For fairness, Abbas did, without doubt, raise the ceiling of his political and legal discourse from -10 to just about +50 (out of a 100). His description of Israel as an apartheid state (twice); his mention of the 1948 Nakba and dispossession; his condemnation of Israeli state terrorism; his endorsement of peaceful resistance (it is not everyday that Abbas even utters the R word!), etc. were all appreciated departures from his usual, lackluster, compromised, low-ceiling discourse, for sure.
Still, the fact remains that the very application for membership undermines Palestinian interests and directly jeopardizes the representation of most Palestinians at the UN and their ability to politically assert their inalienable rights. While our inalienable rights cannot be voided or extinguished by this or any other “diplomatic” maneuver, our ability to struggle for these rights in international forums will be severely damaged if the PLO is replaced by this imaginary “State of Palestine” at the UN.
Also, nothing has changed about the fact that we do not have a democratically elected leadership that is mandated to speak for all of us. It is more urgent than ever to revive — or what I’ve called, take back — the PLO from the grassroots up by holding free, democratic, representative, inclusive elections for the Palestine National Council (PNC), our parliament in exile, in which every Palestinian is formally represented.
I, therefore, stand by every word I’d written in my opinion column prior to Abbas’s UN speech. I ended that piece saying:
Ignoring the will of the people and potentially sacrificing their basic rights in order to secure some illusory advantages at the “negotiations” table hurts Palestinian interests and endangers the great advances our popular and civil struggle has achieved to date, particularly as a result of the global BDS movement. It would in effect reduce the Arab Spring to a Palestinian autumn.
Going to the UN should be strongly supported by all Palestinians – and, consequently, by solidarity groups worldwide – if done by a trusted, democratically elected, accountable leadership and if it expressly represents the will of the Palestinian people and our collective right to self determination.
Alas, neither condition is met in the current “September Initiative,” which may end up replacing the “194” we’ve always struggled to implement with a “194” that is little more than another irresponsible leap away from accountability and from the inevitable repercussions of the sweeping Arab Spring.
Also, even in his speech, Abbas repeated his religious commitment to the patently futile and damaging “negotiations” and, more crucially, to the most dangerous concession ever made by any Palestinian official — replacing the inalienable right of the Palestinian refugees to return, in accordance with UN res. 194, with the “just and agreed upon solution” adopted in the so-called Arab Peace Initiative under heavy pressures from the US. This formulation effectively
Finally, Abbas reiterated his opposition to “isolating Israel.” This must go down in the history of national liberation movements (I know, I know!) as the first time an ostensible leader of the colonized rejects any attempt by his own people and those in solidarity with them internationally to isolate the colonizer! I hope Mandela does not get a heart attack from reading this. Gandhi, Che Guevara and many others must be turning like mad in their graves!
It is not for nothing that Israel’s wisest Zionist, Shimon Peres, today called Abbas ”the best Palestinian leader Israel will work with.”
The process of negotiation is:
1. Draft a proposal
2. Seek approval from legislatures
3. Seek ratification from populous
There is certainly momentum from the drafting of the proposal, and there certainly is pressure to not abandon a long-worked effort.
But, to claim that there is no accountability to a proposal that will eventually require popular ratification is a lie. To claim that there is no democracy in the formation of a state, that will prospectively have democratic elections, is a lie.
And, for an advocate of non-violent resistance to ignore Gandhi’s and King’s theme, of noting that even after the features of exploitation are removed, we will still be neighbors, is immoral.
The advocacy for Palestinians’ rights is moral. The simultaneous advocacy for Israelis’ safety and security is also moral.
There are two groups that commonly oppose the PA petition:
Radical Palestinian solidarity and
Likud
An odd common cause.
Exactly.
Just heard Joe Lauria on Antiwar radio he states that a simple majority at the General Assembly would be sufficient for Palestinians to gain non member observer state and entry into various International Agencies etc, this is probably not sufficient since the US could insist on this being an “important question” which would require a two thirds majority in the General Assembly. See rule 83 below,
Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include recommendations with respect to the maintenance of International peace and security, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph 1c of Article 86 of the charter, the admission of new members to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.
He also states this would automatically give sovereignty rights to Palestinians over territory like its air space and offshore waters etc this is also not correct since in Occupied Territory the True Sovereign is absent and all questions regarding what actually happens in that territory are for the Commanding Officer of the Israeli Defence force and the Head of the civil Administration to decide and must be decided according to the laws of occupation i.e. the 1907 Hague Regulations and the fourth Geneva convention 1949, they merely act as trustees and administrators until the true sovereign returns (a legally constituted government) any breaches of which occur can of course can be brought before the UN and as we have seen unfortunately subject to a US veto. The International Criminal Court is not subject to such a veto and could rule as the World Court did on its advisory opinion on the Israeli wall case, that the settlements are illegal and that they constitute ongoing war crimes [ 15 judges to zero] ICJ 2004. This is why the United States and Israel are panicking.
It seems to me that any UN member state could move for the enforcement of 194–Palestine, Bolivia, or Japan. I don’t follow the argument that Palestine’s membership in the UN would undercut that.
Also, and this is where I’m most likely incorrect, didn’t Abbas as head of the PLO bring this membership application on behalf of the PLO? In other words, not on behalf of the PA?
The fact that no nation — not an Arab state, not a South American state, not even Turkey — has sought to bring the law of belligerent occupation before the ICJ (other than the very narrow question of the legality of the wall) shows that USA pressure against such interventions (much like AIPAC’s pressure against pro-Palestine actions by congressmen) exceeds the tendency — if any — in favor of such intervention. Maybe we can see the Palestinian Spring influence this flaccidity.