The headline BBC poll shows narrow support for Palestinian state seems to express that the poll found only a few more people supporting a Palestinian state than not supporting it. But already the second sentence in the article states:
Across the 19 countries surveyed, 49% supported the proposal while 21% said their government should oppose it.
And it later continues:
Even in countries where opposition was strongest, more people polled supported the resolution than were against it.
The United States and the Philippines both polled 36% against the resolution. But 45% of Americans and 56% of Filipinos backed recognition.
The lowest level of support was in India, with 32% in favour and 25% opposed, with many undecided.
Support was strongest in Egypt, where 90% were in favour and only 9% opposed.
…
Overall, 30% opted for not giving a definite answer as they thought their country should abstain, or "it depends", or they did not offer a view.
So we have in total 49% yes, 21% no and 30% abstained. That is a solid 70% of those answering for a Palestinian state with only 30% against it.
How did the BBC headline writer get from there to "narrow support"? What in the headline writers mind would constitute "broad support"? A totalitarian 98% yes vote?
While a big majority supports a Palestinian state, I doubt that many will do so in the form the current drive at the UN might achieve it.
The Palestinian Authority, which is the pseudo West Bank government of Mahmud Abbas and his Fatah party, plans to ask the United Nation's Security Council to get admitted as a sovereign nation.
Other Palestinian parties, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and well know Palestinians like Omar Barghouti, one of the leaders of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement, have spoken out against this move. Indeed many Palestinian writers assert that this move will certainly have bad consequences for Palestinians.
The Palestinian state Abbas wants would replace the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) with the West Bank Palestinian Authority (PA). Palestinian refugees outside of the West Bank and Gaza would then be without representation. This would also recognize Israel on 78% of the ground of the original Palestine. For what gain please?
Abbas has no longer legitimacy as president of the PA. His Fatah party had lost the 2006 election against Hamas but a USrael arranged coup against it prevented it from taking power. Abbas official time in office ended in 2009. He is only still sitting on his current chair because new elections have been prevented from being held. Just like Mubarak was, Abbas is now just one of the usual colonial puppet dictators. (His lack of legitimacy on its own should be reason enough for any liberal to be against his UN move.)
Abbas fears a public "Arab spring" rebellion against himself. He wants to stay relevant and in his well paid job. He therefore needs some action just to show that he is still somewhat useful and, if possible, to even increase his own position. As the Palestinian Papers have shown he is willing to sell out any Palestinian right plus his grandmother to achieve that. His personal motivation, not Palestinian rights, is the sole reason he started this UN admission ploy that may well turn out to be just theater.
One wonders why Abbas recently has chosen the Security Council as the way to go. The General Assembly could just as well decide the issue and there a majority "yes" vote would be a certainty while the vote through the Security Council is likely more difficult to get. Indeed as the NYT writes:
American, European and Israeli officials are now quietly arguing that the Security Council may prove easier for diplomats seeking a formula to get the Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations. The application through the Security Council will take longer because it will involve letters, committee formation and most likely requests for more time to study the situation.
What deal was made with Abbas over this?