U.S. official to Haaretz: Netanyahu focus on 1967 borders missing the point

[Poll_Blind]

A couple of you have been astute enough to point this out and I thank you for the insight. Now, the U.S. is making the same point, and it's a doozie:

From Haaretz: U.S. official to Haaretz: Netanyahu focus on 1967 borders missing the point:

In an exclusive interview with Haaretz, a senior U.S. official says Netanyahu's reaction to Obama's Mideast speech may lead to a situation in which 187 countries vote for the recognition of a Palestinian state at the General Assembly and two oppose.

There. That's it. In a single sentence, this US official lays out an inescapable decision which lies in front of Israel after celebrating it's 63 birthday: Make Peace now or Make Peace later. But like a bad tooth, if they don't adress the issue, it's not going to go away and all the stubbornness in the world isn't going to change the outcome.

The article continues...

"This time we might end up at the General Assembly with 187 countries voting for the recognition of the Palestinian state and two against it," he said, adding "it's bad for Israel and its bad for the United States. Netanyahu's reaction has aggravated the situation and frankly I don't know how he will get down from this tree."

The official clarified that Obama mentioned 1967 borders with territory swaps as a basis for negotiations - not as a final point.

"We don't see Hamas any differently than Israel does," the official said, adding that the U.S. recognizes that it is a terror organization and is wary of the recent Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.

He added, "we cannot exclude an option of negotiation with them", pending they accept the Quartet conditions.

That the US is having to reach out like this tells me that Netanyahu isn't playing political games so much as being a major dumbass who has now painted himself (and a few hardcore right-wing religious parties who make him look like a hippie) into a corner where they're finally going to have to do something, or the rest of the world will and they will have far fewer options favorable to them.

PB

[OHdem10]

1. Why is no MSM (TV) pointing out the fact that Obama was trying

to prevent the Vote in UN??? This vote is to MAKE PALESTInE
A Full STATE. No one has discussed this up coming plan anc
vote. Palestine has the support of 187 countries. Netanyahu
wants the US and Israel standing alone opposing the new law.
it would appear.

The GOP are so obsessed with Obama hatred, they jumped on
"Throw Israel under the bus" mode. What a blasted lie.

Get the whole story out.

[Canuckistanian]

2. The rest of the world is ready

Time for the US and Israel to do what's right.

[LetTimmySmoke]

3. I'm tired of the U.S. throwing political and diplomatic capital down a black hole.

Let them come up with a peace plan, show some good faith, and then we'll help them broker a deal. But we can't force them to be reasonable, as much as we would like to.

[dkf]

4. Well I picked up on the UN vote but not the implications as stated here.

Holy cow. Yikes. I am floored.

Damn it would be really bad if we are the only ones supporting Israel. We would then have no cover and will go down in history as opposing a Palestinian state.

Or I read somewhere that it is possible we will veto it. You know anything about that? It wasn't a legit site so I won't post it, but do we have the power to deny a Palestinian state?

[karynnj]

5. Not to mention our official policy is for a two state solution and has

been for decades. That really puts the US in a quandary. Not to mention this is NOT a vote in the security council so there is no veto possibility. ( http://whc.unesco.org/en/garules ) It is a foregone conclusion.

What I don't get is what happens then.

I am Jewish, active in a synagogue, a member of JSTREET (all it takes is signing up), and I really really think that the US would be wrong to vote down the UN vote - unless there is something more to the language than it seems. Gaza and the West Bank as they are are not tenable and are wrong.

[dkf]

6. Actually we can veto but it can be circumvented.

Supporters of Palestinian state could circumvent U.S. veto at United Nations

President Obama said Thursday that Palestinian "efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure," adding that "symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state."

In terms of formal U.N. membership, he is correct. Chapter II, Article 4 of the U.N. Charter says, "The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

That suggests that the U.S., a member of the Security Council, would veto any Palestinian membership if negotiations with Israel do not succeed.

But a U.S. veto may ultimately not matter. An effort is underway at the U.N. to garner support for a General Assembly vote in favor of Palestinian membership. Supporters would have to find 193 votes to have the required two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.

The plan is to then invoke General Assembly Resolution 377 A (V), which was given the title "Uniting for Peace." Passed in 1950, according to the U.N. treaty documents, it "states that where the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly shall seize itself of the matter." That basically means that the U.N. General Assembly would bypass the U.N. Security Council.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20064778-503544.html

I am not liking where this is going.

[Poll_Blind]

7. I had no idea that resolution even existed. I though that a security council Veto was unbeatable.

Hrm...

That could get...interesting...

Thank you for the link!

PB

[dkf]

8. May we live in interesting times right?

This whole thing is giving me anxiety...as if we don't have enough on our plate already. Poor Pres. Obama with the world on his shoulders.

[Poll_Blind]

9. I do have to say, between Rabin's assassination and Bush's cabinet being spineless Neocons...

...the possibility of Peace in the Middle East has just sat, but not withered, on the vine for a long time...

Let's hope Obama, and the rest of the world which backs him, can force the various parties into picking it, eating it, and planting its seeds so that their grandchildren will know its taste.

PB

[karynnj]

11. "upon the recommendation of the security counsel" - I see

In other words, they can win a vote 187 to 2, but they could fail to get the recommendation.

Like you I am not liking where this is going.

I also HATE that the pompous Netanyahu has the chutzpah to use "reality" to refer to his position. The reality he refers to is the reality of his party's most radical piece. This is like Boehner calling the Ryan plan "reality", because the tea party segment of his party insists on it.

In Israel's case, it is even more myopic. In fact, Israel is the country with the most at stake in getting a viable two state peace plan. Time is not on the side of a democratic, Jewish state otherwise. Gaza is a disgrace.

[dkf]

12. Yes. Those who argue the Palestinians have given nothing so deserve nothing are crazy.

Maybe their leadership hasn't given any political concessions but their living conditions are so bad that it's obvious where the suffering is.

[Poll_Blind]

10. Saturday kick!

:kick:

PB