Hey, welcome back to the show, it's Anti-War Radio.
Alright, now, Sheldon Richman is the editor of the Freeman.
What's that?
That's the journal of the Foundation for Economic Education.
And he's also a fellow at the Future Freedom Foundation.
He's the keeper of the blog, Free Association, at sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com.
And he also is a good friend of me and this show.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, Sheldon?
I'm doing great, Scott.
Thanks for having me back.
Alright, I'm very happy to have you here.
And especially during these very momentous times in the state of relations between America and Israel and Palestine and all of the other politicians in the world and whoever else, about the upcoming, perhaps, declaration of Palestinian statehood or an attempt to get one through the Security Council or the General Assembly.
I guess the decision still hasn't officially been made one way or the other yet, as far as I know.
And I'm sure that since your top essay today at your blog, Free Association, is concerning Lysander Spooner and his reputation of the authority of the U.S. Constitution, that you're going to have a different point of view on this question than most of what I've been able to hear on TV anyway.
So why don't you go ahead and let it rip.
Maybe first give people the necessary background that you think is important.
Well, sure.
And let me stress right at the top, just to take all precautions, I am speaking only for myself, not for any organization.
So I just thought I should put that out there.
Well, come on, like any of your organizations are afraid of what you've got to say.
Well, this is a long and complicated...
You're their star, and for this reason.
This is a long and complicated conflict, and there's many sensitive issues involved.
And I approach it, you know, I try to approach it with great care.
But, you know, I won't retell the whole story, because it would take a long time.
What currently is happening is that, you know, in 1967, which let's keep in mind was, you know, about 44 years ago, so it's not some short time ago, it's a couple generations, the parts of Palestine, which was one time a colony basically of Great Britain after World War I, the parts that were supposed to be a Palestinian Arab state were not allowed to become so, because, and this is not widely known, but it's very heavily documented, there are books about this, and it's not terribly controversial among historians and scholars, but because what was soon to become the State of Israel, and the King of Jordan, or what was known back then as Transjordan, he also was King Abdullah, the current King of Jordan is King Abdullah, they colluded to deprive the Palestinian Arabs of their own state.
And so in 1948, when Israel declared independence, after the United Nations partitioned, in other words, divided Palestine into what was going to be a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state, there was a war after Israel declared its independence, actually it kind of started before that, and during that time, the Jordanian forces, and the Arab Legion actually, which was commanded by the King of Jordan, occupied the West Bank, and Egypt, and took the Gaza Strip.
So the UN's wishes were defied in 1948, because the Palestinian Arabs did not get the state they were supposed to get.
So that's where it stands.
In 1967, Israel went to war with its neighbors, and we could get into the controversy of who started that war, I don't believe the standard version is accurate, but Israel was not an innocent victim in that.
But Israel then seized the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt respectively, and has held those areas ever since.
They're known as the Occupied Territories.
In the 1970s or early 80s, the Palestinians' leadership, Arafat, basically renounced any claim to the Jewish part of the partition, in other words, about 78% of Palestine, and said we'll take our state on the remaining 22%, which is the West Bank and Gaza.
That's a long-standing renunciation of the entire area of Palestine.
And so, as we all know, there have been negotiations on and off, but never any progress.
But meanwhile, and this is the key thing, Israel has been basically annexing the areas in the West Bank by building huge settlements, which have hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews living now in the West Bank.
And when they call them settlements, you picture a kind of tent.
No, these are towns.
These are towns with buildings, permanent buildings, what they call facts on the ground, so that they won't be undone.
And they've been building this wall, of course, also sneaking through the West Bank, separating people from their farms and wrecking homes and villages.
And so this is where we now stand.
So the Palestinians, perhaps inspired by the Arab Spring, I don't know in particular what did this, decided to, this year, go to the UN and say, you know, negotiations aren't getting anywhere, so why don't you recognize the Palestinian state, which was supposed to be created in 1948 anyway.
And so that's where we now stand.
I'll let you get a question in.
All right.
Well, now, I'll tell you what.
I'll tell you my best understanding of the current situation.
You correct me if I'm wrong or elaborate from there, whatever you think is best.
The Palestinians could submit this to the General Assembly where they're guaranteed to win, but then what?
And then on the other hand, they can submit it to the Security Council where they know Barack Obama will veto it.
And then whatever consequences come later, at least they can say, well, it's your fault for vetoing it, America, in that case.
But elaborate on the different choices there and why they matter so much.
And if they do declare a state, doesn't that mean that they're just going to have a war real soon again and that the Palestinians will lose it terribly?
Oh, good questions.
I believe, and I'm not an expert on the technicalities of the UN, but I believe if they just go the General Assembly route, and win recognition there where the U.S., of course, doesn't have a veto, and they need, I think, two-thirds, I don't believe it counts as full recognition.
I don't think they get all of the prerogatives that a UN member gets.
They get some access, I believe, to some of the agencies and stuff, but it's an inferior form of status, inferior status.
So I can see why the advantages of their going to the Security Council, but as you note, the U.S., of course, holds a veto.
So in the Security Council, it would be a different bid entirely.
It would be for full member statehood.
Right.
I think if it were to get through the Security Council, then it would be a recommendation to the General Assembly, and then there would be the vote there.
So it would end up still being two votes.
The General Assembly still ultimately would vote.
But if they take the Security Council route, then that leads to the more official position.
Right, and that means they're a real member.
They're a complete member, because the Security Council, look, when the five original members set up the, which included what, Russia, Stalin's Russia, when they set up the UN, I mean, the whole thing's painted, because it's the UN that was the victors from World War II, but we'll waive all that for now.
The main powers that set up the UN wanted to make sure that they would have ultimate say over who was recognized as a state in the UN.
So that's why the rules are the way they are.
All right, now hold it right there.
You know we've got to go out to this break.
It's Sheldon Richman from the Future Freedom Foundation, and Sheldon, freeassociation.blogspot.com.
We'll be right back after this.
All right, Joe, welcome back to the show.
It's Anti-War Radio.
I'm Scott Horton, and I'm talking with Sheldon Richman.
And I guess before we get to what you think ought to be done, Sheldon, I want to ask you about what you think the consequences will be of what seems like the most likely thing, which is that they're going to submit it to the UN Security Council and then lose.
Well, it's hard to say.
I'm almost speechless.
Here's the thing, and here's one way to cut through it.
I think there really may, I mean Israel and the American and the U.S. administration, Obama administration, and the Israel lobby and everybody who's on the staunch Israel side on this issue, I think they're really mad at the Palestinians for putting Obama in this embarrassing situation.
Oh, everybody say, oh, poor Obama.
But, you know, tough luck.
I think the Palestinians are doing the right thing.
Obama keeps saying, you know, this is not a path to peace.
There's no shortcut to peace.
This is what he said in his speech today.
But the point is this is not designed immediately to achieve peace.
That's the next step.
This is designed to get recognition as a state, and then they can go on if Israel is interested, which would be a first, really.
It can go on to negotiate with Israel.
This doesn't preclude negotiations.
I don't know why they keep saying this is not the way to do it.
We should negotiate.
First of all, they've been negotiating on and off for nearly 44 years.
And, you know, somebody compared it to two people negotiating over a pizza.
But while one guy's negotiating, the other guy's eating the pizza.
That's what's going on here.
So how long can they wait?
Well, it's more like the hostage negotiating with the hostage taker.
And there is nobody on the phone outside, you know.
Right, right.
But the pizza consumption idea is a reference to the settlement building, you know, the building towns all through the West Bank.
Eventually there will be a little sliver left, and we'll say, okay, let's negotiate over the sliver.
So, you know, people say, why do this?
What's the point of doing this?
It won't change anything.
Well, psychologically it would change something if Palestine is recognized as a state, because now suddenly you have one member state occupying another member state.
I think that's a psychological boost for the Palestinians that they need.
What would happen?
I mean, I don't know what will happen.
I hope there's not violence.
Violence is not the way for the Palestinians to get what it is they want.
And, you know, I hope they realize that.
But that's got nothing to do with getting this recognition.
This is a psychological boost that they would need and would be constructive.
The only way you can believe it's not constructive is if you think Netanyahu is a good-faith negotiator, and he's not, or that the U.S. is an honest broker, which it is not.
How can you look at the 44 years, or actually, you know, the 62 years or whatever, 63 years, of U.S. conduct in the Middle East and on this particular conflict and think it's an honest broker?
It just is not.
Yeah, well, and back to my analogy, it's America's negotiator on the phone outside, and they're on the side of the bank robber.
Well, that's right.
And for Obama to go to the U.N., I mean, if you read the speech, read the section of the speech about this, it's just a joke.
I mean, look, I think he was trying out to be a stand-up comic.
Before he even got to the Palestinian section of the speech, he made the claim that the war is receding in the world.
And, you know, after I got off the floor from laughing, I realized, you know, what is going on in Iraq, and why weren't people, like, rolling in the aisles at the General Assembly when he said that?
Where is war receding?
We're just setting up a new drone base in Africa so we can be more convenient to hit Somalia and possibly even Ethiopia and Yemen.
So, you know, you've got to turn the whole thing upside down.
It's a bizarre world, I guess, as Justin Raimondo would say.
Yeah, American wars just don't count.
Everywhere else, peace is breaking out.
And in this speech where he's discussing the Palestinians, he goes through about the suffering of the Israelis, that the rockets are fired and all this.
And, of course, that's been true.
The Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.
And, you know, that's terrible.
And it's a war crime.
I don't know if it counts as a war crime because they're not a state.
And they don't really have the arms that Israel has.
But he said nothing about Palestinian casualties, Palestinian repression, or even the daily humiliation of being under Israel's thumb in those territories where there are checkpoints everywhere.
You don't know when you're going to be able to get to work because you don't know how long you're going to be held up at all the checkpoints before you get from home to wherever it is you're working.
This is a daily grind, not to mention the violence, but a daily grind.
He made no mention of that.
He just said, oh, I know you're frustrated, but this isn't the way to do it.
Do it through negotiations.
But look what's been happening over the last 40 years regarding negotiations.
I mean, who could blame them for going to the UN to finally at least get this recognition?
Right.
Yeah, well, but then again, I thought you were an anarchist.
Don't you think they should just all stop acknowledging any states at all?
I'm no fan of the UN, which I've already made clear, and it's true.
I'm no fan of states.
But they're not libertarians, and they have to live in the world as they find it.
And I don't blame them in a world of states where they're under the thumb of another state.
I don't blame them for doing this.
I would hope that the day after they get recognized as a state, they all start reading Lysander Spooner and say, we don't want a state.
We just want to be a free, classical, liberal, individualist, free-market anarchist area.
How about that?
But I don't blame them for what they're doing.
This is how you cope in this situation.
Well, and Netanyahu seems desperate to try to head it off and make it seem like it's the most unreasonable thing in the world, which I guess is just for the American audience because pretty much everybody else on earth is for this.
Is that about the way you see it?
Right.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
And he's saying, no, let's start brand-new negotiations right now instead of you doing this.
Well, what's he been waiting for, you know, this whole time?
That's right.
That's right.
You've got to understand that the Israeli leaders are not bargaining in good faith.
And I think we have to put extra focus on Obama because I think what he's doing is totally disgraceful.
Look, he doesn't want – this is the interesting thing.
This is why this is such an interesting conflict.
In a sense, he doesn't want to cast a veto in the Security Council because he needs to claim he's on the side of Arab Spring, right, of the aspirations of the Arab people for freedom and democracy and all that stuff.
So he doesn't really want to do it for that reason.
However, he knows politically, and also I think he means it, he wants to stay – he believes in standing with Israel no matter what.
So he's got these two things.
He's got to cast it if he gets to that point, but he doesn't want to get to that point.
You know what he's doing?
He's trying desperately to get Security Council members who should go to the Security Council to not vote.
So you need – I think it is nine votes.
If they get nine votes, the U.S. will have to cast its veto.
If they only get eight votes or less, it doesn't have to cast a veto because it fails.
So he needs to buy off or at least threaten other members of the Security Council to keep them from casting what would end up being the nine votes.
And he's already – there have been reports that he's threatening to withhold aid not only to Security Council countries but even General Assembly countries if they vote for statehood.
This is despicable.
He wants – he's two-faced.
He's trying to play it both ways.
He doesn't want to have to cast a veto, but he knows he will cast a veto if it comes to that.
And so he's trying to find his other way, slow walking it, they call it.
That's an expression I've been hearing all week from – what's her name?
Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief diplomatic stenographer.
Slow walking it.
Don't let it get there.
Let them file their petition and then just, oh, we lost it.
Sorry.
Five years later, oh, was that again?
Oh, it must be under this pile of paper somewhere.
It's a trick.
It's a total – it's a trick, and Obama should be ashamed of himself.
Well, I'm sorry we don't have time.
I was going to ask you about Hamas's role in this from over there in the Gaza Strip prison, but I guess we'll have to save that for another time, maybe even tomorrow.
But we've got to go.
Thanks very much, Sheldon Richman.
Appreciate it.
Anytime, Scott.
Thanks to you.
All right, everybody, Sheldon.
Freeassociation.com.
Blogspot.com.
