The Palestinian State: Headache for the U.S.
The United States is alone on this key foreign policy issue.
The prospect of seeing the Palestinians seek formal U.N. recognition of statehood is quite a diplomatic headache for the Obama administration. If he fails to convince President Mahmoud Abbas to abandon the project by Sept. 20, the opening day of the U.N. General Assembly, the undoubtedly most pro-Palestinian U.S. president in recent decades will be in the paradoxical situation of having to veto any Palestinian resolution at the Security Council to protect the interests of his strategic ally, Israel.
Furthermore, the United States would be unable to prevent the demand for state recognition from being approved in the event that it's submitted to the General Assembly, which appears to be the most likely scenario. Despite the official messages that the State Department has sent to more than 70 countries to convince them of the danger in supporting unilateral recognition, Washington does not have the votes it would need to block the initiative. It suffices to say that the Obama administration could end up isolated and powerless on one of the key issues of Middle Eastern politics. A failure would add to the climate of confusion and paralysis that lingers in the White House, weighed down by unemployment figures and Obama's falling approval rating in the polls.
Last-Minute Attempts
According to The New York Times, Washington also fears that by brandishing its veto, it will trigger a new wave of anti-Americanism likely to inflame the Middle East, which, fresh out of the Arab Spring, has a very unclear future. Finally, the presidential team fears intra-European and transatlantic tensions that the subject will not fail to arouse, while Westerners have so many reasons to close ranks against the economic crisis.
All these fears explain the last-minute attempts led by Washington to convince Abbas to abandon his project. The idea, rather late and unlikely to succeed given the proximity of the deadlines, is to try to relaunch a process of Israeli-Palestinian negotiation by drawing sufficiently attractive proposals from both sides. The quartet representative (U.S., E.U., Russia and U.N.), Tony Blair, is on the scene in an attempt to probe the protagonists. On Thursday, the U.S. envoy David Hale, who replaced George Mitchell in the spring, will meet Abbas with the same purpose. It is "the ultimate American attempt to save what can be," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a Palestinian leader who expects Hale to issue "threats and warnings from financial boycott to measures concerning the representation of the PLO at the United Nations."
A Unique Relationship
Given the unique relationship that binds the two countries, experts point out that America has no real choice but to side with its Israeli ally. Obama, stating from the beginning that he wouldn't support a unilateral Palestinian approach, cannot risk alienating pro-Israeli lobbies whose voices are well heard in Congress and that traditionally define Israeli policy in the United States.
Some liberal Jewish intellectuals such as Roger Cohen are afflicted. Cohen, writing in The New York Times, denounced on Tuesday a "taboo-littered cul-de-sac of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, a foreign policy that is in large measure a domestic policy." He added that Netanyahu has “opted for a needless road to an isolation that weakens Israel and undermines the strategic interests of its closest ally, the United States." Joel Rubin, a specialist who represents a liberal pro-Israel pressure group, is concerned over the effects this situation will have on the ability of the United States to influence the new powers emerging from the Arab Spring. "If we veto Palestine, even if we are right about the dangers of a unilateral approach, we will have a hard time being heard and credible on the issue of self-determination and democracy," he said. It puts the United States in "a very uncomfortable rhetorical position."
The prospect of seeing the Palestinians seek formal U.N. recognition of statehood is quite a diplomatic headache for the Obama administration. If he fails to convince President Mahmoud Abbas to abandon the project by Sept. 20, the opening day of the U.N. General Assembly, the undoubtedly most pro-Palestinian U.S. president in recent decades will be in the paradoxical situation of having to veto any Palestinian resolution at the Security Council to protect the interests of his strategic ally, Israel.
Furthermore, the United States would be unable to prevent the demand for state recognition from being approved in the event that it's submitted to the General Assembly, which appears to be the most likely scenario. Despite the official messages that the State Department has sent to more than 70 countries to convince them of the danger in supporting unilateral recognition, Washington does not have the votes it would need to block the initiative. It suffices to say that the Obama administration could end up isolated and powerless on one of the key issues of Middle Eastern politics. A failure would add to the climate of confusion and paralysis that lingers in the White House, weighed down by unemployment figures and Obama's falling approval rating in the polls.
Last-Minute Attempts
According to The New York Times, Washington also fears that by brandishing its veto, it will trigger a new wave of anti-Americanism likely to inflame the Middle East, which, fresh out of the Arab Spring, has a very unclear future. Finally, the presidential team fears intra-European and transatlantic tensions that the subject will not fail to arouse, while Westerners have so many reasons to close ranks against the economic crisis.
All these fears explain the last-minute attempts led by Washington to convince Abbas to abandon his project. The idea, rather late and unlikely to succeed given the proximity of the deadlines, is to try to relaunch a process of Israeli-Palestinian negotiation by drawing sufficiently attractive proposals from both sides. The quartet representative (U.S., E.U., Russia and U.N.), Tony Blair, is on the scene in an attempt to probe the protagonists. On Thursday, the U.S. envoy David Hale, who replaced George Mitchell in the spring, will meet Abbas with the same purpose. It is "the ultimate American attempt to save what can be," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a Palestinian leader who expects Hale to issue "threats and warnings from financial boycott to measures concerning the representation of the PLO at the United Nations."
A Unique Relationship
Given the unique relationship that binds the two countries, experts point out that America has no real choice but to side with its Israeli ally. Obama, stating from the beginning that he wouldn't support a unilateral Palestinian approach, cannot risk alienating pro-Israeli lobbies whose voices are well heard in Congress and that traditionally define Israeli policy in the United States.
Some liberal Jewish intellectuals such as Roger Cohen are afflicted. Cohen, writing in The New York Times, denounced on Tuesday a "taboo-littered cul-de-sac of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, a foreign policy that is in large measure a domestic policy." He added that Netanyahu has “opted for a needless road to an isolation that weakens Israel and undermines the strategic interests of its closest ally, the United States." Joel Rubin, a specialist who represents a liberal pro-Israel pressure group, is concerned over the effects this situation will have on the ability of the United States to influence the new powers emerging from the Arab Spring. "If we veto Palestine, even if we are right about the dangers of a unilateral approach, we will have a hard time being heard and credible on the issue of self-determination and democracy," he said. It puts the United States in "a very uncomfortable rhetorical position."