Abbas at UN last yer
When I first read the report ‘Israel demands statement from Obama about Iran attack by Yom Kippur‘ –
“Obama to say clearly that the United States will take military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program either at the UN General Assembly on September 25…”
I immediately recalled the news I had seen earlier about President Abbas petitioning the UN General Assembly in September to upgrade the Palestinian Authority’s UN status to that of a non-member observer. As the New York Times stated a few days ago:
That would give the Palestinians access to organizations like the International Criminal Court, where they hope to pursue claims against Israel on matters like settlements
So let’s connect some of the dots. Check out this trajectory:
August 4, 2012, CBS: Abbas to move on UN membership bid in September:
RAMALLAH, West Bank — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will take a first procedural step toward seeking U.N. recognition of a state of Palestine when he addresses the General Assembly in late September, but has not decided when to ask for a vote on his request, the Palestinian foreign minister said Saturday.
Timing is seen as crucial in the Palestinian bid to be recognized as a non-member observer state by the U.N. General Assembly
August 8, 2012, AFP: US ‘pushing Palestinians to delay UN bid’
RAMALLAH, Palestinian Territories — Washington is pressing the Palestinian leadership to delay a fresh bid to seek upgraded UN status until after the US elections, a senior Palestinian official said on Wednesday.
“There are pressures from the United States and some Arab parties to delay the voting until after the United States presidential elections, due in November,” PLO Executive Committee member Saleh Raafat told Voice of Palestine radio.
On Saturday, Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Malki said president Mahmud Abbas would on September 27 make a fresh request to upgrade the Palestinians’ UN status from that of an observer entity to a non-member state.
The request is to be made exactly a year after Abbas tried to obtain full member status. Despite his high-profile effort, the request was never put to a vote in the UN Security Council, where the United States had pledged to veto it….
Thursday, August 9, 2012, Jweekly: New U.N. statehood bid for Palestinians?
The Palestinian Authority is considering a bid next month to be a U.N. “non-member observer state.” P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas is ready to take the step, and has the backing of the Arab League, but has not yet decided when he will go ahead, according to the Associated Press.
August 9, 2012 5:23 PM EDT, International Business Times: US Begs Palestinians to Procrastinate On Statehood Bid, Gets No For An Answer
“There are pressures from the United States and some Arab parties to delay the voting until after the United States presidential elections, due in November,” PLO Executive Committee member Saleh Raafat told Voice of Palestine radio, according to AFP.
But Palestinian leaders say they are adamant about insisting on a vote, and will push ahead with their plans. Raafat told Voice of Palestine that Palestine will “reject this demand and insist on heading to the U.N. in September.”
At least count, over 150 countries were slated to vote “yes” to Palestinian statehood, according to a spokesman for the Palestinian Authoirty’s Mission to the U.N. That number is more than enough to pass the measure and elevate Palestine from observer to non-member state status.
Israel, in return, has threatened to annex much of the West Bank if Palestine’s statehood comes to a vote.
It’s been rumored that the Palestinians would make another push to have the U.N. vote them into statehood status at the U.N. General Assembly meeting in September, but now the U.S. is trying to convince the Palestinian Authority to delay the vote.
August 10, 2012, Haaretz, YNET, +972, Reuters via this site: Barak to US: Be afraid, be very afraid of ‘the sword at our throat’
The Israeli press went on steroids over the weekend pushing an attack on Iran, and it’s getting mass coverage.
August 13, 2012, NYT, Jodi Rudoren: Palestinian Seeks Diplomatic Allies
Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee, asked diplomats from two dozen countries on Monday to support the Palestinian Authority’s renewed bid for observer-state status at the United Nations, calling it “a test of the whole rule of law.” Speaking in East Jerusalem to envoys from countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East, Ms. Ashrawi asked them not only to vote for the future United Nations resolution on observer-state status, possibly this fall, but to provide the Palestinian Authority with a financial “safety net” when, she predicted, “Americans decide to cut off aid” because of the bid. The Palestinians’ plan is to petition the United Nations General Assembly, where passage is all but assured. That would give the Palestinians access to organizations like the International Criminal Court, where they hope to pursue claims against Israel on matters like settlements.
August 14, 2012, Maariv: Israel demands statement from Obama about Iran attack by Yom Kippur
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak expect US President Barack Obama to say clearly that the United States will take military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program either at the UN General Assembly on September 25, which is the eve of Yom Kippur, or on some other public platform by that date.
August 14, 2012, Times of Israel (via our site): Obama set to assure Israel that, if all else fails, US will attack Iran ….
American and Israeli officials are working to arrange a meeting between US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at which the White House will assure Israel that the US will use force to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons drive by next June at the latest if the Islamic Republic has not halted its program by then, Israel’s Channel 10 news reported on Tuesday night.
The meeting will take place in New York or Washington at the end of September or the very beginning of October, the report said. ……
Despite incessant reports from Israel asserting that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are strongly inclined toward ordering an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in September or October, the US administration tends not to believe that Israel would go ahead and attack Iran alone and in defiance of the US, the report said. Nonetheless, Washington is not certain of what Israel may do.
……..
It would be unthinkable for Israel to strike at Iran before any such Obama-Netanyahu meeting, the report said, and similarly unthinkable afterwards — since Obama would provide the necessary reassurance for Israel to hold its fire.
Netanyahu is already tentatively scheduled to fly to the US at the end of September to address the UN General Assembly.
August 14, 2012, YNET: Arab League to present UN with new PA bid?
The Palestinian Authority is pursuing a new bid for statehood ahead of the next UN General Assembly meeting in New York City in September
August 14, 2012, Mondoweiss : Mearsheimer: 7 reasons Netanyahu & Barak might like war with Iran
4. Iranian nuclear weapons are an important issue for sure, but it is even more important that we be able to continue expanding settlements in Judea and Samaria and prevent a two-state solution. Threatening a war with Iran has done much to take the Palestinian issue off the front burner in recent months. An actual war – especially since it will be protracted – will insulate us from meaningful criticism for at least a few years. By then, the two-state solution will be dead and buried. All of this is very important if Obama wins a second term, because then he will start leaning on us again to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own.
And now check out Joseph Dana’s twitter: August 15:
What’s the point of Israel’s psychological warfare against Iran? —Simple, ensure we don’t talk about Palestinians
August 16, 2012, Xinhua: Islamic Summit Endorses Palestinian Bid for UN Membership
The Islamic Summit held in Saudi Arabia this week endorsed the Palestinian bid for UN membership, a senior Palestinian official said Thursday.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinian efforts to achieve the status of Non-member State at the UN received unanimous support from 57 countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) who participated in the Mecca summit.
Abbas can be counted on by his US paymasters as continuing to suffer from the slows. He can be counted upon to put on a show and nothing but.
I don’t see why you say that.
If Aabbas does make the bid for non member status in September obviously he is not pleasing the US.
Abbas can be counted on by his US paymasters as continuing to suffer from the slows. He can be counted upon to put on a show and nothing but.
I think you should give the guy a little more credit than that. Abbas didn’t listen to his paymasters last year when he obtained member state status in UNESCO. Its hard to see why he would consider the US a reliable paymaster what with the idiots in Congress, like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, endorsing the annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank and freezing his funding over the UN bid or the overtures to Hamas in any event.
He didn’t listen to anyone when he filed the criminal complaint in the Hague against Israel back in 2009, despite a full-tilt propaganda and blackmail campaign that’s been conducted ever since. Article 12(3) Declarations can’t be withdrawn once they’re filed with the ICC. If the UN recognizes Palestine as a State on the basis of its 1988 UDI, that means the ICC can prosecute Israel for everything it has done since the Rome Statute entered into effect in July 2002. Wikileaks revealed that Israel naturally considered the ICC complaint an act of war. link to wikileaks.org
Israel’s campaign against Iran has zero to do with the Palestinians, their issues with Iran are out of genuine concern with Iran. The Palestinians on the other hand do not need press buzz or any further support to proceed at the UN. If they actually want it, they simply need to go do it, the results are guaranteed.
But of course, it will not be an action without consequences. And if they think their fellow Arabs will bail them out financially, they are dreaming.
Israel’s campaign against Iran has zero to do with the Palestinians
and zero to do with our election too no doubt? the demand obama make a commitment falling on the timeframe of the UN General Assembly merely a coincidence.
/and zero to do with our election too no doubt?/
That is an entirely different subject that may or may not be true. But as you chose not to stay on subject I will assume that you concede my previous point.
lol! you assume completely wrong. and since the primary aim of hyping the iran threat has always been to distract from israel’s expansion (even the very first visit of netanyahu to the WH accentuated this imperative) any way the iran threat impacts our elections is completely linked to israel’s expansion. you cannot divorce palestine from israel hyping the iran threat. ever.
/lol! you assume completely wrong./
Again, there is not motive for Israel to distract attention from what the Palestinians might do at the UN regarding an upgraded status. They cannot stop it, it is a fait accompli; if the Palestinians want it, it is their’s to have.
The world however does not revolve around the Palestinians and their shenanigans, the Iranian threat to Israel is all too real and the Israeli focus on Iran is about Iran itself – it is not a bunch of smoke designed to derail Palestinian plans.
Rubbish. If the UN is busy dealing with a war or a fallout of a strike, then the membership bid will be relegated to the backburner.
No, it’s America’s to veto – they just don’t want to be put in a position of having to do so and further isolate themselves at the UN.
There is nothing real. There are no real nukes, no real nuclear wepoans programs and therefore, no threat.
/Shingo: No, it’s America’s to veto – they just don’t want to be put in a position of having to do so and further isolate themselves at the UN./
You do not seem to understand what is going on here. The US does not have a veto in the General Assembly.
” the Iranian threat to Israel is all too real”
Uh? When the weather girl predicts the weather, she is making a threat? Iran has made predictions and a wish list. No actual threats other than retaliation if it is attacked. The UNSC agrees with Iran in respect to Israeli policies in Jerusalem.
There is no evidence of any Iranian Nuclear Weapons program, there are only accusations. Accusations are not evidence. There is plenty of hard evidence that Iran is, with its neighbours, developing the infrastructure for exporting electricity. Search : “Iran” “India” “Pakistan” “Turkey” engineering tenders contracts “electricity transmission infrastructure”
“the Israeli focus on Iran is about Iran itself – it is not a bunch of smoke…”
It is all smoke and the US long term strategy of energy dominance against Russia and China throughout the M East, Caspian Sea and importantly the transportation of resources from the M East per the PNAC doctrine adopted by the US 1998/1999, instigated 2001/2003, still in play.
The Iranian threat to a Israel is largely a threat to Israeli expansionism.
You do not seem to understand what is going on here. The US does not have a veto in the General Assembly.
They didn’t have a veto in UNESCO either. But the US managed to keep Palestine from becoming a member for more than two decades by blackmailing the specialized agencies. It invoked a Reagan administration era statute that cuts-off funding to any UN organ or agency that grants the PLO the rights reserved to a member State. There UN “reform” legislation pending to extend that threat to any upgrade in its non-member observer status.
At one and the same time, the USA helped push-through a Security Council resolution which requires members of the Quartet to promote recognition of the Palestinian state and UN membership starting in 2003. See UN Security Council resolution 1515 and S/2003/529
*http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/71B2C135FCA9D78A85256DE400530107
*http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6129B9C832FE59AB85256D43004D87FA
That’s just one of the latest examples of hypocrisy. In 1945, Zionist Representative Sol Bloom of New York’s 19th and 20th district was a delegate to the convention in San Francisco that established the United Nations. During the negotiations with Norway over the admission of Denmark, Russia and the United Kingdom had expressed their willingness to accept the proposal, but the Chinese asked for an invitation for Korea to join if the question of Denmark were brought up. The UK representative commented that the situation with respect to Korea was somewhat different because there was no recognized Korean Government. Alger Hiss remarked that the problem of Iceland might be brought up, too, and possibly Poland as well. The Secretary of State declared that he hated the prospect of starting another “three-ring circus”.
Representative Bloom declared that if the question of inviting some of these other nations were raised, he himself would suggest admitting Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers, 1945, General : the United Nations, page 975. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
Nowadays the Zionists claim that Palestine never existed or that it was never State. But the fact is, that it was nearly a Charter Member of the UN together with the other A mandates: Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.
Annie- Please read this interview of Yossi Beilin by Ari Shavit. Beilin offers a balanced view of Netanyahu and Iran. I think you should at least factor in Beilin’s opinion when assessing the hyping of the threat.
link to haaretz.com
Could you summarize Beilin’s opinion? I don’t have access to that article.
yonah,please copy and paste the relevant part of the text, as sibiriak mentions it is blocked behind a firewall.
annie- one can get 10 free articles per month if one registers and haaretz is a good source, so i advise you to register with them.
here is the interview by ari shavit:
Yossi Beilin is one of the quiet people who have defined our lives. Although never a senior minister, he has had more impact on the Israeli experience than any prime minister. As the intellectual architect, diplomatic entrepreneur and responsible adult of the peace movement, he brought the world the Oslo Accords, the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement and the Geneva Initiative. But after the Middle East reality and the Israeli public rejected the peace path he proposed, Beilin retired from the political arena. For the past few years he has been running a business group that makes economic peace deals throughout the Middle East.
But in recent months, Beilin has been worried. Very worried. What worries this former cabinet secretary, deputy foreign minister and justice minister is not the Iranian nuclear bomb. What worries him is the possible Israeli bombing of Iran. In his air-conditioned office in Herzliya Pituah, the black-clad Beilin gives me his answers to what was said in this column last week by a senior decision maker.
The first argument now leading us toward war is that Iran is an existential threat, I say to Beilin. True or not? Do you accept this argument?
“Iran is a state with a problematic regime that promotes an extreme ideology by means of violence and terror,” replies the Oslo architect. “If it obtains nuclear weapons, its standing in the Middle East will be vastly strengthened. It could fill part of the void left by the Americans’ departure from Afghanistan and Iraq. It will become a center of power, and some Arab countries will wish to identify with it because of its power, and because it stood up to the West and succeeded. It’s even possible that Iran would become a non-Arab member of the Arab League. The result will be a bolstering of the extreme elements in the Arab world and the prevention of peace agreements with Israel. There may also be instances of threats to use nuclear weapons. So a nuclear Iran is a very serious matter. A nuclear Iran is a great danger. But I do not and cannot accept that this danger is an existential danger. A nuclear Iran is not an existential danger. It must be prevented − just as Palestinian terrorism must be prevented − but it mustn’t be seen as spelling the end of the Zionist project.”
But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that the year is 1938. The combination of an unconventional regime with unconventional weapons will prove catastrophic. If we don’t stop the Iranians now and they arm themselves with nuclear weapons, they could use these weapons directly against Israel. One fine morning, an atom bomb could explode in the skies over Tel Aviv.
“Netanyahu and I have been discussing this subject for years,” the veteran statesman tells me. “I can tell you that he is being completely genuine. This is no ploy designed to shunt aside other issues. This is not some kind of clever game. Netanyahu truly believes that if the Iranians obtain a nuclear bomb, they will launch it at us. Therefore, as he sees it, there is justification for nearly any action that will avert this danger. There is also justification for nearly any cost of any action. From the point of view of a leader who thinks the way Netanyahu does, it would be irresponsible not to attack. The danger is so great that it negates any opposing consideration.
“I must say that the 1938 argument makes me queasy. I think it’s baseless. The risk that the Iranians will drop an atom bomb on Israel is negligible. Negligible. The risk of the use of nuclear weapons is very, very low. When it comes down to it, those people in Tehran are not a bunch of lunatics. Yes, the Iranian leadership is extreme, but it’s not irrational. It is aware of what implications such an act, which hasn’t been committed by any country since 1945, would have. It would be the end for them. They would be wiped off the face of the earth. A nation with an ancient culture that has existed for thousands of years would cease to exist.
“Why has Israel spent decades building up its deterrent image? Just so that it can stand up to such a threat without being forced to take extreme action against it. But Netanyahu is acting as if Israeli deterrence is nonexistent. I’m not belittling him. He is not incapable and he is not crazy or messianic. But the prime minister is evidently an anxious person. His anxiety level is much higher than one would expect from a national leader. Usually, anxiety brings responsibility. But in this particular case, anxiety is causing irresponsibility. It could even cause war.”
The second argument leading us toward war, I say to the peacenik, is that America will not halt Iran. Everyone agrees that it would have been preferable for the world’s superpower to take on the Shi’ite nuclear challenge. But the assessment of the prime minister and maybe also Defense Minister Ehud Barak is that the superpower will not do this. The likelihood of an American military operation is practically nil. Therefore, Israel has no choice but to save itself by means of a blue-and-white strike on Iran.
“This anxiety of Bibi’s is also greatly overblown,” says my cool and eloquent conversation partner. “He’s saying that our biggest ally is deceiving us. He thinks the American president’s explicit commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons isn’t worth much. I disagree with him. First of all, the Americans have made a commitment and the commitment is binding. Beyond that, they have an interest in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and radicalization in the Middle East and in defending their allies in the Gulf and Israel. I expect that what they will try to do in the coming year is to reach a reasonable agreement with the Iranians that we can live with. But if the Iranians reject the offer, the likelihood that the United States will use force against Iran’s nuclear sites is quite high. I believe it far exceeds 50-50 odds. So there is no justification for a rash and hasty Israeli operation now. It is not a near certainty that the Iranians are beginning to manufacture nuclear weapons, and there is no basis for saying that the Americans will not use force against them.”
The third argument leading us toward war is the Zionist argument, I say. Both Netanyahu and Barak say that a sovereign state cannot place its future in another country’s hands. Therefore, they feel it is Israel’s duty to attack while it still can. Why did Jews gather in this country in the first place? So that Jews would not be dependent upon others, but rather determine their fate with their own hands. Therefore, the default choice is action and not inaction.
Yossi Beilin loses his famous cool. Now he gets worked up. “I’m opposed to an attack on Iran now because it could cost human lives in Israel and could cost human lives in the Jewish world and could cause very heavy economic damage. But my main objection derives from Zionist reasons. For what is someone who says we’re in Berlin in 1938 really saying? He’s saying − Take your suitcases and go. If we’re in Berlin in 1938, there’s no point in staying here. I have no reason to raise my grandchildren here. This is something I cannot accept. This kind of statement gives me chills.
“Netanyahu apparently doesn’t understand this, but his position is the most un-Zionist position that could possibly be. If Netanyahu is right, Herzl was wrong. Because we massed Jews together here to give them a safe refuge. But if this Jewish mass will be in mortal danger because a few of its neighbors have the ultimate destructive weapon, there is only one conclusion: Disperse. Disperse immediately.
“Because I was born here and because my parents made me a Zionist, I cannot accept this argument. I find it inconceivable that the whole thing was a mistake. I believe in this country and I don’t think we need to live here like a rapid response unit that’s dispatched all over the place at the drop of a hat in order to prevent some far-off danger. Yes, there are dangers and there are threats. But we have to contend with them intelligently and with moderation and with self-confidence. To me, that’s Zionism. It’s the total antithesis of what Netanyahu is proposing.”
I understand that, I say. But it’s quite possible that war is in the offing anyway. Netanyahu and Barak will read what you say, but they won’t agree. What will you do? Don’t you think it’s your duty and the duty of other Israelis with international standing to appeal to U.S. President Barack Obama to prevent a disaster? Don’t you agree that only an immediate, strong American commitment to stop Iran will prevent the outbreak of war?
“The lack of trust between Netanyahu and Obama will remain even if the president gives the prime minister a commitment face to face,” says the former deputy foreign minister. “So what is needed is public diplomacy. The Americans need to take it up an octave and use words that haven’t been spoken yet in addressing the Israeli public. They need to be clearer and sound more steadfast than they have up to now. Since the United States fears an imminent Israeli operation, it must make a statement that commits it to taking action against Iran when the time comes and leaves no room for doubt.”
Do you support a public campaign against an attack on Iran?
“For generations we’ve been saying that the army is there to defend the citizenry and therefore the price it is required to pay in wartime is legitimate,” says Beilin, the former minister. “But today Netanyahu and Barak are saying something new. They’re saying they will send civilians to the battlefield now in order to prevent the deaths of other civilians in the future. The public must react to this statement. Israeli civilians have the right to say: Don’t sacrifice us for the sake of other civilians. Where is the justice here? Where is the logic? There is no historical legitimacy for such a move. Out of fear that something will occur in the future, you commit an act that will hurt Israel economically, diplomatically and strategically and maybe also cost hundreds of lives. As long as the whole thing was far-off and seemed more like a game, fine. But now it all seems more and more real. If it is real, it’s awful. What Netanyahu and Barak are talking about is clearly a war of choice.
“I won’t stand at the head of protests. That’s not my nature and today I am not in a political role that would require it. But I think it’s right for people to be saying: Wait a minute, you’re talking about our lives here. We’re the ones who will be killed. So I think there is justification for demonstrations but they mustn’t be fringe demonstrations by Hadash. They need to be very large demonstrations by the mainstream. I would expect Shaul Mofaz and Shelly Yacimovich to lead a public campaign against an attack on Iran. Zahava Gal-On and Meretz and Peace Now should be part of the struggle, but Kadima and Labor should initiate it. This has nothing to do with peace or the peace camp. It’s a matter of preventing war. Today there is certainly good reason to hold mass demonstrations to prevent a war.”
thanks yonah. yes i am registered. it’s the 19th of the month, my 10 article limit was up on the 5th.
“/lol! you assume completely wrong./”
Gee, there’s somebody else, with another user name, who uses “/” marks instead of quote marks. And both ZIonists! What are the chances?
Thanks from me too, yonah. My articles ran out a while back as well. It seems counterproductive if Haaretz considers its stuff makes a positive contribution to these issues to turn people away by demanding shekels at the door.
What scared me about the interview is Beilin’s total absorption in Zionism to the exclusion of even an iota of broader humanity. Israel is not going to bring Mankind to an end even though it can accomplish a level of devastation which it would not itself survive and for which it, and by lumpen extension Jews generally, might never be forgiven. There is indeed a closing window but it is closing less on Iranian nuclear weapon capability than on Israel’s future.
@ mondonut,
S. Arabia transfered $100M to PA to avert crisis when US cut aid–
Abbas, Fayyad thank Saudi patrons for donation, according to Palestinian news agency, as PA faces “worst crisis in 20 years.”
link to jpost.com
And the Israelis advanced the Palestinians $180M so the PA could make payroll prior to the start of Ramadan. And they increased the number of workers allowed in country by 5000.
But what the Palestinians actually needed was $500M due to their patrons not meeting their promises, rampant corruption and huge infusions of cash into Gaza.
So it the Palestinians think they can make do without direct negotiations and US financial support, more power to them. But they will be no closer to the sovereign state they supposedly desire.
mn, do you have a reference link? i’d like to read more about this advance.
“they supposedly desire”
That is Zionist-facist speak for, “they want to destroy us.”
Haha, nice try clown.
/mn, do you have a reference link? i’d like to read more about this advance./
link to jpost.com
You mean, Israel handed over some of the tax revenues due to Palestinians which it collects.
Of course, Israel gets the benefit of this money before it is transferred and often withholds it.
What have direct negotiations ever given them? More illegal settlements for colonists., more house demolitions, more Jewish only roads, more land confiscations. Let’s not forget the settler violence and attacks on peaceful demonstrations.
So it the Palestinians think they can make do without direct negotiations and US financial support, more power to them. But they will be no closer to the sovereign state they supposedly desire.
Once Palestine can demand that Netanyahu & company be prosecuted over the settlements, deportations, & etc. that have been carried-out since 2002, the Israeli leadership will no longer be able to visit any country in the EU and a grand total of 121 countries around the world without risk of being arrested and spending the rest of their lives in jail. That may sober them up a bit about the situation they’ve created for themselves.
Palestinians will also have a recognized right to pursue claims against Israel’s foreign assets for a change. They’ll also be the only ones who decide which laws are going to apply in their territory on a de jure basis.
Implementing the two state solution has always been the first necessary step toward unification or confederation between co-equal parties. Contrary to popular belief, Noam Chomsky has been supporting the two state solution for that very reason for decades. He had a great interview about that in Mouin Rabbani, “Reflections on a Lifetime of Engagement with Zionism, the Palestine Question, and American Empire: An Interview with Noam Chomsky”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 41, no. 3 (Spring 2012), p. 92 link to palestine-studies.org
It’s pretty long, but definitely worth the read.
/IrishMark says: You mean, Israel handed over some of the tax revenues due to Palestinians which it collects./
No, that is not what it means. An advance is money loaned to the Palestinians in advance of it actually being due.
/You mean, Israel handed over some of the tax revenues due to Palestinians which it collects./
No it means Israel gave the PA and advance on the Tax money that
weren’t actually collected yet, that what and advance means.
/Hostage says: Once Palestine can demand that Netanyahu & company be prosecuted over the settlements, deportations, & etc. that have been carried-out since 2002/
Israel has little to fear from the ICC as it has not even been established that the ICC will accept a Palestinian request. They have already been tuned down once for not being a state and the enhanced status is unlikely to change that fact. But if it were true (unlikely) then the ICC jurisdiction would be a two way street – the ongoing, multiyear and indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians also constitute war crimes.
But it will not happen. A GA resolution does not make them a state, and neither the UN nor the ICC can provide them with borders and territory to become one. So consequently, they will not be deciding which laws will be applied anywhere, the territories are quite legally occupied by Israel and will remain so until the Palestinians choose to negotiate or they defeat the Israelis militarily.
If this ICC gambit was all so easy as you make it out to be, the Palestinians would be done it long ago.
“…money loaned to the Palestinians in advance of it actually being due.”
An interest bearing loan, no doubt. Such a sham.
mondonut August 18, 2012 at 4:45 pm
From the link supplied “Israel withheld the transfer of these funds in November in response to the Palestinians’ applying for and winning acceptance as a state to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)”
mondonut August 18, 2012 at 3:21 pm
” the Palestinians actually needed was $500M due to their patrons not meeting their promises, rampant corruption and huge infusions of cash into Gaza”
Sources being? (the Ziocain drip of JPost?)
” So it the Palestinians think they can make do without direct negotiations and US financial support, more power to them. But they will be no closer to the sovereign state they supposedly desire”
Uh? It is Israel who must negotiate in order to circumvent the consequences of the Law and the UN Charter, all of which fall AGAINST Israel and in favour of the Palestinians. Israel has ONLY the US veto vote in the UNSC preventing action being taken.
Faced with the consequences of the Law and the UN Charter, Israel would be forced to withdraw to the borders of May 15th 1948, i.e., all territories outside the state of Israel, NONE of which have ever been legally annexed to Israel. Israel would be forced to repatriate/resettle hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli settlers (those who did not wish to become Palestinian citizens) and pay hundreds of billions of dollars of reparations. Israel, faced with the consequences of the law and UN Charter, would be sent bankrupt for decades.
Without the US protecting the criminal activities of Israel, it is Israel who would be in very DEEP SHITE!
I’m not sure about that. The JPost article refers to the “transfer” of funds already collected, but previously withheld from the normal monthly transfer for political reasons:
Israel has little to fear from the ICC as it has not even been established that the ICC will accept a Palestinian request. They have already been tuned down once for not being a state and the enhanced status is unlikely to change that fact.
Correction: The only question is whether or not the Court should wait until Palestine becomes a state party to the Rome Statute or if it will be obligated to take action on the Article 12(3) Declaration immediately after the General Assembly votes. The former ICC Prosecutor merely turned in a status report to the United Nations which said that he didn’t have the statutory authority to determine if Palestine is a state or not. He noted that the decision belongs to the UN Secretary General acting as depositary or the Assembly of State Parties to the ICC.
The former Prosecutor and the President of the Assembly of States Parties have both indicated that, if Palestine obtains observer state status or other recognition of its status as state from the UN organization, the ICC would react accordingly and that crimes committed on its territory since July 2002 would be investigated. There is no doubt that the settlements are a violation of Article 8 of the Rome Statute and that the World Court already declared them illegal in 2004.
*http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576575002527221120.html
*http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1061595
70 of the 121 members of the ICC have already recognized the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine and the Prosecutor’s remarks do not alter that fact. The Court is required to respect those legal determinations regarding the statehood of third parties in accordance with Article 98 of the Statute itself.
It’s the State Parties to the Statue who extended the right to other countries to accept jurisdiction of the Court under article 12(3) . The customary rules regarding the rights of third states that have been accepted in writing are spelled out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. They apply to declarations made under the Rome Statute and any other treaty that serves as the constituent document of an international organization. Those customary rules do not allow the revision or revocation of rights granted to third states without the consent of all the parties to the treaty. So the status of Palestine’s existing Article12(3) Declaration remains unchanged pending a determination by the proper parties or the Court itself.
For his part, the Secretary General had already been accepting instruments of accession from Palestine for multilateral agreements since 2001 and he has no other choice in the matter since the UNESCO vote. Both the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Maintenance of Diplomatic Relations explicitly require the Secretary to accept instruments of accession from state members of the UN specialized agencies. The UNESCO membership application was also based upon the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence. That should have settled the question of its legal status as of 2002 when the Rome Statute entered into force.
But all of that’s really irrelevant. Any state can exercise or transfer jurisdiction to others over the most serious international crimes that occurred before it came into existence. Israel did that in the Eichmann case.
But if it were true (unlikely) then the ICC jurisdiction would be a two way street – the ongoing, multiyear and indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians also constitute war crimes.
Not exactly. Palestine has already accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for all crimes committed on its territory since July 2002 in writing. That applies to crimes committed by both sides.
If Israel wishes to pursue investigations by the ICC, it would also have to accept the Court’s jurisdiction for all crimes committed on its own territory by both sides in writing.
But it will not happen. A GA resolution does not make them a state, and neither the UN nor the ICC can provide them with borders and territory to become one.
Correction. The Rome Statute specifically addresses the situation where owing to wars or occupation, a state is unable to prosecute serious crimes or its national judicial system is rendered non-existent. Entities only have to be a state for the purposes of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. It requires that a state with either personal or territorial jurisdiction make the declaration. There is no requirement for subject matter jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction, since it’s the Court’s jurisdiction that’s being triggered.
Even under the lapsed Oslo Accords the Palestinian Authority was composed of territorial, personal and functional jurisdictions. As noted above every state has the right to exercise universal jurisdiction without regard to temporal or statutory limitations.
If this ICC gambit was all so easy as you make it out to be, the Palestinians would be done it long ago.
2009 was a long time ago. If this gambit was so harmless, the Israelis and their stooges wouldn’t be fighting it tooth and nail and shreying about Israel’s inherent vulnerability.
An advance is money loaned to the Palestinians in advance of it actually being due.
it’s not a loan when the money belongs to palestinians anyway. israel should not have any right to be collecting tax revenue from palestinians as it is. but do not call it a loan when their own money is released to them earlier. and when you say ‘due’ you make it sound as tho palestinians have some say in this. israel withholds this money from them whenever they feel like it and makes money off holding palestinian funds. so no, it is not a ‘loan’ it an earlier release date of money palestinians should collecting and holding themselves and on their own anyway.
do not confuse occupation standards with any normal procedures. under international law israel has legal obligations to provide an adequate quality of life to the people it is occupying. all this aid only works to relieve israel from those legal obligation while preventing palestinians the economic opportunities afforded to most citizens of most countries.
but do not conflate israel releasing the funds as a loan, for if those funds were not there, israel would have the legal obligation, not to loan palestinians money..but to actually pay for the miserable lifestyle they inflict on palestinian society. as it is the rest of the world is reliving israel of those legal obligation by shoveling ‘aid’ at palestine. it benefits israel more than it does the palestinians.
bds!
Gee, did Mondonut learn to use “/” as quote marks from OlegR, or the other way round?
As far as I know, all keyboards have a ” key.
Neither, the “/” is used a lot as a convention on the Russian section of Livejournal that’s where i picked it up at least.
There is also the thing that in order to write ” you have to use
shift key in conjunction with 8 while / does not require additional actions.
But of course, it will not be an action without consequences. And if they think their fellow Arabs will bail them out financially, they are dreaming.
Oh yeah? Once Israel annexes everything but the Bantustans, Palestine will still have the necessary legal standing of a victim state in an international criminal tribunal. That’s something the Bantus and Namibians could have only dreamed about. Any MK who votes in favor of an illegal measure can count on being named in a criminal indictment.
The Israeli’s have already annexed the territory in question anyway by extending the application of their municipal laws to the citizens living there on an extra-territorial basis. While they insist that there can be no pre-conditions, they’ve ruled out the possibility that they will withdraw from the major settlement blocks under any conceivable negotiated settlement. If you don’t indict the responsible individuals and put out warrants for their arrest, they’ll never understand the prohibition against unilateral annexation of territory or the proscription against acquisition anyway.
And again Hostage makes an interesting but
absolutely irrelevant remark .
OlegR August 18, 2012 at 8:37 pm
“And again Hostage makes an interesting but
absolutely irrelevant remark “
Hostage is totally on the money OlegR. All you have is the typical brainwashed propagandist mode of idiots for a Greater Israel.
/Hostage is totally on the money/
Hostage may well be on the money , but the Palestinians are certainly off of it,though if they want to play legality games it’s fine by me, better then shooting each other for sure…
OlegR August 19, 2012 at 5:52 am
” the Palestinians are certainly off of it,though if they want to play legality games it’s fine by me”
Whatever irrelevant tosh you can think up eh? Legally, International Law, the UN Charter and Conventions are on their side, why do you think Israel is so desperate to secure the US veto vote in the UNSC?
Since international law and the issue of human rights as they were implemented by the UN since it’s establishment were such a sad farce ,
i do tend to pay less attention when people start bringing it up in arguments especially when it is done with a tone piety in their voice.
Since international law and the issue of human rights as they were implemented by the UN since it’s establishment were such a sad farce ,
i do tend to pay less attention when people start bringing it up in arguments especially when it is done with a tone piety in their voice.
The international community of states have gradually instituted some changes in the areas of enforcement to end the impunity of parties that don’t pay attention to the law.
The statute of the International Court of Justice was part of the UN Charter. It required the Court to obtain the consent of the parties to decide most cases. When the General Assembly decided to establish a permanent criminal tribunal, the United States opposed the idea. Amendments to the Charter require approval by all of the permanent members of the Security Council and two thirds of the members of the General Assembly.
So the General Assembly held a UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries and they established an independent permanent criminal tribunal over the objections of the US and Israel. No ICC member States exercise a veto. The new Court has its own own legislative body, the Assembly of States Parties, that can amend the Rome Statute without bothering to consult the UN. Unlike the General Assembly, it can outlaw State practices that it considers a serious crime. It’s statutes are backed up by a legal organ that can exercise criminal jurisdiction worldwide with the cooperation of its 121 member countries.
In Regina v Jones (2006) the UK Law Lords accepted the proposition that the core elements of the crime of aggression have been understood, at least since 1945, with sufficient clarity to permit the lawful trial (and, on conviction, punishment) of those accused of this most serious crime. They said that: “It is unhistorical to suppose that the elements of the crime were clear in 1945 but have since become in any way obscure.”
After the attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla in the Summer of 2010, the Assembly of State Parties adopted a definition of the crime of aggression over the objections of the USA and Israel. Both countries attended the Review Conference as observer states. The new definition will enter into force in 2017 and it includes blockades and occupation of any state in violation of the UN Charter. Note that the General Assembly, acting under the auspices of “Uniting for Peace” and other resolutions has long since determined that Israel’s continued occupation of Arab territories captured in 1967 and its establishment of settlements therein are illegal and constitute aggression. See
*General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to un.org
*General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to un.org
So the international community of states have sent a clear message that the practices of occupying or blockading the territory of an ICC member state after 2017 will be viewed as a criminal offense that can be prosecuted by either the Court or its member states according to principles that have been well-known since they were established by the Nuremberg tribunal.
OlegR August 19, 2012 at 7:21 pm
“Since international law and the issue of human rights as they were implemented by the UN since it’s establishment were such a sad farce”
Uh huh. Based as they were in large part BECAUSE of what happened to our Jewish fellows under the Nazis.
“i do tend to pay less attention when people start bringing it up in arguments especially when it is done with a tone piety in their voice
Why is Israel in the UN OlegR?
Probably because it’s the only game in town at the moment.
It still changes nothing regarding this organization ongoing incompetence and hypocrisy.
Why is Israel in the UN OlegR?
Simple, the General Assembly suspended action under resolution 181(II) during the 2nd special session deliberations on the Question of Palestine and appointed a Special Mediator to pursue other peace solutions. The South West case subsequently established that the action of a mandatory power could not unilaterally terminate the mandated status of a territory without the specific consent of the General Assembly. It became a matter of controversy whether or not the provisions of resolution 181 (II), pertaining to the termination of the mandate, had been suspended. See UN GA resolution 186 (S-2) link to un.org
But Article 78 of the UN Charter stipulated that:
There is ample precedent for independent governments to remain under mandate or trusteeship for an extended period of time for the purposes of trade agreements, & etc. For example, Article 18 of the Palestine Mandate contained a trade agreement that had been approved by the Council of the League of Nations. It remained in force for twenty years after the independent government was established in Transjordan. link to avalon.law.yale.edu
That’s one of the reasons that establishment of independent governments in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan did not automatically result in immediate recognition of statehood or termination of their mandates.
After all, the independence of the mandates had been provisionally recognized from the vary beginning under the terms of Article 22 of the League’s Covenant. There had always been a requirement to establish self-governing institutions in both Palestine and Transjordan. It was always a complete mystery why that had only taken place in one of the territories beginning in 1923. So the establishment of a provisional government of Israel did not automatically constitute “the ability to stand alone” or prevent the adoption of the US proposal to establish a UN trusteeship in Palestine to restore law and order there. Only Israel’s membership in the UN could prevent that from happening.
In the earlier cases of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the mandates were only considered to have lapsed when the countries either joined the League of Nations or its successor, the UN. Here is some background on that situation. Although the League of Nations (LoN) was open to membership by self-governing colonies like India, it was never open to dependent states that were still under formal international tutelage. The LoN commission appointed to study the border dispute between Turkey and Great Britain over Mosel recommended that the mandate for Iraq have a minimum term of 25 years to protect the rights of the Chaldean minority. It was also recommended that prior to the expiration of the 25 year term, Iraq could make a declaration acknowledging a minority rights undertaking and apply for membership in the League of Nations. The Council of the League agreed, that if Iraq were to be admitted, the mandate would lapse. Members of the League were also obliged to accept the policy of the Open Door on trade. See George Scott, The Rise and Fall of the League of Nations, (London: Hutchinson, 1973), ISBN: 0091170400, page 134.
The USA had not joined the League of Nations, but it had negotiated treaties, like the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention covering each of the Mandates. So even after the dissolution of the League of Nations, the USA had a legally secured interest in the administration and termination of any mandate. It’s unique legal standing was reflected in its participation in the Anglo-American Inquiry and Truman’s demands for the 100,000 Jewish immigration quotas. That status was also reflected in the Statement of General Catroux of November 29, 1941, recognizing the sovereignty and independence of Syria and Lebanon within the framework of the Mandate. The proclamation said:
*See Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1941. The British Commonwealth; the Near East and Africa Volume I (1941), pages 809-810; link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
*Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) 680-681
The UNESCO/Brill volume “International Law: Achievements and Prospects” contained an essay by Judge Broms which explained that the Government of France still regarded Lebanon and Syria as mandates until they became charter members of the UN organization. See paragraph 14 link to books.google.com
During a Pentagon Conference in 1946, the U.S. government advised the UK that it had adopted the policy position that formal termination of the mandate with respect to Transjordan would follow the earlier precedent established by the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon. That meant termination would generally be recognized upon the admission of Transjordan into the United Nations as a fully independent country. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa Volume VII (1946), page 798 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
So that’s the reason the Zionists were in such a rush to apply for membership, despite the fact that only 19 of the 57 members of the UN were willing to extend the country formal recognition. link to unispal.un.org
What concern might that be? Both US and Israeli intelligence agencies agree Iran are not producing nukes.
The U.S. and Israel are really concerned about Iran reaching *nuclear threshold* status–not producing nuclear weapons, but gaining the ability to produce them relatively quickly if they were to decide to.
The U.S. and Israel are really concerned about Iran reaching *nuclear threshold* status–not producing nuclear weapons, but gaining the ability to produce them relatively quickly if they were to decide to.
That’s interesting, but its not legitimately a situation that the non-proliferation regime was ever designed to address.
China would have a much better argument for a preemptive strike against Japan if that were the case, because it has enough material to produce thousands of bombs and has announced the intention of retaining a capability to rapidly produce them, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net
Mondonut: “…Israel’s campaign against Iran has zero to do with the Palestinians, their issues with Iran are out of genuine concern with Iran…”
Sure. And the guy who came by this afternoon is really concerned about the security of my home and wants to help.
Lipkin Shahak slams Israeli leadership over rift with US By JPOST.COM STAFFLAST UPDATED: 08/18/2012 20:26Former IDF Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin Shahak on Saturday slammed Israeli leadership for creating a rift between Israel and the US over the Iranian nuclear issue.
Speaking on Channel 2′s Meet the Press, Lipkin Shahak said “Coordination with the United States… is extremely important… How did we arrive a this situation, in which bilateral coordination with the US is at such a low level?
Lipkin Shahak also defended President Shimon Peres for speaking in public about the need for US approval on an Iran strike. “The Iranian issue is not a private issue for the Prime Minister [Binyamin Netanyahu] or the Defense Minister [Ehud Barak,]” he said, adding “the prime minister and the defense minister are the ones that told the Iranians that Israel is ready to attack. Not Peres.”
…obama make a commitment falling on the timeframe of the UN General Assembly merely a coincidence.
Maybe, but many threads have led to this situation. Netanyahu’s own political future may be one. He can’t actually be said to have guided Israel anywhere positive and he must feel the clouds darkening overhead. After all, he’s only 63. US public support for his policies is weakening, global opinion is turning against him, thinking Israelis are increasingly concerned about him, social unrest is stirring, the settlers and ultra-orthodox are rocking the domestic boat, Gulf totalitarianism looks likely to follow Mubarak. Remember what Obama and Sarkozy were overheard saying about him? He hasn’t the status to be awarded an international role. What future does he have? President of the country he led to international pariah status if not virtual extinction? He may feel up a creek without a paddle and simply be brazening it out, pretending to be pragmatic, hoping for a miracle.
RE: “American and Israeli officials are working to arrange a meeting between US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at which the White House will assure Israel that the US will use force to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons drive by next June at the latest. . . ” ~ Times of London
MY COMMENT: I suppose we can assume that Netanyahu has already obtained this assurance from Romney. Now, unless by the end of September or so Obama matches Romney’s commitment to attack Iran [including Obama's taking certain concrete actions and/or making certain statements in public (because Netanyahu isn't about to rely solely on Obama keeping his word as to private commitments)], Netanyahu is at least implicitly threatening to wreak havoc on the November elections by attacking Iraq this October.
This is nothing short of an “extortion racket” like those most commonly practiced by organized crime groups.
• Extortion - link to en.wikipedia.org
I, for one, have had enough of it. The U.S. should adamantly refuse to submit to such extortion by Israel even if it means that we run the risk of being the target of Israel’s 200 or so nukes. After all, like the Lost Prophets say: “If You Don’t Stand For Something, You’ll Fall For Anything.”
SPEAKING OF “STANDING FOR SOMETHING”:
• Jill Stein for President (Stein/Honkala 2012) - link to jillstein.org
[Contributions of up to a total of $250 are matched by federal matching funds.]
P.S. No more battered
spousevoter syndrome for me!P.P.S. A MIDSUMMER AFTERNOON’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE (HEADBANGERS’ EDITION) sponsored by the makers of new Ziocaine Über-Xtreme®: It’s guaran-damn-teed to blow your effing mind!™
• Lost Prophets: If You Don’t Stand For Something, You’ll Fall For Anything (Garage Sessions) [VIDEO, 04:39] – link to youtube.com
RE: “I cannot bare to look.” – lyrics (above)
SHOULD BE: I cannot bear to look.
It is incorrect at all of the lyrics websites (where mostly teenagers submit submit the lyrics).
LYRICS SOURCE – link to lyricsmania.com
When warm days come to a university campus, the right of students to bare arms is fully exercised (and a lot of other skin too!).
RE: “. . . Netanyahu is at least implicitly threatening to
wreak havoc on the November elections by attacking Iraq this October.” ~ me (above)
CORRECTION: I meant Iran (not Iraq), of course.
I hope to hell this wasn’t some kind of “Freudian slip”!
On July 7, 2012, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren appeared on the Hugh Hewitt show. He said:
link to hughhewitt.com
Oren was referring to The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), a Washington think-tank founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George J. Mitchell.
Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you join the dance?
Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, won’t you join the dance?
“…Iranians are progressing on the nuclear program, moving parts of that program into fortified underground bunkers”
Well, if Oren has evidence of that you would think he would be sharing it with Mossad and the CIA rather than spilling it on US TV. However, what is true is that Israel is making all sorts of preparations for an onslaught on Iran en plein public, gas masks, shelters, drills, SMS warning systems (not yet available in Arab communities for logistical reasons), etc.
Here is an ebullient contribution from the ‘other’ side. I like PressTV. It maintains an air of detachment, never descends to abuse, often carries eye-opening snippets, and has a frequently updated app I use more than any other.
link to presstv.ir
Let’s not confuse the Palestinian Authority with the collective will of the Palestinian people. This is not a meeting of two oppositional forces – one supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the other resisting. The PA lacks legitimacy from the Palestinian people, and has gone to great efforts to consolidate its power and deny the collective will of the Palestinian people remaining in Palestine.
Thus, for me, the question turns to Israel and the United States – how will they manipulate these processes, and just how much violence will be delivered upon the Palestinian people remaining there?
Matthew Graber August 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm
“Let’s not confuse the Palestinian Authority with the collective will of the Palestinian people.”
The PA is the equivalent to what was the Jewish Agency’s ‘Jewish People’s Council’. An official non-political body representing the Palestinian people. Hamas and Fatah are political parties. A political party cannot declare statehood. The party negotiating for and declaring statehood must represent the people regardless of the people’s various political persuasions.
“Thus, for me, the question turns to Israel and the United States…”
Israel has only the US veto vote in the UNSC protecting it from the consequences of the Law and the UN Charter. It is Israel who must negotiate.
The PA lacks legitimacy from the Palestinian people, and has gone to great efforts to consolidate its power and deny the collective will of the Palestinian people remaining in Palestine.
I agree with Mouin Rabbani’s remarks:
link to maannews.net
It’s imperative to end the Oslo era deadlock. Israel has always claimed the right to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinian communities located anywhere in the world, i.e. Lebanon, Tunisia, Jordan, etc. and Oslo was Israel’s attempt to perpetuate that situation. Everyone admits that those crimes would be prohibited under international law if they had only been committed against the citizens of another State. There may be some people studying philosophy in Tel Aviv University who still oppose statehood under those circumstances, but it really isn’t their ass or their constituency that’s getting murdered with frightening regularity out in the OPT.
The 1988 PLO Declaration of the State of Palestine established that the Executive and Central Committee of the PLO would continue to have the power to establish a provisional government or conduct a vote of confidence and remove a provisional government until such time as the occupation itself ends and the whole Palestinian people can vote and exercise jurisdiction over their own territory. That’s not at all unusual for a state born out of revolution or civil war. Israel is arresting and deporting legislators from Jerusalem who have political affiliations with Hamas. There’s no way for anyone to conduct fair and impartial general elections under those conditions.
Some of the mandates of the provisional PA factions in Gaza and Ramallah have expired. That doesn’t mean that that they have no other sources of legitimacy. The PLO elected new members to the Executive, including Hanan Ashrawi in August of 2009. You can read all about that and the plan that was adopted then to end the occupation and establish the state through efforts, like this UN bid, here: link to miftah.org
Hamas also held internal elections recently and the agreement with Abbas includes their integration in the PLO.
* link to news.xinhuanet.com
* link to reuters.com
President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, jailed leader Marwan Barghouti, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, Hanan Ashrawi, and Israeli MK Hanan Zoabi have all endorsed the UN bid for recognition of Palestine’s statehood. Many of those people were elected to public office during the most recent elections, and great weight should still be attached to their political positions even if their provisional mandates have expired.
So Mouin avoided an answer.
I really think Hanin Zoabi should lead the Palestinian people,
that would let her fulfill her potential,it’s wasted in the Knesset…
OlegR August 19, 2012 at 5:56 am
“So Mouin avoided an answer”
How so?
He said
A “Sure, if you look at it objectively, there is no legitimate Palestinian leadership”
and
B ” Now does that mean that any Palestinian holding office is illegitimate and that anything they do is illegitimate? No.”
That’s called avoiding an answer.
Oleg, you are being pernickety. Legitimate authority is what the majority accept. The US is a predator, Israel is a parasite and the two have a symbiotic relationship dangerous to Palestinians. It is jejune to imply Pelestinians need endure patiently while waiting for a ballot box.
I really think Hanin Zoabi should lead the Palestinian people,
She already does, 1 in 5 Israelis are Palestinian and even more Palestinians are refugees from Israel.
that would let her fulfill her potential,it’s wasted in the Knesset…
Well I’d agree that the Israeli Knesset is probably the greatest waste of time ever – right after the US State of the Union Address and the use of Microsoft Power Point.
He said
A “Sure, if you look at it objectively, there is no legitimate Palestinian leadership”
and
B ” Now does that mean that any Palestinian holding office is illegitimate and that anything they do is illegitimate? No.”
That’s called avoiding an answer.
Statehood is a legal status conferred on the government of a territory by other existing states. Many countries recognized the legitimacy of the unilateral declaration of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Va’ad Leumi when the members appointed themselves as the provisional government of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948. They granted themselves all executive, legislative, and judicial powers, without holding any elections or consulting the wishes of the 500,000 Arab inhabitants.
When the US Senate Judiciary Committee asked Yehuda Blum “How Israel’s first elections could possibly be considered legitimate, when Israel had driven the bulk of its Arab voters into exile and refused to permit them to return?” He replied that many UN member states only hold sham elections, if they even bother to hold elections at all and that electoral legitimacy is not essential to statehood under international law. link to loc.gov
The PLO/PA have been recognized as the government of the State of Palestine by the majority of other existing states. That form of recognition is a source of legitimacy that was denied to the governments of Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa.
OlegR August 19, 2012 at 6:30 am
“That’s called avoiding an answer”
Er, no. It’s called answering the question appropriately, in two parts. Both quite understandable and both relevant.
Part one:
There is no effective Palestinian administrative Government. Israel purposefully forbade travel of Palestinian leaders between the two parts of Palestine, making effective control by the legally elected Government impossible, then began playing the two parties against each other. It’s called divide and conquer.
Part two:
Quite clear.