Ashrawi: statehood is ‘game-changer’ and US is damaging its standing in world by opposing it

Israel/Palestine
on 59 Comments

The United States and Israel have tried to “blackmail” the Palestinians against pressing the statehood initiative at the U.N. today, Hanan Ashrawi, senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee, said today, then challenged the U.S. to at least abstain on the initiative lest it become further isolated in world opinion.

“Things will be different. It’s not going to be the same… This is a gamechanger. The Palestinians are no longer at [Israel's] mercy,” Ashrawi said, speaking on a call arranged by the Institute for Middle East Understanding. Saying that Palestinians will no longer be “stateless” and “vulnerable,” she promised that Palestine would use statehood status to press its case in international courts that Israeli settlements in occupied territory are a war crime, in violation of the Geneva convention.

“Europe has taken a stand,” Ashrawi said. While America’s “unilateral support for Israel” had damaged the U.S.’s standing around the world. 

The US “can rectify [this] by choosing a different side, declaring a foreign policy that is independent and based on American interests. We’re not asking them to be idealistic. We’re asking them to look after their own interests.. not constantly bailing Israel out.”

Asked by Yousef Munayyer, director of the Jerusalem Fund, if non-member statehood status would change anything on the ground, Ashrawi said that she didn’t expect any miracle, but that things won’t be the same going forward. “We are saying not only are we a people, we have land we have rights, we can be part of the international community… and can enjoy protections… Our territory will be defined. Jerusalem will be identified as our capital… our rights will be guaranteed or enshrined in international law.” 

The recent Gaza conflict had brought Hamas to support the statehood initiative, she said, by fostering Palestinian solidarity. “With the aggression on Gaza, it became clear to everyone that the whole Palestinian people are under attack,” by different means, whether violence, annexation, or ethnic cleansing. 

She said that Israel was “hysterical” about the possibility that the Palestinians would go to the International Criminal Court; but her strongest criticism was reserved for the U.S., which guarantees Israel’s “complete impunity.”

“We believe that Congress will do whatever Israel says,” she said, and then challenged the U.S. to do the right thing now by not voting against the statehood initiative. 

“You’d be surprised by how many countries are going to vote positively,” she said, and Palestine values every vote, whether it’s blond and blue eyed or African or Muslim.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

59 Responses

  1. Les
    November 29, 2012, 2:22 pm

    If a blond can vote, not once but twice, for Obama, surely the US can vote yes for Palestinian recognition.

    • yonah fredman
      November 29, 2012, 3:23 pm

      The US I suppose is the blond.

      But the blonds (whites, including those with dark hair) voted against Obama by landslide numbers this time and it was only because the country includes nonwhites who voted for Obama in super super majorities, that Obama was elected. Only one Democrat has come close to winning the blond (white) vote since 1964 and that was Clinton in 96.

      • Mooser
        December 1, 2012, 12:14 pm

        “But the blonds (whites, including those with dark hair) voted against Obama by landslide numbers this time and it was only because the country includes nonwhites who voted for Obama in super super majorities, that Obama was elected. Only one Democrat has come close to winning the blond (white) vote since 1964 and that was Clinton in 96.”

        Is this, or is this not, the biggest single ROTFLMSJAO (rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-my-skinny-Jewish-ass-off) ever! Yes sir, that Yonah, he ain’t got no skew in his polls!
        So Yonah, you gotta tell me, what is the significance of the fact that Mitt Romney is now the President of older, white, America? Will Romney be going to the UN as their plenipotentiary and undoing the Palestinian statehood vote?
        Okay, now excuse me while I lie down and try to stop laughing.

      • Citizen
        December 1, 2012, 2:19 pm

        Really funny since Israeli Jews think they are white.

  2. seafoid
    November 29, 2012, 2:26 pm

    Our territory will be defined. Jerusalem will be identified as our capital… our rights will be guaranteed or enshrined in international law.”

    It won’t be Abu Dis either

    link to youtube.com

    al quds lina
    al beit lina

  3. mondonut
    November 29, 2012, 2:36 pm

    This part is simply not true, but I guess the Palestinians hope that if they repeat it often enough no one will notice. The GA cannot set borders. Period. There exists conflicting claims to the land and the Palestinians cannot skip the step of having to negotiate by going through the General Assembly.

    …Our territory will be defined. Jerusalem will be identified as our capital… our rights will be guaranteed or enshrined in international law.”

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      November 29, 2012, 3:04 pm

      If there are ‘conflicting claims to the land’ then building ‘settlements’ on most of it isn’t the best way to proceed, is it?

      • mondonut
        November 29, 2012, 3:22 pm

        Maximus Decimus Meridius says: If there are ‘conflicting claims to the land’ then building ‘settlements’ on most of it isn’t the best way to proceed, is it?
        ================================
        If you recognize that conflicting claims exist, then why not? Why would only one party to the conflict be restricted?

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 30, 2012, 9:06 am

        “If you recognize that conflicting claims exist, then why not? Why would only one party to the conflict be restricted?”

        Exactly. And since the Germans and the Jews in the 1940s had conflicting claims on the right of the former to murder the latter, if the Germans recognized their own claim, why not murder the Jews? Why would only one party to that conflict be restricted?

      • mondonut
        November 30, 2012, 1:52 pm

        Woody Tanaka says:Exactly. And since the Germans and the Jews in the 1940s had conflicting claims on the right of the former to murder the latter, if the Germans recognized their own claim, why not murder the Jews? Why would only one party to that conflict be restricted?
        ==================================
        Wow. Just wow. Straight to the Nazis again. You really do not see a difference between building homes and wanton, genocidal murder?

      • Hostage
        December 1, 2012, 11:01 am

        You really do not see a difference between building homes and wanton, genocidal murder?

        The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity describes the process as eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed. link to www2.ohchr.org

        According to the ICC, that can include the practice of systematically driving people from their homes.

        Lemkin wrote that genocide was a new term for an old practice. He said that:

        Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization by the oppressor’s own nationals.

        He also wrote about the validity of the colonist’s so-called claim of title:

        6. The Problem of the Colonists.
        The problem of the colonists is specific because many thousands of them have been settled on properties of dispossessed persons. The fact that many of them, especially those coming from the Baltic States, Transylvania, and Bukovina, were moved against their will, may exclude their penal responsibility in assisting the enemy in acts of dispossession but does not provide any valid title to the property on which they are settled. In cases where colonists have been settled on state property, the legal situation remains the same. The occupant has the right only to the usufruct of real property belonging to the state in the occupied country; he has no right to dispose of such property and convey title to it to other persons. Consequently, the property given by the occupant to the colonists should be returned to the original owners.

        INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OF OCCUPATION PRACTICES

        Genocide as described above presents one of the most complete and glaring illustrations of the violations of international law and laws of humanity. In its several manifestations genocide also represents a violation of specific regulations of the Hague Convention such as those regarding the protection of life, liberty, and honor. It is therefore essential that genocide procedures be not only prohibited by law but prevented in practice during military occupations.

        Therefore the Regulations of the Hague Convention should be modified to include an international controlling agency vested with specific powers, such as visiting the occupied countries and making inquiries as to the manner in which the occupant treats nations in prison. In the situation as it exists at present there is no means of providing for alleviation of the treatment of populations under occupation until the actual moment of liberation. It is then too late for remedies, for after liberation such populations can at best obtain only reparation of damages but never restoration of those values which have been destroyed and which cannot be restored, such as human life, treasures of art, and historical archives.

        link to books.google.com
        link to books.google.com

    • eljay
      November 29, 2012, 3:08 pm

      >> This part is simply not true, but I guess the Palestinians hope that if they repeat it often enough no one will notice.
      >>

      …Our territory will be defined. Jerusalem will be identified as our capital… our rights will be guaranteed or enshrined in international law.”

      A Zio-supremacist is bothered that the Palestinians are now playing Israel’s game. So sad… :-(

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 29, 2012, 3:58 pm

      “There exists conflicting claims to the land ”

      No there aren’t. The israelis have no valid claim to the land under international law. They stand to the land as the bank robber stands to the deposits.

    • MRW
      November 29, 2012, 4:08 pm

      @mondonut,

      The GA cannot set borders.
      Weren’t those negotiated decades ago (or Israel sanctioned by the UNSC), but Israel has ignored them? (I admit, I’m getting confused by all the ins and outs.)

      Hostage?

    • Hostage
      November 29, 2012, 4:20 pm

      The GA cannot set borders. Period.

      Perhaps not, but they certainly have recognized the permanent armistice lines of demarcation as provisional international borders pending an agreement between the two sides indicating their consent to any modifications. Israel remains bound by the terms of those agreements; UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73; and Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

      FYI, Jacob Robinson was one of the lawyers advising the Jewish Agency when the UN Charter was adopted. The Yalta Conference recommended that the mandates be abolished or established under completely new rules as UN trusteeships. So, the Jewish Agency began planning for independence. Robinson explained that it also wrote a memo to the San Francisco Conference on the UN organization requesting that a safeguarding clause be included in the Charter which would say that no trusteeship agreement could alter the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate.

      However, the UN conference rejected that suggestion and stipulated in article 80 of the UN Charter that the UN COULD conclude trusteeship agreements that altered or abolished rights contained in a mandate. See Jacob Robinson, Palestine and the United Nations: Prelude to a Solution, Greenwood Press, 1971 Reprint (1947), page 2-3 Robinson, explained to the People’s Council of Israel that the Jewish State was already in existence as a result of the 29 November 1947 resolution. So he didn’t question it’s power under Article 18 of the Charter to adopt decisions regarding territories under international trust. See Anis F. Kassim(ed), The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1987-1988, page 279 link to books.google.com

      On 20 June, 1962 the UN General Assembly adopted a decision to accept a UN commission’s proposal to partition Ruanda-Urundi into two independent states, Rwanda and Burundi. Those actions paralleled exactly the steps taken earlier by the UNSCOP commission and the General Assembly in the case of Palestine. No one questioned it power to do adopt borders in that case. What makes Palestine any different?

      • mondonut
        November 30, 2012, 10:43 am

        Hostage says: On 20 June, 1962 the UN General Assembly adopted a decision to accept a UN commission’s proposal to partition Ruanda-Urundi into two independent states, Rwanda and Burundi. Those actions paralleled exactly the steps taken earlier by the UNSCOP commission and the General Assembly in the case of Palestine. No one questioned it power to do adopt borders in that case. What makes Palestine any different?
        ===========================================
        While similar to the case you cite Israel and Palestine differ in that the territory never became a trusteeship, the UN never altered or abolished rights contained within the mandate, and most importantly Ruanda-Urundi did not have the same territorial conflict – neither party to the conflict claimed territory which it did not control or that was mostly populated by the opposition.

        Further and contrary to what you stated, the permanent armistice lines of demarcation are expressly not provisional international borders by definition. A clause requested by the Jordanians, who unlike the Palestinians, were party to UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73.

        Basically the UN upgrade should be understood for what it is, ignoring the political advantages that both Palestine and Israel hope to gain. The Palestinians have enhanced status and access to courts, both wins for them. However, they only have claims to territory, not borders or sovereignty.

      • Hostage
        November 30, 2012, 3:56 pm

        While similar to the case you cite Israel and Palestine differ in that the territory never became a trusteeship

        That’s not entirely correct or relevant. The South West Africa/Namibia cases disposed of the questions about the powers of the General Assembly with respect to decisions regarding the status of a mandated territory.

        In any event, the only reason that resolution 181(II) required a two-thirds majority, rather than the usual simple majority, is because Article 18 required a super majority for the adoption of decisions on trusteeships – like the special regime for the City of Jerusalem. Here’s a link to the Statute of the City of Jerusalem that was adopted by the Trusteeship Council on 4 April 1950. It cites resolution 181(II) and says the General Assembly tasked the Trusteeship Council to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations: link to unispal.un.org

        FYI, Article 18 states that a simple majority of the General Assembly can adopt a decision on any other subject, like borders.

    • seafoid
      November 29, 2012, 4:51 pm

      There are no conflicting claims to the land.
      The West Bank is occupied. East Jerusalem is Palestinian. Hummus was not invented by Israelis. Zionism is war.

      • mondonut
        November 30, 2012, 10:45 am

        seafoid says: There are no conflicting claims to the land.
        The West Bank is occupied. East Jerusalem is Palestinian.
        =================================================
        So you are saying that the Israelis have made no claim to the entirety of Jerusalem?

      • seafoid
        November 30, 2012, 12:29 pm

        They have no claim to East Jerusalem. It isn’t Israeli. Never was.

      • mondonut
        November 30, 2012, 1:45 pm

        seafoid says: They have no claim to East Jerusalem. It isn’t Israeli. Never was
        =======================
        You are missing the point. The Israelis both possess it and have MADE A CLAIM, whether you like or recognize it. The Palestinians also claim it, but it is not yet their’s. So, by definition, there are competing claims. The UNGA has no power to assign the territory or to set a border.

      • Hostage
        December 1, 2012, 10:46 am

        The UNGA has no power to assign the territory or to set a border.

        Tell that to the North Koreans. No wait a minute, didn’t Israel’s border with Egypt end up exactly where the General Assembly and UNEF said it was located?

      • talknic
        December 1, 2012, 11:17 am

        mondonut November 30, 2012 at 1:45 pm

        Stupidity abounds in the holey olde Hasbara … logic is non-existent. Especially stupid when folk’ve been shown irrefutable evidence and next time one meets them again, they’re spouting the same tired olde irrelevant crap. When people refuse to learn, they’re propagandists. Israeli propagandists are especially moronic.

        Israel was RECOGNIZED as it asked to be recognized, per UNGA res 181 link to trumanlibrary.org

        Israel acknowledged it’s borders per UNGA res 181 on the 22nd May 1948 UNSC S/766 link to unispal.un.org

        No one recognized Jerusalem as Israeli. Corpus seperatum was never instituted, Jerusalem was never split off from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. Read UNSC res 476 link to wp.me

      • mondonut
        December 1, 2012, 11:33 am

        Hostage says: Tell that to the North Koreans. No wait a minute, didn’t Israel’s border with Egypt end up exactly where the General Assembly and UNEF said it was located?
        =====================================
        The Korean “border” is an armistice line, and those two states are still technically in a state of war. The Israeli/Egypt border was set by those two countries by agreement, not by the UNGA.

      • Hostage
        December 1, 2012, 11:37 am

        The Israelis both possess it and have MADE A CLAIM, whether you like or recognize it.

        The Act of Chapultepec, on “Reciprocal Assistance and American Solidarity”, March 6, 1945 explains that:

        The American states have been incorporating in their international law, since 1890, by means of conventions, resolutions and declarations, the following principles:

        a) The proscription of territorial conquest and the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force (First International Conference of American States, 1890);

        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The founding members of the UN included a blanket prohibition in the UN Charter against the threat of use of force. By the 1970s, the international community of states adopted a definition of the crime of aggression that included 1) any invasion, or armed attack; 2) any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack; 3) any annexation of part of the territory of another country by the use of force; or 4) the blockade of the ports of a country by the armed forces of another.

        The General Assembly has long since declared that Israel’s continued occupation of the Arab territories captured in 1967 – in violation of UN resolutions and the UN Charter – satisfies all of the necessary elements of the crime of aggression.
        See
        *General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to un.org
        *General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to un.org

        In Regina v Jones (2006) the UK Law Lords accepted the proposition that the core elements of the crime of aggression have been understood, at least since 1945, with sufficient clarity to permit the lawful trial (and, on conviction, punishment) of those accused of this most serious crime. They said that: “It is unhistorical to suppose that the elements of the crime were clear in 1945 but have since become in any way obscure.”

      • mondonut
        December 2, 2012, 2:38 am

        talknic says: Stupidity abounds, logic is non-existent, Especially stupid, Propagandists, especially moronic.
        ======================================
        You forgot to call me a poopy-head.

        I know that you think that you are some sort of special genius and if only the whole world would take a look at your oh-so-special website, they would know it also. But try to understand this. Israel both possesses and claims Jerusalem. The nascent state of Palestine also claims it. Their claims conflict, ergo conflicting claims exist.

        Nothing that you have presented in your diatribe dispels the simple fact that conflicting claims exist. Further, none of it establishes that the Palestinians have a stronger claim. And your attempt to falsely portray Israel’s independence as an act of independence from the State of Palestine is just that – false.

      • Citizen
        December 2, 2012, 10:09 am

        @ mondonut
        In the US civil law, Israel’s claims would be considered frivolous and Israel’s claim would be denied and the denial would be accompanied by penalty fees. Nobody could win a claim of entitlement settlement in Africa (US paid) because the theory goes that way back in history all mankind came from Africa.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 2, 2012, 10:52 am

        ergo conflicting claims exist.

        Nothing that you have presented in your diatribe dispels the simple fact that conflicting claims exist.

        Nothing that you have presented in your diatribe dispels the simple fact that israel’s ‘claim’ is grounded primarily in jewish/biblical mythology.

        International courts aren’t interested in Jewish history and Jewish ethics. They won’t listen to rabbinic interpretations of the Torah or be swayed by Holocaust pleadings.

        Jewish uniqueness and Jewish destiny don’t play in international courts. I doubt they’ll accept Elie Wiesel or Amos Oz for that matter, as expert witnesses. International courts aren’t interested in ‘Jewish.’ Maybe that’s the kind of Empire Shock Therapy we need now.

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • mondonut
        December 2, 2012, 11:37 am

        Annie Robbins says: Nothing that you have presented in your diatribe dispels the simple fact that israel’s ‘claim’ is grounded primarily in jewish/biblical mythology.
        ============================================
        Israel’s claim to Jerusalem is additionally based on its majority Jewish indigenous population, the very real Jewish history of the city, that Israel currently possesses it, that given the opportunity to choose that it would choose Israel over Palestine, the weakness of the Palestinian claim and that it alone has demonstrated a willingness to administrate the city fairly with respect to all religions.

        The Palestinian claim pretty much boils down to that they cannot allow the Jews to have it.

      • sardelapasti
        December 2, 2012, 2:06 pm

        “Israel both possesses and claims Jerusalem.”
        There is no such claim, as there is no ground for it.
        Conquest (=possession) has been disqualified as basis for a claim since the Treaty of Westphalia, repeated by UN Charter.
        “The nascent state of Palestine also claims it. ”
        It is, after all, in Palestine and the best-known city of Palestine. That is a perfect ground.
        “Their claims conflict”
        No, there is only one receivable claim here.
        “You forgot to call me a poopy-head”
        I’ll do that for him. You more than justify it.

      • Hostage
        December 2, 2012, 4:22 pm

        Nothing that you have presented in your diatribe dispels the simple fact that israel’s ‘claim’ is grounded primarily in jewish/biblical mythology.

        Clarafication: The San Remo resolution put Great Britain in charge of implementing the terms of its own Balfour Declaration. The League of Nations gave it “full powers of administration” after Churchill’s White Paper of 1922 had explained that Great Britain “did not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded “in Palestine.”

        The Land Transfer Ordinance (1940) had effectively partitioned the state of Palestine in favor of the Arab majority in line with the White Paper policies of 1922 and 1939. The ordinance divided the country into threes zones. Land transfers in Zones A and B, except to a “Palestinian Arab”, were prohibited. Judea and Samaria were located in those Zones. Here is a link to the map link to books.google.com

        The UN plan also stipulated that only the Arab inhabitants of the Jewish State or the Jewish inhabitants of the Arab State had a right to exercise the option of taking up citizenship in the other State within one year. So neither the UN nor the League of Nations ever recognized the claims you are talking about.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 2, 2012, 4:32 pm

        Israel’s claim to Jerusalem is additionally based on its majority Jewish indigenous population

        not east jerusalem.

        the very real Jewish history of the city

        ‘very real history’ does not favor israel’s claim over palestinian. that’s my point.

        Israel currently possesses it

        illegal occupation does not a legal claim make. whoops!

        The Palestinian claim pretty much boils down to that they cannot allow the Jews to have it.

        lol, in your hasbara dreamland.

    • cogit8
      November 29, 2012, 5:22 pm

      “The GA cannot set borders. Period. ”

      Exactly, which also applies to the GA 1947 UN Partition Plan: the foundation built on sand that Israel used to throw 750,000 farmers off the land she now occupies.

      I can’t wait for Israel to start squirming in the dock of the ICC, charged with war-crimes, crimes against humanity, etc, etc.

      And while I’m here; Hanan would make a better US Ambassador to the UN than that mediocre empty drum, Susan Rice.

  4. Citizen
    November 29, 2012, 2:46 pm

    When will US act in its own best interests?

    • yonah fredman
      November 29, 2012, 3:28 pm

      The financing for campaigns will have to change before Congress will reflect what is in the US interest. I don’t think a 180 degree turn is in the US interest, but I think the overwhelming support Israel has in Congress is not helpful to creative thinking on this issue. And by the way, the broken Congress, that’s not the fault of the Zionists. There are many people interested in keeping Congress dependent on their dollars.

      • Mooser
        December 1, 2012, 12:19 pm

        “helpful to creative thinking on this issue.”

        “Creative thinking” for those who don’t dig hasbarese means ‘how to make sure Israel profits from its crimes and intransigence, and the Palestinians lose’
        And anything Yonah creates will be aimed towards exactly that, he simply doesn’t know any other way.

      • Mooser
        December 2, 2012, 2:34 pm

        “And by the way, the broken Congress, that’s not the fault of the Zionists.”

        I forgot you studied ethics in the Jewish tradition, Yonah, and are therefore qualified to make these judgements. I’m sure you will find that principle, (when something is already corrupt, why, it’s only natural to take advantage of it and no ethical problem there!) explicated and and advocated by all the sages and Rabbis all the way back to Mt. Sinai.

  5. Annie Robbins
    November 29, 2012, 2:54 pm

    wonderful. i’ve been praying all morning. great post.

    btw, re hamas. back in june after abbas announced he was going back to the UN, palestinians were planning on elections, israel stepped up arrests, we posted Prime Minister Haniyeh’s call for unity, for palestinians to “to address the world with one voice”: We Palestinians are reclaiming our destiny….link to mondoweiss.net

    I would like to reiterate on behalf of my people our sincere desire to live in security and stability, without wars and bloodshed; we hope that the world will help us in this venture. We extend our hand to all those who seek a just peace to work seriously to end the occupation and help us establish our state, which the world has already recognised.

    We recognise that this requires a Palestinian unity that we seek to achieve. But external pressure has stood in the way, obstructing the path to political equality and national reconciliation. We believe that the absence of international recognition of the Palestinian democratic election of 2006, won by Hamas, has contributed to the current state of division, and to the creation of a weak Palestinian side that has fallen prey to accepting concessions on the rights of its people.

    But today we stand again as a Palestinian people. Although under siege in the Gaza Strip, we have endured war and aggression, and withstood attempts to wipe us out without fading away. We are working hard in order to be able to address the world with one voice that represents the will of all our people, with an emphasis on the desire to live a free, decent and secure life.

    We hope that this time we will be able to pass through the neck of the bottle and move on towards a genuine national reconciliation based on the formation of a coalition government that could prepare for free and transparent elections. And then the world must recognise the results of Palestinian democracy – particularly now, when the countries of the Arab spring are experiencing democratic transition, and a return to a lost authenticity that will not tear the region apart, but bring it together.

  6. seafoid
    November 29, 2012, 3:02 pm

    “We believe that Congress will do whatever Israel says,” she said, and then challenged the U.S. to do the right thing now by not voting against the statehood initiative”.

    And it is absolutely no coincidence that the American Century is over less than 7 decades in.

  7. eljay
    November 29, 2012, 3:11 pm

    I was disappointed that our (Canadian) Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) and his Foreign Affairs bulldog (John Baird) vocally opposed the Palestinian motion.

    However, given their apparent mission in life – to out-do America when it comes to kissing Zionist @ss – I was not at all surprised.

    • MRW
      November 29, 2012, 4:09 pm

      Harper’s an Israeli harpee.

    • Kathleen
      November 29, 2012, 4:47 pm

      Rather pathetic and telling. But who expected anything else out of the Harper government. They were helped into place by the I lobby in Canada

    • john h
      November 29, 2012, 10:42 pm

      Yes, on this Canada is one of the pariahs. Australia wanted to be seen to be too, but strong opposition from her party colleagues stopped the PM in her tracks. The choice was to abstain, a position described as “to sit mute, undecided, weak, helpless and impotent,” just like the other 40 quislings who did so.

    • Real Jew
      November 29, 2012, 11:43 pm

      Right on the money. Harper is so deep in the Israel lobby’s pocket he may soon transform into a ball of lint

      • tear-stained uzi
        November 30, 2012, 10:16 am

        Not sure why, but this made me LOL — thanks!

  8. Kathleen
    November 29, 2012, 4:46 pm

    the Canadian Rep goes on an on about UN resolution 242, 338, 1397 never even mentioning that Israel has never NEVER followed anything in those resolutions. He failed to mention that Israel has never ever stopped stealing Palestinian lands, bulldozing Palestinian homes, destroying their olive trees and their lives. The Canadian Rep wants the Palestinians to hang on FOREVER for the Never never land. while their lands are being stolen as he speaks. Enough enough enough of this purposeful foolishness

  9. Kathleen
    November 29, 2012, 4:53 pm

    Turkey “If not now when”

  10. seafoid
    November 29, 2012, 5:02 pm

    Complete bollocks from arch bot Ron Prosor, speaking in place of Lieberman at the UN
    link to guardian.co.uk
    “65 years ago, the Palestinian people could have chosen to live side-by-side with the Jewish people… They rejected it then, and they’re rejecting it now.
    He calls for “negotiations without preconditions in which the demilitarized Palestinian state accepts the Jewish state.”
    “The truth is that Israel wants peace and the Palestinians are avoiding peace.”

    • talknic
      December 1, 2012, 11:38 am

      Prosor spouting tried olde nonsense. How utterly embarrassing. Anyone count the times he repeated the Israel wants peace lie and the demand to be recognized as a Jewish State? Vomit bucket stuff.. In the US recognition of Israel, the US crossed out ‘Jewish State’.

      “65 years ago, the Palestinian people could have chosen to live side-by-side with the Jewish people” except by the time the Mandate ended, Jewish forces occupied territory slated for the Arab state link to wp.me

  11. cogit8
    November 29, 2012, 5:29 pm

    Shummer: “How dare the Palestinians bring questions involving their very existence to a Court of World Opinion, when they know they have to submit to racist theocratic Israeli courts because we have the whip in our hands and the strange fruit in our trees?

  12. just
    November 29, 2012, 6:28 pm

    Prayers answered.

  13. Rusty Pipes
    November 29, 2012, 6:57 pm

    Obama is dancing with them that brung him — financially at least. Whether he actually made the promises that ultra-Zionists like Ross and Dersh attributed to him, he appears to be honoring them to the letter. Even if he did not make such specific promises, ultra-Zionist Democrats like Schumer will be around to remind him that he needs their help to get any of his Domestic agenda enacted in the next four years.

  14. yourstruly
    November 29, 2012, 7:33 pm

    israel settlements in occupied territory are a war crime in violation of the geneva convention + unilateral support for israel has damaged the us’s standing around the world + foreign policy should be based on america’s interests –

    considering the feeling that everyone seems to get upon viewing that vietnam era photo, the one in which a vietnamese child, aflame and appearing terrorized is seen running down a village trail

    how come, one child,
    there’s universal outrage
    however much righteous & true
    yet in what was only the zionist entity’s latest gaza military incursion, with one side (always the same side, too) ending up with by far the most death and destruction, not to mention all the injured & homeless?

    outrage?
    everywhere, except in the u.s. of a.
    the reason that on the p/i issue the u.s. stands alone.
    censorship
    based on?
    israel-firster control of information
    outcome?
    after years of being blocked from getting its story out to the american people, by popular demand (albeit, aided by modern communication technology) the u.s. government is forced to change its policy in regard to palestine/israel

    sure to follow?

    a just & peaceful world

  15. eljay
    November 30, 2012, 7:36 am

    >> He calls for “negotiations without preconditions in which the demilitarized Palestinian state accepts the Jewish state.”

    More Zio-supremacist “logic”: Negotiations with no pre-conditions other than a de-militarized Palestine and the acceptance of a “Jewish State” are not negotiations without pre-conditions.

    >> “The truth is that Israel wants peace and the Palestinians are avoiding peace.”

    Nothing says “I want peace” like:
    – using terrorism and ethnic cleansing to establish an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state;
    – undertaking a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder; and
    – refusing to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

  16. Walker
    November 30, 2012, 9:55 am

    Those who constantly criticize Israel’s value as an ally must acknowledge that once again Israel has heroically stood by the US on an issue on which we stand almost alone. How many times over the decades has little Israel come to our defense in the UN on this issue? Almost too many to count.

    Of course, mention also must be made of Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama. These are nations whose devotion to principle is unquestioned.

    How disappointing that the NY Times has chosen to downplay this story! This only makes the accusations that the Times is hyper-critical of Israel more credible.

    • just
      November 30, 2012, 8:50 pm

      huh?

      • Citizen
        December 1, 2012, 11:09 am

        @ just
        What’s the matter, don’t you realize the IDF has fought side by side with America’s soldiers in the trenches for decades? It’s not for nothing (draft dodger) Bill Clinton said he’d join IDF soldiers in the trenches at the drop of a hat.

  17. American
    December 2, 2012, 11:31 am

    “We believe that Congress will do whatever Israel says,” she said”

    I believe they will too. Right down to the day some war we wind up in for Israel against too many opposing nations sinks us. While I dont relish it or want it , it may be, like the Palestines no other choice but force to reclaim their land, the only thing that would reclaim the US from Israel.

    I saw Hillary Clinton on c-span last night speaking at the Haban Center to the gathered US Israel supporters…..her black is white speech could have been straight out of Orwell’s 1984.
    Since everything that can be said about the Israeli abberation in US government has been said a thousands times I don’t try to describe this insanity that much any more…..instead I have these movie scene fantasies like kidnapping the I-Firsters and having the Star of David tattoed on their foreheads where the skin is so thin it would have to be cut out to get rid of it.

Leave a Reply