The Comprehensive Guide to The Truth about Palestinian Statehood
In 2012, with the pressure of the Palestinian Authority and the backing of the Arab majority supporting it, the UN General Assembly voted to recognize “Palestine” as a state. Since the UN Security Council did not support this vote, it could not be considered as a member state of the UN and the Palestinian’s status is that of a “non-member observer state”.
Why did Israel object to the Palestinians going to the UN in their bid for statehood?
The Israeli objection is based on bilateral agreements with the Palestinians, that Palestinian statehood only be created through direct negotiations. The Palestinian move at the UN was a unilateral move, breaching their own agreements, and was designed to preempt and prejudge negotiations on the matter of the creation of a Palestinian state. The creation of a Palestinian state should be the result of negotiations, and if the Palestinians want to force it upon Israel by using their automatic majority in the UN, what is there to negotiate about?
Was there any other member state that was unilaterally recognized and accepted by the UN?
No. All member states either existed prior to the establishment of the UN, or were admitted to the UN, following the consensus of their neighbors and the international community, after they have proven they can be a peaceful state that is responsible for maintaining peace and security in their designated territory. A perfect example of how things should be done is South Sudan, the latest member state admitted to the UN in 2011, admitted after finalizing its agreement with Sudan. First there needs to be a solution on the ground, an actual treaty between both sides, and only then will approaching the UN actually make a difference. A Palestinian state will never be founded in New York, it will be founded here, in the land, following actual peace treaties.
Even Hillary Clinton, who was then Secretary of State, said that “A Palestinian state will only pass through Jerusalem, through direct negotiations, not through assembly halls in the United Nations.”
Why didn’t Israel fight harder against the General Assembly Resolution upgrading the Palestinians’ status? We knew that from that start the battle in the General Assembly was lost, it’s the same assembly that passed the resolution equating Zionism with racism. The real battle was and still is in the United Nations Security Council, and thankfully, at the moment, the Palestinians have no ability to succeed in that forum.
How is the Palestinian’s request for statehood, which is in their own interest, against a treaty they signed?
The Oslo Accords state that “The outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by agreements reached for the interim period.” In other words, both sides agreed to commit to working towards a permanent peace agreement that would not be interfered by any other agreements. The Palestinians, who are signatories of the Oslo Accords, are forbidden by the Accords to act unilaterally to enter any agreements that would interfere with reaching a peace agreement. If they are willing to blatantly and fragrantly break one treaty, how can they be trusted to upkeep other treaties?
But Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip in 2005?
The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was a unilateral concession giving Palestinians land without getting anything in return, with the hope of changing the dynamics in the region, inducing the Palestinians to stop the violence and be more amenable to working towards peace. The Palestinian’s unilateral move at the UN, however, was designed to take as opposed to giving.
Does the vote in the UN General Assembly to recognize “Palestine” as a state follow their own standards and guidelines? No. Not only should a new state be recognized by all its neighbors and at peace with them, it should also prove to be able to control its territory, and rule its population. This is certainly not the case with the Palestinians, who are split between the Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in Judea and Samaria, who continue to perpetrate atrocities against Israel and refuse to negotiate for peace.
What possible repercussions could the Palestinian statehood bid have for the rest of the world?
By the Palestinians turning the UN into a rubber stamp for their interests, they are negating the power of the UN to act in other crises around the globe. The UN, by way of the automatic majority, has been hijacked by Palestinian interests, and as a consequence there is an institutional bias against Israel, a fully democratic country with full human rights. This is why Israel is a main focus of the UN, and several of her committees, while other countries, such as Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba and other countries are ignored. It is said that if the Palestinians would want the moon to join the UN as a member state, the resolution would pass in the UN General Assembly.