Palestinians circulate draft resolution at UN as Barak implores US to help Israel delay bid

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 106 Comments

Cat’s coming out of the bag on what’s really on the minds of certain people after the U.S. election and it sure as heck isn’t Iran.

ShowImage ashx
Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Photo: Marc Sellem/JPost)

Yep, now that the US election is over key political figures in Israel are revealing how freaked out they are. As time ticks away towards November 29th we can expect squawks of discontent turning regularly into loud roars of threatening disapproval, more repercussions and insertions of “the Hague” cropping up in news reports

Jerusalem Post:

Israel and the US must delay Palestinian unilateral statehood moves at the UN until after the Israeli elections, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday night.

He spoke on Channel 10 hours after US President Barack Obama was elected to a second four-year term.

“We have a joint interest, ours and theirs, to delay the Palestinian UN bid for nonmember state,” he said. “This has to be done now, immediately.”

On election eve when Netanyahu was giving his ‘we don’t need America to attack Iran interview, nine Israeli ministers were in a closed meeting discussing ways to threaten Palestinians over their bid. The day after the election Haaretz reported a long list of retributions, characterized as harsh sanctions towards the Palestinian Authority in response to the PLO seeking the UN upgrade.

Haaretz: Israel may expand settlement activity if PA seeks UN upgrade:

Among the other possible sanctions that Foreign Ministry officials presented at the meeting were reinstating limits on travel within the West Bank, including revoking VIP permits currently held by senior PA officials, which allow them to cross Israel Defense Forces checkpoints more easily. Another proposal included economic sanctions, such as revoking permits for Palestinian workers, as well as freezing the tax funds that Israel collects monthly for the Palestinian Authority, which would prevent the PA from paying the salaries of its employees and security personnel.

The Foreign Ministry officials also proposed cancelling the Paris agreement, an economic appendix of the Oslo accords that regulates economic ties between Israel and the PA.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as other Defense Ministry officials who participated in the meeting claimed that an economic collapse of the Palestinian Authority would cause a breakdown of Palestinian security forces, and put an end to Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation in the West Bank, and undermine stability there.

ShowImage 1 ashx
Abbas Zaki (Photo: Reuters)

The Palestinians don’t seem scared.  On the contrary, they are deflecting and hitting back. They want to be “free of all commitments” signed under Oslo. How shocking, they sound like they don’t even care about the agreement. It sounds as tho Abbas Zaki, member of Fatah’s central committee (of “big lesson” fame), is taunting Israel again.

Jerusalem Post, Fatah: Oslo Accords will cease to exist after UN bid:

Zaki said that once the status of a Palestinian state is upgraded, the Palestinians would be able to pursue Israel for “war crimes” in the International Criminal Court.

“Once we become a recognized state, we will go to all UN agencies to force the international community to take legal action against Israel,” Zaki told the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper.

He said that after the UN votes in favor of the PA request, “the case of the Oslo Accords and the Palestinian Authority will be closed. We will have a state parliament and not a Palestinian Legislative Council.” Zaki denied that some Arab countries have been exerting pressure on the PA leadership to refrain from the statehood bid.

“Until this moment, no one has dared to ask us not to go to the UN,” he stressed. “We have no other choice. Some European countries, like Britain, have only asked us to delay the statehood bid for three months. But we are determined to go to the UN General Assembly this month.”

Saleh Ra’fat, member of the PLO Executive Committee, warned that the PA leadership would abrogate economic and security agreements with Israel if the Israeli government imposed sanctions on the Palestinians in response to the statehood bid.

“The Palestinian leadership will respond if the Israeli government carries out its threats against the Palestinian Authority,” Ra’fat told the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds daily.

He said that the PA would consider itself free of all its commitments under the agreements signed with Israel, including economic and security obligations.

Meanwhile, let’s have more peace talks! Back to the Jerusalem Post link:

Barak was not the only politician and diplomat whose thoughts immediately turned to the frozen Israel Palestinian peace talks, immediately upon hearing of Obama’s victory.
 

Netanyahu is practically begging Abbas to get back to the (fruitless) negotiating table. Tony Blair was on it lickety-split yesterday. Check out this dynamic video of a meeting between Blair and Netanyahu the very day after Obama’s victory. Note Blair’s reference to ‘re-energizing this process’ as well as the remarkably compelling hand gestures of both men.

Palestinians just circulated a draft resolution to the General Assembly’s 193 U.N. member states today, the first step required to upgrade their status from an observer to a nonmember observer state.

The draft resolution, first tweeted by Inner City Press and later obtained by The Associated Press, would have the General Assembly decide “to accord to Palestine Observer State status in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice.”
 

106 Responses

  1. Bumblebye
    November 8, 2012, 4:55 pm

    Go fer it, Palestine!
    Get those court cases up and running.

    Yuk. Toady Blair.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 8, 2012, 5:01 pm

      did you notice my little snark about the ‘remarkably compelling hand gestures’. i hope no one takes that seriously.

      • gamal
        November 9, 2012, 7:31 am

        and dear Annie if you havent heard of her the incomparable Tanya Stevens

      • Don
        November 9, 2012, 9:28 am

        Absolutely! Very funny…

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 8, 2012, 5:02 pm

      Well, he smooched the US President’s butt for 8 years during Chimpy’s administration. Must be used to it by now.

  2. Annie Robbins
    November 8, 2012, 4:59 pm

    “This has to be done now, immediately.

    uh huh.

  3. Woody Tanaka
    November 8, 2012, 5:01 pm

    The fact that the israelis are saying, in essence, “try to wrestle your way out from under our boot and we’ll do everything in our power to destroy your families’ lives and kill your children” (because, for certain, the “sanctions” the israeli criminals are proposing will absolutely result in the death of children) demonstrates exactly how evil and dispicable these people in the israeli government are.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 8, 2012, 5:02 pm

      they killed another child in gaza today woody.

      link to imemc.org

      The sources said that the child, Hameed Younis Abu Doqqa, 13, was killed by rounds of live ammunition fired by an Israeli military helicopter.

      Eyewitnesses said that the soldiers opened fire at several civilians and their homes in Al-Faraheen area, in Khan Younis, leading to the death of the child.

    • Hostage
      November 8, 2012, 6:04 pm

      demonstrates exactly how evil and dispicable these people in the israeli government are.

      Agreed. It looks like Palestine will follow the Israeli example and adopt the clean slate doctrine on succession to treaties. No State should allow another to collect its revenues or expropriate its natural resources.

      Israel miscalculated when it insisted on negotiating the interim Oslo Accords with “the PLO”, instead of “Palestine”. The PLO isn’t becoming a non-member state, so it’s agreements are now moot. The 2003 Basic Law explicitly stated that the PA was only an interim pre-state organ.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 8, 2012, 6:11 pm

        i am so excited hostage. i can’t help it, i am beside myself. omg, i think it is amazing. i know others do not share my enthusiasm but the idea of palestine dragging israeli war criminals thru the international court system thrills me to no end.

      • amigo
        November 8, 2012, 7:26 pm

        Annie, I share your enthusiasm .

        The very thought that these vile criminals will know fear is hugely satisfying’.

        Watching them in the dock would be orgasmic.

      • Zrow
        November 8, 2012, 7:41 pm

        I too find myself very excited by the prospect Annie.
        Thank you for the article. Hopefully we will finally see some justice.

      • Hostage
        November 8, 2012, 9:27 pm

        the idea of palestine dragging israeli war criminals thru the international court system thrills me to no end.

        It’s obvious that Israel intends to intimidate the Palestinian officials, just like they did when Dichter threatened Abbas into delaying the Goldstone vote. It may very well take a similar public outcry to prod the government and ICC officials into taking the necessary steps.

        I’ve noted before that there hasn’t been a workable Israeli strategy for the continuing illegal settlement enterprise after the Rome Statute entered into effect in July of 2002 – except to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood. The responsible officials can’t claim that they hadn’t been warned about the consequences of their actions, e.g. See the Haaretz article“A-G: New Hague court may indict settlers for war crimes”, Jun.11, 2002 .

        The ICJ has already published an opinion which contained a finding of fact that Israel is in violation of Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention. That is a war crime listed in Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute which has been committed on the territory of Palestine by readily identifiable Israeli officials, including members of the cabinet, IDF General Staff, the Mayor of Jerusalem, and the members of the Regional Councils of Gush Etzion, Har Hebron, Bik’at HaYarden, Mateh Binyamin, Megilot, and Shomron:

        (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

        link to untreaty.un.org

        The other ICJ findings are simply a repetition of the constituent acts of the crimes of apartheid and/or persecution.

      • seafoid
        November 8, 2012, 10:49 pm

        It’s like that fairy story about the girl, the prince and the ugly sisters, with Israel and the US as the sisters.

        Palestinian untermensch Cinderella is about to go to the ball and the b*tches say she has no clothes. And she is stunning.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 8, 2012, 11:14 pm

        omg seafoid, can’t stop laughing.

      • Sibiriak
        November 9, 2012, 9:58 pm

        Watching them in the dock would be orgasmic

        If they ever get there—but it won’t ameliorate, let alone end, the Occupation, nor slow don’t the settlement expansion and ethnic cleansing.

  4. Annie Robbins
    November 8, 2012, 5:11 pm

    wow, the last link Palestinians seek new U.N. status as observer state is spreading like wildfire. already 8 google pages of links and the AP story is only 2 hrs old.

    update, it’s now been 5 hrs and it’s up to 31 google pages of links. i think we can safely assume this story has now been saturated into the msm.

  5. Mayhem
    November 8, 2012, 5:35 pm

    They want to be “free of all commitments” signed under Oslo.

    How can the Palestinians be genuine about making peace agreements when they want to walk away from undertakings they themselves made?

    • Annie Robbins
      November 8, 2012, 5:42 pm

      you have to ask? it was a 5 year window mayhem, not a permanent arrangement to facilitate israel annexing all the territory. it was a sham all along.

      link to mondoweiss.net

      link to mondoweiss.net

      Smiling, Netanyahu then recalled how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. “They didn’t want to give me that letter,” Netanyahu said, “so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.

      go watch the video again at the link and then compare it to the video of netanyahu lying to blair yesterday.

      • iamuglow
        November 9, 2012, 11:37 am

        The first link that has the link on YouTube to the original video – has been marked private.

        I found this which has some clips on it
        link to youtube.com

        If anyone has the full video they ought to upload it to Youtube and other video sites. The fact that he is caught on camera saying he
        “put an end to the Oslo accords” and other stuff about ‘moving’ the US and it never ever comes up in US articles about him is just nauesating.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 9, 2012, 12:19 pm

        thanks iamuglow. i found this googling around

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 8, 2012, 7:06 pm

      “How can the Palestinians be genuine about making peace agreements when they want to walk away from undertakings they themselves made?”

      They’re faced with a party on the other side that had no morality and has failed to proceed in good faith. The agreement was procured by fraud, is a sham and the victims of the vile fraud by the israelis are not bound by it.

    • Zrow
      November 8, 2012, 7:43 pm

      Any rational person understands after 60 plus yrs that you can not make ‘genuine’ peace with Israel if they desire your land

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 9, 2012, 10:33 am

        “Any rational person understands after 60 plus yrs that you can not make ‘genuine’ peace with Israel if they desire your land”

        That’s exactly right. The founding criminals of the state made no bones about what crimes they were conspiring to commit and each succeeding generation of criminals have followed suit. Israeli leaders are, to a person, patent liars and criminal human-rights abusers and should all be locked up for life.

    • MLE
      November 8, 2012, 8:09 pm

      Oslo is dead. Israel has no interest in following Oslo, and they only keep it as a way to look like they are trying for the whole peace thing. How often does Israel stray from the commitments made under Oslo?

      The Palestinians are being pragmatic in this situation. If Israel wants a two state solution, they’ll let the UN thing through. There will be negotiations over what the borders will really look like, but in the end there are two states. If Israel and the US continue to object the way they do, then the narrative becomes- “if you don’t want two states, then what exactly do you want?” It really puts the issue of the one state solution on the table because the Palestinians will say “we went to the UN fully supporting a 2SS and the Israelis rejected it. They must not want us to have a state, therefore lets look at new solutions.”

    • Hostage
      November 8, 2012, 9:42 pm

      How can the Palestinians be genuine about making peace agreements when they want to walk away from undertakings they themselves made?

      LOL! According to the ICJ, Israel has never been very scrupulous about honoring its own treaty obligations. The UN partition plan called for the Jewish and the Arab state to pay shares of the public debts of the mandatory administration and to act as successors in interest to its treaty obligations in line with the terms for transition originally spelled-out in Article 28 of the Mandate itself. Despite assurances from “the Jewish Agency for Palestine”, the new “government of the State of Israel” claimed that it was in no sense a successor to the mandatory regime – and that all rights and claims under the mandate had ceased to exist when the mandate was terminated.

      Israel could have signed the Oslo Agreements with the State of Palestine, but insisted on dealing with the PLO instead. The Interim Agreement of 1995, which was the major post-Oslo agreement, specified that neither party shall be deemed “to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions” (Art. 31-6). Statehood was never mentioned or enumerated as an issue designated for final status negotiations in the Oslo Accords and the Palestinians unilateral declaration of independence had already been recognized by the majority of other states in 1988.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 9, 2012, 7:48 am

        Israel could have signed the Oslo Agreements with the State of Palestine, but insisted on dealing with the PLO instead.

        michael oren has weighed in:

        Oren—first item on U.S.-Israel agenda is Palestinian statehood bid

        The Palestinian Authority’s bid for an upgrade in U.N. status is of immediate concern in the U.S.-Israel relationship, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said in a post-U.S. election interview.

        “We regard this with the utmost seriousness and are closely communicating with the United States and other like minded nations in the world,” Oren told JTA on Thursday.

        Oren was reaching out to journalists after President Obama spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leaders’ first conversation since Obama won reelection on Tuesday.

        The most important issue was Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program, Oren said, but the item of most immediate concern was the Palestinian bit to obtain observer state status at the United Nations — a request that could be considered as soon as this month.

        “This could be calamitous for the Palestinians themselves,” Oren said. “It would not get them closer to real statehood, it would create unrealistic expectations on the ground and it would call into question a number of agreements Israel has with the Palestinian Authority, and not with the ‘state of Palestine’.”

        i wonder why oren called it the PA’s bid. he must know abbas is representing the PLO.

      • Shmuel
        November 9, 2012, 8:04 am

        This could be calamitous for the Palestinians themselves

        Oren’s “concern” is duly noted.

        It would not get them closer to real statehood

        Like anything else would.

        it would create unrealistic expectations on the ground

        Palestinians aren’t allowed to have expectations.

        and it would call into question a number of agreements Israel has with the Palestinian Authority, and not with the ‘state of Palestine’.”

        As much as Israel would love to honour those agreements (as opposed to threatening to suspend them, in order to keep Abbas from going to the UN), it’s hands would be tied by international law, which, as a rule, it obeys to the letter.

      • seafoid
        November 9, 2012, 8:17 am

        “We regard this with the utmost seriousness and are closely communicating with the United States and other like minded nations in the world,” ”

        ie Micronesia, period. LOL

      • seafoid
        November 9, 2012, 8:18 am

        “This could be calamitous for the Palestinians themselves”

        As if Gaza is Shangri La and the status quo is attractive. Like Israel has anything to offer . Like Zionists can ever be honest about the nature of their grotesquely racist ideology.

      • Hostage
        November 9, 2012, 8:33 am

        it would call into question a number of agreements Israel has with the Palestinian Authority, and not with the ‘state of Palestine’.”

        LOL! Then thank goodness there are always the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;-) The PLO filed accessions to those treaties on behalf of the State of Palestine decades ago.

        The UN vote would remove the last legal hurdle standing in the way of prosecuting Israel’s many on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions. I’d suggest that Oren and his brethren need to devote more attention to that, than the possible status of the lapsed Oslo Accords.

      • Hostage
        November 9, 2012, 8:53 am

        i wonder why oren called it the PA’s bid. he must know abbas is representing the PLO.

        Oren and the US have been sharing dishonest talking points about “statehood”. It’s a legal status that Palestine already enjoys in over 130 countries. After the UN vote, it will enjoy that legal status in international organizations and courts.

        The US and Israel can still refuse to recognize or normalize diplomatic relations with Palestine, but they will nonetheless be legally obliged to treat it as another state. That means Israel will have no choice, but to finally treat Palestine as a High Contracting party to the Geneva Conventions with recognized frontiers for the purposes forced transfers, deportations of civilians, POWs, & etc. I don’t think that officials, like Oren or the Israeli Supreme Court, have spent much time trying to envision all of the changes that Palestinian statehood would entail. But they had better do it or risk being indicted in the ICC.

      • Hostage
        November 9, 2012, 9:07 am

        P.S. Organizations (i.e. the PLO) are not allowed to join the United Nations or the ICC, only States can become contracting parties. Oren and other Israelis keep talking about the PA to avoid admitting that it will be just another organ of the government of the State of Palestine after the UN vote.

        Abbas signed the application for membership in the UN and UNESCO as the 1) The President of Palestine; 2) the President of the Palestinian Authority; and 3) the Chairman of the PLO. So all of his bases are covered;-)

        States have attributes that organizations do not – like populations, and legal jurisdiction within recognized frontiers.

      • LeaNder
        November 9, 2012, 9:25 am

        Hostage, this would be a perfect chance you watch what happens, report on it and move “upstairs” and link to some of your distributed contributions.

        Personally I have not the time to follow you as closely as you deserve, but you surely are the MW expert in this field. And quite possibly with the support of e.g. Phil or Adam, Allister is busy, Alex, Annie? you would be the best to keep us nitwits in the larger field informed. Any chance?

      • thankgodimatheist
        November 9, 2012, 8:43 pm

        Exactly Lea. Still wondering what Phil and Adam are waiting for to get him “upstairs”..It would be much more effective to get his comments as articles/documents we can link to.

      • Sibiriak
        November 9, 2012, 10:06 pm

        Hostage:

        States have attributes that organizations do not – like populations, and legal jurisdiction within recognized frontiers.

        Would the UN be recognizing specific frontiers for Palestine?

      • Hostage
        November 10, 2012, 2:07 am

        Would the UN be recognizing specific frontiers for Palestine?

        I think it already has recognized the armistice lines as the interim or provisional borders of Palestine. The ICJ and General Assembly had stated that the construction of the wall is illegal wherever it deviates from the Green Line. The Security Council had labeled the settlements and the annexation of Jerusalem as flagrant violations of international law too.

        The 1949 armistice lines were originally imposed by the Security Council as a “provisional measure” under Article 40 of the UN Charter. The Security Council subsequently endorsed the Quartet Road Map – which called for recognition of the State of Palestine within interim borders and possible UN membership as a Quartet Phase II obligation. There was never any requirement for Palestine to negotiate a final settlement before going to the UN or ICC. There haven’t been any mutually agreed upon changes to the Green Line, so those frontiers would have to be considered the legally binding provisional borders for the time being.

    • Citizen
      November 9, 2012, 5:40 am

      @ Mayhem
      By adopting the Israeli model of ignoring its official promises?

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 9, 2012, 10:19 am

        “By adopting the Israeli model of ignoring its official promises?”

        That’s exactly right. The Palestinians have waited for 70 years, putting up with israeli lies after lies after lies, as they oppressed the rightful landowners and spread their disgusting settlements onto stolen land. The israelis seem to be constitutionally incapable of being decent human beings, so the Palestinians SHOULD seek their justice elsewhere. The israelis are monsters and should be treated as such until they reform themselves.

    • Shingo
      November 10, 2012, 7:57 am

      How can the Palestinians be genuine about making peace agreements when they want to walk away from undertakings they themselves made?

      You mean like Israel did with the Road Map, or UN194, and UNSC242?

  6. southernobserver
    November 8, 2012, 5:57 pm

    Good news.

    What reason does anybody offer for delaying or abandoning the bid? As best I can tell the Palestinians’ must know that after 65 years, they cannot possibly win or break even. This way they might just inconvenience some war criminals. Doing nothing will leave them with not even that.

    • Hostage
      November 8, 2012, 10:10 pm

      What reason does anybody offer for delaying or abandoning the bid?

      The Obama administration asked the PA to wait until after the elections, presumably signaling the intention to remain neutral or abstain in that case. But the Obama administration is twisting arms and campaigning against the upgrade anyway.

  7. mcohen
    November 8, 2012, 6:11 pm

    he said

    “Once we become a recognized state, we will go to all UN agencies to force the international community to take legal action against Israel,” Zaki told the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper.

    legal action ? lawyers ? instead of rockets and bombs -no more military spending,no 3rd intifada.yahoo i smell money

    Jumping jack flash, it’s a gas
    its a gas -off the coast of gasa

    • seafoid
      November 8, 2012, 10:51 pm

      “no more military spending”

      LOL. The Palestinians don’t have a military .They aren’t allowed to own guns or planes.

  8. pabelmont
    November 8, 2012, 6:13 pm

    We must encourage President Obama to PROMOTE each and every Palestinian bid for UN membership, and see if Palestine can get BOTH UNGA and UNSC acceptance as a state.

    President Obama does not have to act like a slave to AIPAC, and impeding I/P peace has never been in the USA’s real national interest. Notice how little good all that neocon money did for Rominy&Co? Obama must have noticed it, too.

    Palestinian statehood (of any flavor) does not imperil Israel; Israel imperils Israel.

    Also, President Obama does not have to run for any office again and doesn’t (himself) need anybody’s “BIG MONEY”. (The congress does, but not the president.)

    Imagine EARNING his Nobel Peace Prize the old fashioned way — by deserving it (retroactively).

    • Hostage
      November 8, 2012, 10:00 pm

      We must encourage President Obama to PROMOTE each and every Palestinian bid for UN membership, and see if Palestine can get BOTH UNGA and UNSC acceptance as a state.

      Palestine already enjoys all of the privileges of UN membership, with the exception of a vote in the General Assembly and the opportunity to compete for one of the non-permanent seats on the Security Council.

      The motive for the US and Israel to oppose UN membership was to prevent the Palestinians from becoming a state party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Statute of the ICJ; the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas; and to continue to cast doubt on its accession to the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols. The upgrade in status will render those objections and hypotheticals moot. So there will be nothing to gain from the use of the US veto to block full-membership. The US would simply isolate itself further and waste its own political capital.

  9. pipistro
    November 8, 2012, 6:19 pm

    ADL Urges European Foreign Ministers To Oppose Palestinian Initiative At The U.N. [...] “We share the belief that peace can best be achieved through bilateral, direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on all final status issues,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

    Pretty scared these dudes. And definitely shameful the fact they still talk of direct negotiations, long since aimed at the present “no-state” situation. If one thing Abbas can do the right way (it was time indeed) for Palestinians, is to face any blackmail and go ahead. For sure EU Governments shall tremble and will play dirty tricks, but this shouldn’t work in order to stop the decision of the UN General Assembly.

    • seafoid
      November 8, 2012, 10:54 pm

      Foxman, the old slag. Isn’t it all Jewish land?

      That procrastination shtick seems to have run into the sand, Abe. Time to crank it up again and fool another generation of schmucks.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 8, 2012, 11:41 pm

      the adl should keep their nose out of a process not under their purview. what does this: link to adl.org have to do with fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry?

      and notice the date, nov 6th. this just buttresses my opening line. election day and they’re saber rattling the EU to step in line, not over iran..but over the statehood bid. it’s amazing stupid the public is. iran iran iran my a**. we can thank congress and the msm for assisting them in their deadly diversion.

      • seafoid
        November 9, 2012, 5:44 pm

        The ADL is a joke. It started out as a decent outfit but has morphed into one of the pillars of militarist Zionism. And is screaming blue murder at anyone who opposes YESHA helping to fight prejudice? You couldn’t make it up.

  10. pabelmont
    November 8, 2012, 6:25 pm

    Hold it, my hearing’s not good, but did N’yahu say he wanted to resume negotiations with “no preconditions” ??

    None? No undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital? Ooh! Did Obama get to him with that no-bombing-Iran stuff? What has Hilary been sweet-nothing-ing to him?

    Oops, fergot, Israel’s not interested in any negotiation that might GET ANYWHERE, so it doesn’t need preconditions. My mistake.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 8, 2012, 7:08 pm

      No, silly, the “no preconditions” stuff is for the Arabs. The Jews in this conflict are allowed to put in any preconditions they want.

    • Diane Mason
      November 8, 2012, 7:09 pm

      When he says no preconditions, he means no PALESTINIAN preconditions. This is simply code for “no settlement freeze”.

  11. tls5164
    November 8, 2012, 6:34 pm

    I sure hope that the bill passes and the Palestinians don’t decide to back off.

  12. Dan Crowther
    November 8, 2012, 6:53 pm

    Can’t Wait!!

    • seafoid
      November 9, 2012, 4:33 am

      It has the potential to be like that moment where the bully, in the process of pummeling the younger kid, revelling in the power, turns around to find a gang of angel bikers moving towards him to give him the beating of his life

      • aiman
        November 9, 2012, 8:33 am

        Appreciate your similies, seafoid. :))

  13. talknic
    November 8, 2012, 10:30 pm

    Israel’s greatest fear ….. the end of Deuteronomy 20:15

    • seafoid
      November 8, 2012, 11:24 pm

      Too long believing their own hype. It’s their own fault, they should have figured it out. You can’t promise a people freedom and then 20 years later cite “facts on the ground” as reasons why the offer is no longer available. “Jewish land” my ass.

      Let’s see what the world thinks of the West Bank as “Jewish land”.

      Barak is a clown. None of them understood that the peace process was what kept criticism of Israel at bay. You can’t brutalise a people and keep all hope suppressed, shut off every single avenue and then expect them to give up. Donn’t they understand ANYTHING? Or is the Jewish experience in the diaspora sui generis ? Are we supposed to understand that “Next year in Jerusalem” can’t be translated into Arabic?

      Of course the Palestinians are going to go to the UN. Wouldn’t the Israelis do the same? Didn’t they? How myopic are the bots ?

      Israel is so like the Repubican echo chamber. Reality is excluded. They heard their own BS so often they bought it.

      Most Hebrew speakers would appear to have no idea what goes on out here in reality based Galut. .

      • Taxi
        November 9, 2012, 2:03 pm

        Nice riff, seafoid.

        Bon chance, Falasteen. Falasteen. Mmmm what a lovely sounding word.

      • seafoid
        November 9, 2012, 5:22 pm

        Ahla Falasteen.

  14. gingershot
    November 8, 2012, 11:32 pm

    Hopefully Palestinian access at the UN will open a whole new world for Israel – a world in which Apartheid is an absolute liability

    The end of Israeli impunity and the psychological shift that will take place when Israel realizes it is the aggressor and the ethnic cleanser – rather than the misunderstood victim – is going to be stupendous

    • seafoid
      November 9, 2012, 4:03 am

      This could really turn the Israeli election upside down. The entire establishment is behind the settlers and if Allah is on the case there could be a meltdown to match the collapse of the Italian Christian democrats in the 90s- the Israeli political system is broken if the Palestinians get those war crimes memes going.

      richly deserved.

      As I tell my kids, it’s better not to lie -that way you don’t have remember what you said. And Israel has been lying for the last 64 years.

  15. ToivoS
    November 9, 2012, 12:12 am

    As someone who has argued that Abbas has become irrelevant and the two state solution is dead, this move by the PA has to be good news. Logically it means that two states are still alive in the UN. Even if that remains a logical impossibility it means that the Palestinian issue has been put right into the center of international relations. It is very hard to predict how this move will play out but it is clear that Israel will lose this one big time. And it also means that Obama will have to make some very difficult decisions over this vote.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 9, 2012, 2:08 am

      the Palestinian issue has been put right into the center of international relations.

      ah, it never left. re obama, link to businessweek.com

      The latest steps by the Palestinians present Obama with his first foreign-policy challenge three days after he won a second term.

    • Sibiriak
      November 9, 2012, 10:24 pm

      And it also means that Obama will have to make some very difficult decisions over this vote.

      I think the decisions have been made long ago: the Obama Administration is squarely behind Israeli expansionism.

      As for Israel, expect an acceleration of the annexation of Area C, and movement toward recognizing a Palestinian “state” in what little remains.

  16. dbroncos
    November 9, 2012, 1:07 am

    Love it! Go Palestine!

  17. peeesss
    November 9, 2012, 3:00 am

    I will be truly surprised if Abbas and his subservient Fatah faction do not find yet another excuse to delay or remove from consideration recognition by the UNGA. I do hope I am wrong but after years of his fawning acceptance as Israel’s security partner against his own people , its difficult to see him break away from the US/Israeli orbit. As for Obama we will surely see, finally, as some believe , him throwing away the advice of his “liberal” Zionist supporters and the shackles of AIPAC that has supposedly restrained him from pressuring Israel to finally end the occupation now that he has been reelected. Or will we?. Hopefully yes , but why the stated coercion being applied to the European Union against the proposed Palestine UNGA bid. C’mon Barak, earn that Peace prize.

  18. piotr
    November 9, 2012, 4:33 am

    Barak’s thinking is quite convoluted. Allegedly he argued against sanctions on PA that were considered, because they would be simply detrimental to Israel. The newest idea is to somehow convince Abbas to delay bid for UN recognition until after Israeli elections. But why?

    The only possible reason is that UN recognition of Palestinian state would somehow influence Israeli elections. Hard to see how these elections could turn well for Barak. Like the peace process, Barak is a zombie, with only an appearance of life. I guess he figured a reason why the right wing coalition should keep him — as an allegedly useful link to Obama administration. But will anyone vote for his party?

    Centrist coalition would probably have no place for him, although he could try to convince Lapid to put him on the list of his party. Inscrutable Barak would be a good match for very cryptic Lapid. Perhaps the idea is to spread the opinion that PA bid and its acceptance by UNGA is a failure of Israeli foreign policy, which can be attributed to his current coalition partners, in spite of best ideas suggested by Barak.

    Abbas is treated like a dog in spite of being a faithful quisling, and he needs some achievement, however symbolic. If he can influence electiions toward the centrist block, this is clear bonus for Abbas, and who knows, perhaps also for Barak, and somewhat less likely, for Palestinians.

    • Hostage
      November 9, 2012, 9:35 am

      Barak’s thinking is quite convoluted.

      He’s probably hoping to argue that Palestine wasn’t a state until after he left office. But it’s application for upgrade and membership have cited the 1988 declaration of independence as the basis for UN action.

      Barak has engaged in a number of illegal acts. Many of them were (and are) crimes that were subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction ever since July of 2002.

    • marc b.
      November 9, 2012, 4:25 pm

      Abbas is treated like a dog in spite of being a faithful quisling, and he needs some achievement, however symbolic. If he can influence electiions toward the centrist block, this is clear bonus for Abbas, and who knows, perhaps also for Barak, and somewhat less likely, for Palestinians.

      interesting, but you left out the direct connection to a jewish politician willing to work with abbas on the timing of this to f*ck over netanyahu. hmm. who, i wonder, who?

  19. Bumblebye
    November 9, 2012, 10:18 am

    When this goes thru, so soon before the Israeli general election, how does the occupation supporting electorate respond? Do they pin the blame on the current govt and refuse to vote for them, do they vote for even more extreme parties? After all, they’ve been raised for over 45 years to believe that those lands are integral parts of their own country, and now the uppity Palestinians want to steal them!
    I reckon we’ll see either the cancellation of elections, or the most extreme right wing fascist govt ever, which of course the rest of the world – certainly the citizens, if not the govts – will be loath to support. Say bye bye billion$, Israel!

  20. Les
    November 9, 2012, 1:54 pm

    “Tony Blair was on it lickety-split”

    And the British consider Blair to be the epitome of lick spittle.

  21. marc b.
    November 9, 2012, 3:32 pm

    Among the other possible sanctions that Foreign Ministry officials presented at the meeting were reinstating limits on travel within the West Bank, including revoking VIP permits currently held by senior PA officials, which allow them to cross Israel Defense Forces checkpoints more easily. Another proposal included economic sanctions, such as revoking permits for Palestinian workers, as well as freezing the tax funds that Israel collects monthly for the Palestinian Authority, which would prevent the PA from paying the salaries of its employees and security personnel.

    i don’t know how profoundly these moves would affect the day-to-day lives of WB palestinians, but are these f*ckwits trying to provoke another intifada? netanyahu only seems to know how to govern under the threat of war, and he can’t just let this car crash of a bid happen to him (the poor man) in slow motion. he will have to try to tie this ‘unilateralism’ to the greater palestinian psychosis of ‘wanting to destroy the jewish-democratic state of israel’ (cue marching band).

  22. pipistro
    November 9, 2012, 6:15 pm

    Here seems to be the Draft Resolution we’re dealing with.
    link to innercitypress.com

    • Mayhem
      November 11, 2012, 7:07 pm

      And amongst the flowery language:
      blockquote>Bearing in mind the mutual recognition of 9th September 1993 between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people
      How disingenuous can you get! “Bearing in mind”, not acknowledging or recognizing.
      And pray tell where is Hamas in the scheme of things?
      The PLO is not truly representative of the Palestinian people (link to palestinechronicle.com) and can hardly make representations to the UN that have any credibility.

      • Hostage
        November 12, 2012, 5:04 am

        Bearing in mind the mutual recognition of 9th September 1993 . . . How disingenuous can you get! “Bearing in mind”, not acknowledging or recognizing.

        You don’t seem very literate, since they are keeping in mind the “mutual recognition” between the State of Israel and the PLO. Of course by 1993, the PLO had already been named the provisional government of the State of Palestine.

        And pray tell where is Hamas in the scheme of things?

        This part explains all of that:

        Taking into consideration that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with a decision by the Palestine National Council, is entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine”

        See A/43/928 of 9 December 1988. link to un.org and Haaretz: Hamas moves to join Palestine Liberation Organization link to haaretz.com

      • Mayhem
        November 14, 2012, 8:30 am

        Hostage is declaring that Hamas plans to join the PLO, but the simple fact is that they HAVE NOT and are unlikely to do so in the near future. Hamas remains a renegade state that continues to undermine and sabotage any moves toward reconciliation.

      • Hostage
        November 14, 2012, 9:58 am

        Hostage is declaring that Hamas plans to join the PLO, but the simple fact is that they HAVE NOT and are unlikely to do so in the near future.

        No I cited an article in Haaretz which announced their Politburo Chief’s stated intention to join the PLO. In fact, if the Obama administration cuts off funding to the PA after a successful UN statehood bid, there would no longer be any motive to exclude Hamas from the Organization.

      • FreddyV
        November 12, 2012, 9:09 am

        @Mayhem:

        Your Palestine Chronicle link comes up with the following:

        ‘Invalid Opration’

      • Mayhem
        November 13, 2012, 8:48 pm

        Remove the ‘)’ from the end of the link and you should get Dr.Mohsen Moh’d Saleh’s article about the PLO.

      • talknic
        November 12, 2012, 10:37 am

        Mayhem November 11, 2012 at 7:07 pm

        //Bearing in mind the mutual recognition of 9th September 1993 between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people//

        “How disingenuous can you get! “Bearing in mind”, not acknowledging or recognizing.”

        How disingenuous can you get? I believe “recognition” is the act of “recognizing”!

        Lay off the Ziocaine, it rots the brain

      • talknic
        November 12, 2012, 11:51 am

        Mayhem November 11, 2012 at 7:07 pm

        “And pray tell where is Hamas in the scheme of things?”

        You’ve no idea of the methodology & steps followed in order for Israel to be recognized as a state? Amazing! It’s a classic example.

        An independent state can’t be declared by a political party like Hamas or Fatah. For example, the Jewish People’s Council, who represented Palestinian Jews regardless of their political persuasion, made the declaration

        And an independent state can’t be declared while under occupation. For example, the Israeli declaration only became “effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” AFTER the British Mandate ended, in order that the two anticipated parties could have their allotted territories INDEPENDENT of foreign military control

        Once independence is established and declared, for example like Israel, which was Governed by a similar, non-political body, like the Provisional Govt of Israel, until such time as a Government of some political persuasion was elected to administrate the state. An election that should have taken place under a constitution for it to be legal.

        Odd isn’t it …. that Israel has never had a legally elected Government. But then democracy wasn’t even mentioned in the Declaration, the Prophets of Israel were. link to wp.me

        However, the moment Israel was declared it was already in control of territories slated for an Arab state. Jewish forces had been actively engaged in dispossessing non-Jews for some weeks prior to declaration. The pre May 15th 1948 civil war became a war waged by the State of Israel against the non-self-governing territory of Palestine.

        The military control of these territories “outside the State of Israel” link to wp.me .. prevented the Palestinians from achieving independence then just as Israel does now. Never in the History of Palestine has it been free of occupation, wholly or in part, by some entity or another. They’ve never had an opportunity to miss. link to wp.me

        Unlike the numerous opportunities squandered for Jews to be able to live anywhere in Palestine link to wp.me

        The International Comity of Nations gave Israel an opportunity it has purposefully refused the Palestinians for 64 years whilst it illegally acquired, illegally annexed and illegally settled more and more Palestinian territory.

        Now Israel is only protected from the consequences of the Laws it has broken, by the precious US veto vote in the UNSC while it tries to get the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.

        Say……. Why bother calling it the ‘Jewish State’ while it continues to break not only the UN Charter, International Law and Conventions it has ratified, but the very basic tenets of Judaism?

      • Hostage
        November 12, 2012, 4:08 pm

        And an independent state can’t be declared while under occupation.

        Then who were the Minutemen shooting at when they fired the shot heard round the world?

      • Hostage
        November 12, 2012, 4:21 pm

        P.S. There is no rule in international law that requires the Palestinians to form only one or two states in the territory of the former mandate. By the time that Gran Colombia won its war of independence from Spain, it began to disintegrate into a number of smaller factions that gave rise to separate states. Nothing in international law prevents Hamas from pursuing political independence. There are a dozen states members of the UN with smaller populations and territories of comparable size.

      • RoHa
        November 12, 2012, 7:41 pm

        And an independent state can’t be declared while under occupation.

        Then who were the Minutemen shooting at when they fired the shot heard round the world?”

        The forces of the legal government, not foreign occupation forces. That’s why it is called the American Revolution.

      • talknic
        November 12, 2012, 9:16 pm

        Hostage

        “shot heard ‘round the world” April 19, 1775

        Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

        link to wp.me Declaring statehood and/or independence is a matter of self determination. Self determination is unilateral. Independence can not be forced on an entity

        Nor does independence require a co-signature or agreement with another party. “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.” …… “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.” link to wp.me

      • Hostage
        November 13, 2012, 6:20 am

        “shot heard ‘round the world” April 19, 1775

        Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

        You are talking about the acts of the First Continental Congress, but the Massachusetts Provincial Congress had already acted to establish itself as the provisional government in 1774 after the British Massachusetts Government Act had abrogated the colony’s charter and the British Army had occupied Boston.

        “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

        FYI, that was a completely unsupported claim made by Rabbi Silver on behalf of the Jewish Agency. He attempted to support that proposition by citing completely unrelated remarks that had been made by US representative Jessup concerning the powers of the UN Commission to implement the details of their own draft plan for economic union and transit in the event one of the governments had not signed the necessary agreements by the April deadline. Resolution 181(II) stipulated that:

        The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall enter into an undertaking with respect to Economic Union and Transit. This undertaking shall be drafted by the Commission provided for in section B, paragraph 1, utilizing to the greatest possible extent the advice and cooperation of representative organizations and bodies from each of the proposed States. It shall contain provisions to establish the Economic Union of Palestine and provide for other matters of common interest. If by 1 April 1948 the Provisional Councils of Government have not entered into the undertaking, the undertaking shall be put into force by the Commission.

        Resolution 181(II), D. ECONOMIC UNION AND TRANSIT link to yale.edu

        US Ambassador Austin addressed Rabbi Silver’s claims for the record during the 271st Session of the Security Council. He pointed out that the Palestine Commission was tasked with the implementation of “the whole plan” as envisaged by the General Assembly. Nothing in Jessup’s remarks or the text of the resolution implied that the plan for economic union or partition could be fulfill by establishing only one of the two states. Austin said:

        This essential unity of the General Assembly recommendation was emphasized by the Chairman of the Palestine Commission in his statement to the Security Council on 24 February [253rd meeting]. I quote from that very able statement :
        .. I have put some stress upon the words ‘plan of partition as it has been envisaged by the General Assembly’ since it is with the implementation of this plan that our Commission has been entrusted. It is quite natural and legitimate for interested parties to concentrate their efforts preponderantly, if not exclusively, on such parts of the plan as are intended more especially for their sake. The Commission is n0t in such a position, its duty, according to its terms of reference, is to provide for the implementation of the whole plan which has been conceived by the General Assembly. . . .

        The plan proposed by the General Assembly was an integral plan which would not succeed unless each of its parts could be carried out. There seems to be general agreement that the plan cannot now he implemented by peaceful means. From what has been said in the Security Council and in consultations among the several members of the Security Council, it is clear that the Security Council is not prepared to go ahead with efforts to implement this plan in the existing situation. We had a vote on that subject, and only five votes could he secured for that purpose.

        link to un.org

  23. Hostage
    November 12, 2012, 8:58 pm

    The forces of the legal government, not foreign occupation forces. That’s why it is called the American Revolution.

    LOL! They were a foreign power after July 4th. So who did Cornwallis surrender the British Army to in 1781? And why do we celebrate the anniversary of our independence on July 4, 1776, instead of October 19, 1781? ;-)

    There really is no rule of international law that says you can’t establish an independent state while your territory is being occupied.

    • RoHa
      November 13, 2012, 12:09 am

      “LOL! They were a foreign power after July 4th. ”

      But not when the Minutemen started shooting.

      “There really is no rule of international law that says you can’t establish an independent state while your territory is being occupied.”

      But since the American colonies were not occupied, the example is not relevant to that question.

      • talknic
        November 13, 2012, 4:14 am

        Much has passed into Customary International Law and been adopted since the 1770’s. The US example became redundant as of 1945 and the formation of the UN.

      • Hostage
        November 13, 2012, 10:17 am

        Much has passed into Customary International Law and been adopted since the 1770′s.

        The United States was the prime example of the principles of self-determination and self-government in action and nothing has changed that since the 1770s.

    • talknic
      November 13, 2012, 2:10 am

      “There really is no rule of international law that says you can’t establish an independent state while your territory is being occupied”

      It simply doesn’t reconcile with ‘independence’ under the UN Charter and conventional notions of self determination since at least 1945

      E.g., the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel did not come into effect until after the Mandate ended, just as East Timor didn’t regain effective Sovereign Independence until after Indonesia ended its occupation.

      UNGA res 181 “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.” and again “The Provisional Council of Government of each State, acting under the Commission, shall progressively receive from the Commission full responsibility for the administration of that State in the period between the termination of the Mandate and the establishment of the State’s independence. “

      And according to the JCPA, not that they’re an authority, it is a pre-requisite for declaring sovereignty that the entity declaring must control all their territories at the time of their declaration. link to jcpa.org Though they seem to only apply the principal Palestine, (in accordance with Deuteronomy 20:15 ?)

      • Hostage
        November 13, 2012, 11:08 am

        It simply doesn’t reconcile with ‘independence’ under the UN Charter and conventional notions of self determination since at least 1945

        The UN Charter does not contain a definition of the term “peace loving State” that appears in Article 4. There is no requirement that the members exercise political independence – a fact that US Ambassador (and future ICJ Justice) Jessup pointed out during the hearings on Israel’s application for membership in the UN. He said:

        . . . ‘we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one’s own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership…. …The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term “State”, as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term “State” as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.”

        see page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948 link to un.org

        UNESCO published a volume on contemporary international law in 1991, which specifically pointed out that many of the founding members, including India, Syria, Lebanon, the Philippines, Byelorussia, and Ukraine were not considered independent States when they became signatories of the Charter. See Mohammed Bedjaoui, (editor), Manual of Public International Law: Achievements and Prospects, UNESCO/Martinus Nijhoff, page 46. link to books.google.com

        Several states were subsequently admitted, although they did not exercise exclusive control of their own foreign relations, i.e. Bhutan.

        The very first case that the ICJ considered was “Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter)”, in which it advised that no other criteria except those contained in Article 4 could be employed. That Article does not mention sovereignty or independence:

        Article 4

        1.Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

        2.The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.:

        See the summary of the ICJ Advisory Opinion link to icj-cij.org

        The United States formally recognized the State of Palestine in 1932. It did not cease to exist simply because Israel was formed on a portion of its territory through an act of secession or because it established a union with Transjordan before Israel invaded and occupied the remainder of its territory in 1967.

        In fulfillment of the prohibition against the acquisition of territory by war, The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 Reporters Note 3 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

        In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford said “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty.”

      • RoHa
        November 13, 2012, 7:52 pm

        “The United States formally recognized the State of Palestine in 1932.”

        But how could this be? We all know (because we have been told so often) that there never was a state of Palestine.

        And does the US state department remember this?

      • Hostage
        November 14, 2012, 6:03 am

        We all know (because we have been told so often) that there never was a state of Palestine.

        Every time a Court was asked to rule on the question, they held that Palestine was an Allied successor state; mandated state; or a separate foreign state.

        And does the US state department remember this?

        LOL! Secretary of State Dulles was the respondent in a case that dealt with the question, Kletter v Dulles, link to dc.findacase.com

        The US government suffers from convenient losses of memory all the time, but there is a very good documentary record.

        If you’d like to see how quickly our bureaucrats and lawmakers can forget important details, just compare the Bush and Obama policies on the use of drones to the Senate and House reports that accompanied the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1991. They stated that the UN Charter imposed a treaty obligation on the members to refrain from extrajudicial killings and claimed that all countries considered the practice to be illegal. Our lawmakers even went so far as to create a civil action for recovery of damages when a foreign official engages in the practice under color of law without obtaining authorization by way of “a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all of the guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” See House report 102-367 Part 1 link to documents.law.yale.edu

        The Senate Report No. 102-249, stated that “because no state officially condones torture or extrajudicial killings, few such acts, if any, would fall under the rubric of ‘official actions’ taken in the course of an official’s duties.”

        Nowadays the very same bureaucrats and lawmakers are working feverishly behind the scenes to make extrajudicial killings a customary norm.

      • MHughes976
        November 14, 2012, 8:47 am

        If a larger polity breaks up and new sovereign powers emerge in the different former provinces it becomes more important, not less, to make sure that everyone in every province retains franchise and property which the new rulers, naturally insecure and of suspect legitimacy, are always likely to threaten.

      • RoHa
        November 14, 2012, 6:24 pm

        “Every time a Court was asked to rule on the question, they held that Palestine was an Allied successor state; mandated state; or a separate foreign state. ”

        So the Harabareers are mistaken? Or (gasp!) fibbing?

        Can’t get the case the link is leading to.

      • Hostage
        November 15, 2012, 4:23 am

        Can’t get the case the link is leading to.

        Try this link. It has the opinion delivered by the Court without the $7.95 worth of Docket numbers and footnotes: link to dc.findacase.com

      • RoHa
        November 15, 2012, 6:47 pm

        Thanks.

        “Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.”

        Seems pretty clear.

  24. Hostage
    November 13, 2012, 7:42 am

    But not when the Minutemen started shooting.

    The members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives had already met in Concord on October 7, 1774 and established themselves as a Provincial Congress and the provisional government, after the British Parliament had abolished their charter and the role they had formerly played in electing the Governor’s Council.

    But since the American colonies were not occupied

    The King appointed the commander of the British troops in North America to serve as the Governor of Massachusetts. So Massachusetts Bay Colony was placed under a regime of military occupation and its elected representatives adopted a decision to establish a government of their own – with the power to raise a militia – long before the Minutemen took any action. The original form of Government chosen by the colonists was a confederation between 13 independent states.

    • RoHa
      November 13, 2012, 7:57 pm

      “The members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives had already met in Concord on October 7, 1774 and established themselves as a Provincial Congress and the provisional government,”

      Was this a declaration of independence, or just a move towards home rule while remaining British subjects?

      “The King appointed the commander of the British troops in North America to serve as the Governor of Massachusetts. So Massachusetts Bay Colony was placed under a regime of military occupation ”

      Sounds more like martial law to me. The commander of the King’s troops was appointed Governor of the King’s subjects.

      • Hostage
        November 14, 2012, 9:47 am

        Was this a declaration of independence, or just a move towards home rule while remaining British subjects?

        The King and the Parliament had abolished their charter, but they nonetheless granted themselves the full powers of government, including the right to raise and arm their own militia. That was treason, so there was very little question of the leadership remaining British subjects.

        Sounds more like martial law to me. The commander of the King’s troops was appointed Governor of the King’s subjects.

        No the King stripped the Provincial Congress of its legitimate powers to name the members of their own Governor’s Council and the British Parliament adopted the Intolerable Acts, including the acts that required the colonists to quarter British troops against their own wishes.

  25. MHughes976
    November 13, 2012, 9:56 am

    Doesn’t the idea of ‘occupation’ presuppose that the occupied territory is in some important sense not ours and that it should become free of our control after some temporary emergency is over? That is why the term ‘occupation’ is unpopular in Israel and the territories are described as ‘disputed’. If we intend to control the place for ever we must either be liberators (how Begin’s proclamation that he was liberating Judaea and Samaria sticks in my mind) if it was truly ours all along or conquerors if it wasn’t. The question of ‘ours all along’ is the fundamental point in dispute. I think that most people in the West think that the Palestinians are not merely intruders and that retaliations against the UN application will do Israel’s reputation quite a lot of damage and will be part of the slow, slow, agonising, torturous change of the situation.

    • seafoid
      November 13, 2012, 10:50 am

      Most people in the West consider them as Palestinians and not “Arabs who have 22 other countries who choose from” .

Leave a Reply