51st: Do it yourself, or we’ll do it for you
The collapse of U.S. efforts to convince Israeli PM Netanyahu to accept “an offer he couldn’t refuse” is stirring the international pot. We can’t know what will come of various actions (such as, the recognition of a Palestinian state by Argentina and Brazil) and proposals to put matters in the hands of the UN or to impose sanctions on Israel, but at the moment they seem to gathering a bit of steam:
“A group of 26 ex-EU leaders has urged the union to impose sanctions on Israel for continuing to build settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.” From the BBC.
Robert Wright in the NYT: “The United Nations created a Jewish state six decades ago, and it can create a Palestinian state now. It can define the borders, set the timetable and lay down the rules for Palestinian elections” Wright’s opening line, “The blogger Andrew Sullivan has called America’s policy toward Israel “assisted suicide,” gets at a critical element in the current stand-off.
And Joseph Becker gets down to the nitty-gritty details in Commonweal.
And to add to the ongoing absurdity: “Israel refuses entry to Palestinian firefighters being honored for Carmel fire assistance.”
Juan Cole weighs in on the subject and notes that Norway has upgraded the Palestinian representative.
An interesting development: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7229782.html
“China and Israel should boost their bilateral relationship, as well as inter-military links, said Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie in Beijing Monday.”
Hmmm! What does it mean?
I wish I knew, but I find it interesting. If I had to guess, Israel is doing what Newt Gingrich himself said at a panel I was at: get on friendly terms with China, because the 21st century will be the century of China. In other words, it seems they are hedging bets, and willing to do whatever it takes, and shows, once again, no loyalty to the United States.
But if there is an oil crunch, I would have to guess that China goes to its Arab friends.
If it was OK to impose a Jewish state in the middle east (and I question the wisdom of that decision more and more as time goes on) then it should be OK to create a modern state of Palestine, alson the the middle east.
Of course, I strongly suspect that the Arab states surrounding Israel and what would become Palestine would resist that as much as would Israel. If you can’t keep things stirred up there, then what is the reason for resisting recognition of the State of Israel?
Whatever moral authority the United Nations possessed in its early years (surely substantial), it has undeniably squandered that prestige in subsequent years – certainly in the eyes of Israelis, who have witnessed the UN infamously equate Zionism with racism, and of course also in the eyes of the American Right.
The UN is highly and safely ignorable. UN action would be acknowledged by those who were already inclined to whatever policy it will propose (i.e. Arab states) and would be effectively ignored by those who find it inconvenient. Inasmuch as the GOP is now effectively governing the US via Congress (cf the recent tax accord), the latter group would include the US government.
On the other hand Jim P, if everyone at the UN votes for a Palestinian state and the U.S. abstains, it doesn’t make any difference what anyone thinks of the UN. A majority sentiment would indicate that Israel has to begin to observe international law–not mind you, UN law.