UNESCO vote for Palestine membership has been a significant move towards the demanded overhaul of Middle East policy architecture argued in previous postings about implications of Arab insurrection: http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011/05/arab-revolution-may-overhaul-middle.html . The overwhelming majority of 107 votes in favor and only 14 votes against indicated the worldly spread recognition of the Palestinian state in international community. Full membership of the Palestinian State in UN might work as drive to essential reconstruction of the US policy and Israel security concept. Actually it touches policy fundamentals fixed in the US legislation, which strictly prohibits paying the US dues to any UN agency that admitted the Palestine. These laws were adopted under the pressure of Israeli lobby in 1990-s.
The US policy in Middle East has come to the point of contest between leadership and friendship. Is that the way the inevitable reconstruction of the Middle East political landscape will go? And what particular value, leadership or friendship, would prevail? Unlike some, many enough observers who prefer speaking about the clash of national interests and “special relations” with Israel in the US policy, I would replace a sound wording of “national interest” with technical term of “leadership” in the formulation of the dilemma. The “friendship” with Israel might serve for “national interests” better than “leadership” ambitions in Middle East policy. The question is how the priorities of national interests are defined in the US? By no means we should doubt a value of friendship, but it should be expanded towards all nations striving to security, human dignity and equal partnerships in the Middle East.
And this is the way how leadership and friendship work together to secure peace and stability that are unhesitatingly justified priorities of every nation, and the US in particular as one with proven experience of service for the interests of its own people.
