Palestinian U.N. Bid Fails by 1 Vote. Was That the Plan?

[oberliner]

The Palestinian effort to have the U.N. Security Council set a deadline for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank failed to win the necessary nine votes for approval this afternoon. Palestinian spokesmen had spoken confidently before the vote of winning nine or even 10 votes. But two nations whose support they said they expected, Nigeria and South Korea, ended up abstaining. In the end eight nations voted for the resolution, two voted no and five abstained.

The outcome ended up confirming what some Palestinian and Israeli spokesmen had said weeks ago: that the resolution would fall short if it came up for a vote in 2014. Palestinian chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat had warned in a December 15 interview with an Arabic-language Israeli radio station that the resolution didn’t have nine votes.

Jordan, which holds the Arab group’s seat on the Security Council, was said to be pushing for a delay in the vote until next week, when five new members take their seats, including fiercely anti-Israel Malaysia, which will take the Asia-Pacific seat currently held by South Korea. But the Palestinians insisted on holding the vote before the New Year’s holiday.

http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/211846/palestinian-un-bid-fails-by--vote-was-that-the-pl/

This article raises some interesting questions. Specifically, why didn't they wait until the new UNSC group came in? That most likely would've led to a majority voting yes and forced a veto from the US.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Nigeria was expected to vote yes and changed to abstain.

"Nigeria’s ambassador, U. Joy Ogwu, echoed the US position saying the ultimate path to peace lies “in a negotiated solution.”"

Read more: Palestinian statehood resolution fails at UN Security Council | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-statehood-resolution-defeated-at-un-security-council/#ixzz3NRA89gk7

It could be that Nigeria's changed caught the Palastinian's by surprise.

[oberliner]

2. If they waited a few weeks, it wouldn't have mattered

South Korea (which abstained) would have been replaced by Malaysia (which would've voted yes).

[Turbineguy]

3. It would be nice

eventually. Once al Fatah and Hamas cease to have influence, it will happen. Once the damage Yasser Arafat has done fades, it will be a wonderful thing.

[Scootaloo]

5. And if Fatah and Hamas are gone, people like you will just complain about whoever comes after

it's not "Hamas" or "Fatah" you guys have a problem with.

It's Palestinians as a whole.

[King_David]

14. What an offensive post

"People like you"

No need to elaborate.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. Oh, would you stop with the fake outrage...

[King_David]

21. I have been told that many many times before

But never on a progressive site like DU.

Ever before...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. "I have been told that many many times before..."

You should have stopped at that.

[Chemisse]

26. No need to elaborate?

Clearly you'd like to appear the martyr and pretend it was an anti-semantic slur, when it was more probably an anti-'people who support Israel without question' remark.

[King_David]

27. You say "clearly"

Nothing in this group is "clear" maybe there was a need to elaborate.

Even your post is not clear , for example when you say "an anti-semantic slur" I have no idea whatsoever what that even means.

[oberliner]

15. Ditto for Netanyahu and Likud?

Is it fair to say that people like you will complain about whoever comes after them?

Would it be fair to say it's not "Netanyahu" or "Likud" that you have a problem with?

It's Israelis as a whole?

[Turbineguy]

16. People like me

who recognize that the Hate And Destroy Israel doctrine has been a dismal failure and caused untold suffering to people it purported to help?

[grossproffit]

8. Unfortunately, more terrorists will just replace them.

Hatred for Jews is ingrained in them from birth on. It's in their books, television shows, etc.

[Turbineguy]

17. Palestinian TV is

about 25 years ahead of Fox News which is now brainwashing a third generation.

[Scootaloo]

4. "Forced" a veto?

No, the veto was a given, just like ever.

[oberliner]

6. The US didn't have to veto in this case

It didn't have enough votes to pass so the US did not veto.

If it did have enough votes to pass, then they would've been forced to use the veto if they wanted the resolution to fail.

For some reason, the Palestinians decided to push for a vote now - which resulted in the resolution failing without a US veto, rather than wait just a few weeks - which would've resulted in the resolution failing only because of a US veto.

The distinction does appear to be a significant one, as now people can say that the UNSC itself rejected the resolution rather than saying that they wanted to accept it but the US blocked them from doing so.

[shaayecanaan]

7. apparently so

The Palestinians didn't want to push the resolution but didn't feel as though they could shelve it. The best alternative was to table it now so that it could be voted down.

No doubt the Americans wanted the resolution shot down so that it wouldn't affect the Israeli elections. I would be interested to know what other discussions might ha e taken place between the us and Palestinians.

The americans haven't had to exercise their veto yet. The Palestinians would prefer that they did not. They are probably presuming that if netanyahu is returned and keeps frustrating Obama that Obama will want to kick his arse before he leaves, and if the us has to use its veto beforehand it will establish something of a precedent so to speak.

[oberliner]

13. Although the Nigerian vote appears to have taken them by surprise

From what I have read, it appeared as though it was assumed Nigeria would vote yes, thereby giving the resolution nine votes with France and Luxembourg. The switch to an abstention from Nigeria appears to have come at the last minute.

[bemildred]

9. These things don't happen by accident. nt

[bemildred]

10. US Vetoes Palestinian Statehood Resolution at UN

And then there's this. Apparently Ms Power wants to nail it down.

December 31, 2014 5:21 AM

The United States has vetoed a United Nations Security Council draft resolution on Palestinian statehood that demanded Israel withdraw from the occupied territories.

Even without the U.S. veto, the measure would have fallen one vote short of the nine it needed among the council's 15 members in order to pass.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power explained the veto by saying Israeli-Palestinian peace can only come from "hard choices and compromises" and that the resolution would not move the sides closer to a two-state solution.

"We voted against this resolution not because we are indifferent to the daily hardships or the security threats endured by Palestinians and Israelis. But because we know that those hardships will not cease and those threats will not subside until the parties reach a comprehensive settlement achieved through negotiations,” said Power.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-vetoes-palestinian-statehood-resolution-at-un/2580150.html

[oberliner]

11. AP: It would have used its veto if necessary but it didn't have to

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Security Council rejected a Palestinian resolution demanding an end to Israeli occupation within three years late Tuesday, a blow to an Arab campaign to get the U.N.'s most powerful body to take action to achieve an independent state of Palestine.

The United States, Israel's closest ally, had made clear its opposition to the draft resolution, insisting on a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, not an imposed timetable. It would have used its veto if necessary but it didn't have to because the resolution failed to get the minimum nine "yes" votes required for adoption by the 15-member council.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/30/un-palestinian-draft_n_6397766.html

And from the Guardian:

Only eight countries voted in favour of the resolution, with the US – which opposed the motion – not using the veto it is granted as one of the five permanent members of the council.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/us-israel-un-reject-palestinian-resolution-nigeria-security-council

[bemildred]

12. I'm sure it will get straightened out eventually. nt

[azurnoir]

18. Yes thanks to Rightwing Christian Goodluck Jonathan President of Nigeria

and what the so called 'plan' was could be questioned indeed,

One Palestinian source involved in the negotiations told the Guardian: “Even half an hour before the vote, Nigeria indicated it was committed to voting for the resolution. We knew that Rwanda, South Korea and Australia would not back it, but we believed Nigeria was on board.”

The apparent change by Nigeria, which is a rotating member of the council, came after both the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the US secretary of state, John Kerry, phoned the country’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, to ask him not to support the resolution.

A State Department spokesman said on Tuesday that Kerry had called a number of senior foreign officials, including Jonathan, before the vote. Arriving at primary elections for leadership of his Likud party on Wednesday, Netanyahu confirmed he had spoken to both Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Jonathan before the UN vote. “I spoke with both of them,” he told reporters. “They promised me personally that they would not support this decision and they stood by their words. That is what tipped the scales.”
Advertisement

Netanyahu had a private meeting with the Nigerian president – seen by Israel as a potential ally on the security council – during the latter’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem in October.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/us-israel-un-reject-palestinian-resolution-nigeria-security-council

[oberliner]

19. This actually suggests the opposite

This suggests that they thought they had enough votes and that the Nigerian switch was completely unexpected.

[Israeli]

23. Then there is this .......

The vote in the UN Security Council was decided by Nigeria at the last moment not supporting the Palestinian proposal. That is not quite surprising, considering the following:

1) The President of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan is a Christian.

2) He is not just a Christian, he is an Evangelical Christian. He is member of the Nigerian Word of Life Bible Church which is closely connected with the Evangelical Churches in the United States, fanatic supporters of the extreme right in Israel.

3) President Goodluck Jonathan and the Pastor 'Ayodele Joseph Oritsejafor, head of Word of Life Bible Church, were last year on pilgrimage in Israel. It was not just a religious pilgrimage, they also met Netanyahu.

4) Three months ago, in September 2014, the authorities in South Africa searched a Nigerian airplane and found on board three suitcases containing a total of 9,300,000 Dollars in cash. The money was confiscated according to rules against international money laundering.

5) On the plane were three passengers - two Nigerians and an Israeli named Eyal Masika. It was Masika who had the combination for opening the money suitcases.

6) Eyal Masika lives in the capital city of Nigeria, Exactly what is he doing there? Nobody knows,

7) The plane on which Eyal Masika was travelling with the 9,300,000 Dollars was owned or chartered by the Word of Life Bible Church of Pastor 'Ayodele Joseph Oritsejafor.

8) After all this came out, President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria contacted directly President Jacob Zuma of South Africa, said that the 9,300,000 Dollars belonged to the Government of Nigeria and asked for the return of the money. President Zuma agreed.

9) All this affair with the 9,300,000 Dollars happened in September this year, when it was already well-known that the Palestinians were going to the Security Council and that Nigeria was going to be one of the countries deciding the outcome of the vote.

There was no need for any extensive detective work to find all this. A quarter of an hour on Wikipedia and the Internet were quite enough.

http://saharareporters.com/2014/09/17/jonathan-government-goes-rogue-oritsejafor-hide-behind-one-finger-ayobami-oyalowo

https://twitter.com/ogundamisi/status/393481828427763712


Source : http://adam-keller2.blogspot.co.il/

[azurnoir]

24. Jeebus and thank you

everything I had read suggested that Bibi had threatened to withdraw assistance in combating Boku Haram , however I've gotten the impression that as long as BH keeps its activities in the North of Nigeria as opposed to the South where the oil fields are he doesn't really care much, except for occasional PR damage control

[oberliner]

25. So why didn't they hold the vote a week later?

Nigeria is no longer on the UNSC - and the country that replaced it would almost certainly have voted yes.

[King_David]

28. Does that mean Israel bribed Nigeria with $9.3 M

Doesn't seem like that much money for Nigeria.

[oberliner]

29. My question is this:

Did the PA really think that Nigeria was going to vote YES?

Based on the information provided by some posters here, it seems like it was clear that Nigeria was not such a stable YES vote.

The other option is that the PA thought that Nigeria might abstain and wanted the vote to fail so they can proceed with the next steps they are taking now.

It seems like if they genuinely wanted the resolution to pass, they would've waited for Nigeria (a shaky YES vote at best) was off the UNSC and more solid YES votes were on.

Did the PA want the resolution to pass or to fail?