Palestine voted into UNESCO, USA cuts funding

[Barrister]

I thought the US didn't really pay their UN bills anyways...so is cutting UNESCO funding a huge deal?

Wasn't that some time ago?  The impression I got was that the US was going to cut them a cheque, but now is prevented by law.

Pretty sure the US came up to date on its UN debts some time ago.

[Valmy]

Pretty sure the US came up to date on its UN debts some time ago.

Yeah GWB decided to play nice with the UN again.  We have been members in good standing ever since.  Well until now it seems.

[Sheilbh]

The problem isn't right of return.  That's like Jerusalem, it's one of the problems everyone know neither side will get entirely what they want but is very much a final status issue.

The problem is settlements right now.  The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.

[Valmy]

The problem is settlements right now.  The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.

One of the reasons I feel like our last chance for a real solution was blown in the last decade.  The Palestinians made it clear they did not want a deal when they elected Hamas and the death of Sharon made it clear Israel was unlikely to get on board any time soon as well.  So now I am not sure what will happen.  But I guess we might as well just move forward with a WB state.  Why the hell not.

[Valmy]

Very classy America, very classy.

Well you know the Israel-Palestinian crisis has always been all about class and good will.  Truly a disagreement between gentlemen.

[The Minsky Moment]

Overreaction by the US.  11/2012 is starting to drive policy.

[Martinus]

Very classy America, very classy.

Well you know the Israel-Palestinian crisis has always been all about class and good will.  Truly a disagreement between gentlemen.

Well, I would not find it weird if Israel would boycott the UNESCO over this (it's like China boycotting some UN body if they suddenly admitted Taiwan). However, the US acting like this is an overreaction.

[Maximus]

Overreaction by the US.  11/2012 is starting to drive policy.

How is it an over-reaction? Aren't we required by law to cut off funding? And wasn't that law passed 20+ years ago?

[Neil]

The problem is settlements right now.  The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.

One of the reasons I feel like our last chance for a real solution was blown in the last decade.  The Palestinians made it clear they did not want a deal when they elected Hamas and the death of Sharon made it clear Israel was unlikely to get on board any time soon as well.  So now I am not sure what will happen.  But I guess we might as well just move forward with a WB state.  Why the hell not.

Yeah.  Israel might as well settle the fuck out of the place, because there's no reason not to.

[The Minsky Moment]

Aren't we required by law to cut off funding? And wasn't that law passed 20+ years ago?

That's what people keep saying but I haven't seen any citation to any actual law yet.  And while there are references to a 1990 law, it seems odd to me that a law that predates the existence of the Palestinian National Authority would apply to this situation.

[Viking]

The problem isn't right of return.  That's like Jerusalem, it's one of the problems everyone know neither side will get entirely what they want but is very much a final status issue.

The problem is settlements right now.  The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.

The problem is return. It's the ONLY issue where there has been NO movement from either side (apart from Ehud Barak's symbolic 100,000 which Olmert kept offering though vaguely).

The maps of jerusalem and the west bank have been discussed and gives and takes have been made and offered. Barak and Olmert have made concrete proposals. Abbas has seen Olmerts proposals and today declares that if the Israelis made the same land offer he'd accept it (this might be because he doesn't think the Israelis will not make the same offer again).

I don't really understand why settlements are an obstacle. I can see how they are problematic to Palestinian lives but they cease to be that as soon as a final status is reached. The way to get rid of settlements is to make a final status deal or at least define a border between Israel and Palestine in the West Bank so that there will be no more settlements. Settlements are ONLY a problem if the status quo persists in perpetuity (or at least for another generation). Naturally if the Palestinians think the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and the settlements are being built on the assumption that there will be no peace for a generation and facts on the ground are needed then the peace process is in serious trouble.

Walls, Fences, Checkpoints and Settlements can be bulldozed. The peace agreement is ultimately a situation where Israel gives tangible assets now (land, cities, water etc.) in exchange for intangibles in the future (peaceful and good behavior). The Palestinians don't need to trust the Israelis. If the Israelis renig on any commitment the Palestinians are perfectly capable of returning to the status quo anti-final status talks unilaterally.

[Sheilbh]

Naturally if the Palestinians think the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and the settlements are being built on the assumption that there will be no peace for a generation and facts on the ground are needed then the peace process is in serious trouble.

That's where we are.  And I think the Palestinians are right.

[Malthus]

Naturally if the Palestinians think the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and the settlements are being built on the assumption that there will be no peace for a generation and facts on the ground are needed then the peace process is in serious trouble.

That's where we are.  And I think the Palestinians are right.

The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace, where a past unilateral exchange of property with Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza) has not, in fact, resulted in any increase in peace - but rather the opposite.

This has left the well of trust on the Israeli side rather dry. They are being asked to take all the risks, to benefit their opponents, in exchange for a goal they with some reason think is not obtainable.

[crazy canuck]

I can understand the Israeli position.  The Palestinians are attempting to obtain through the UN what should be negotiated with Israel.  The horrible hypothetical is that whatever entity is recognized by the UN will become dominated by Hamas.

[Sheilbh]

The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace, where a past unilateral exchange of property with Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza) has not, in fact, resulted in any increase in peace - but rather the opposite.

But I think this is putting the horse before the cart.  All that the US has tried to get the Israelis to do is to meet their past promises and stop building new settlements or expanding existing ones.  The Israeli government's not willing to do that and has in fact expanded settlement building over the past few years.

This is a confidence building measure that leads to negotiations that leads to an exchange of property for peace.  This is the Israeli equivalent to the Palestinians reforming the PA or building up their security capability.  It's the bare minimum indication that they want peace - or in the case of Israel that they're really willing to exchange land for peace.