Henry Siegman at Foreign Policy:
Bottom line, Obama is wrong in his assertion that the U.N. can never bring about a Palestinian state and that only a resumed Israeli-Palestinian peace process can. The precise opposite is true. Direct negotiations, even if begun at the 1967 lines and based on land swaps, will never produce a Palestinian state. A long and unbroken history of failed direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and failed American mediation attest to that truth. Only the U.N. can produce a Palestinian state -- provided, of course, that Obama does not veto the effort.
There is a controlled anger under this that is extremely impressive. Siegman favors U.N. approval of a Palestinian declaration of statehood. He cites the case of Israel itself as precedent and argues that the land grabs by Netanyahu are in flagrant violation of UN resolutions 242 and 338. He thinks such a declaration the only conceivable way to a two-state solution, now that Obama and Netanyahu between them have scuttled further negotiations. (Siegman hopes otherwise but I don't think there's a chance Obama will fail to use the U.S. veto. He would see such defiance of Israel as one of the few acts that could bring about his defeat in 2012.)
Unfortunately, Obama doesn’t have an old Palestinian friend who use to be his small business partner, but he has Penny Pritzker, who aided him in his first job as a community organizer, and he doesn’t have a Palestinian-American pounding on his oval room door equal to the zionist rabbi who pounded on Truman’s desk, and Palestinian Americans have no clout in the MSM, nor do they have moneybags to pour into the campaign coffers of Obama’s next presidential campaign opponent.
Siegman is both right and wrong. Like everybody else who actually desires a just and lasting peace, he sees the nations (or the UN) as the only “deus ex machina” which can swoop down and defeat the Israeli-USA axis of evil. On this I agree with him. (The USA could be the decisive actor, as Israel itself could, but neither will, in the foreseeable future.)
But a central question goes unasked and therefore unanswered,
If the nations get up the strength, the courage, and the cooperative tendency sufficient to do ANYTHING about I/P, what should that “anything” be?
It could be action to define the terms of peace and force Israel-Palestine to accept those terms. And it might ultimately come down to that. But in the “golden age” after the nations gather their strength sufficiently and before they actually act, they must choose which action to take. and there is a far better initial action to take before taking action to cram “peace” down all available throats.
In my opinion, the nations should FIRST force Israel to remove all settlers, dismantle all settlements (a la UNSC-465 (1980)), dismantle the wall in its every aspect, and end the siege of Gaza. This action would be easier to agree upon for the nations than the terms of a satisfactory “peace treaty”, and would have the added advantage of being an action aimed at re-establishing the RULE OF LAW rather than merely allowing Israel’s 44 years of lawlessness (and USA’s support thereof) to be ignored.
If the nations could have the strength to force peace, then surely they could have the strength to force (mere) compliance with Israel to international law. And they would hold in reserve the possibility of dictating terms of peace.
And another advantage of this goal: if the nations give Israel a set period of time (say one year) in which to publish a verifiable schedule for all removals and dismantlings and in which also to accomplish all this work, according to the verifiable schedule, then there is the very same period available for Israel and the PLO to negotiate their own peace. And they are far more likely that the nations to get the negotiations “right”.
A show of strength by the nations, a BDS-like action with international enforcement sanctions built-in, would be something to look forward to. I look forward to it, not because I think it likely to occur, but because I think that nothing else CAN occur.
I can see that intense international pressure could one day force Israel to back down far enough to make serious negotiations practicable. But it would surely take decades for the nations in general, include the United States, to get themselves to this point.
Siegman’s argument that the UN, if not veto-paralysed (which is a big, big if), could start something useful has great appeal. But there are deep problems about the 2ss, for which Siegman still hopes, which we’ve hardly approached – we’ve not had to approach them because the insincere negotiations has never brought a moment of truth anywhere near. The 2ss is so massively unfair that I don’t see how it could really be stable.
Netanyahu is screwing up in not working for a negotiated peace at the 67 or other consented borders.
The process is unclear to me.
Some that seemed to know have declared that it is necessary for the security council to refer the petition to the general assembly, in which case the US veto can have a quiet affect.
Others that seemed to know have declared that the opposite process occurs, that the general assembly is petitioned and votes, and the security council either ratifies or rejects the general assembly petition.
Anyone know?
Knowing the process is important, in order to comment intelligently.
Richard Witty said, ‘I’m BACK!!! I was hiding for a couple of days until the storm about that brave young Jewish-American, Lucas Koerner, blew over. I’ve made 9787 comments here at Mondoweiss, but I couldn’t find it in myself to praise that remarkable kippah-wearing young man, who the Israeli police beat up on camera while he was “making the better argument.”‘
James I do not know why you bother but this is funny. RW is pathetic.
Could Obama Veto Palestine’s Application to the United Nations
By Francis A. Boyle
June 08 2011 “Information Clearing House” — On November 15, 1988 the Palestine National Council (P.N.C.) meeting in Algiers proclaimed the Palestinian Declaration of Independence that created the independent state of Palestine. Today the State of Palestine is bilaterally recognized de jure by about 130 states. Palestine has de facto diplomatic recognition from most states of Europe. It was only massive political pressure applied by the U.S. government that prevented European states from according de jure diplomatic recognition to Palestine.
Palestine is a member state of the League of Arab States and of the Organization of Islamic Conference (O.I.C). When the International Court of Justice in The Hague—the World Court of the United Nations System—conducted its legal proceedings on Israel’s apartheid wall on the West Bank, it invited the State of Palestine to participate in the proceedings. In other words, the International Court of Justice recognized the State of Palestine.
Palestine has Observer State Status with the United Nations Organization, and basically all the rights of a U.N. Member State except the right to vote. Effectively, Palestine has de facto U.N. Membership. The only thing keeping Palestine from de jure U.N. Membership is the implicit threat of a veto at the U.N. Security Council by the United States, which is clearly illegal because it would violate a solemn and binding pledge given by the United States not to veto States applying for U.N. Membership. Someday, Palestine shall become a full-fledged U.N. Member State.
The votes are there already in the U.N. General Assembly to admit Palestine pursuant to the terms of its Uniting for Peace Resolution (1950). It is the U.N. General Assembly that admits a Member State, not the Security Council. Obama’s veto at the Security Council can be circumvented by the General Assembly acting under the Uniting for Peace Resolution to admit Palestine as a U.N Member State in September.
link to informationclearinghouse.info
Palestine has Observer State Status with the United Nations Organization, and basically all the rights of a U.N. Member State except the right to vote.
That is not quite correct. The UN describes Palestine as a Permanent Observer Entity, not a State. It is true that it has the status of an Observer State. In fact, between 1998 and 2004 it had privileges that were superior to those of the Vatican, a Permanent Observer State. See “The Holy See backs off from its claim for full membership of the UN, settling for the rights already held by Palestine.”
The General Assembly can make Palestine a Permanent Observer State at any time and neither the US nor the Security Council can prevent that from happening.
The Secretary General acts as depositary for instruments of signature and accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. He would have no alternative, other than to accept instruments from a UN Permanent Observer State. I think the PA should pursue recognition from the General Assembly regardless of the position of the Security Council on its application for UN membership.
P.S. The Jerusalem Post and the Palestine News Network have both reported that Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, plans to introduce legislation which would prevent any US funding to any UN body that would recognize a Palestinian state or would change the status of the PLO observer mission.
Any UN entity that would grant such recognition, either by passing a UN resolution or through granting membership to Palestine in any participating agencies, would then no longer receive US funding.
According to Capitol Hill aides, the measure would be included in a comprehensive bill for reforming the UN which she expects to file in the next few weeks.
The US House of Representatives has no constitutional role in the treaty making process. It cannot unilaterally “reform” the existing US obligations under the terms of a multilateral treaty like the UN Charter. Article 17 of the UN Charter says:
1. The General Assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the Organization.
2. The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.
The ICJ ruled in the “Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter)” case that those apportionments are legally binding obligations.
Article 19 of the Charter provides that:
“A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years.”
On a more fundamental level, the Congresswoman is violating the principles of international law and self-determination contained in the UN Charter. According to the General Assembly Declaration On Principles Of International Law Regarding Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations and other key resolutions, the option of a Palestinian state is a matter of self-determination that is not subject to any veto. The US and Israel are publicly ignoring their Charter obligations and the 2004 decision of the ICJ which held that all states had an obligation to remove any obstacles to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people. By now, it has become clear that Israel and the US are conspiring to establish and maintain Israeli domination over the Palestinians and to violate the prohibition on persecution as a crime against humanity.
In an interview with Channel 2 News Saturday Saeb Erekat said threatened US funding cuts to the Palestinian Authority would lead to the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority. If that happens, there would be nothing to prevent and everything to compel the PLO to request another ICJ advisory opinion on the question of the single State solution – in light of the role of the so-called Quartet in preventing the establishment of a Palestinian State and in facilitating occupation, colonialism. and apartheid against the Palestinian people.
I wanted to pass on a site that I don’t recall being mentioned here but I can’t know everything! I read it for purposes of knowing and “hearing” what it would be like to have to read memos from Douglas Feith [SMOP] on U.S. Foreign Policy and then suffering a committee meeting with him and his kind. Today’s topic is “One of the more curious aspects of President Obama’s May 19 Middle East speech was his decision to devote so much attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” link to shadow.foreignpolicy.com. Does anyone else find it as astonishing that the Vatican [population less than 500 speakers of an otherwise "dead" language] has recognition [courtesy of the still-dead Mussolini if such things as genealogy matter] while the Palestinian nation, which has created a state, doesn’t?
“the still-dead Mussolini”
Can we trust him to stay that way?
“the still-dead Mussolini”
Can we trust him to stay that way?
Definitely not!
“the still-dead Mussolini”
Can we trust him to stay that way?
Futurama sponsors a lot of websites, like this one, dedicated to Benito Mussolini. So I’m pretty sure he and Nixon are both still alive.
Obama hasn’t gambled his chances for a second term on any big issue. He won’t do so by recognizing Palestinian statehood.
There is a very important article in today’s Washington Post by Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. who is an influential member of the Saudi royal family, in which the Saudi government appears to be throwing down the gauntlet to the Obama administration concerning the Palestinians.
Here are the last three paragraphs from the article:
link to washingtonpost.com
It appears that the process for UN membership for a new state goes through the Security Council as a recommendation to the General Assembly. If true, this would preclude any chance of success. Obama will stop it in the SC. I am not sure if there is a veto available for application for membership but the application can be denied by a special committee of the SC. Barack Obama has been working in Europe to build support for exactly that type of rejection.
http://sajepress.com
And the UK government is as far as I can see showing every sign of going along with him. As I recall one of our Foreign Office ministers said that it would be impossible to recognise a state that had no boundaries. Not a hint of irony.