Why Does America Oppose Palestinian Statehood?

In spite of U.S. opposition, the Palestinian Authority has applied for the official recognition of Palestinian statehood after the failure of peace talks with Israel, due to Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This resolution directly challenges Israel’s lack of cooperation with the U.N.-approved road map and its continued policy of repression against the Palestinians. America now threatens to stop aid to the Palestinian Authority and calls for European countries to follow suit and block their petition in order to veto the declaration, to lead to a return to negotiations on both sides, which up until this point has been unproductive and unilateral.

The U.S. position aims to block Palestinian statehood and agrees with threats by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman and Yossi Beilin. These three consider statehood a step toward the dissolution of all existing agreements — including the Oslo Accords — between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

The American-Israeli position, as advocated by the Quartet’s envoy Tony Blair, has no future plans to recognize the Palestinian state. There are, however, E.U. member nations that approve the resolution based on former U.S. President George W. Bush’s support of the “two-state solution.” As Prince Turki al-Faisal said in an article in The New York Times on Tuesday, “the United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.”

His article communicates a sincere desire to bring lasting peace to the Middle East. The U.S. supports Israel, yet in supporting the worsening situation in the region, America will force the leaders of Saudi Arabia — as Prince Turki said, because of pressures at home and abroad — to take a more independent and assertive position. Recognized statehood means that the Palestinians will have the ability to deal with Israel peacefully and without threats. Such disapproval may be an early warning of the next Palestinian uprising, in an attempt to break the stalemate in the U.S.-Israeli controlled peace process.

Prince Turki, a former director of Saudi intelligence and former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., has called for the U.S. to drastically change its attitude. His request is based on a vision of Saudi and Arab nationalism which aims to bring peace to the region, especially since Saudi Arabia has provided roughly $2.5 billion in aid to the Palestinian Authority since June 2009, making it the biggest backer of the Palestinians. According to the prestigious Saudi diplomat, however, these funds won’t benefit anyone unless the Palestinians are granted their independence.

France’s policy, on the other hand, recognizes Palestinian statehood (as defined along the established 1967 borders and in agreement with Israel’s land exchange) as a positive step following the Oslo Accords, which initiated the peace process. According to the French, there is no cause for panic: Formally recognizing statehood will help achieve balance and security in the region, apart from Israeli threats to occupy more territory and abolish the Oslo Accords.

If the U.S. is able to use its veto or derail the resolution by pressuring nine out of the 15 states on the Security Council, then the Palestinian Authority can take other steps to become Palestine, the 194th country. Palestine would, in effect, have observer status. Statehood would also mean allowing the Palestinians to join the many international agencies and coalitions, including the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and UNESCO, among others.

The Palestine Liberation Organization demanded U.N. recognition in 1988, declaring their independence as “a state for Palestinians wherever they are, a state that represents a bold, crucial step toward international recognition based on the borders established as of June 4, 1967, and from which the Palestinian people derive the right to sovereignty. This is an affirmation of the illegitimacy and the end of Israel’s occupation, and without prejudice it confirms international recognition of all other civil and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly the right of return and the right to self-determination. This resolution will not deprive the PLO or the Palestinian Authority of their rights but rather will strengthen their representative positions, regionally and internationally.”*

The U.S.-led opposition against the Palestinians will fail because the Americans clearly support the enmity between the Arab nations and America and Israel, as well as the irresolution of core peace process issues. After Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian president, announced the establishment of the Palestinian state in 1988, many countries proceeded to raise Palestinian representatives to ambassador status. The total number of countries that now have diplomatic relationships or ambassadors with the Palestinians has increased to more than the occupying power has with other nations.

The Palestinian Authority and Arab countries should play a major role in confronting the American-Israeli position. At this point in time, Arab nations must apply through international forums to foil American-Israeli efforts in order to regain recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the U.N., warned the U.N. two days ago that “there is no greater threat” to U.S. funding of the UN than the possibility of adopting the Palestinian state, according to the newspaper report in the London Telegraph. This is especially true since the U.S. and Israel imposed an embargo on Gaza in February 2006 following Hamas’ victory in the elections. Former American President Bill Clinton described these elections as fair and transparent, despite American and Israeli measures to limit the role of Hamas in Palestinian territory.

Furthermore, the U.S. Congress supports Israel’s refusal to recognize Palestinian statehood. In the event that the Palestinian Authority were to seek official recognition, Israel requested that the American administration suspend aid, use its veto against any planned resolutions submitted to the Security Council regarding statehood and pursue intensive diplomatic efforts (which America is doing now) against the recognition of Palestine.

The American position does not match up with “American, European or Arab peace initiatives.” Their stance will negatively impact U.S. relations with the Palestinians and other Arab nations, especially with regard to aid programs that broadly assist the Palestinians. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared explicitly last April that her nation would neither deal with nor in any way finance the Palestinian government unless Hamas renounce violence and formally recognize Israel and previous agreements made with the U.S. and Israel.

U.S. demands for Palestinian-Israeli negotiations are pointless; not since the signing of the Oslo Accords 18 years ago have negotiations been productive, and even then they only furthered the woes of the Palestinian people. Through these negotiations, Netanyahu wants the Palestinians to refrain from asking for the freezing of settlements and therefore avoid setting a precedent — one which is no longer based on the borders established in 1967 and would lead to a renunciation of the Palestinian “right of return.”

In light of the threat of an American-led campaign against the Palestinian recognition, what’s needed is a unified Arab stance and a full willingness to make use of all diplomatic and economic weapons (including oil) in the face of a U.S. veto. The Arabs, as Prince Turki al-Faisal said, are facing an uphill battle in the U.N., and our response must be a unified one.