From the news reports and speculations on Palestine’s petition for United Nations statehood, it seems Palestine’s possible statehood could still happen even though the United States is likely to veto it.
However, the bigger issue here seems to be what would become of the Israeli-Palestinian situation if Palestine’s bid is accepted.
Would Palestine’s statehood be the catalyst to stop both sides from dilly-dallying, and encourage faster progress in settling the issue of boundaries and the people? Or is this bid a way for Palestine to make an attempt at establishing an independent state while bypassing negotiations, as Israel and the U.S. seem to feel?
The Palestinian government wants to protect the rights of its people. For them, UN statehood is the closest thing the nation can get to a guarantee that its opinion will be accepted.
At the same time, a Palestinian political party, Hamas, is against the bid; it believes the state of Israel should not be recognized alongside a Palestinian state.
Neither method bodes well for future negotiations from either side.
Even now, Israel is discussing the idea of an interim solution that would allow Palestine to establish their state with existing borders. But it seems that for the moment, Palestine wants nothing less than statehood.
Most agree that compromise needs to be involved for an ideal situation; it is questionable if Palestine will be as willing to negotiate with Israel if their bid is accepted. Both parties have stopped direct negotiations plenty of times before.
If Palestine wants to use the UN statehood to make sure their voice is heard, then perhaps the UN should attach guidelines to Palestine’s possible statehood to prevent either side from tackling the settlement and military issues without negotiation.
Treaties created during this conflict have both succeeded and failed. Maybe the resolution this time lies in the way the two nations react to this possible change.
Esther Pang is a junior majoring in print journalism.