United States To Veto Resoluton For Palestinan State

[dylans]

That theory has been tested to destruction though - it didnt work even when the Arab states were far more militarily powerful, and Israel far weaker, than it is now. There are also a lot more physical barriers - not only the wall, but also the increased number of settlements - to prevent a third intifada from being a success.

This is why I think the PA's approach is actually quite a good one - it puts the US on the spot, highlights their hypocritical behaviour when it comes to peace talks, and (most importantly IMHO) forces the current Israeli government to take a decision on something - given that this government is quite possibly their worst in recent history, this probably means that Bibi et al will make the wrong decision and will further worsen Israel's position domestically, regionally and in the world in general. It is gesture politics, but this is perhaps a time for gesture politics.

On your first point. Actually it hasn't been tested, not really. The PLO has never put its trust or faith in the Arab populations or tried to mobilise the Arab masses across the region. Instead Palestinian resistance has either relied on building relations with Arab leaders and governments who all to often mouth platitudes and do nothing or it has relied on elitist guerrillaism. The one force that has rarely been mobilised is the one force that is presently shaking the region, the power of the Arab populations themselves.

On your second point. The UN bid makes sense if, as Abbas and the PA do, you think that bilateral negotiations are worthwhile. That the deadlock in negotiations is only one of finding the right path between two antagonists who both equally desire a just settlement. As I pointed out in my last post, the entire process is about strengthening the Palestinian's hand ahead of a resumption of negotiations. This is also the reason the US and Israel are throwing a fit about it. The Israelis and the US hope that by making a big deal out of this bid they will force the PA to back down and to resume negotiations without Israel having to make a commitment to stop or even suspend settlement building. Remember, the issue of the continued expansion of settlements is the issue that finally forced the PA to walk out of bilateral talks and to seek UN recognition. By bullying Abbas to accept less than full statehood and to return to the negotiating table, the US and Israel hope Abbas can return to the West Bank claiming he kept his word by breaking the deadlock over negotiations and resume his seat at the table while settlement expansion continues apace. This is why the US continually cites the need for a negotiated settlement and urges a return to negotiations as the principle reason for threatening to veto the statehood bid. which it defines as unilateral ie a declaration of statehood not made through negotiations.

However, if, as I do, you think that negotiations are a fraud, a cloak to conceal Israel's continued colonisation of the West Bank then the conclusion must be that Israel really does not want a comprehensive peace settlement of any kind but instead wants to inflict a comprehensive defeat, then all moves towards negotiations are not only pointless but are treasonous because they assist Israel in its relentless annihilation of the Palestinian people. Why give respectability to a duplicitous process that aims to cover Israel's true intentions? The only response then, to ethnic cleansing and forced colonisation is resistance not negotiation and the only debate is about the most effective form of that resistance. I am suggesting that the crisis sweeping the Arab world creates a unique opportunity for Palestinians to put their struggle at the very heart of the Arab spring at a time when Israel is more isolated than at any time in its recent history and that means turning their back on both pointless negotiations and meaningless diplomatic recognition and instead unleashing the enormous power of the Arab masses across the region to force Israel to accept a just settlement that gives Palestinians their national and democratic rights

 

[gavman]

ftr newsnight adopted the fox news tactic of simply not reporting news it doesn't like. no mention of the palestinian bid for statehood; they even had a report concerning other news from the the un, but managed to miss that completely.
pitiful, criminal

 

[dylans]

ftr newsnight adopted the fox news tactic of simply not reporting news it doesn't like. no mention of the palestinian bid for statehood; they even had a report concerning other news from the the un, but managed to miss that completely.
pitiful, criminal

Yesterday Sky had split screens with Obama's UN speech on one side and Clegg's conference speech on the other but only the Clegg speech was audible. So we had the pleasure of watching Obamas lips silently move along with Clegg's speech (and I could still tell he was lying )

 

[gavman]

dear newsnight editorial team,
other than outrageous pro-israel bias, is there any valid reason why you refused to cover the palestinian bid for statehood at the un yesterday and this week?
i would dearly like an answer to this single question.
since this is the same tactic adopted by fox in the face of news it doesn't like, why is this deemed acceptable from a british public service broadcaster?
the bbc is not funded by, nor does it exist for the benefit of israel.
therefore the bbc should not be complicit in excusing and concealing the ongoing crimes of the israeli state against the palestinians.
to any independent observer it is clear to see the 'peace process' is simply a stalling tactic employed while israel illegally changes the 'facts on the ground' by ethnically cleansing the palestinians from their homes.
the bbc should be clearly pointing this out.
supporting israel is simply not in the uk national interest and this would (should) be further exposed by principled journalism free of bias or management interference.
any chance of that?
yours sincerely
gavman

 

[1%er]

@dylans
My understanding was that the resolution would define Palestine by the 67 boarders and that would then make it an "occupied territory" as opposed to a "disputed territory". Important both legally and politically, is that still the case or has it been watered down?

Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on the timing of this, in relation to the Arab spring. What effect do you think it will have on the way people vote in the many upcoming elections.

Something that has been missing from the news over the last few months is anti-American demonstrations in the region, if, and it is a big if, the USA are forced to veto this, would it result in a big upswing for the Islamist parties?

 

[dylans]

My understanding was that the resolution would define Palestine by the 67 boarders and that would then make it an "occupied territory" as opposed to a "disputed territory". Important both legally and politically, is that still the case or has it been watered down?

.[/QUOTE]

First we should be clear, because there is a widespread belief that there is some debate or controversy about the status of land siezed and occupied by Israel since 67. There isn't. The status of the occupied territories are not "disputed" or debatable or controversial in any sense of the word. They are not the "so called " occupied territories. The occupation is illegal. and is defined as illegal by every single international legal institution in the world. The idea that there is something debatable about the status of the occupied territories is simply not true.

Only Israel and the US claim the issue is disputed or controversial. Every single legal authoritiy in the world without exception defines the territories occupied by Israel since 67 as illegally occupied arab land. The UN security council and general assembly. The Conference on the 4th Geneva Convention. The International Committee of the Red Cross. The international Commission of Jurists. The internaitional court of justice. Even the Israeli supreme court has ruled the occupation illegal Every one and for one simple reason. Because the occupation breaches a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law. The principle that it is inadmissable to acquire territory by act of war. The occupation is illegal and it's illegal status is entirely unrelated to whether the land under occupation is recognised as a state. The PA bid for statehood then does nothing to change the legal status of the occupation because it is already recognised that the geneva conventions apply already.

The issue therefore of the illegal status of the occupation is therefore totally unrelated to the statehood bid in legal terms. Of course, Abbas seems to dispute this when it claims that statehood would make it easier for the Palestinians to seek legal redress in the international courts. Frankly this is a bizarre suggestion and one that amounts to Abbas claiming to have a less supportive view of Palestinian rights than the International Court of Justice. I remain skeptical, not only because Abbas is not that naive but because he has form for not seeking the help of the international court when he could have. Incredibly it was the PA who withdrew Palestinian support for sending the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes to the security council which would have been the first step in seeking war crimes prosecution against Israel at the ICC. Abbas had this incredibly damning report in his hands, a report that alleged crimes against humanity against Israel. This incredibly powerful weapon to use against Israel at the highest levels of international law and, under US pressure....he bottled it. And now, we are meant to believe that he is seeking statehood in order to use those same institutions he refused to use when he could have? I don't think so. Besides, both Lebanon and Syria are internationally recognised states and they have never been able to rely on international institutions to stop the violations of their territory.

Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on the timing of this, in relation to the Arab spring. What effect do you think it will have on the way people vote in the many upcoming elections.

This statehood bid has far more to do with domestic politics than seeking any real advantage for Palestinians. In short, for Abbas it is about survival. Neither Abbas or the PA have any electoral mandate or legitimacy, he is 3 years over his mandate and afraid to call elections. PM Salam Fayyad recieved 2.4 % of the vote (no, that was not a typo. He really recieved 2.4%) at the last election and Abbas merely appointed him his PM. The PA has since 2005 served as Israel's enforcers in the West Bank. He is a kapo for Israel and his forces are protecting the security of Israel. The PA police are trained by the US who also pay their wages. It is no accident that prior to this bid Abbas requested and received riot gear from Israel to suppress demonstrations. So the question then is what is his motivation. He wants to rule a bantustan. A successful bid would allow him to return to the West Bank and proclaim victory while ignoring the reality of the occupation. This is what this is really about, strengthening the PAs hand in future negotiations over the size and scale of that bantustan and bolstering the illegitimate govt that rules over Palestinians. One thing that is absolutely NOT on the table is an end to the occupation or the granting of geniune Palestinian rights.

This is what the PA is offering Palestinians. They deserve better which brings me to your last point., The Arab spring. One lesson that every Arab has learned from the Arab spring is that the road to freedom runs straight through their own governments. This lesson is not lost on Palestinians either, they need to kick out the illegitimate collaborator regime that claims to speak for them, relaunch the resistance and this time place their faith in the revolutionary wave that is sweeping the Arab world. My bet is they would be warmly welcomed.

 

[gavman]

Something that has been missing from the news over the last few months is anti-American demonstrations in the region, if, and it is a big if, the USA are forced to veto this, would it result in a big upswing for the Islamist parties?
quote 1%er

i believe there will be a real disillusionment with the us.
this was supposedly a progressive president; he made all the right noises when it didn't cost him anything to do so, but when push came to shove he truly proved america is in the pocket of the zionists.
perhaps it would take a republican to be able to force israel to the table..it's certainly beyond obama

 

[dylans]

Something that has been missing from the news over the last few months is anti-American demonstrations in the region, if, and it is a big if, the USA are forced to veto this, would it result in a big upswing for the Islamist parties?

(sorry only just seen this last point)
On this last point. Anti Americanism is not confined to Islamist parties and the US role in supporting Israel and propping up their own corrupt regimes is widely recognised across the Arab world. The idea that the Arab world will suddenly be shocked by US action in vetoing this bid ignores the fact that this will come as no surprise. On the contrary, the US NOT vetoing this resolution would be the real shock. That said, anti Israeli feeling is certainly growing and becoming vocal and we can expect that to continue. Arab opinion, ignored and silenced for so long, can no longer be dismissed as irrelevant. All the more reason for Palestinians to sieze this historic opportunity to rise up themselves.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Anyone ever read the comic book Fables?
I don't know how I did not notice on the first read but upon re-reading I have just got up to a speech about Israel, though it does not mention Palestine it is pretty offensive. It's so backward.

 

[weltweit]

I just watched Vince Cable on Question Time being very evasive when asked about this question.

I think it is quite possible the government of Great Britain may also veto this proposal.

Of course they should not, they should approve it, but they are scared of America and Israel is the impression I get.

 

[weltweit]

I will be very dissapointed if the British government does not support the Palestinians in their resolution.

 

[TomUS]

I'll be disappointed in the US gov when it vetoes it if it comes to a vote. It's a total contradiction. Obama says he wants 2 states based on the 67 borders & then vetoes it. Oh, how the US continues to find ways to make enemies in this part of the world it sees as so vital to it's interests.

 

[DexterTCN]

re newsnight, they may be waiting until after the proceedings today.

 

[dylans]

This is what your much heralded state would look like. This is what Abbas hopes to proclaim to the world as a "Palestinian state". Robert Fisk described it as a "broken windscreen state"

None of this will change if the UN declares a Palestinian state. How can anyone seriously argue that this series of broken up cantonments and settlement blocks and closed roads and military checkpoints and watchtowers can ever constitute a viable state? The issue of statehood is a red herring. The issue, the real issue is the occupation and half million settlers and they will remain whatever the vote today

 

[TomUS]

I simply don't believe that any where near a majority of Palestinians would approve of a country like that.

 

[dylans]

I simply don't believe that any where near a majority of Palestinians would approve of a country like that.

Its shocking when we see it on a map isn't it.That's what ethnic cleansing looks like. And it's not static or fixed either, Israeli settlements have grown inexorably over the past 20 years from 100.000 to half a million and they are still growing. That map then is only going to get worse, and all under the cloak of "peace negotiations
Of course Palestinians won't and can't accept that situation. Unfortunately their wishes are entirely absent from the PAs strategy and it is increasingly clear that Abbas is quite prepared to accept it. We know from the Palestinian papers that Abbas offered the Israeli's unprecidented concessions including the offer for them to keep almost all settlements East Jerusalem and only a symbolic return of10.000 refugees (out of 5 million) in exchange for a recognition of statehood and he did so in secret. When the Palestinian Papers were leaked he denied their content and claimed they were a forgery.

The Palestine Papers reveal that Israel had no reason to halt construction in Ramat Shlomo. That’s because Palestinian negotiators agreed in 2008 to allow Israel to annex this settlement, along with almost every other bit of illegal construction in the Jerusalem area – an historic concession for which they received nothing in return.
"We proposed that Israel annexes all settlements"

The unprecedented offer by the PA came in a June 15 trilateral meeting in Jerusalem, involving Condoleezza Rice, the then-US secretary of state, Tzipi Livni, the then-Israeli foreign minister, Ahmed Qurei, PA's former prime minister, and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator.

Qurei: This last proposition could help in the swap process. We proposed that Israel annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa). This is the first time in history that we make such a proposition; we refused to do so in Camp David.​

Erekat went on to enumerate some of the settlements that the PA was willing to concede: French Hill, Ramat Alon, Ramat Shlomo, Gilo, Talpiot, and the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem’s old city. Those areas contain some 120,000 Jewish settlers. (Erekat did not mention the fate of other major East Jerusalem settlements, like Pisgat Ze’ev and Neve Ya’akov, but Qurei’s language indicates that they would also remain a part of Israel.)

Saeb Erekat, Abbas’ chief negotiator confirmed that the “State of Palestine” would still be willing to engage in “land swaps” that would hand large swathes of the West Bank – the territory of the “state” – to Israel.
I asked Erekat specifically if the lines the PA was asking for were those of 4 June 1967 with no land swaps and no Israeli settlements. Speaking by telephone from the Israeli-occupied West Bank last Friday, Erekat replied: “No. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Once I’m a sovereign state, then it’s legal to discuss swaps of land in size and value. But not before that.”
When pressed further, Erekat elaborated, “Israel must recognize me on the 1967 lines and then ask me if, because many countries change lands but they have to be sovereign, they have to know their borders.”
The long-time chief negotiator affirmed that: “If the Israelis use the magic number 1967 and recognize the Palestinian state on the 1967 line and introduce the swaps, we’re willing to talk about it, yes.”

The documents reveal that Olmert first offered a figure of 5,000 refugees over five years on "humanitarian" grounds as part of the "package deal" he presented to Abbas in August 2008. PLO lawyers responded that that was "not serious and cannot be accepted".
(Palestinian chief negotiator) Erekat said later that Olmert had accepted "1,000 refugees annually for the next 10 years" – a total of 10,000. The Palestine papers do not include any subsequent offer, but Erekat told the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, in February 2009: "On refugees, the deal is there." He confirmed the figure later.
Last year, however, Erekat distributed a document to EU diplomats saying the PA had expressed willingness to accept a return to Israel of 15,000 refugees a year over 10 years.

Abbas, himself a 1948 refugee, privately argued against the large-scale return of refugees in a meeting in March 2009: "On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million," he told officials. "That would mean the end of Israel."

Abbas has no mandate or authority to offer these concessions. He has no electoral mandate in the West Bank.No right to speak on behalf of Gazans or Palestinians in Israel or the 5 million refugees (or even for the Palestinians of the West Bank now, as he is 3 years over his electoral mandate and refuses to call elections) That role is reserved for the PLO which has been almost entirely usurped by the PA. The Palestinian Authority today is a dictatorship ruling with an iron fist under Israeli and US supervision and he has demonstrated that he seeks statehood to do the one thing that states do not do, to cede large parts of his peoples territory to Israel in exchange for the symbols and trappings of statehood. This is the action of a traitor.

http://electronicintifada.net/blog/...-keep-settlements-even-if-un-recognizes-state

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/palestine-papers-documents/4507
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/palestinians-10000-refugees-return-israel

 

[Gmart]

This could finally be the end of the two state solution anyway. Sooner or later the Palestinians will realise that if they avoid the two state solution then the whole issue will become one of basic rights, and equal rights with their Jewish neighbours - leading to calls for one man one vote, and a unified country of two peoples - a not unsurprising conclusion considering that the return home idea for the Jews was complicated by that land being home to stacks of Arabs who are all just as entitled (at least) to call it home.

 

[weltweit]

Britain needs to isolate the USA but voting for this resolution.

Will they have the balls to do it?

 

[dylans]

Britain needs to isolate the USA but voting for this resolution.

Will they have the balls to do it?

It won't come to a vote. Not today anyway. Assuming the bid goes ahead, the PA will submit their bid to the UN General Secretary and it will disappear into some committee or another for a couple of months before being put on the agenda for discussion some time next year.

Those expecting some dramatic events at the UN today will be disappointed.

 

[weltweit]

Those expecting some dramatic events at the UN today will be disappointed.

I am!

 

[dylans]

I am!

Sky has just reported that the PA will request an immediate vote. Presumably to avoid the scenario I have just outlined above. Presuming Ban Ki Moon doesn't find another way of stalling things, you may get your dramatic event after all.

 

[weltweit]

Sky has just reported that the PA will request an immediate vote. Presumably to avoid the scenario I have just outlined above. You may get your dramatic event after all.

aha

Vince Cable was very evasive last night when asked about it, it may be that Britain values harmony with the USA more than it cares about the Palestinians but I really hope we vote for the proposition. The Palestinians need some progress and this could be a clever way of them getting it. I wonder why they have not asked for recognition as a state before, perhaps they have.

 

[dylans]

aha

Vince Cable was very evasive last night when asked about it, it may be that Britain values harmony with the USA more than it cares about the Palestinians but I really hope we vote for the proposition. The Palestinians need some progress and this could be a clever way of them getting it. I wonder why they have not asked for recognition as a state before, perhaps they have.

They have. The PLO made a declaration of independance in 1988 officially declaring Palestine as a state and Arafat as its president. This was acknowledged by a UN general assembly resolution which declared

acknowledging the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988," and it was further decided that "the designation 'Palestine' should be used in place of the designation 'Palestine Liberation Organization' in the United Nations System.

The resolution was adopted with 104 votes. No prizes for guessing which two countries voted against. The state of Palestine is already recognised by 124 of the UN's 193 member states and has been for years. That's 3 quarters of the world.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

23 years on and we're far further away from a viable Palestinian state now than we were then. That should tell people something about the 'two-state' solution. It isn't a solution, and never can be.

 

[1%er]

The first details of the Palestinian application have been revealed. According to Palestinian officials, it will include:

• A official application for full membership of the United Nations
• A pledge to uphold the UN charter and a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon explaining that the application is based on two pivotal resolutions. One will be resolution 242, which requires Israel to withdraw land occupied during the Six-Day war in 1967. The other is probably resolution 181, passed on November 29, 1947, that divided British Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab.

You can watch the UN live here

 

[dylans]

If there is a vote today and the US vetoes it, then Abbas can use the new toys he has received from Israel

Israel has given approval for the Palestinian Authority to equip its security forces with riot-control gear, such as tear gas grenades and rubber bullets.
The PA has approached Israeli firms to buy such equipment in advance of expected demonstrations on the West Bank around the Palestinians' request for United Nations recognition as an independent state.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...n-of-anti-riot-gear-ahead-of-un-vote-1.384530

 

[agricola]

CNN have a reporter in Ramallah, there is what looks like a huge crowd watching this (though they could also be there for a band which is performing).

 

[Pinette]

This could finally be the end of the two state solution anyway. Sooner or later the Palestinians will realise that if they avoid the two state solution then the whole issue will become one of basic rights, and equal rights with their Jewish neighbours - leading to calls for one man one vote, and a unified country of two peoples - a not unsurprising conclusion considering that the return home idea for the Jews was complicated by that land being home to stacks of Arabs who are all just as entitled (at least) to call it home.

In my opinion the stacks of arabs are entitled to call that area of their country 'home'. They settled there hundreds of years ago. The jews in this instance are usurpers. It is sad. Does anyone remember the funny little protest by Israelis a couple of months ago in Tel Aviv I think it was, where families camped out in the streets on a lovely summery evening or two, bringing couches and camping stoves and tv's and such like, to protest against the government's lack of care in failing to provide them with low-cost housing? It simply blew my mind. I presume the sub-text was, you know, more low-cost homes for our little immigrants from Romania, England, Latvia, America - you name it. So even more building projects on disputed land.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In my opinion the stacks of arabs are entitled to call that area of their country 'home'. They settled there hundreds of years ago. The jews in this instance are usurpers. .

Practically speaking, that attitude gets nobody anywhere, though. The Israelis are going nowhere. A painful process of compromise from both sides leading to a secular state that accommodates everyone who lives there can be the only solution, imo, and, ultimately, that will have to involve an acceptance from the Palestinians that the Israelis are staying put.

 

[dylans]

In my opinion the stacks of arabs are entitled to call that area of their country 'home'. They settled there hundreds of years ago. The jews in this instance are usurpers. It is sad. Does anyone remember the funny little protest by Israelis a couple of months ago in Tel Aviv I think it was, where families camped out in the streets on a lovely summery evening or two, bringing couches and camping stoves and tv's and such like, to protest against the government's lack of care in failing to provide them with low-cost housing? It simply blew my mind. I presume the sub-text was, you know, more low-cost homes for our little immigrants from Romania, England, Latvia, America - you name it. So even more building projects on disputed land.

Of course this is true, but in a way it doesn't really matter. The rights and wrongs of 48 are of historical importance but not necessarily of political relevence now. They are only relevent in terms of the ongoing injustice that is still suffered today as a consequence.What is far more important and relevent is the ideology that justified and continues to justify the existance of Israel as a specifically Jewish state. That ideology of course is Zionism. A form of religious nationalism that defines the state of Israel in religious nationalist terms as a state specifically by and for members of one particular religion and by its nature excludes those who are not. This is very relevent because in a region where not all citizens are Jewish, the attempt to define citizenship in purely religous terms is inevitably exclusive and racist.

To oppose Zionism is not to oppose the Jewish citizens of Israel. On the contrary, it is to pose a democratic alternative that serves the interests of everyone regardless of culture, religion or ethnicity. Equal rights for all in a single binational democratic and secular state.This is the only viable, alternative to the ongoing bloodshed in that land and the only alternative narrative to the frankly shameful and pathetic attempt to present that broken windscreen of bantustans that is the West Bank today, as a solution to the nightmare lived by Palestinians. This is the fundamental error of the two state solution. It is built on the assumption that peace can come not through challenging the racist ideology of religous exclusion but by pandering to it through separatism. It won't.