U.N. Vote Explainer

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Assistant professor at American University's School of International Service, contributing writer at Foreign Policy magazine and author of Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World, David Bosco, talks about the procedural issues around the expected Palestinian statehood vote in the U.N.


David Bosco

Comments [17]

DTorres from Nathan Strauss Projects

In rare situations,
Ben-Gurion empathized with
the Palestinian people.

He stated in a letter to
Moshe Sharett in 1937:

"Were I an Arab, and Arab
with nationalist political
consciousness . . .

I would rise up against an immigration liable in the future to hand the country and all of its [Palestinian] Arab inhabitants over to Jewish rule.

What [Palestinian] Arab cannot do
his math and understand what
[Jewish] immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state
in all of Palestine."

(Shabtai Teveth, p. 171-172)

Ben-Gurion also clearly stated that it was the Zionists who were the aggressors, at
least from the political point of view.

He stated in the contexts of the First
Palestinian Intifada in 1938, :

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves
---- that is only half the truth.

As regards our security and
life we defend ourselves. . . .

But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one.

And politically we are the aggressors
and they defend themselves."

(Righteous Victims, p. 652)

Sep. 20 2011 02:27 PM
DTorres from Nathan Strauss Projects

David Ben-Gurion -
"Palestine is not an empty country . . . \on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants." Ben-Gurion often
returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had

"the full right" to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life,
but not political.

(Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)

Sep. 20 2011 02:22 PM
DTorres from Nathan Straus Projects

Moshe Dayan addressing the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Haifa (as quoted in Ha'aretz, 4 April 1969).

"Jewish villages were built in
the place of Arab villages.

You do not even know the
names of these Arab villages,
and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist,
not only do the books not exist,
the Arab villages are not there either.

Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta;
Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis;
and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman.

There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

Sep. 20 2011 02:18 PM
snoop from Brooklyn

I said "what would be part of a Palestinian state" not what is or was part of a Palestinian state.

As it seems that most of the countries on the planet seem ready to recognize Palestine as a state, looks like Santa Claus is about to come to life. Whether they have a "right" to that state or not is irrelevant, and, obviously the people who call themselves Palestinians disagree with you on that.

Sep. 20 2011 11:03 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

There was never any Palestinian state! Never. Gaza was ruled by Egypt.Judah and Samaria were ruled by Jordan, and Jordan is really eastern Palestine. "Palestine" is a geographical name, like New England. There was never a country called "NEw England."

Jordan finally recognized ISrael and they signed a treaty, and the Jordan river is Israel's legal eastern border. The Arabs who live in the former West Bank, and who were citizens of Jordan, have no right to a new state. The whole issue is flawed. A piece of mythology. Believing in Palestine is like kids believing in Santa Claus. It's a myth they can't easily give up.

Sep. 20 2011 10:56 AM
snoop from Brooklyn

Israel already invaded what would be part of a Palestinian state when it invaded Gaza.

As a result, the UN issued a strongly worded report saying that the Israelis and the Palestinians should have behaved better.

I think it's a pretty big step from strongly worded reports to nuclear war, but hey, that's just my two cents.

Sep. 20 2011 10:51 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Ooops, I meant to say that the Arabs DO NOT recognize the JEwish state and this bid is just another milestone to bring down the Jewish state. That is all it is about. It's not just about creating a 23rd Arab state. It is all about eventually destroying the Jewish one.

Sep. 20 2011 10:48 AM
jgarbuz from .Queens

To snoop

It has nothing directly to do with the United States. But just as the US did not allow Cuba to have nuclear missiles that could threaten America, so ISrael will end up having to invade "Palestine" because the Palestinians do recognize the JEwish state, and will continue to do what they can to bring down the JEwish state. This is just major step to nuclear war. That's all. Israel is a nuclear power and is not going to go down quietly

Sep. 20 2011 10:47 AM
EVC from B'klyn

The world population is the total number of living humans on the planet Earth, currently estimated to be 6.96 billion by the United States Census Bureau as of []

Sep. 20 2011 10:44 AM
John from office

Some would say the G0D created Israel

Sep. 20 2011 10:43 AM
snoop from Brooklyn

A Palestinian state is the beginning of WWIII? Why? That's a bizarre statement.

General Assembly membership will be pretty much a *yawn* moment, unless, of course, Israel and the US overreact.

Of course, it increases the isolation of Israel, but I'm a little unclear as to why, as a strategic issue, this matters to the US.

Sep. 20 2011 10:43 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

A Palestinian state means WWIII. Period.

Sep. 20 2011 10:41 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

The UN is digging its own grave, which really started when it tore Kosovo from Serbia! If the Palestinian bid goes through, there will a TSUNAMI of peoples going to the UN to demand their right to an independent state! The UN will go the way of the League of Nations when WWII started, and just become another forgotten hope.

Yes, the UN is just a political organization, like COngress, and it gets bribes and the majority votes to appease the oil rich Muslims, etc., etc. It has nothing to do with justice or fairness. It's just politics.

Sep. 20 2011 10:39 AM
Smokey from LES

To quote Mr. Obama, I'm afraid America is going to end up "on the wrong side of history" if he uses a veto to keep Palestine down.

Sep. 20 2011 10:39 AM
Rahul from Manhattan

What I find interesting is that the so called BRIC countries support statehood. This has implications for the future of the UN in the multi-polar work. The creation of Israel is also rooted in the UN

Sep. 20 2011 10:36 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

The Lakota Sioux declared independence in 2008. WHen do they go to the UN go get recognized? What about the Kurds? What about Tibet? What about the Basques? What about Corsica? What about Samoa? What about Baluchistan? What about the Tamils of Sri Lanka? And on and on. Why is this issue the only issue that burns on and on and on?

Sep. 20 2011 10:35 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

It's NOT going to work! A Palestiniain state is the beginning of WWIII, just as the Sudeten crisis led to Munich, but only made WWII more inevitable. It will only threaten the Jewish state, and make World War Three inevitable. There is a Palestinian state under another name called Jordan. It was created for the Arabs in 1923, and it is their state. The Arabs living in Judah and Samaria have to accept the reality that they cannot have independent state, just as the Lokota Sioux and the Shoshone and the Kurds ,and many others do not have independent states. EVen Puerto Rico is not an independent state. And if chose to be independent, we would not let it have an Iranian naval or missile base.It could never threaten US interests even if Puerto Rico went its own way.

Sep. 20 2011 10:33 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.