Israel, Rejecting Palestinian Demands, Plans Housing Outside 1967 Boundaries

[웃 910]

Israel, Rejecting Palestinian Demands, Plans Housing Outside 1967 Boundaries

JERUSALEM — Israel announced plans on Tuesday for 1,100 new housing units in an area of South Jerusalem outside Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries. The move reflects Israel’s continued rejection of Palestinian demands for a halt in settlement construction as a condition for peace talks.

The Palestinian leadership immediately condemned the plan.

The developments came at a time when the two sides are under international pressure to resume peace negotiations, on the heels of the Palestinians’ contentious bid for membership as a state in the United Nations.

Over the last 18 months Israel has repeatedly made awkwardly timed announcements of building plans in disputed and occupied areas. The Palestinians walked out of nascent peace talks a year ago after a 10-month Israeli moratorium on settlement construction expired.

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has refused to renew the moratorium, saying that the last time, the Palestinians waited nine months before sitting down to negotiate with Israel. Mr. Netanyahu says he wants immediate, direct talks with no preconditions.

“It is a pretext they use again and again,” Mr. Netanyahu said of the Palestinian insistence on a moratorium, in an interview published in The Jerusalem Post on Monday. “I think a lot of people see it as a ruse to avoid direct negotiations.”

Mr. Netanyahu faces strong opposition in his governing coalition to any additional freeze on construction.

The international pressure for new talks has taken on added urgency after the upheavals in the region and the bid for recognition at the United Nations Many fear that a lack of progress could lead to dashed Palestinian expectations and another round of violence.

On Friday, the diplomatic grouping known as the quartet — United States, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union — issued a statement urging the Palestinians and the Israelis to return to direct negotiations within a month, without preconditions. The statement did not mention any settlement freeze, but called on the two sides “to refrain from provocative actions” and cited the sides’ obligations under the 2003 “road map,” an American-backed peace plan that called, among other things, for stopping all Israeli settlement building.

A spokeswoman for Israel’s Interior Ministry said that the plan for new housing in Gilo, in south Jerusalem bordering on the West Bank, was being posted for public comment for 60 days, a necessary step before final approval. She said the timing was driven by the lengthy approval process for such projects in Israel, and not any political agenda. Construction is not likely to begin before 2013.

The Gilo area was conquered from Jordan in the 1967 war, along with East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Israel later annexed to the city of Jerusalem, a step that has never been recognized internationally. The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, condemned the Israeli move, saying that Israel continued to place obstacles before the peace process. A statement from the Palestinian government noted that Mr. Netanyahu “says there should be no unilateral steps, but there could be nothing more unilateral than a huge new round of settlement building on Palestinian land.”

Separately, the Israeli government said on Tuesday that an Israeli military court had released Al Jazeera’s Afghanistan bureau chief from jail after convicting him of conspiracy on behalf of Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza. The journalist — Samer Allawi, 45, a Palestinian based in Pakistan — was arrested Aug. 9 at a border crossing between the West Bank and Jordan, after visiting family in Sabastiya in the northern West Bank.

Under the terms of a plea agreement, Mr. Allawi was fined and sentenced to time served plus three years, which the court suspended. He was released from jail on Monday.

The Israeli government said in a statement that Mr. Allawi admitted to interrogators that he was recruited in 1993, while in Pakistan, to serve on a Hamas committee and collect donations for Hamas-affiliated organizations. According to the statement, Mr. Allawi met Hamas leaders in several countries and agreed to use his position at the network to help advance Hamas’s goals.

But Walid al-Omary, Al-Jazeera’s bureau chief in Jerusalem and the West Bank, said that Mr. Allawi was charged only with two very minor counts of agreeing to help promote Hamas, something he had not done.

“They had nothing on him,” Mr. Omary said of the Israeli authorities. “They offered him the deal because they wanted to close the case.”

Al Jazeera issued a statement saying that it strongly denied the “malicious accusations” made against Mr. Allawi, and that his release was a clear indication that they were baseless. Al Jazeera said it believed that the accusations were “part of a concerted campaign to discredit the network.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/middleeast/israel-plans-new-housing-in-jerusalem-beyond-1967-boundaries.html

[웃 910]

Security Council to meet on Palestine statehood

The UN Security Council will meet on Wednesday morning to consider the Palestinian request for full membership of the world body, a step that would see it recognised as a state in its own right.

The Security Council will consider referring the Palestinian request, made last Friday, to a special committee on new admissions, said Nawaf Salam, the Lebanese ambassador to the UN and current holder of the rotating presidency of the council.

“The council will hold a formal meeting on Wednesday to hand over the application to the committee,” Mr Salam said. The committee is likely to comprise representatives from all 15 members of the Security Council.

But analysts do not expect a fast decision from the committee, given US and European opposition to the Palestinian request. They, together with Israel, say that a Palestinian state can be achieved only through negotiation, but the Palestinians have signalled that they have lost patience after years of fruitless talks.

Riyadh Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, said the process could take a “certain time” to complete but voiced optimism. “We hope that the Security Council members will assume their responsibility and vote positively on the application,” Mr Mansour said.

If the Security Council recommends Palestinian admission as a full member of the UN, the application will be presented to the 193-member general assembly, where two-thirds of members present and voting is needed for approval. The Palestinians are expected to win such a majority easily.

Last week, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, declared that 63 years of suffering was “enough, enough, enough”, as he lodged the application for statehood.

In his speech to the UN general assembly on Friday, Mr Abbas appealed to the Security Council to endorse an application the US has vowed to veto, insisting that it was time Palestinians exercised their “right to a normal life”.

Denouncing Israel and its settlement policy as the main obstacle to peace, the Palestinian leader said the application was not intended as a rejection of peace negotiations nor delegitimised the Israeli state.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said he extended his hand in peace to the Palestinian people but criticised the UN as a “theatre of the absurd” for what he described as its anti-Israel bias.

“The truth is that we can’t achieve peace through UN resolutions but only through direct negotiations between the parties,” he said. “The truth is that the Palestinians want a state without peace. The truth is you shouldn’t let that happen.”

Mr Abbas asked the Security Council to vote on full membership for a Palestinian state based on the lines that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, sent the application to the Security Council president on Friday, just hours after Mr Abbas made the request.

The US has repeatedly said it will use its veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council to halt the request.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1fdb985a-e919-11e0-9817-00144feab49a.html

[웃 910]

America's Dangerous Game at the UN

The number of UN member states extending diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine has now risen to 131, leaving only 62 UN member states on the wrong side of history and humanity.

If one ignores small island states in the Caribbean and the Pacific, almost all of the non-recognizers are Western states, including all five of the settler-colonial states founded on the ethnic cleansing or genocide of indigenous populations and all eight of the former European colonial powers.

It appears that the current American strategy to defeat the State of Palestine's UN membership application is to try to deprive Palestine of the required nine affirmative votes in the Security Council by convincing all five European members (including Bosnia & Herzegovina, which has recognized the State of Palestine) and Colombia (the only South American state which has not recognized the State of Palestine) to abstain, leaving only eight affirmative votes and thus making America's lone negative vote not technically a "veto".

Even though everyone knows that the Security Council would approve Palestinian membership unanimously if the United States announced its support, the explanation and expectation behind this strategy is, apparently, that, in the absence of a "veto", no one would notice America's fingerprints all over this result, no one (notably in the Arab and Muslim worlds) would be outraged by America's blocking of Palestine's membership application and Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues would crawl back into the hamster cage from which they have so recently and dramatically escaped, duly chastened and docile, and resume running mindlessly on the Israeli-American exercise wheel.

This is not simply a breathtakingly naïve strategy but an extraordinarily dangerous one -- and not only because the Ramallah leadership, having experienced enlightenment and a spine transplant, has also recovered its self-respect and human dignity and will not be crawling back into its cage.

An American veto would be neither a big deal nor a bad thing. It would unequivocally confirm the sad and humiliating reality, now almost universally recognized, that the United States of America is enslaved to Israel, paying tribute and taking orders. By doing so, an American veto would definitively disqualify the United States from playing any significant role in any genuine Middle East "peace process" which would replace the fraudulent one which the United States has been controlling and manipulating on Israel's behalf for the past 20 years and, thereby, would finally give peace a chance.

Indeed, since state observer status would confer on the State of Palestine virtually all the same benefits as member state status (most importantly, right of access to the International Criminal Court, where it could sue Israelis for war crimes, including settlement building, and crimes against humanity), an American veto in the Security Council followed by an upgrade to state observer status by the General Assembly might actually be the most constructive possible result for Palestine -- even better than full UN membership with American acquiescence but with the United States maintaining its monopoly stranglehold on any "peace process".

One might then realistically hope that the new emerging international force, the "BRICS" countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- all current members of the Security Council which have recognized the State of Palestine and are on record as planning to vote for Palestinian membership), and the European Union could jointly mobilize the true international community behind a genuine and urgent effort to actually achieve peace with some measure of justice.

On the other hand, America's unanimous European abstention strategy, if successful, would have catastrophic consequences. While the Arab and Muslim worlds have learned to expect the worst from the United States, they have, at least until now, maintained some hope that Europe is not their enemy. If Palestine's membership application were to be defeated by a united Western front, the world would be confronted by a fundamental clash of the "West against the Rest", resurrecting memories of the most arrogant and contemptuous periods of Western imperialism and colonialism and confirming the belief, already widespread in the Arab and Muslim worlds, that the Judeo-Christian world is at war with the Muslim world.

Of course, it is within the power of one man to prevent this ugly scenario from playing out. Are the prospects of a few more votes for himself and less campaign money for his eventual Republican opponent really more important to America's multi-racial president than preventing a long-running clash of civilizations, cultures, races and religions and permitting -- indeed, promoting -- progress toward a more peaceful, just and harmonious world?

The world should find out in the coming weeks.

http://palestinechronicle.com/

[웃 910]

On the State of the State of Palestine

Friday, September 23rd de facto president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, approached the United Nations to request their recognition and acceptance of a Palestinian State that would include the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Of course the bid has received opposition from the U.S. as it stubbornly stands by Israel whose alliance has garnered distrust for the American activity in the region. It’s expected that the U.S. will utilize its veto power on the Security Council against this move. This would be a safe expectation regardless of what Israeli lobbyists say or do but a superfluous AIPAC campaign removed all doubt with its success in pressuring the House and Senate to overwhelmingly pass resolutions H. 268 and S. 185.

In the Palestinian camp there’s been a debate over whether or not the bid is a wise decision for Palestinians, not for the reasons cited by the West that it “would poison the environment for restarting peace negotiations” but for its other problems such as the preclusion of refugee eligibility for citizenship in the new state.

The negotiations, which the U.S. claims the bid threatens to ruin, haven’t seen true progress in years. Nearly the entire “peace process” has been a charade of stalling and low-ball offers by Israel to the Palestinians with the U.S. “balancing” all of this in Israel’s favor by maintaining what they consider to be non-negotiable items such as the compulsory “demilitarization” of the would be Palestinian state with international oversight to ensure that it remain so. Other items include ceded control of Palestinian airspace to Israel and recognition of Israel as the Jewish Homeland. For those in the Palestinian camp that are opposed to the unilateral declaration, these terms are no longer requisite if Israel and the U.S. are not part of the move for statehood.

It was Israel’s Ehud Olmert who rejected the last of the Palestinians’ offer for 2 independent states based on the 1967 borders which also included their greatest concessions to date in terms of land annexation by Israel and the number of Palestinian refugees that could return to their homes. It was Abbas who had made this offer but has clearly had enough and in doing “180,” stepped up to, at least symbolically assert Palestinian dignity and the right for his people to be a recognized nation in the U.N. Despite Israel’s opposition to the bid and the Obama Administration’s claims that it will be bad for peace negotiations, this is the only way that any true peace negotiations can ever take place between the 2 sides–that is to say that these past peace negotiations were never sincere and therefore leave nothing to “poison” or protect.

Shamefully the U.N. has moved to push resuming direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian politicians in lieu of taking a vote on the request by Abbas. Recognizing the Palestinian state and resuming direct talks are not necessarily mutually exclusive and shouldn’t be treated as such. Although some 140 countries have expressed their support for the bid, the contention with the U.S. isn’t something they’re ready to face has led them to participate in furthering the charade. With all of the proposed state’s problems, it will likely only have symbolic importance and seeks to give the Palestinians a slightly better platform for negotiation. If nothing else all of the press preceding Abbas’s address to the U.N. has served as a mechanism that called the issue to light on an international level. Egypt and Turkey have departed from being prevailing allies of Israel in the region and even the centrist U.S. news media outlet NPR has acknowledged “Israel’s growing isolation in the world.” The U.S. is the only significant ally that Israel still has. The publicity this debate has received in the media served to draw attention to the issues faced by Palestine. People who have not or would not have otherwise thought about the conflict are now starting to raise questions especially in regards to the unwavering support the U.S. affords to Israel.

The truth is that it is hard to justify U.S. alliance and its $3billion annual aid contribution to Israel. However the U.S. is likely to remain allied with Israel for as long as it exists. The upside is that the Zionist Project, as we know it, is finite. This is no big secret or surprise and it is a fact that every Israeli leader in history has understood and has acted on. They have shaped their policies in such a way that preserves their legacy, knowing that Israel’s era of power and expansion to date is not sustainable but ensuring that they will not be the leader with which it passes.

Through his advancement of illegal settlements in the West Bank (something that truly “poisoned” the peace process) Benjamin Netanyahu must face this moment in time that he helped to construct. His failure to stop the settlements (partially to preserve his image as a “strong” Israeli leader) has ironically turned against him. A real 2-state solution isn’t viable due to the extensive number of Jewish settlements that weave their way throughout the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority has said that there should be no Jewish citizens in the new state (not a surprising response to Israel’s bill stating all new citizens must pledge an oath to a “Jewish” state). It’s not likely that the world will be witnessing any modern-day exodus in the near future of the Middle East. Little will change in terms of the reality of peoples’ daily lives. Israel will continue to exercise force as an occupying power, the difference will be that they will be occupying a nominal “state” rather than a “territory.” This is yet another reason why the bid is symbolic but wholly necessary not as a means to an end but as a game changing step towards progress. The bid leaves out refugees and Hamas and does not represent all Palestinians. However Israel has only been negotiating with the PLO thus far and if this gives the Palestinian Authority more grounds to insist on the inclusion of Hamas and rights of refugees then it should be done. Of course this is a gamble but it’s one for the Palestinians to make and not one that the U.S. can weigh in on in any moral capacity.

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=17138

[웃 910]

UN: Israel and Palestinians still far apart

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N.'s political chief said Tuesday that Israel and the Palestinians remain far apart on reaching a peace accord but insists "now is time for everyone to give diplomacy a chance."

B. Lynn Pascoe told the U.N. Security Council that the main obstacles to setting up a Palestinian state — a bid which Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas submitted last week despite a promised U.S. veto — are political, not institutional. He said that the main issue remains the "continuing Israeli occupation and the ongoing Palestinian divide."

The remarks at the monthly briefing on the Middle East came as Israel announced it would build 1,100 more homes on contested land in Jerusalem.

They highlighted the tenuous path confronting not only the Palestinians and Israelis, but also the Quartet of Mideast mediators — the U.N., U.S., European Union and Russia. The Quartet has drafted a plan to bring the two sides together for negotiations, with an ultimate goal of achieving a deal by the end of next year.

"Resuming negotiations, and making progress, is easier said than done," Pascoe told the council.

With the Quartet's proposal and the push to restart negotiations, he said, "this would be a moment where the parties would be truly tested in their readiness to make serious proposals that addressed the core concerns of the other."

Abbas' insistence on presenting the application for Palestine's full membership to the U.N. pushed the long-stalled peace process again to the forefront of this year's General Assembly discussions and sparked a frenzy of last-minute diplomacy to dissuade him from submitting the application. The U.S. has vowed to veto the statehood bid in the Security Council.

Abbas said that if it was rejected, the Palestinians could turn to the General Assembly to raise their current status as a permanent observer to the a nonmember observer state, and resubmit the application again with the council.

The Palestinians have refused to resume negotiations with Israel until the Jewish state halts the building of settlements on occupied land.

Israel, however, has rejected the Palestinian demand, with Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu again ruling out a freeze in an interview published Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, Israel announced 1,100 new housing units in east Jerusalem, a move that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized as counterproductive to the Mideast peace process.

Netanyahu has called for the resumption of peace talks without preconditions. He has dismissed demands that a Palestinian state be based on Israel's 1967 prewar lines — putting him at odds with the administration of President Barack Obama.

Pascoe said the new settlement announcement was "of particular concern," adding that "we have repeatedly stated that settlement activity is illegal and contrary to Israel's" commitment to the peace efforts.

He also said extremists on both sides should not be allowed to "inflame the situation," noting several arson attacks by Jewish settlers on a mosque and a knife attack in Tel Aviv by a West Bank Palestinian on Aug. 29, as well as Israeli reports of a foiled suicide bombing the same month in Jerusalem.

The Palestinian request for recognition is to come up at the Security Council on Wednesday.

Diplomats said the council president will read a statement saying the Palestinian application has been transmitted to the council committee on the admission of new members, which includes all 15 council nations.

The committee is expected to hold its first private informal meeting on Friday at the level of ambassadors, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because consultations have been private.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQF2LeTpfFfZ4sJAMGZ_0vJRc_2w?docId=d34636daf0cb415fbaf83207d4a17a17

[웃 910]

Shaath discusses Palestinian push for recognition (transcript below, click link for video)

ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: Despite the feverish diplomacy and passionate speeches by leaders at the United Nations, a vote on Palestinian statehood is still likely to be weeks away and any resumption of direct peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis hasn't been agreed to.

One of those intimately involved with the Palestinian push for UN recognition is Nabil Shaath.

He's been a senior negotiator for more than 30 years and was with the Palestinian delegation in New York last week.

He remains a close advisor to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbass and he joins us tonight from Ramallah in the West Bank.

Nabil Shaath, many thanks for taking the time to talk to Lateline.

NABIL SHAATH, ADVISOR TO MAHMOUD ABBAS: Hello. I didn't hear your question. Could you please ... ?

ALI MOORE: President Mahmoud - yes, I will repeat it. We have a rather large delay. President Mahmoud Abbas returned from UN to Ramallah to what by all accounts was a hero's welcome. What happens now?

NABIL SHAATH: Well, we're going to continue. I mean, what we've done in the United Nations is just an episode in a long campaign. We submitted our request for membership. That will be discussed today in the United Nations.

There will be few days to look into that request and then we'll go to the Security Council. It is possible that the United States uses the veto, but then we will go to the General Assembly and we will continue to knock on the door of the Security Council like other countries have done until we get our right to become a full member of the United Nations.

ALI MOORE: Of course if you go to the General Assembly it wouldn't result in full membership, would it?

NABIL SHAATH: Yes, but that will also give us a recommendation to go back to the Security Council and try again. The United States at one time will really find it impossible to continue to veto these resolutions and hopefully will rethink its position.

ALI MOORE: Well of course in the interim, the Middle East quartet has urged a restarting of peace negotiations without pre-conditions. President - or prime minister Netanyahu says he is ready to talk, but without pre-conditions is unacceptable to the Palestinian side.

NABIL SHAATH: Yes, of course, he can afford to say that. He has been in full occupation of our country for years, 62 years and we have been in negotiations now for 20 years of these 62 years, and 18 years ago we signed the Oslo agreement that required in three years the soldiers of Israel to withdraw from all the West Bank and Gaza and in five years that we should have an independent Palestinian state, ending all the Israeli occupation.

Israel never complied with any of these, and the withdrawal they have done early in the game, they simply turn around and reoccupy the territory, putting Gaza under siege, putting every inch of our country under the risk of colonisation and de-Arabisation, particularly in East Jerusalem.

He can afford to say, "Come back to negotiations and I will do nothing. While you are negotiating, I'll build new colonies. While you are negotiating, I'll end your presence in Jerusalem." This is ridiculous. I have never seen such a situation before.

ALI MOORE: So now under current circumstances you would say there is no hope for restarting peace talks, direct peace talks?

NABIL SHAATH: There is no hope if he does not stop further colonisation of our land while we negotiate. There is no hope unless he commits himself to the agreement that we signed.

Tell me about anybody who would go into negotiations if whatever he agrees with the other party is not implemented by the stronger party that occupies. Why is there any logic to go into negotiations? We would like to see the United States and the international community, and in the absence of the United States, more the international community to tell Mr Netanyahu, "Get out of the occupied territory, or at least stop deepening your colonisation of it, to show a minimum amount of good will while you are negotiating. And by the way, stick to the terms of reference which started with Resolution 242 of the Security Council. Implement what you have agreed to before so that you build trust on the part of the Palestinians."

We are not asking for any new pre-conditions. We're not asking for any pre-conditions. We are asking that he simply implements what he committed himself or his predecessors committed Israel to do.

ALI MOORE: Of course though on the weekend he repeated what he said before. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the core of the conflict lies with the Palestinians' persistent refusal to accept Israel's existence.

NABIL SHAATH: Yeah, again, this is one more ridiculous claim, because we have recognised the state of Israel in 1993 and we have not changed one minute our recognition of Israel.

In return, Mr Rabin recognised the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people, which should've been followed by recognition of the state of Palestine as the right of the Palestinian people on the borders of 1967.

Up till this minute, Israel have not recognised the right of the Palestinians to a Palestinian state on the border of '67. We still recognise Israel as an Israeli state.

ALI MOORE: You recognise Israel ...

NABIL SHAATH: Israeli state for all its population which includes 22 per cent ...

ALI MOORE: You say you recognise Israel as an Israeli state, but of course Fatah and Hamas have now signed a reconciliation agreement, ...

NABIL SHAATH: We have.

ALI MOORE: ... but the Hamas charter still calls for the elimination of Israel.

NABIL SHAATH: Well, I don't know about Hamas and I don't know about charters, but if you look at the charter of Likud itself, which is the party of Mr Netanyahu, you will see that their goal is to have all of Palestine and all of Jordan to be part of the state of Israel.

Now, we are not particularly interested in charters; we're particularly interested in what people do on the ground. Until there is a full reconciliation with Hamas, we cannot fully talk in the name of Hamas.

We can talk in the name of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. We have changed our charter and we accepted the state of Israel, and we recognise the state. And two days ago in the United Nations, president Abu Mazen reiterated that in full confidence and in full credibility.

What really is at question is whether really it is right to recognise Israel as a Jewish state when 22 per cent of its population are Christian and Muslims. I wonder if it is right for Israel to ask about that 20 years after we started negotiations.

Mr Netanyahu was the prime minister in 1996, 1999 and he never asked us to recognise a Jewish state. He only wanted, and we changed our charter to accommodate him, to recognise Israel as an Israeli state, regardless of the religion of its occupants, which is the same reason why we recognise Australia as an Australian state and not a Christian state and we recognise Italy not as a Catholic state, but as an Italian state.

ALI MOORE: Let me ask you about I suppose the historical perspective, because as we said, you've been involved in these peace talks for well on 30 years. Do you have a sense that this bid for UN recognition has really changed the game?

NABIL SHAATH: Well, if I heard you well, we are really seeking recognition by all the countries of the world bilaterally. We have 131 countries today who recognised us bilaterally.

What we are seeking from the United States is - from the United Nations is membership of that state that has been recognised already by people representing 75 per cent of the people of the - on Earth, which include nine of the 10 most populous countries of the world. These are the countries that recognise us.

Now, we would like very much the United Nations to accept us as a state because that will help bring more international support for our cause. This will help us really create some clarity with an Israeli state that occupies us that has 30 times our per capita income and has the fourth largest air force in the world and has 200 atomic bombs.

We just want to create some parity politically, not militarily, not in any other way. We just want the world to be with us, attesting to international law, asking Israel to end its colonisation. That is why we are joining the United Nations.

ALI MOORE: As I said at the beginning of this interview, president Mahmoud Abbas returned to Ramallah and there were very jubilant scenes. Is there a risk here that expectations have been raised and they may not be met? For example, if there is a vote in the Security Council and if it is no, what happens on the ground?

NABIL SHAATH: Well the expectations about the result of all of this is not really very high among the Palestinian people.

They know that when all is done and even if we get the approval of the Security Council and the General Assembly, there will still be an occupation that needs to be dealt with. And that really eventually will have to take us to negotiations.

And we hope that these negotiation this time will have clear terms of reference accepted by the two parties and a behaviour code that the road map have required Israel and us to accept which starts with ending all settlements.

But people really are jubilant, are very happy not because they expect they will have real independence tomorrow, but because they felt that their dignity was restored. They felt a moment of honour, they felt a moment of international solidarity. They felt that their president strongly stood at the United Nations and talked about their agonies and their hopes and aspirations. And I think that is what the Palestinians are happy about. They don't have really expectations beyond this reality.

ALI MOORE: Is the younger generation of Palestinians, are they as committed to a two-state solution as Mahmoud Abbas?

NABIL SHAATH: Yeah, I think a vast majority of the Palestinian people and particularly the young people are now fully behind Mahmoud Abbas.

Some people, particularly some of our older generation, particularly the refugees, were afraid that Mahmoud Abbas had forgotten them when he went to ask for an independent state on 22 per cent of Palestine which is hemmed by the border of 1967. And Mahmoud Abbas assured them in the United Nations that this independent state will also fight for their rights and will never forget them.

I think Mahmoud Abbas's problem which he had to deal with in his speech was basically the older generation of refugees. The younger people understand him, are enthusiastic about him and what he is asking for and the way he presented their case in the United Nations.

ALI MOORE: Nabil Shaath, if this does go to the General Assembly of the UN, how would you expect Australia to vote?

NABIL SHAATH: Well the General Assembly - if the Security Council accepts our request for membership, I'm sure the General Assembly in its vast, vast majority, probably almost in unanimity if you exclude Israel, will support that membership.

But if the Security Council vetoes our membership, the General Assembly can only give us what is called a non-member state status. Something like the Vatican, or Switzerland before 1992.

But that is also a status which allows full membership in the International Criminal Court, in the International Monetary Fund, in all the organisations of the general - of the United Nations.

And I think we will have, particularly as Europe had promised to vote with us, if all of Europe votes with us on this type of membership then we will have no less than 160 members out of the 193.

And in situation like this, I would very, very much ask Australia to vote with us and to stand by us and to be really with the 75 per cent of the world's population supporting our right to independence, statehood and real lasting peace.

ALI MOORE: And if Australia votes no? If it got to that?

NABIL SHAATH: I hope that Australia will. I have not received yet any notion that it would, and your previous government always sounded quite negatively, unlike what your public opinion polls seem to indicate, that the Australian people would like very much their government to support the right of the Palestinian to statehood and to support the right of the Palestinians in the United Nations. I certainly very much would be very happy if Australia would vote with us.

ALI MOORE: Nabil Shaath, many thanks for taking the time to talk to Lateline tonight.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3326307.htm

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

####### ...four threads on this just now? Couldn't you have liked maybe condense them into one?

[웃 910]

Erdogan urges UN sanctions on Israel

In interview with Time magazine Turkish PM says Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have been resolved long ago if UN had imposed sanctions on Israel; says Israeli gov't not honest about flotilla

Ynetnews

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is advocating imposing UN sanctions on Israel. In an interview with Time magazine the Turkish leader said that had prospective UN sanctions been imposed on Israel "the Palestine-Israel conflict would have been resolved a long time ago."

Appearing at the UN General Assembly Erdogan claimed that the US approach towards the Middle East peace process had failed. Asked what he would have done differently, Erdogan said: "Do we really want to resolve this issue or not? Unfortunately, I do not even see traces of this within the Quartet. Because if the Quartet was so willing to resolve this issue, they would have imposed certain issues on Israel today.

"Until today, the UN Security Council has issued more than 89 resolutions on prospective sanctions related to Israel, but they've never been executed. And furthermore, there were about 200 resolutions issued by the General Assembly and neither have those been complied with."

He further added: "One might wonder why no sanctions have been imposed on Israel. When it's Iran in question, you impose sanctions. Similarly with Sudan. What happens with Israel then?" Addressing the Palestinian bid for statehood, Erdogan said that first and foremost the Security Council must accept the proposal. He added: "Israel first seems to have accepted going back to the borders of 1967, but somehow seemed to have got distanced from this ideal. They need to get closer back to it.

Erdogan also criticized the make-up of the Security Council: "What's the deal with these permanent seat holding members in the Security Council? They should be eliminated. The entire world is literally a slave to the decisions of these five permanent seat holders."

On the issue of the diplomatic crisis with Israel, Erdogan blamed Israel for "victimizing the positive relations of two countries with (its 2010 raid) on the Mavi Marmara."

The Turkish premier also stressed relations between Ankara and Jerusalem will never become normalized until Israel apologizes for the deaths of nine Turkish citizens, pays compensation to the families of the victims and lifts the Gaza blockade.

He claimed the flotillas were carrying nothing but humanitarian aid and mentioned that one of the casualties was an American citizen of Turkish decent.

"And right now the Israeli Prime Minister still alleges that the flotillas were actually loaded with weapons. Had they possessed the weapons that were alleged, why didn't they fire back? There are reports issued by both the UN Security Council and UN agencies in Geneva about this incident and you never see the slightest trace that the flotillas were carrying guns. The Israeli government is not being honest at all. "

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4128605,00.html

[웃 910]

UN political chief urges Israelis and Palestinians to give diplomacy a chance

27 September 2011 – While the Security Council mulls over the Palestinian application to become a Member State, the United Nations political chief today called on the Israelis and the Palestinians to return to negotiations to reach a comprehensive and lasting settlement. “Judged by the passions of last week, the parties remain far apart. No one can deny the depth of their dispute,” Under-Secretary-General B. Lynn Pascoe told the Security Council in his monthly update on the Middle East.

“But there are now some building blocks in place that could help make negotiations more effective than before – a clear timetable, expectations that the parties must come forward with proposals, and an active role of the Quartet,” he said, referring to the diplomatic group comprising the European Union, Russia, the UN and the United States.

“It will not be easy to chart a way forward, but now is the time for everyone to give diplomacy a chance,” he stated.

Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been stalled since late September last year after Israel’s refusal to extend a 10-month freeze on settlement activity. The talks had only resumed a few weeks earlier after a two-year hiatus.

Last Friday the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, submitted an application to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for Palestine – which is currently has observer status – to be a Member State of the UN. Mr. Ban transmitted the application to the President of the Security Council, which is set to meet tomorrow to refer the application to the committee that deals with new members.

“As these deliberations continue, we must spare no effort to help the parties back to the negotiating table,” said Mr. Pascoe.

“The main obstacles to a Palestinian State are not institutional, but political: the unresolved issues in the conflict between the parties, the continuing Israeli occupation, and the ongoing Palestinian divide,” he added.

Mr. Pascoe recalled that the Quartet, which also met on Friday after the application was submitted, called for resumed negotiations and urged concrete proposals from the parties on territory and security within three months of talks resuming. It also urged them to avoid provocations on the ground.

In this connection, both Mr. Pascoe and the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert Serry, spoke out against today’s decision by Israeli authorities to advance planning for a large number of new settlement units in East Jerusalem.

A statement issued by Mr. Serry’s office noted that the decision not only ignores the Quartet’s appeal to the parties to refrain from provocative actions, but also “sends the wrong signal at this sensitive time.”

Mr. Pascoe also noted that more Palestinian structures in Area C – over 60 per cent of the West Bank where Israel retains control over security, planning and building – have been demolished to date in 2011 than in either of the past two years.

Today a group of UN human rights experts called for an immediate end to the demolitions of Palestinian-owned houses and other structures in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and urged Israeli authorities to prevent attacks by settlers against Palestinians and their property.

“The impact and discriminatory nature of these demolitions and evictions is completely unacceptable. These actions by the Israeli authorities violate human rights and humanitarian law and must end immediately,” said the three independent experts who work on the rights to adequate housing, water and sanitation, and food.

Given the human cost of the ongoing conflict, Mr. Pascoe also said it is essential that all sides impress on their security forces and civilian population the need to act responsibly. “They must do their utmost to avoid escalation, and take early action to defuse possible tensions,” he said, adding that extremists on both sides must not be allowed to inflame the situation.

Turning to Gaza, he condemned the continued firing of rockets from the area into Israel, while also calling on Israel to show maximum restraint in their response. He also called for the further easing of Israeli closure measures on Gaza, particularly in regard to imports of construction materials, exports, and freedom of movement of people.

In addition, Mr. Pascoe said there was no movement on Palestinian reconciliation, or progress regarding access to or the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who remains in the captivity of Hamas.

The Under-Secretary-General also commented briefly on developments in Lebanon, where the overall situation remained calm, and in Syria, where “the polarization continues to deepen” between the regime of Bashar Al-Assad and the growing popular opposition.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39828&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

[웃 910]

Israel policy may not move US Jewish vote

America's obstruction of a Palestinian statehood drive at the UN has left President Barack Obama facing charges he watered down his Middle East peace push to appease disgruntled Jewish voters.

But polling data and electoral history suggests that American Jews do not make a president's relations with Israel a litmus test for their vote and seem unlikely to desert Democrats for conservative Republicans in the 2012 election.

Still, experts say, Obama campaign aides, worried about any lost votes in what is shaping up as a close election, will be loathe to see the president spend more of his diminished political capital on a moribund peace process.

Advertisement: Story continues below Obama's relationship with Jewish voters -- a key Democratic voting bloc -- has been in the spotlight as his White House feuded with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pressured Israel on issues like settlements.

Circumstantial evidence suggests he has paid a political price.

In 2008, Obama captured 78 per cent of the Jewish vote and by the time of his inauguration, his approval rating with the community was 83 per cent.

But his approval in the community had tumbled to just 54 per cent by September, according to a recent Gallup poll.

A recent Republican victory in a fiercely Democratic district of New York where critics slammed Obama for "disparaging" Israel, left conservatives scenting an opening with Jewish voters.

"Don't even think about throwing Israel under the bus," said a Jewish voter in an internet ad run by the Republican Jewish Coalition after the election.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, commentator Dan Senor said Obama was "losing the Jewish Vote" because of the "most consistently one-sided diplomatic record against Israel of any American president in generations."

And internet news pioneer Matt Drudge splashed: "Revenge of the Jews."

Democratic leaders argued the race, in which conservative orthodox Jewish voters were prominent did not carry national implications.

But Republican 2012 challengers sought to fan Jewish discontent with Obama: Texas governor Rick Perry accused him of appeasing Palestinians.

So when Obama said last week at the UN that the US bond with Israel "is unbreakable," after vowing to veto the Palestinian statehood bid, some observers saw outside motivations.

"Now is the time in which foreign policy makes way for domestic policy. Palestine-out; the Jewish voters in America-in," said a commentary in the Israeli Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

The White House said the veto threat was purely motivated by a belief that UN recognition will not bring a true Palestinian state, which can only be defined by negotiations with Israel, any closer.

The case that Israel policy is hurting Obama among Jews especially, is undermined by the fact that many demographic groups, not just Jews, are souring on Obama, including another key Democratic constituency, Hispanic voters.

And at 54 pe rcent, Obama is at least 10 points more popular with Jewish voters, than he is among Americans as a whole.

Exit polls in 2008 suggested only around two per cent of voters nationwide are Jewish.

However, in vital swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania they could wield disproportionate power in hard-fought counties, so Obama aides will be wary of alienating even a small sample of voters.

"You have to neutralise as many of the possible negatives as you can," said Daniel Levy of the New America Foundation, who argues Obama is now in a political box on Israel.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J-Street, a liberal pro-Israel group, said Obama's aides may have drawn wrong conclusions.

"The idea that Jews are somehow fleeing in terms of their votes or their approval or support from Obama because of Israel -- that is simplistic."

"Unfortunately, I think that the way in which the Obama administration is approaching policy on this issue, is affected by their belief that they do have a problem."

A Gerstein poll for J-Street in 2010, suggested Israel was well down the list of concerns for Jewish voters, with only 7 per cent naming it as their top issue, compared to 62 per cent motivated by the economy.

Ben-Ami also warned Obama aides may be overly influenced by powerful pro-Israeli lobby groups that he said do not reflect the entirety of American Jewish opinion.

Netanyahu has also forged strong links with conservative Republicans, further constraining Obama's room for manoeuvre.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/israel-policy-may-not-move-us-jewish-vote-20110926-1ksnm.html

[웃 910]

Obama's holiday message backs Israel (video in link)

President Obama reaffirmed support for Israel in his annual Rosh Hashanah message today, nearly a week after urging the United Nations to reject a Palestinian bid for statehood.

"Beyond our borders, many of our closest allies -- including the state of Israel -- face the uncertainties of an unpredictable age," Obama said in a holiday video posted on the White House website.

"That is why my administration is doing everything we can to promote prosperity here at home and security and peace throughout the world -- and that includes reaffirming our commitment to the state of Israel," Obama added.

Obama, who said a Palestinian state should be formed through talks with Israel, not U.N. fiat, has also been criticized by Jewish groups during his tenure at the White House.

The president's holiday message:

As the High Holidays begin, we look back on all the moments during the past year that gave us reason to hope. Around the world, a new generation is reaching for their universal rights. Here in the United States, we've responded to our challenges by focusing on the things that really matter -- friendship, family, and community.

But this last year was also one of hardship for people around the world. Too many of our friends and neighbors continue to struggle in the wake of a terrible economic recession. And beyond our borders, many of our closest allies -- including the state of Israel -- face the uncertainties of an unpredictable age.

That is why my administration is doing everything we can to promote prosperity here at home and security and peace throughout the world -- and that includes reaffirming our commitment to the State of Israel. While we cannot know all that the New Year will bring, we do know this: the United States will continue to stand with Israel, because the bond between our two nations is unshakable.

As Jewish tradition teaches us, we may not complete the work, but that must never keep us from trying. In that spirit, Michelle and I wish you, your families, and all who celebrate Rosh Hashanah a sweet year full of health, happiness, and peace.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/09/obamas-holiday-message-backs-israel/1

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Nice to see China who illegally occupies Tibet and supports the genocidal regime in North Korea and then you Russia who illegally occupies the Caucus regions including the country of Chechnya not to mention parts of Georgia are supporting this UN resolution.

Yes the US does kiss Israel's #######, and no there will not be peace there even if the State of Palestine is recognized for the fact Israel will never give up half of Jerusalem and no they won't go back to the pre 1967 borders seeing how Palestinians along with five Arab nations rolled the dice when they simultaneously attacked Israel and lost.

If your going to gamble then be prepared to pay up if you lose. They didn't accept the UN resolution in 1948, instead they chose to attack Israel on more than one occasion and they lost each and every time.

"You play, you pay"

Edited September 27, 2011 by Why_Me

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

####### LI? Your bumping all the other threads to page 2 and beyond. How many bloody threads on this do you need to post? Slow down for christ sake.

[Penguin_ie 5,996]

***** Multiple topics merged as all are articles regarding the Israeli/ Palestinian political situation and do not require seperate topics to be discussed in different threads. *****

[scandal 951]

***** Multiple topics merged as all are articles regarding the Israeli/ Palestinian political situation and do not require seperate topics to be discussed in different threads. *****

No, no, LI had it right.

This forum should be renamed the "All Palestine, All the time" forum.

It is what it is.