If Palestine is wrong to go to the UN unilaterally (without Israeli support), then was Israel wrong to go to the UN in 1947?

I've been asked to answer this question and I find it hard to do so, as I do not think there is anything wrong with the Palestinian decision to make a unilateral bid for independence (even though I do think it is the wrong approach to the problem, on which I will expand on later). I do believe that the Palestinians have as much of a right to request independence in the eyes of the UN as Israel had in 1947 and that anyone who states otherwise is, in effect, saying that Israel didn't have a right to do so in 1947. Regarding the comparison to 1947 That said, it is important to understand that the massive opposition the Palestinian authority has received over this move isn't because the different sides oppose the idea of a Palestinian state, but rather of the unilateral nature of the request. This is completely different than what took place in 1947 when the Palestinian Jews made a unilateral bid at the UN requesting a Jewish state be recognized, due to the fact that the leadership of the Muslim Palestinians (who didn't call themselves Palestinian at the time, but rather Egyptian/Lebanese/Syrian) declared that they opposed the very idea of a Jewish state and rejected the UN's offer to split up the British mandate's land between three states - two Muslim and one Jewish (AKA Transjordan, Palestine & Israel respectively). Regarding the unilateral bid itself I will take this opportunity to actually explain the Israeli and American opposition to the Palestinian unilateral bid. While there are many theories as to any ulterior motives Israel may have I will explain the official logic behind opposing the Unilateral bid. The main reason the Palestinian unilateral bid is a mistake in the eyes of Israel and the US is that if the bid is accepted by the UN General assembly it will actually be very unlikely to end up leading to an independent Palestinian state and is much more likely to simply lead to more violence. The unilateral bid will, effectively, be nothing more than an attempt to force Israel's hand and it never pays to corner a bully. Israel isn't likely to respond to the bid by forcefully removing 500,000 Israelis from their homes and tearing up towns and villages beyond the green (1967) line. It is much more likely to simply ignore the bid, which will most likely lead to more violence in the field as the Palestinian population responds to its new found "independence" being ignored. Also, the Israeli reaction might be even worse, as it might choose to nullify the Oslo accords (as the bid itself violates it) and may end its economic and security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority, which will begin a downwards spiral which would lead us as far away from a peace treaty as we have been in since 1947. So is Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrong for making a unilateral bid for Palestinian independence? It depends. I have a theory, but it all depends on Abbas's ulterior motives, if he has any. My theory goes as such: If Abbas truly believes that the unilateral bid will lead him and his people to an independent state then, in my opinion, he is an incompetent leader at best and a downright fool at worse (Not as much a fool, as foolish in this case, as he is making promises to the Palestinian people that he most likely will not be able to cash, and that will lead no where good). If, on the other hand, he is making the bid in an attempt to break the stalemate which has taken over the peace process and may even endup postponing the bid (which seems unlikely at this point... watching the news right now) in favor of renewing the peace talks, then he is in fact a political and strategic genius who may be in line for a Nobel peace prize. We will just have to wait and see, won't we?

I don't think there is a slightes resemblance. In 1947 there was a practical void in the area, UK gave her mandate back to the UN, and requested it to recommend an alternative.   The UNSCOP decided to split the land into 3 parts:   1. Israeli State 2. Arab State 3. International State   Israel adopted this decision, the Arab didn't, they expected to get it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSCOP

Diplomacy or Militancy? That is the Question. Currently Palestinians are out of options. They cannot approach Israel with peace "negotiations" when there is already a pre-disposition regarding the ongoing settlement activities on the potential land that Palestinians have rights over in a two-state scenario. Netanyahu claims he is willing to talk peace, but fails to realise that peace would need to involve equal rights and good faith. Settlement activity that annexes Palestinian land is his actions of taking away from the Arabs, and these actions speak louder than his words. Ultimately, ever since pre-1947, Israel's intentions have always been what is in the best interest of the Jewish promised land only, disregarding Arab rights, otherwise they would have negotiated directly with the Arabs instead of organising seizure of the land with Britain and UN. The natural (and predictable) response to this relates to why Arabs rejected the 1947 Partition Plan in the first place? The simple answer is that 56% of the land to 12% of a specific race of people doesnt seem like a "negotiation". Thats more a claiming of land against the natural demographic. More on this can be read here: http://hubofmiddleeastpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/did-jews-have-right-to-claim-israel-as.html So the simple answer is yes, because the last 63 years are testament to the disaster that was the declaration of a unilateral Israel without final approval nor without involvement of the inhabitants of the land. Having said that, the UN bid for the state of Palestine has been greatly debated with a significant split in opinions even amongst Arabs regarding whether or not there is an advantage to Palestinian statehood. Amongst many critics is the claim that a statehood based on the 1949 Armistice Agreement or "pre-67 borders" removes any legitimate claims for the Right of Return of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees currently residing on the outskirts of historic Palestine, in countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Naturally this would be a great advantage for Israel. So why are they afraid of the UN application if the Palestinians believe it removes legitimate claims for a large percentage of Palestinians who were invaded and violently displaced from their homes? Wouldn't removing responsibility for the refugee problem be exactly what the Zionist movement wants? Currently Israel claims that Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) is in fact "disputed" territory rather than "occupied" territory. By this definition, it would allow them to believe they can justify land annexation which, in Israel's terms is by de facto "uncharted". This ultimately denies them of seeing the reality, that it is in fact inhabited by the indigenous population of Arabs who have lived there for many a millenia. The implication is extended further by proclaiming that there isn't any official recognition of West Bank borders because the Armistice Agreement was only just a truce, and in effect is not recognised by International Law. However there is one problem with this argument. Such a claim effectively defines Israel as a state without official border lines either, and only just an official state body. Abbas himself has acknowledged that the final agreements for border negotiations cannot be done in the UN, so a simple bid for "official recognition" would suffice for the PA's cause with noteworthy mention that it should be based on the pre-67 borders and not defined by the borders. This creates a dilemma for Israel whereby having two recognised states as UN members with undetermined borders would result in a level playing field, and negotiations could resume between two official state bodies for any border lines. That is completely outside Israel's comfort zone, especially when the dynamics of the region would significantly shift further away from the status quo that is sitting in their favour. That, along with the mounting pressures of international isolation could only mean political disaster for the state that already declared independence unilaterally in 1948. If only Israel had the initiative in the first place to make things right, rather than witnessing two wrongs to try and make a right.

Yes it's wrong because it does nothing to create a state with recognized borders and have peace with its neighbor. It's a symbolic move with real world implication avoiding the issue of trying to reach a solution with the Israelis. The Palestinian problem is that ultimately a significant constituency (if not an absolute majority) holds a maximalist position which rejects any peaceful, reasonable arrangement with Israel and the Jewish population. As shown by another answer here for this question, they rationalize arguments rejecting the reality of the Jewish state and fantasize that if they hold off long enough eventually it will disappear. Which is why they consider the great-grand-children of refugees "refugees", an anomaly in every other similar situation, and thus perpetuate the misery of their people. This is what blind ideology does to people.

Check your facts dude, there was no Israel in 1947. By end of WW-2 British empire was crumbling, they were not well equipped to deal with riots (initiated by Arabs) between Arabs and Jews in BMP, above that many Jewish groups fighting for freedom were targeting British institutions, unable to contain both situations it were the British who went to UNO for solution. The UN solution was to divide BMP into two states for two people, Jews and Arabs respectively. Jews accepted, while Arabs rejected sowing the seed of Israel - Palestine conflict. Now why Israel doesn't wants Palestinians to approach UNO for statehood? Because this won't resolve the conflict which is Arabs of so called Palestine being always in state of war with Israel. If today Palestine becomes a state and gets high tech weapons groups like PLO and Hamas won't waste one minute before launching another attack on Israel. If a future Palestinian state has to become reality, it must come through the table where Israeli and Palestinian leadership sign a treaty of mutual recognization of each others nation.