Intelligence Squared US

Tuesday, January 10

THE U.N. SHOULD ADMIT PALESTINE AS A FULL MEMBER STATE

About This Debate

On September 23, 2011, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas appeared before the U.N. General Assembly to request full membership for the State of Palestine. America’s veto power renders their bid largely symbolic, but there could be leverage gained– like indirect recognition of statehood– in the process. After 20 years of failed talks with Israel, can this plea to the international community be the only path left to a two-state solution, or have the Palestinians set the peace process back by bypassing negotiations? *Panelists subject to change.

The Panel

For The Motion

  • Mustafa Barghouthi
    Mustafa Barghouthi
    FOR THE MOTION
    Mustafa Barghouthi
    Former Palestinian National Authority Presidential Candidate


    Palestinian democracy activist Mustafa Barghouthi was a candidate for the presidency of the Palestinian National Authority in 2005, finishing second to Mahmoud Abbas, with 19% of the vote. A medical doctor trained in the former Soviet Union and Jerusalem, he also received a degree in management from Stanford University in the United States, as a Sloan Fellow. Nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, Barghouthi is Secretary-General of the Palestinian National Initiative, a movement that campaigns for political reforms.

  • Daniel Levy
    Daniel Levy
    FOR THE MOTION
    Daniel Levy
    Former Israeli Government Negotiator & Senior Fellow, New America Foundation


    Daniel Levy is co-director of the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force and an editor for the The Middle East Channel at ForeignPolicy.com. He is a senior fellow at both The Century Foundation and the European Council on Foreign Relations. Levy was previously an official negotiator for the Israeli government in peace talks with the Palestinians under Prime Ministers Rabin and Barak. Levy served as the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative. He is a board member of the New Israel Fund and a founder of J Street.

Against The Motion

  • Dore Gold
    Dore Gold
    AGAINST THE MOTION
    Dore Gold
    Former Israeli U.N. Ambassador & Advisor to PM Netanyahu


    Dore Gold is a world renowned expert on Middle Eastern affairs, a bestselling author, and an accomplished diplomat. During his career as the Prime Minister of Israel's Foreign Policy Adviser and later as Ambassador to the United Nations, Gold distinguished himself in negotiations with world leaders which included the President of the United States, the US Secretary of State, and the British Foreign Secretary. He also served as a special envoy to the leaders of Arab states.

  • Aaron David Miller
    Aaron David Miller
    AGAINST THE MOTION
    Aaron David Miller
    Former U.S. Mideast Negotiator, Advised Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State


    Aaron David Miller became a Public Policy Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in January 2006. He is the author of The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace and a forthcoming book, Can America Have Another Great President? (Random House, 2012) For the prior two decades, he served at the Department of State as an advisor to Republican and Democratic secretaries of state, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process, most recently as the Senior Advisor for Arab-Israeli Negotiations. He also served as the Deputy Special Middle East Coordinator for Arab-Israeli Negotiations, Senior Member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and in the Office of the Historian.

Moderator

John Donvan is an author and correspondent for ABC News. He has served as ABC’s White House Correspondent, along with postings in Moscow, London, Jerusalem and Amman. He is currently writing a book on the history of autism to be published by Crown in 2013.

Poll Results

Pre-Debate Poll Results
37% For | 30% Against | 33% Undecided

Post Debate Poll Results
55% For | 37% Against | 8% Undecided

Debate Media

Audio

Listen to the edited radio
broadcast of this debate
Listen Now Download
Listen to the full unedited
audio from this debate
Listen Now Download

Point/Counterpoint

For

  • Even if nothing happens on the ground, becoming a full member state would elevate Palestinian’s status politically and morally.
  • Two decades of negotiations have gone nowhere and Israel continues to build settlements. What are the other peaceful alternatives?
  • Negotiations have become counterproductive and by going to the U.N., Palestinians are seeking a multilateral solution. Of the 193 members of the General Assembly, more than 120 support a Palestinian state.
  • According to the World Bank, “if the PA maintains its performance in institution-building and delivery of public services, it is well-positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.”
  • A Palestinian state should be recognized along 1967 borders, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

Against

  • The bid for full membership is largely symbolic. The Palestinians would first need 9 out of 15 votes from the U.N. Security Council, and the U.S. has already promised to use its veto power.
  • The only way to peace is through direct negotiations. Full membership to the U.N. would change nothing on the ground.
  • Going through the U.N. is a unilateral act that will derail peace talks, aggravating relations with the U.S. and provoking punitive behavior from Israel.
  • Declaring a Palestinian state along 1967 borders undermines future negotiations by taking away the necessity to compromise.
  • The Palestinian Authority is not in full control of the West Bank and Gaza and therefore does not meet the requirements for a state.