From: The Future of Freedom Foundation
Sheldon Richman
 The Obama administration’s hypocritical vow to block full UN membership 
for Palestine shames America. Only a hypocrite could proclaim support 
for the Arab Spring while opposing this step toward realizing the 
Palestinian aspiration to be free from the 44-year-old Israeli 
occupation of the West Bank and subjugation of Gaza.
The Obama administration’s hypocritical vow to block full UN membership 
for Palestine shames America. Only a hypocrite could proclaim support 
for the Arab Spring while opposing this step toward realizing the 
Palestinian aspiration to be free from the 44-year-old Israeli 
occupation of the West Bank and subjugation of Gaza. 
Sheldon Richman
 The Obama administration’s hypocritical vow to block full UN membership 
for Palestine shames America. Only a hypocrite could proclaim support 
for the Arab Spring while opposing this step toward realizing the 
Palestinian aspiration to be free from the 44-year-old Israeli 
occupation of the West Bank and subjugation of Gaza.
The Obama administration’s hypocritical vow to block full UN membership 
for Palestine shames America. Only a hypocrite could proclaim support 
for the Arab Spring while opposing this step toward realizing the 
Palestinian aspiration to be free from the 44-year-old Israeli 
occupation of the West Bank and subjugation of Gaza. 
The Palestinians have been under brutal and degrading occupation since 
the 1967 Six-Day War, which they did not start. Their daily lives, when 
not punctuated by shootings, beatings, and bulldozing of homes and olive
 groves, are scarred by routine humiliation: military checkpoints, road 
blocks, arbitrary searches, unpredictable delays, and an inhumanely 
disruptive “security” wall. No one should have to live like that, yet 
two generations of Palestinians have been subjected to this cruelty. 
Some Palestinians, mostly in Gaza, have responded with attacks on 
Israeli civilians. However comprehensible, it is nonetheless vicious, 
criminal action. 
Negotiations have produced no progress. In 1988 Palestinian leaders 
relinquished claim to 78 percent of historic Palestine, despite the 
750,000 Arabs driven from their homes when Israel declared its 
independence in 1948. A UN gerrymandered plan to divide Palestine into 
Jewish and Palestinian Arab states was thwarted by the future Israeli 
leaders’ collusion with the king of Jordon to deprive the Palestinians 
of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, part of their assigned portion of 
the territory. Then in 1967 Israel wrested the West Bank from Jordan and
 Gaza from Egypt, and its brutal, grinding occupation began. 
Why have negotiations gone nowhere? Primarily because Israeli leaders 
show no intention of giving up the West Bank, which they call Judea and 
Samaria and claim as part of Greater Israel. At most they would permit a
 few self-governing towns connected by Israeli-controlled roads. The 
on-and-off negotiations have been undermined by Israeli insistence on 
confiscating land on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem for Jewish-only
 settlements. Someone has likened this so-called peace process to 
negotiations to divide a pizza in which one person talks while the other
 eats. Today, half-a-million Israeli Jews live in those settlements. 
When the Palestinians demand a halt to settlement-building, the Israeli 
government replies there must be no “preconditions” to negotiations: 
everything should be on the table, including the building. The game is 
thus rigged. Now and then an American administration has mildly 
admonished Israel for that policy and even pressured for a suspension. 
There were never teeth in the U.S. policy, and not a dime of the 
billions in annual aid was withheld. The few times Israel seemed to 
agree to stop building, it merely slowed down or expanded existing towns
 rather than break ground on new ones. The cynical game is shamefully 
transparent. It fools Americans, but not Palestinians or anyone else. 
Now, with the Arab Spring inspiring the world, the Palestinians have 
said with calm dignity, “Enough,” and have asked the UN for full 
membership for Palestine. What does the Obama administration say? It 
vows to veto the Security Council resolution if necessary. Obama’s UN 
speech was a tissue of fallacies claiming that a UN resolution cannot 
bring peace or replace negotiations. No Palestinian said it could. 
Negotiations over borders and other matters would follow — if Israel 
shows it’s willing by stopping the settlement-building. The need for 
negotiations is not an argument against UN membership. On the contrary, 
it supports the case. Membership would put on the record that one member
 state occupies another. (Nearly 130 governments already recognize the 
state of Palestine, including nine on the Security Council.) 
Obama is in an embarrassing position. For political reasons, he must 
support Israel by vetoing the membership resolution. But in light of the
 Arab Spring, the awkwardness of that position is palpable. So he is 
working overtime to avert the need for a veto. The administration will 
try to delay action to avoid the vote. If that doesn’t work, it is 
bribing and threatening other governments to vote No. Short of nine 
votes for the resolution, Obama would not have to cast the veto. 
But if all moves fail, he will order the veto. The world will then have 
no doubt where he stands: with the occupier, against the conquered. It 
will be another shameful day for America. 
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation and author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Visit his blog “Free Association” at www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.
