The U.S. will once again be in the difficult position of opposing a vote for an outcome it ultimately supports
UN General Assembly / Reuters
No matter what the U.S. does at the United Nations in New York next week, a diplomatic nightmare awaits on the question of the Palestinians.
The U.S. has pledged to veto an expected bid in the 15-member United Nations Security Council allowing Palestinian membership in the U.N. Even though the U.S. supports the eventual creation of a Palestinian state and membership in the U.N., its long-held position is that that will only happen after negotiations, which are currently frozen.
However, the U.S. cannot veto a potential second vote in the 193-member General Assembly that would make Palestine a nonvoting observer state at the world body. That would afford the Palestinian state entry to join dozens of United Nations agencies and treaty groups like the International Criminal Court, where in theory it could take up cases against Israeli officials for alleged war crimes or settlement building in the West Bank.
Whether the U.S. exercises its veto in the Security Council or stands by as the U.N. General Assembly approves the resolution, the U.S. will once again be in the difficult position of having to oppose a vote for an outcome it ultimately supports: the recognition of a Palestinian state. Both Israel and the U.S. claim that unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state could complicate the prospects of resuming long-stalled direct talks, because it does not resolve the key issues that have been obstacles to an agreement in the past.
"After whatever show we have in the United Nations is done, what will change in the real world for the Palestinian people? The answer is nothing, sadly," U.S. Ambassador to the U.N Susan Rice said at a breakfast for reporters on Monday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "Expectations will have been raised very high, but the economy will be the economy, the situation on the ground will remain the same situation on the ground. They will not have any more sovereignty, freedom, or autonomy than they feel today."
Even if the Palestinian Authority gets U.N. recognition, there is still no agreement with the Israelis over determining the borders of a future Palestinian state, security arrangements, control of Jerusalem, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
This isn't the first time the Obama administration has been caught in the middle of an Israeli-Palestinian standoff. Even though President Obama historically has taken a tough stand on Israeli settlement building, the U.S. was the only country to veto a February resolution in the Security Council calling for a halt in Israeli construction in the West Bank. While the resolution contained ideas Obama himself has supported, the U.S. has long maintained that the U.N. is not the forum for such discussions. Since before and after the U.S. veto, settlement construction has continued in the West Bank and there has been no discernible progress in resuming peace talks.
But now, with the months of pro-democracy protests in the region and political turmoil in neighbors Egypt, Syria, and Turkey, the stakes appear to be higher. Possible side effects of U.N. action on this issue include backlash against the U.S. for appearing to side with Israel over supporting the Palestinians' push for their own state if the U.S. uses its veto, and major protests in the region. In either case the U.S. Congress could decide to pull its funding from the Palestinian Authority, and Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are likely to remain in a state of paralysis.