While we're focused on our own stories here this week, perhaps the big diplomatic story of the week -- one headed, one way or another, for the history books -- regards the Security Council resolution for the recognition of Palestinian statehood. (The link is to The Troubador's diary, "The Train Wreck is Coming: Two of Obama's Major Foreign Policy Goals Are About to Collide," the only one of the 24 diaries including the word "Palestine" in the past week to garner both 100+ comments and 100+ recs.)
That resolution is expected to fail. The New York Times gives a rundown on expectations here. I'll include some quotes from that article below the fold, but not up here.
Why? Because this is not an I/P diary -- and least not by intent.
My question is one for Democrats, progressives, Presidential-horse-race-fans, and other political observers:
What would happen if President Obama decided, on the merits, that the time was right for Palestinian statehood and had the U.S. abstain in the United Nations?
It seems that we should at least be discussing this, before the vote.
Put aside the merits of the conflict for now. What would happen if Obama decided that, despite our misgivings, this was the proper course of action?
Some questions:
(1) Would he -- could he -- be renominated? If not, how would it be prevented?
(2) If nominated, could he be re-elected?
(3) How much worse would his numbers get overall, or among some demographic groups?
(4) How much better would his numbers get overall, or among some demographic groups?
(5) How would the media react to the substantive decision? Would it be unanimous or fragmented?
(6) How would pundits react?
(7) Is there any conceivable defense for abstaining that Obama could "get away with"?
(8) Why, so far as I can tell, aren't people asking these questions?
Here's some background from the Times article:
The Palestinian decision to apply for full United Nations membership at the Security Council, announced Friday by President Mahmoud Abbas, was the most viable of the only options possible: surrender, return to violence or appeal to the international community, a senior Palestinian official said Saturday.
The official, Nabil Shaath, spoke to journalists before leaving for New York as part of the Palestinian delegation heading to the United Nations. He said that the appeal would change the ground rules of the conflict, and that although the Obama administration had vowed to veto the request and Israel had threatened punitive countermeasures, the Arab uprisings should make them reconsider.
“If I were President Obama or Israel, I would ask myself what is happening in the region,” he said, adding of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel: “Mr. Netanyahu is a pragmatist. If the odds change, he may change his calculations.”
Going to the Security Council instead of to the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where a pro-Palestinian majority is virtually guaranteed, has been considered a riskier and more confrontational approach because it invites an American veto.
But American, European and Israeli officials are now quietly arguing that the Security Council may prove easier for diplomats seeking a formula to get the Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations. The application through the Security Council will take longer because it will involve letters, committee formation and most likely requests for more time to study the situation.
The U.S. has signaled that it will veto and Palestinian Authority bid to achieve UN member status in the Security Council. A separate nonbinding recognition of Palestinian statehood is expected to take place in the General Assembly; the U.S. has pledged to vote "no."
A few days ago, as Lefty Coaster noted, the question of whether Palestinians would go to the Security Council at all remained open. Nabil Shah's announcement yesterday seems to settle the matter of Palestinian diplomatic strategy.
While I don't want this to be an I/P diary, having an informed opinion on the political ramifications of the Palestinian statehood veto (or lack thereof) requires that one be aware of some arguments on both sides of the issue. Here are a couple of views from both sides of the I/P debate for background, if you want it.
The Troubador's diary, which I recognize does have an I/P viewpoint, presents this introduction:
Next week, President Obama will travel to the UN General Assembly knowing that his administration will soon damage one of its main foreign policy goals: to cast the U.S. as a champion of Arab freedom and democracy.
Tragically, this self-inflicted wound will happen as a result of the United States voting against what nearly all pro-Arab freedom and democracy advocates support at this point: recognition of Palestine as a state in the UN.
Here's the irony: achieving Palestinian statehood is also one of President Obama's central foreign policy goals in the Middle East.
So here you have the tragedy and the irony all wrapped into one: the "trainwreck" Obama sees coming at the UN in September will be created by a train the Obama administration is conducting.
The Troubador also notes two interesting interviews. In one, Laura Rozen talks to a senior Middle East negotiator, Aaron David Miller:
"I think President Obama is torn. ... [He doesn't] want to be the guy who has to oppose a Palestinian state, which is something he is very much in support of." But if U.S. representatives are forced to veto a Palestinian state resolution at the UN Security Council next week – as they vowed to do if the measure comes before that body – "you have to wonder how much lower American credibility can get," Miller said.
UN Ambassador Susan Rice admitted that (1) The U.S. has done everything it can to try to stop the Palestinians, and (2) The Palestinians will push forward next week and will win overwhelming support, thus isolating America in the region on the issue.
Susan Rice provides her own "pro-veto" view here:
The U.S. stepped up its rhetoric against a Palestinian bid to gain United Nations membership during this month’s General Assembly meeting. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice told a gathered group of journalists that the bid is “not symbolic, it is consequential” because, if accepted, it would give Palestinians access to treaties and inter-governmental bodies like the International Criminal Court. She said the “dangerous diversion” would hurt Palestinian interests in the long run because the bid would imperil the future of the already-stalled peace process between Israel and Palestine. “The reality is, the absolute only way to achieve our goal [of] two states living side by side…is through direct negotiations,” said Rice, according to the Christian Science Monitor. “There is no short cut.”
(I should note that the discussion on progressive blogosphere sites like MyDD, TPM, and , so I went to Think Progress for the above. Booman had a good discussion of the issues on his site -- "in green" -- a couple of weeks ago.)
So that's some of what you'd need to have an informed opinion. That brings me back to the eight questions above, primarily:
What would the effect of allowing recognition of a Palestinian state this week mean for Democrats and for President Obama?
Shouldn't we be talking about this?