Palastinian Statehood on the 29th of November

[Guest American Woman]

I accept a Palestinian state according [to] the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital, with the right to return," the Hamas leader told Christine Amanpour in Cairo.

Pushed about his party's refusal to recognize Israel, Mashaal said such a declaration could only be made once a Palestinian state has been created.

"After this state is established, it decides its standing toward Israel," the Hamas leader said.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=293084

I'm sure Israel will go for this.

[wyly]

Do you think the arrest warrant would be recognized by the world's most powerful countries? Israel has nothing to worry about.

rrrright that's why Israel is putting so much diplomatic effort to stop Palestine been recognized as a state because they're not worried about the potential political, legal and economic consequences

[DogOnPorch]

I accept a Palestinian state according [to] the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital, with the right to return," the Hamas leader told Christine Amanpour in Cairo.

Pushed about his party's refusal to recognize Israel, Mashaal said such a declaration could only be made once a Palestinian state has been created.

"After this state is established, it decides its standing toward Israel," the Hamas leader said.

http://www.jpost.com....aspx?id=293084

I'm sure Israel will go for this.

All this BS talk about '67 lines or '49 lines or '73 lines...they're all the various high-water marks of Arab invasions. But, you have to hand it to Hamas. They get their rears handed to them on a plate and declare victory. Now that would be silly except half the people involved also view it as a victory. So it becomes, de facto, a victory.

As I've yelped before, Israel's PR machine has the subtlety of a sack of hammers landing on your foot. They really have to improve as it always seems as if they're apologizing for their actions even when they're the correct actions. I can imagine what the results would be if Baja California decided to send thousands of missiles into the city of San Diego...why can't Israel?

Edited November 23, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

Is there a fundamental difference between the Israeli 'right of return' and a Palestinian 'right of return' ???

[bleeding heart]

I'd like to know how they can become a recognized state when their borders are in dispute

This will need to be worked out, and obviously it won't be easy.

- and they have terrorist leadership. Is this what the UN now recognizes?

The UN recognizes Canada, the United States, the UK, France....recognizing "terrorist" nations is the norm, not an aberration.

[jbg]

So, it seems undobuted that Palastine is due for statehood....at the upcoming UN assembly on the 29th, the same way Israel got statehood.

Only in the fantasy world of the U.N. are they a "state." And if they are a "state" then attacks emanating from their "territory" are the "government's" responsibility, an act of war.

Israel handles that kind of activity quite well if it doesn't have its hands tied behind its back; 1967 is an object example.

[bleeding heart]

Only in the fantasy world of the U.N. are they a "state."

On the contrary. If they become a state...then they become a state. QED.

The very fact that some folks refuse to recognize Israel tells you everything you need to know about that little matter. It is a state regardless of what its enemies might think.

And if they are a "state" then attacks emanating from their "territory" are the "government's" responsibility, an act of war.

That's correct. And it's a perfect example of a double-edged sword.

[Hudson Jones]

Only in the fantasy world of the U.N. are they a "state."

Israel became a state by being accepted through the U.N.

Can you believe that there are still some people who don't recognize that?

[Hudson Jones]

This will need to be worked out, and obviously it won't be easy.

The UN recognizes Canada, the United States, the UK, France....recognizing "terrorist" nations is the norm, not an aberration.

There is also the fact that Begin and Shamir, former Israeli prime ministers, were the heads of terrorist groups before Israel became a state. Yasser Arafat was also part of a terrorist organization before he and his organization were recognized.

[Boges]

But Hamas IS! a Terrorist organization. Quite different, I'd say.

[Hudson Jones]

If they continue to abandon terrorism, then they should be removed from terrorist lists.

[Hudson Jones]

Q&A: Implications of the recognition of Palestinian statehood

1. How is the current initiative different from the previous one?

In September 2011, the Palestinian Authority requested the UN Security Council to admit Palestine to the UN as a state. Turning from an entity into a “state” is not a result of a UN membership nor is it conditioned upon it. However, being admitted to the UN means gaining wide international acknowledgement of the existence of a Palestinian state. According to Article 4(2) of the UN Charter, in order to be admitted as a UN Member State, the request must be supported by the Security Council, where each of the permanent members has veto rights, as well as to win a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly vote. As noted above, this request was not yet discussed by the Council and is not likely to pass the veto obstacle. Therefore, the Palestinian Authority decided to turn to the alternative channel of upgrading its status in the General Assembly. A Security Council decision is not required in order to receive the status of a “non-member observer state” – only the support of the UN General Assembly. This move does not grant UN membership status, but it does serve the purpose of gaining wide international recognition.

2. What is the meaning of being upgraded in the UN to the status of an “observer state”?

The “observer state” status is not anchored in the UN Charter; rather, it is based on previous UN decisions. Currently, only the Vatican enjoys this status. In the past, states were allowed to become a party to international conventions, including conventions on human rights. An observer state is also permitted to become a party to international organizations and to hold hearings before the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ), and its status with the International Criminal Court (ICC) might also change.

3. Would the current UN initiative change Israel’s status in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip? How about an Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state in temporary borders (Areas A and ?

Following the Oslo Accords, many Israelis share the view that Israel is no longer responsible for the West Bank and Gaza. However, de facto Israel today still has control over the West Bank as well as over certain aspects of life in Gaza.

In the framework of the Oslo Accords, Israel transferred specific authorities to the Palestinian Authority, but it still holds all governing powers in the West Bank, including full control over Area C (62% of the West Bank), Jerusalem, water sources, civil and military control over the airspace, civil and military control over all border crossings, entry to and exit from the West Bank, and more.

The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN, or an Israeli recognition of Areas A and B as a state, will have no bearing on Israel’s standing as an occupying power according to international law. “Occupation” is a legal definition that applies to territories in which a foreign military force is able to exercise complete or partial military control and civil-administrative control over the infrastructure and daily lives of the local residents. The laws of occupation oblige the occupying power with regards to responsibility to the civilians in the territory under its control. Occupation is not a function of a permanent military presence, but of the ability to effectively control the territory. This legal definition does not differentiate between the occupation of a territory recognized as a state and a territory that is not recognized as such, and therefore the legal status of the territory is irrelevant and as long as Israel has effective control over these territories it will continue to be considered an occupying power.

As for the Gaza Strip, the official Israeli position is that since this disengagement, the Israeli occupation of Gaza has ended. However, many in the international community reject this stance and maintain that the laws of occupation still apply and obligate Israel in matters that are still under its control. It is possible that that the recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state could lead to a re-examination of the international position regarding the status of the Gaza Strip.

4. Would this initiative have an effect on the validity of the Oslo Accords?

A Palestinian initiative to achieve recognition as an observer state is a unilateral measure that contravenes these accords and opens the door to a declaration of their non-validity or revocation. However, the absolute revocation of the Oslo Accords is not a necessary outcome. In the past, despite repeated violations of the Interim Agreement, neither party to it has announced their revocation. The question of the validity of the agreements and maintaining their frameworks is now, as before, subject to the decisions and the de facto actions of both sides.

5. What are the implications of this move on the Palestinian state’s responsibility for human rights violations?

Recognition of a Palestinian state could open the door for it to become a party to international conventions, including conventions on human rights. Should the Palestinian state become a party to these conventions, it would be obligated to uphold standards of international law and respect for human rights. These obligations would apply first and foremost to the citizens under its rule, but there are also implications for its obligations toward Israelis, including settlers. Furthermore, the Palestinian state would be subject to international mechanisms that monitor the implementation of these human rights conventions. Claims regarding violations of human rights by the Palestinian state could be adjudicated in various international forums – for example suspicions of torture conducted by Palestinian governmental bodies or on their behalf (see more on this below).

6. Would this move lead to the involvement of new international enforcement mechanisms?

Should Palestine be recognized as a state, it could become a party to international courts of law (the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court). This could create new mechanisms to enforce Israel’s obligations to respect the human rights of Palestinians, and at the same time to enable the enforcement of the Palestinian state’s obligations.

International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) – The ICJ addresses the responsibility of states, not of individuals. It is the leading and most important international judicial body. Both sides must agree that a dispute be brought before it.

International Criminal Court (ICC) – The International Criminal Court deals with individual responsibility for acts defined as international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide). Should the Palestinian state become a party to the ICC, this court would have jurisdiction over actions carried out in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: first, on Palestinians suspected of committing international crimes; and, second, on Israelis suspected of offenses within the territory of the Palestinian state. This jurisdiction would be applied directly and continuously, as opposed to the current situation, but only on crimes or suspected crimes that were committed after the Palestinian state becomes a party to it, should it be recognized as such according to the Statute of the Court.

7. What are the implications of this initiative on Israeli settlements?

If the Palestinian state would become a party to the International Criminal Court, the issue of Israeli settlements could become an issue of international criminal law. This, under the article in the Statute of the Court stating that the transfer, whether direct or indirect, of the population of the occupying power into occupied territory constitutes a war crime. This could potentially open the door to the prosecution of Israelis responsible for establishing or expanding settlements.

8. What are the implications of this move on the Palestinian state’s responsibility to prevent terrorism and threats?

Should the Palestinian state be recognized, this would enhance its responsibility to prevent terror and threats coming from its territory. This depends, of course, on the extent of control it has and the means available to it, since there is no responsibility without authority – but there similarly cannot be authority without responsibility. The Palestinian state would be obligated to take the necessary steps to prevent human rights violations by government authorities and official bodies. Thus, arbitrary killing of civilians and the launching of rockets on a civilian population in Israel could be submitted for deliberation both by the relevant UN committees and by the International Criminal Court.

Established in 1972, ACRI is Israel’s oldest and largest human rights organization and the only one dealing with the entire spectrum of rights and civil liberties issues in Israel and the Occupied Territories. This Q&A was originally published on ACRI’s site. Read more about ACRI here and follow ACRI on Twitter and Facebook.

[DogOnPorch]

If they continue to abandon terrorism, then they should be removed from terrorist lists.

It's good Hamas is abandoning terrorism.

[Hudson Jones]

Finkelstein:

[DogOnPorch]

How come ol' Norm can only get face time on RT these days?

[Guest Peeves]

So, it seems undobuted that Palastine is due for statehood....at the upcoming UN assembly on the 29th, the same way Israel got statehood.

Comments...

http://www.guardian....uropean-backing

"

Reading the news today I see opinions such as, "

Hardly the same way Israel did. Certainly not a viable state. And any donor country funding Palestine's budget is also funding misguided education for the children and terrorism.

Still, as I see it, Abbas has refused to return to the negotiating table.

Refused to renounce terrorism.

Refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. (wants world recognition of Palestine but denies the right of Israeli existence!)

Has not revised the PLO charter despite commitments to do so.and, they have not upheld any agreements that they have signed"

paraphrased.

[Guest Peeves]

I often think of this.

"on the 65th anniversary of the UN Partition Resolution of November 29 1947, the first-ever proposal for a “Two States For Two Peoples” resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

It is a tragedy to think that if the Arab leadership had not rejected the UN partition resolution at the time – and launched a war against the nascent Jewish state – we would today be commemorating the 65th anniversary of two states for two peoples, without the pain and suffering of the last 65 years."

Irwin Cotler,Former minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

[Guest Peeves]

http://www.israelnat...19#.ULkhR1ZjfqU

The PA (PLO) Are great at promises, not so great at abiding by them. The PLO charter was supposed to be changed years ago, but hasn't to this day.

In effect Abbas wants recognition for a state of Palestine when the PA charter fails to recognize a legitimate Israel;

[quote

One of the major and probably the most important Palestinian obligation in the “Peace Process” was a promise to annul the onerous clauses of their formal original 29 clause 1964 Charter (the “Charter”)which was amended into a 33 clause charter in 1968 after the 1967 War. Click here to see relevant clauses.

The importance of the Charter to the Palestinians can not be exaggerated. To the Palestinians, it is virtually their “Junior Koran.” These clauses in the Charter, in sum, declared the establishment of Israel illegal and void and called for armed resistance until Palestine was liberated.

It is the opinion of the writer, predicated upon the facts which follow, that not one word of the Charter has ever been changed. Arafat and the subsequent Palestinian leadership instituted a series of steps to indicate that the Charter had been changed; however, there is not one shred of evidence that any change has ever occurred.

]

Edited November 30, 2012 by Peeves

[dre]

I often think of this.

"on the 65th anniversary of the UN Partition Resolution of November 29 1947, the first-ever proposal for a “Two States For Two Peoples” resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

It is a tragedy to think that if the Arab leadership had not rejected the UN partition resolution at the time – and launched a war against the nascent Jewish state – we would today be commemorating the 65th anniversary of two states for two peoples, without the pain and suffering of the last 65 years."

Irwin Cotler,Former minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

No that would not have prevented the occupation in 67. We would still be in exactly the same boat.

[-TSS-]

Neither side wants a two-state solution when as there can be no permanent peace without a two-state solution. An impossible equation to solve.

[dre]

Neither side wants a two-state solution when as there can be no permanent peace without a two-state solution. An impossible equation to solve.

I think Abass has demonstrated that he does want one. Likud and Hamas... not so much.

[Sleipnir]

Neither side wants a two-state solution when as there can be no permanent peace without a two-state solution. An impossible equation to solve.

If an equation seems impossible to solve, sometimes you would need to manipulate it for it to work.