"U.S. Is Appealing to Palestinians to Stall U.N. VoteBy STEVEN LEE MYERS and MARK LANDLER Published: September 3, 2011 NY Times WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has initiated a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to avert a confrontation this month over a plan by Palestinians to seek recognition as a state at the United Nations, but it may already be too late, according to senior American officials and foreign diplomats. Security Council Debate Offers Preview of Palestinian Bid (July 27, 2011) Times Topic: Middle East Peace TalksThe administration has circulated a proposal for renewed peace talks with the Israelis in the hopes of persuading the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to abandon the bid for recognition at the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly beginning Sept. 20. The administration has made it clear to Mr. Abbas that it will veto any request presented to the United Nations Security Council to make a Palestinian state a new member outright. But the United States does not have enough support to block a vote by the General Assembly to elevate the status of the Palestinians’ nonvoting observer “entity” to that of a nonvoting observer state. The change would pave the way for the Palestinians to join dozens of United Nations bodies and conventions, and it could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court. Senior officials said the administration wanted to avoid not only a veto but also the more symbolic and potent General Assembly vote that would leave the United States and only a handful of other nations in the opposition. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic maneuverings, said they feared that in either case a wave of anger could sweep the Palestinian territories and the wider Arab world at a time when the region is already in tumult. President Obama would be put in the position of threatening to veto recognition of the aspirations of most Palestinians or risk alienating Israel and its political supporters in the United States. “If you put the alternative out there, then you’ve suddenly just changed the circumstances and changed the dynamic,” a senior administration official involved in the flurry of diplomacy said Thursday. “And that’s what we’re trying very much to do.” Efforts to head off the Palestinian diplomatic drive have percolated all summer but have taken on urgency as the vote looms in the coming weeks. “It’s not clear to me how it can be avoided at the moment,” said Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian negotiator who is now executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine in Washington. “An American veto could inflame emotions and bring anti-American sentiment to the forefront across the region.” While some officials remain optimistic that a compromise can be found, the administration has simultaneously begun planning to limit the fallout of a statehood vote. A primary focus is to ensure the Israelis and Palestinians continue to cooperate on security matters in the West Bank and along Israel’s borders, administration officials said." Major reprecussions will follow, if they were to be voted in.... This tinderbox just got another frightening spark in the mix !
"The Obama administration has initiated a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to avert a confrontation this month over a plan by Palestinians to seek recognition as a state at the United Nations, but it may already be too late, according to senior American officials and foreign diplomats. The administration has made it clear to Mr. Abbas that it will veto any request presented to the United Nations Security Council to make a Palestinian state a new member outright." LOL! How do the PF progressives like Obama now? Barrack wants to keep the Jewish vote because he's growing desperate. The free vacations are going to end soon. _
Shouldn't the Palestinians just declare independence and then go to the UN? I realize that Gaza and the West Bank are controlled by two separate governments, but why wouldn't Gaza just declare independence, dare the Israeli's to do something about it, and then go to the UN, say we're an independent nation now, and start taking responsibility for their own screwed up society instead of blaming Israel?
Palestinians already declared independence in 1988. Now, they are simply working on the most efficient means of getting around the bigotry of the US government. Differences between Hamas and Fatah are an internal matter which will eventually get worked out.
Except Hamas is a known terrorist organization that for the past 8 years has terrorized its own people as well as Israel. Hamas happens to be the one problem the US has with a Palestine state. Hamas still refuses to acknowledge Israel as a country. Let me ask you one thing: If Palestine policy refuses to accept Israel as a Country, why should they get their own? Personally I just want them to both have their own state and acknowledge the sovereignty of each other.
And then leave each other alone! The world can then get on to more important business like sustainable energy.
It appears that you've been reading the Zionist propaganda aimed at the Palestinian resistance to Zionism. Do you know that Hamas was elected as the government of Palestine, in 2006, on a platform of a ceasefire with Israel and an extensive program of social services ? No, it seems that you do not. If you widened your reading material you would understand better.
Israel is a terrorist organization and the US recognizes it, so what's the problem? Likud rejects the nation of Palestine, so what's the problem? Israel refuses to recognize the nation of Palestine, so why should Israel get its own nation? Both already have their own nation. Now, it's just a matter of people accepting them.
Hitler was elected as well, not all elections are equal, are they? Hamas refuses, refuses to even acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist! .....So how do you "negotiate" with that??? I would really like to know how that is done? ps The Judge, a lot of statements, with no back -up at all...? Are we expected to just accept that all of the opinions you state are facts?
It's probably done like how it is done with Israel which refuses to acknowledge that Palestine exists. I could imagine that if one can negotiate with one such entity, like Likud, then one can negotiate with others as well, like Hamas. Why do some negotiate with Israel while claiming that such cannot be done given that Israel rejects the nation of Palestine? That's kind of odd.
Hitler was never elected, he was appointed. The Nazi party never got more than 30 to 34% in free election...
Well, it's a simple fact that Israel murdered more innocent civilians than Hamas, and yet the US government negotiates with Israel even though Israel seeks the destruction of Palestine. Yet, since the US obviously isn't gaining anything with its negotiations with Israel, it could certainly be fair to argue that such negotiations failed before they began, meaning that US negotiations with Israel are pointless and unproductive. Thus, your concept of negotiations with Israel being a complete failure could have something to it.
Our president said yesterday that Israel agreed along time ago to a palestinian state, ofc the borders are at issue, that was agreed in Oslo i belive and all gov are obliged by it including Likud and Bibi said it himself to in many occassions - why not return the (*)(*)(*)(*) courtesy of acknowledging WITHOUT agreed borders and let this game be done with? do they see us co-exist fighting all the time? if not than a kind word now would be a nice start.
The Weimar Republic of inter-war Germany had a representation by population system. When the Nazis got almost a third of the seats, it was because they got almost a third of the vote (more than any other of the numerous parties. Israel has practically the same system (the Weimar-style one) and it would be if Netanyahu's party had a particularily strong election and parleyed that into superseding the constitution and creating a totalitarian dictatorship. In the American system, given the number of existing parties at the time, the Nazis would take control of Congress and the Presidency with such a result.
It's not that he's growing desperate. It's the fact that he's just as much part of the status quo as his predecessor was. The only "progressive" vote that can be made in 2012 is for someone like Ralph Nader. Neither party really is "progressive" any more than either is libertarian.
