Palestine - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
September 24th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
I was happy to read these articles in the local paper today regarding New Zealand stance on the matter...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10753437

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10753876

It seems that locally there is a lot more support for the Palestinian cause than I expected I just hope it is not for nothing due to politics.
September 24th, 2011  
Alan P
 
If one looks at the present day map of Israel showing the Palestinian areas. Gaza is in South and the main Area of Palestinians are East of Jordan. I dont visualise where the State of Palestine will be if sanctioned.
September 24th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
I think the answer is fairly simple all the Israeli settlesments in the West Bank are going to have to go which is what I think is mean't when people like Sarkozy talk of Israel having to make some hard sacrifices but then it is occupied land so I really don't have a lot of sympathy for them and lets the Germans that built on occupied land during WW2 got the bums rush so there is some precedent.

Obviously the hard sacrifice for the Palestinians will be to accept they are not going to get rid of Israel.

But in my opinion the statehood bid is a little bit of a red herring while I have no doubt that the Palestinians would love a state I think this bid is really an attempt to curtail Israeli settlement expansions which under their current status they can not do and it is a very smart move on their behalf as it will give them something to negotiate with rather having to put up with the current system of pseudo negotiations while more and more land is stolen from under them.
--
Boots
September 24th, 2011  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
A draft resolution in the UN Security Council on Palestinian statehood will be vetoed... -snip-

... Following this a lot of countries will recognize Palestine, with more or less fancy footwork over its borders. Palestinian leaders will rename themselves as Ministers, fly new flags on their cars and offices, and lots of ambassadors will be appointed... -snip-

... The new state will continue to have... -snip-
Well, the Palestine move does nothing more than confront the principal international players with their responsibilities and at the same time shows the hot air that is really behind Obamas much acclaimed speech in Cairo from JUN 2009.

The move itself seems to be misunderstood by many here and elsewhere, as it consists *not* in Palestine claiming to be recognized as a state but - in its quality as state - being admitted to the UN, a small but crucially significant difference - Palestine *is* a state, and since long: Already in NOV 1988, the Palestine National Congress proclaimed the creation of the state and has collected over 100 recognicions and the consideration of its diplomatic representation similar to that of a state from other states since (most states that have recognised the State of Palestine have elevated the PLO representation in their country to the status of embassy, e.g. Spain where I live).

Israel, who unilaterally proclaimed itself state in 1948 (against the resolution of the GA from 1947 that recommended the foundation of two states) keeps opposing the recognition of Palestine and hence its admittance to the UN: What Israel did 64 years ago it now negates to Palestine despite that Palestine actively recognized Israel as state during the peace talks in Madrid 1991.

The recognition of a states´ existence is not a thingy of UN or EU but an unilateral competence of each single state. Also a recognition does not create a state, its an act of declaration that recognizes the existence of the necessary elements that constitute a state: Territory, population, political organisation and sovereignity in the sense of not abiding to another authority than the international law itself. But while a recognition does not constitute or create a state all by itself it makes it more solid, same thing with admittance to the UN: The more states recognize another state, the more diplomatic relations it will have, it will sign treaties, its sovereignity in jurisdiction and execution will not be questioned, it can claim responsabilities of other states internationally, and so on.

Now, admission to the UN is claimed from the Secretary General who then transmits it to the SC (which runs a cometee for admissions of new members), in which moment the stance of the 15 members of the SC will become visible (9 votes and no veto of one of the permanent members are necessary to obtain admission). Now the US, only of the 5 permanent members that would veto the resolution, is desperately trying to achieve that Palestine wont get those nine votes so that they dont have to use their veto, because this would leave them in an arkward position as there does not exist whatever plausible reason for such a veto, neither in form nor in content. The argument of the US that Israel and Palestine first should go on negotiating is a mere excuse given that its precisely all the successive governments of Israel that torpedoed such negotiations by creating more and more settlements on Palestinian territory.

In both cases, when the US manages to avoid the vote or when it uses its veto, the hollowness behind Obamas Cairo speech will become clear, they will anger Saudi Arabia and their other Arab friends and severly diminish its recmarcable credit with the nations that live the Arab Spring. And Israel by this would clearly confirm that its not up to date understanding the impact of those revolutions and it would lose what confidence is left of Egypt and Turkey. Basically Obama would tear down everything he has been trying to construct over the last years.

Now, if Palestine wins the nine votes but the SC votes negative with respect to the admission the process will move to the GA, and while the GA cannot admit a state against the vote of the SC Palestine will be in a position where it then can solicit a new exam of the cause by the SC via a resolution that will probably be backed by 140 states, more than two thirds of the assembly and provoking a hard collision between SC and GA and would paint the US and Isreal as isolated in the world.

The ample support for a re-exam, though it would not permit the admitance as state would ebb the way - as the SC at this stage could neither imped nor veto it - for the upgrading through the GA for Palestine from observer status to non-member state status, like originally Swizerland or currently the state of Vatikan.

After this moment Palestine could participate in all works of the UN (except the SC), would have access to all its documents, would have speaking right and adhere to all organizations as e.g. the International Court in Den Hague. Its relations to the other states would not be worse than in those tense moments now and Israel would have to change its course and control better its actions that from this moment on would consitute an act of agression or war under International Law with all its consequences.

Probably Israel and the US will use the argument that a small and isolated part of the Palestinian territory (Gaza) is ruled by a terrorist organization, bad alibi as the US as well as the EU had no problem accepting the independence of a Kosovo that is run by a mafia that - beneath other crimes - are controling the worlds human organs trafficking killing Serb prisoners routinely to harvest them.

Right in Kosovo the US fostered the rapid creation of a fictious state without waiting for a bilateral agreement (that the SC had expressively asked for) with the Serbs, claiming that "7 years of fruitless negotiations are enough" .

Palestine has been negotiating 70 yrs already...

Of cause there should be negotiations, but with a clear goal: The existence of two states and its obligation to live together under conditions of equal sovereignity. Not under an ongoing occupation of Paletines territory and the continous massive trodding on the human rights of its population.

Its about time Palestine stops being the world biggest concentrationn camp under the auspices of Israel.

Rattler

(inspired by thoughts of Araceli Mangas Martin, professor of International Law at the University of Salamanca, Spain).
September 26th, 2011  
Alan P
 
I must congratulate the writers who have posted on this subject, for very intelligent posts. Well done
 


Similar Topics
El Salvador recognizes Palestine as independent state (Reuters)
Palestine U.N. membership a debate for Council in July (Reuters)
Russia's Medvedev backs independent Palestine (Reuters)
Can a new Palestine state be established peacefully?
Israel vs. Palestine questions?