A jolt? More on Brazil’s decision to recognize Palestine

on 47 Comments

In a letter sent to Mahmoud Abbas by Brazilian President Luiz Inåcio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian government has declared its recognition of a Palestinian State along the 1967 armistice lines.  The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted the announcement in both Portuguese and English on its website yesterday.

“ …on 1 December 2010, the Brazilian Government has recognized the Palestinian State based on the existing borders in 1967. 

“The recognition has taken place following negotiations by the Palestinian side and a letter sent by President Abbas to President Lula, last 24  November, in which he requested the recognition.
“The initiative is in accordance with Brazil’s historical willingness to contribute to the peace process between Israel and Palestine, whose direct  negotiations are currently on hold, and it is in line with UN resolutions, which have demanded an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories and  the construction of an independent State within the borders of 4 June 1967.     …   “

On November 27, Phil referred us to an article by Jeff Halper, founder and director of the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions, a man nominated by the American Friends Service Committee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Besides his work inside Israel/Palestine, Halper has done as much as anyone else, I believe, to educate people here in the United States (anyone who would listen, that is) about the nature and consequences of Israeli policy with respect to the Occupied Territories.  Looking forward to 2011, here is what Jeff had to say:

“In terms of any sort of rational, linear, government-led ‘peace process’, we have arrived at the end of the road.

And yet I’m optimistic that 2011 will witness a game-changing ‘break’ that will create a new set of circumstances in which a just peace is possible.  That jolt which smashes the present dead-end paradigm must come from outside the present ‘process’. It can take one of two forms.  The first  possible game-changer is already being discussed: a unilateral declaration by the Palestinian Authority of a state…

Such a scenario, while still possible given the deadlock in negotiations, is unlikely, if only because the leadership of the Palestinian Authority lacks  the courage to undertake such a bold initiative. A second one seems more likely: in 2011, the Palestinian Authority will either resign or collapse, …

Maybe Brazil’s action is a forerunner to just the kind of jolt Halper is talking about, at least with respect to the “the first possible game-changer”.   Maybe the courage and commitment of all the actors, and their supporters, to a just resolution to conflict in the region, is about to be tested…yet again.

For more about what recognition “by the world’s fifth largest country, and an emerging new world economic superpower” might portent, be sure to read Gil Macguire’s Brazil – The Perfect Solution for Palestine.
Possibilities for U.N. support were outlined by P.A. negotiator Saeb Erekat in early November.
Update: On Monday, Argentina and Uruguay announced they would join the parade, bringing the movement toward recognition some front page attention.

47 Responses

  1. Kathleen
    December 6, 2010, 4:03 pm

    “And yet I’m optimistic that 2011 will witness a game-changing ‘break’ that will create a new set of circumstances in which a just peace is possible. That jolt which smashes the present dead-end paradigm must come from outside the present ‘process’. It can take one of two forms. The first possible game-changer is already being discussed: a unilateral declaration by the Palestinian Authority of a state…”


  2. Kathleen
    December 6, 2010, 4:11 pm
  3. Les
    December 6, 2010, 4:32 pm

    On Saturday I learned from a Latin American history professor that Brazil was late in the game to recognize Palestine.

    I don’t know how much more cosmopolitan we can become but here’s information from WBAI Pacifica:
    Pacifica Radio to Broadcast News from Al Jazeera English
    December 6, 2010 — In keeping with its promise to promote understanding and help reduce the causes of conflict between different peoples, Pacifica Radio announces today that it will carry news coverage from Al Jazeera English, the award-winning 24-hour international news and current affairs channel.

    The decision, which brings Al Jazeera English to radio audiences in North America for the first time, reinforces Pacifica’s commitment to airing diverse perspectives and to presenting accurate, objective, comprehensive news on the vital issues that the world faces today. Al Jazeera English broadcasts from Doha, Qatar; Washington, DC; London, England; and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. They have 65 bureaus around the world.

    Pacifica will broadcast one hour of news from Al Jazeera English, Monday through Friday. On WBAI, the news will air, starting tomorrow, from 5am to 6am, and will be archived for 90 days at archive.wbai.org. It will also be heard on KPFA in Berkeley and KPFT in Houston. Starting in January, content from Al Jazeera English will be carried by WPFW in Washington DC and KPFK in Los Angeles, and it will also, subsequently, be made available to Pacifica affiliates. See the Press Release (pdf).

  4. Citizen
    December 6, 2010, 4:43 pm

    Business as usual in a related matter: The Obama administration announced last month it would go ahead with the $60 billion deal with Saudi Arabia. A Pentagon official, Alexander Vershbow, told reporters at the time: “Israel does not object to this sale.” Whew! For a second I thought Uncle Sam did not get the sale (not a gift) of those old F-15s to SA vetted by Israel first. Coincidentally (ha), Israel has already “contracted” (ultimately paid for my Uncle Sam)with Uncle Sam for 20 of the most advanced predator jet fighters, the F-35s, plus Obama promised 20 more if Nettie would suspend some of the settlements for 90 days.

  5. lysias
    December 6, 2010, 4:49 pm

    Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay. Can China and Russia be far behind?

    • eee
      December 6, 2010, 5:36 pm

      Russia and China have already recognized a Palestinian state. That is why I am baffled people here think this is going to make any difference.

      • Shingo
        December 6, 2010, 5:43 pm

        Not along the 1967 borders – at least not explicitly.

      • bindup
        December 6, 2010, 6:04 pm

        Yes, specificity and lack of equivocation on the part of a major power are what’s important here.

        “The State of Palestine is widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms.[19]”
        from link to en.wikipedia.org

        In any case, it’s clear that in preparing a Plan B for 2011, the Palestinian Authority intends to ensure that, with respect to the world at large, “unilateral” won’t mean “alone”.

      • Antidote
        December 6, 2010, 7:33 pm

        No wonder Israel is now pushing Holocaust education in China where there’s no history of anti-semitism.

        link to israelnationalnews.com

        Also of interest: Spiegel team’s conclusions on what Cablegate reveals about the US (based on all documents)


        A Superpower’s Weaknesses Exposed

        In pursuing its foreign-policy goals in the wake of the collapse of its rival behind the former Iron Curtain, the United States clearly focused more on military might and intelligence-gathering than on diplomacy. Under George W. Bush, the diplomatic corps shrunk to a greater extent than ever before. In fact, there were more musicians in US military bands than diplomats, while the Pentagon’s budget was 24 times the combined expenditure on the State Department and development aid.

        It was only with the arrival of Barack Obama that Defense Secretary Robert Gates — who had also held the post under President Bush — admitted that, “Iraq and Afghanistan remind us that military success alone is insufficient to achieve victory.” President Obama oversaw a realignment of American foreign policy. The White House issued a directive that diplomacy should serve broad-based political ends rather than primarily combating terrorism, as it had for much of the previous decade.

        Secretary of State Clinton agreed. In a speech she announced her intention of “shifting from mostly direct exercise and application of power to a more sophisticated and difficult mix or indirect power and influence,” an indirect foreign policy that required more patience as well as more partners.

        The newly-released documents span the entire timeframe between these poles of diplomatic activity.

        On the one hand, they show that local leaders the world over are still falling over themselves to please the US. The question of who gets to be photographed when with President Obama has also prompted rivalry among major European nations. For instance, American diplomats in Madrid cabled the following message to Washington: “For domestic political reasons, they intensely want a US-EU summit, and the lack of a Presidential visit would be seen as a major failure of (Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez) Zapatero.”

        Nonetheless, local US ambassadors can no longer simply issue instructions in their role as representatives of the American president. Even under George W. Bush, US diplomats spent the first few months of 2003 fruitlessly attempting to cajole the 14 other members of the United Nations Security Council into backing a resolution approving military intervention in Iraq. Only three countries did so. After the fall of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the victorious Americans still had a hard time getting their way. US Vice President Joe Biden has repeatedly visited Baghdad to convince his allies in the Iraqi government to set up respectable democratic mechanisms. But as the embassy memos show, neither Obama’s deputy, direct pressure nor sweet words have helped thus far.

        On the whole, the cables from the Middle East expose the superpower’s weaknesses. Washington has always viewed it as vital to its survival to secure its share of energy reserves, but the world power is often quickly reduced to becoming a plaything of diverse interests. And it is drawn into the animosities between Arabs and Israelis, Shiites and Sunnis, between Islamists and secularists.

        First and foremost, however, Washington’s relations with up-and-coming economic powerhouse China proves that the “American century” is probably drawing to a close. The documents depict how self-confidently the Chinese dance around the Americans. US diplomats speak of “muscle-flexing, triumphalism and assertiveness” in describing China’s image toward the outside world.

        When US Ambassador Jon Huntsman wrote a letter to Foreign Minister Yang Jeichi expressing his concern about the incarceration of the dissident Liu Xiaobo, the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, a high-ranking US diplomat was summoned to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. There he was told the US had no right to meddle in China’s internal affairs. And even Hilary Clinton, to whom all embassy reports have been addressed since late January 2009, has admitted that eye-level talks have become more difficult. After all, Beijing has bought a mountain of US government bonds and has long been America’s biggest creditor.

        “How do you deal toughly with your banker?” a somewhat resigned Mrs. Clinton asked former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd — at least, according to a report from the US embassy in Canberra.

        It’s a question that has ushered in a new century.

        link to spiegel.de

  6. Joseph Glatzer
    December 6, 2010, 5:30 pm

    Why do people think this recognition is a good thing? It really means nothing. It’s 20 or 30 years too late. Giving recognition when the 2 state solution is already impossible? It’s like a horrible tease

    • bindup
      December 6, 2010, 6:23 pm

      I don’t think it’s a question of good thing or bad thing, but of what form “the thing”, ie breaking the Occupation, will take

      That’s Halper’s subject in Palestine-2011 ( link to middleastpost.com )

      Looks now like the PA is seriously preparing for a unilateral declaration, and has some important company. Such a declaration, which I’ll call Plan B, will have actual consequences for facts-on-the-ground. Plan C, the dissolving of the PA, will also have actual consequences for facts-on-the-ground. Either plan entails considerable suffering for people in the Land. It appears the PA, whether in its own self-interest or as an act of statesmanship, has clearly decided trying an end run for statehood before going to a unitary state.

    • thankgodimatheist
      December 6, 2010, 6:56 pm

      Joseph..First put it politically on the map..Second show how it’s rendered, geographically, impossible by a policy of settlement and land theft..Third move on to a bi-national state fully internalised as the only possible solution/outcome..
      My 2 cents..

      • bindup
        December 7, 2010, 12:19 am

        And what stage we are at with respect to two independent states vs a unitary state has implications for BDS. It seems to me that the now much debated and agonized-over (and to my mind, properly so) distinction between “targeted” and more general campaigns will disappear if Palestinians give up on a separate state for themselves. In other words, if the Arab-speaking population finds itself struggling for equal rights within one political entity, BDS will simply go general, no questions asked, similar to what happened in South Africa.

    • Kathleen
      December 6, 2010, 6:58 pm

      Better late than never

    • Hostage
      December 6, 2010, 8:36 pm

      That is analogous to saying that refusal to recognize the illegal annexation of the Baltic States was too late.

      Regarding the effects of recognition, several years ago the United States government said that, “As a practical matter, Kosovo’s independence is an irreversible matter because forty-eight countries have recognized Kosovo as an independent state”. Palestine has already been recognized the majority of other States.

      Palestine has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC. The contracting states can insist that the International Criminal Court go ahead and take action to initiate criminal investigations in cases involving third-party state entities that have formally recognized. Many post-WWII conflicts (e.g. Korea, Vietnam) have involved international armed conflicts in which the parties themselves refused to recognize one another or internationally-mandated lines of demarcation. The ICJ has already provided a legal analysis of the status of the Palestinian territory, including the consequences of the Oslo Accords. It advised that Israel had established settlements in the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) in violation of international law. The ICJ called on other states to take action to bring about Israel’s compliance with international law. That illegal situation obviously gives rise to criminal responsibility that does not have to await a negotiated settlement.

  7. Jim Haygood
    December 6, 2010, 5:38 pm

    “The Argentine government recognizes Palestine as a free and independent state within the borders defined in 1967,” AFP quoted Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, reading a letter sent by Argentine President Cristina Kirchner wrote to Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas.

    Héctor Timerman, the son of Jacobo Timerman who was kidnapped during the Argentine military regime which ruled from 1976-1983, is Jewish, a graduate of Columbia University, and a journalist who has written for publications including the NYT and The Nation. Thanks to his father’s ordeal, chronicled in his 1981 book Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number, Timerman fils has exhibited a lifelong commitment to human rights.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    The Argentine Foreign Ministry’s website doesn’t list a contact for him, other than the telephone number of his private secretary.

    link to mrecic.gov.ar

    It would be great to thank Héctor Timerman for his support of Palestine. I’ll continue trying to find an email contact for him.

    • Philip Munger
      December 6, 2010, 8:06 pm

      Argentina may have one of the most vibrant Jewish communities in Latin America. A lot of young Jewish kids were victims of La Guerra Sucia. I suspect Venezuela will be joining this wave soon. And, like Argentina, a country where many progressive figures are Jewish.

      • Kathleen
        December 6, 2010, 9:44 pm

        Phil did you read Rayne’s most hypocritical statement ever. Well that would be tough to chose

        link to emptywheel.firedoglake.com
        “And there will be all kinds of whining and puling about this release, yet nothing further done to address the root causes of terrorism.”

        Rayne has done their not sure whether Rayne is male or female)best to shut down the effort to address the “roots of terrorism” at FDL. Banning people who challenge Jane Hamsher’s unwillingness to even “whisper”about the I/P issue when she is in the national spotlight allegedly addressing why progressives are not so happy with the Obama administration. Eliminating all of my post that had a great deal to do with “root causes of terrorism” Eliminated thousands of FDL participants comments, debates, links on hundreds of post about the CIA, Micheal Scheuer, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Aipac. What nerve. What a hypocrite.

      • Hostage
        December 6, 2010, 10:45 pm

        Venezuela formally recognized the Palestinian Authority as the government of the State of Palestine shortly after Operation Cast Lead. See Venezuela and the Palestinian Authority Establish Diplomatic Relations

  8. Diane Mason
    December 6, 2010, 5:43 pm

    China and Russia already recognize Palestine. Here’s the map of who does and who doesn’t: link to tinyurl.com . It’s amazing really to see how much of the world recognizes Palestine, while here in the U.S. it is treated like some kind of aberration.

    Before the last few days, the two blocs that were the big holdouts were the U.S.’ two Cold War spheres of influence, South America and Western Europe. Abbas has been doing a big diplomatic push for the last 18 months to get those two areas on board. I bet he is hoping one of the big European countries will do what Brazil did, with the same sort of ripple effect.

    • Philip Weiss
      December 6, 2010, 5:48 pm

      thanks diane, phil

    • eljay
      December 6, 2010, 5:56 pm

      >> Here’s the map of who does and who doesn’t: link to tinyurl.com . It’s amazing really to see how much of the world recognizes Palestine, while here in the U.S. it is treated like some kind of aberration.

      Two points:
      1. With what appears to be most of the world offering their recognition to Palestinians, what’s the hold up? Declare autonomy and get cracking on developing the Palestinian economy. If Israel tries to wipe Palestine from the map (a likely scenario), get foreign troops in there to secure Palestine’s borders.
      2. The map is inaccurate – Israel is shown a tiny gray dot in a sea of green when, according to RW, it’s actually a tiny blue dot. ;-)

      • bindup
        December 6, 2010, 9:17 pm

        “…what’s the hold up? Declare autonomy and get cracking on developing the Palestinian economy.”

        A self-declared state is one thing, having the UN General Assembly declare a Palestinian state (60+ years after its first attempt) is quite another, and right now the more powerful option.

      • maggielorraine
        December 7, 2010, 5:17 am

        it was my understanding that the GA does not declare anything.

        talknic will take you up on this, i’m sure. but read:

        RECOGNITION: A Sovereign or non-sovereign state is considered ‘recognized’ when the majority of the International Community of States grants recognition. Recognition of statehood is not mandatory. “..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked for the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.”

        There are different forms of recognition within the UN and the International Community. Although it is not obligatory for Member states to grant recognition, all states must acknowledge boundaries and acknowledge the right to live in peace within those boundaries. This is reflected in the UNSC resolutions on conflicts between the Arab states and Israel. (UNSC res 242) “….acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

        link to talknic.wordpress.com

        the UN doesn’t declare statehood. Palestine will declare statehood. it is then up to the members of the ICS to recognize this state, which will then be admitted into the UN.

    • Antidote
      December 6, 2010, 7:02 pm

      Wow, many more than I knew.

      It can’t be long before Germany recognizes Palestine. East Germany had always voted pro-Palestine in the UN, then joined the Western camp after reunification. But things have changed since Cast Lead and the flotilla disaster, as also confirmed by WikiLeaks

      note the thumbs down on comment # 13:

      link to haaretz.com

      • Diane Mason
        December 6, 2010, 9:55 pm

        I wouldn’t be surprised if France goes before Germany. Germany can’t say boo to a goose without having the Holocaust flung in its face, while France is chomping at the bit for the EU to have a more proactive role in the Mid East, with itself in the lead. Just as Brazil sees itself as an emerging major economic power, and by recognizing Palestine is setting down a marker for an expanded diplomatic influence to match its new economic clout. I think its all about other countries finally giving up on the possibility of US diplomacy achieving anything in the Mid East, and stepping in to fill the vacuum.

      • Antidote
        December 7, 2010, 11:32 am

        “Germany can’t say boo to a goose without having the Holocaust flung in its face”

        True, but the Holocaust in flung in everybody’s face when it comes to the I/P conflict and anti-semitism, and I don’t see that much difference between Germany, France, the US or Canada and virtually everybody else. Including the Palestinians. The problem is not that German politicians have not spoken up, but that it makes no difference whatsoever if they do. Israel will raise the anti-semitism/Nazism card, and the rest of the world tends to agree with their assessment of what really motivates the German criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinians, whether it’s Adenauer, Willy Brandt or Merkel. Remember the Mufti.

        France and Germany are joint at the hip and core of the EU, and whatever France or Germany (governments) will do, the other will do as well, for whatever reason. The difference between Germany and France is that the Germans have come to terms with their historical guilt more thoroughly, and with fewer excuses than the French. Unlike the French, they committed no repeat offenses wrt colonialism, military occupations, mass killings and camps (Algeria). And while the French may well be a bit nervous about the issue of reparations, Germany has already paid billions to Israel, increasingly realizing that little of this contributed to reconciliation or a ‘safe haven’ for Jews, but helped create and maintain another lunatic state — which in turn helped create major domestic (Islamophobia and ‘new anti-semitism’) and foreign policy problems for Germany and Europe. To be anti-Israel used to be considered identical with the anti-semitic neofascist fringe. But the xeno- and Islamophobic ultra-right are now the most pro-Israel political parties in several European countries. Germany has no interest in going Dutch (or Hungarian), and is considerably more worried about populist right wing parties gaining at the polls than France, with their proud tradition of equality, fraternity, and freedom, from the French Revolution to the so-called French Resistance. Germany has fewer illusions.

        link to ynetnews.com

        link to israelnationalnews.com

    • Kathleen
      December 6, 2010, 9:53 pm

      Great map. Hope folks contact Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay’s UN reps and thank them

  9. Taxi
    December 6, 2010, 8:06 pm

    I do believe the pendulum has swung – and is heading right at the numbskull zionists who refuse to believe that truth and the internet are a formidable weapon of change.

    Yes I do believe we’re living now through visible changes – thanks to the tireless efforts of activists worldwide and all the good people who’ve supported their humanitarian efforts. Boy am I impressed by what’s happening! Palestine has more of a chance today of defeating the occupation than it EVER did. Why? Because thanks to activism and the internet, more people are now informed and they’re using this information to demand justice for ALL, not just security for isreal.

    The more israel contravenes international law and normal moral standards of behavior (ie continues with it’s occupations), the more America covers israel’s ass AND the less serious the world therefore takes America.

    Forty some years on of doing this hypocrisy and double-standarding in humanity’s face and israel’s sucked our international influence dry, ironically, foolishly thereby limiting it’s own zionist influence.

    You bet ‘stuff’ is changing this month, this week, today AND tomorrow.

    The USA IS on the decline – no two ways about it.

    I think we’ve hit the faint point of diminishing returns with our BFF – thus the pendulum has swung.

    But don’t get too excited folks as most of the time, the pendulum swings in hyper slo-mo. Just like our congress eh?

    p.s. When America asks China to “Reign in N Korea”, don’t you think at this stage China, the undeniable emergent superpower, behind closed doors will be replying: Why don’t you reign in israel first – China has that kinda power now.

    • Kathleen
      December 6, 2010, 9:54 pm

      lots of movement.

    • Diane Mason
      December 6, 2010, 10:13 pm

      The USA IS on the decline – no two ways about it.

      I think this is exactly the message of the South Americans’ actions. If Obama’s inability to move Netanyahu has a positive aspect, it is that it has made clear to everyone that the U.S. is unable to achieve anything with Israel, that the U.S. monopoly on Mid East peace is useless, and that if the U.S. can’t do it, then other countries will have to.

  10. Richard Witty
    December 6, 2010, 9:45 pm

    Its good that Brazil did that.

    I disagree with Glatzer. The two-state solution is nowhere near dead, and is the preferred solution among most states, and this gives more weight to it.

    Negotiation is still critical, as the components of an agreement make the difference between one that is at peace, and one that is in some state of war.

    • Richard Witty
      December 6, 2010, 9:47 pm

      Seham reported that Argentina and Uruguay issued similar declarations today (or yesterday).

      If the two-state solution happens, will BDS continue?

      • maggielorraine
        December 7, 2010, 5:30 am

        Perhaps you are insinuating that BDS is simply mindless, pointless Israel-bashing, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You do understand that BDS has clearly stated goals, no?

        Academic Boycott: send a clear message to Israel that their occupation and discrimination against Palestinians is unacceptable.
        link to bdsmovement.net

        Consumer Boycott: Focus the attention of the world on Israeli occupation and apartheid
        link to bdsmovement.net

        Sports Boycott: send a powerful message that its policy of occupation, expulsion and racism against Palestinians is unacceptable.
        link to bdsmovement.net

        Divestment: To raise awareness about Israel’s policies and true nature among companies, and encourage them to use their economic influence to put pressure on Israel to end the discrimination and expulsion of the Palestinian people and the occupation of their land.To raise awareness about Israel’s policies and true nature among companies, and encourage them to use their economic influence to put pressure on Israel to end the discrimination and expulsion of the Palestinian people and the occupation of their land.
        link to bdsmovement.net

        Sanctions: Sanctions would ensure that that Israeli apartheid and occupation become unprofitable and finally untenable, catalyze an anti-Zionist movement in Israeli society and boost the morale of those struggling under Occupation.
        link to bdsmovement.net

        The clear point of BDS is to induce the end of the occupation and to ensure Israel’s compliance with international law. A settled two state solution would do just that. If apartheid-like policies against 48′ Palestinians within Israel continues post-solution, then BDS will shift its aims to exclusively induce an end to apartheid within Israel in the same way as the South Africa boycott did.

      • Richard Witty
        December 8, 2010, 12:40 am

        If it raises the issues of Israeli policies and practices, wonderful.

        If it seeks the elimination of Israel through an externally imposed single state, NOT wonderful.

  11. Kathleen
    December 6, 2010, 9:51 pm


    Zbigniew Brzezinski brings up the possibility of foreign intelligence services feeding Wikileaks info to serve their agendas
    link to pbs.org

    Not sure why PBS had Stephen Hadley on to discuss this issue. Hadley ignored counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke’s warnings. Thought Hadley had a part in putting the false ““The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” 16 words back into Bush’s speech that he gave in Cincinnati. Thousands of us were outside protesting

  12. Taxi
    December 6, 2010, 10:42 pm

    The revolution will not be televised,

    But it will be blogged by millions.

    • Citizen
      December 7, 2010, 2:29 am

      Will this also happen in China?

      • Taxi
        December 7, 2010, 7:41 am

        That’s why I said millions not billions :-)

  13. Richard Witty
    December 7, 2010, 7:41 am

    Although this makes some logistics of both peace and Israeli expansion more difficult, Israel should thank Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay for making Israel ultimately more secure, if it proceeds now to assertively reconcile with the PA, achieve ratification of the Palestinian community, and ratification of the Arab League community.

    The Arab League proposal will be realized, of universal acceptance of Israel, diplomatic relations, full sovereignty with the support of all international institutions, full membership in the UN (in contrast to its odd status of prohibited from many governing committees: somehow Iran is accepted on the human rights committee, but Israel isn’t).

    The real end-game is to end at peace, not at deferred war.

    Glatzer’s comments are sadly telling. To those in Israel that have paranoia and some that are rational, the current effort does appear to be for its demise, not for its normalization.

    The features that confirm that the establishment of borders is for peace and normalization and not for its incremental demise, are the defining ones.

  14. Citizen
    December 7, 2010, 1:51 pm

    I wonder about the timing of Brazil’s recognition of Palestine at the 67 borders–just a week or so ago Brazil signed an agreement with Israel to buy
    an awful lot of Israel’s “homeland security products” and Israel says they will be sellling Brazil many more products. (Note: Israel first looked at US stuff but went with Israel’s stuff.) link to coteret.com

    • annie
      December 7, 2010, 2:01 pm


      Due to the high sensitivity of Brazil, some of whose allies are countries such as Turkey, Iran and Syria, which are considered states that are in confrontation with Israel or enemy states — Brazil demanded that in case of any differences of opinion, Israel would not turn to an arbitrator or third party state in order to resolve disputes that might arise. In the agreement, it was determined that the chief of security in the Defense Ministry and his Brazilian counterpart would be responsible for resolving such disputes.

      an arbitrator or third party state

      meaning keep the US out of any dispute?

Leave a Reply