Talks, yes; U.N. resolution, no

It's difficult to determine if a Palestinian announcement to go before the United Nations Security Council to seek international support for an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is a bona fide effort to gain sovereignty, or a ploy to gain advantage in the on-and-off peace negotiations with Israel. There is evidence to suggest either scenario is a possibility.

On Monday, the Palestinians followed up the weekend announcement by asking the European Union to support their request for Security Council recognition of an independent state without Israeli approval. That suggests that Palestinian leaders are willing to go it alone in pursuit of statehood. Closer study of the pronouncement, though, suggests such a goal would be difficult to achieve.

First, there's no indication that an appeal to the council is imminent, perhaps purposely so. Second, while an appeal to the EU is a highly visible way to promote the issue, it has little practical or tactical value.

The EU does not hold a seat on the Security Council, though two of its number -- Great Britain and France -- are permanent members with veto power. How they would vote on the issue is uncertain, but there is little doubt that the United States, Israel's closest ally and also a permanent member of the council, would veto any resolution on statehood.

"It [a Palestinian declaration of statehood in the U.N. Security Council] would be DOA -- dead on arrival," Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., said Monday afternoon.

Israel's reaction was similar. A spokesman said declaring a Palestinian state without concluding a peace agreement with Israel would be disastrous. "It is clear any such step by the Palestinians would not pass without an Israeli response," Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister, said. The Israeli response likely would include annexation of more of the occupied West Bank, an act more likely to induce violence than accord.

The Palestinians are unlikely to risk that. Indeed, the suggestion of U.N. involvement can be viewed correctly as a goad to Israel to stop stalling and to start talking, as well as a sign of the internal strife that pits Palestinian against Palestinian.

Overcoming those issues is easier said than done. Even if peace talks were to start, there's legitimate question about who can best represent the Palestinians. President Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate in favor of negotiation, but it is hard for him to proceed. His Fatah party is at odds with the far more militant Hamas party. The conflict prevents Mr. Abbas -- or anyone else -- from representing all Palestinians. Admittedly, that makes any talk of peace difficult.

Still, Israel can and should help things along. It can call the Palestinians' bluff by abandoning settlement building in disputed areas and by agreeing to open-ended peace talks under the banner of international diplomacy. That would put the onus on Palestinians to negotiate on substantive issues in good faith. It also should end the short-sighted effort to seek statehood through U.N. resolution.