State Department presses Israel not to abrogate Oslo post-UDI
I guess this was to be expected. The State Department is pressing Israel not to abrogate the Oslo Accords in the aftermath of a 'Palestinian' unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) at the United Nations next month.
"Yesterday the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, said in an interview that all bilateral agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority could become null and void if they establish something called the government of Palestine," The Cable asked State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland at today's briefing. "And he suggested that U.S. agreements, bilateral agreements with the Palestinian Authority, could also become null and void, because they are not made with something called the government of Palestine. Was he accurate?"
"I think the interview was with you, if I'm not wrong there, Mr. Rogin," Nuland quipped, calling out your humble Cable guy for seeking to advance his own story.
Actually, Oren never used the words "null and void," but did say that, "We have a lot of agreements with the Palestinian Authority, we have no agreements with a ‘Government of Palestine," and that Israeli-PA and U.S.-PA agreements could be at risk if the Palestinian leadership moves forward with a U.N. statehood vote.
Nuland's response was, "We take seriously the prior commitments by all sides and we expect the parties to do the same. We will continue to urge both the Palestinians and the Israelis to honor their commitments fully."
Other press corps members tried to press Nuland on how the United States would manage its dealings with the PA if it is recognized as the government of a Palestinian state, but she wouldn't bite.
"We believe that prior commitments need to be respected by both sides and we're making that point," she said. "I'm not going to get into all kinds of hypotheticals and all kinds of crazy scenarios."
Some reporters at the briefing argued that since the PA seems determined to move forward at the United Nations, it's not such a "crazy scenario," but Nuland, eager not to get out ahead of the U.S. diplomacy on the issue, wouldn't budge.
"I'm not prepared to speak about contingency planning one way or the other," she said. "I am simply giving the view of the U.S. administration, which is that we take seriously the prior commitments made by all sides, and we expect them to continue to be met by and honored by all sides."
Why do they think we will honor agreements that the other side has breached? What could go wrong?
I'm hoping Netanyahu will respond to this. After all, if the Turks can threaten us, why can't we threaten the 'Palestinians'?
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is seeking a unified European voice on the question of the 'Palestinian' UDI (unilateral declaration of independence).
"The 27 countries of the European Union must express themselves with one voice," Sarkozy said in an opening speech to an annual conference of French ambassadors.
"The role of the US is uncontested and irreplaceable, but everybody sees that it is not enough. We have to widen the circle of negotiation, think of the role and pertinence of the quartet."
Sarkozy said the world could not continue to leave the Palestinian peace process frozen while the Arab Spring forces change elsewhere in the region.
Up until now most of the EU’s countries have refrained from committing on how they would vote on the resolution, saying that it depended on the text. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton was scheduled to convene an informal meeting of the EU’s 27 foreign ministers on September 2 where the issue will be discussed.
If they actually manage to agree on how to vote, it could make or break our government's attempt at a 'moral coalition' to oppose the non-aligned nations and the Organization of Islamic Countries. But I doubt they'll get together.
By the way, sorry about the long break tonight. On Wednesdays right now, I am acting as a graduate assistant for a Dale Carnegie course (it's an eight-session course, and this is my second stint as a graduate assistant since finishing the course myself). Ordinarily you all don't notice because I manage to queue enough posts to keep them going while I'm in class. But I had too much work today and did not have time to do that before I left for the course.
Do you support the 'Palestinian statehood' declaration?
Here's a video directed at people who generally support the 'Palestinians' suggesting why they should oppose the 'Palestinians' UDI (unilateral declaration of independence - an acronym you should see a lot over the next few weeks).
A document produced by a group of prominent 'Palestinians' advocates seeking a 'one-state solution' in the event that - as expected - the unilateral drive for 'Palestinian statehood' does not produce a 'Palestinian state' (regardless of the vote in the UN General Assembly).
Among the participants in the group’s workshops over the past year in Jericho, Gaza and Istanbul were Omar Abdel Razek, the former finance minister in the Hamas government in the West Bank, and Nasser al-Shaer, that government’s education minister. Next to them sat senior Fatah officials including associates of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas − former Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath and senior adviser Mohammad Shtayyeh. Other signatories are Naser al-Kidwa, a former Palestinian observer at the United Nations, Fatah Deputy Secretary General and Communications Minister Sabri Saydam, and former economics minister and businessman Mazen Sinokrot.
Already in the preface, the authors stress that “strategic unity,” now greatly enhanced by the reconciliation process, is a key condition for putting together an effective strategy. The document’s starting point: Given the Israeli government’s intransigence, the option of settling the conflict via bilateral negotiations − the path pursued by the Palestinian leadership for 20 years − is no longer available.
Most of the document’s authors support the option of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital and a fair arrangement that will fulfill the right of return and the compensation of the Palestinian refugees. The document rejects the possibility of continuing the status quo, maintaining that the endless negotiations provide cover for expanding the settlements and consolidating the occupation. The authors also erase from the agenda the option of a Palestinian state with temporary borders and limited sovereignty, under effective Israeli control.
If the strategy of a diplomatic struggle for Palestinian independence − including sanctions, turning to the International Criminal Court and nonviolent resistance as in Egypt and Tunisia − does not change the situation, the group recommends switching to what the document calls Plan B: dismantling the Palestinian Authority and restoring responsibility for the West Bank’s inhabitants to Israel. The authors are not ignoring the price their public would pay for that, but wonder what honorable option would remain.
If it turns out that this option is unattainable, the authors recommend working toward a model of a binational state or democratic state without distinction between Israel and Palestinian citizens. Another possibility is a confederation between Jordan and the Palestinian state.
Let's go down the list of options:
The only intransigence the Israeli government has had has been its desire to survive. Israel offered far too much under Ehud Barak, under Ehud Olmert, and even under Rabin and Netanyahu. Abu Mazen himself has admitted that he has not made a single concession since 1993, nor did Arafat:
No one in good conscience can blame the current situation on 'Israeli intransigence.' Except Haaretz of course. So the starting point of this document is wrong.
Then the authors claim they want "the option of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital and a fair arrangement that will fulfill the right of return and the compensation of the Palestinian refugees." That statement is a landmine. First, note that there's not even a mention of 'adjustments' in that statement (and in any event, such a mention would be empty because it would still presuppose Israel going back to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines unless the 'Palestinians' agree otherwise). And what the 'Palestinians' consider a 'fair arrangement' for the 'refugees' would mean flooding what is left of Israel with 'Palestinians' (really Arabs), which would leave two states: An Arab state and another Arab state with a few Jews. No Israeli - not even the revered (by Haaretz) Shimon Peres - could agree to that.
As a matter of law, the International Criminal Court ought not to take jurisdiction of any case involving Israel and the 'Palestinians.' First, because Israel is not a signatory to its treaty and therefore cannot be compelled to appear. Second, because 'Palestine' is not a state and therefore cannot be a signatory, regardless of the outcome at the General Assembly. They don't fulfill the Montevideo criteria, and they will not be a full member of the United Nations.
I suppose they can dismantle the 'Palestinian Authority,' but I question whether that would force Israel to take responsibility for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. The good news would be that dismantling the 'Palestinian Authority' would abrogate the Oslo Accords, and hopefully remove our 'right wing' government's inhibitions about building in Judea and Samaria (contrary to popular perception, the Oslo Accords place no restrictions on 'settlement construction').
Binational state? The 'Palestinians' would never agree because no 'refugees' would get to move here, because they'd be an underclass in our society, and because their real goal is destroying the Jewish state. A binational state would fulfill none of those goals.
In a written statement, the IDF – which is also drilling its troops in how to deal with possible violence next month – said it was "devoting great efforts to training local forces and preparing them to deal with any possible scenario".
Some scenarios envisage protesters reaching the gates of settlements, which could set the stage for confrontations.
The statement said the military recently "completed training the majority of the first response teams" and the exercises were ongoing.
...
Danny Dayan, chairman of the settlers' YESHA Council, said in a telephone interview that "Certainly during a period of tension, with intelligence reports of possible threats, of course readiness crews are being trained."
Dayan saw these preparations as "nothing extraordinary", noting how most settlers involved have already done compulsory duty in the IDF, which drafts most Israeli men at the age of 18.
"The Israeli army is responsible for them, they are not private settler militias," Dayan said.
Armed settlers "operate under orders to avoid killing civilians. In the event of a break-in at a settlement, the response would be purely defensive, nothing offensive," he added.
Israel said it arms settlers so they can protect themselves against Palestinian attack. Palestinians and human rights groups said settlers have used weapons to attack Palestinians and that Israel has been lax in investigating such incidents.
Avigdor Shatz, who oversees security in the Benjamin settlement district of the West Bank... would not provide details or figures on how many settler security personnel exist, but said most of the 140 or so enclaves Israel has built in the West Bank had defense teams, and said "very few" of their members had firearms.
The problem is that this is an attempt by the IDF to save manpower, and while it's understandable (they're going to be stretched way too thin no matter how many reservists they call up in September), there's a real risk here that people who aren't in appropriate physical condition, and who aren't sufficiently trained and equipped, are going to be left doing the army's job.
Jordan's King Abdullah II advised Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to reconsider the Palestinian statehood bid, Saudi Arabian newspaper Al-Madina reported Tuesday.
King Abdullah, after consulting with a team of international lawyers, explained to Abbas that declaring a state in Palestine would possibly result in the loss of the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees, according to the report. He therefore asked him to reconsider his plan to bring statehood to a vote at the United Nations on September 20th.
Abbas however, planned to move forward with his move, nonetheless, the report said.
The Palestinians will continue to demand the right of return for millions of refugees to their original homes inside Israel even after the UN recognizes a Palestinian state along the June 4, 1967, lines, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said on Sunday.
Responding to legal experts’ claims that a Palestinian state could affect the status of the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative” of the Palestinians, Abbas told the Jordanian newspaper Ad-Dustour: “The PLO represents all the Palestinians, not only those in the Palestinian territories and whose number is estimated at 4 million. The PLO represents all 8 million Palestinians in the world.”
He said that the PLO would continue to function until all Palestinian issues were resolved, including the case of the refugees. The PA, he added, is part of the PLO and not a separate body.
The Saudi newspaper said Amman "advised" Abbas of its position via several diplomatic channels within the Arab world, adding that so far, the Palestinian president has chosen to shrug off Jordan's recommendation and is forging on with the plan to appeal to the UN General Assembly.
The PA's unilateral move is perceived as highly premature and detrimental to the peace process by many in the international community and particularly by Washington, which has already declared it will oppose the move.
Several reports have suggested that Abbas is covertly seeking ways to renege on the nearing bid, but the Palestinians declared that they are adamant to see it through.
Should they do so, the General Assembly – which is ruled by third-world countries that are predominately Arab and Muslim – will see a majority vote in their favor. Nevertheless, General Assembly resolutions are symbolic and to truly be accepted into the UN, the Security Council – where the US has veto power – would have to grant the Palestinian's bid.
Israel has already recognized that it has no real chance of stopping the General Assembly vote, and is now concentrating its diplomatic efforts on establishing a "moral majority" within the UN, to vote against the bid.
Jerusalem is currently focusing on rallying the support of Britain, France, Germany and Spain, to name a few, with the aim of creating a 30-nation bloc.
A few points to consider:
1. The deep, dark secret of the Arab world is that Jordan regards a 'Palestinian state' as a threat and does not want one.
2. The only thing Jordan wants less than a 'Palestinian state' is a solution to the 'refugee problem' that doesn't allow him to ship as many 'Palestinians' as he wants to Judea and Samaria.
3. The 'Palestinian' attempt at unilateralism was not well thought-out, but having undertaken it and stuck by it, it is almost impossible for Abu Mazen to back off it and remain in power. No ladder reaches high enough to help him down from that tree.
4. Abu Mazen is hoping to have just enough violence from his 'people' to bring about a lethal Israeli reaction that will serve his propaganda purposes and help him to remain in power. The IDF is attempting to avoid giving Abu Mazen his dead bodies so long as it can do so without endangering Israeli lives.
5. If push comes to shove, the UN will find a way to allow the putative 'non-member state' of 'Palestine' to continue to represent the 'Palestinian refugees.' The UN is more than happy to change international law when it suits it.
6. In those days when there is no King... each man does what appears fair in his eyes.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen knows just how to deal with the 'Palestinian' bid for 'statehood' at the United Nations: Threaten their funding.
In 1989, Yasser Arafat’s PLO also pushed for membership for a “Palestinian state” in UN entities. The PLO’s strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush administration made clear that the U.S. would cut off funding to any UN entity that upgraded the status of the Palestinian observer mission in any way. The UN was forced to choose between isolating Israel and receiving U.S. contributions, and they chose the latter. The PLO’s unilateral campaign was stopped in its tracks.
This example demonstrates a simple but needed lesson: At the UN, money talks, and smart withholding works.
With Arafat’s successors up to the same tricks today, the U.S. response must be as strong. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has consistently refused to use our strongest leverage — our financial contributions — to advance U.S. interests at the UN. If the executive branch will not demonstrate leadership on this issue, Congress must fill the void.
I will soon introduce the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, which will reflect the executive branch’s previous successful policies by cutting off U.S. contributions to any UN entity that grants membership or any other upgraded status to the Palestinian observer mission. This legislation will also leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars to make sure they do not fund biased or wasteful UN activities, and to achieve other much-needed reforms that will make the UN more transparent, accountable, objective, and effective.
It is time to use all our leverage to stop this unilateral Palestinian scheme — for the sake of our ally Israel and all free democracies, for the sake of peace and security, and for the sake of achieving a UN that upholds its founding principles.
There's one small problem: George H.W. Bush (also known as Bush I, Bush 41 or Bush the Father) was not a great lover of Israel. Obama makes him look like one. Can anyone really see Obama NOT vetoing this bill? I suppose Congress can refuse to fund UN activities, but I doubt that will stop Obama and Clinton from continuing to do so.
I guess that 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen figures it doesn't matter what he says anymore. No one will listen anyway. They'll just give him whatever he wants (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The Palestinian Authority will not be recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday, adopting a belligerent tone ahead of his planned statehood bid in September.
The Palestinian leader also criticized demands made by the International Quartet of his Authority, urging the international community to back off. "Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state," Abbas said. "We won't accept it."
...
Responding to the Palestinian leader's defiant message, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the statement "reveals the true nature of the September motion: A Palestinian state to come in place of a Jewish state."
"Countries around the world must make it clear to Abbas that the only way the Palestinians will be able to have a state is by stopping their attempt to destroy the only Jewish state in the world," Lieberman said.
Avigdor, zeh pashut! (It's simple). That's what they have always wanted! If you think they want anything other than to destroy the Jewish state, please consider this:
As the Jerusalem Post reports, in an interview with a Jordanian newspaper, Abbas made it clear even if the General Assembly of the United Nations voted to recognize an independent Palestinian state in the 1967 lines, the PA would continue to insist on the “right of return” for Arab refugees to swamp Israel.
If he gets his way, Abbas will have a Jew-free state in the West Bank and Gaza next to a Jewish state that will have to live under the threat of being deluged with Palestinians who would transform it into yet another Arab state. That helps explain why he continues to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state. But, along with this promise of unending strife, Abbas’ statement also points to another issue that explains why his UN initiative represents more of a danger to the PA than it does to Israel.
...
Abbas’ remarks about not giving up the right of return also illustrate the zero-sum nature of the conflict from the Palestinian frame of reference. Abbas still balks at recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. Left-wing critics of Israel dismiss this as a non-issue, but the PLO and the PA it spawned came into being fighting against the existence of Israel before the so-called “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian national identity is inseparable from the idea of opposing Zionist sovereignty over any part of the country and of returning refugees to pre-1967 Israel.
This is why Abbas and his predecessor Yasir Arafat have always refused Israeli offers of an independent state no matter the terms. Though their UN gambit is creating legal problems for the PA, the refugee issue shows it must nonetheless stick to it simply because Abbas’ overriding imperative is to avoid peace talks at any price.
Of course, none of this will stop the General Assembly from rubber-stamping a 'Palestinian state.' But perhaps it ought to make moral people of conscience think twice about joining the pile-on.
Ever since the Palestinian Authority rejected Israel’s offer of an independent state in almost all of the West Bank, Gaza and part of Jerusalem back in 2008, its leader Mahmoud Abbas has been doing all he could to avoid being put in a similar situation. Because he knows no matter what concessions Israel makes on borders or settlements, he cannot survive the aftermath of signing a peace deal, Abbas must continue to dodge negotiations despite the desperate efforts of the Obama administration and the European Union to get him to come back to the table. That is the rationale for the PA’s UN adventure.
This UN gambit is doomed to failure since the General Assembly cannot create a state by itself anymore that it can transform Palestinian political life. Under the current circumstances where Gaza is ruled by the Hamas terrorist movement and the West Bank is kept under the thumb of the PA only by virtue of the protection of the Israeli army, a viable independent Palestinian state is more of a theoretical notion than anything else. And despite the predictions of a “diplomatic tsunami” that would swamp Israel, it is Abbas who has more to fear from the fallout of this confrontation since it is he, and not Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who stands to lose the most if the defeat of his measure results in more Palestinian violence.
Abbas’s notice of his willingness to be tempted to stay away from the UN is, like the entire project, merely a deception. The only purpose of the exercise is to heighten Israel’s isolation and increase pressure on Jerusalem, not to get closer to a resolution of the dispute. More talk of settlements and borders are a distraction from the core issue of whether the Palestinians can live with a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Abbas says he wants a Jew-free Palestinian state next to an Israel where the “return” of the descendants of Arab refugees would transform a Jewish state to a bi-national or Arab one. That is a prescription for future war not peace.
So long as Abbas isn’t willing to talk about a Jewish state living in peace alongside a Palestinian state, we will know he is merely continuing his bluff and not speaking in good faith. Were he ever to do so, he would find that as they did in 2000, 2001 and 2008, the Israelis are willing to make peace on terms that would give him his state. There is no reason for Israel to give in on borders, territory, Jerusalem or anything else until Abbas or his successors change their tunes.
Well, yeah. But the real question remains whether Israel's government with withstand the pressure from the Obama administration to give Abu Mazen something for dropping the bid anyway.
US Consulate in Jerusalem: 'We would never, never threaten the 'Palestinians''
'Palestinian' chief negotiatorbottle washer Saeb Erekat (yes, I know, you thought he resigned) has accused the United States Consulate in 'east' Jerusalem - also known as the US embassy to the 'Palestinians' - of threatening the 'Palestinians' with 'punitive measures' if they do not drop their 'statehood bid' at the United Nations. The consulate denies the charge.
The US Consulate in Jerusalem, meanwhile, denied that Consul-General Daniel Rubenstein had threatened "punitive measures" if the Palestinians went ahead with plans to upgrade their status at the UN.
PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed last Friday that the consul made the threat during a meeting with him.
The consulate, in a statement, said that Erekat's account of the meeting in Jericho was "not an accurate portrayal of the US position." The statement said that Washington's position was to encourage a return to negotiations with Israel.
A spokeswoman for the consulate was quoted by the Maan news agency as saying that "initiatives throughout the UN will not bring about the two-state solution and enduring peace, which both the parties and the US seek."
She said that the US Administration continues to oppose initiatives by the Palestinians in the UN because "there is no substitute for serious and substantive negotiations between the parties, and that remains our focus."
Erekat had claimed after the meeting that Rubenstein threatened that the US would cut off aid to the Palestinians if they insisted on going to the UN.
On Saturday, Erekat repeated his claim, adding that the Americans have threatened to veto the PA statehood bid and cut off financial aid to the Palestinians.
Well, Congress has certainly told them that it will cut off aid if they go to the UN. So what would be the big deal if the Consulate said the same thing?
Is the 'Palestinian Authority' making a huge mistake?
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen has once again laid down conditions for dropping his bid for 'unilateral statehood' at the United Nations next month. No one anticipates Israel agreeing to them.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday set two conditions for abandoning his plan to ask the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state in September: acceptance of the 1967 lines as the basis for a two-state solution and a cessation of settlement construction.
"Without this we will continue going to the UN," Abbas said.
As I reported previously, a legal opinion written by an Oxford University professor suggests that the 'Palestinians' have much to lose (aside from American aid money) by going ahead with the 'statehood' bid. Al-Jazzera interviews Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of International Law at Oxford, who wrote the opinion.
Why would the creation of a state not represent Palestinian rights?
Traditionally, a state for the purposes of international law presupposes territory, population, government and the capacity to enter into international relations. But we have moved beyond that, particularly where representation in the UN is concerned. Today's world expects more – that a state should be representative of the people for whom it speaks and directly accountable to them.
One way to establish representative democracy is by elections, though elections also should meet certain international standards. But states which are imposed, top-down, or which are crated without an exercise of the popular will are, by definition, not representative. And as recent events remind us, the lack of representative and accountable government is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.
If the 'state of Palestine' is meant to replace the 'PLO', does this not just mean a transfer of authorities from one to the other? Similar to an official name-change?
As I understand the present proposal, the state of Palestine may replace the PLO as the representative of the people of Palestine at the United Nations. But we need to ask, what is the legitimate basis for such representation? I am not saying that it cannot be done, for of course it can. But only that I do not see the hallmarks of democratic, representative and accountable statehood – something in turn which depends on an exercise of the popular will. Shouldn't this come first?
...
You tackle three specific issues; constitutional, statehood, and representation. Starting on the issue of constitutional, you are saying the Palestinian Authority (PA) is a subsidiary body, formed by the PLO, as an administrative entity, and that "it does not have the capacity to assume greater powers, to ‘dissolve’ its parent body, or otherwise establish itself independently of the Palestinian National Council and the PLO". What does this mean, both for the quest for statehood, and subsequently for the Palestinians if statehood is granted?
On the legal standing and capacity of the Palestinian Authority, I was applying non-controversial legal principles regarding the powers and competence of subsidiary bodies. Does the PA have the power to move the issue of statehood ahead, and if so, what are the origins and parameters of that power? Have the people of Palestine, through their representative - the PLO - granted such power? I recognise that there is an urgent, pressing need for statehood, particularly in the face of the intransigence of other parties, but I am also concerned that the essentials of modern statehood – democracy, representative government and accountability – may be sidelined, if not sacrificed, perhaps to the long-term disadvantage of the people at large.
One issue here is that the majority of Palestinians are refugees living outside of historic Palestine, and they have an equal claim to be represented, particularly given the recognition of their rights in General Assembly resolution 194 (III), among others. It is not clear that they will be enfranchised through the creation of a state, in which case the PLO must continue to speak for their rights in the UN until they are implemented.
With regards to statehood, you say that as an observer state in the UN, Palestine would 'fall short of meeting the internationally agreed criteria of statehood', which would have serious implications for Palestinians at large, especially for the diaspora. How so?
What concerns me is that insufficient attention has been given so far to representation of the Palestinian people at large – that is, to the diaspora also, for whom both self-determination and the right of return are basic human rights and crucial elements in national identity.
The main point here appears to be this. Under the Montevideo treaty (that's the operative legal document that describes what he's talking about in the first paragraph), states have four things: Territory, population, government and the capacity to enter into foreign relations. The issues of population and government could be resolved by having a referendum. The capacity to enter into foreign relations is a fact - either you have it or you don't. But territory is the key here and this is what he's really trying to sound an alarm about. The PLO has been 'extra-territorial' because it also claims to represent the 'Palestinian diaspora.' If the 'Palestinians' get a 'state' which is limited by territory (much of which they will not de facto control anyway), and that 'state' replaces the PLO as the 'sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people,' the members of the 'Palestinian diaspora' who do not live within the territory of the 'Palestinian state' will not have 'Palestinian' representation in the United Nations.
Remember that report that the Libyan rebels were supplying weapons to Hamas in Gaza? In a totally bizarre turn of events, now that they are in power, the rebels are claiming that almost-deposed dictator Muammar Gadhafi was the one supplying weapons to Hamas, and that they, the rebels, would like Israel's support (and presumably friendship).
"We are seeking Israel's support and influence around the world in order to bring to an end Gaddafi's despotic rule," Ahmad Shabani, the founder of Libya's Democratic and a spokesperson on behalf of the rebels was quoted as saying.
According to the unconfirmed reports, Shabani, whose family fled Libya after the king was deposed in 1969, said they were seeking the Jewish State's help because "Libya needs all the international support they can get, including Israel's."
Responding to Gaddafi's allegations, according to which al Qaeda was aiding the rebels to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip, Shabani said the deposed dictator was himself cooperating with the terrorist group, adding that the opposition group aims to stop the alleged arms smuggling.
Okay, guys. Let's assume you're accepted as the legitimate government of Libya at the UN in September. I have two questions for you: How are you voting on 'Palestinian statehood'? And are you attending the Durban III conference? And yes, those are serious questions. If the rebels have learned anything from their experience under and fighting Gadhafi, they should know that supporting Israel is just. And support ought to be reciprocal and reciprocated.
By the way, there are some awesome pictures of Gadhafi's palace here.
Israel is anticipating violent demonstrations by 'Palestinians' regardless of how the 'statehood' vote at the UN goes in September. But the IDF is prepared. Here are some really neat facts about the IDF's new Amit sniper targeting system.
The new doctrine was developed by the Paratroop Brigade, which was among the forces that stopped hundreds of people from crossing into Israel from Syria in early June during the last round of protests there that ended with more than 20 dead, according to the Syrian press. Israel says the number of dead was significantly lower.
The doctrine includes the use of the Amit targeting system, which was developed by Elbit Systems and became operational in the IDF following Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip in 2009.
The Amit weighs less than 2 kg., including an eight-hour rechargeable battery, and enables an operator to locate targets up to a kilometer away, under all weather conditions.
Until then, the IDF used heavier systems that needed to be mounted on a tripod. The new system costs less than a third of those, and is more mobile.
The IDF tested the Amit’s thermal-imaging capabilities during Cast Lead, distributing flags coated in a special chemical, detectable only by the Amit, among units in hopes of avoiding friendly-fire incidents.
The Paratroop Brigade came up with the idea to use the Amit due to the poor visibility it encountered during the protests along the Syrian border.
“The snipers could not see well and we used the Amit, which can see in all weather, to put a laser designator on the legs of the protester and then the sniper shot at the laser,” an IDF Ground Forces Command officer explained. “Our goal was not to kill people but to shoot at the legs of the violent protesters who were trying to cross into Israel. This made the shooting more accurate.”
The government is afraid that a pile of dead 'Palestinian' demonstrators would bring the 'Palestinians' a lot of sympathy around the world, and that therefore the 'Palestinians' will seek to incur casualties.
Legal opinion warns 'Palestinians' against 'disenfranchising' their 'diaspora'
A legal opinion provided to the 'Palestinian' team preparing for their September 'statehood' bid warns that a vote in the United Nations for a 'Palestinian state' could 'disenfranchise' the 'Palestinian diaspora.'
An initiative to transfer the Palestinians' representation from the PLO to a state will terminate the legal status held by the PLO in the UN since 1975 that it is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, according to the document.
Crucially, there will no longer be an institution that can represent the inalienable rights of the entire Palestinian people in the UN and related international institutions, according to the brief.
Representation for the right to self-determination will be gravely affected, as it is a right of all Palestinians, both inside and outside the homeland, the opinion says. A change in status would severely disenfranchise the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties from which they were displaced.
The seven-page opinion, obtained by Ma'an, was submitted to the Palestinian side by Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of public international law at Oxford University and a member of the team that won the 2004 non-binding judgement by the International Court of Justice that the route of Israel's wall was illegal.
The Palestinian team, headed by Saeb Erekat, has been preparing an initiative to replace the PLO at the UN, substituting it with the State of Palestine as the representative of the Palestinian people.
An actual state cannot be created in September, as Israel's occupation continues, so the debate is focused on whether membership should be requested from the Security Council or if the General Assembly should be asked to grant recognition of a state as an "observer," a status that conveys less than full UN membership.
Yet, almost no considerations have been made in terms of the dramatic legal implications for Palestinian rights which this legal brief says will occur should the PLO lose its status.
The brief is to "flag the matters requiring attention" so that a substantial amount of people who have interests in, for example, the right of return, are not "accidentally disenfranchised."
First of all, the prospect of substituting the PLO with the State of Palestine raises "constitutional" problems in that they engage the Palestinian National Charter and the organization and entities which make up the PLO, according to the brief. Second is "the question of the 'capacity' of the State of Palestine effectively to take on the role and responsibilities of the PLO in the UN; and thirdly, the question of popular representation," the opinion says.
The Palestinian Authority, which was established by the PLO as a short-term, administrative entity, "has limited legislative and executive competence, limited territorial jurisdiction, and limited personal jurisdiction over Palestinians not present in the areas for which it has been accorded responsibility," the brief points out.
It notes that the PA "is a subsidiary body, competent only to exercise those powers conferred on it by the Palestinian National Council. By definition, it does not have the capacity to assume greater powers."
The PA cannot "dissolve" its parent body or establish itself independently of the PNC and the PLO, the report also says. Moreover, it is the PLO and the PNC which derive their legitimacy "from the fact that they represent all sectors of the displaced Palestinian people, no matter where they presently live or have refuge."
Particularly crucial are the potential implications for Palestinians in the Diaspora. The majority of Palestinians are refugees, and all of them are represented by the PLO through the PNC.
"They constitute more than half of the people of Palestine, and if they are 'disenfranchised' and lose their representation in the UN, it will not only prejudice their entitlement to equal representation ... but also their ability to vocalise their views, to participate in matters of national governance, including the formation and political identity of the State, and to exercise the right of return," the legal briefing says.
And this is likely to be true of any 'solution' in which there is no 'end of conflict' provision: The 'Palestinians' must choose between continuing their attempt to destroy Israel and having a state that ends the conflict. That's a choice they are incapable of making.
In the Middle East, my enemy's enemy is my friend. North Korea, which has sold nuclear technology to both Syria and Iran, has made itself into an enemy of Israel. And so it is fitting that Israel has become the largest arms supplier to South Korea.
During 2010-2011, ministry of Defense of the Republic of Korea [South Korea] awarded a contract worth US$ 280 million to Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd, for developing and supplying the EL/M 2032 Multimode Fire Control Radar system for the ROK's FA/TA-50 training jet. The radar was chosen by the customer for its advanced system compared to other competitors. The second contract is for advance air defense system to ROK. The radar enhances a fighter jet's air-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-sea capabilities, enabling long-range target detection and high-resolution mapping, among other features. The TA/FA-50 aircraft is being developed in the ROK by Korean Aerospace Industries [KAI], and will become operational with the radar system, which is co-produced with the Korean company LIG Nex1.
Now South Korea is willing to expand the defense cooperation with Israel and Kwon Oh-bong, the vice commissioner of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration [DAPA], South Korea hinted that his country is planning to turn Israel into its main arms supplier, following recent border incidents with its northern communist neighbour.
Kwon Oh-bong, who recently visited Israel, met senior Defense Ministry officials. In his visit to Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, the South Korean official expressed an interest in the Irom Dome rocket interception system, which was activated successfully in southern Israel recently.
"The security situation and threats faced by Israel and South Korea are very similar," says Kwon. "We are constantly boosting our readiness against North Korea, and we're exposed to the types of incidents and local provocations Israel is familiar with too.
"We too are under a major threat of artillery, missiles and rockets, and we were briefed on Rafael's air defense system. It's a very interesting weapons system and we'll consider it."
Two months ago, the Korean embassy in Israel honored Jewish War veterans who fought in the Korean War. I've had that page open for two months. My Dad fought in the Korean War (he was part of the US Army signal corps from 1951-53), and I would love to see him recognized.
But the bigger question is whether Israel's cooperation with South Korea can go beyond military sales. For example, how will South Korea vote on the question of the unilateral declaration of 'Palestinian' statehood next month and will South Korea participate in the Durban III conference? As far as I am aware, both of the answers to those questions are currently wrong answers. Let us hope that they can be changed. Israel and South Korea certainly do have a lot in common,
In an earlier post, I reported on the 'Palestinian Authority's silence regarding last Thursday's terror attacks near Eilat, and how some people in Israel believes that this shows that they are not yet ready for a 'state.' In response, I wrote:
And if Abu Bluff issued the kind of hypocritical denouncement that Arafat used to issue, would that make them ready for a 'state'? Ridiculous. They're not ready for a 'state' because they have yet to accept the idea (and they will never accept the idea) that if they get a 'state,' it's the end of their claims against Israel. And they're not going to condemn terror, because deep down they're a bunch of terrorists just like Hamas. It's time we stopped fooling ourselves that things are otherwise.
The evidence that the 'Palestinians' are not ready for a 'state' (as if that will influence the vote in the UN next month - of course it won't!) and that the 'Palestinians' are the same terrorists and liars they have always been has gotten stronger. The 'Palestinians' are accusing Israel of provoking violence to undermine and distract attention from the 'Palestinian' effort at 'statehood' (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad).
The authority accused Israel of trying to provoke a violent reaction that might undermine Palestinian efforts to obtain recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations.
"These measures will not deter us or stop us from continuing on our road and just struggle to regain the legitimate national rights of our people,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said through a spokesman Sunday.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Monday that the developments would not stop its plan -- opposed by Israel and the U.S. -- to seek U.N. recognition of a state located in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
“The government of Israel will be dreaming if it thinks that this grave escalation is going to get the Palestinian train heading to the U.N. off track,” he said.
By the way, the rest of this piece is a textbook case of media bias. Given that it was written by "Maher Abukhater in Ramallah, West Bank," I suppose we should not be too surprised.
But the fact that the 'Palestinian Authority' has the gall to make such accusations shows that nothing has changed. The blood libels (Israel poisoned Arafat, Israel poisoned the water in Gaza, Israel gave the 'Palestinians' contaminated viagra, etc.) continue. But the world wants to give them a 'state.'
'Palestinian Authority' silent over Thursday's terror attacks
The 'Palestinian Authority' has been silent about Thursday's terror attacks outside of Eilat, and Israel is trying to use that silence to show that the 'Palestinians' are not ready for a 'state.'
The Palestinian silence regarding Thursday’s terrorist attack in the South was “deafening,” and raises serious questions about the Palestinian Authority’s readiness for independence, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Mark Regev said Sunday.
“The Palestinian leadership’s failure to condemn Thursday’s attack against civilians raises serious questions about their readiness for independence, and their commitment to fight terrorism,” Regev said. “Their silence was deafening.”
Government sources noted that even Yasser Arafat would issue pro-forma condemnations of violence during the height of the second intifada, something the PA leadership has not yet done since Thursday’s attack.
And if Abu Bluff issued the kind of hypocritical denouncement that Arafat used to issue, would that make them ready for a 'state'? Ridiculous. They're not ready for a 'state' because they have yet to accept the idea (and they will never accept the idea) that if they get a 'state,' it's the end of their claims against Israel. And they're not going to condemn terror, because deep down they're a bunch of terrorists just like Hamas. It's time we stopped fooling ourselves that things are otherwise.
I wasn't happy with last week's Editor's Notes from new editor Steve Linde. This week's were bad enough that we're going to try to cancel the subscription in the morning (we've tried canceling the home delivery several times, but every time we try to cancel they just cut the price and beg us not to and Mrs. Carl gives in). I mean, if I wanted Haaretz, I'd buy Haaretz.
Sitting at Jerusalem’s Ambassador Hotel, a Palestinian official who asked not to be identified told me that September 20 was not a holy date, and he believed Malki had been misunderstood.
“There is no date. We know something will happen in September,” he said. “The 20th of September might change. There’s only a decision to go for full membership in the UN, and this decision is being supported by the Arab League and several friends we have in the world.”
The official said the PA had not expected Israel’s “hysterical” opposition to the UN resolution, which he claimed was actually an attempt to save the two-state solution.
“We refuse to say that the two-state solution in 1967 borders is over, as many people are saying,” he said. “We don’t really understand Israel’s reaction. This resolution will not be passed if it doesn’t include ‘a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the state of Israel.’ When Iran votes for this resolution, it will be voting in recognition of Israel.”
The official slammed Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon for flying across the globe to canvass support for Israel’s opposition to Palestinian statehood.
“This campaign of Mr. Ayalon going all over the world for this ‘moral minority’ is not going to bring him more than five or six votes against any resolution on Palestine,” he said. “We have 122 countries recognizing Palestine. I don’t think all of them will vote for Palestine. We believe that maybe six of them will not, basically eastern European countries, which does not mean that they will vote against.”
...
Israeli officials expressed concern that a vote in favor of a Palestinian state in the General Assembly would give the Palestinians more ammunition in their diplomatic arsenal against Israel in the international arena. As a UN member state, Palestine could, for example, pursue Israelis for war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
One official said Israel could, moreover, not accept a Palestinian resolution that called for a return to the 1967 borders. This would put the Western Wall in Palestine rather than in Israel, he noted.
...
Palestine will soon be a reality, even if its boundaries have not been determined, and Israel doesn’t accept it. Israel is already a reality, although its final borders have not yet been set, either. What will be necessary after September is for negotiators of good faith to sit down and work out a way the two can coexist. For the sake of both.
There are many reasons for Israel to oppose this move - some of which are mentioned by Israeli officials quoted in the article (including Danny Ayalon, whom Linde tries to make look like an idiot).
'Palestine' is not a reality. And God willing, it will never be one.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
I guess this was to be expected. The State Department is pressing Israel not to abrogate the Oslo Accords in the aftermath of a 'Palestinian' unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) at the United Nations next month. 
