in the region are struggling with post-regime change reality or are on the verge of dealing with the problems of popular governance. Iran has spies everywhere, doing its best to stir up trouble for its Arab and Israeli enemies.
As the news media moves towards the next international feeding frenzy, which absent some unexpect international catastrophe or political incident, I predict will be the UN Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood, keep in mind that peace only comes with the installation of courageous peace leaders. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians have strong peace leaders. They are led by men who see continued violence and conflict, if properly contained, as serving their personal, political, and economic interests. Thus, for peace to occur, there will have to be regime changes instigated by the people, either through elections or protests, or both. There is no hope for peace as long as the current triumvirate of leaders is in the political mix of Israeli-Palestinian politics.
The UN Assembly vote, if it comes to pass, will be like Hurricane Irene, a lot of wind, water, and froth, but no real significance in the long term prospects for peace. The real hurricane rests with the people, and when they decide to move, change will happen suddenly, forcefully, and in a big storm surge of peace.
Doug Noll is a professional mediator and peacemaker. His latest book is Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011)