Palestinian UN bid a reality??

Today we will find out if this thing is really going to happen. And if it happens, what will the fallout or result be? It's been talked about for some time. This country and that country want to sanction Palestinians for the move, say it is unilateral and unwise, threat to peace, etc. Spain will back it, Germany will abstain, the US of course will do anything to block it and Britain has conditions. Some really want to prevent it and most say it is virtual or symbolic. If it's symbolic, what's the big deal, then?

The US, for one, oddly seems to be more emphatic on blocking this apparently symbolic UN bid than on ending the very real Israeli settlement and wall building on Palestinian territory, which is ACTUALLY a threat to a solution, justice and peace (and violation of international law, UN resolutions, etc) as there will soon be no land left with which to "negotiate."Which brings us to the interesting question of when someone has forced you from city to city and finally moves in on your yard and into your house, kills your family and "generously" lets you live in the closet, controls your comings and goings, what/if you eat etc, what can you negotiate? There needs to be some context and justice in this whole situation. You can't just tell both sides to cooperate. If someone's got their boot on someone's neck, you can't just ask them to come to the table and be friends and tell the guy on the ground that he's got to respect the right of the boot to kick him around if he wants to get up again.

I don't understand the opposition whatsoever. It's past time for recognition and they won't be able to vote anyway. This whole thing started when Britain washed their hands of it and gave it to the UN. Why not take it back to the UN? (besides the fact that they haven't been able to get Israel to abide by any resolutions except the portion of the one that gave them statehood) The original partition gave a minority of Jews half of Palestinians' land. (not exactly fair to begin with...) The original idea was to protect both peoples' rights to have a homeland and have the right to live there, but that has shifted to Palestinians having to accept a Jewish majority, which is translated as Israel's "right to exist," accept being an unarmed entity, accept Israel's right to barge in and arrest and kill whomever they want and demolish whatever they want in order to get a tiny measure of freedom.

I think getting this status upgrade could only help to try and balance the imbalance of power. I don't buy that it will hurt chances for peace- if Israel's settlement building isn't considered to hurt chances for peace, then this certainly doesn't. But on the other hand, I don't know that it will be enough to balance out those military facts on the ground and the fierce opposition to the bid itself from the US and Israel.

Francis Boyle weighed in with some possible benefits for Palestinians as UN non-member observer state:

1. “Palestine can join the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and file a Complaint with the ICC against the illegal settlements and settlers, who are committing war crimes;
2. “Palestine can join the Statute for the International Court of Justice, sue Israel at the World Court, and break the illegal siege of Gaza;
3. “Palestine can join the Law of the Sea Convention and get its fair share of the enormous gas fields lying off the coast of Gaza, thus becoming economically self-sufficient;
4. “Palestine can become a High Contracting Party to the Four Geneva Conventions [this deals with the laws of war];
5. “Palestine can join the International Civil Aviation Organization and gain sovereign, legal control over its own airspace;
6. “Palestine can join the International Telecommunications Union and gain sovereign legal control over its own airwaves, phone lines, bandwidths.”


Other links:

http://news.linktv.org/videos/israeli-embassys-viral-video-attempt-mocks-palestinian-statehood-bid

http://www.cfr.org/palestinian-authority/palestinian-statehood-un/p25954

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1128/Who-backs-Palestine-UN-bid-Ehud-Olmert-among-others-video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/hanan-ashrawi-palestinian-un-recognition-bid_n_2203714.html

UNESCO vote- YES!!

 Palestine state wins first victory in UNESCO vote:

Clinton insisted that "the decision about status must be made in the United Nations and not in auxiliary groups."

Now this is an interesting change in policy. Seems like just a short time ago Clinton maintained that the UN was not the place for deciding statehood...

Clinton also called this move confusing, which I find confusing.

France said it was "not the time." ??? They want negotiations. ??? The occupied negotiating for human rights with their occupier? It hasn't worked and what can one possibly trade (as is common in negotiations) to get inalienable or fundamental God given rights??? How about boycott, divest, sanction the occupier?

Why are we punishing Palestinians for pursuing a non-violent, smart, international and on top of it all LEGAL move to gain human rights and justice? It just doesn't make sense. It makes even less sense when you consider the US-Israeli special relationship. Israel constructs illegal settlements in teh W. Bank and E. Jerusalem and expands them in violation of international law and often in situations that embarrass us. What do we do in response to this one example of many illegal and unjust moves? Do we think about pulling funding from Israel or occupation sustaining institutions immediately? No, we mumble our position here and there that settlements are unhelpful or counterproductive or some equally ineffective thing that makes Israel think that they have to green light to keep on violating the law! Clearly they aren't getting the message. What does one typically do when a country violates the law repeatedly and doesn't listen to warnings and doesn't respond to diplomacy. If it's anyone but Israel, we attack or sanction or cut funding, or whatever Micronesia and the Coalition of the Willing is up for at the time.

 *** *** ***

Of course Democracy Now has something good on this:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/1/us_pulls_all_funding_for_unesco

With this yes vote, it is automatically eligible to join some other groups as well. I found it interesting that as the US pulls funding for UN organizations that let Palestine in, the US vote goes and this could hurt our interests in groups like the one on Intellectual Property Rights and others. I really am curious how this will play out. Will we bend the UN and world to our will or will the US be forced into recognizing reality and support Palestinian equality at the expense of a "special" relationship.

I particularly enjoyed Matthew Lee's questioning of Victoria Nuland, State Department spokesperson. She didn't have any answers for why Palestine joining was undermining peace. She contended that the US was trying to "improve the environment" and apparently Palestine going to the UN rather than sitting down with their oppressor and seeing what rights they are "allowed" to have would make Israel not want to sit down at the table and so it is ill advised. Never mind the imbalance of power. Never mind the fact that Israel's settlement building actually does undermine peace due to the fact that Israel is grabbing land for the to-be-negotiated state in violation of international law (but when Palestinians bring this fact up, they are condemned for obstructing "negotiations" with preconditions).

*** *** ***

This link talks more about the positive side of the UNESCO vote. I also think it will give Palestinians leverage so they won't have to be so dependent on the US and Israel. 

Maybe they can soon demand what Desomnd Tutu spoke of:

"I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011103172551498181.html

Sanctions for UN bid; not for Israeli violence??

Write your representatives here:
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=3124


US to sanction Palestinians for going to UN, but no sanctions on Israel's ignoring UN Resolutions, international law, human rights and decency (i.e. not trashing the place and pooping on the floor when you do your illegal searches and seizures) not to mention causing humanitarian crises, collective punishment and using disproportionate force on captive mostly civilian "targets"???

Punishment for nonviolence. What message are we trying to send? Obviously, we were lying when we said all those years that we can't support Palestinians because of suicide bombings- we had no intention of bestowing statehood on them any which way.



Jul 1-6, 2011 S.Res.185

I found this link about the passage and various Senators' statements on the floor regarding it, but no news articles on S. Res. 185's passage. Well worth reading.

A rewriting of 185... I like it.






Text - thomas.loc.gov






H.Res.268 July 6, 2011

The play by play on H. Res. 268- NY Times

A Green Party (GA) notice on the H. Res. 268 vote that day.

Text- thomas.loc.gov



September 19, 2011 in Haaretz- US urges Netanyahu not to impose stiff sanctions??

October 2, 2011 US Congress compared to playground bullies