UN recognition of Palestinian state is actually last chance for 2SS, though US will kill it

Israel/Palestine
on 64 Comments

The most confusing thing in all the back and forth about Obama’s pronouncements about the Middle East in the last few days is why there is so much talk of the Palestinians trying to declare statehood at the UN in September.  The unity deal between Fatah and Hamas, by all appearances, is supposed to just be a decent interval before new elections for new leadership, which would have to demand one man-one vote.  How then to explain any apparent eagerness for the UN to force the two-state solution down everyone’s throat?

The irony is that UN recognition of a Palestinian state is actually the best chance that remains for Israel to survive as a Jewish state.  It would therefore make a certain amount of sense for the US to want this and push for it.  Expect J Street to call for support of such a UN declaration for this very reason.  It is thus not altogether inconceivable that Obama could come out in favor of a UN recognition, but of course I highly doubt it.  Indeed, Obama added nothing of substance either way at AIPAC to his Thursday May 19 speech, nor for that matter to Hillary’s remarks last year which were news at the time.  If he really wanted to save the two-state solution that badly he would be bolder.

So why, then, is Abbas talking about UN recognition in September?  The most logical explanation to me is that he has decided it is necessary to deliver one final blow to the two-state solution by forcing the US into the humiliating position of putting the final nail in its coffin at the UN.  Again, there is a chance, albeit a small one, that Obama or even Netanyahu could call his bluff, which would likely result in the most bloodshed of all.  The point is that we now know what the gruesome end of the “special relationship” looks like.

About Jack Ross

Other posts by .


Posted In:

64 Responses

  1. LeaNder
    May 25, 2011, 10:36 am

    Interesting argument Jack, but for this nitwit it feels that the Palestinians may be slightly tired of the constant stream of arguments related to the fact that they aren’t a state and never had one, thus do not have any rights. And the corollary of arguments: You know, these Arabs claiming to be Palestinians.There is no such thing as Palestinians, there are many Arab countries they belong to. Israel has only one tiny state Arabs have many, many, many.

  2. pabelmont
    May 25, 2011, 10:48 am

    The key to USA strategy (or hopes, or excuses) is Obama’s statement that the world is not holding still for all this. He says, in effect, it’s OK for the USA to carry on as prisoner and slave of AIPAC, because [1] that’s all I can do and still hope for re-election and [2] the world knows what’s happening in the USA and knows that the world, and not the USA, will be the big actor for what comes next, and [3] the EU, Turkey, Egypt, etc., will surely do something — sooner or later, over the USA’s objections or not.

    We’d all much prefer a decent USA. What’s gone on for 44 years is completely disgusting. But now, Obama is almost begging the nations to usurp the USA’s (former) role as “big cheese” here. Who knows? Maybe they will.

  3. clenchner
    May 25, 2011, 10:54 am

    “Expect J Street to call for support of such a UN declaration for this very reason”
    Not exactly. J Street will call on all sides to work together to avoid a unilateral declaration. It will look for daylight between the US and Israeli position, and then position itself on the middle, as close as possible to Obama.
    J Street will message it’s base for the two state solution and make it clear it has Obama’s back for whatever. It will not go far in front of what Obama is likely to to.
    J Street’s role is to make it more difficult for AIPAC to force a position on the President and Congress. It is succeeding so far with Obama, but not yet with many Congressional Dem leaders like Reid.

    • Chaos4700
      May 25, 2011, 1:55 pm

      Isn’t unilateral declaration exactly how Israel was formed? Is this some sort of Jewish exclusive privilege, then?

  4. Avi
    May 25, 2011, 11:06 am

    The way I see things, here is what will happen between now and October.

    After the declaration of Palestinian statehood, Israel will invade Area A thus re-occupying Palestinian city centers – Chance 50%.

    A third violent Intifadah will erupt – Chance 45%.

    Israel will instigate and foment widespread upheaval (i.e. Widespread colonist attacks, or another massive massacre in Gaza) – Chance 65%.

    The June 5th marches, coinciding with Israel’s launch of the 1967 war, will be used by Israel as pretext to justify any of the above – Chance 75%.

    Political pressure by both the US and Israel prior to September will result in the PA dissolving itself – Chance 30%.

    None of the above will occur – Chance 5%.

    • GuiltyFeat
      May 25, 2011, 12:14 pm

      Yet again, Avi, you show how far you are from the reality here in Israel.

      There is no appetite for any kind of invasion of any area. No Israeli general is going to order further occupation of Palestinian city centers. There is no chance whatsoever that this will happen.

      As to the rest I would reduce your percentages in each case by around half to three quarters and increase the last one that none of the above will occur to around 50-60%

      • justicewillprevail
        May 25, 2011, 12:48 pm

        You don’t need invade. You just slowly infiltrate settlers, then send in the IDF to lock down the city in order to facilitate the settlers life and act as their guards. In the meantime the indigenous people are treated like scum and can’t go about their daily life without harrassment. Works like a charm – see Hebron.

        • Chaos4700
          May 25, 2011, 1:57 pm

          With the settlers already there, actually, there already IS an invasion.

      • kalithea
        May 25, 2011, 12:50 pm

        50-60% LOL! You really don’t like being wrong, do you? How non-commital can you get! At least go for 70% after defending your views so “convincingly”.

      • Avi
        May 25, 2011, 1:55 pm

        GuiltyFeat May 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm

        Yet again, Avi, you show how far you are from the reality here in Israel.

        Said the guy who once insisted that Ra’nanah (An Israeli coastal town) wasn’t built on land from ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages.

        DirtyFeet’s message is akin to being condescended to by a monkey that insists one need not peel a banana before eating it.

        Our Middle East correspondent, Dirty Feet, reporting.

  5. Chaos4700
    May 25, 2011, 11:07 am

    So why, then, is Abbas talking about UN recognition in September? The most logical explanation to me is that he has decided it is necessary to deliver one final blow to the two-state solution by forcing the US into the humiliating position of putting the final nail in its coffin at the UN.

    I don’t really think Abbas or any Palestinian faction really cares whether or not the US suffers damage. For them, it’s not about getting back at our crazy, addled, self-destructive government, its about survival in the face of an onslaught from a bunch of paleo-Euro colonialist white-phosphorous wielding maniacs with genocidal intent.

    It’s just that the United States has made itself antithetical to world peace, social justice and international law and that is what is destroying the United States. This may be me, being a self-important and vain American but the Palestinians don’t deserve any credit for destroying the United States. That’s an entirely American endeavor.

    Go us.

    • kalithea
      May 25, 2011, 12:59 pm

      Yes, people needed to be reminded: It’s the Occupation, stupid. Now “It’s survival and the struggle to achieve the rights that everyone deserves under the law…”.

      To all the stupid people, including Obama, who’ve ignored the suffering of Palestinians while they “talk” the peace process to death: It’s about time justice is done!

  6. Pedestrian
    May 25, 2011, 11:13 am

    I’m a bit confused about the logistics of this. The General Assembly, unlike the Security Council, does not give any member the right to veto (as far as I know). And up until now, I assumed Abbas was taking this vote the General Assembly in September. But, on Al Jazeera, they say that any vote to the GA must go through the Security Council first, in which case the US is surely to veto it.

    Does anyone know how this works? Don’t the SC and the GA have different functions?

    • annie
      May 25, 2011, 1:03 pm

      hostage posted about this yesterday

      “I think that Palestine will go ahead and apply for full membership in the UN and that the 10th Emergency Special Session will be reconvened if the US interferes in the vote in the Security Council. If Palestine is admitted, it can pursue its own claims in the ICJ and ICC.

      If not, the General Assembly can always adopt a resolution(s) (a) designating Palestine as a Permanent Observer State; (b) inviting Palestine to become a party to the ICJ Statute; (c) requesting that the ICC prosecutor act on the Article 12(3) Declaration of the State of Palestine; (d) requesting a follow-up advisory opinion on the legal consequences for states arising from Israel’s continued violation of the erga omnes obligation to remove impediments to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people in the occupied territories – including continued Israeli occupation, colonialism, and allegations of apartheid reported by UN fact finding missions; (e) calling on member states to impose sanctions including boycotts and divestments; and (f) calling on the member states of the ICC to refer the situation in Palestine to the Prosecutor in accordance with article 14 of the Rome Statute, while providing the Court with every assistance necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.

      One or two of those eventualities would be more than adequate to alter Israel’s behavior.”

      i asked him to elaborate, specifically about the veto, if you scroll @ the link:

      UN recognition will dramatically expand the legal forums available to Palestinian officials.
      *States recognized by the UN can become parties to the ICC statute. There is no veto or vote on the admission of new state parties.

      there is a lot more he wrote. i urge everyone to read it.

      • chet
        May 25, 2011, 2:33 pm

        From Wiki re UNGA Resolution 377:

        “It has been argued that with the adoption of the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution by the Assembly, and with the Charter interpretations that were made law as a result, that the UNSC ‘power of veto’ became, fundamentally, irrelevant. By adopting A/RES/377 A, on 3 November 1950, it was made clear by over two-thirds of UN Member states that, according to the UN Charter, the P5 cannot and should not prevent the UN General Assembly from taking any and all action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise its ‘primary responsibility’ for maintaining peace. Such an interpretation sees the UNGA as being awarded ‘final responsibility’—rather than ‘secondary responsibility’—for matters of international peace and security, by the UN Charter. Although not couched in the same language, various high-level reports make explicit reference to the Uniting for Peace resolution as providing the necessary mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any UNSC vetoes; thus rendering them little more than delays in UN action, should two-thirds of the Assembly subsequently agree that action is necessary.”

        It would appear that if the US attempted to use its veto in the UNSC to block any move in respect of Palestinian statehood, the UNGA is empowered, by a two-thirds vote, to over-ride that veto.

        However, it would appear that, apart from the application of UNGA Res, 377, problems would arise if one or more of the permanent members of the UNSC joined the US in opposition.

        • Robert Werdine
          May 25, 2011, 4:21 pm

          UNGA RES. 377 was meant to be an emergency measure to deal with acts of aggression in case of a security council deadlock. The resolution states:

          “Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

          If the UN was to invoke it in this instance it would be a shameful misapplication. To argue that Israel has committed a “breach of the peace” or an “act of aggression” is preposterous. Hostage’s assertion that “the legal consequences for states arising from Israel’s continued violation of the erga omnes obligation to remove impediments to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people in the occupied territories” ignores, first of all, that the notion that Israel is in violation of an erga omnes (in relate to all) obligation to “remove impediments to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people in the occupied territories” is his opinion, and, second, that ample evidence exists that the Palestinians have been the principal “impediment” to their own self-determination by dint of their adamantine refusal to even negotiate for over two years, not to mention their numerous refusals of statehood in the past.

          What Hostage and I can agree on, however, is that there is little doubt that the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Court will soon face a major challenge with the potential to determine its degree of judicial independence and overall legitimacy. It may need to decide whether a Palestinian state exists, either for the purposes of the Court itself, or perhaps even in general.

          The ICC currently has 113 member states, and has not yet recognized Palestine as a sovereign state or as a member. What will they do after the vote, if it comes? The ICC potentially has the authority to investigate crimes which fall into its subject-matter jurisdiction, regardless of where they were committed, it will have to assess its jurisdiction over a non-member state, in this case Israel. Hostage mentions the Rome Statute. Despite having signed the Rome Statute that founded the Court and having expressed “deep sympathy” for the Court’s goals, the state of Israel withdrew its signature in 2002, in accordance with Article 127 of the Statute. At any rate, a signature is not tantamount to accession, and accordingly Israel was never a party to it.

          This will raise an important issue to the fore: the interplay between sovereign force and consent in international law. This has been trenchantly explicated by Jeremy Rabkin in his excellent book, “The Case for Sovereignty,” with particular reference to the ICJ:

          “Until quite recently, no treatise on international law proposed that violations of international standards in war could be punished by third parties to the conflict. . . . The advent of the United Nations did not change this underlying reality. It was not designed to ensure any rule of international conduct, unless all the great powers were in agreement on the response to a particular violation. . . . So the statute [creating] the International Court of Justice, appended to the UN Charter, stipulated that only states could be parties to disputes before the court and then only with the consent of both parties to the particular dispute.”

          Several questions are therefore in order here. Israel is a sovereign state, and it will not consent to any proceedings against itself. Does this vitiate the validity of the court’s authority to adjudicate the matter?

          The ICJ is the judicial branch of the UN General assembly. The request to investigate the legal issues stemmed from the so-called “10th Emergency Session of the General Assembly.” What binding force in international law does the court’s ruling have since the Israel/Palestine issue is not in the jurisdiction of the General Assembly but of the UN Security Council, who did not request or authorize the ICJ’s involvement?

          The principle adversary claimant (the Palestinians) are not a nation state. Do they have any standing before the tribunal? Is there any precedent or any applicable law or ruling that does give them standing?

          Did either the 1988 declaration of statehood or the 1993 formation of the Palestinian authority at any time vest the territories with the legal standing of a sovereign? Will the UN GA vote give it to them? How so? Will this make the Palestinians a “high contracting party”?

          If so, will Tibetans and Kurds form Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey similarly empowered? If not, why not?

          The court deemed Israel an unlawful occupying power, branding the settlement of territory to be an illegal seizure of property belonging to another state. Yet it also ruled that the territories were not a state. It did so to demonstrate that Israel had no right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN charter, the court arguing that this applies only to attacks by a “state.” In a further contortion, however, the court then argued that the territories are the de facto equivalent of a state—and are thus extended the protections of the Geneva Conventions, which covers only signatory states.

          Now, can someone please explain how a sovereign state can be an unlawful occupier in a territory not belonging to a state, thus forfeiting its right to self defense under Article 51 against terrorist acts committed by inhabitants of the territory because they are not a state, and, yet, at the same time, that the territories are a de facto state, and can thus be extended the protections of the GC, which covers only state signatories of the Convention?

          It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how these issues are going to be played out and litigated in the aftermath of the vote this September, if it does indeed take place.

        • Hostage
          May 25, 2011, 4:30 pm

          However, it would appear that, apart from the application of UNGA Res, 377, problems would arise if one or more of the permanent members of the UNSC joined the US in opposition.

          It doesn’t make any difference how the votes are cast in the Security Council, the General Assembly can convene an Emergency Special Session under resolution 377 A on its own initiative. The necessary criteria is satisfied whenever the Security Council fails to act in fulfillment of its Charter functions and purposes regarding the maintenance of international peace and security.

          In the 2004 advisory opinion on the construction of the Wall, the Court noted that interpretation of Article 12 had evolved over time and that it was part of the accepted practice of the UN for the Security Council and General Assembly to deal in parallel with the same matter concerning the maintenance of international peace and security (para 27).

          The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly, “Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” was first convened following the rejection by the Security Council, on 7 March and 21 March 1997, as a result of negative votes by a permanent member, of two draft resolutions concerning certain Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see, respectively, S/1997/199 and S/PV.3747, and S/1997/241 and S/PV.3756

          It has reconvened on multiple occasions since then, including the 2004 session on the construction of the Wall and the 2009 session on Operation Cast Lead. The Obama administration has subsequently vetoed a resolution on settlements; the Israeli government continues to approve construction of settlements; and both Obama and Netanyahu have ruled out any possibility of the Palestinian people exercising self-determination or permanent sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in accordance with scores of General Assembly resolutions. Both men have stated that the international demarcation lines would not be the result of the US proposal for a negotiated withdrawal with “agreed swaps”. The swaps are obviously being imposed by force upon the basis of illegal demographic changes and de facto annexations that continue to occur without regard to Palestinian consent.

        • annie
          May 25, 2011, 4:37 pm

          i’m saving all these posts of yours wrt palestinian UN recognition status for further reference. thanks again.

        • annie
          May 25, 2011, 4:39 pm

          To argue that Israel has committed a “breach of the peace” or an “act of aggression” is preposterous.

          excuse me? i quit reading after that btw. there are only so many hrs in my day.

        • Robert Werdine
          May 25, 2011, 4:48 pm

          Ouch!

        • Chaos4700
          May 25, 2011, 5:19 pm

          Now if you only had a heart, Werdine, you might understand what pain is really like. (I’m not even going to go there about whether you have a central nervous system.)

        • chet
          May 25, 2011, 5:35 pm

          With respect to my observation as to more than one veto, the comment was not directed to the legal empowerment or any other legal issue – it was intended as a query on the politics of the situation if the US is not standing alone in using the veto.

        • Avi
          May 25, 2011, 6:13 pm

          Chaos4700 May 25, 2011 at 5:19 pm

          Now if you only had a heart, Werdine, you might understand what pain is really like. (I’m not even going to go there about whether you have a central nervous system.)

          I respectfully disagree. Everyone has a central nervous system, but some have had theirs taken over by Ziocaine. Ziocaine suppresses the central nervous system and causes total collapse of the lungs and the heart, essentially turning the patient into a zombie (Drone?/Automaton?).

        • Chaos4700
          May 25, 2011, 11:06 pm

          Brain dead is as good as invertebrate as far as I’m concerned.

        • Hostage
          May 26, 2011, 5:07 am

          UNGA RES. 377 was meant to be an emergency measure to deal with acts of aggression

          The ICJ has advised that the “Definition of Aggression” (including military occupation) contained in General Assembly resolution 3314 (1974) reflects customary international law. The use of war as an instrument of national policy, including preventative wars, wars waged in violation of treaties, and military occupations, were acts that were already considered crimes against peace and acts of aggression when the United Nations Organization adopted the Charter prohibition against threats or use of force. See Articles 227-230 “Penalties” in the Treaty of Versailles; the Kellogg-Briand Pact; Article 21 of the Charter of the Organization of American States; Article 6 of the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal

          It doesn’t matter if the victim is a sovereign state. Abba Eban explained:

          “the theory that the Charter forbids acts of aggression only against States is utterly without foundation. Indeed, neither Chapter VI nor Chapter VII, in defining threats to the peace or acts of aggression, shows the slightest interest in the juridical status of the victim. The word “State” does not occur in either of those chapters. There is no provision whatever that the attacked party must be universally recognized as a State before an armed attack upon it can be determined as an act of aggression.

          Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter forbids the use of force not only if it is directed against the integrity of a State but also if it is used “in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations”. See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12

          the notion that Israel is in violation of an erga omnes (in relate to all) obligation to “remove impediments to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people in the occupied territories” is his opinion

          And my opinion was shared by 14 Justices of the ICJ who concurred in the majority opinion contained in paragraphs 155-157 of the 2004 Advisory Opinion in the Wall case. They said the obligations they were discussing “constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law”.

          It may need to decide whether a Palestinian state exists, either for the purposes of the Court itself, or perhaps even in general.

          Nonsense, the ICC has no police force and relies on member states to enforce its arrest warrants. Many members of the ICC Assembly of State Parties, including Jordan, Comoros Island, Djibouti, & etc. officially recognize the State of Palestine and have treaties on extradition and immunity that are currently in force.

          In accordance with Article 98 of the Rome Statute, the Court is unconditionally bound to respect the terms of existing international agreements regarding immunity and extradition of government officials that have been concluded by its member states with third states, including Palestine. The existence of these agreements is a matter of fact, not a question of law. Here are a few examples: Palestinian State officials on mission to OIC member states enjoy diplomatic privileges under the terms of the “Agreement on Immunities and privileges for The Organization of The Islamic Conference”. Palestinian Cabinet Ministers are ex officio members of various League of Arab States Ministerial Councils and are considered representatives of the State of Palestine in accordance with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the League of Arab States. Palestine, has signed the “The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice, Cairo, April 1998 and “The Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism, adopted at Ouagadougou on 1 July 1999. Both of those agreements govern extradition. So, the Court already is required to treat Palestine as a third state in the event that the UN refers the Goldstone report or some other situation to it. The Court has an article 12(3) Declaration from the government of Palestine in hand accepting ICC jurisdiction for any crimes committed on the territory of Palestine. Israel’s consent is not required.

          I don’t want to confuse you with too many facts, but Palestine has claimed sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza since 1988. The official position of the government of Israel with respect to the application of its own international treaty agreements to the West Bank and Gaza is: that they are NOT territories subject to Israel’s sovereign jurisdiction. See for example CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 5-7

          I pointed out in one of my earlier posts that the ICJ could exercise compulsory jurisdiction over Israel on the basis of the Genocide Convention. Here is the link to the page that lists all of the treaties containing either compulsory or compromissory dispute resolution clauses.

          The ICC prosecutes individuals, not states. Jerry Rabkin’s book and Israeli sovereignty are not relevant to the criminal prosecution of individuals for acts committed on the territory of Palestine. For example, here is an extract from Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic which illustrates that neither Israel nor the United States accept Rabkin’s theory:

          “In any event, the accused not being a State lacks the locus standi to raise the issue of primacy, which involves a plea that the sovereignty of a State has been violated, a plea only a sovereign State may raise or waive and a right clearly the accused cannot take over from the State.” (Decision at Trial, para. 41.) The Trial Chamber relied on the judgement of the District Court of Jerusalem in Israel v. Eichmann: “The right to plead violation of the sovereignty of a State is the exclusive right of that State. Only a sovereign State may raise the plea or waive it, and the accused has no right to take over the rights of that State.” (36 International Law Reports 5, 62 (1961), affirmed by Supreme Court of Israel, 36 International Law Reports 277 (1962).) Consistently with a long line of cases, a similar principle was upheld more recently in the United States of America in the matter of United States v. Noriega:”As a general principle of international law, individuals have no standing to challenge violations of international treaties in the absence of a protest by the sovereign involved.” (746 F. Supp. 1506, 1533 (S.D. Fla. 1990).)

          The court deemed Israel an unlawful occupying power, branding the settlement of territory to be an illegal seizure of property belonging to another state. Yet it also ruled that the territories were not a state.

          You’re wrong about both the facts and the law. The Court performed a legal analysis of the construction of the portions of the wall and the settlements located beyond the armistice line or “Green Line”. It said that while the Hague Convention protected state rights, the status of the territory was irrelevant under the Fourth Geneva Convention, because it was intended to protect the rights of the civilian population (para 95); that Switzerland, as depositary State, considered the unilateral undertaking of Palestine to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention to be valid (i.e. Switzerland itself considered Palestine to be a state), but that it was in no position to decide on behalf of the other contracting parties (para 91); “Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.” (i.e. Israel failed to state a claim); “Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall [beyond the green line] originates within, and not outside, that territory.”

          So, the Court did not say that Palestine was not a foreign state, it merely repeated statements from Israel’s written submission which indicated that the threat originated in the same territory where the wall was being built and that Article 51 of the UN Charter did not apply to that situation.

          Now, can someone please explain how a sovereign state can be an unlawful occupier in a territory not belonging to a state … & etc. “States” do not have an extraterritorial right of self-defense. The right of self-defense contained in Article 51 of the Charter does not imply excuse or justify wrongful acts committed against others. In any event you should try reading the Court’s advisory opinion. The Court cited Article 25 of the UN Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. It provides that necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act when the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.

          You’re lucky that ignorance isn’t painful….

        • Sumud
          May 26, 2011, 6:57 am

          excuse me? i quit reading after that btw. there are only so many hrs in my day.

          LOL Annie I did just the same. To say the country that is undertaking the longest military occupation in modern history isn’t guilty of an act of aggression is crackers. Putting aside that 1967 was a war of choice for Israel, every day Israel commits acts of aggression in order to maintain the occupation.

  7. justicewillprevail
    May 25, 2011, 11:13 am

    The UN vote isn’t so much about the 2 SS, which Yahoo killed stone dead the other day. It is about recognition of Palestinian rights which would flow from that recognition, and that is why Israel is once again getting hysterical about anything which threatens its ability to treat Palestinians like subhumans with no rights (see Gaza). It also grants Palestinians a status, even if symbolic, which Israel has been desperately denying for years. The recognition of Palestinian rights as equal to Israeli Jewish rights has many implications – the question then is how they will be fulfilled: either in a fair 2 SS, which the thug BN has ruled out for the usual fictional reasons, or in the inevitable one state which BN has inadvertently offered as the inevitable result of the failure of the 2SS.

    • kalithea
      May 25, 2011, 1:03 pm

      “The UN vote isn’t so much about the 2 SS, which Yahoo killed stone dead the other day. It is about recognition of Palestinian rights which would flow from that recognition.”

      And this is precisely why what Obama’s doing right now in Europe coaxing and cajoling European allies into voting NO on Palestinian statehood is shameless and despicable.

      • seafoid
        May 25, 2011, 4:09 pm

        Bibi didn’t kill it. It was murdered a long time ago.

        • Chaos4700
          May 25, 2011, 5:22 pm

          Arguably it never existed at all. There is exactly one Israeli head of state that even tried peace at all, and he was killed off by other Israelis and replaced with people more in line with Israel’s true nature.

        • seafoid
          May 25, 2011, 5:38 pm

          Even Rabin was a sham.
          Zionism is a machine that says “Palestinians don’t belong here”. Every single leader of Israel was or is a sociopath. There is no other way to explain the torture, the humiliation and the oppression of the entire Palestinian nation.

          Record!
          I am an Arab
          And my identity card is number fifty thousand
          I have eight children
          And the nineth is coming after a summer
          Will you be angry?

          Record!
          I am an Arab
          Employed with fellow workers at a quarry
          I have eight children
          I get them bread
          Garments and books
          from the rocks..
          I do not supplicate charity at your doors
          Nor do I belittle myself at the footsteps of your chamber
          So will you be angry?

          Record!
          I am an Arab
          I have a name without a title
          Patient in a country
          Where people are enraged
          My roots
          Were entrenched before the birth of time
          And before the opening of the eras
          Before the pines, and the olive trees
          And before the grass grew

          My father.. descends from the family of the plow
          Not from a privileged class
          And my grandfather..was a farmer
          Neither well-bred, nor well-born!
          Teaches me the pride of the sun
          Before teaching me how to read
          And my house is like a watchman’s hut
          Made of branches and cane
          Are you satisfied with my status?
          I have a name without a title!

          Record!
          I am an Arab
          You have stolen the orchards of my ancestors
          And the land which I cultivated
          Along with my children
          And you left nothing for us
          Except for these rocks..
          So will the State take them
          As it has been said?!

          Therefore!
          Record on the top of the first page:
          I do not hate poeple
          Nor do I encroach
          But if I become hungry
          The usurper’s flesh will be my food
          Beware..
          Beware..
          Of my hunger
          And my anger!

          by Mahmoud Darwish
          1964

  8. kalithea
    May 25, 2011, 11:33 am

    Obama’s on a mission for Israel in Europe. His “sweet-talkin” speeches where he digresses into historical ties that bind and the rest of the soaring blah-blah bullshet about the Arab spring and freedom from oppression is but a cover, a front for what he’s doing behind the scenes. Palestinians are the only people on the planet not entitled to be free of oppression. In a joint press statement with Cameron, Obama stated categorically that Palestinians are making a mistake seeking statehood through the U.N. He’s peddling Israel’s “wares” in Europe, and his statement is the main ambition of his trip. Make no mistake; he’s doing Israel’s bidding. He reworded the statement on 67 borders, stating at Aipac that those borders will be “different” from 67; and make no mistake about it, he will “charm” European leaders into voting against Palestinians.

    Obama’s trying to railroad Palestinians effort to secure statehood through the U.N. Israelis have bought themselves one heck of an oil salesman. He is without a doubt the devil’s advocate and I pray, that the ash from that volcano will keep him grounded although I know that won’t shut him up and he’ll get the message across Europe “in situ” from Britain.

    Obama is a stooge for Israel, just like Congress, where Netanyahu gets one rousing ovation after another, is occupied territory; meanwhile the lackey snake charmer is peddling the veto in Europe.

    • jonah
      May 25, 2011, 1:57 pm

      Obama is simply und correctly trying to explain to the Palestinians and their supporters that there is no other way to get a own state but through direct negotiations with Israel. Abbas bid for recognition by the UN does in fact not lead to a new free viable state called Palestine, but it likely follows down the path to more confrontation and the perpetuation of the conflict.

      You can not acquire statehood, while denying the same to your future direct neighbor – avoiding direct negotiations and thus peace based on compromise and mutual recognition. Unless you really want to win the war that you’ve never given up, so to get everything and not just an independent Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state. The Palestinians gamble, betting big, as an avid gambler convinced of winning the whole stake.

      • seafoid
        May 25, 2011, 4:15 pm

        BDS is going to wipe the floor with Israel. And it’s not a gamble. The game is about RIGHTS and the 50% of people in Erez Israel who don’t have them. Israel is 5.5 million Jews who collectively suffer from 4 problems- overconfidence bias, extrapolation bias, confirmation bias and behavioural convergence.

      • Chaos4700
        May 25, 2011, 5:20 pm

        Because that’s what Israel did, remember? To get their state? They didn’t resort to violence or ethnic cleansing or anything like that. And that’s why Israel exists today, on exactly the border that the UN established for them.

        • Robert Werdine
          May 25, 2011, 7:48 pm

          Welcome back Jonah. Long time no see!

          Quote right in what you say, of course. I think Obama made an error, however, in calling for Israel to withdraw to the (modified) ’67 lines as a means to graduate to discussions on refugees and Jerusalem. Apparently, he is unaware that unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza only whetted the appetites of the rejectionists and their “return” fantasies, and only made them raise their price for peace. Obama has also apparently not read Abbas’ latest NYT op-ed, where he states openly that even if he does gain statehood within the ’67 lines it will only serve as a springboard for the Palestinians to continue the conflict through other venues. Not very promising!

          I registered a post today on an article here published two days ago:

          “‘Haaretz’ report suggests Arab villages were targeted before Nakba,” another attempt to rewrite 1948 along the false Israel-as colonizer/ethnic-cleanser line of narrative. I hope you’ll read it.

          Best regards,

          Robert Werdine

        • Hostage
          May 25, 2011, 10:12 pm

          Hello Robert. I see you are still a habitual prevaricator and spin master. The 1988 Political Communiqué of the Palestinian National Council which declared the State of Palestine asked both the General Assembly and Security Council to permit the representatives of the Palestinian people to participate in the political field “on an equal footing”.

          At the same time, it accepted the (then) current list of pre-conditions for a settlement in accordance with Resolutions 242 and 338 in exchange for guarantees of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination, the inadmissibility of seizure of land belonging to others by means of force or military invasion, and in accordance with United Nations resolutions concerning the question of Palestine. Thanks to the FRUS, Wikileaks, and the Palestine Papers it’s a matter of public record that Israel and the United States have held discussions since 1967 regarding the undesirability of permitting an independent state of Palestine to be established in the West Bank or for it to become a member of the United Nations, e.g. link to history.state.gov Both countries have flagrantly violated their obligations under the UN Charter to assist the Palestinian people achieve self-determination and sovereignty over their territory.

          Abbas wasn’t discussing a continuation of an armed conflict. His Op-Ed said that:

          Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.

          For decades now, every major UN organ has accused Israel of deliberately violating international law on a routine daily basis. The UN has produced dozens of fact finding reports which provide prima facie evidence of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity that no political organ of the United Nations has the competence to simply dismiss. Since the UN won’t, Abbas is asking for the right to pursue legal action against Israel in regularly constituted courts and treaty bodies, which already recognize Israel and afford it all of the judicial or treaty guarantees that are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

          Israel and the other signatories have accepted the competence of the expert panels that they elect to serve on the UN treaty bodies. The Courts could dispose of the matters subject to their jurisdiction with finality and let the UN and the parties get on with other business. As usual you deploy a bunch of smug ad hominem fallacies, but they only make you look like an artless propagandist.

        • jonah
          May 26, 2011, 3:32 am

          Hallo Robert,

          great pleasure to see you here despite the “Sisyphus work” of arguing in a reasonable way with the Mondo anti-Zionist hard-liners. But indeed, time is not really on my side at this moment, since I have also a real job to think about and a family to feed … ;-). Anyway, you (and others here) are already doing a wonderful job in the service of the truth and I respect you for the effort. I’ll try to find some time too to read your article and responde to our pro-Palestinian buddies.

          Greetings,

          Jonah

      • Hostage
        May 25, 2011, 6:17 pm

        Obama is simply und correctly trying to explain to the Palestinians and their supporters that there is no other way to get a own state but through direct negotiations with Israel.

        Obama is obviously not a student of history. The PLO has already recognized the State of Israel and it has not changed its position or asked anyone to negotiate with individual political factions. When the 19th province of Iraq (Kuwait) was occupied, they got their own state through the UN without direct negotiations. The people of occupied Southwest Africa obtained a State of their own, Namibia, through the UN. The UN also dictated the terms of internal governance and representation in the former states of Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa. It also applied sanctions until those terms were accepted.

        Benjamin Netanyahu repeated Israel’s non-negotiable claim to permanent sovereignty over East Jerusalem and a permanent military presence in the Jordan valley. That is territory Israel acquired by war in violation of international law. It continues to occupy and colonize it in violation of UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Most of us have seen the video of Netanyahu bragging about his ploy to unilaterally designate the Jordan valley a security zone to scuttle the Oslo Accords.

        In two years of wasted time, neither Obama nor Netanyahu have offered a map of a viable Palestinian State or a just settlement for the refugees. The offer Netanyahu outlined last week will not pass legal muster in the General Assembly, the ICJ, or the ICC. So, why should the Palestinians accept it? It will certainly not fulfill the UN vision of Jerusalem emerging as the capital of two viable States living side-by-side in peace and security. Netanyahu’s nebulous proposal does nothing to remove the threat of more confrontation and the perpetuation of the conflict. I didn’t address Palestinian security at all. Israel can’t even put an end to the on-going price tag reprisals carried-out by the leaders of the Council of the Settlements in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip over the removal of a few minor outposts. How will a demilitarized Palestine defend itself against Jewish extremists? They settlers leadership has already declared that Netanyahu’s offer of territory for a Palestinian State is unacceptable.

        The General Assembly long ago affirmed the fact that the option of a Palestinian state is not subject to the peace process or to any veto. The issues of borders and refugees never held-up recognition of Israel’s statehood at the UN.

        Judge Rosalyn Cohen Higgins summed it up succinctly: “This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.

        Nothing Obama had to say alters that fact.

        • Avi
          May 25, 2011, 11:45 pm

          Hostage,

          Thank you for doing the heavy lifting refuting the spin.

        • Hostage
          May 26, 2011, 5:21 am

          You’re welcome Avi. I appreciate all of your posts too.

        • jonah
          May 26, 2011, 10:49 am

          Hostage, you are resorting to the old fairy tale that the PLO has already recognized the State of Israel. But a couple of letters from chairman Arafat are definitely not enough to substantiate your claim.
          The committments made in those letters never led to any amendment of the Palestinian Convenant, namely of those articles calling for the elimination of Israel, as promised in 1993 by Arafat:
          “…the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments for this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant” (Letters of Mutual Recognition, September 9, 1993).
          In April 1996, the Palestine National Council, the legislative body of the PLO, indeed met in Gaza and voted 504 to 54 to annul sections of the Palestinian National Charter that denied Israel’s right to exist, but the charter itself was not been formally changed or re-drafted.
          It still denies a two states solution and represents a clear breach of the Interim Accords. Even in the 10 point program of the PLO(based on the PLO National Charter), which you can find on the website of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, which is supposed to be the official mouthpiece of the PLO, we can still read:
          “1. To reaffirm the Palestine Liberation Organization’s previous attitude to Resolution 242, which obliterates the national right of our people and deals with the cause of our people as a problem of refugees. The Council therefore refuses to have anything to do with this resolution at any level, Arab or international, including the Geneva Conference”.
          Last but not least, several Palestinian ministers denied even at the last Fatah congress that the notorious PLO charter was and will ever be revised:
          “Nabil Shaath, a veteran member of Fatah’s ruling Central Committee, told Reuters that the charter ‘cannot be changed.’
          Azzam al-Ahmad, another senior Fatah leader, said: ‘It will remain as is. It won’t be subject to discussion.’ link to reuters.com

          Also the other committments in the letters, namely to renounce violence, were never implemented: Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians never stopped, and became ever worse after 2000.

          So, your (and Palestinian) premises for peace and recognition are demostrably false. There never was such a thing on Palestinian side, and the current race to obtain statehood appears once more a way to perpetuate the conflict, here on a diplomatic legal level, parallel to the “armed struggle”. However, since their premises are so false (even on the historical ground), these reiterated but not new aggressive efforts to put Israel against the ropes will fail again and eventually bear negative consequences for themselves, damaging their real chances to achieve statehood on the basis of mutual recognition and a true peace treaty.

        • Hostage
          May 26, 2011, 2:10 pm

          Jonah, you and Robert appear to be tag team of trolls who come here to repeat inane Hasbara Fellowship talking points and engage in old fashioned political propaganda. You mentioned letters from the President of the State of Palestine which formally recognizing the State of Israel, but failed to mention all of the international agreements the State of Israel has signed with the PLO which also constituted explicit and formal recognition.

          Recognition can either be express or tacit. See for example Article 7 of the Montevideo Convention. Under customary international law it can also be either express or implied. For example, The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says under the heading “§ 204 (2) Express or implied recognition.” that:

          “The President may exercise his power of recognition either expressly or by implication. Recognition of a state has been effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic representative of that state. The fact that the United States is a member, of an international organization of which a state it does not recognize is also a member does not imply recognition of that state by the United States, but a vote by the United States to admit an entity to membership in an organization open only to states may imply recognition of that entity’s statehood.”

          So, the PLO formally recognized the State of Israel every time it signed a bilateral international agreement like the Oslo Accords, the Jericho-Gaza Agreements, the Wye River Memorandum, and the Sharm el Sheikh Memorandum. I hope that clears-up your (deliberately faked) confusion about the customary criteria for recognition of states.

        • jonah
          May 26, 2011, 4:26 pm

          “I hope that clears-up your (deliberately faked) confusion about the customary criteria for recognition of states.”

          Not, not at all, Hostage. Why should I be satisfied with this kind of strident contradictions in the Palestinian position? I fail to understand why a implicit recognition is better than a open, unambiguous recognition. If a lasting peace is really the goal of the Palestinians, would a clear statement to Israel’s existence not be the best way to clarify that goal? And what about Hamas, the other party of the Palestinian unity deal? Is their recognition of Israel tacit as well, when they affirme to accept a Palestinian state in 1967 borders but not what is beyond?

          But let’s assume the case that they indeed, as you say, have recognized Israel in the various signed agreements, how then can we interpret the will to throw now to the winds, thereby bypassing the peace negotiations, all those same agreements through the unilateral bid for statehood at the United Nations? Should this maybe imply that their implicit recognition should de facto be considered null and void?

          I do not expect you to be able and willing to unravel the tangle of all your (Palestinian) “implications”.

        • Hostage
          May 27, 2011, 12:22 am

          how then can we interpret the will to throw now to the winds, thereby bypassing the peace negotiations, all those same agreements through the unilateral bid for statehood at the United Nations?

          Jonah we’ve been over this. The Palestinians declared their statehood in 1988, they are not asking the UN for statehood. They are asking the UN for recognition of their existing status inside the armistice lines and for eventual UN membership. The organization is only open to membership by states.

          Israel did exactly the same thing during the 1948-49 Cease Fire and Armistice negotiations. Its sponsors used the map from the General Assembly partition plan. See for example S/PV.384 page 22 of 45 and S/PV.386 page 5 of 20

          So, joining the UN doesn’t throw anything to the wind or effect on-going negotiations. Statehood was not enumerated as a final status issue in the Oslo Accords. The Quartet Road Map page 6 specifically mentioned the responsibility of the Quartet members to promote international recognition of the Palestinian state, including possible UN membership.”

          The United Nations Special Coordinator For The Middle East Peace Process is a member of the Quartet. He recently reported to the donor coordination group for Palestine Territories, the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC), that in the six areas where the UN is most engaged, governmental functions are now sufficient for a functioning government of a state. The IMF also reported that the Palestinian financial institutions are operating above the threshold required of other states. The Soviet Union recognized the State of Palestine in 1988. The Russian Federation has never changed its policy or position on that point. So, there always has been at least one Quartet member that has diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine. See the Embassy of the State of Palestine in the Russian Federation website for more details.

          Why should I be satisfied with this kind of strident contradictions in the Palestinian position?

          In practice most governments have adopted policies against making formal declarations regarding recognition. Many consider it a degrading practice held over from the colonial era when a few empires virtually controlled the existence of all the other states through the constitutive principle of recognition, i.e. “Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.”

          The Tinoco Arbitration case established that States exist as international persons prior to recognition and that principle was incorporated in public international conventional laws, such as Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention of 1932. It says “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.” It also reflects the principle of self-determination, i.e. “no state has the right to interfere in the internal and external affairs of another. That same principle was reflected in the Estrada Doctrine of the same era. It held that other governments should not judge the legitimacy of new regimes or successor states established by the people of other nations. That’s one of the reasons why the Montevideo Convention allowed tacit recognition in which recognition statements were almost never made.

          Acting Secretary of State Lovett wrote a memo on US practice regarding recognition that appeared in the State Department’s (Hackworth edition) of the “Digest of International Law”. The memo said that “in the recent case of Pakistan recognition de jure was granted on the same day as the new government and state of Pakistan came into existence”. Hackworth noted that the message of recognition which President Truman sent to the Governor-General of the Dominion of Pakistan on the day Pakistan became independent, did not speak of recognition, to say nothing of de jure recognition, but simply extended on behalf of the American people the best wishes “on this auspicious day which marks the emergence among the family of nations of the new Dominion of Pakistan”. See Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) Page 90

          It took the US government nearly 30 years to declassify the memorandums concerning the recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950 (published 1978). The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921

          The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §203 says “Since 1970 the United States has moved away from its older recognition practice. “In recent years, U.S. practice has been to deemphasize and avoid the use of recognition in cases of changes of governments and to concern ourselves with the question of whether we wish to have diplomatic relations with the new governments.” [1977] Digest of
          U.S. Practice in International Law 19-21. Repeatedly, the State Department has responded to inquiries with the statement: “The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government.” [1974] Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law at 13; [1975] Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law at 34.

        • jonah
          May 27, 2011, 9:34 am

          “The Palestinians declared their statehood in 1988, they are not asking the UN for statehood. They are asking the UN for recognition of their existing status inside the armistice lines and for eventual UN membership. ”

          You are right, Hostage. It is not about statehood per se, it’s about recognition of statehood inside the armistice lines of 1967. We don’t need to beat around the bush: it’s well-known that the Palestinian bid for recognition at tha UN in September unilaterally seeks to impose on the international arena new boundaries without having to negotiate with Israel, neither about the size of the future contiguous states nor about a lasting peace. This is not exactly the meaning of Resolution 242, actually it is a clear breach of the same, since it is stated there that the withdrawal of Israel from “occupied territories” is conditioned by the “termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and 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.” The sense of the latter should be clear to you: the Middle East conflict as a whole, with all its controversial implications, must first be over, permanently settled by reason of a final peace treaty between the different parties.
          Thus, of course the Palestinians can get unilaterally their statehood recognized by the UN General Assembly within the 1967 armistice lines, but Israel is not obliged to accept it, as this unilateral move does not necessarily mean peace, but rather turns out to be detrimental to the very foundation of peace.
          It’s also very doubful that the Western world does not realize the hidden agenda behind the Palestinian move und will willingly follow the Palestinians on the impracticable path of their diplomatic and legal offensive aimed at isolating and delegitimizing the State of Israel.

        • Robert Werdine
          May 27, 2011, 12:34 pm

          Hostage: “As usual you deploy a bunch of smug ad hominem fallacies, but they only make you look like an artless propagandist.”

          “You’re lucky that ignorance isn’t painful…. “

          “Jonah, you and Robert appear to be tag team of trolls who come here to repeat inane Hasbara Fellowship talking points and engage in old fashioned political propaganda.”

          (Robert Werdine: Note to self: Have failed to please. Must try to do better)

          You know Hostage, I cannot help but think that lurking behind all of these ponderous, suffocatingly disingenuous disquisitions of yours, there is not some barely concealed fantasy on your part to convene some Great International Court with yourself as Chief Justice to lift mankind from the sordid shackles of politics and diplomacy, along with the perils of sovereign self interest, and impose political solutions by legal fiat, torturing plaintiff and defendant alike with your tediously prolix rulings inventorying innumerable arcane citations and precedents.

          Hostage: “States” do not have an extraterritorial right of self-defense. The right of self-defense contained in Article 51 of the Charter does not imply excuse or justify wrongful acts committed against others.”

          and

          “The use of war as an instrument of national policy, including preventative wars, wars waged in violation of treaties, and military occupations, were acts that were already considered crimes against peace and acts of aggression when the United Nations Organization adopted the Charter prohibition against threats or use of force.”

          No kidding. So what? Displaying here your keen quality of stating the obvious and ignoring it at the same time that is unsurpassed, you have not now and never have established that Israel, in coming into possession of the occupied territories, did so by an act of unlawful aggression. Article 51, which prohibits acts of aggression, excludes acts of self-defense, and the laws of initiating hostilities (jus ad bellum) does not inhibit the use of force in that capacity in international conflicts.

          The notion that a nation has no right to an act of preemptive self defense is reckless, and has never been adopted in theory or practice. In his seminal 1625 treatise, “The Law of War and Peace,” Hugo Grotius, one of the foremost philosophers of international law, argued that the repulsing of invasion is the most appropriate method of waging a just war, but he did not limit justifiable self-defense to cases of being attacked only, but that it could also extend preemptively, in cases where an enemy is “preparing to kill.”

          Said the 18th-century Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel:

          “The safest plan is to prevent evil, where that is possible. A nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force . . . against the aggressor. It may even anticipate the other’s design, being careful, however, not to act upon vague and doubtful suspicions, lest it should run the risk of becoming itself the aggressor.”

          Israel’s pre-emptive attack of 1967, in the face of an existential danger ringing their borders and becoming stronger, more militant, and more cacophonous by the hour, was a clear example of such an instance, and the UN did not condemn the Israeli attack as an act of “aggression” in Resolution 242 as it did in, say, 1990 with Saddam’s unprovoked invasion of Kuwait.

          In any event, the whole framework of agreements with the Palestinians put the issue of the status of the territory and Israel’s settlements where it remains to this day despite over two years of the Palestinians’ willful neglect and intransigence: on the negotiating table. That Israel has entered into this framework, has made tangible, verifiable concessions and withdrawals from the territories, and still embraces the framework of a negotiated solution to its conflict with the Palestinians underscores the good faith of its efforts, and further disproves any intent to colonize or displace the territories and its inhabitants. Did Nazi Germany enter into a “peace process” with Poland or any other country it conquered? Did Imperial Japan? Please. How can you and others continue on and on with these spurious attempts brand Israel as an illegal aggressor and occupier/oppressor when it has been and remains open to a compromise solution?

          Under the circumstances, these effusive legal prognostications of yours are worse than worthless and irrelevant; they are a pointless distraction from the urgent tasks before both parties.

          Robert Werdine: “the notion that Israel is in violation of an erga omnes (in relate to all) obligation to “remove impediments to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people in the occupied territories” is [Hostage's] opinion”

          Hostage: “And my opinion was shared by 14 Justices of the ICJ who concurred in the majority opinion contained in paragraphs 155-157 of the 2004 Advisory Opinion in the Wall case. They said the obligations they were discussing “constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law”.

          Yes, I know, and the ruling was a travesty, another sordid, shameful victory for the politicization of international law, and a clear demonstration of how the International Court of Justice, like the gruesome, Kafkaesque Human Rights Council, is a mere plaything of the General Assembly in its sinister attempts to delegitimize the Jewish state.

          Conflicts between nation states have traditionally been solved by force and diplomacy. But the use of legal exchange to resolve conflicts is a novelty. While all members of the General Assembly have an equal vote, in practice the number of despotic nations outnumber those that are truly democratic and free. Israel has almost nothing but enemies in the former category, and most of the latter are lukewarm at best. There are a number of entities within the General Assembly that are openly hostile to Israel and devote much of their collective efforts toward castigating and deligitimizing her: the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the “Non-Aligned Movement”—an amalgam of over 100 countries, including the Islamic ones, all of whom recognize the occupied territories as a Palestinian state. Further reflecting the reality of this sinister super-majority, in 1968 the General Assembly created a standing entity called the “United Nations Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.”

          This vast alliance of hostile entities and states, reflecting the corrupt arithmetic of the General Assembly, has made for a repository of anti-Israel activity, and has facilitated the passing of scores of spurious, one-sided and politically charged resolutions condemning Israel over the years. Like the Goldstone Report sired from the despot-infested UNHRC, the advisory opinion of the ICJ judges merely reflected and underscored this biased state of affairs, and, like the General Assembly, willfully ignored the dire circumstances that necessitated the creation of the security barrier, rubber-stamped the Islamic Bloc’s tendentious characterization of the barrier as a “wall’ instead of a fence that can be moved or dismantled, and treated Israel not as a litigant but as a target. That the court did not exercise its discretion to demur when asked to adjudicate ex parte a highly charged, two sided political conflict, is instructive of its biased disposition as well.

          The ICJ’s opinion aside, as to whether Israel’s presence in the West Bank is “illegal,” this is rather doubtful. The Jordanians annexed the West Bank in 1948 as part of Jordan and, in the 19 years that they occupied it, made absolutely no attempt to create a Palestinian state, and it is here that we can see the blatant hypocrisy behind the whole spurious Israel as occupier/oppressor narrative. Notice that no one had ever excoriated Egypt and Jordan for “occupying” Palestinian land and denying the Palestinians a state in the 1948-1967 period, though this is exactly what they did, sometimes with exceptional violence and brutality. King Abdullah even went so far as to forbid the use of the term”Palestinian” on Jordanian legal documents. Where was all that talk about “violations of international law,” “oppression,” and “illegal occupation?” Apparently, all of these things only happen when the occupiers are Jews.

          Either both the Egypt/Jordan and the Israeli occupations were illegal or neither were. The truth is neither were because the final borders demarcating Israel and Palestine are still unsettled. They have been since 1948. The borders that the Israelis won in 1948 were armistice lines, not those of an established peace treaty. The Arab states themselves, armed and allied with a powerful oil weapon and a comfortable majority in the UN General Assembly, only insisted on an independent Palestine in the early 1970′s and never before. There has never been an independent Palestine; the West Bank was thus “legally” part of Jordan until 1967 and Jordan has renounced any claim to the territory. Therefore, any presence in the West Bank, whether Arab or Israeli, is, at best, legally dubious since “Palestine” is not and never has been, a sovereign, independent entity, and therefore cannot be “illegally” occupied like, say, Saddam did in Kuwait in 1990. This is underscored in UNSC Resolution 242 which stipulates that the final, legal borders will therefore be determined by the parties in a mutually agreed peace “within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” That is, when the Palestinians finally decide to engage direct diplomacy, say “yes” to a state, and reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence.

          “Obama is obviously not a student of history.”

          No, he’s not, and he’s in good company: obviously, neither are you. Most of your contentious legal misapplications flow from your spurious characterization of Israel as a racist, colonial, apartheid state who murdered, oppressed, and ethnic-cleansed its way to statehood and who has perpetuated its statehood by the unlawful use of force and occupation.

          For some time now, I have been observing the commentary by you and others on this blog with no small degree of bewilderment, irritation, and even amazement. I have read, while sometimes slack-jawed, at the use of incendiary terms like “illegal,” “apartheid,” “racism,” “massacre,” and “genocide.” I believe, on this blog and elsewhere, that the use of these terms to describe the actions of the Israelis in any number of contentious incidents ( the 1948 War and refugee crisis, The 1967 War, the 1967 USS Liberty attack, which many deranged anti-Israel critics still believe to be deliberate, the 2008-2009 Gaza war, the 2010 Mavi Marma incident etc.) are not only grossly inaccurate and unwarranted, but can be seen as betraying a blind, virulent and unbalanced hatred of Israel. This use of exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, not reasoned argument. But it also underscores your hypocrisy.

          For over 60 years, the Palestinians have been used and abused as pawns in the struggle between Israel and the Arabs, or, rather, in the monomaniacal, decades long attempt of the Arabs to destroy Israel. Let us not forget (again): the entire refugee problem was created by the Arab’s rejection of the 1947 partition, their bungled attempt to destroy Israel in 1948, and has been perpetuated by them ever since. If the Arabs had compromised and accepted the creation of a Palestinian state in 1947, there would have been no war and no refugee crisis and everybody knows it. After the war, the inhabitants and refugees in the West Bank were annexed into the state of Jordan, those in Gaza were subject to occupation by Egypt and the rest were put into refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon where they enjoy none of the rights of the local population and have been forced to live in appalling conditions there to this day. An agreement that would repatriate 100,000 of the refugees into Israel was rejected by the Arabs in 1950. At the same time, some 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries; all were resettled in Israel.
          (800,000 Jews expelled. How about that for ethnic cleansing?)

          But more importantly, why then were the Palestinians kept in the camps and not similarly assimilated among the inhabitants of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, or any other Arab country as they were in Jordan? The cultural and linguistic differences between Palestinian Arabs and those of Lebanon and Syria are about the same as those between Americans living in Delaware and those living in Maryland and New Jersey. So why were they not resettled and assimilated? Do you think it was because the refugees chose not to be? No; it was because the refugees were kept by their Arab brethren in camps as human title-deeds to a reconquest of Palestine that they promised but ultimately failed to bring about. Does it not occur to you what a brutal act of inhumanity this was, and is? What possible responsibility could Israel have had for any of this? Have they forced the Arabs to keep the refugees in their wretched camps against their will to this day?

          What is contemptible s how people like you twist every Israeli attempt at self defense, which attempts to minimize civilian deaths, into crimes against Palestinians and ignore the brutal atrocities deliberately committed against them by Arafat and Hamas, as well as by the Syrians and Hezbollah and other Arab countries. Does it occur to any of you the role that the Arabs’ indifference, intransigence and brutality has and continues to play in their sufferings? No; you only file your legal briefs and rant when you think Israel is the culprit, and even then only by obfuscating the facts. I doubt you lose much sleep over the atrocities of Hamas or the human-rights abuses of the PA or the consequences of their refusal to negotiate and make peace. How grotesquely hypocritical.

          All of your legal arguments and expositions are in the service of this reprehensible status quo. Unlike you, I have long thought that we do the Palestinian people no favors if we fail to recognize the unhelpful behavior of the PA with regard to negotiating with Israel in good faith, or if we fail to encourage civic mindedness and a sense of self-sufficient, and responsible citizenship among them instead of treating them as so much fodder for the “cause” and nourishing them on hatred, rejection, and cruel, lunatic fantasies of “return” or deny or downplay the lawlessness or the murderousness of Hamas, and the impediment that they constitute to the Palestinians’ aspirations for peaceful, democratic statehood, among other things.

          But you will have none of this. You have, along with almost everyone else on this blog, downplayed or denied the Palestinians past rejections of statehood. I’m not even sure that you even concede that there is such a thing as Arab/Palestinian rejectionism. You may have overlooked the fact that in 1967 Israel offered the return of the territories in return for a full peace, and that Nasser answered them by singing his very own “three no’s” of Khartoum: “No recognition, no negotiation, and no peace.” So that was that. It was a “no” that was and would be echoed by many other no’s, past, present, and future:

          –No to the Faisal-Weizmann Compromise of 1919

          –No to the 1937 Peel Partition

          –No to the 1947 UN Partition

          –No to the Israeli offer to absorb 100,000 Palestinian refugees in 1950

          –No to the offer of autonomy to the Palestinians in 1979

          –No to the offer of virtually the entire Golan Heights to Syria in return for a full peace in 2000.

          –No to a sovereign, contiguous state in The WB, Gaza, and E Jerusalem in 2000/2001

          –No to the offer of the WB to Abbas by Olmert in 2008

          –No to any direct, face-to-face negotiations without pre-conditions to this day

          Quite a list no’s, wouldn’t you say?

          The Israelis, for example, accepted the Clinton Parameters of December 2000, thus explicitly accepting the following:

          A Palestinian state on all of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank (phrased as an Israeli retention of 4-6% of the West Bank and a 1-3% land swap of Israeli land, with 97% thus the midpoint), a capital in East Jerusalem, a right of return to the new Palestinian state, and a massive international compensation fund.

          And how far did the Palestinians move from their stated objections in the Parameters in the subsequent negotiations at Taba? The answer: not one inch. Abbas rejected the same framework for a settlement in late 2008. Nor have they moved an inch to this day; in fact, they have regressed. They would not, in both 2000/20001 or 2008, consider the Parameters even as a basis for discussion. In a way, this clarifies their present obstructionism and intransigence. What, then, after all, is there for them to negotiate?

          These continuing, feeble attempts to deny the Palestinians’ rejection of a sovereign, contiguous state in 2000/2001 and the horrific consequences that have resulted from it, continues to be a disgraceful endeavor requiring ever more lies and argumentative gymnastics. But facts are stubborn things.

          It is puzzling to me why all of you bother with all of these denials and dissimulations over the Palestinians’ rejections, when you obviously support the very rejectionism that you are attempting to deny. Why not just clear the air and come out and admit it?

          The real culprit in the failure of the peace process is now and has always been: an Arab/Palestinian rejectionism that has run long and deep, a fanatical intransigence that views any sovereign Jewish state in Palestine as illegitimate and views compromise and peaceful co-existence in terms of surrender and shame. The Palestinian leaders never have and do not now want a state beside Israel but in the place of it. This eliminationist objective is enshrined in the so-called “right of return,” a “right” with absolutely no legal or diplomatic standing. The ROR is the surest recipe to Israel’s demise and the Palestinians and the Arabs well know this.

          The Palestinians’ ultimate strategy is not at all difficult to discern. First, they envisages a clean sweep of all Jews from the WB, second, the flooding of the state of Israel with some several million Palestinian refugees, thus erasing the Jewish majority of the state and transforming into one with an Arab majority.

          This is, in fact, a two-step plan to create a Palestine without an Israel. It grants Israel a “peace” if only it will agree to drown itself in an act of demographic suicide. How generous.

          Both the Peel and UN Commissions of 1937 and 1947 understood that peaceful co-existence in a bi-national state was a non-starter. That was why they both recommended partition. Then the Arabs rejected both partitions, and the rejection of the latter led to the 1948 War, and, well, we all know where things went from there. The Palestinians, it is clear, continue to reject a two-state solution. This is, and always has been, the real obstacle to peace. The evidence of this obvious and longstanding reality is simply overwhelming. For peace, as Spinoza once said, is not merely the absence of war, but a state of heart and mind. Until the Palestinians make that peace in their hearts, all of your legal haggling over borders, settlements, and recognition will be futile.

        • Hostage
          May 27, 2011, 2:40 pm

          it’s well-known that the Palestinian bid for recognition at tha UN in September unilaterally seeks to impose on the international arena new boundaries without having to negotiate with Israel,

          Your sphincter may have reduced the blood supply to the parts of your brain responsible for the task of critical thinking. You no longer seem to grasp the fact of Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and its unilateral attempts to impose permanent borders based upon demographic changes in the region.

          Resolution 242 does not contain a UN Security Council mandate that allows Israel to hold Arab territory captured by force in a state of belligerent occupation. Nor could it “condition” the withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces on “termination of all claims or states of belligerency”, since Israel’s continued belligerent occupation constitutes one of the claims or states of belligerency which is the subject of that particular clause. The Security Council adopted resolution 338 which ordered all of the parties to immediately implement resolution 242, including the withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces. The General Assembly has demanded that Israel unconditionally withdraw its armed forces and has affirmed that its continued occupation of Arab territories in violation of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions constitute an act of aggression. See General Assembly resolution 39/146

          For example, the Mitchel report stated that implementation of 242 required Israeli withdrawal and the subsequent termination of all states of belligerency. Let’s read that together again:

          During the June War of 1967, Israeli armed forces occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1968, restated the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and applied this international principle specifically to the Israeli occupation of Arab territory. Since then, all serious efforts to end the Israeli-Arab conflict have depended on implementation of this resolution requiring the Israeli withdrawal from Arab territory acquired by force and the subsequent termination of all states of belligerency.

          Israel’s representative said his country had accepted the Mitchell report and all its sequential aspects as a road-map leading back to the negotiating table, and remained committed to it. See the Press Release on the 4357th Meeting of the Security Council and S/PV.4357 – the verbatim minutes of the meeting, including the remarks of the representative of Israel, Mr Lancry, on page 6 of 31.

          BTW, Israel (a) applied for UN membership; (b) signed the bilateral armistice agreements which established the armistice demarcation lines; (c) made declarations and undertakings during the hearings on its application for membership regarding the implementation of resolution 181(II) and 194(III); (d) but demanded extensive territorial revisions to Israel’s advantage – in excess of the territory allocated on the map from the partition plan used during the Lausanne Conference.

          I’m sure the Palestinians would accept a state based upon the agreed swaps envisioned in the original armistice agreements. President Truman told King Abdullah:

          “I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation. –See Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa page 878 and page 879

        • jonah
          May 27, 2011, 6:48 pm

          “Your sphincter may have reduced the blood supply to the parts of your brain responsible for the task of critical thinking”

          A vulgar language looks increasingly from behind your convoluted legalistic explainations and quotations, as evident from above. It could become worrysome, to the extent that your arguments appear more and more one-sided, sterile and misleading. Take care, hostage ….

          “You no longer seem to grasp the fact of Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and its unilateral attempts to impose permanent borders based upon demographic changes in the region. “

          As long as the territories are called, depending on the point of view, “West Bank” or “Judea and Samaria”, – thus are considered “disputed”-, Jews have a right to live and build there as Arabs have. There never was a state called “Palestine”, and nor the Jews are foreigners in the “territories”, since the historical and spiritual roots of the Jewish people are there to find.

          “Nor could it “condition” the withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces on “termination of all claims or states of belligerency”, since Israel’s continued belligerent occupation constitutes one of the claims or states of belligerency which is the subject of that particular clause. “

          Also Palestinian continuing terror attacks (coincidentally also and above all within the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel) and persistent non-recognition of Israel’s existence contitutes a state of belligerence which is the subject of that particular particular clause, isn’t it?

          “Resolution 242 does not contain a UN Security Council mandate that allows Israel to hold Arab territory captured by force in a state of belligerent occupation.”

          The International Law has no ultimate solution for the conflict about land and borders, since the current legal status of the territories is not so clear as you claim. Only peace negotiations on the final status have binding legal weigth. So tell me now: who for the last two years is avoiding direct negotiations like a plague?

        • jonah
          May 27, 2011, 6:59 pm

          BTW: bad news for you, hostage.

          link to haaretz.com

        • annie
          May 27, 2011, 7:14 pm

          thus are considered “disputed”

          only by israel. they are occupied under international law. hostage already explained this to you last month. there’s more @ the link oif you keep scrolling.

        • jonah
          May 27, 2011, 8:54 pm

          Read the Resolution 242 again and again, annie. The withdrawal from “occupied” territories (the name doesn’t change the matter) is conditional on a negotiated peace, which was rejected by the Arab states as well as the Palestinians following the Karthoum Resolution. Later, the Palestinians – Robert provide us with a long list – rejected all Israeli peace offers.
          In addition, there (still) are the Oslo Accords, which provide for a gradual transfer of governamental and administrative functions to the PA.
          The 1949 Armistice Agreements that ended that war did not create permanent borders, but only temporary boundaries until a permanent peace agreement could be reached, in accordance with Res. 242. The Palestinians missed already quite a lot of chances, and they are now about to create another mess, with your blind uncritical support. Are they and you not able of acting with a sense of responsability?

        • jonah
          May 27, 2011, 8:58 pm

          Correction: the 1967 armistice lines do not constitute permament borders, …..

        • Hostage
          May 27, 2011, 11:41 pm

          you have not now and never have established that Israel, in coming into possession of the occupied territories, did so by an act of unlawful aggression.

          I hadn’t set out to do that. But I have cited General Assembly resolution 39/146 and other resolutions which did exactly that. A/RES/39/186 cited a series of earlier resolutions, like 38/180. Those resolutions emphasized the illegality of the 1967 Israeli invasion and subsequent occupation. They:
          *Reiterated all relevant United Nations resolutions which emphasize that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
          *Condemned Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, and demanded the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all the territories occupied since June 1967;
          *Recalled resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, which defined an act of aggression, inter alia, as “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof” and provided that “no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression”;
          *Declared (repeatedly) that Israel’s continued occupation of the Golan Heights and its decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights constitute an act of aggression under the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX);
          *Declared (repeatedly) that peace in the Middle East is indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Middle East problem, under the auspices and on the basis of relevant resolutions of the United Nations, which ensure the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and which enable the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to exercise its inalienable rights, including the right to return and the right to self-determination, national independence and the establishment of its independent sovereign State in Palestine, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations relevant to the question of Palestine, in particular General Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 36/120 A to F of 10 December 1981, 37/86 A to D of 10 December 1982 and 37/86 E of 20 December 1982;

          General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) is the very same definition employed to define the “crime of aggression” by the ICJ and ICC.

          Yes, I know, and the ruling was a travesty, another sordid, shameful victory for the politicization of international law

          You are projecting when you speak about a “barely concealed fantasy” on my part to “convene some Great International Court with myself as Chief Justice”. I’m perfectly content to use verbatim quotes from the landmark Court cases, official State archives, international law digests and scholarly articles, actual minutes of the Security Council and General Assembly sessions, reports of the UNHRC treaty monitoring bodies, and other authorities in my comments here at Mondoweiss.

          So far, your posts are devoid of third-party verifiable facts from independent sources. You rely on unsourced anecdotal evidence, hasbara talking points, and an abundance of invectives. This thread and your company has grown pretty stale.

        • Hostage
          May 28, 2011, 1:04 am

          BTW: bad news for you, hostage.

          Hardly, I posted a comment on a report the other day that said the Palestinian authority had no intention to go to the United Nations Security Council for recognition of a Palestinian state.

          If Obama vetoes Palestine’s application for full membership it would finally end the US’ leadership role in the so-called peace process. BTW, Israel the US, Micronesia, Palau, the Marshall Islands, and Australia already are isolated when it comes to UN votes on Palestine.

          I’ve commented several times in recent days that a Security Council veto cannot prevent the General Assembly from adopting a resolution which would make Palestine a Permanent Observer Non-member State. That will confirm its ability to sign, accede, or ratify treaties with the “Vienna Formula” or “All States formula”; become a state party to the ICJ and ICC statutes, & etc.

          Obama has not said that he will veto a request for membership, he said that no vote in the UN would achieve the stated goal of an independent state. The Palestinians already know that. Israel has occupied the territory of other UN member states for decades including Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. UN votes didn’t do anything for those countries. But the ICC is a new non-UN organization that probably can succeed in ending the impunity of Israeli government officials on the matter of settlements, revocation of residency, deportations, house demolitions, & etc.

          The Jerusalem Post reported that Abbas told Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit during a meeting that in fact, “the Palestinian Authority is asking for the recognition of Palestine as an occupied state.”

          There never was a state called “Palestine”

          States are legal persons, just like corporations. Governments decide which entities are states or corporations, not you or me.
          The majority of the world’s governments disagree with your version of history, and one of them happens to be the United States. See Kletter v Dulles The US Courts said that the contention of the plaintiff in that case that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a state within the meaning of the applicable US laws and treaties was wholly without merit. Palestine is still very much a state today according to the laws and treaties of most other countries.

        • Hostage
          May 28, 2011, 2:04 am

          Correction: the 1967 armistice lines do not constitute permament borders

          Jonah I think you are trying to put words in my mouth. We’ve been over this before.
          *The armistice lines were adopted under the terms of Articles 39 and 40, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter 62 years ago.
          *In UN SC Res. 62, the Security Council ordered “The delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move;
          *UN SC Res. 73 reaffirmed that pending a final settlement the parties were to ensure the continued application and observance of the agreements.
          *UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) declared that every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
          *Permanent armistice lines are considered borders. See for example the Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders: Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950″
          *General Assembly resolution, A/RES/58/292, 17 May 2004 affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty and to achieve independence in their State, Palestine; the rights to their territory; and the General Assembly’s determination to achieve a settlement based upon “the pre-1967 borders”.
          *The verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the resolution indictes the words “pre-1967 borders” had replaced the words “Armistice Line of 1949” in the draft resolution. See A/58/PV.87

        • Hostage
          May 28, 2011, 2:26 am

          Jonah read this post again and again. The Mitchell report said 242 requires (first) Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territory acquired by force and (second) the subsequent termination of all states of belligerency.

          The representative of Israel said said his country had accepted the Mitchell report and all its sequential aspects as a road-map leading back to the negotiating table, and remained committed to it. The Security Council endorsed the Mitchell report and the Quartet Road map required settlement activity to cease in accordance with the Mitchell report.

          We’ve discussed the fact before that when states agree to accept recommendations they are bound by the terms of their acceptance.

  9. justicewillprevail
    May 25, 2011, 2:57 pm

    ‘You can not acquire statehood, while denying the same to your future direct neighbor – avoiding direct negotiations and thus peace based on compromise and mutual recognition. ‘

    True, Israel has never learnt this fact.

    ‘Unless you really want to win the war that you’ve never given up, so to get everything and not just an independent Israeli state alongside a Palestinian state. ‘

    Israel is determined to win the war which it has never given up, and as a military state with a ludicrous stockpile of arms and deadly technology, pitted against farmers, teachers doctors and mothers with a miniscule amount of small arms and no legal recourse to invasion and theft, thinks it is only a matter of time before Palestine is extinguished, and the inhabitants live in ghettos controlled by Israel.

    • kalithea
      May 25, 2011, 3:36 pm

      Couldn’t have stated it better, thanks!

  10. Richard Witty
    May 25, 2011, 3:48 pm

    Again,
    There is no “last chance for the 2SS” as it is the ONLY rational just approach. The logic that supports it, two definitively distinct communities, remains.

    Why was my earlier similar post erased?

    • Chaos4700
      May 25, 2011, 5:21 pm

      Doesn’t it burn your tongue to use the word “logic?” Or do all those straw men you surround yourself with absorb most of that heat?

    • justicewillprevail
      May 25, 2011, 9:48 pm

      Yes, but Israel and its supporters are neither rational or just. They don’t have to be, there is no pressure on them to behave that way. Their logic is quite consistent – keep the stolen land, humiliate and degrade the Palestinians, treat them like dirt. There is a vainglorious satisfaction amongst Israelis in doing so – it proves they were ‘right’. Very logical from a sociopathic, supremacist point of view.

  11. Robert767
    May 26, 2011, 5:24 am

    Correect me if I am wrong but I believe Palestine will ask the UN General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state,so no US veto is possible,all reliable information I see is that already well over 100 countries have indicated their intention to support this I think that makes it a “fait accompli”.

  12. Hostage
    May 26, 2011, 11:21 am

    You are correct. The General Assembly can adopt decisions on most questions by a simple majority of the members present and voting. In certain cases, involving a few important questions listed in Article 18 of the Charter, a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting is required. No country exercises a veto in the General Assembly.

    FYI, every year as many as 170 members of the UN General Assembly routinely reject the claim that Palestinian statehood or the status of the occupied Arab territories depends upon a negotiated settlement. They do that by adopting a resolution reaffirming the “permanent sovereignty” of the Palestinian people and the Golan Heights over the natural resources of their occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. That is a customary law norm developed during the era of decolonization regarding the inherent rights of indigenous peoples over the resources of their States.

    The recognition flows from a General Assembly Declaration that “The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned.” Last November, 162 UN member countries were present and voted to adopt the resolution. It also “Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.