Countries Intimidated Into Supporting Palestinian UN Bid

Diplomats in the UN said their support for the Palestinianstatehood bid stems from fear of revenge from Muslim and Arab nations loyal to the Palestinian cause.

Sources said some countries will support the Palestinians not because they believe in their cause, but because Muslim and Arab countries may take punitive measures against them when they will need support in the Security Council or in bids to be appointed to important UN bodies.

A senior Western diplomat told Haaretz that the Nonaligned Bloc’s votes were of particular importance. “It is the largest regional bloc,” he said, “and is greatly sympathetic to the Palestinian matter.”

Diplomats have pointed to Australia as an example of this intimidation. Australia is already pushing its nomination for a seat on the UN Security Council next year, and is expected to weigh its steps carefully so as not anger the Muslim and Arab nations and the Nonaligned Bloc. Canada, on the other hand, has failed in promoting its nomination for a seat, not least because of its support for Israel.

more...
http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/09/14/countries-intimidated-into-supporting-palestinian-un-bid/


The Israel Lobby? :eyes:

They're lightweights compared to the Oil Lobby.

The U.S. lobby has quite a lot of weight to throw around, and it does.

In any case, support for the Palestinian bid is simple justice -- which the U.S. will likely ensure is justice denied.

It is indeed sad that the UN can't vote on the rights and wrongs of an issue without the US or the Oil Lobby interfering but why is Palestine's application different to Israel's 1948 application?.....israel didn't even have a recognized border and was expecting armed conflict with its neighbors.

It was only after its armed conflict with its neighbors was resolved and an armistice agreement was signed that Israel's second application to be admitted to the UN was accepted in 1949.

But even then Israel had no recognized borders.....What is the US's real objection to recognizing a Palestine state?.....two states negotiating would go some way to rectifying the ridiculous claim that an occupying power can supposedly negotiate on equal terms with a non-state under military occupation.
.

That seems actually to be fairly similar to the recommendation given to Israel the first time they applied.

In theory, during that year, there can be some kind of reconciliation between the two Palestinian governing entities that do not recognize each others authority, which, I would think, is a problem at this point.

Probably a good idea but how do you assure the Palestinians it is not just more procrastination by the International Community?....S.C. Members have allowed the occupation and negotiations to drag on for 20 years, all the time knowing the Israel is encouraging more and more settlers to create facts on the ground.

Why doesn't the S.C. tell the Palestinians to wait a year for recognition, and tell the Israelis that their eastern border will be the 67 Green Line but with mutually agreed changes?

It is up to Abbas to stop procrastinating on negotiations. The Palestinian Authority has allowed terrorism and negotiations ot drag on for 20 years.


Why should the UN interject themselves at all?

You will remember how Sharon wouldn't negotiate with Arafat until he had stopped all terrorist acts against Israel?......Is it not reasonable for Abbas to refuse to negotiate whilst Netanyahu is building in the settlements?

Why do you hold Netanyahu free from responsibility?......He has declared at the UN that any negotiations would require Abbas to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, negotiations would not be based on the 1967 lines, would require permanent IDF bases on the West bank and would require IDF overfly rights.......These are non-negotiable for Netanyahu, so what is the point of Abbas negotiating?
.
.

No negotiations until the last few weeks. :(
But who cares, really? These are just a few buildings in an already established settlement. It's not like new land is being requisitioned.

Can you really compare it with acts of terrorism?

There have been negotiations on and off for the last 20 years...What are you talking about?


Shaktimaan......What do you hope to achieve by adding a brief objection to a new posting of mine when you have apparently failed to pursue our previous little debates?......I am trying to learn more about the validity of the various Israel-Palestinian arguements....What are you posting for?


I accept you are a reasonable fellow and I am quite happy to debate any of our differences......However, I have responded to every one of your past comments, only to be 'left-in-the-air' when the discussion becomes interesting...... Unless you are prepared to pursue your arguement to a logical conclusion, your comments really are a waste of time.

.
.

It explains an AWFUL lot about UN voting WRT Israel over the past 4 decades, dating back at least to the odious 1975 Israel/Racism vote.

There are entire committees that are dedicated just to the act of drafting charters and resolutions against Israel in the UN. Time and time again, the UN has demonstrated that it lacks the moral authority to be a fair and trustworthy arbiter of peace.

Quite frankly, the 53 member block of the OIC is a homogenuous voting block that disproportionately influences the agenda of the United Nations. That is the fundamental weakness of the United nations. Pariah states headed by despots and tyrants are given an equal democratic voice when they, themselves deny democracy to their own citizens.

Pro-totalitarianism and fascism.

Shameful.

They do not think that terrorists actions are right or wrong, but that they need to be "understood in the context".

How else do you explain the slight blemished and imperfections in the Western world that gets these "progressives" so up in arms and willing to embrace failed idealogies and dictatorships. I remember hearing a lengthy dissertation about the just and righteous Robert Mugabe handing land back to the people of Zimbabwe from the evil colonialists. What tripe!

The vast majority of the funding of the UN comes from Western Democracies. Just because not all members are democracies doesn't mean we tune out alternative view points. The U.N. is about diplomacy.

Almost 1/4, for what that is worth.

Although the vast amount of funding may, in fact, come from democracies the vast amount of representation comes from autocratic countries. For every one United States, there are five Zimbabwes.

The UN is not for the faint of heart. It's political knife fighting. Truth, justice, morality and law don't have anything to do with it. Which brings up the question of why people believe that the UN has the moral standing to confer legitimacy on any state, or any state action.

How many times must the UN fail before people stop conferring legitimacy to it? Rwanda and Sudan were enough for me.