Fox News, Sean Hannity and Mike Ghouse on Israel

How Does Palestine's Statehood Ambitions Affect Israel, U.S.?
Published September 19, 2011 | Hannity | Sean Hannity
Special Guests: Michael Ghouse, Lisa Daftari

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2011/09/20/how-does-palestines-statehood-ambitions-affect-israel-us?page=1

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," September 19, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And the 66th session of the U.N. General Assembly is now underway and that means, of course, that the world's most depraved dictators are parading through the streets of New York City.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2011/09/20/how-does-palestines-statehood-ambitions-affect-israel-us#ixzz1YWgcUK9I

According to the New York Post, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may use the opportunity to dine with Columbia students. I guess for that Ivy League institution one run in with the biggest terror sponsor in the Middle East was not enough, now they are back for more.

Meanwhile, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will use his time in New York to lobby the U.N. for a Palestinian state. Given the amount of energy that they've put into terrorism, suicide bombing over the past several years, I think we can all admit they deserve to be given this? I don't think so.

The U.S. plans to veto any bid for a Palestinian statehood despite Jimmy Carter's pleas to the contrary.

Joining me now with reaction to all of this, the president of America Coming Together, Michael Ghouse is back with us. Journalist, also is with us.,Lisa Daftari is here.

Guys, thanks for being with us. Michael, let me start with you.

All right, here you have Abbas, aligned with Hamas. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Hamas involved in all this terror. They deny the right of Israel to even exist.

You tell me, based -- basically what we are describing as a terror organization. Why should they be allowed by the United Nations, why should there be a Palestinian statehood, unless and until, they denounce terror and disassociate themselves from terror groups, why?

MIKE GHOUSE, AMERICA COMING TOGETHER FOUNDATION: Well, it is a legitimate thing to Israel and Palestinians have been talking with each other as Israelis and Palestinians. It is given.

HANNITY: Michael, you're not answering the question. Michael, simple question. If they support terror groups that deny Israel the right to exist, why should they be recognized with a Palestinian state?

GHOUSE: Well, why shouldn't they?

HANNITY: Because they support terror. That's why.

GHOUSE: Sean, we have to find peace. If you keep hanging on to those words that Hamas is a terror organization, when are you going to achieve peace?

HANNITY: So you want peace with the terror group. Do you think you can have peace with terrorists that want to wipe Israel off the map like Ahmadinejad? What are you going to say to them if you meet with them? You're going to say please be nice?

GHOUSE: Israel is a very strong country and they got our full support they don't need to worry. There is nothing wrong in extending the hand of friendship. If they fail, we have the power to deal with it. But by stretching our hands, we have an opportunity to bring peace.

HANNITY: The United States would not sit down with a group of people that call for our destruction. Lisa, will they?

LISA DAFTARI, MIDDLE EAST EXPERT: No, they wouldn't. You know what? Coming to the U.N. and declaring statehood does not make a state. You have negotiations you have to sit down with two equal parties that are coming there wanting it and then there's going to be agreement.

HANNITY: Why do you think that there's a willingness for so many people to overlook state sponsor terrorism out of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Jihad. Why are people so unwilling to recognize these groups for what they are, terror organizations that want to destroy the west?

DAFTARI: Right, so we're in this --

GHOUSE: Because their drive is to bring peace.

HANNITY: I asked Lisa that question. Hang on. Lisa --

DAFTARI: No, because -- right now, we are trying to be politically correct and everyone has to be fair. Israel has a nuclear bomb, Iran needs one too. I mean, Israel is a state and now the Palestinian need to be a state also.

But what we are not understanding here is that, you know, coming to the U.N. and declaring statehood is not going to be beneficial to anybody. It's going to be negative even for the Palestinian people.

I wonder if Mike could agree to that because what is going to happen is that there is going to be more frustration because we are not coming to it out of an agreement.

For 2-1/2 years we haven't had any progression in the peace process. We've had President Obama asking for freezing in settlements. We've had him asking Israel to go back to '67 borders.

Now Mahmoud Abbas feels compelled, why shouldn't I come and ask for statehood? What is going to happen, the Palestinians, almost Christmas Eve for them thinking they are going to get a state.

HANNITY: But the question is, look at the New York 9th election, the second biggest voting constituency for the president was Jewish-Americans. He's losing that vote. So is the president going to try to make a big show supporting Israel? And is it a show considering how badly he treated Netanyahu, the prime minister?

DAFTARI: Well, it is a show and it's not a show. It is a show because he's doing it because he wants to be reelected. I absolutely agree with you with that. He has to scale back now that he has called for the '67 borders, and that was a huge mistake as everybody knows. But also I think no one else is going to support it. I mean, not within the Security Council.

HANNITY: You are right.

DAFTARI: But in the general assembly, we are actually going to pick up a few enemies this week because within the general assembly there will be people.

HANNITY: Michael, I'm going to give you the last word here.

Explain to me again, Michael, what you would say to Abbas, to Fatah, to Hamas in their charter they call for the destruction of Israel? Why should the Israelis sit down with them unless and until they recognize Israel's right to exist, the simple basic fundamental principle if you want if get along?

GHOUSE: First of all, Abbas, they do recognize Israel's right to exist.

HANNITY: No, they do not. Hamas does not. In their charter calls for their destruction.

GHOUSE: But Abbas is representing the whole Palestinians --

HANNITY: But Abbas and Hamas are aligned.

GHOUSE: Abbas is supported by the United States and Israel.

HANNITY: A mistake.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2011/09/20/how-does-palestines-statehood-ambitions-affect-israel-us#ixzz1YWgTmz6Z

GHOUSE: We need to listen to him. He's trying to bring a change in Hamas.

HANNITY: You're dreaming. You're dreaming.

GHOUSE: We have to try to give him all the tools we can -- I'm not dreaming, Sean. It's going to happen.

HANNITY: You have lost your mind.

GHOUSE: We cannot push people, if we push them, they're going to take a stand. We need give them an opportunity to bring peace.

HANNITY: All right, thank you Michael. Thank you, Lisa.

GHOUSE: Good thing for U.S., good thing for Israel, good thing for America.

HANNITY: All right, guys, good to see you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2011 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content

# # #

Perry tacks far right on Israel-Palestine

Perry is a major disappointement to me today. Has he used his own brain to see what is good for America,  good for Israel, good for Palestine and good for the world? I am not happy with his take on justice. He is fallen to the real enemies of Israel who want to keep Israel in anxieties for ever instead of finding freedom for them and justice for the Palestinians.  Shame on you Perry.

Mike Ghouse

http://www.salon.com/news/israel/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/09/20/rick_perry_israel_event\

At a press conference with Jewish leaders and an Israeli official in New York this morning, Rick Perry staked out ground as one of the most hardline supporters of the Israeli right-wing in the GOP presidential field.

"It is time to change our policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians to strengthen our ties to the nation of Israel, and in the process establish a robust American position in the Middle East characterized by a new firmness and a new resolve," he said.

Appearing at the press conference at the W hotel off Union Square, Perry was joined by Danny Danon, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, a prominent supporter of the Jewish settler movement, and an avowed opponent of a two-state solution. Also in attendance was Bob Turner, the Republican who won Anthony Weiner's old seat in Congress a special election last week in which Israel was a major issue.

Perry, for his part, said he supports a two-state solution. But when it got into specific policy matters, he tacked to the right. In response to a question, he said he supports continued Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank. That's a break from the longstanding policy of administrations of both parties. Perry also said his interpretation of Christianity requires him to support the state of Israel.

In his prepared remarks, he said the U.S. "will have to reconsider" aid to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank if it goes forward with a bid to seek recognition from the U.N. Some pro-Israel groups have been nervous about the prospect of cutting aid to the PA and especially its security forces, which are seen as helpful to Israel in the occupied West Bank

Perry also called for the shutting down of the Palestinian Liberation Organization office in Washington if the U.N. recognizes a state of Palestine.

He received enthusiastic praise from New York state assemblyman and hardline pro-Israel figure Dov Hikind, who said Perry's speech reminded him of himself.

"You can't be right on everything but wrong on Israel," Hikind said, summing up the mood in the room."We will not support you if you're wrong on Israel."

Here's the full exchange about settlements from the question-and-answer portion of the event.

Q: Can you explain what your policy in a Perry administration would be toward the settlements?

PERRY: From the standpoint of the settlements, those need to be negotiated directly with the state of Israel. If the United States needs to be sitting in and being part of that solution or in those negotiations, certainly we would lend the hand. But at the end of the day those are about the sovereign nation of Israel making the decisions about those lands.

Now the issue of how we have a state of the Palestinian people, that is direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people, and it can't be accomplished in any way.

Q: Should the Israelis be allowed to continue building?

PERRY: I think so.

At that point Perry said something else but it was drowned out by loud applause from the crowd. He did not address the distinction between so called "natural growth" within existing settlement blocs versus building entirely new settlements (a point raised by Blake Hounshell).

I've asked his campaign for elaboration of his views, and I will update this post if I hear back.

Here's the exchange on Christianity and Israel:

QUESTION: To what extent do you view America protecting Israeli as a theological priority?

PERRY: Well obviously Israel is our oldest and most stable democratic ally in the region. That is what this is about. I also as a Christian have a clear directive to support Israel. So from my perspective both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel. As I said in my remarks, Israel is not a perfect country. But you will find me not only welcoming the prime minister of Israel -- whoever that individual may be -- in the appropriate manner to the White House. But I will be standing with Israel. And the people of Israel and the people of this world will never question where I stand.

Perry also promised that, if he is president, "If you want to work for the State Department, you will be working in Jerusalem." That's a reference to moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to the disputed city of Jerusalem. For years, presidential candidates have made -- and subsequently broken -- that very promise.

• Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott

Uri Avnery on Palestinian Vote

URI Avnery September 17, 2011 Sad and Happy

“WILL THIS be the happiest day of your life?” a local interviewer asked me, referring to the approaching recognition of the State of Palestine by the UN.

I was taken by surprise. “Why would that be?” I asked.

“Well, for 62 years you have advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel, and here it comes!”

“If I were a Palestinian, I would probably be happy,” I said, “But as an Israeli, I am rather sad.”

LET ME explain.

I came out of the 1948 war with four solid convictions:

(1) There exists a Palestinian people, though the name Palestine had been wiped off the map.

(2) It is with this Palestinian people that we must make peace.

(3) Peace will be impossible unless the Palestinians are allowed to set up their state next to Israel.

(4) Without peace, Israel will not be the model state we had been dreaming about in the trenches, but something very different.

While recovering from my wounds and still in uniform, I met with several young people, Arabs and Jews, to plot our course. We were very optimistic. Now everything seemed possible.

What we were thinking about was a great act of fraternization. Jews and Arabs had fought each other valiantly, each fighting for what they considered their national rights. Now the time had come to reach out for peace.

The idea of peace between two gallant fighters after the battle is as old as Semitic culture. In the epic written more than 3000 years ago, Gilgamesh, king of Uruk (in today’s Iraq) fights against the wild Enkidu, his equal in strength and courage, and after the epic fight they become blood brothers.

We had fought hard and had won. The Palestinians had lost everything. The part of Palestine that had been allotted by the UN to their state had been gobbled up by Israel, Jordan and Egypt, leaving nothing for them. Half the Palestinian people had been driven from their homes and become refugees.

That was the time, we thought, for the victor to stun the world with an act of magnanimity and wisdom, offering to help the Palestinians to set up their state in return for peace. Thus we could forge a friendship that would last for generations.

18 years later I brought this vision up again in similar circumstances. We had won a stunning victory against the Arab armies in the Six-Day war, the Middle East was in a state of shock. An Israeli offer to the Palestinians to establish their state would have electrified the region.

I AM telling this story (again) in order to make one point: when the “Two-State Solution” was conceived for the first time after 1948, it was as an idea of reconciliation, fraternization and mutual respect.

We envisaged two states living closely together, with borders open to the free movement of people and goods. Jerusalem, the joint capital, would symbolize the spirit of the historic change. Palestine would become the bridge between the new Israel and the Arab world, united for the common good. We spoke of a “Semitic Union” long before the European Union became a reality.

When the Two-State Solution made its extraordinary march from the vision of a handful of outsiders (or crazies) to a world-wide consensus, it was this context in which it was viewed. Not a plot against Israel, but the only viable basis for real peace.

This vision was firmly rejected by David Ben-Gurion, then the undisputed leader of Israel. He was busy distributing new Jewish immigrants across the vast areas expropriated from the Arabs, and he did not believe in peace with the Arabs anyhow. He set the course that successive Israeli governments, including the present one, have followed ever since.

On the Arab side, there was always support for this vision. Already at the Lausanne Conference in 1949, an unofficial Palestinian delegation appeared and secretly offered to start direct negotiations, but they were roughly rebuffed by the Israeli delegate, Eliyahu Sasson, on direct orders from Ben-Gurion (as I heard from him later).

Yasser Arafat told me several times – from 1982 to his death in 2004 – that he would support a “Benelux” solution (on the model of the union between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg), which would include Israel, Palestine and Jordan (“and perhaps Lebanon too, why not?”)

PEOPLE SPEAK about all the opportunities for peace missed by Israel throughout the years. That is nonsense: you can miss opportunities on the way to a goal that you desire, but not on the way to something you abhor.

Ben-Gurion saw an independent Palestinian state as a mortal danger to Israel. So he made a secret deal with King Abdullah I, dividing between them the territory allocated by the UN partition plan to the Arab Palestinian state. All Ben-Gurion's successors inherited the same dogma: that a Palestinian state would be a terrible danger. Therefore they opted for the so-called ”“Jordanian option” – keeping what is left of Palestine under the heel of the Jordanian monarch, who is no Palestinian (nor even Jordanian - his family came from Mecca).

This week, the present Jordanian ruler, Abdullah II, flew into a rage when told that yet another Israeli former general, Uzi Dayan, had again proposed turning Jordan into Palestine, with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as “provinces” of the Hashemite kingdom. This Dayan is, unlike his late cousin, Moshe, a pompous fool, but even a speech by such a person infuriates the king, who is mortally afraid of an influx of Palestinians driven from the West Bank into Jordan.

Three days ago, Binyamin Netanyahu told Cathy Ashton, the pathetic “foreign secretary” of the European Union, that he would agree to anything short of Palestinian statehood. That may sound strange, in view of the “historic” speech he made less than two years ago, in which he expressed his support for the Two-State Solution. (Perhaps he was thinking of the State of Israel and the State of the Settlers.)

In the few remaining weeks before the UN vote, our government will fight tooth and nail against a Palestinian state, supported by the full might of the US. This week Hillary Clinton trumped even her own rhetorical record when she announced that the US supports the Two-State Solution and therefore opposes any UN vote recognizing a Palestinian state.

APART FROM the dire threats of what will happen after the UN vote for a Palestinian state, Israeli and American leaders assure us that such a vote will make no difference at all.

If so, why fight it?

Of course it will make a difference. The occupation will go on, but it will be the occupation of one state by another. In history, symbols count. The fact that the vast majority of the world’s nations will have recognized the State of Palestine will be another step towards gaining freedom for Palestine.

What will happen the day after? Our army has already announced that it has finished preparations for huge Palestinian demonstrations that will attack the settlements. The settlers will be called upon to mobilize their “quick-reaction teams” to confront the demonstrators, thus fulfilling the prophecies of a “bloodbath”. After that the army will move in, pulling many battalions of regular troops from other tasks and calling up reserve units.

A few weeks ago I pointed to ominous signs that sharpshooters would be employed to turn peaceful demonstrations into something very different, as happened during the second intifada. This week this was officially confirmed: sharpshooters will be employed to defend the settlements.

All this amounts to a war plan for the settlements. To put it simply: a war to decide whether the West Bank belongs to the Palestinians or the settlers.

In an almost comical turn of events, the army is also providing means of crowd dispersal to the Palestinian security forces trained by the Americans. The occupation authorities expect these Palestinian forces to protect the settlements against their compatriots. Since these are the armed forces of the future Palestinian state, which is opposed by Israel, it all sounds a bit bewildering.

According to the army, the Palestinians will get rubber-coated bullets and tear gas, but not the “Skunk”.

The Skunk is a device that produces an unbearable stench which attaches itself to the peaceful demonstrators and will not leave them for a long time. I am afraid that when this chapter comes to an end, the stench will attach itself to our side, and that we shall not get rid of it for a long time indeed.

LET’S GIVE free rein to our imagination for just one minute.

Imagine that in the coming UN debate something incredible happens: the Israeli delegate declares that after due consideration Israel has decided to vote for recognition of the state of Palestine.

The assembly would gape in disbelief. After a moment of silence, wild applause would break out. The world would be electrified. For days, the world media would speak of nothing else.

The minute of imagination has passed. Back to reality. Back to the Skunk.

Israel needs to stop talking and start negotiating - Haaretz

Killing the Oslo process, giving up on the two-state solution and perpetuating Israel's rule over millions of Palestinians would jeopardize its very existence as a Jewish and democratic state.

Haaretz Editorial

As if the crisis in relations with Turkey, the deterioration of Israel's ties with Egypt and Jordan and the erosion of its standing in Europe were not enough, government spokesmen are now trying to outdo each other in promising to deepen the occupation of the territories.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatened on Wednesday that a UN decision to recognize a Palestinian state "will have grave consequences." His deputy, Danny Ayalon, called for annexing the West Bank settlement blocs and expediting construction in the settlements. MK Ofir Akunis (Likud ), a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, did not make do with annexing the "blocs"; he proposed applying Israeli sovereignty to the entire territory.

Concern over the disastrous impact such irresponsible reactions could have on regional stability brought U.S. President Barack Obama's envoys, Dennis Ross and David Hale, as well as EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton here this week. The three were recruited for a last-ditch effort to reach an agreed-on formula that would allow a resumption of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and reduce the danger of an outbreak of violence in the territories.

As they shuttled between Ramallah and Jerusalem, the envoys discovered that the parties were entrenched in their positions. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas held fast to his demand that talks be based on Obama's speech of May 19 (the 1967 borders with mutually agreed territorial swaps ) and a 90-day hiatus on construction in the settlements. Netanyahu insisted that the Palestinians agree in advance to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. He also rejected Abbas' demand to freeze construction in the settlements.

Neither the crisis with the Palestinians in the international arena nor the danger that it will deteriorate into a violent regional confrontation are decrees of fate. Instead of flexing its muscles and spouting deranged ideas, the government must cooperate wholeheartedly with representatives of the Quartet to find a creative solution that will stop the deterioration.illing the Oslo process, giving up on the two-state solution and perpetuating Israel's rule over millions of Palestinians would jeopardize its very existence as a Jewish and democratic state.

Obama’s Unique Opportunity by GIDEON LEVY

How is it that the supposedly new America is continuing to sing the same old songs from its evil past??

By Gideon Levy

What is the American president going to say to his citizens? What will he say to the citizens of the world? How will he rationalize his country's opposition to recognizing a Palestinian state? How will he explain his position, which runs counter to the position of the enlightened - and less enlightened - world?

And above all, what will Barack Obama say to himself before he goes to bed? That the Palestinians don't deserve a state? That they have a chance to get it through negotiations with Israel? That they do not have equal rights in the new world that we thought he was going to establish? Will he admit to himself that, because of opportunistic election considerations - yes, Obama is now being exposed as quite an opportunist - he is also harming his country's interests as well as the (real ) interests of Israel, and is acting against his own conscience too?

It is difficult now to understand Obama's America. The man who promised change is turning out to be the father of American conservatives. With regard to Israel, there is no difference between him and the last of the celebrants at the Tea Party. We did not expect a great deal from Hillary Clinton; she can continue to recite hollow speeches about negotiations-shmegotiations - but Obama?

Et tu, Brute? After all, in your Cairo speech you promised a new dawn for the Muslim world, you promised a new America to the Arab world. And what came of this? The same old American wolf - which blindly and automatically supports every whim of Israel's to such an extent that it is not clear which is the world power and which is the protectorate - and not even dressed in sheep's clothing. The riddle remains unsolved: How is it that the supposedly new America is continuing to sing the same old songs from its evil past? How is it that Obama is behaving as if he does not understand that the Palestinians will no longer agree to live another four decades without civil rights, certainly not in view of all that is taking place around them in the awakening Arab world?

The riddle remains unsolved because it is difficult to comprehend how a black president, who believes in justice and equality, can bow down with such unbearable lightness to a right-wing government in Israel, to narrow election considerations in America, and to Jewish and Christian lobbies. It is difficult to comprehend how his America does not understand that it is shooting itself with a lethal bullet in the heart by supporting the Israeli refusal to make peace. After all, deep in his heart this American president knows that the Palestinians' demand is justified because they too are worthy, finally, of becoming independent - and that Israel supports occupation. Why does one have to wait for the book of memoirs that he will surely write one day in order to hear this? He knows that the Arab Spring, that erupted to a certain extent in the wake of his promising Cairo speech, will now turn its anger and hatred toward America, once more toward America, simply because of its insistent opposition to Palestinian freedom.

Obama is also supposed to know that concern for Israel's future, and genuine friendship toward Israel, must include support for the establishment of a Palestinian state. That is the only way to neutralize the explosive fuse that is going to set off the entire region, against Israel and against the United States. He also knows that America's stance against the entire world will once again arouse the hostility of the world against the U.S. leader. And all of that - for what? For a handful of votes in the next elections. That cannot be considered an excuse on the part of someone who was seen as so promising a leader with such a highly developed awareness of history. A person who sells his country's interests and his own weltanschauung during his first term of office will display similar opportunism during the second term.

How pathetic is the vision of the two American emissaries who are once again shuttling back and forth now in the region and distributing threats. And to whom? To the Palestinians who are turning to a new diplomatic route, but not to the Israeli government for its destructive refusal. How pathetic it is to see Dennis Ross, the eternal American Mr. Negotiations of almost all its administrations, scuttling around with nothing to do between Ramallah and Jerusalem as he has been doing for decades. That is the old, bad America, as if there were no Obama.

The American president this week has the historic opportunity of improving the status of his country, of justifying retroactively the Nobel Prize for Peace that he was awarded, of demonstrating real commitment to imposing peace in the most dangerous region for the fate of the world, and of showing genuine concern for the well-being of Israel - but what do we get instead?

Statehood not meant to Isolate Israel

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said Friday his call for statehood was not meant to isolate Israel.

By ETHAN BRONNER and ISABEL KERSHNER

JERUSALEM — The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, announced Friday that he would seek membership for a state of Palestine from the United Nations Security Council next week, putting him on a

TimesCast | Palestinian Statehood Vote

Close Video

See More Videos »

Men at a coffee shop in Gaza City watched Friday as President Mahmoud Abbas announced plans to apply for Palestinian membership in the United Nations.

Mr. Abbas’s plan, made public in a television address, follows months of failed American and European efforts to restart Palestinian negotiations with Israel. Some fear that Mr. Abbas’s move will raise expectations among his people, with nothing changing for them on the ground. Combined with alarmed reactions from Israeli settlers, violent showdowns could erupt.

But the Palestinians say that after decades of occupation and about 20 years of failed talks with an increasingly hawkish Israel, it is time for a new approach in which the borders of a Palestinian state are first recognized globally and then two states, Israel and Palestine, negotiate final details.

The decision to apply for membership through the Council signals a double defeat for the United States. Washington not only failed to dissuade the Palestinians from a unilateral bid for statehood, but also fell short of its goal of confining the application to the United Nations General Assembly, where Obama administration officials believe a vote in favor of statehood would be more symbolic and less divisive.

The Obama administration has vowed to use its veto at the Council to prevent full recognition of Palestine. But it is eager to avoid doing so because that action would likely leave the United States isolated on the issue, weakening its standing with Arab nations at a politically delicate moment.

“We need to have full membership at the U.N.,” Mr. Abbas said in the speech from his office in the West Bank city of Ramallah, which was broadcast live on Al Jazeera and other outlets. “We need a state, a seat at the United Nations.”

He added, “We are going to the Security Council,” as Palestinian dignitaries gave him rousing applause and a standing ovation. Mr. Abbas called it “our decision, which we have conveyed to everyone.”

The borders Mr. Abbas seeks are those of 1967, meaning East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza would be included. More than 500,000 Israelis have settled beyond those lines.

Israel, while officially accepting the idea of a Palestinian state, wants to leave nearly all of the settlers where they are and keep control of Jerusalem. It also fears militant groups and missiles would penetrate such a state unless Israel controls its borders, an approach rejected by the Palestinians.

One goal of the move is to gain admission to a range of international legal and diplomatic forums where complaints against Israeli occupation and settlement could be pursued. Mr. Abbas said he was not seeking to delegitimize Israel, only to advance negotiations between two equals.

For the Obama administration, the move poses an acute dilemma. It has vowed to use its veto because it argues that the only viable way toward Palestinian statehood is through direct talks with Israel. But for the past eight months, Arab countries have risen in revolt against dictators and the Palestinian question has totemic significance for the entire region.

The United States has struggled to place itself on the side of those seeking justice and freedom in the current revolts. But the Obama administration has supported uprisings in Libya and, less strongly, in Syria, while looking the other way during a crackdown by an ally, Bahrain. A veto of Palestinian membership would intensify Arab perceptions of American double standards.

Moreover, Republican lawmakers have vowed to end American aid to the Palestinian Authority if it seeks United Nations membership, something the administration opposes. That could create further chaos on the ground.

The White House sent two senior diplomats, Dennis B. Ross and David M. Hale, on repeated trips to Jerusalem and Ramallah in recent weeks to try to work out an alternative to a United Nations campaign.

In recent days, senior administration officials said, the United States was trying to get agreement on a statement, backed by the international community, affirming President Obama’s proposal last May to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state. That plan would use as a baseline the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel, with land swaps. But Palestinian officials said it was too little too late.

“We ask President Obama to face the moment of truth,” Mohammad Shtayyeh, a senior Palestinian official, said afterward. “This is a peaceful measure. There is no reason whatsoever for the United States not to support us on this step.”

The office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel issued a curt statement, saying, “Peace will not be achieved by a unilateral approach to the United Nations.”

Mr. Netanyahu says that the Palestinians must not be rewarded for avoiding direct talks and tough sacrifices. Some of his ministers have called for a range of punitive responses, including annexing portions of the West Bank or removing travel privileges from Palestinian officials. He has not expressed himself publicly on those suggestions.

At the Arab League, which had strongly urged the Palestinians to take the less confrontational path of seeking limited statehood recognition via the General Assembly, an official said the group would now nonetheless stand firmly behind Mr. Abbas. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in order not to upstage leaders of the league, who were traveling to New York for the United Nations annual meetings.

Officials of Hamas, the militant Palestinian faction that controls Gaza, said Mr. Abbas’s declaration was a useless stunt aimed at continuing what it called fruitless negotiations with Israel, which Hamas does not recognize as a legitimate state.

“The speech is an attempt to justify the negotiations,” said Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, reached by telephone. He argued that turning to the United Nations would get Mr. Abbas nothing.

Hamas has banned public demonstrations in Gaza to support Mr. Abbas’s move. Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, told reporters that Mr. Abbas had approached the United Nations unilaterally, without winning support from the group, despite what Mr. Barhoum called the Palestinian president’s rhetoric about reconciliation.

Mr. Abbas’s speech was played live on the official channel Palestine TV with the “UN 194” logo of the statehood recognition bid in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen. Some Palestinians listened; others said it mattered little because the United States would veto it.

Admission to the United Nations as a full member state requires a recommendation from the 15-member Security Council, with a majority of nine votes, and no veto from the five permanent members, which include the United States. Then the submission goes to the General Assembly, which must pass it by a two-thirds vote among the 193 members.

The American vow to veto has already made it clear that the membership application will not make it out of the Council. But as in other matters involving the United Nations bureaucracy, procedural and legal tools can delay the application for weeks or months along the way. And the Palestinians could still subsequently seek less formal recognition of statehood through the General Assembly.

Mr. Abbas is aware of the obstacles ahead, some diplomats said, and may not object to the uncertainty. He ended his speech, saying, “As for other options, we have not yet taken a decision on them.”

The theory is that by going to the Council, Mr. Abbas makes his strongest political and symbolic act. And for Mr. Abbas, a man who is 76 and speaks frequently about retiring, that may be part of the point. In addition, the procedural delays at the Council could provide the time for an alternative negotiation framework to mature.

But that is a distinctly minority view of how events are likely to proceed. Most analysts and officials fear the combination of Israeli and Palestinian intransigence, along with a roiling region, will create the conditions for confrontation rather than negotiation.

Reporting was contributed by Rick Gladstone from New York; Anthony Shadid from Beirut, Lebanon; Mark Landler from Washington; David D. Kirkpatrick and Heba Afify from Cairo; Stephen Farrell from Ramallah, West Bank; Fares Akram from Gaza; and Neil MacFarquhar from the United Nations.