Here is another sign of the end of the two-state paradigm in the minds of those who were engaged in building two states. The dialogue project, bitterlemons, is closing down. From the two statements below, you can see that Palestinian intellectuals are growing increasingly resentful of normalization efforts, and that the hope that some felt around the two-state solution has drained away, including from European sponsors. (Thanks to Paul Mutter).
Palestinian partner Ghassan Khatib, formerly of the P.A., says this:
In the foreword to “The Best of Bitterlemons” compilation published in 2007, I noted that we rarely had trouble recruiting writers. Despite the feeling among many in the Arab world that contact with Israelis is tantamount to accepting Israel’s occupation, seldom did authors decline an invitation. Lately, we have observed that this has changed, that even once-forthcoming Palestinians are less interested in sharing ideas with Israelis just across the way. Still, we have been able to present the voices of security chiefs and political prisoners, military generals and farmers losing land, spokespersons for armed groups and peaceniks in an equal and fair manner–rather differently than the situation on the ground.
Nevertheless, this achievement is bittersweet as the scenery around us grows ever more dark and uncertain. Two decades after the signing of the Declaration of Principles that many hoped would usher in the creation of a Palestinian state and independence, freedom and security, Palestinians and Israelis are barely conversational. The structures created by those agreements have atrophied, corrupted by an increasing imbalance in the Palestinian relationship with Israel. Every day, there is new word of land confiscations, arrests, demolitions, and legislative maneuvers to solidify Israel’s control. Israel’s political leaders are beholden to a tide of right-wing sentiment and Palestinian leaders are made to appear ever-smaller in their shrinking spheres of control.
We are now, it appears, at the lowest point in the arc of the pendulum, one that is swinging away from the two-state solution into a known unknown: an apartheid Israel. How this new “one-state” option will be transformed into a solution that provides freedom and security for all remains to be seen.
Israeli partner Yossi Alpher adds this:
We are ceasing publication for reasons involving fatigue–on a number of fronts. First, there is donor fatigue. Why, donors ask, should we continue to support a Middle East dialogue project that not only has not made peace, but cannot “prove” to our satisfaction–especially at a time of revolution and violence throughout the region–that it has indeed raised the level of civilized discussion? Why fight the Israeli right-wing campaign against European and American state funding and the Palestinian campaign against “normalization”?
These last two negative developments also reflect local fatigue. There is no peace process and no prospect of one. Informal “track II” dialogue–bitterlemons might be described as a “virtual” track II–is declining. Here and there, writers from the region who used to favor us with their ideas and articles are now begging off, undoubtedly deterred by the revolutionary rise of intolerant political forces in their countries or neighborhood.
A decade ago, one could not even utter the words “one-state solution;” today, it is part of the larger discourse. This is a clear sign we are on the right track to a single state that provides equal rights for all who live there.
Sorry, but Jews cannot exclusively have 80+ percent of Palestine — that will never happen.
“This is a clear sign we are on the right track to a single state that provides equal rights for all who live there.”
I’m sorry, I’m completely confused by this. What is the linkage between “single state” and “provides equal rights”. And what right does an outside agency have to interfere in Israel’s internal matters, to guarantee equal rights are provided?
And what right does an outside agency have to interfere in Israel’s internal matters, to guarantee equal rights are provided?
The question what right an outside agency has to interfere in Israel’s internal matters is irrelevant to the point of being absurd.
The question to ask is which means outside agencies could employ to interfere in Israel’s internal matters.
The question what right an outside agency has to interfere in Israel’s internal matters is irrelevant to the point of being absurd.
It’s actually not irrelevant or absurd. Guarantees of fundamental human rights were built into the two state solution by design, e.g. Parts B and C of resolution 181(II). We need to ensure that those would still be subject to compulsory enforcement under any other proposed solution.
The major human rights conventions have arguably achieved customary status, since they have been ratified by the overwhelming majority of states. But they do not contain provisions for the compulsory jurisdiction of an international court or treaty body to settle disputes that arise between the parties. Article 2 of the UN Charter contains an explicit safeguarding clause which would tend to guarantee Israel non-interference with any matters falling within its domestic jurisdiction.
Palestine was a non-self governing territory under an international mandate when Great Britain submitted the question of its future government to the United Nations. The League of Nations had made the acceptance of a minority protection agreement a condition for terminating any mandate regime. The UN adopted a multi-part plan for a partition; a regional economic union; and a protection plan for religious groups, women, and minorities. An entire chapter was devoted to the plan which placed fundamental human rights under UN guarantee and prohibited any alterations without the specific consent of the General Assembly. The plan contained a compromissory clause that requires the parties to submit any unresolved disputes to the International Court of Justice.
Israel accepted the terms of the minority protection plan. It also took the position that the partition plan was not an integral part of the General Assembly resolution. Israel insisted that the establishment of the Jewish state was not made dependent on the establishment of the Arab state or the Corpus Separatum. The representative of Israel also formally acknowledged that the minority protection plan was an undertaking that was capable of acceptance by Israel alone, despite objections from the Arab states to the plan of partition.
Israel has subsequently tried to declare the entire resolution null and void. Conversely the UN has taken the position that Israel is under a continuing obligation to compensate or allow refugees to return that flow from its acceptance of resolution 181(II). Israel has conducted an exhaustive propaganda campaign against any UN involvement on that basis in its handling of human rights or the refugee question.
Forget Bantustans, think American Samoa. Israel will not automatically be required to give all of its “nationals” the right to vote in federal elections, nor will it be required to annex the West Bank or Gaza just because the two state solution is abandoned. Palestinians need to have a formal plan that guarantees those things.
You talk about the League mandate provisions and the UN resolutions along with Israel’s “acceptance” of them as if any of this had ever had any practical relevance.
No, actually think Bantustans. On steroids. The situation in Palestine is very, very far removed from the one in Samoa and quite close to the one in South Africa.
Bringing up South Africa, which I feel I shouldn’t need to at this point, also shatters the illusion that “rights” will protect Israel from outside interference once the current one-state reality is formally acknowledged. Israel does not have a “right” to economic relations, much less to arms shipments, and other countries have all the rights in the world to deny them these things. And at least in Europe, if the cowardice and inertia of the current generation of politicians gives way to something more in sync with popular opinion on Israel, this is what will happen.
Forget Bantustans, think American Samoa. . . . No, actually think Bantustans. On steroids.
Either way, you need to explain how you are going to achieve a single state solution. The US, UK, and other countries have managed to keep Samoans, Chagos Islanders, and Falkland Islanders disenfranchised or in political limbo too. What will automatically insure a different outcome in the case of Palestine?
No, I really don’t. This is not about achieving a one state solution. It’s about dealing with a one state reality.
a) Falklanders are British citizens. Your description of them as “disenfranchised or in political limbo” is nonsense. EOD.
b) American Samoa is different, but it’s neither overrun by settlers from Texas nor under the jackboot of an oppressive military occupation. Furthermore if there actually was a strong political movement in Samoa to change the status quo and acquire automatic American citizenship, it would happen.
c) Leaves the Chagossians. What the UK and the US did to these people is an outrage, and one that needs to spoken about more. That said: There are more than a thousand times as many Palestinians in the “territories” alone than there are Chagossians. And the conflict affecting them is much more high-profile. If you think that the same applies to them as to the Chagossians just because their situations are theoretically comparable, you need to get a reality check.
Koshiro, with all due respect, you seem to be playing word games. Doesn’t “dealing with” a very oppressive “one state reality” imply finding a “solution” on that one-state basis?
In any case then, you need to explain how you see “dealing with” the “one state reality” you talk about.
You talk about the League mandate provisions and the UN resolutions along with Israel’s “acceptance” of them as if any of this had ever had any practical relevance.
Sure it does. I’ll give you an example. The refugees right to return and take-up residency in Israel and the right to compensation for expropriated property are strictly based upon guarantees contained in UN resolutions that became legally binding upon the State of Israel under the old fashioned contract law theory of acceptance spelled-out in General Assembly resolution 181(II).
The representative of Israel explained that Israel’s “Declaration” under part C of the UN Partition Plan had been provided in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State Israel. It had been signed by the members of the Provisional Government and promulgated as a fundamental law as required by the General Assembly’s resolution.
– link to un.org
The representative of Israel reminded the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on membership that the resolution itself said:
– See Eban’s remarks link to unispal.un.org
Now “the plan” itself said that Israel could not alter any of those rights without the consent of the General Assembly. It also provided for the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ to resolve any dispute regarding the interpretation at the request of either party:
– link to unispal.un.org
The General Assembly has acknowledged that both Israel and Palestine have provided the necessary declarations in line with resolution 181(II). See resolutions 273/3; 43/177;
The ICJ has acknowledged that resolution 181(II) is the source of the UN’s permanent legal obligation towards Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy”.
– link to icj-cij.org
Last year President Abbas explained :
– link to nytimes.com
The Israeli Knesset and Supreme Court said that the rights in the Declaration, including equality, were not legally binding. But Israel has never obtaining the assent of the General Assembly to modify the any rights reflected in the declaration.
– link to knesset.gov.il
So there is a dispute with the Jewish state over an interpretation and the only parties that can request a binding decision from the ICJ would be the General Assembly or the Arab State.
The UN created a subsidiary organ to look into the matter and here is what it had to say on the subject:
Now we can listen to Ali Abunimah talk about international law violations til he reaches retirement age, or we can take this matter to Court and get a verdict one way or another.
This is not about achieving a one state solution. It’s about dealing with a one state reality. . . . What will automatically insure a different outcome in the case of Palestine? . . . If you think that the same applies to them as to the Chagossians just because their situations are theoretically comparable, you need to get a reality check.
So they’re both f*ucked in reality and your plan is to talk about it more often. EOD.
No.
Then what does “dealing with” a “one state reality” mean to you?
This is a clear sign we are on the right track to a single state that provides equal rights for all who live there.
No, like the article says, the pendulum is swinging away from the two-state solution into a known unknown: an apartheid Israel. How this new “one-state” option will be transformed into a solution that provides freedom and security for all remains to be seen.
How is that track any different than the wishful thinking of the League of Nations Permanent Mandate Commission which wasted 25 years and countless innocent lives hoping that the two sides would eventually give up their national aspirations and agree to establish a single Judeo-Arab commonwealth? I don’t mean to be pedantic, but the one state solution, wishful thinking, and the resulting apartheid are not new approaches to the Question of Palestine.
Exactly. There is no logical or factual connection between the ending of the possibility of a genuine two state solution and movement toward a single democratic state.
I see movement toward the creation of Palestinian autonomous zones in the remnants of West Bank territory that will be left after Israel annexes the major settlement blocs and consolidates the separation wall.
These remnants will be called a “state” by some and “bantustans” by others. Israel will then wash its hands of the Palestinian quest for statehood.
I see movement toward the creation of Palestinian autonomous zones in the remnants of West Bank territory that will be left after Israel annexes the major settlement blocs and consolidates the separation wall.
No I don’t think the status quo is going to be sustainable for Israel in the long run. A great deal depends upon the outcome of the current statehood bid. If the General Assembly grants Palestine the status of an observer State, then the game is up, and it will inevitably be granted full UN membership, unlike the Bantustans. Israel occupied Lebanon. But Lebanon never filed a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for all of the crimes committed on its territory.
I wasn’t referring to the status quo exactly. I was presuming increased Palestinian “autonomy” and greater Israeli withdrawal and separation. But that’s a minor quibble.
More importantly: it depends what you mean by “the long run”. The long run can be a very long time.
“I don’t mean to be pedantic, but the one state solution, wishful thinking, and the resulting apartheid are not new approaches to the Question of Palestine.”
Thank you Hostage, for answering my irrelevant and absurd question.
So when we cut to the chase, the “one-state” conditions under which Israel will have equal rights for all, and Palestinians freedom from administrative persecution or just regular old lynchings and stuff, sounds an awful lot like being conquered, and then occupied, and then having the country remake its politics and laws in obeisance to the conquerors. Another-words, it would be very much (to Israelis) like what happened to Germany at the end of WW2. Power would be taken from the Zionists, they would be disarmed, and the population evaluated and investigated to channel the criminals toward prosecution and the rest towards deprogramming, and the country will have to be patrolled 24/7 to avoid pogroms against Palestinians.
Say, who wants the job? Looks like it’ll be very challenging.
The only wishful thinking here is yours. It’s ironic that you should use the phrase…
… because the very same thing can be said about the “peace process” in pursuit of the two-state illusion. Okay, if you’re pedantic, you’ll have to wait another few years to fill the round 25, but you get the idea.
The non-wishful way of thinking is to recognize the current paradigm of the 2SS has failed and that there now is a de facto single apartheid state. It is to recognize that the methods (“dialogue”, “discussion”, “parties to the table”) included in that paradigm have likewise failed.
“The non-wishful way of thinking is to recognize the current paradigm of the 2SS has failed and that there now is a de facto single apartheid state.”
Sure, okay, and as you say: “The question to ask is which means outside agencies could employ to interfere in Israel’s internal matters?
And after we discuss which means they could employ, we can start asking what they might possibly would employ, and what is going to make the “outside agencies” (when we know who they are) employ them?
And I still maintain the only means by which “outside agencies” might effect change in the Zionist entity would look very much like the occupation of Western Germany or Japan by the US after WW2. And in both of those countries the people accepted the defeat and cooperated to an amazing degree with the occupiers. But of course all their military and economic resources have been pretty much destroyed, and the military age males mostly used up. And there was an even worse ‘outside agency’ waiting in the wings. If they made it too tough for the Americans, they could always turn it over to the USSR. Now that’s pressure to change.
Does any change in Palestine require as a prerequisite the complete military, political, and oh my freakin’ god in heaven, it just hit, me the way Israel is constituted, the complete religious defeat of Zionist Judaism in Palestine, or the religion will become a center of resistance since it is one of the centers of Zionism Oh, that’s freakin lovely to contemplate. I’ll see you guys later, I’m gonna go lie down and have a good cry. And gee isn’t the part of Jewish history (whether manufactured or real) the Zionists love best exactly that part, when the Jewish religion becomes a center of resistance or rebellion? I never really made that connection til now. Well no point sitting here typing a string of curses So long, thanks Hostage.
wishful thinking . . . The only wishful thinking here is yours. It’s ironic that you should use the phrase…
Koshiro, I’ve written here time and again that:
*I support BDS, equal rights, and the rule of law in however many states there happen to be in the world.
*Palestine should deposit instruments of accession to the UN’s Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties and Diplomatic Relations and pursue the upgrade in its observer status with the UN so that it can file criminal complaints against Netanyahu and his Cabinet; the IDF Commanders of the Occupation regime; Nir Barkat and the Heads of the Regional Councils in the Occupied Territory, and their facilitators in the Israeli Courts.
*The Minority Protection Plan in resolution 181(II) would allow either the General Assembly or Palestine to obtain a judgement from the ICJ on the rights of refugees to compensation and residency in the jurisdiction of the Jewish State.
Since all I’ve heard from you is bitching, what exactly are the additional elements of your plan for preventing the Zionists from turning East Jerusalem into a King David theme park/resort in the next few months; displacing tens of thousands of Bedouins; and turning the Hebron area into an IDF firing range?
Why do you care about any of these things? It’s not like any of this makes the 2SS impossible, correct? It can still be implemented whenever the political conditions are just right, whether it’s in 10 years or 25 years or 100 years, correct? And although two-staters are going to talk about how settlements make the 2SS “difficult”, they will never ever make it impossible, so why the fuss about settlements? Anyway, see below.
You answered a question with a question, avoiding have to give a substantive answer to the first one.
No, not correct.
No, again not correct. You are constructing a strawman.
Once again, not correct. Massive settlement made permanent would indeed make a 2 state settlement impossible.
Why do you care about any of these things? It’s not like any of this makes the 2SS impossible, correct? It can still be implemented whenever the political conditions are just right, whether it’s in 10 years or 25 years or 100 years, correct?
I’m discussing the facts on the ground and the BDS call to pressure our states to impose sanctions.
130 countries have already recognized Palestine as an existing occupied state. About 70 of them are members of the 121 countries that comprise the ICC Assembly of State Parties. The ICC’s jurisdiction for the crime of apartheid and war crimes isn’t triggered by the implementation of a 2 state solution. It can just as easily be triggered by its collapse. In fact, the inability of a failed victim state to prosecute those responsible for the crime of apartheid, due to the unavailability of a national judicial system is just the sort of thing that’s supposed to trigger the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction according to the terms of the Rome Statute.
The UN Security Council numbers at least one international criminal tribunal for a defunct state among its own subsidiary organs. Its primary purpose is to hold individuals criminally responsible for the crimes they’ve committed against the civilian population, including ethnic cleansing. Those sanctions are human rights based and have nothing to do with implementing a final political solution.
don’t kid yourself, the zionists will never give equal rights to Pals, it goes against every fiber of their zionist being. this notion of “provides equal rights for all” is a fantasy, a pipe dream, a falsity that will never be realized, unfortunately. i’m convinced that there will either be a two-state solution or, as long as izrael has the backing of major world powers (which it’s always had), a perpetually unresolved one-state apartheid where Pals suffering continues, if not worsens. in other words, Pals will see no increase in rights than they already have, regardless of any legislation.
don’t kid yourself, the zionists will never give equal rights to Pals
I don’t kid myself. Last year the United States said that the Palestinians could not get a state by going to the UN, although the Zionists had successfully employed that same tactic as part of their agenda.
This year the US is merely asking the Palestinians to wait until after the US elections to request an upgrade of their status to that of a UN observer State. Everyone admits that will guarantee them access to the International Criminal Court, where the PA still has a complaint pending that could lead to the arrest of many Israeli officials. Foreign Minister Lieberman is lobbying the members of the Middle East Quartet against the statehood bid and President Abbas, but Netanyahu and the rest of the cabinet are busy lobbying for an attack on Iran or their favorite candidate in the US Presidential elections.
i’m convinced that there will either be a two-state solution or, as long as izrael has the backing of major world powers (which it’s always had), a perpetually unresolved one-state apartheid where Pals suffering continues, if not worsens.
In the long run, I don’t think the United States or the EU have the political capital or the desire to keep Israel’s chestnuts out of the fire over the continuing allegations of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity. No one is going to go to bed hungry if Israel is forced to comply with existing international law or accept the imposition of an arbitrated settlement.
FYI, the very first international agreement which called for the establishment of an international criminal tribunal was the UN’s Convention on the Suppression of the Crime of Apartheid. Illegal settlements established by an occupying power and the crime of apartheid were declared grave breaches and war crimes by the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1977. Those crimes were incorporated in the Rome Statute from day one over the objections of Israel and its supporters.
So, the UN did establish an independent permanent criminal tribunal with its own legislative organ. It could and should resolve the most serious legal issues of concern to the international community, whether or not that happens in the immediate future. It has already amended its charter on the subject of aggression over the objections of the US government. It numbers the majority of EU and UN member states among the state parties to its charter. In the long term, I don’t see any way that the Court can avoid addressing the Situation in Palestine or proposals that would curtail or eliminate the role of the UN Security Council in its operations.
Sad to hear that Bitterlemons is ending. It was a great site that offered up valuable point and counterpoint insights by people directly involved in the process.
But having said that, I too slowed down on my visits there as it became increasingly clear that there was little or no process to dialogue around.
Somewhere, Rashid Khalidi (Columbia Univ. prof.) says,
“One state is what we’ve got now!”
One state, with the Palestinians having no rights.
A de facto single state is quite different from a de jure single state.
There is not, and likely never will be in foreseeable future, a single state incorporating Israel, the West Bank and Gaza that is internationally recognized as such.
A de facto single state is quite different from a de jure single state.
The terms de facto and de jure are misleading and their use has been officially deprecated for decades by scholars and governments alike. The Tinoco arbitration established that the existence of an unrecognized de facto government has de jure legal consequences. Both Israel and the United States have acknowledged the existence of “The ‘de facto’ Hamas authorities in Gaza”. link to state.gov
FYI, the behavior of both countries is inconsistent with non-recognition, since they both treat Gaza as an entity with all of the customary obligations reserved for an enemy state under international law.
The same applies to the PA faction in the West Bank. Both countries treat it as an occupied enemy state and deny the existence of a single de facto government. The PA factions have their own courts which pass judgments and their own prisons where sentences are carried out. I don’t think there’s a very strong argument to be made for the proposition that there is only one de facto government between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean.
I don’t disagree that there are not “de jure legal consequences”. Still there is a big difference between the single state many folks are saying *actually exists now* (“de facto” in my terminology) and a single state that was internationally recognized as such and had all the features of a normal state.
“there are”, not “there are not”. My edit function is not working.
” I don’t think there’s a very strong argument to be made for the proposition that there is only one de facto government between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean.”
Let the PA adopt a plan to pursue nuclear weapons research for the protection of its people, seek to import tanks, or, hell, arrest one of these settler pigs for the crimes they commit, and we’ll see whether there’s one or two governments at work there. In my mind, everything the PA does, it does with the explicit or implicit review of the zios. That’s “de facto” enough for me.
Let the PA adopt a plan to pursue nuclear weapons research for the protection of its people, seek to import tanks, or, hell, arrest one of these settler pigs for the crimes they commit
The United States occupation forces destroyed the Japanese cyclotron at Kyoto University and other equipment that could be used to produce atomic weapons. That didn’t mean that the occupied state of Japan ceased to exist. link to books.google.com
Palestinian Authority police officers opened fire on three cars of Israelis who had attempted to break through a Palestinian checkpoint, killing Ben-Joseph Livnat, the nephew of Culture Minister Limor Livnat and wounding two others. The government of Israel investigated and formally complained about the incident, but that didn’t alter the fact that the PA does exercise its own limited jurisdiction.
No, it means that state had no sovereignty and was de facto and de iure governed by the US military occupation. Which is precisely what was the case at that point.
Come one, Hostage. Can you really be that blind to the content of your own analogies?
No, it means that state had no sovereignty and was de facto and de iure governed by the US military occupation. Which is precisely what was the case at that point.
Come one, Hostage. Can you really be that blind to the content of your own analogies?
Clarification: Any state, even an occupied one, still has the inherent right to exercise universal jurisdiction over the most serious crimes without regard to statutory limitations. In cases where it is unable to prosecute the responsible individuals it can transfer its jurisdiction to another court.
Israel itself prosecuted people for crimes committed in other countries, long before it ever came into existence. The cases all involved perpetrators and victims who were nationals of foreign states.
One of the things that actually triggers the complementary jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court is the inability of an occupied state to prosecute those responsible for war crimes committed in the occupied territory. Article 17(3) explains:
– link to untreaty.un.org
I just assumed that I met the necessary entry level requirements for intelligence to post comments here at Mondoweiss (if there are any). The editors at EJIL, Opinio Juris, and other sites dedicated to international law seem to have no trouble grasping the import of these analogies of mine.
No, it isn’t. That’s what “de facto” actually means.
No, it isn’t. That’s what “de facto” actually means.
No but you’ve highlighted the reason that their use was deprecated in the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States back in the 1980s, i.e. no one can ascertain the intended meaning without further explanation. There is no accepted definition that is binding on all of the international community of states.
This a bad sign. But there comes a time when you can’t beat your head bloody against the wall any more.
“Here and there, writers from the region who used to favor us with their ideas and articles are now begging off, undoubtedly deterred by the revolutionary rise of intolerant political forces in their countries or neighborhood.”
I assume he is referring to the revolts and tensions in the Arab world as well as the worsening of Israel.
Just remember, as I believe Hostage told us: Once there is one state, what happens in Israel is no body’s business but Israel’s. It’s an internal matter. Once there is one-state, what keeps the Israelis from doing whatever they want? It’s a matter of “internal security”. Can anybody give me any reassurance on this? What am I missing?
Once there is one-state, what keeps the Israelis from doing whatever they want?
Does anything stop them now? In reality, not in theory?
Once there is one state, what happens in Israel is no body’s business but Israel’s.
That’s one of those special Israel rules, right? Because the US seemed to have no trouble meddling violently in the internal affairs of Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Libya, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Panama, Yugoslavia and innumerable other countries. And we meddled with sanctions in South Africa, Iraq and Iran because of their internal affairs as well.
I don’t know if any of that is reassuring to you, but, again, if we go by past practice, the US excels in meddling in other countries internal affairs.
Once there is one state, what happens in Israel is no body’s business but Israel’s. That’s one of those special Israel rules, right?
Yep it was written into Article 2 of the UN Charter. The US invokes it all the time in support of its behavior and the behavior of Israel towards those pesky “terrorists”, “insurgents”, or other groups that threaten the domestic security of the governments the US chooses to recognize and support.
Thanks, Hostage. Anotherwords, without the most stringent outside supervision, amounting frankly, to an occupation of Israel by a conquering power, one-state is just permission for the Israelis to do whatever they want to the Palestinians, with no outside interference.
And this is the big thing Phil (and so many others) agonised over for how many years before they finally decided it was allright. And then with one-state you get rights, but nobody ever explains, or faces up to the process it will take to secure and ensure those rights. Ridiculous.
Mooser and Hostage,
South African apartheid was an internal affair, and yet the international community was able to invoke sanctions and boycotts against it. The only difference between South Africa and Israel is that the US will not do anything about the apartheid in Israel but this has been the case for the many decades of the fig leaf of of “two states”. Its not the number of states that will determine whether the US will support equality in Israel/Palestine.
Realistically, no one was facing up to the process that it takes to secure Palestinian rights for the past 60 years. So why the concern about the process now? When the process has completely failed under the two state rubrik why so concerned about the process under one, as if it is any different?
“South African apartheid was an internal affair, and yet the international community was able to invoke sanctions and boycotts against it.”
South African Apartheid, as distasteful and offensive as it is to us, is not ethnic cleasing, and it wasn’t meant to be genocide. And by now, it’s pretty easy to see, getting rid of the Palestinians has become a political, psychological, a freakin’ religious necessity to the Israelis. They think the benefits of doing it (‘security’ ‘freedom from an existential danger’ and god alone knows what internal demons are driving them) outweigh any of the drawbacks in bad publicity. In fact, I would not be surprised if the Zionists think they are doing the world a service by getting rid of them, a service for which (if the world wasn’t so anti-semitic) the entire world would honor and reward them.
South African apartheid was an internal affair, and yet the international community was able to invoke sanctions and boycotts against it.
Correct. The General Assembly declared apartheid a crime against humanity. Those clever White South Africans escaped the jurisdiction of the ICC by ending their regime just as the Rome Statute was being adopted. It can’t be used to prosecute crimes committed before July of 2002.
It took decades after the General Assembly declaration on the crime of apartheid before the Assembly eventually dragged the Security Council into the fray. The UN finally adopted some sanctions, but they would have done nothing without the efforts of the Congressional Black Caucus to enact enabling legislation here in the US. Even then, the UN and US did not dictate the terms of the “final political settlement”; require that compensation be paid to anyone; demand that refugees be repatriated; or that an international criminal tribunal for the former Union of South Africa be established. All of those details and decisions were left up to South Africans because they fell within the domestic jurisdiction of South Africa. That sort of thing probably couldn’t happen again today, but there is no guarantee that the details wouldn’t be left up to the government of Israel.
When the former President of Liberia, Charles Taylor stepped down, he thought he had an amnesty agreement or that he could live somewhere in in exile in relative safety. Gaddafi and Assad learned from his mistakes. They had no incentive to step down, because they knew that the UN Tribunals and the ICC no longer recognize immunity of heads of state or amnesty agreements.
I wonder if F.W. De Klerk would have stepped down if he knew that he would face prosecution in an international court instead of a symbolic slap on the wrist from his own domestic Truth and Reconciliation Commission? link to nelsonmandela.org
”Once there is one state, what happens in Israel is no body’s business but Israel’s. It’s an internal matter. Once there is one-state, what keeps the Israelis from doing whatever they want? It’s a matter of “internal security”. Can anybody give me any reassurance on this? What am I missing”..Mooser
There are all kinds of under the radar ways to get rid of the Palestines in a One State arrangement……unofficial discrimination, no jobs, no housing ,etc…….some would leave to find a livelihood, just like Mexicans cross our border to find a livelihood. According to the UN poverty comes ahead oppression or war as the major cause of migrating populations.
But in any case, Israel, by every indication, has absolutely no interest in a one state arrangement, and is taking every and all steps in the direction of *separation*. That’s the ruling ideology and actual policy.
when that pendulum comes a swingin’ back it’s gonna knock a whole lot o zionism down
Why, donors ask, should we continue to [...] fight the Israeli right-wing campaign against European and American state funding and the Palestinian campaign against “normalization”?
Yeah, because those two campaigns are equally worth fighting, right? Are you fncking kidding me?!
No wonder they’re shutting down the project — smothered by their own irrelevancy.
The frozen peas process is dead! Long live the frozen peas process!
Dr. Bill Black wrote a powerful article on neweconomicperspectives.org called
“Why is Paul Ryan, an Irish Catholic, praising the dogmas that drove the Great Hunger?”
link to neweconomicperspectives.org
It’s the story of how the British treated occupied Ireland over 150 years ago, how they starved them, and the deep contempt the Brits felt toward their wards and the fact that they were poor (a result of the starvation and British policies to indenture them). How they engineered to make life as miserable as possible, hoping to drive them out.
It’s a devastating read on history.
Why I mention it here is because it’s a mirror of all the arguments I hear from Israelis and right-wing American Jews, and hasbarists here on MW, about Palestinians (and Arabs). You can read it without a shred of the I/P issue being mentioned. A MW commenter is left with the parallels.
If you want a real insight to the colonial mind, read the article. When you’re finished–if you can finish it–substitute Israelis and Palestinians for the British and Irish.
[Of course, the Brits thought the same of the East Indians, the Canadians, and Australians, but the latter two were merely lesser people who served their concept of Empire.]
Thanks for the link.
“Why is Paul Ryan, an Irish Catholic, praising the dogmas that drove the Great Hunger?”
The thing about it which is so funny about it (if you have a twisted or perverted sense of humor is this: If all the people who would actually benefit from those policies voted for them, and those that would be hurt voted against them (I’m talking about as they relate to the US economy) they would be defeated by a landslide. But the number of Americans who will vote directly and obviously against their own interests because it allows them to reason (they think) like a rich person (‘free market, son!’ ‘I’m going to be rich when my Internet marketing company takes off’ ‘I’m not giving my hard earned wealth to lazy good-for-nothings’ “if they’re poor it’s because they don’t work’ ‘real estate always goes up’) means you can watch Americans assuming a very funny position, kicking themselves in the ass while stabbing themselves in the back.
The Globe and Mail in Canada has a piece today on a new documentary by Philip Roth (the filmmaker, not the writer) which looks at Israel and is entitled ‘Confessions of a self-hating Jew’.
“By the film’s end, Roth finds himself advocating for a version of the controversial one-state solution, in which Israelis and Palestinians would live in the same country; one-person, one-vote.”
link to theglobeandmail.com
Bitterlemons is just the start. Many of the post Oslo capacity building NGOs working on the assumption that the Israelis would allow a Palestinian state will give up.
Apartheid is the reality but when it is revealed to Galut in its full glory there will be no speech by Michael Oren to make it all better for the bots.
One thing they never thought about is that it is very bad to expose your country as worse than Apartheid South Africa in the middle of an economic meltdown where understanding and tolerance are in very short supply.
Bitterlemons is just the start. Many of the post Oslo capacity building NGOs working on the assumption that the Israelis would allow a Palestinian state will give up.
I quit reading Bitterlemons back in 2002. It was running editorials and interviews then that claimed it was too late for the two state solution and that the PA should adopt a South African-style anti-apartheid campaign.
The PA had been pursuing a South Africa-Namibia style anti-occupation, decolonization, and anti-apartheid campaign all along. That was especially true once it filed the draft resolution in 2003 asking for the advisory opinion in the Wall case. The PA’s written submission was based on allegations of apartheid and the same legal test regarding the UN Charter and self-determination of peoples developed by the ICJ in the Namibia case. The only problem with that approach was that it ended in a two state solution. Prominent activists prefer a one state solution to equal rights and free transit under a two state solution.
All of the really pertinent international laws that activists keep shreying about are the rules that govern the mutual relations between states. Trouble is, those laws have little or no applicability to the activists proposals for a one state solution which comes-off as something of a non-sequitur.
When the PA finally started taking the necessary steps to enforce those existing international laws by applying for membership in international organizations as a State, rather than a liberation movement or Israeli-run municipal government, the people who had signed a “one state manifesto” came out of the woodwork and started biting every ankle in sight.
The activists like to say that talk about “negotiations” are pointless. But their talk about a “final settlement” is just as ridiculous. There have been several provisional settlements put into place since the end of WWI, and there will more than likely be several more put in place in the years to come. Anyone who tells us that its too late to withdraw the IDF from the vicinity of the West Bank and Gaza and establish a Palestinian jurisdiction over the Arab and Jewish inhabitants living there, pending a final settlement, has still got quite a bit of explaining to do.
How would a “final settlement” come about except via negotiations? Just curious….
Another compelling post, Hostage.
Btw, I noticed you use the word “shreying” quite often. It’s quite uncommon. I like it though!
“How would a “final settlement” come about except via negotiations?”
There’s a difference between negotiations in good faith, and those that the israelis propose (whereby they make long lists of preconditions but don’t permit the Palestinians to do the same, and where they have no intention of reaching a just settlement.)
Agreed. But even in “good faith” negotiations, can you see Israel ever negotiating away ALL the foundational elements of the Zionist state, giving up the entire ball of wax rather than just a portion of it, to agree to the creation of a single state based on completely equal rights, a state where they know that Jews will be or become a minority?
how do you know they would become a minority? with the growth rate of the fundies..a minority of seculars perhaps but that already exists.
How would a “final settlement” come about except via negotiations? Just curious….
I’ve noted before that this is the only case I’ve ever heard of in which it is claimed that the final status of territory can only be established through negotiations conducted at gunpoint during an occupation. The international community of States stopped doing that sort of thing after WWII. Just read Articles 7, 8, & 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention or article 52 & 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Any agreement concluded under the current circumstances would automatically be rendered null and void.
Neither the treaty with Egypt nor the treaty with Jordan settled the underlying boundary disputes or refugee questions. The location of the border with Egypt was finally settled through binding international arbitration. link to untreaty.un.org
The Security Council imposed a boundary settlement on Iraq and Kuwait based upon an earlier memorandum of agreement between the two states.
The Security Council held that the parties were still bound by the terms of their acceptance. See E. Lauterpacht, et al “The Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents”, The Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters, 4 October 1963.
The notion that a settlement can’t be imposed on Israel based on the UN armistice agreements is utter nonsense. Those agreements were concluded under the auspices of legally binding Chapter VII Security Council resolutions 54, 62, and 73. At the time, Israel argued that those decisions weren’t even subject to judicial review by the ICJ. See pdf page 11 of the verbatim minutes of the 340th session of the Security Council. link to un.org
Ordinarily when countries dispute the legal status of territories or boundaries they submit the matter to international arbitration or adjudication. There’s no reason to watch an idiot like Danny Ayalon making legal arguments in a propaganda video, when we all know that he would never dream of presenting those specious arguments to a Court. If not, why doesn’t the government of Israel provide that evidence to the Judges and let them decide the case on the basis of the merits.
Here are a few of the boundary cases that have been submitted to the Courts since Palestine declared its independence in 1988:
*Eritrea/Yemen boundary dispute at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. link to pca-cpa.org
*Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
link to pca-cpa.org
*Guyana v. Suriname boundary link to pca-cpa.org
*Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago economic zone/continental shelf link to pca-cpa.org
*The Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger) link to icj-cij.org
*Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) link to icj-cij.org
*Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)
link to icj-cij.org
*Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) link to icj-cij.org
*Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) link to icj-cij.org
*Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) link to icj-cij.org
*Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) link to icj-cij.org
*Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) link to icj-cij.org
*Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) link to icj-cij.org
*Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) link to icj-cij.org
*Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) link to icj-cij.org
*Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad) link to icj-cij.org
*Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) link to icj-cij.org
If there were a single state with equal rights (right of return included, of course) covering Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel, how do you see the demographics going in terms of Jewish majority status (secular or not)?
How do you think Jewish Israelis perceive the demographic possibilities in such a state?
In any case, that point was not central to my argument.
When I wrote “final settlement” I was referring to the final settlement promoted by many activists–a 1SS.
Do you think a single-state solution, forcing the end of the Zionist state and creating a single democratic state, could be imposed on Israel based on UN armistice agreements–not just theoretically, but practically, and in the near-medium term?
Annie, why can’t a minority (Zionist Jews in Palestine) who are united in purpose, disciplined and united in ideology, in possession of most of the resources, and willing to stop at nothing, with all the tools of violence and people to wield them dominate a group slightly larger, or even quite a bit larger than itself?
Because, Mooser, they have one fundamental weakness. They like their bling and they need to trade with the world to pay for it.
Do you think a single-state solution, forcing the end of the Zionist state and creating a single democratic state, could be imposed on Israel based on UN armistice agreements–not just theoretically, but practically, and in the near-medium term?
There’s no basis for a single state solution in the terms of the armistice agreements. If there had been, Israel would never have signed or accepted them.
Do any of a Palestinian State’s remedies through international courts or through membership in the UN require further actions by the Security Council? Specifically, is it possible for Palestinians to be able to obtain enforcement of previous UN rulings without the US or Israel being able to thwart them? (Also, is it possible to revoke Israel’s membership in the UN because of its failure to comply for over 60 years with agreements it made in order to obtain membership?)
Mooser says:
Annie, why can’t a minority (Zionist Jews in Palestine) who are united in purpose, disciplined and united in ideology, in possession of most of the resources, and willing to stop at nothing, with all the tools of violence and people to wield them dominate a group slightly larger, or even quite a bit larger than itself?”"
They can…..that kind of dominance has been going on since time began….Kings and subjects, Lords and serfs, masters and slaves, on and on.
And furthermore political and military powers don’t give up their power voluntarily.
It has to be taken from them by hook, crook, trickery, a bigger force or whatever.
This is a potential weakness, not a fundamental weakness.
More importantly, there should be nothing magical about a majority. Oppressing a minority should be frowned upon too.
Do any of a Palestinian State’s remedies through international courts or through membership in the UN require further actions by the Security Council?
No not at all. The PA is obviously being put under great duress, or it could have already deposited accessions to the two Vienna Conventions and then the Rome Statute of the ICC. The Secretary General would be under a binding treaty obligation to officially accept them and notify the other members about the new state party.
is it possible for Palestinians to be able to obtain enforcement of previous UN rulings without the US or Israel being able to thwart them?
The ICC is not a UN organ. So it can prosecute Israeli officials like IDF Commanders, Regional Council members, and Jerusalem City officials for crimes committed in on the territory of Palestine, including East Jerusalem since July of 2002. The observer State of Palestine would be able to become a party to the ICJ Statute, but that Court relies on the Security Council or the High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions for enforcement of its decisions.
is it possible to revoke Israel’s membership in the UN because of its failure to comply for over 60 years with agreements it made in order to obtain membership?
There are several possible answers to that situation.
1) Decisions on membership require the recommendation of the Security Council before the General Assembly can adopt a binding decision.*
*Note that many members have taken the position that membership is a procedural matter that is not subject to a veto, and that only nine votes are required in accordance with Article 27(2) of the UN Charter. link to yale.edu
2) Several of the Security Council resolutions call on the member states not to recognize or assist Israel in the illegal situations that the government of Israel has created. Under similar circumstances, the General Assembly Credentials Committee refused to accept the validity of the credentials of the representatives of the Union of South Africa. As a consequence, they could not vote or participate in the business of the United Nations.
Now you’re just being disingenuous.
Be honest now: Have you sold your account to Richard Witty? Which means “Are you Richard Witty?” I guess…
The PA had been pursuing a South Africa-Namibia style anti-occupation . . . Now you’re just being disingenuous.
The best evidence that you are mistaken would be the parallels cited in the 2003 written statement that Palestine submitted to the ICJ in the Wall case. It’s line of argumentation was grounded in similar UN resolutions that had been adopted over the decades on self-determination, decolonization, and occupation (more below). It cited 15 or more principles of international law and the fact that they were grounded in the Namibia (South West Africa) case. It argued that case was one of the controlling authorities on the illegality of continued occupation, colonization, and apartheid in the Palestinian territory. Chapter 10 concentrated on the parallels between the Israeli occupation regime policy of Bantustanization and the Court’s definition of apartheid and the legal tests it had employed in the earlier Namibia case. link to icj-cij.org
The PLO and SWAPO (Namibia) both pursued agendas to end military occupation, colonization, and the associated racist regimes. They were both invited to participate in the business of the United Nations as national liberation movements at the same time and were formally recognized as the sole representatives of their peoples by the UN Organization. They frequently co-sponsored draft resolutions on occupation, decolonization, and permanent sovereignty of indigenous peoples over territory and resources. The Oslo framework called for the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 within five years. The international consensus at the time was that both 242 and the applicable international law required Israel to withdraw its armed forces from the the bulk of the territories occupied during the 1967 war – and that no alterations to the boundaries could be made without the consent of the Palestinian people.
establish a Palestinian jurisdiction over the Arab and Jewish inhabitants living there . . . Be honest now: Have you sold your account to Richard Witty? Which means “Are you Richard Witty?” I guess…
If the United Nations upgrades the status of Palestine to that of an observer state this fall, it will have the necessary jurisdiction to refer some of the crimes committed by the Jewish inhabitants on its territory to the ICC. That would definitely apply to the officials of the Gush Etzion, Har Hebron, Bik’at HaYarden, Mateh Binyamin, Megilot, and Shomron Regional Councils. I’ll go out on a limb and guess Richard Witty wouldn’t use my account to suggest that.
/Palestinian intellectuals are growing increasingly resentful of normalization efforts/
Not interested in normalization
but
Are interested in sharing the same imagined political entity
Actually, despite many claims here at MW, many (most?) Palestinian intellectuals are NOT “interested in sharing the same imagined political entity.”
Sibiriak said
/Actually, despite many claims here at MW, many (most?) Palestinian intellectuals are NOT “interested in sharing the same imagined political entity.”/
Well yes that is my point exactly.
And people ignore it completely
In another thread, I quoted Philip Weiss:
if the overwhelming number of Palestinian organizations backing the BDS agreed on a 2SS, why wasn’t that agreement reflected in the BDS statements
1. Because “overwhelming” is not the same as “all”.
2. Because BDS is a rights- rather than solution-based aproach.
Huh? You are demanding absolute unanimity? When is that ever possible? Why should overwhelming Palestinian support for a 2SS –expressing a right to self-determination of the Palestinian people–be swept under the table?
And that just begs the question: why weren’t Palestinian and Israeli rights to statehood affirmed? Besides, how in the real world can rights be realized without any solutions ?
The disingenuousness of this “approach” is clear.
You are demanding absolute unanimity?
I’m not demanding anything, but the Palestinians managed to build a wall-to-wall coalition around certain principles. Why would they want to include a divisive assertion (and an extraneous one at that) likely to jeopardise such unity? Furthermore, a statement merely supporting a 2ss would be meaningless without explaining what kind of 2ss (as opposed to basic principles that could be applied to any number of political solutions) – a recipe for further disunity.
why weren’t Palestinian and Israeli rights to statehood affirmed?
Israeli rights to statehood? This is a Palestinian movement asserting Palestinian rights (reminder: the ones being violated currently and for the past 64 odd years). Why would Palestinians call for a boycott of Israel to affirm Israeli rights?
Besides, how in the real world can rights be realized without any solutions ?
Israel can lift the siege on Gaza, stop house demolitions, settlement construction, torture, discrimination, etc. – entirely or to a significant degree – without ever implementing a political solution – and any political “solution” (1, 2, 5 or 100 states) that does not adequately address these issues will be no solution at all. That is the meaning of a “rights-based” approach. It calls for an immediate end to human rights violations, and provides the basic principles that must be respected by any future political solution.
What is disingenuous is to expect Palestinian resistance to Israeli oppression to adopt the 2s “peace” mantra that has only served to perpetuate their oppression (see the introduction to the Unified Call).
2. Because BDS is a rights- rather than solution-based aproach.
Then there’s no harm in endorsing the right of the majority to decide their own political status, via the right of self-determination, right now.
Then there’s no harm in endorsing the right of the majority to decide their own political status, via the right of self-determination, right now.
None whatsoever. There’s also no harm in a minority opposing or questioning the wisdom of such a move.
None whatsoever. There’s also no harm in a minority opposing or questioning the wisdom of such a move.
Let’s qualify that. If you live in Chicago, New York, & etc., and make your living off of speakers fees, then I didn’t have you in mind when I was talking about the right of self-determination.
Let’s qualify that. If you live in Chicago, New York, & etc., and make your living off of speakers fees, then I didn’t have you in mind when I was talking about the right of self-determination.
Cheap shot.
Cheap shot.
No it’s not. I had a number of people on both sides in mind. People with half a brain have questioned the motives of wealthy Zionists from day one, especially those who insist on controlling the lives of Palestinians although they personally have no intention of actually living there. The same still applies to the undemocratic, international “Israeli” parastatal organs, such as the JNF or WZO Settlement division that exercise extraterritorial control of national planning and land use policy, but don’t answer to the Palestinian voters directly or indirectly:
– link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
Norman Finkelstein, speaking in Yoav Shamir’s film “Defamation”, may have had “The Friends of the IDF” and the “Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations” in mind when he said:
The same principle applies to Palestinians who don’t answer to the victims of the conflict. I question the value of calling a bunch of unelected ex-patriots and organizations “the leadership” of either side in an armed conflict, when many don’t even maintain a mailing address in Palestine and have no intention of ever consulting the wishes of the the victims or of actually living there themselves. That goes double for so-called “civil society organizations” headquartered in other countries that help prolong the armed conflict on account of unresolved mundane issues, like compensation for lost property. In my mind, it’s immoral to place a higher premium on property than on innocent human life.
Well yes that is my point exactly.
Not really. Your point is to deny those Palestinian intellectuals the right to either exercise self-determination over a portion of that imagined space or to participate in the polity of the government that occupies and controls the use of their territory.
“Well yes that is my point exactly.
And people ignore it completely”
No, it’s a good point, OlegR. Under those conditions, with the Palestinians not willing to share, your only choice is to leave as soon as you lack the power to control the situation. Let’s hope that happens soon. You’ll be able to go home and watch Pussy Riot live!
“No, it’s a good point, OlegR. Under those conditions, with the Palestinians not willing to share, your only choice is to leave as soon as you lack the power to control the situation. Let’s hope that happens soon. You’ll be able to go home and watch Pussy Riot live!”
LOL.
Why, again?
From the perspective of a one-stater, “normalization” with Israelis who basically support Israel as a Jewish state would be equivalent to the ANC accepting white members who basically support Apartheid.
Normalization is based around the lie that one can be both “pro-Israel” and support Palestinians’ rights. In the real world, rather than the dream world of those who think the 2SS is just around the corner and all it takes is “dialogue” and “discussion”, one cannot.
Dialogue groups have always been deeply problematic; not least because they are often enthusiastically supported by ‘liberal Zionists’ and ‘moderates.’
From an Israeli point of view they are perfect – they use a lot of Palestinian time and energy, they implicitly support the “each side is as bad as the other” idea, and they have no impact on the ground.
Anyone who wishes to support the Palestinian cause is well advised to ignore dialogue groups.
Exactly. Plus, they present a fig leaf for Israeli oppression: “See, we’re having a discussion! See, we’re such a democratic society! See, we have a peace movement!” None of this changes anything, but it makes useful propaganda material for those who would never touch any dialogue group with a 10-foot pole.
Talking to Israelis in their capacity as Israelis is generally speaking worthless. There needs to be more talking about Israel instead.
Exactly Steve…and those dialogue groups are one of the corner stones to the so-called two-state solution.
Steve Macklevore,
Excellent point.
These dialogue groups are INTENTIONAL time-wasters.
There is no Israeli Left. There is no Jewish Left. There is only a FRINGE of true Jewish and Israeli progressives/liberals worth talking to and THOSE individuals have ZERO clout in the immediate future. Hence, while dialogue with them is important and should be maintained – dialogue IN AND OF ITSELF and for the principle of dialogue, should be discontinued.
It is a time-wasting strategy by Zionists because Israel is CONSTANTLY building facts-on-the-ground and expanding it’s military/PR slash Orwellian/economic/authoritarian arsenal. The war is never-ending, even during the lulls. Even during a period of ‘dialogue’.
This is not a conflict between equal parties with equal claims and equal rights and equal moral outrages.
This is a conflict between a European colonial entity that STOLE a country from the indigenous population. There was a fraction Jewish population that was continuous in Palestine and only in a FRACTION of Palestine. There was a majority Arab/Muslim/Christian/Bedouin population in Palestine in most of Palestine relatively speaking.
The only way a Jewish State could come into being such as it is and such as it NEEDED TO BE, as envisioned by the Zionists (and REAFFIRMED BY FUTURE ZIONISTS like Abba Eban), was to EXPEL THE INDIGENOUS Palestinian Arabs.
Hence, this is a relationship between master and slave. Occupier and occupied. It doesn’t matter whether Palestinians blew up Israelis in the 90s or hijacked planes in the 70s because all of that violence was within the context of the conflict and did not exist outside of history. It is drummed up as exotic violence. Unique violence.
Whereas the far more numerous acts of violence and far more devastating acts of violence and far more systematic acts of violence, as well the psychological, emotional, cultural and philosophical ramifications for such violence perpetrated by the Israelis upon the Palestinians goes unnoticed, trivialized, normalized, or praised.
Israelis kill 10 times more Palestinian children and 5 times more Palestinians in general. That was before the Gaza massacre of 2008.
The crimes are ongoing and the colonialism is ongoing. The theft of Palestine is ongoing.
Dialogue is a f***in waste of time. BDS and countering Zionist propaganda, BRAND Israel, and continuing to build support for the Palestinian cause to counter Zionist FASCISTS in our country is what the goal should be.
These people are on Mondoweiss (hoppy, fredblogs, et. al) justifying all sorts of horrible crimes and even crimes against American citizens for the sake of the Jewish State. If it were any other country, they’d be called out publicly for the fifth column traitors that they are. However, because they are especially spineless, they USE the history of Jewish suffering as a HUMAN SHIELD to mask their political agenda and prey upon the consciences of good decent people out there (non-Jewish and Jewish alike) with Zionist political/emotional blackmail.
It’s 2012, time to wise up and realize there’s no such thing as a ‘liberal Zionist’ (for the most part; there are good people like Jerry Slater who are Zionists but they would be considered anti-Zionists by the mainstream so behold the self-cannibalizing) and forget all this pretentious gush about ‘dialogue’.
“These people are on Mondoweiss (hoppy, fredblogs, et. al) justifying all sorts of horrible crimes and even crimes against American citizens for the sake of the Jewish State.”
But, but, aren’t they necessary in the comment section so people can hear both sides? I mean, how would anybody know what the Zionist position, as explicated by a couple of know-nothing self-appointed sociopaths, is? I mean it’s not as if this is a private enterprise, and can reject any material which doesn’t suit it.
Excellent point. These dialogue groups are INTENTIONAL time-wasters.
Some of us here have been saying all along that there will be annual Apartheid Weeks and Palestinian Solidarity Days from now on, unless these legal arguments get presented where they might do some good and result in a decision from the ICC or ICJ.
I serious doubt that blogs prevent any key decision makers from taking action or that they’ll save the day and resolve the I-P conflict. They can present information or ideas that might otherwise never see the light of day in other media sources.
One of the many flaws of Oslo was its tying the concept of 2 states to the “peace process” among negotiators and to “dialogue” among Palestinians and Israeli Jews in I/P and among their supporters internationally. Just because those who support Palestinian rights have seen through the “piece process” and gotten tired of their time being wasted in dialogue groups, doesn’t mean that the 2-state option has to be rejected. If the PA can secure their rights as a state through the UN and international courts, it will not matter what Israelis are willing to “give” in negotiations. But those rights of Palestinian statehood are only effective if the international community is willing to enforce them.
But those rights of Palestinian statehood are only effective if the international community is willing to enforce them.
Of course, and I’ve pointed out that the 2005 BDS call to action appealed to individuals to pressure their governments to apply sanctions against the Israelis responsible for the illegal acts and discrimination identified in the ICJ advisory opinion. Ironically, you’re more likely to be attacked by the Palestinian Solidarity activists than the Zionists when you advocate pursuing that line of action.
I have asked one of the prominent spokespeople for BDS specifically about the “S” in BDS. When I did not receive a satisfactory answer, I assumed it was because he was not a lawyer. I have heard other Palestinian American activists who are lawyers, especially those familiar with International Law, speak about the range of legal and political remedies with more nuance.
I have heard other Palestinian American activists who are lawyers, especially those familiar with International Law, speak about the range of legal and political remedies with more nuance.
For years the Palestinian experts on international law have complained about 1) the lack of institutions for compulsory enforcement; and 2) the fact that foreign Courts treated Palestinians as stateless persons; and 3) the illegal regime of occupation, settlements, and apartheid.
There obviously is a Court nowadays, the ICC, that can address denial of a nationality, illegal settlements, and the crime of apartheid committed against the inhabitants and refugees from the occupied territory of the State of Palestine.
The rights of refugees from Israel and its inhabitants are a separate matter for legal purposes, but they were covered by a formal minority protection plan. Most people are simply not aware of the fact that the international community conditioned cessions of territory and recognition of the new government’s jurisdiction on its willingness to accept a treaty guaranteeing the rights of minorities living in the territory. This was not subject to negotiation or any reservations. The legal undertaking could be acknowledged in one of these unilateral declarations on minority rights. The international courts considered them tantamount to a treaty. In fact, the plan contained in resolution 181(II) was included in a catalog of minority treaties and instruments published by the Secretary General in 1950. — E/CN.4/367, Date: 7 April 1950 (see Chapter III The United Nations Charter And The Treaties Concluded After The War, resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, “The Future Government of Palestine”, pages 22-23)
The plan prohibited any form of discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religion, or sex. It protected the Holy sites and communal property. It only permitted the government to expropriate private property for an essential public use. It required that compensation be paid prior to any expropriation. So the ability to enact laws that discriminate against the return of Arabs while facilitating the return Jews violates Israel’s agreement. The plan contained a compromissory clause that requires the parties to submit their disputes the ICJ for resolution.
I believe that the last Palestinian expert on international law who mentioned the minority rights agreement contained in resolution 181(II) and Israel’s promise to waive enforcement of its domestic jurisdiction was the late Henry Cattan. He noted that Israel’s original application for membership had been rejected because the questions of boundaries, refugees and the status of Jerusalem had not been settled. When it subsequently applied for membership:
–See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 link to books.google.com
I’ve noted elsewhere that the experts in the UN subsidiary organ created to look after the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people have determined that Israel has a continuing legal obligation toward the refugees and its citizens in accordance with the terms of of those same two resolutions.
P.S. When a state violates its formal agreements with the UN and there is an obligation to arbitrate or refer the matter to the ICJ, it’s inappropriate to spend decades talking about negotiations.
It’s even more absurd when Israel wastes everyone’s time trying to circumvent its obligation to compensate refugees by introducing resolutions or legislation in the U.S. Congress.
Palestine, the Arab state, could invoke the compromissory clause for an ICJ judgment on the basis that Israel has not fulfilled its obligations and has denied Palestinians who were inhabitants of the territory of the proposed Arab state their rights under the agreement. The General Assembly could invoke it because Israel has altered the rights of the refugees and inhabitants of the proposed Jewish state without the assent of the General Assembly and because of its flagrant violation of UN resolutions that proposed remedies and compensation for the illegal situations created by Israel.
No need to wonder about why Palestinians have been driven to violence at times.
At this stage talking about a 2SS is equal with discussing how to hatch and egg after it fell and spread all over the floor. Not possible anymore.
That leaves one state, one citizenship, majority rule and the departation, or deportation, of all settlers from the WB.
That means war, because the zionist never relinquish their power and the settlers will certainly fight it out. Only an outside power could impose a peaceful change, that means the USA, however I do not see such action by our government.
“Only an outside power could impose a peaceful change”
Theo, the Israelis have tanks, airplanes, heavy weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons. Why on earth would they meekly sit still to be dominated by an outside power? They can simply announce that any intrusion by an outside power is an act of war, and they are defending their homeland. And, they have a couple million Palestinian hostages.
Mooser
There is a more powerful way to force Israel, economic isolation, and all those weapons you mentioned are useless against such action.
The US could declare a total embargo on Israel, economic, financial, military and diplomatic. If all nations in the west join the action, in addition others who depend on the friendship of the US, they could suffocate that tiny land within six months, without firering a shot.
I am aware of the fact that embargoes never worked, but only because most nations were against it. We embargo a land, but Russia, China, Germany and many other countries will do a very lucrative business with them. However, Israel has no real important friends outside the USA and if we say no, others will follow. Everything depends on Washington and I know this idea has as much chance as the proverbal snowball in hell.
I’ve read through this thread, and it seems like those who support “two-states” keep missing the point: this conflict is not about a “state” it is about “justice.” . . . The conflict did not begin in 1967 as many want to believe, it began in 1948 (and before);
“Justice” under the current international order doesn’t just flow downhill like water. It’s based upon a certain type of “righteousness” that can only be safely guaranteed through statehood.
The big flaw in your argument is that both the UN partition plan and the program of the BDS movement were inherently rights based from the outset regardless of the number of states involved. The inhabitants of the Corpus Separatum, the proposed Jewish State, and the proposed Arab State were supposed to enjoy the very same constitutionally guaranteed political, civil, and religious freedoms – and rights of transit to the Holy sites – without any discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity, or religion. That’s still a basic legal requirement, regardless of the number of states anyone personally prefers.
And all of this talk about the uncertainty of what one-state would look like is an excuse. We know exactly what it looks like because we have it now: apartheid (the known unknown). We are fighting against it now. But what makes apartheid more difficult to combat are the nagging two-staters who are inevitably there to whisper: “but wait, we don’t want to lose the opportunity for the two state solution.”
Statehood is just a legal status that the majority of UN members states have already conferred on the Occupied Palestinian territories of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The bid for upgraded status in the UN and participation in the ICC, WTO, WIPO, & etc. provide the means for Palestinians to exercise their rights, including the right of a victim state to file a formal criminal complaint about the crime of apartheid.
The written submissions, oral arguments, and findings of fact in the 2004 ICJ Wall case established that the State of Israel had setup illegal barriers and an illegal administrative regime that satisfied the elements of the crime of apartheid.
So why do some still believe they are willing to roll back that process? Why do some believe Israel is now willing to completely remove itself from East Jerusalem, which it formally annexed in 30 + years ago? Who are we kidding?
East Jerusalem was specifically included in the scope of the question referred to the International Court of Justice and in its detailed findings of fact. I can’t imagine why your argument would convince the Mayor of Jerusalem or the heads of the Regional Councils of Gush Etzion, Har Hebron, Bik’at HaYarden, Mateh Binyamin, Megilot, and Shomron to abandon the status quo policies of Bantustanization through creeping expropriation or “natural growth. But I can envision that happening in response to the Palestinians demanding that the ICC prosecute the Israeli state officials responsible for the grave breaches of international law identified in the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion; the findings and declarations of UN and Red Cross treaty bodies; fact finding reports from recognized independent experts on mission for the UN; and other intergovernmental organizations.
It would be extremely difficult for Israeli officials to dodge arrest warrants and find ways to transfer funds for the operation of the settlement enterprise, once it is treated like any other criminal conspiracy by a team of international and member state prosecutors.
If support for that assertion was *overwhelming*, why would its inclusion be divisive?
1) You conveniently left out my question about *Palestinian* rights to statehood. 2) How can a movement assert one group’s rights without acknowledging the the rights of other affected groups? What other civil or human rights based movement has ever done that?
How is it simply a “mantra” if the overwhelming number of Palestinian organizations that endorsed the BDS support it? How does their overwhelming support for a 2SS have anything to do with my or anyone else’s expectations?
I’ve read through this thread, and it seems like those who support “two-states” keep missing the point: this conflict is not about a “state” it is about “justice.”
The conflict did not begin in 1967 as many want to believe, it began in 1948 (and before); if the roots of the conflict, i.e. the issues created in 1948, are not resolved, then there will neither be peace in a one state nor a two state situation. So we need to be realistic here…
I think Palestinian opinion supporting two states is a thing of the past, and I believe the only reason it was supported to begin with was because at the time of Oslo, they truly believed that is the best they could do — the logic was, it is better to have a small piece of the pie than nothing at all. Even intellectuals like Edward Said bought into this idea, but just as Said soon realized that the Oslo/two-state framework was specifically designed to be all “process” and no “substance,” so too did Palestinians themselves. Thus, the two decades of the post-Oslo years are proving to be the most pivotal in the conflict’s history because it is officially endeding the silly notion of “partition.”
I think Palestinians have always understood you cannot partition the land of historic Palestine, but, again, they really had no choice but to buy in to the idea of Oslo because there was no alternative. The grassroots movement of the first intifada, which could have led to a mass rights-based movement (potentially in conjunction with the movement against South African apartheid), was effectively defused by Oslo. Anyone who believes this is a coincidence is foolish. We all know the Israeli intention from the outset was to prolong the process in order to grab as much land as possible, while pushing Palestinians to the margins (Bantustans).
So why do some still believe they are willing to roll back that process? Why do some believe Israel is now willing to completely remove itself from East Jerusalem, which it formally annexed in 30 + years ago? Who are we kidding? We know what the two-state solution means, and all of this talk about negotiations, land-swaps, a refugee quota system, etc is all smoke and mirrors, designed to prolong the conflict even further.
And all of this talk about the uncertainty of what one-state would look like is an excuse. We know exactly what it looks like because we have it now: apartheid (the known unknown). We are fighting against it now. But what makes apartheid more difficult to combat are the nagging two-staters who are inevitably there to whisper: “but wait, we don’t want to lose the opportunity for the two state solution.”
I find that the majority of those who repeat this message are Jews (both conservative and liberal) because, let’s be honest, these people know they (or their brethren) stole all of the land and now they are in a position to fix a reality that gives them 80+ percent of said land. This is a logical position. I fully understand it, but what they don’t seem to understand is that today, especially after the reality of partition has been exposed, Palestinians will never, ever give up 80+ percent of their rightful land, abandon the refugees, or give up East Jerusalem.
In the 21st century, I would believe that defeating Zionism, the world’s last racist, coloinialist project, would be far easier then forcing 11 million people to give up their rightful struggle for justice, especially after they have endured for 60+ years. So any push for one state would naturally mean the end of the Zionist project. One just needs to look at history to know this is inevitable.
Those who hold on to the fantasy of partition do a huge disservice to the Palestinian struggle, because this is the paradigm that empowers Israel the most. The push for justice centered on human and civil rights is precisely what Israel fears most, because it knows it is powerless against this type of movement. This is what will eradicate Zionism and convince Israeli Jews that co-existence is possible.
Of course they are not willing. They must be pressured into doing it, one way or another.
They are not now willing to do that–but they are even less willing to agree to give up EVERYTHING and live in a single democratic state based on equal individual or group rights. So you’re argument applies even more devastatingly to a 1SS as it does to a 2SS.
They will have to be forced to change. And forcing a 2 state settlement (not a “final solution”, and certainly not a completely just one) is a realistic, though extremely difficult, possibility, while forcing a 1SS is infinitely more difficult, i.e. practically impossible, imho.
Sibiriak,
A one state solution does not mean Israeli Jews will have to give up “everything,” as you put it. It simply means they will have to share everything. The only thing they will have to give up is the racist, colonialist dream that is Zionism, i.e. a “Jewish state.” This anachronistic philosophy is a thing of the 20th century, no longer to be condoned or supported today. This is what outside pressure will inevitably force Israelis to accept.
This idea that a two-state settlement is just the first step towards binationalism is sheer fantasy. We have binationalism NOW; the problem, however, is that one group gets all the rights and the other gets no rights. So the question is not how we give those with limited or no rights a flag and a national anthem, but how we give them full and equal human and civil rights. This is much easier to accomplish working from a framework that acts according to the reality on the ground, not what some snake-oil salesmen politican say two “states” could, possibly, maybe look like.
By “everything” I meant the dream of Zionism, the “Jewish State”.
I think it is more likely that Jewish Israelis could be forced to give up a part of that dream than the whole of that dream.
I don’t think outside pressure can force Jewish Israelis to accept that in the forseeable future. In the very long run, anything is possible.
Right now, even extreme left Israeli Jews can’t be brought to support a 1SS. As Uri Avnery put it:
I personally have no stake whatsoever in Zionism. I’m not from a Jewish family. I wouldn’t care if Judaism or Jewish identity ceased to exist. As an individualist, I prefer democratic states based on individual rights. I live in Siberia, though, as a foreigner.
“A one state solution does not mean Israeli Jews will have to give up “everything,” as you put it. It simply means they will have to share everything.”
So if I steal your car, you’ll make a deal with me that if I bring it back I can have it Mon. thru Fri. and you can have it on the weekends? If I steal your money, all I have to do is give back 10%? Wow, crime does pay!
“but how we give them full and equal human and civil rights.”
You know, I read this excellent blog called Mondoweiss, and it has pretty much convinced me that the Zionists have inculcated deeply in their followers the idea that everything given to a Palestinian (and this includes human and civil rights) must be taken from its rightful owner, a Zionist. How you gonna get past that?
You know what, from what I read on Mondoweiss, I’m convinced that leaving the Palestinians in a Zionist State is simply giving the Zionist permission to murder them as a people. Now if it wasn’t a Zionist State, it might be different. And how do we change Isreal from a Zionist State to not? It must be conquered. Who’s up for the job?
How did you arrive in Siberia? LOL
This idea that a two-state settlement is just the first step towards binationalism is sheer fantasy. We have binationalism NOW; the problem, however, is that one group gets all the rights and the other gets no rights.
The members of the PLO Executive Committee have stated that the UN statehood bid is intended to close the loopholes that Israel has created and exploited in order to prevent Palestinians from pursuing legal remedies on their own behalf in the international courts. That has nothing to do with giving up claims or rights to territory. They’re merely adopting the armistice demarcation lines that were already in force as a provisional measure under Article 40 of the UN Charter as the starting point for any further negotiations. The UN Charter explicitly states that provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. link to yale.edu
Israel has relied on the proposition that a recognized State enjoys the freedom to abuse unrecognized communities of a non-self-governing territory in a manner which international law would prohibit in the case of another State. It’s much important to prevent Israel from committing any more crimes against the occupied population. Simply applying the Geneva Conventions on a de jure basis would utterly transform the situation.
As a precursor to a single state solution, the two state solution – with a rights based approach using BDS – is no less logical than a rights based approach using BDS alone. The parties would continue to have the same incentives to make concessions in order to obtain equal rights and legal standing in the respective remainders of the former territory of Palestine.
So what should we do with the 6 million Jews in Palestine-Israel Mooser? Get rid of them?
You, me, the entire world knows these people are theives, and to be perfectly honest, really have no right to be there. But for the sake of peace and to resolve the conflict, yes, you let the theif have the car as long as he allows you the same full access to it.
Eventually the theif will realize his only options are two destroy the car and everyone in it, including himself, or unlock the doors.
Hostage,
I appreciate your reliance on the “law.” But after 60+ years, I think the average Palestinian would tell you what he/she thinks of the law. I also believe, at this point in time, knowing what we know, the average Palestinian is less inclined to give up a single inch inside the Green Line. So it’s all of 1967 or bust, as they say, in terms of two states.
The idea of partition has repeatedy failed. I find it quite interesting that two-state advocates are so vehement in their opposition to the very idea of one state. After all, it is the only idea which includes ALL Palestinians, not just those in the West Bank and Gaza.
What will come of the Palestinians inside Israel after two states? Are 1.5 million people left to live under Jim-Crow-like laws for another 50 years? or do we try to resolve the conflict as holistically as possible…now, not in these silly little phases everyone wants to shove down Palestinian throats.
“As a precursor to a single state solution, the two state solution – with a rights based approach using BDS – is no less logical than a rights based approach using BDS alone. The parties would continue to have the same incentives to make concessions in order to obtain equal rights and legal standing in the respective remainders of the former territory of Palestine.”
Agree Hostage, FWIW. Vigorously pursuing Palestinian national and individual rights in front of the international court system, as if a two-state outcome is still possible (and whether it is or not), would offer substantial and un-ignorable leverage in the effort to gain equal rights within the currently inevitable one-state outcome. It also preserves the option for a Palestinian state should something change radically in the near future.
I think you merged the two “tracks” here pretty realistically. If only the PA would just DO it (press for UN recognition) already. But then their role is to accept aid money and not make waves. Frustrating even to observe. Hell to live through, if you’re a Palestinian.
link to haaretz.com
I appreciate your reliance on the “law.” But after 60+ years, I think the average Palestinian would tell you what he/she thinks of the law.
For most of those 60+ years there were no standing judicial bodies or institutions that could enforce international criminal laws and there was no widely recognized government of Palestine with the necessary legal standing to pursue legal claims on behalf of Palestinians. So flagrant violations of international law became a political debating point for a grassroots national liberation movement and the motive for other states to shun or sanction a few pariah states.
Now that there finally is an international criminal court that can prosecute the responsible Israeli government officials for crimes committed on the territory of Palestine, many so-called friends wish that flagrant violations of international criminal law could go on being mere political debating points for their grassroots movement, if the alternative requires them to actively support the State of Palestine’s 2009 complaint in the ICC.
I already know how the average Palestinian in Gaza feels about international criminal law, from the public outrage they expressed when President Abbas merely delayed a symbolic vote on the Goldstone report in the Human Rights Council. Israel had threatened to turn the West Bank and its population into “another Gaza”, unless Abbas delayed action on the vote.
What most Gazans didn’t know, was that mere days after Operation Cast Lead, President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad had authorized the PA Justice and Foreign Ministers to file a declaration with the ICC accepting the Court’s jurisdiction for all crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since July of 2002, including the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Operation Cast Lead. Palestine and the other members of the League of Arab States had sent their own independent international fact finding mission to Gaza. The Secretary of the Arab League personally presented the mission’s findings to the ICC Prosecutor in a meeting at Cairo.
The report called for investigations and prosecutions of those responsible. Several ICC member states are also full members of the League of Arab States. So the Prosecutor had all of the necessary state declarations and state referrals in hand to take action in accordance with Articles 12, 13, and 14 of the Rome Statute long before the UN Human Rights Council even scheduled their session to consider the Goldstone Report. Wikileaks published a classified document which revealed that the IDF considered the PA criminal complaint an act of war and had asked the US for assistance in getting the complaint quashed. link to wikileaks.org
Despite the fact that the majority of UN and ICC member states had already formally recognized the occupied State of Palestine, Israel and its supporters argued that Palestine was not a State for the purposes of the Rome Statute. One of the roles of the ICC is to gather evidence and conduct prosecutions of war crimes for states which are unable to do so because of the collapse or unavailability of their own national judicial systems. So the fact that Palestine is under occupation and that war crimes have been committed by an occupying power is the very thing that actually triggers the jurisdiction of the ICC.
For obvious reasons, one-staters among the Palestinian Solidarity Activist movement won’t touch this issue with a barge pole. They’ve concentrated their attention on the Goldstone report, even though the US had 1) labeled it “seriously flawed”; 2) promised to keep it off the Security Council agenda; and 3) promised to veto any request for an ICC referral. A few Palestinian activists even wrote editorials about the non-existent Palestinian State and opposed the UN bid, despite the fact that Abbas had publicly explained the need to transform the conflict from a strictly political matter to a legal one using the Courts. — link to nytimes.com
So anyone who is suggesting to you that Palestinians use a grassroots political approach where international law is just another debating point is selling you the status quo that Palestinians have enjoyed so much for the last 60+ years.
Your points are well-stated and compelling. Could you, though, complete the picture and elaborate on the path from the prosecution of some Israelis, were that to occur, to the ending of the occupation and some kind of realistic “solution” to the conflict?
Could you, though, complete the picture and elaborate on the path from the prosecution of some Israelis, were that to occur, to the ending of the occupation and some kind of realistic “solution” to the conflict?
I’m not a prophet. I’ve pointed out all along that statehood is just a legal status that can be conferred by other existing states on any entity .
That status entitles people of even a failed, occupied, or defunct state the necessary standing to bring individuals to justice for committing serious crimes against the civilian population. The UN Security Council didn’t establish the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in order to establish a new state or states in the region.
If the state of Jordan and or Arab Palestine have been irreparably harmed and rendered non-viable by the crime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, then that should trigger the jurisdiction of the international criminal justice system and result in appropriate sanctions. While the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited, the universal jurisdiction that its member states can exercise, in their own right, is not. The ICC can help bring the joint criminal enterprise involving the settlements in the occupied territories and East Jerusalem to a stop. But the member states can just as easily stop the illegal fund transfers and assistance that Israel needs o facilitate the whole undertaking.
A few years ago, some Palestinians asked Canada to sanction Canadian firms that were building settlements in Palestine. The Court told the petitioners to seek a judgement in the Courts of Israel. Hopefully Canada will accept the vote in the General Assembly and recognize the jurisdiction of Palestinian Courts to decide what laws will be applied in their territory.
“Of course they are not willing. They must be pressured into doing it, one way or another.”
“One way or another”? Well, that makes two. Anybody want to tell me what they are?
There are many forms of pressure: political, social, economic, legal, ideological, military…
Dexter August 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm
“the paradigm that empowers Israel the most” is Deuteronomy 20:15 and maintaining the crucial enabling US veto vote in the UNSC.
———-
Sibiriak August 28, 2012 at 5:06 pm
“give up EVERYTHING and live in a single democratic state based on equal individual or group rights”
Uh? How is that giving up ‘everything’?
” forcing a 2 state settlement “
One cannot force independence on anyone, entity or thing. It’s why the Mandate for Palestine had to end before independence was declared by either party, if they wished, under the inherently non-binding UNGA 181. The partition areas had to be free of the control of others. Only the territory slated for Israel was free of control by others. By the end of the Mandate for Palestine and since, Jewish forces have controlled territory slated for the Arab State, making it impossible to declare independent statehood.
One cannot force independence on anyone, entity or thing. It’s why the Mandate for Palestine had to end before independence was declared by either party, if they wished, under the inherently non-binding UNGA 181. The partition areas had to be free of the control of others. Only the territory slated for Israel was free of control by others.
I disagree with the claim that decisions to partition mandates or trusteeships were inherently non-binding. All of the parties had been advised that if they failed to reach an agreement, the question of Palestine would be referred to international arbitration, e.g. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
None of the parties including the General Assembly, questioned its power to convene a special session to determine the future government of Palestine. There was no doubt at the time that the UN had the requisite power to arbitrate a solution if it pleased the all of the interested parties – and each one of them, including the AHC, Jewish Agency, and the government of the UK, had the same basic demand: that the UN immediately terminate the mandate on terms that the party in question could unilaterally veto.
That’s not the way international arbitration works. Decisions are customarily considered final and are not subject to any appeal.
The original decision on the disposition of the 10 enemy territories envisioned by the Allied Powers at Versailles resulted in the creation of 15 mandated states by the time the Council of the League of Nations formally established the system. The UN General Assembly had the necessary authority under the Charter to conclude agreements and divide up territories under international trusts in much the same way. If that proposition is correct, then the boundaries of partition applied from the date the transition period began on 29 November 1947. The general principle of uti possidetis laid down in the “Frontier Dispute” case (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) would apply to the emancipated states. The fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power would be legally moot.
Re: Non-Self-Governing Territories. Neither the League of Nations Mandate nor the unwritten agreements regarding the so-called Arab League “trusteeships” contained any terms that prohibited self-government. In fact, the Mandate and UN Charter required the establishment of self-governing institutions. All of the successor regimes adopted transition ordinances which retained the Mandate era Privy Council Orders and ordinances in full force and effect until they were specifically repealed or superseded.
The UN has always relied upon the right of the whole people of a territory to exercise their right of self-determination in a government that represents them without any form of discrimination. Jordan was a self-governing territory, but it didn’t include all of the Palestinian people of the territory who had been exiled elsewhere. The ICJ has always advised that “the ultimate objective of the ‘sacred trust’ referred to in Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the League of Nations was the self-determination . . . of the peoples concerned”, not the status of the territory as an independent state or its incorporation with another existing state. See paragraph 88 of the 2004 Advisory Opinion. link to icj-cij.org
The argument that a union with Transjordan placed Palestine under the control of others is unpersuasive to me, since “Palestine” had always been a legal term of art that described both Transjordan and Palestine. “The Palestine Order in Council, 1922″ established that “The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.”, i.e. Transjordan and Palestine. link to unispal.un.org
The citizens of both East and West Jordan were fully represented in the two houses of Parliament, the Cabinet, and the Kingdom’s foreign Embassies and Missions.
The West Bank Jordanian legislators and officials could not administer themselves as “trustees only”. The General Assembly advised member states that Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories was a treaty obligation with full force, effect, and benefits for the peoples concerned and that it did not depend upon the conclusion of a trusteeship agreement. link to un.org
Note that any form of international trusteeship or tutelage listed in Article 77 was incompatible with membership in the United Nations under the terms of Article 78. Jordan was admitted as a full UN member State without any territorial reservations regarding the scope of its credentials or any undertaking to treat the West Bank as a non-self-governing territory for reporting purposes in accordance with the terms of Article 73(e), of Chapter XI (i.e. the “Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories”).
link to yale.edu
FYI, the legal consequences of resolution 181(II) were within the scope of the question that was referred to the ICJ in 2003. In fact, resolution 181(II) was one of the “relevant resolutions” of the United Nations that was specifically cited in the text of the referral itself. The Court held that it was the source of the permanent responsibility of the United Nations towards the question of Palestine and cited the guarantees of liberty, of access, visit and transit to the Holy sites contained in the chapter on rights of minorities, religious groups, and women.
Jordan filed a written statement that defended the legality of its union with Palestine and the annexation of the West Bank. The Court advised that the territory had been under the jurisdiction of Jordan, a High Contracting party to the Geneva Conventions.
It think the Court has compulsory jurisdiction under the terms of the compromissory clause of resolution 181(II) to address many aspects of the boundary dispute and the associated rights of Palestinian refugees under the specific terms of the minority protection plan in resolution 181(II). Those rights can’t be altered without the permission of the UN General Assembly. The Court would presumably apply the principle of uti possidetis and arrive at the same conclusion that you do about the declared borders of the State of Israel.
Dexter,
How do you deal with that fact?
(And no, I’m not Jewish. I don’t have any group identification. I’m a radical individualist, personally.)
I agree with much of what you say, I just disagree on your assumptions about what Palestinians themselves actually want and what kind of political settlement can actually be achieved in the near-medium future. In the very long run, anything is possible.
Sibiriak,
I’m not so certain this is a fact. I know that the BDS movement itself is careful not to take a stance supporting any one particular solution; though it must be said that the main organizers of the BDS movement seem to have a bias towards a single, democratic state for all.
You may not be Jewish — though I get the impression you were born into a Jewish family — but I am Palestinian, and I do not think it is a grand assumption to say that Palestinians absolutely do not want to give up 80+ percent of their land. They are being forced to do so under the paradigm of partition, which has lost all credibility now that the masked has been unveiled.
Philip Weiss quoting Omar Barghouti:
Dexter:
Maybe it’s not a fact, but why should I take your word over Omar Barghouti’s? That’s not a rhetorical question.
You should neither take Omar Barghouti’s word nor my own. You need only look at the reality on the ground and draw the logical conclusion…
Israel can either forcibly remove Palestinians or learn to give them equal rights. But one seems quite certain, they will never agree to two states that includes East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital.
So either you two state supporters are changing the definition of “two-states,” because the way Palestinians have been led to undersand it, two states means all of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, or you believe, for example, Israel is going to abandon East Jerusalem.
Now seriously, does anyone think Israel is going to give E. Jerusalem back after it spent 40+ years Judaising it?
So either you two state supporters are changing the definition of “two-states,” because the way Palestinians have been led to undersand it, two states means all of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, or you believe, for example, Israel is going to abandon East Jerusalem.
I’ve already pointed out that the written statements of Palestine and several of the interested state parties in the Wall case related that Israel’s policies in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, satisfied all of the elements of the international crime of apartheid. Apartheid is by definition a state crime which could be treated as a joint criminal enterprise or conspiracy in accordance with the Rome Statute.
Israel was not a party to the Rome Statute or the Apartheid Convention, but it was a party to the human rights conventions that guarantee the rights that the punitive treaties were designed to protect. So the Court based its findings on Israel’s violations of the human rights treaties. Nonetheless, all of the findings in paragraphs 132-134 of the advisory opinion are the elements of the crime of apartheid that were cited in the statements of the state parties and UN Rapporteurs.
The only thing standing in the way of an ICC investigation and prosecution of the officials responsible for those crimes and many others committed in East Jerusalem by individuals, like Nir Barkat, is the lack of action on the part of the Palestinian people themselves.
All the Palestinians have to do is demand that their own government deposit instruments of accession with the Secretary General of the United Nations to become a state party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Secretary General is under an explicit treaty obligation contained in those two conventions to formally accept accessions from any member of a UN specialized agency, including UNESCO. All of the state parties, including the US and Israel, are under a similar treaty obligation to then begin treating the new state party as “a state” for the purposes of concluding any other international agreements or establishing and maintaining any diplomatic relations.
Article 125 of the Rome Statute provides that it is open to signature or accession by “all states”, so the Secretary-General would be required to treat any party to the Vienna Conventions as a state for the purposes of accession to the Rome Statute. Article 12(3) allows any non-member State to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. So the Justice Minister or Foreign Minister of the PA could simply supply the Registrar of the Court a copy of it’s accession notice to the Convention on the Law of Treaties to establish its legal standing. Note that Article 5 of the Vienna Convention states that its rules apply to any treaty, like the Rome Statute, which is the constituent instrument of an international organization and to any treaty adopted within an international organization. So there can be no question that Palestine and other members of UN specialized agencies are members of a category of states for the purposes of the Rome Statute. link to untreaty.un.org
The UN Legal Affairs section explicitly spelled out the reason the formula contained in the Vienna Conventions which included members of the UN specialized agencies:
— The Summary of Practice of the Secretary‐General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, ST/LEG/7/Rev. 1 link to treaties.un.org
So this is how you circumvent the US veto and everyone in the international legal community knows that (including the one-staters in the Palestinian Lawfare community who have been silent about this powerful legal deterrent).
“I’m a radical individualist, personally”
You plan revolutions against yourself which you carry out by yourself?
Or maybe a “radical individualist” is a way of saying nobody will have anything to do with you?
Although, if you think about it a minute, “radical individualist” is just a wordier way of saying “sociopath”.
Must have hurt your Mom’s feelings tho. I mean refusing to nurse, or eat any of the food she prepared for you. That would be upsetting.
But don’t let me define you, I can’t even define myself! So why don’t you tell us what a “radical individualist” is. You know, I may want to join you…oh, wait, I guess I couldn’t do that, unless you were willing to give it up, huh?
Dexter:
By the way, that was a superb post, imo.
I agree with it almost in its entirety–and certainly regarding the non-existence of any real “peace process” to date.
Where I have doubts–and I always have doubts; I am not an ideologue–is with this assertion:
Given the pathological nature of Israeli zionism, I don’t believe Israeli Jews will ever be convinced that “co-existence” is possible.
As WillB wrote in another thread:
And MB:
I find those arguments compelling (especially after living in Russia for some time).
Perhaps I am simply more cynical than you–or more realistic about the incorrigibility of the Israeli zionist mindset.
But I freely admit that you may be right.
And there goes another one…
Carlo Strenger is coming to terms with reality as well:
link to haaretz.com
And there goes another one…Carlo Strenger is coming to terms with reality as well
LOL! He knows there’s an elephant in the room, but he’s still deluding himself. Hamas is not going to sign-on to either Mosh Arens or Carlo Strenger’s vision of a single state solution established on Israel’s terms. The armed conflict isn’t ever going to end while there are still significant numbers of armed belligerents who are willing to use threats or force to challenge the proposed state’s jurisdiction.
So I guess I should maybe make clear what my point is.
The only thing that may yet save the two state solution is to declare it dead!
As long as we keep pretending that the 2SS can never die and that there are no alternatives, Israel can keep the status quo going ad infinitum and there’s not even a whole lot to argue against this. Because at some mythical point in the future when the stars are right, the 2SS will happen regardless, Israel can do whatever it pleases.
Settlements? Not a problem, they don’t endanger the 2SS.
Judaizing East Jerusalem? Not a problem, doesn’t endanger the 2SS.
Solidifying Israel’s grip on “Area C”? Not a problem, doesn’t endanger the 2SS.
Politicians have a habit of only acting when it’s already too late to act. So the point everybody interested in Palestinians’ rights should drive home in the field of public opinion is that there is a point where it is too late for a 2SS and that point is not some faraway future scenario but now!
The fiction of a “peace process” that will inevitably bring about an immortal 2SS on St. Nimmerlein’s day is a smoke screen for maintaining the status quo forever.
Mind you, I am by no means sure if the 2SS can, in fact, be saved by such a much-needed reality shock. It may very well turn out that it can’t. But even then, actually especially then, facing the reality of its failure is necessary if there is ever going to be any progress at all.
Settlements? Not a problem, they don’t endanger the 2SS.
Judaizing East Jerusalem? Not a problem, doesn’t endanger the 2SS.
Solidifying Israel’s grip on “Area C”? Not a problem, doesn’t endanger the 2SS.
The “S” in BDS stands for sanctions. The original 2005 BDS call to action said We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. — link to bdsmovement.net
All of those things you’ve mentioned are crimes with sanctions that can be easily traced to one or more agents of the State of Israel who implement its policies on the territory of the State of Palestine. You can pressure your government to recognize the right of Palestine, as an occupied state, to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC; obtain arrest warrants that would be honored in the numerical majority of the worlds countries; and add the suspects names to INTERPOL’s Red Notice Wanted List. If you’re not willing to do that, then you really don’t support the BDS call to action.
Even if these criminals manage to escape prosecution for a while, they would still know that they will be hunted for the rest of their natural lives by a Court that can award their personal fortunes or estates to their victims.
Can I take your artful dodging of the actual point to mean that you have no answer?
Can I take your artful dodging of the actual point to mean that you have no answer?
You haven’t made an “actual point” or explained why a legally recognized Palestinian jurisdiction can’t be established over the inhabitants residing in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem and shared with the ICC.
I’ve pointed out in the past that Namibia, East Timor, and the Baltic States all emerged as independent countries long after political pundits and experts alike had agreed that owing to the irreversible effects of occupation, colonization, or annexation it was no longer possible for that to happen. That’s why I don’t believe in making those sort of predictions.
P.S. Just for your benefit, the current facts on the ground happen to be that the majority of countries recognize the existence of an occupied State of Palestine.
The PA factions have their own courts and prisons where they execute judgments on their subjects. If there’s only one government between the Jordan and the Sea, then which one is conducting Arrigoni’s Murder Trial in Gaza?
link to foreignpolicyjournal.com
If everyone owes their allegiance to the government of Israel, then who is openly running these de facto government Courts that treat collaboration with, or land sales to, an Israeli as a capital offense? See:
*Six Palestinian prisoners go on hunger strike in PA jail
link to haaretz.com
*Hamas executes 3 in Gaza, including Israel ‘collaborator’
link to haaretz.com
*PA court: Sale of Palestinian land to Israelis is punishable by death
link to haaretz.com
the one state solution will lead to an islamic state much like other sunni states in the middle east
all those commenting on this board will not be living in that state but instead enjoying a fabulous democratic state much like in america or europe
in south africa nothing has changed under one man one vote -they still murder miners and then charge them for murder-80% of the country stiil lives in poverty
however they can vote lol
i lived in south africa in the 80,s and 90,s and know a bit about sanctions and regime change
britain has a long track record of leaving behind political chaos in its former colonies but still manage to reap the benefits
the mine where those miners were shot dead 2 weeks ago are based in the uk
now the british want regime change in israel -a country formed by the british for the sole purpose of controlling the middle east oil and keeping the arabs in line
the jews walked out of the holocaust and straight into a trap doing christian european dirty work——keeping islam at bay
billions and billions of dollars wasted and thousands of jewish lives sacrificed not to mention all the arabs killed in the process
and for what
a “jewish homeland”lol
as if the jewish relegion needs a fixed address
it is a mind thing relegion
that mind thing is being polluted by an immoral state of mind
a british colonial white poison state of mind
no the solution is not a one state or two state or whatever state
the british empire gave away land that was not theirs
the british empire did not see the project through to a fair conclusion
the british empire must correct the rights and wrongs
the british empire must pay for its mistakes and compensate both parties for the losses they suffered
then we can talk about a fair state solution
That British Empire doesn’t exist any more….
That British Empire doesn’t exist any more….
lol, that’s all you have to say? i was particularly stunned by:
“keeping islam at bay…..not to mention all the arabs killed in the process”..killed in the process of thousands of jewish lives sacrificed. what. ever.
No, it would take more than a few volumes to express my condemnation of the British Empire, and imperialism in general.
That British Empire doesn’t exist any more….
Great Britain and the US still treat several vassal territories as if they were part of an Empire, including the Chagos Archipelago in the British Indian Ocean Territory where the US Air Base on Diego Garcia is located.
A few years ago, at the height of the United Kingdom’s legal troubles over the deportation of the Chagos Islanders to make way for the Base, it filed a long list of territories with the Registar of the ICC. It had suddenly decided they were subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, because as it claimed, the UK still controlled their foreign relations. This was news to everyone else, since the Rome Statute is applicable to any territory subject to a member state’s jurisdiction without any exceptions. But several territories, including the Chagos Islands, were deliberately omitted from the UK list, suggesting that this was an attempt by Great Britain to deny the Court jurisdiction over any crimes committed there. link to humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com
Perhaps we killed-off the UN Trusteeship system too soon? The Permanent members of the Security Council, and states like Israel, are still trying to revive the old hierarchy of dependent, neutralized, and sovereign states by overturning the principle of self-determination of peoples and full representation in the ultimate government of a territory on the basis of non-discrimination. The ICJ has ruled time and again that those are customary norms and compelling law established in the preamble of the UN Charter, the UN Human Rights Covenants, and many UN Declarations on universal rights and rights of indigenous peoples.
The notion of establishing autonomous areas, neutralized or involuntarily demilitarized states, and etc. passed from the pages of history and international law in the era of Wilson’s 14 points, specifically item “VII. Belgium”. It had been a neutralized state at the outbreak of WWI:
The League of Nations delayed full autonomy of the mandated states for a few years, but the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples stipulated that the so-called level of civilization or development could no longer be used as an excuse for any such delays.
By the early 1930s, it was a doctrine of the public international law of the Americas that the creation of autonomous statelets was unacceptable because:
In the common parlance of international law, an “autonomous state” is neither independent nor established on the basis of sovereign equality. See for example this Israeli-US discussion regarding the establishment of an autonomous state in the West Bank in order to prevent Palestinians living there from becoming citizens of Israel:
link to history.state.gov
Nonetheless, the US and Israel have pursued a joint policy of relegating Palestine to the permanent status of a dependent territory. It’s obvious from Obama’s remarks that Palestine will not belong to the same category of States as Israel or have an inherent right to defend itself from aggression like all other free states:
–link to realclearpolitics.com
If Palestine succeeds in joining the United Nations, it will enjoy the same legal protections of sovereign equality contained in Articles 2(1), 2(4), and Article 51 of the Charter. That’s why Israel and the US oppose any upgrade to its UN status.
*link to yale.edu
*link to yale.edu
Wes, I think your emphasis on role of the British Empire is an important one too often overlooked by many people who have only a superficial knowledge of the conflict.
I think your emphasis on role of the British Empire is an important one
I agree, but something tells me that is not wes’ primary concern.
@ wes: Okay so Rothschilds made Lord Balfour sign the letter he wrote so Britain could keep Islam at bay? And Zionists knew that? You cannot make these disturbed minds up.
The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has blamed Britain’s imperial past for many of the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Kashmir dispute.
“A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now – I have to deal with now – are a consequence of our colonial past,” he said.
The Balfour declaration… again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one
Jack Straw
In an interview with a British magazine, the New Statesman, Mr Straw spoke of quite serious mistakes made, especially during the last decades of the empire.
He said the Balfour Declaration of 1917 – in which Britain pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine – and the contradictory assurances given to Palestinians, were not entirely honourable.
The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has blamed Britain’s imperial past for many of the modern political problems
Yes if you’d like to read some of the details from the actual documentary records on that subject you can click on the Hostage link and search for the terms CAB or FRUS, but the results don’t support the notion that the Zionists “walked out of the holocaust and straight into a trap”. That’s Zionist propaganda. More often than not, the Zionist Executive viewed Jews living in other countries and Holocaust survivors as contemptible losers or political adversaries. That didn’t prevent them from manipulating public perceptions about them after the fact in accordance with the ideological requirements of the state.
well mr jack straw
it is time to settle your obligations
i call on a resolution to be put before the united nations
all palestinian refugees in refugee camps must be compensated and resettled in britain
wes,
I hate to be the one to break it to you: not only has the sun set on the British Empire, but Jack Straw is no longer foreign secretary.
To the extent that there is some validity to your argument about British responsibility for the situation in I/P (although by no means exclusive), why resettle Palestinian refugees in Britain? Why not have the UK serve as a guarantor for their resettlement in Palestine (if they so choose)? Wouldn’t that be a far more appropriate way of redressing the BE’s “original sin” of having given away the Palestinians’ land in the first place?
The list of the BE’s sins is very long, I would imagine, and the wrongs done to the Palestinians not necessarily on the top.
shmuel
firstly
resettling the refugees in israel gets the british off the hook -they simply pass the problem onto the israelis which is what caused the problem in the first place
secondly
israel does not have the resources to support a few million refugees but britain does
They aren’t refugees. They are the people who always lived there. But it is quite funny that you are trying to blame the British, the same ones Israeli terrorists bombed and killed in order to get them out of Palestine, the same place the Brits had helped Jews colonise and displace the original inhabitants from. Maybe Britain should help resettle Israelis somewhere else to compensate the Palestinians, who have done nothing to deserve their country being taken from them.
Israel – never slow to blame everybody else for the consequences of its occupation and dispossession, whilst simultaneously demanding ever more concessions, handouts and exemptions from international treaties and laws.
“They aren’t refugees. They are the people who always lived there”
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
funny man
what the mighty british army got kicked out by a few cheeky jewboys
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
funny man
” israel does not have the resources to support a few million refugees but britain does”
That’s neither here nor there. Palestinians just want to go home and they have that right. They can take care of themselves anyway. What’s up? You cannot pay the reparations?
Zionist hysteria QED
I agree justicewillprevail. That Britain, having been pressured by the Zionists into allowing them to have a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine –
link to zionismspring2010.wikispaces.com
- should now take the displaced Palestinians seems to involve a twisted logic. The correct response would be that Britain should be required to take the Zionists. That would be suitable punishment!
Precisely. Plus Palestinians would want to go home and it’s only right.
israel does not have the resources to support a few million refugees but britain does
Setting aside the fact that Israel has always found the resources to support large numbers of Jewish refugees (and non-refugee immigrants) and has no intention of placing any limits on Jewish immigration, the UK can always provide its share of the resources for such a resettlement process. Resettling the refugees in the UK would be far easier for the British government than assisting them to return to their homes in Palestine/Israel. Why let the British off the hook like that? You’re really too soft on them. I say the Ingleez made their bed; now let them lie in it.
right thats it
a fatwa needs to be issued
the arab nations must call for a u n resolution for all arab refugees from palestine to be compensated and resettled in britain
failure of britain to honour the resolution must lead to disinvestment and boycotts of british goods
indeed -why not have a BBC-boycott britain campaign much like the BDS that this site supports
and how about a ISM -israeli solidarity movement -for israeli refugees that have to leave israel when the land is returned to the arabs-
tell me big chief jack
what exactly are british troops doing in afghanistan for instance
plunder me laddie plundering the colonies again
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Samples of different Afghan marbles at the Doost Marble Factory in Herat, Afghanistan. Current marble exports are estimated at $15 million per year. With improved extraction, processing, infrastructure, and investment, the industry has the potential to grow into a $450 million per year business.[1]
It is estimated that forty million years ago the tectonic plates of India-Europe, Asia and Africa collided in a massive upheaval. This upheaval created the region of towering mountains that now includes Afghanistan. This diverse geological foundation has resulted in a significant mineral heritage with over 1,400 mineral occurrences recorded to date, including gold, copper, lithium, uranium, iron ore, cobalt, natural gas and oil.[2] Afghanistan’s resources could make it the richest mining region on earth.[3] In 2010, Pentagon officials and American geologists discovered about $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan.
and how about a ISM -israeli solidarity movement -for israeli refugees that have to leave israel when the land is returned to the arabs
Why would there be Israeli refugees if the Palestinians are resettled in the UK (after a successful “BBC-boycott britain campaign”, naturally)?
And thanks for the wiki tip on the real reason for the presence of British troops in Afghanistan. Those Brits, always after people’s marbles. Must be because they keep losing their own, poor dears. Nothing that can’t be fixed with a nice cup of tea. I’ll go put kettle on.