A United Nations General Assembly vote on Thursday followed through with something that had been at least partially expected since September 2011: Palestinians were granted “non-voting member state” status, upgraded from its former status as an “entity”. The vote was overwhelming, and demonstrated, if nothing else, that the world at large holds great sympathy for the Palestinian people. However, to understand what this means, it is important to examine the logic of the detractors of this vote.
Nine states, including the United States, Israel, Canada, and the Czech Republic, voted against this status upgrade. Prominently, Germany abstained. Germany’s mode of remembering the Holocaust has led it to support Israel diplomatically since it reunified in 1990. Its abstention was qualified with disapproval, but it is noteworthy that Germany did not take the step to vote against the measure. This is likely because of its role as the de facto leader of the European Union, as well as the worldwide wave of persuasion that the Palestinian cause has activated. Germany’s logic was as follows:
It is a balanced and carefully considered decision. On the one hand we see the Palestinians’ justified desire for their own state, but on the other hand we recognize our special responsibility to Israel, and for peaceful and stable development in the region
The United States, predictably, voted “no”. Secretary of State Clinton said:
We have been clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and Israelis achieve the peace they both deserve: two states for two people with a sovereign, viable independent Palestine living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel
This is more or less in line with the standard U.S. position, supporting the two-state solution while dignifying the Israeli position beyond doubt. It is not a condemnation of the Palestinian cause or vision, but a criticism of the strategy.
The essence of the United States argument and Germany’s argument is that they fear this move will “harden…the positions” of each party in the peace process. Both feel that the ultimate solution to the Palestinian question should come from bilateral negotiations. With this element, then, perhaps the Palestinians would go to bodies such as the International Criminal Court and attempt to prosecute the state of Israel for ethnic cleansing.
It is unclear that this will actually hamper any efforts toward an ultimately bilateral solution. No doubt that solution would be arbitrated by a powerful nation in Europe, the United States, or the United Nations itself! On the contrary, it appears that if the parties treat it as such, this step is simply a victory for the Palestinian people. It demonstrates that their will has been conveyed, and that it will be difficult–near impossible–to turn the tide against them. The peace process will play out however it will play out in the end, but with recognition at the United Nations, there is a demonstrable spate of international goodwill that will hopefully ensure that the Palestinians achieve their core interests.
The View from the Bell Tower 
While I think this is an interesting post, my comment will focus more on the UN and its ability to achieve the goals it was created to achieve. After having studied the UN for sometime, it is clear to me that it is truly a joke. It has little to no actual power to create or enforce laws. In actuality, every nation is sovereign, and, as such, has the right to assert its sovereignty, therefore, preventing any other nation or governing body from imposing any laws upon the relevant nation. While yes, the UN can use other methods, such as naming and shaming or embargoes, to bring about change, I feel that we need a governing body which actually has a bite–for lack of a better term.