‘State of Palestine’ it is

Israel/Palestine
on 103 Comments
2349077637
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas waves to the crowd during celebrations for their successful bid to win UN statehood recognition. (Photo by AP)

When Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki addressed the UN Security Council yesterday, the first time since the General Assembly voted to upgrade Palestine’s status to non-member observer state, he was seated behind a placard that read “State of Palestine.”

This was too much for Ambassador Susan Rice. She objected and gave a speech; the US is having none of it. From her remarks, describing the placard as an act of provocation:

We will continue to urge leaders on both sides to avoid unilateral steps and provocations that make peace negotiations harder to resume. The position of the United States regarding Palestinian status, including as reflected in our explanation of vote in connection with the adoption of General Assembly resolution 67/19, remains unchanged. The United States does not consider UNGA resolution 67/19 as bestowing Palestinian “statehood” or recognition. Only direct negotiations to settle final status issues will lead to this outcome. Therefore, in our view, any reference to the “State of Palestine” in the United Nations, including the use of the term “State of Palestine” on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term “State of Palestine” in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that “Palestine” is a state.

Haaretz reports that regardless of ‘facts on the ground,’ the UN has spoken:

Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, told reporters that the nameplate read “state of Palestine” because the UN Secretariat “is guided by the membership, which has pronounced itself on this issue” in the November General Assembly vote.

What’s in a name? The state we call Palestine by any other name would still be occupied.

(For more on the name change to “State of Palestine” see this post by Allison Deger)

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

103 Responses

  1. Avi_G.
    January 24, 2013, 6:26 pm

    Great, so we’ve got the title of the book, now we just need to write it.

    • Hostage
      January 25, 2013, 6:32 am

      Great, so we’ve got the title of the book, now we just need to write it.

      The Palestinians have already done that by publishing a series of letters that ask the Security Council to enforce international law and end flagrant Israeli breaches, while noting that the UN remains deadlocked.

      The Security Council was discussing the 450th in the series of identical letters addressed to the 10th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly and the Security Council. This one documented the Israeli announcements for new settlement construction in “Kiryat Arba” and “Efrat” plus the IDF’s actions to breakup peaceful Palestinian demonstrations in Beit Iksa, Bab Al-Shams and Izbat Al-Tabib. It concluded:

      This letter is in follow-up to our previous 450 letters regarding the ongoing crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 28 September 2000. These letters, dated from 29 September 2000 (A/55/432-S/2000/921) to 15 January 2013 (A/ES-10/577-S/2012/23), constitute a basic record of the crimes being committed by Israel, the occupying Power, against the Palestinian people since September 2000. For all of these war crimes, acts of State terrorism and systematic human rights violations committed against the Palestinian people, Israel, the occupying Power, must be held accountable and the perpetrators must be brought to justice.

      I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter distributed as a document of the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly, under agenda item 5, and of the Security Council.
      (Signed) Riyad Mansour
      Ambassador
      Permanent Observer
      of the State of Palestine to the United Nations

      link to un.org

      The Jerusalem Post report underscores the futility of dealing with the United Nations. It said UN Special Coordinator of the Middle East Peace Process, Robert Serry, told the 15-nation Security Council settlements were contrary to international law and “increasingly an obstacle to peace.” But he also warned the Palestinians against pursuing international action [through the ICC].
      link to jpost.com

      Any sane intellect would have warned the Palestinians against pursuing further action through the Security Council or Mr. Serry.

  2. Cliff
    January 24, 2013, 6:36 pm

    Susan Rice, servant of the Empire, does not recognize Palestine’s membership in a book club.

    I think this is great. Even a small slight like this is enough to get the US and/or Israel to cry bloody murder.

    This constitutes a ‘provocation’ for the US and/or Israel but not the constant land theft and colonization by Israel and the Jewish settlers?

    Bullshit.

  3. Ramzi Jaber
    January 24, 2013, 6:41 pm

    I am so happy Rice is not SecState. She’s a total zionist vessel. Hope Kerry will be a bit better. But then again, it doesn’t matter; the master is the Zionist (mostly Jewish!) Lobby.

    PS: I have news for you Rice. It is the STATE OF PALESTINE, whether you like it or not. 94% of the world said so!!!!!!

    • Shingo
      January 24, 2013, 8:49 pm

      Rice is a vulgar attack dog but she’s hardly acting as a rogue agent here. She’s doing exactly what she has been instructed to do.

      • Citizen
        January 25, 2013, 1:24 am

        Yep. Rice is a good Aunt Tom. She gets to stay in the Big White House.

  4. Mooser
    January 24, 2013, 6:45 pm

    “What’s in a name?”

    Maybe not everything, sometimes nothing but hope. And sometimes, hope and justice.

    Shameful behavior by Rice. Perhaps the Palestinian diplomats could have offered a compromise placard, without the word “State”. It would read: “Palestine, Illegally Occupied by Israel”. Would that please Ms. Rice better?

    • southernobserver
      January 24, 2013, 8:00 pm

      +1

      actually this would be much better

    • W.Jones
      January 24, 2013, 10:46 pm

      What about:

      State of Palestine*
      *we’re a bit occupied at the moment

      OR:

      State of Palestine*
      *US & Israeli approval pending

  5. pabelmont
    January 24, 2013, 7:14 pm

    Mooser is close, but Palestinians believe in dignity, and that sign would be too wordy and too long — and too down-beat — to be quite dignified.

    Anyhow, the “right of self determination” is a right, but it is not self executing.

    The SoP has a people, a language (Levantine Arabic) just as the USA has a language (American English), a boundaries and a territory (that of Mandatory Palestine, I don’t know that any other and less expansive territory has been mentioned since the PLO recognized Israel in 1988 behind the Green Line), and no army. And no armed sovereignty. As it seems, a state in formation.

    The SoI has a people (well, maybe: the Jewish people, but not the people of its citizens!), very much an Army, a language (Hebrew), its own postage stamps and passports, lots of territory, enormous armed sovereignty, but no boundaries at all, never declared any, refuses to declare any! So is it, too, a state in formation?

    • RoHa
      January 24, 2013, 11:11 pm

      “The SoI has … no boundaries at all, never declared any, refuses to declare any!”

      If there are no borders to cross, it is, and has always been, impossible to invade Israel.

      So the “Arabs invaded in 1948″ story is not merely false, it is a logical impossibility!

      • Stephen Shenfield
        January 25, 2013, 7:06 am

        What “the Arabs” are supposed to have invaded in 1948 (from within as well as without) is not the State of Israel but the Land of Israel, even then defined to encompass the whole of mandatory Palestine at a minimum. The Land of Israel is even more central to Zionist ideology and Israeli discourse than the State of Israel (see Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Land of Israel).

        Another word that could be helpful here is “entity” — the Entity of Israel, the Entity of Palestine, or even the United Entities of America (UEA), not to be confused with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Having no substantive content, “entity” is an empty box into which different people can put whatever they like, so it should make everyone happy.

    • john h
      January 25, 2013, 3:10 am

      No boundaries? Who told you that? It sure has according to talknic, those it recognised when it declared independence and later entered the UN. Is he wrong about that?

      • Ellen
        January 25, 2013, 3:43 am

        john h. Israel never declared it’s complete borders. Still to be be determined, the Zionist project asserts.

        This is the reason Israel is not and cannot officially be an ally of the USA. The two states/countries, have never signed an alliance. Because without complete borders it is an impossibility for Israel to do so.

        I am sure Hostage can give us a more qualified answer on this subject.

      • JeffB
        January 25, 2013, 9:27 pm

        @Ellen —

        The two states/countries, have never signed an alliance. Because without complete borders it is an impossibility for Israel to do so.

        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        Of course Israel can be an ally without complete borders. Japen had disputed territory that doesn’t stop a US alliance.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 25, 2013, 10:42 pm

        jeff, your link does not refute RoHa’s allegations. we have no formal defense treaty with israel and never have had one, unlike many of our european allies. trade agreements are not formal alliances. formally, we’re not allies of israel, as far as i know.

      • Ellen
        January 26, 2013, 5:27 am

        @Jefbb Maybe you want to write the Knesset and tell them you think they can have a formal treaty with the US.

        Fact is, Israel does not and never did.

        Here is a bit of background why Israel refuses to create the conditions concerning recognized borders to make such a formal Alliance possible.

        link to jweekly.com

        And why it remains a conflicted and thorny issue.

        link to csmonitor.com

        The US and Israel have strategic agreements, but no alliance. Israel does not see it in their interest as the Jewish Weekly article explains. And this has not changed.

        Stating that they do or telling us what they can do does not change the reality.

        While Japan may dispute some territories with China and Russia, it does agree with the international community on its own declared borders. Israel does not have internationaly accepted declared borders. This makes an Alliance with Israel and all the implications and responsibilities that come with an alliance impossible.

      • Hostage
        January 26, 2013, 7:36 am

        @Ellen – The two states/countries, have never signed an alliance. Because without complete borders it is an impossibility for Israel to do so.

        Israel has Armistice Borders and the US used to be part of a military pact that was pledged to enforce them. See the Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders : Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950 link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      • Ellen
        January 26, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Hostage, thank you. as we see, the language and intent of that pact did not hold up long. Does Israel accept the Armitice line/Borders as its own?

        From what I understand, which not not be correct, is that the reason the US and Israel do not have a formal treaty of alliance is because it has not declared borders.

        So if , for example, the US were to come to the aid and defense of Israel, it is not quit impossible as it has no declared borders. Where would defense start and stop? Ergo no treaty of alliance. Isael is therefore not an ally. Technicalities……

      • talknic
        January 26, 2013, 3:14 pm

        Problem JeffB … A) Japanese territorial disputes arise because the claimant countries claim they DO HAVE borders.

        B) The US required/s all states to have defined territory link to cfr.org

        C) The US recognized Israel’s borders 00:12 May 15 1948 (Israel time) link to wp.me

      • Citizen
        January 26, 2013, 3:18 pm

        @ Annie
        I read that Israel rejected American offer to sign a mutual defense treaty because Israel felt it would not be able to do whatever it wanted if it signed such a treaty. In lieu thereof, Israel & US have a matrix of official promissory memorandums that tie US to defend Israel’s security whenever Israel says it needs help; they all obligate the US to defend Israel whenever it says it is threatened, and there is no reciprocity. The whole thing works to strengthen Israel by authorizing US WH & Congress to aid Israel when it says its in distress–there is no quid pro quo. Nice, if you can get it. No other country has this arrangement with the US.

      • Ellen
        January 26, 2013, 4:45 pm

        apologies above for all the typos. That is what happens when working on an ipad or something like that.

        Meant to write among the multiple typos, ” it is not possible as it has no declared borders……”

      • Ellen
        January 26, 2013, 4:56 pm

        talknic,

        Interesting so as your source states:

        Recognition – de facto or de jure?: (de facto – facts on the ground) – (de jure – in law).
        A State must exist before a State Government can be instituted. The territories must be defined in order for other Nations to know the extent of the Sovereignty being declared and the declaring entity must have full control over those territories. (Independence)

        Statements made by the Jewish Agency to the UN/UNSC prior to recognition in respect to UNGA res 181 made it quite clear The Jewish Agency was going to abide by UNGA res 181. Recognitions were based on the notion that Israel accepted UNGA res 181 and the Israeli Government’s pleas for recognition to states.

        Examples of recognition :
        USA 15 May 1948 “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”

        So apparently recognition was granted under what proved to be a false pretense. And as the US gave recognition within frontiers approved the the GA of the UN…it was a conditional recognition. These conditions have NEVER been met.

        I think this shows there really is no rule of law. It is just a scheme to make us believe there is law. Might makes right. Back to tribal rules.

      • walktallhangloose
        January 26, 2013, 5:50 pm

        Ellen, you are quite correct. At the 3rd meeting of the Israeli cabinet on May 20th 1948, just 5 days after the Declaration, it was decided that “Israel would not respect the partition lines of 1947 unless there was an Arab partner as stipulated in the Partition Plan of 29th November 1947″.[israelsdocuments.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/new-series-cabinet-protocols.html]

        There was no such stipulation in the Partition Resolution: it explicitly said that either state could declare independence as envisaged in the Plan, and join the United Nations. As soon as the State was recognized, Israel started to ignore its declared borders. The whole thing was a giant deception.

      • Hostage
        January 27, 2013, 2:26 am

        From what I understand, which not not be correct, is that the reason the US and Israel do not have a formal treaty of alliance is because it has not declared borders.

        Like every thing else, the answer is complicated. I think you are alluding to § 204 of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. It lists the following forms of Executive branch recognition of sovereignty over a territory:

        “Recognition of a state has been effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic represen­tative of that state.”

        It also explains that, the fact the United States is a member of an international organization to which another state that it does not recognize is also member, doesn’t imply any recognition. But if the United States votes to admit an entity to membership in an organization open only to states or as a state party, then official recognition is implied.

        The Executive branch of the US government has published official documentary records regarding its policy decisions on recognition, including some explicit territorial reservations that preclude any implied recognition regarding Jerusalem or the Corpus Separatum. Those can be found in the State Department’s: Bulletin, Documents on Foreign Relations, and the Digest of International Law. Those publications also contain editors notes and copies of the correspondence between the US government, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt on the subject of Palestine.

        The armistice lines were established under the auspices of Chapter VII Security Council resolutions. They permit the armed forces and civilian authorities of the state parties to legally occupy and administer territories well beyond the lines contained in the UN Partition Plan indefinitely. Absent any specific reservations to the contrary, the state parties can do that using arms and military assistance supplied under agreements with other UN member states. In at least one case, the US supplied tanks to Jordan subject to the condition that they not be used in the West Bank – even after the State Department explicitly said that it recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank, minus Jerusalem. There have been similar restrictions on the use of arms supplied to Israel.

        Pending a final agreement, the United States, Great Britain, and France were bound to respect the exclusive jurisdiction and competence of each of the parties to govern the territories that they controlled under the armistice and to grant citizenship to the inhabitants – with the exception of the territory that was still subject to the UN’s Statute for the City of Jerusalem (the Corpus Separatum). The US and other countries published official statements and behaved in ways that were simply incompatible with non-recognition of sovereignty over the remainder of the respective territories.

        So yes, the US has provided military aid and foreign assistance to Israel and its neighbors in line with their inherent right to defend the territories within the boundaries of the armistice lines or the new boundaries established in their peace agreements.

        At one and the same time, Israel has avoided membership in military alliances that would have required it to come to the defense of other countries, including the United States.

      • talknic
        January 25, 2013, 6:58 am

        john h HEY!! Don’t blame me for Israel’s borders… I was only a kid

        The extent of Israeli sovereignty was referenced in numerous official statements by the Israeli Government and official recognitions.

        To the UNSC May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766

        Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

        “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel”

        In the Knesset 3 Jun 1948

        Report to the Provisional Government of Israel by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Ben-Gurion 3 Jun 1948″The entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries” …. “To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State”.

        In official recognitions of Israel by other states

        USA 15 May 1948

        “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”

        Russia 17 May 1948 Letter from Mr. Molotov stated:

        “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29,1!>47, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

        The British Foreign Office issued a statement on May 17 to the effect that Great Britain would not recognize Israel for the time being because it had not fulfilled the “basic criteria” of an independent state. British 27 April 1950on a political party being elected to Govern the State of Israel, granted de jure recognition, with conditions.

        “His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.”

        Australia 28 January 1949

        “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”

        New Zealand 29 January 1949

        “It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”

        …. were they all wrong about that?

      • Ember
        January 25, 2013, 4:19 pm

        Israel had illegally conquered and cleansed approximately 13 % of mandate Palestine when it declared independence (but not borders), so the remainder of the ’48 territories (65 % of mandate Palestine) was illegally conquered and cleansed in the following months. There is no doubt Israel is a de facto state, but its establishment was a crime against humanity, and its existence has constituted an illegal occupation from the very beginning.
        Israel’s acceptance into the UN was conditioned on letting the cleansed Palestinians return and be restituted, which of course would have turned Israel back into Palestine, if democracy were allowed.

      • walktallhangloose
        January 26, 2013, 2:12 pm

        You spoil your case by overstatement. There were certainly many crimes committed during the civil war in Palestine from November 1947 to May 1948, but they cannot be attributed to the State of Israel since it did not then exist. The Jews who migrated into Palestine under the League of Nations Mandate from 1922 to 1948 did so legally (for the most part): indeed this was an important objective of the Mandate. The declaration of the State of Israel was in agreement with UNGA Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan) and it did declare its borders according to the Plan, and this was recognized by other states. (See other posts on this thread). Israel was legally constituted as a sovereign state at 00:01 on 15th May 1948.

        I agree that, since that moment, Israel has been responsible for numerous crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, and all the territory it controls outside the Partition Plan borders has been illegally acquired by war, in contravention of the UN Charter.

    • talknic
      January 25, 2013, 8:57 am

      but no boundaries at all

      Odd when this is what Israel demands of Palestine

      International law has traditionally required that four separate criteria be satisfied before the recognition of an entity as an independent sovereign state can be considered:

      The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control.
      The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control

      It’s based on the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States entered into force December 26, 1934. Some 14 years before Israel was declared. The treaty discusses the definition and rights of statehood.

      ARTICLE 1

      The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; etc

      One of the signatories is the USA and; being a treaty between signatories, it obliged all the signatories to only recognize a state with “a defined territory”.

    • Mooser
      January 25, 2013, 1:15 pm

      “Mooser is close, but Palestinians believe in dignity, and that sign would be too wordy and too long — and too down-beat — to be quite dignified. “

      Look, I’m not wedded to the locution. I was just running it up the flagpole, to see who would set it on fire.

    • walktallhangloose
      January 25, 2013, 4:01 pm

      Israel declared its borders on 14th May 1948 when it asked for recognition by other states. They are the borders specified in the UN Partition Plan. See archives.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/BD240CA5-379D-4FAE-81A8-069902AD1E7F/0/Truman3.pdf. They have never been changed by legal annexation, and so remain as the legal, declared and recognized borders to this day. Look up a map of the Partition Plan and you will understand why Israel tries to keep this information quiet. Not only all of Jerusalem, but also Acre, Ashkelon, Nazareth, Beersheba, Lod, and Jaffa, plus of course the West Bank and Gaza, are outside the legal borders of Israel.

      • john h
        January 26, 2013, 11:16 pm

        “…. were they all wrong about that?”

        That’s what I asked. The answers given are not even slightly convincing. I await actual refutation of talknic and walktallhangloose.

        Are folks saying and accepting “I think this shows there really is no rule of law. It is just a scheme to make us believe there is law. Might makes right. Back to tribal rules”?

    • walktallhangloose
      January 25, 2013, 4:10 pm

      The Palestinian Authority issues passports and postage stamps. The stamps are denominated in the Palestinian currency, the Palestine Pound. This was the currency of Palestine under the Mandate, and also the currency of Israel from 1948 to 1952. Under the Oslo accords, the PA is not allowed to issue banknotes.

      • Hostage
        January 26, 2013, 9:55 am

        Under the Oslo accords, the PA is not allowed to issue banknotes.

        The PA, as such, has ceased to exist and the Oslo interim agreements lapsed almost a decade ago.

      • walktallhangloose
        January 26, 2013, 1:40 pm

        The PA recently renamed itself State of Palestine, but it still exists under this name and carries on the same functions. The Oslo Accords of 1994 were meant to last for five years, but nothing has replaced them and they are still regarded as continuing agreements between the parties.

    • W.Jones
      January 26, 2013, 3:12 am

      I see you refer to SOI. I have seen it referred to officially as GOI by the US gov’t. I wonder if that was a name joke.

  6. eljay
    January 24, 2013, 7:14 pm

    The state of Israel – an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” poorly-masked as an ersatz expression of self-determination. America can’t support it fervently enough.

    The state of Palestine – a genuine expression of self-determination. America can’t oppose it adamantly enough.

    America and “Jewish State” – “Common bond, shared common values, no light between.” Partners in immorality and injustice.

    • Citizen
      January 25, 2013, 1:37 am

      @ eljay
      Yes, exactly. And while Israel has no boundaries, America does, but the Mexicans are doing pretty well at ignoring it–and the Mexicans obviously are growing in voter impact, as everybody knows at least since Obama’s reelection.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2013, 1:18 pm

        , “but the Mexicans are doing pretty well at ignoring it–and the Mexicans obviously are growing in voter impact, as everybody knows at least since Obama’s reelection.”

        One of the best damn things that’s happened to this country in a long time. Ah, but what else would you expect from “the poster boy for affirmative action”?

      • Citizen
        January 26, 2013, 3:04 pm

        @ Mooser
        I agree. The more Mexicans the merrier in America. They will not be afraid to criticize the Jewish Lobby before long. America will be better off.

    • john h
      January 26, 2013, 11:50 pm

      America and “Jewish State” – “Common bond, shared common values, no light between.” Partners in immorality and injustice [eljay]

      “Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.

      Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.

      We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

      There is no other morality”.

      The Iron Wall, 1923; Jobotinsky.

  7. just
    January 24, 2013, 8:02 pm

    Yessirree! Wonderful! Thank you!

    A correct and honorable move by the UN and the rest of the world over a very undiplomatic, puerile and disrespectful tantrum by Rice.

    The rank hypocrisy and continued animosity toward the State of Palestine is officially exposed on the world stage.

    Bye Susan. I do believe that John Kerry would NEVER have done that.

    (Mooser– you are delightfully funny)

  8. ritzl
    January 24, 2013, 8:20 pm

    Looking forward to the Q&A on this at the next State Department briefing.

    How much leeway does Rice have in these statements? Does this come from the top/Hillary?

    • Annie Robbins
      January 24, 2013, 8:58 pm

      yeah, it comes from the top. rice reminds me of a barking dog. i can’t stand her.

    • Hostage
      January 25, 2013, 12:47 pm

      How much leeway does Rice have in these statements?

      That’s a good question. The French Courts just ordered US-based Twitter to turn over the identities of anonymous users who allegedly posted illegal content which constituted “apology for crimes against humanity and incitement to racial hatred”.
      See French court orders Twitter to reveal racists’ details link to bbc.co.uk

      I’ve argued here in the past that as a minimum, the definitions for Mondo comment policies should probably employ the same definition for both Holocaust and Nakba denial, since both can be based upon the same constituent acts under the EU Framework on Racism and Xenophobia, e.g.:

      *public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, & etc.

      link to europa.eu

      I’ve lost count of the statements made by Ambassador Rice and other US officials publicly condoning, denying, or trivializing the illegal settlements – ICC Article 8(2)(b)(viii) – and other Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity defined in the Rome Statute. Let’s face it, that’s practically a verbatim job description for Israeli Ambassadors Oren and Prosor.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2013, 6:31 pm

        “I’ve argued here in the past that as a minimum, the definitions for Mondo comment policies should probably employ the same definition for both Holocaust and Nakba denial, since both can be based upon the same constituent acts under the EU Framework on Racism and Xenophobia,”

        I’m not sure that’s an argument Mondoweiss wants to lose.

      • Hostage
        January 26, 2013, 5:29 am

        I’m not sure that’s an argument Mondoweiss wants to lose.

        The point is that there are comments by Zionists here on a daily basis that condone all the deportations and forced transfers of Palestinians and the facilitation of illegal settlements. Zionists exult in their “sovereign right” to deny the requisite right of repatriation to a single Palestinian.

        The Twitter case illustrates that Jewish groups, like B’nai B’rith International or the ADL, will break down the Court house doors when our antagonists engage in apologetics for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But when Palestinians threaten to go to Court over serious crimes like the expansion of illegal settlements, Ms. Rice, Ms. Clinton, and the Secretary General’s Representative to the Middle East Peace Process say “don’t you dare go there”, while publicly condoning, denying, or trivializing official UN reports about those same war crimes and crimes against humanity, labeling them “fatally flawed”.

        The Twitter case and many others illustrate that justice is swift if you label any report about the Holocaust as being flawed, e,g.: Radical Catholic Bishop Fined for Holocaust Denial: Richard Williamson Called Gas Chambers ‘Lies, Lies, Lies’ link to forward.com

        So it’s a good question to ask why Rice, Clinton, Serry, Oren, Prosor, et al enjoy legal impunity to routinely engage in forms of otherwise prohibited hate speech.

      • Hostage
        January 26, 2013, 8:08 am

        Here’s some more background on this: The Palestinians have already drawn up the necessary application to go to the ICC. It caused consternation when the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, presented ths document at a meeting with the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, earlier this month.

        A Palestinian close to the talks quoted Clinton as responding: “Don’t you even go there.”
        link to guardian.co.uk

        Remember that Israel, which had ethnically cleansed a quarter of a million Palestinians, established the legal precedent during the Eichmann trial that claimed any state may exercise ex post facto universal jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its own territory – even before it existed – and in cases where the victims where not its own citizens. Now Israel and the US are arguing that even after the international community recognizes the State of Palestine and the illegality of the settlements, Palestine cannot transfer jurisdiction to the ICC for crimes committed on its own territory against its own citizens by Israelis.

        When are we going to admit that situation is racist and amounts to deliberate incitement?

      • ritzl
        January 26, 2013, 6:07 pm

        Thanks, Hostage.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 28, 2013, 12:19 am

        thanks hostage. i wasn’t aware Palestinians had already drawn up the necessary application to go to the ICC. btw, that article is dated nov 27th, not this month but 2 days before the statehood bid. which means it was drawn up prior to the vote.

      • talknic
        January 28, 2013, 1:55 am

        Annie Robbins .. It wasn’t a statehood bid. It was a bid by a state for non-member observer status. link to cfr.org

  9. yourstruly
    January 24, 2013, 9:09 pm

    the u.n. placard incident?

    palestinian statehood?

    just been put on the map?

    right of return?

    a natural now?

    in an as the saints come marching home kind of way?

    • yourstruly
      January 24, 2013, 10:11 pm

      any doubters left as to which nation rules the security council?

      for whom & for what purpose?

      against the popular will?

      prn?

      for staying the course?

      maintaining the status quo?

      & justice for palestine?

      there goes the status quo?

  10. crone
    January 24, 2013, 9:18 pm

    IMHO, it comes from Sec of State, Clinton… so, NOT from the top, meaning Obama.

    And yes, I agree Rice (Susan) is an attack dog… which is why I don’t think Obama put her name forward – again, my own opinion… which these days is not worth even 2 cents!

    • MRW
      January 25, 2013, 10:32 am

      @crone,

      which is why I don’t think Obama put her name forward – again, my own opinion

      The same thought crossed my mind, but in a different way. O threw Rice a crisis: a pending nomination, to see how she’d handle the Republican panic and media. She didn’t do well. I didn’t pay much attention to the Benghazi issue, but peripherally, I understand Rice helped complicate it for State.

    • James Canning
      January 25, 2013, 7:51 pm

      Hasn’t Hillary Clinton done her best to avoid annoying the Israel lobby, in her last months at State Dept.? Her eye may be on 2016.

  11. W.Jones
    January 24, 2013, 10:42 pm

    Aren’t there other cases of governments in exile or “non-states” that are officially called “states” in the UN? Even when the Taliban were in control of almost all Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance was recognized in the UN as Afghanistan.

    To give another example, there was a Polish Government in Exile in WWII, and I think the other Allies recognized it even though it only had an illegal resistance force there. This would be a similar situation in that respect, since Palestine is also occupied, although the P.A. has an even stronger presence in its home territory than the Polish underground did.

  12. Inanna
    January 24, 2013, 10:45 pm

    Sometimes you gotta go with what the other kids want Susan. It’s called democracy.

  13. Taxi
    January 25, 2013, 5:26 am

    Oh put an old Croc in it Suasan Rice! Frigging John Bolton’s illegitimate spawn!

    Despicable especially when people’s ancestors, born into hardship and slavery, actively and arrogantly deny the oppressed their universal rights to freedom, security and prosperity!

    Eff you all zionists! It’s not your obsession with ‘chosenness’ that bugs me, it’s your blatant, horrid mean-spiritedness!!!

    • seafoid
      January 25, 2013, 5:45 pm

      It’s the bitchiness. And the systematic cruelty.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2013, 6:38 pm

        “It’s the bitchiness. And the systematic cruelty.”

        The “bitchiness”? Oy, Seafoid, buddy, you got a funny way of ‘spressin yourself.

    • just
      January 25, 2013, 10:50 pm

      John Bolton’s and Condi’s love child???
      Makes sense.

      I have spent my life making it a point to not be nasty or even a teensy bit mean, but I am nearly @ the end of my tether.

      Friends of mine who know me to be a fair person were shocked when I was happy to hear Susan was out. Man or Woman– she did not and should not have been the US rep to the UN, nor dd her demeanor serve the US well. She reminded me of Jean Kirkpatrick.

  14. walktallhangloose
    January 25, 2013, 3:50 pm

    Palestine’s status at the UN is not a ‘non-voting member state’. It is a ‘non-member observer state’, upgraded from ‘observer-mission’.

    States exist when they are formally recognized by other states. There is no other criterion. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988, and is now recognized by over 130 of the member states of the UN. This process of declaration and recognition is the same process that created Israel in 1948.

    The difference is that Israel is a sovereign independent state, and a full Member of the United Nations. Palestine is not an independent state, because it is occupied by Israel.

  15. James Canning
    January 25, 2013, 7:49 pm

    Is Susan Rice obliged, by Hillary Clinton, to object to Palestine’s being described as a state, in a placard at the UN?

  16. Hostage
    January 25, 2013, 7:49 pm

    States exist when they are formally recognized by other states. There is no other criterion.

    You are correct that recognition by other states is considered conclusive evidence of the existence of statehood. But the existence of statehood itself does not depend upon the criterion of recognition.

    The constitutive school of thought is expressed in the maxim “a State is, and becomes, an international person through recognition only and exclusively.”

    Most publicists and countries do not subscribe to that theory, because it’s incompatible with their treaty obligations under UN Charter and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The latter stipulates that:

    All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
    link to www2.ohchr.org

    There are 167 State Parties to the ICCPR, including the United States and Israel. All In addition, all UN member states have a Charter obligation to respect the right of self-determination.

    The declarative school of thought reflected in Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention is compatible with self-determination. It holds that an entity becomes a state by conducting itself like one, not through recognition:

    The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

    -http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-02/rights-duties-states.xml

    Unlike the United States, most of the other signatories of the Montevideo Convention have long since recognized the existence of the State Palestine.

  17. clubroma
    January 26, 2013, 4:27 am

    Many historians will argue that the United Nations was destroyed by its first ‘major’ decision, that being the creation of the State of Isreal in 1947. The credibility and authority of the United Nations has been destroyed by the fact that Isreal has totally ignored the rulings of the General Assembly on more than 250 occassions. Of course, this happens with the complete support of people like Susan Rice.
    What Isreal has done since 1948 is basically, ‘cut the balls off the UN’. The United Sates of America has participated in this procedure. The UN can’t go to the President of Sudan and complain about what’s happening in Darfur. He’s just going to say, ‘why are you picking on us, have you seen what’s been happening in Palestine for the last 70 years’. And he’s got a point.
    The UN gave birth to the State of Isreal and the State of Isreal has gone out of its way to destroy its ‘mother’ since birth. The USA also suffers. When US diplomates travel around the world talking about freedom, equality and justice, everyone laughs. How can you talk about freedom, equality and justice when you support the State of Isreal. Its all heading in one direction and soon or later the US has a major decision confronting it. ” When do we cut the umbilical cord ?” If they don’t, then Isreal will drag the US into a financial and moral abyiss.

    • john h
      January 27, 2013, 12:14 am

      “When do we cut the umbilical cord ?” If they don’t, then Isreal will drag the US into a financial and moral abyiss.”

      Will? It has already been there for many years, as you outlined, clubroma. Who has destroyed the UN? Not really Israel, but the US with all its vetos over so many years to protect Israel, that’s the real culprit. Beyond that, the culprits are the powers that gave themselves that veto in the first place.

      By the way, I like your spelling, Isreal. But the true spelling is Isunreal.

      • JeffB
        January 27, 2013, 7:45 am

        @John h

        Lets assume the US didn’t veto but still considered Israel and ally. The UN passes an article 7 violation and moves to send in troops. The IDF is the 4th or 5th best army in the world and tells the UN if they move in troops the IDF will treat them as hostiles and attack. The USA doesn’t object.

        How is that any different?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 27, 2013, 10:53 am

        Lets assume the US didn’t veto but still considered Israel and ally. The UN passes an article 7 violation and moves to send in troops.

        if the US withheld their veto, why not address the most likely scenario first? don’t you think international sanctions would follow.

      • JeffB
        January 27, 2013, 12:34 pm

        @Annie —

        if the US withheld their veto, why not address the most likely scenario first? don’t you think international sanctions would follow.

        If you can’t even get the UK, Brazil, France, Italy, Spain … to stop trading with Israel why would they be willing to put more or less their entires navies in service of the UN to enforce sanctions for years?

        Moreover you still have another problem with enforcement, once we see enforcement isn’t really viable without the USA actually participating. Then the issue becomes voluntary sanctions. And that doesn’t require the UN. The USA doesn’t get a veto in the EU. If the Eurozone wants to boycott Israel, they boycott Israel they don’t need USA or UN permission to do it. Israel is clearly in material breach of multiple human rights resolutions there’s no question about the legality of a boycott. The reason there isn’t a European boycott is because Europe doesn’t want to boycott. China is a huge source of raw materials for Israel. They could stop selling tomorrow.

        Israel has already been subject to voluntary sanctions. About 2/3rds of the countries on the planet won’t trade with Israel. They were subject to terrible sanctions during the 1950s that really did bite to implement RoR and they didn’t. The reason there are no sanctions is because at the end of the day the rest of the world doesn’t care that much about the Palestinians. They care a little bit. So they pass resolutions which amount to “Israel is yucky” but beyond that, it ain’t happening. With or without a USA veto unless the USA changed its mind and actually supported the sanctions.

        The veto is not creating the problem it is just accurately reflecting the problem.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 27, 2013, 1:09 pm

        jeff, just recently the EU did threaten to boycott israel. some fairly high level talks as i recall. i will see if i can go find the wording. i wrote about it. the EU is israels biggest trading partner, and it would impact israel in a huge way.

        this is also why it’s crazy to even discuss a UN military invasion of israel at this junction, because obviously there’s already been warnings of sanctions therefore rather unfathomable military action would precede such actions.

      • JeffB
        January 27, 2013, 4:04 pm

        @Annie

        the EU did threaten to boycott israel. some fairly high level talks as i recall.

        Agreed. There are usually threats about EU boycotts. Sometimes even a few mild sanctions. And then an ever increasing level of trade. William Hague was pretty clear after the E1 announcement that sanctions were off the table as a response.

        the EU is israels biggest trading partner, and it would impact israel in a huge way.

        I’m not sure about that. It depends what gets sanctioned. Israel’s GDP is $250b with about 1/4 of that trade related. 80% of Israel exports are high tech and electronics. A lot of that is military, quasi military or Intel related. Most of the time when people talk about sanctions they are talking about the other 20% and now you are talking 5% of the economy, a 20% is just 1% off GDP. If you start talking about that 80% most European need to ask do countries interested in stability and peace really want Israeli arms manufacturers shopping around for new exciting markets for their military goods? So assuming we are talking 1% of GDP those sanctions are far less than the damage the Arab states boycott does today. I can easily imagine mild sanctions like that, but I don’t see them changing Israeli behavior.

        European countries use one country’s sanctions as an opportunity for another country to pick up a few hundred million to a few billion in extra trade. Moreover, these sorts of mild sanctions instantly kill Europe’s diplomatic influence. Europeans love to go to Israel and do photo ops where they negotiate to get something for the Palestinians, It’s a proven vote getter. They also like official condemning the Israeli ambassador and Israel acts all huffy showing how effectual they are.

        Iran is a good example of a real sanctions regime.
        1) There are sanctions.
        2) If those sanctions don’t work they are followed up by really harsh sanctions
        3) Those sanctions are enforced
        4) If Iran tries to break the sanctions regime there is a credible threat of countries anxious to go to war.

        Without step (4) its rather had for sanctions to work.

      • Sibiriak
        January 28, 2013, 5:02 am

        We are a long, long way from seeing European sanctions on Israel.

        link to reuters.com

        “I don’t think there is enthusiasm around the European Union … about economic sanctions in Europe on Israel. I don’t believe there would be anywhere near a consensus nor is that our approach. We continue to try to bring both sides back to negotiations,” Hague said.

        “Nevertheless, if there is no reversal of the decision that has been announced, we will want to consider what further steps European countries should take,” he said.

        France on Monday also dismissed the prospect of European sanctions on Israel.

        —–
        link to articles.latimes.com

        Asked if France would consider sanctions against Israel, Hollande told reporters, “We don’t want to shift into sanctions mode. We are more focused on persuading. It’s an important moment, but I appeal for responsibility.”

        —-
        link to timesofisrael.com

        Although there was speculation that Monday’s EU meeting would produce a series of harsh sanctions against Israel, including a landmark decision to begin boycotting imported Israeli products manufactured in settlements beyond the Green Line, senior officials in the union told The Times of Israel that the meeting would merely ratify previous resolutions, “irrespective of recent decisions by the government of Israel.”

        “The European Union continues to oppose boycotts, including boycotts of settlement products,” David Kriss, the press manager for the EU delegation to Israel, said.

        —–

      • Shingo
        January 28, 2013, 6:13 am

        The IDF is the 4th or 5th best army in the world and tells the UN if they move in troops the IDF will treat them as hostiles and attack.

        Then the UNSC passes article 7 resolutions imposing sanctions on Israel and Israel’s economy collapses. Israeli leaders are denied entry into foreign countries and can no longer travel for fear of being arrested for war crimes.

        See how it works?

      • Shingo
        January 28, 2013, 6:15 am

        Iran is a good example of a real sanctions regime.

        Correction. It’s a good example of a real sanctions regime that has been imposed for political reasons, not justified reasons. When sanctions are imposed on a false premise, they tend to fall apart.

      • Shingo
        January 28, 2013, 6:21 am

        The reason there isn’t a European boycott is because Europe doesn’t want to boycott.

        The reason there isn’t a European boycott is because the US lobbies feverishly to prevent any such policies in Europe and Europe has historically always done as they are told by the US.

        China could care less about human rights.

        The reason there are no sanctions is because at the end of the day the rest of the world doesn’t care that much about the Palestinians.

        No, the reason there are no sanctions is because at the end of the day is because any country that does risks the wrath of the US.

      • JeffB
        January 28, 2013, 12:23 pm

        @shingo —

        Then the UNSC passes article 7 resolutions imposing sanctions on Israel and Israel’s economy collapses.

        Slow down a little bit. In this hypothetical we had an article 7 resolution with sanctions. Assume you get that. Are these enforced sanctions of voluntary sanctions?

        If enforced who does the enforcing? What ships. Be specific.

        If voluntary. Then how doe the UN or article 7 help? Countries voluntary sanctions now and don’t.

        So no I don’t see how it works. I think there is a belief on this blog that the UN has magic powers.

      • JeffB
        January 28, 2013, 12:29 pm

        @Shingo

        Correction. It’s a good example of a real sanctions regime that has been imposed for political reasons, not justified reasons. When sanctions are imposed on a false premise, they tend to fall apart.

        All sanctions are imposed for political reasons. What other reasons would they be imposed for, artistic? “Chad poetry is terrible until they improve their poetry we need to cut them off”.

        In any case the Iranian sanctions are working quite well in terms of economic damage. The GDP of Iran is $331b and they are losing about $60b / yr from the sanctions. But note, these are enforced sanctions not voluntary sanctions so much bigger numbers. Also their economy hasn’t collapsed, that’s a depression but not economic collapse.

        And I love how sanctions against Israel are fully justified here, but Iran which holds mock trials, massacres ethnic groups exports terrorism (human rights violations) throughout the region, has no pretense of even being remotely democratic…. gets support. The rule seems to be, pick the opposite of whatever side the USA is on.

      • JeffB
        January 28, 2013, 12:34 pm

        @Shiango

        The reason there isn’t a European boycott is because the US lobbies feverishly to prevent any such policies in Europe and Europe has historically always done as they are told by the US.

        Assume you are correct that’s the reason, and I’m wrong that the EU doesn’t want sanctions. If that’s the case then again the USA veto is just indicating the reality of the situation that until the USA is willing to vote for sanctions they won’t happen. So it isn’t veto in the UN that’s creating the problem but rather the USA’s indifference to Israel.

        I’m not sure how on the base point you are even disagreeing.

        China could care less about human rights.

        Yep. And the USA only cares a little more. And that’s a problem because Israel can easily divert their core exports to China and the USA. And in terms of imports that’s raw materials, mainly not coming from Europe. Which means that even if there were European sanctions we are talking 2% of GDP tops. Less than they suffer now from the Arab boycott they’ve been subject to since the 40’s.

      • Hostage
        January 28, 2013, 6:11 pm

        Slow down a little bit. In this hypothetical we had an article 7 resolution with sanctions. Assume you get that. Are these enforced sanctions of voluntary sanctions?

        In the cases of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, the Security Council annexed their own criminal statutes to Chapter VII resolutions and required all of the member states to assist the criminal tribunals in bringing suspects to justice. You may not think that’s a magical power, but it has put people just a smart as Netanyahu and Lieberman behind bars.

        It wouldn’t be a wise move for Israel to rely on the United States to protect it from enforcement of UN sanctions by “a coalition of the willing” UN member states. Israel is not a vital US economic interest and the private members of our reserve bank conduct operations in a host of other countries.

      • Shingo
        January 28, 2013, 8:52 pm

        Assume you get that. Are these enforced sanctions of voluntary sanctions?

        Obviously not, they become international law and enforceable.

        If enforced who does the enforcing? What ships. Be specific.

        I didn’t say blockade I said economic sanctions, meaning that they get enforced the way the sanctions on Iran are enforced.

      • Shingo
        January 28, 2013, 8:57 pm

        All sanctions are imposed for political reasons.

        The Iranian ones are complete BS since Iran has not violated the NPT.

        All sanctions are imposed for political reasons.

        In any case the Iranian sanctions are working quite well in terms of economic damage.

        But that is not what their stated aim was. In fact, when they were voted on by the UNSC assurances were made that ordinary Iranians would not be adversely affected.

        They are supposed to stop Iran’s nuclear program, which they have not done, hence they have failed.

        And I love how sanctions against Israel are fully justified here, but Iran which holds mock trials, massacres ethnic groups exports terrorism (human rights violations) throughout the region, has no pretense of even being remotely democratic…. gets support.

        You are clearly trying to conflate two different issues.

        The sanctions against Iran mention nothing about human rights issues or support for terrorism. They are based on false claims that Iran is pursuing nukes.

        I don’t recall anyone suggesting Israel should be sanctioned for having nukes do you?

      • Shingo
        January 28, 2013, 8:59 pm

        So it isn’t veto in the UN that’s creating the problem but rather the USA’s indifference to Israel.

        Both but the veto is achieved through blackmail, corruption and bribery.

        And that’s a problem because Israel can easily divert their core exports to China and the USA.

        What are you blathering about? There is no limit on Israel’s exports to China and the USA, so how can you argue that there would be a greater demand for Israeli exports in China and the USA if Europe implements sanctions?

      • Sibiriak
        January 29, 2013, 2:57 am

        Shingo:

        There is no limit on Israel’s exports to China and the USA, so how can you argue that there would be a greater demand for Israeli exports in China and the USA if Europe implements sanctions?

        Good point. Demand doesn’t just suddenly appear in one place because it is reduced in another.

      • JeffB
        January 29, 2013, 7:34 am

        @Hostage —

        The question was one of sanctions. You are now talking about criminal prosecutions which is an entirely different matter. And yes Rwanda and Sierra Leone a few individuals have been held for a long time / life at the hands of the west. If that happens to a few Israelis they won’t be the first Jews to die for Zion and they won’t be the last. I doubt it will happen but if it does, so what?

        You may not think that’s a magical power, but it has put people just a smart as Netanyahu and Lieberman behind bars.

        Who cares about smart? The question is powerful not smart. Yugoslavia required a USA war to get the tribunal up. A better analogy for an Israel cut from the US is North Korea.

        It wouldn’t be a wise move for Israel to rely on the United States to protect it from enforcement of UN sanctions by “a coalition of the willing” UN member states.

        That’s not so easy. I keep get censored when I try and discuss the military situation, but I’ll try this

        a) If the ships are within hundreds of miles of the shore they are defenseless relative to the IDF.

        b) If they are hundreds of miles from the shore they need to be grouped enough to not be subject to submarine attack.

        c) If they are hundreds of miles from the shore and grouped you are talking most of the non USA navy in the world. How long are they willing to keep that up?

      • JeffB
        January 29, 2013, 7:38 am

        What are you blathering about? There is no limit on Israel’s exports to China and the USA, so how can you argue that there would be a greater demand for Israeli exports in China and the USA if Europe implements sanctions?

        The problem isn’t demand it is supply. Many Israeli exports are supply not demand constrained. Israel has had to switch markets for products multiple times because of symbol sanctions and they have done so easily.

        Jeffb: So it isn’t veto in the UN that’s creating the problem but rather the USA’s indifference to Israel.
        Shiango: Both but the veto is achieved through blackmail, corruption and bribery.

        What are you talking about? The veto is achieved by just doing it. It is an intrinsic right of the USA and all permanent Security Council Members. The yes votes to USA resolutions are often achieved that way, but the no vote has no such requirement.

      • Sibiriak
        February 1, 2013, 2:38 am

        JeffB:

        The problem isn’t demand it is supply. Many Israeli exports are supply not demand constrained

        “Many”? Can you be more specific here? Which Israeli products are not at all subject to market demand structures? Which are? Which Israeli products currently going to Europe have a demand that is not being met in the U.S. and China due to supply constraints?

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 12:25 pm

        Who cares about smart? The question is powerful not smart. Yugoslavia required a USA war to get the tribunal up.

        There was no USA war in Rwanda or in the case of the other UN international criminal tribunals. When you talk about sanctions, that implicitly includes criminal sanctions.

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 1:59 pm

        Which Israeli products currently going to Europe have a demand that is not being met in the U.S. and China due to supply constraints?

        You mean something similar to this? (Reuters) – Iran’s crude oil exports in December leapt to their highest level since European Union sanctions took effect last July, analysts and shipping sources said, as strong Chinese demand and tanker fleet expansion helped the OPEC member dodge sanctions. link to reuters.com

  18. Hostage
    January 28, 2013, 2:34 am

    William Hague was pretty clear after the E1 announcement that sanctions were off the table as a response.

    LOL! How is Great Britain going to watch your back in the EU after David Cameron opened his big mouth about the possibility the UK will be quitting the organization? See EU irked by Cameron’s talk of breaks link to upi.com

    You do realize that undermines the influence of Brits like Hague, Ashton, and Blair in the Council of Ministers don’t you?

    • JeffB
      January 28, 2013, 7:33 am

      @Hostage

      Francois Hollande said the same thing. Israel doesn’t need England to “have its back”. As I said above to Annie the EU tends to officially apply tightly targeted mild sanction to Israel for PR purposes, while broadly increasing trade. EU ministers want business and they want influence. It is hard to imagine an EU sanction regime that would bite very much. Though it is easy to imagine a few symbolic acts in support of the UN.

      • Hostage
        January 28, 2013, 12:32 pm

        Francois Hollande said the same thing.

        That’s the very same guy who said he wouldn’t vote to recognize the State of Palestine in the General Assembly, unless they pledged not to take Israel to the ICC – then voted in favor of giving Palestine the upgraded status anyway. So, now he’s got your back against sanctions huh? ;-)

        You’re only talking about half-hearted disclaimers from two countries, but the remainder of the ministers called in their Israeli ambassadors and made it perfectly clear that the day Netanyahu starts construction in E1 they intend to slap sanctions on Israel:

        The union’s Foreign Affairs Council did not announce any concrete sanctions against Israel, but hinted that it could consider punitive measures in the future if Jerusalem did not reconsider its controversial decisions.

        link to timesofisrael.com

        You can gauge public sentiment by the reaction of other senior EU leaders:

        TEL AVIV // More than two dozen former European heads of state and other prominent figures have joined in a rare public call for the European Union to impose sanctions against Israel and pressure the country to halt its Jewish settlement expansion.

        link to thenational.ae

      • JeffB
        January 28, 2013, 4:07 pm

        @Hostage —

        So what exactly is your argument here? The original argument was that US veto wasn’t stopping anything. Europe can impose sanctions if they want, and they don’t want. I cited a British diplomat. You then argued the British would be soon leaving. So I cited a French diplomat. You are now arguing that the French diplomat doesn’t mean what he says because after all he’s changed policy on meaningless symbolic gestures in the past. So what is your theory here, that the EU ministers who are willing to go on record saying there will be no sanctions and possibly leak that maybe there will be some sort of like sanctions sometime in the future actually intend to implement crippling sanctions in the near future?

        It is pretty simple. Meaningful sanctions are complex to implement and require enforcement mechanisms. European leaders have never to the best of my knowledge even proposed enforcement mechanisms. (And by enforcement mechanisms I mean naval ships ready to sink boats not pieces of paper).

        If the EU wanted to impose voluntary sanctions Israel has been doing stuff that they don’t like for a long time. Time after time after time the EU has “deplored” various Israeli acts, made demands and sometimes even imposed mild sanctions. All against a backdrop of large trade increases in the aggregate. Take for example the Orient house. Here is a link that describes the kind of language used: link to islamweb.net And you’ll notice even the US joined in. And the result as far as actions was precisely nothing. Well maybe there was some sort of a thing about labeling products from the settlements that Israel refused to comply and the matter was dropped.

        European governments have consistently refused to take any heat. Belgium allows an indictment against Sharon, Israel pulls their ambassador and Belgium backpedals. And that was on a symbolic issue. If Belgium couldn’t handle the symbolic blowback from a symbolic trial what makes you think they are wiling to handle the real blowback from real action?

        It is pretty simple. If the EU wanted to take action they wouldn’t be vaguely threatening, they would be openly debating specific policy proposals. Look at the discussion regarding Iran for what a real sanctions discussion would look like.

      • Hostage
        January 29, 2013, 6:07 am

        @Hostage –

        So what exactly is your argument here? The original argument was that US veto wasn’t stopping anything. Europe can impose sanctions if they want, and they don’t want.

        Are you really that deficient in worldly wisdom? The framework agreement on Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) requires individual states to implement binding Security Council resolutions regarding sanctions or restrictive measures (in line with their UN Charter obligations) Those sanctions or restrictions would otherwise constitute a violation of The Treaty on European Union regarding the free movement of goods and services and would require the approval of the EU Council – where the measures could be voted down.

      • JeffB
        January 29, 2013, 12:48 pm

        @Hostage

        Those sanctions or restrictions would otherwise constitute a violation of The Treaty on European Union regarding the free movement of goods and services and would require the approval of the EU Council – where the measures could be voted down.

        Good now we are starting to get to the truth of the matter. There aren’t sanctions on Israel, because the pro-sanctions groups lack the votes in the EU Council. A body the USA doesn’t even have a vote on, much less a veto over. The problem ain’t the USA it is Europe.

        Now if you want I can start going back through economic sanctions that were authorized by the UN and finding examples of European countries conducting lots of black market trade. But to pick one very well known example, during the Iraq sanctions regime there were lots of Jaguars and BMWs in Iraq, and the triangle trade Iraq Turkey EU was well known. Conversely the EU is being quite effective against Iran, and according to Iran going well beyond the UN mandates. They were also quite aggressive against Myanmar with sanctions.

      • Hostage
        January 29, 2013, 7:55 pm

        Good now we are starting to get to the truth of the matter. There aren’t sanctions on Israel, because the pro-sanctions groups lack the votes in the EU Council.

        No, we are still talking about the use of the US veto in the UN Security Council to prevent the adoption of international sanctions and you are still trying to change the subject.

        A body the USA doesn’t even have a vote on, much less a veto over.

        Don’t be silly. The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause, in Article 103 and 104, which allows the Security Council to adopt resolutions that preempt any conflicting treaty obligations of the member states – and grants the UN Organization sufficient legal power to fulfill its functions and purposes in the territories of each member state.
        link to yale.edu

        *See for example Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) and (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America)
        link to icj-cij.org

        The US and Israel could challenge any sanctions adopted by the EU Council in the World Trade Organization. But they cannot question sanctions imposed by the Security Council through the WTO process.

  19. Annie Robbins
    January 28, 2013, 11:43 am

    link to jpost.com
    EU: Treaties with Israel apply only to pre-’67 lines

    A diplomatic source told The Jerusalem Post that he feared some of the language in the council statement was placed there to lay the groundwork for labelling and possibly banning settlement products in the future.

    The EU said all of its agreements with Israel “must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the Golan Heights; the West Bank, including east Jerusalem; and the Gaza Strip.”

    The council called for full implementation of existing EU legislations and bilateral arrangements applicable to settlement products.

    The statement was part of a larger document on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict published at the end of the EU Foreign Affairs Council’s monthly meeting.

    Dec 10,2012
    link to unispal.un.org

    4. Recalling its parameters for the resumption of negotiations between the parties, as set out in previous Council Conclusions, including in December 2009, December 2010 and May 2011, the European Union reiterates that it will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. The European Union expresses its commitment to ensure that – in line with international law – all agreements between the State of Israel and the European Union must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Recalling its Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions adopted in May 2012, the European Union and its Member States reiterate their commitment to ensure continued, full and effective implementation of existing European Union legislation and bilateral arrangements applicable to settlement products.

    • seanmcbride
      January 28, 2013, 11:52 am

      Just a note to say that I think your use of bolded passages within blockquotes is incredibly effective for nailing down points. BAM!

      Probably Dickerson deserves major credit for establishing this practice on Mondoweiss. :)

      How to develop a strong argument: focus on the strongest passages from the strongest quotes from the strongest works from the strongest authorities.

    • JeffB
      January 28, 2013, 4:11 pm

      @annie —

      Yes and they’ve been saying this for about 15 years. Israel refuses to do their part and nothing much happens. And there is good reason for this. The economy of the settlements and the economy of Israel are fully integrated. There is no distinction between “settlement goods” and Israeli goods. The Israeli’s probably can’t clear figure out what percentage of what goods were manufactured there.

      It would be like asking Americans to clearly label items that had any involvement in the California, Arizona, Texas economy and separate them out from goods from the other 45 contiguous states. That sort of thing isn’t even tracked.

      • Hostage
        January 29, 2013, 5:47 am

        It would be like asking Americans to clearly label items that had any involvement in the California, Arizona, Texas economy and separate them out from goods from the other 45 contiguous states. That sort of thing isn’t even tracked.

        Hasbara fail! It’s really a simple legal obligation regarding country of origin marking used to determine eligibility for benefits under the free trade zone agreements & etc. The settlements aren’t located in Israel, so someone should pay the customs on those items when they enter the US. Our Treasury Department directives prohibit labeling products from the West Bank and Gaza as “Made in Israel” – that’s the law in these parts. If you don’t like it, sell the stuff somewhere else.
        –See 62 FR 12269 – Country of Origin Marking of Products From the West Bank and Gaza link to gpo.gov

      • JeffB
        January 29, 2013, 12:24 pm

        @Hostage

        I’m hard pressed to see where you are disagreeing with me. Yes it is a legal obligation for Israel, yes they aren’t complying nor have they even setup the infrastructure to easily bring themselves into compliance. Everyone knows this and no one seems to really care.

  20. Hostage
    January 29, 2013, 5:33 pm

    I’m hard pressed to see where you are disagreeing with me. Yes it is a legal obligation for Israel, yes they aren’t complying nor have they even setup the infrastructure to easily bring themselves into compliance. Everyone knows this and no one seems to really care.

    You appear to be pretty uninformed about the subject. If you need to study the facts, here are some relevant stories:

    *’Made in Israel': EU Court Allows Duties on Products from the Settlements: Europe’s highest court ruled on Thursday that Israeli products manufactured in settlements in occupied Palestinian territories are not exempt from paying EU customs duties. Though nominally a finding on a trade-related matter, the decision has much wider political implications. link to spiegel.de

    *EU foreign ministers pushing to label all settlement products: A Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem said the initiative is based on a decision by EU foreign ministers in May that was unanimously approved by all 27 foreign ministers. link to haaretz.com

    *Ireland looks to advance EU ban on West Bank settlement products
    link to haaretz.com

    *Report: EU’s boycott of settlement trade legal. New expert legal opinion published in UK says EU nations can boycott products made by West Bank settlements without violating World Trade Organization obligations link to ynetnews.com

    *South African government takes concrete step against illegal Israeli settlement products link to lhr.org.za

    *Israeli anger over S Africa bid to label West Bank settlement goods
    link to thenational.ae

    *Israeli settlement products need EU ban, says human rights report Palestinian organisation Al Haq says Europe is obliged under international law to ban the trade that underpins occupation
    link to guardian.co.uk

    So obviously some of your biggest trading partners do care and are taking concrete steps to do something about the situation.

Leave a Reply