At the UN Security Council on April 18, the US vetoed a draft resolution recommending that the General Assembly admit the State of Palestine as a full member of the organization. At present, Palestine has non-member observer state status, which was granted by the UN General Assembly in 2012. To become a full member of the UN, the application must be approved by the Security Council, and then by at least two-thirds of the General Assembly.

In the Security Council, the US had hardly any allies: Only the UK and Switzerland abstained, while all the other members of the Council – 12 out of 15 – voted in favor. As a small consolation, the Americans had to make do with the enthusiastic approval of their turbulent Israeli ally. Foreign Affairs Minister Israel Katz exulted: "The shameful proposal was rejected. Terrorism will not be rewarded." Strong words. As everyone knows, Hamas is such a strong supporter of an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. As for Israel's representative at the UN, the inimitable Gilad Erdan, he took care to warn the Council in advance that "approving the resolution would harm the prospects for dialogue with the Palestinians in the future." Right, because the Netanyahu government is so eager for dialogue with the Palestinian Authority.

In an exercise in diplomatic acrobatics, Robert Wood, the US representative, explained that his vote "[did] not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood," since "the United States continues to strongly support a two-state solution." So, what does it reflect? Well, "acknowledgment that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties." A State Department spokesman added his two cents: "Premature actions (...), even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people."

The prize for hypocritical contortion undoubtedly goes to Barbara Woodward, the UK's (abstaining) ambassador to the UN: "We believe that such recognition of Palestinian statehood should not come at the start of a new process, but it doesn't have to be at the very end of the process. We must start with fixing the immediate crisis in Gaza." What does this have to do with anything?

Double mistake, both moral and diplomatic

Without even mentioning the simple concern for intellectual coherence – good heavens, why vote against your own positions? – the American veto is a double mistake, both moral and diplomatic. As a matter of principle, making recognition of a Palestinian state conditional on negotiation with Israel, and therefore on its agreement, simply makes no sense. The natural right of people to self-determination is not a gracious gift from their adversaries.

You have 52.7% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.