-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Josh Rogin
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 - 6:36 PM
Share
It's generally expected that the United States will veto the Palestinian bid for full member status at the United Nations Security Council next month, but the Palestinian government thinks it has an ace up its sleeve -- a workaround option that would bypass the U.S. veto and allow it to secure U.N. recognition, says the PLO's top representative in Washington.
"The plan as of now is to go the United Nations to seek full member-state status for the State of Palestine," said Maen Rashid Areikat, PLO representative to the United States and head of the PLO mission in Washington, in a Tuesday interview with The Cable. That means submitting a request to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who will then turn that request over to the U.N. Security Council for a vote.
But the Security Council doesn't actually vote on the statehood question, only whether to refer the matter to the U.N. General Assembly. If and when the United States vetoes the idea of referring the Palestinian request to the General Assembly, that request dies. But the Palestinians aren't planning to stop there.
"We hope the United States will reconsider its position and not use its veto power against the Palestinian move at the United Nations," he said. "What happens after a veto? There are so many other options."
Areikat said one option under serious consideration was to invoke U.N. General Assembly Resolution 377, known as "Uniting for Peace," which was put forth by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1950 as a means of getting around an obstructionist Security Council, which at the time was unable to authorize a response to North Korea's attacks on South Korea because the Soviet Union was rejecting all related Security Council resolutions. Resolution 377 is meant to bypass the Security Council if it "fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression."
"What we could do is go to the Security Council and say that a member state of the Security Council, in this case the United States, has blocked our request and therefore we are seeking Security Council support to take the issue to the U.N. General Assembly, invoking Resolution 377," he said. "If that effort succeeds, we will be a non-member state at the United States, not a member state. That's the difference between the two."
Under Resolution 377, the Palestinians would only need nine out of 15 Security Council votes to refer their statehood request to the General Assembly, which can then address the matter immediately (if in session) or can call an emergency special session, as has been done 10 times since 1950, most recently in 1997, when it was convened to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The other option is for the Palestinian government to submit their request for full member status to the Security Council again, forcing the U.S. to veto it over and over.
"We can keep on going back to the Security Council again and again," Areikat said.
The Obama administration has been working hard to try to convince the Palestinians not to move forward at the United Nations. State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at today's briefing that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas today. Also, the NSC's Dennis Ross and Acting Special Envoy David Hale were in the Middle East and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today. Hale, but not Ross, will meet with Abbas Wednesday.
The Clinton call was "to urge President Abbas to receive them and hear them with open ears and to continue to work hard with us to avoid a negative scenario in New York at the end of the month," Nuland said. "We will continue to oppose any one-sided actions at the U.N. And we're making that clear to both sides."
"We respect their position, we expect them to respect our position. It's not a secret that they are asking us not to go the United Nations. It's not a secret that we are telling them we have to go to the United Nations," Areikat said.
But he said the Palestinian leadership no longer had faith in the United States or the international community to set forth a process for peace negotiations that both the Israeli and Palestinian sides could agree to. It's been a year since President Barack Obama established Sept. 2011 as the deadline for setting forth a framework for a final settlement, but "nothing has really happened," Areikat said.
"We have been waiting for over a year for the international community and the United States to create a formula that will constitute a basis for resuming negotiations and what we've seen is a total rejection on the part of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government to engage."
Prompted by The Cable, Areikat also responded to comments made in our interview with Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren last week, who said that if the Palestinians move forward with their statehood drive, all bilateral agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians could be at risk, including the Oslo Accords.
"The agreement that Oren is accusing the Palestinians of violating is an agreement that Israel has rendered obsolete in the first place," he said, referring to the Oslo Accord specifically. "It's really shocking to hear that he is threatening to abandon the agreements with the PLO, which also provided certain stability to Israel and Israelis. I don't see how by abandoning the Oslo accords Israeli will be serving its own interests."
The State Department last week urged both sides to honor their existing agreements, despite the new diplomatic tussle. Areikat warned that the scuttling of standing agreements could have repercussions for Israel as well.
"If the Israelis want to take an action, there will be a reaction. If they want to throw away an agreement, it will also have an impact on them," he said.
Areikat also criticized leaders of the U.S. Congress, who is threatening to cut some or all of the $550 million in annual aid to the Palestinian government if it moves forward with the statehood push at the U.N., calling such an action "unwise and unconstructive."
"We definitely hope the U.S. Congress understands the fact that any steps taken to put pressure on the Palestinians is going to adversely affect U.S. interests and even the interests of Israel in the region," he said. "I hate to see members of Congress threatening to use financial support to try to influence Palestinian positions on this issue."
UPDATE: A State Department official confirms that Ross did end up meeting with Abbas Wednesday, along with Hale.
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, FOREIGN AID, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
The threat of invoking Res 377 is sobering stuff for Obama
Think about it: if the USA oh-so-casually vetos this bid **and** the Palestinians then invoke UNGA Res 377 **then** they will be creating a huge precedent for undermining the value/utility of that veto.
Which is something that Would Not Be In The National Interest Of The USA
The Americans should therefore have one all-important priority: to do whatever it takes to prevent that precedent from being set.
At the moment they seem to think they can do that by putting out the begging bowl and pleading with the Palestinians not to go to the UN.
Yeah, OK, maybe that will work. But I doubt it.
And because it is so doubtful then the State Dept should be considering what to do next if/when David Hale's begging bowl remains empty.
I would suggest that if this bid **does** get to the UNSC (despite Hale/Ross's best efforts) then the only sensible course of action for the USA is to...... stand aside and let it pass i.e. to abstain, and therefore to avoid that precedent being set.
It screws Israel, sure.
But so what? Screw 'em.
After all, Netanyahu was elected to deal with Israel's national interest, not Obama......
welcome to http://www.lovetoshopping.org
lovetoshopping.org
Put something as dividing as this before the world. Rather than trying to work through the world's only superpower, a dubious neutral party at best, bypass its continued stonewalling and use the UN. That's what it is there for. To provide the lesser countries and want to be countries with a stage upon which they can prove their case. Show the US that the UN, which they worked to create, can do the job it was created for. To be a non-partisan (as best as possible where 1 "person" can veto the whole thing) judge and organization for the betterment of world peace.
Anyone who thinks that if this goes through damages Israel is crazy. You don't think that any fledgling Palestinian nation will immediately work to control itself as much as possible before trying anything else? Of course they will. Do you think that control will actually happen anytime soon? Of course not. Therefore, what is going to happen is, they will become a state and directly afterwords become rather insular with little to no interest in Israel as they try to fully establish their own credentials inside their own brand-new state. They will simply have no time to behave aggresively towards Israel, indeed, they would have more incentive to establish some sort of peace with Israel so they don't have to continually look over their shoulders while trying to become their own nation.
Its that simple. Endorse it behind the agreement that the PLO will be in charge and allow UN election officials to oversee elections. How long do you think Hamas would remain in power if the people of the Gaza Strip knew that if they joined with the PLO, they could become a state, actual and whole, with all the patriotic feelings of nationalism that would engender?
Or they could remain with Hamas and remain blockaded and become outcasts even from their own people, as the rest of Palestine worked towards its historic goal?
Think about it.
Arabs in West Bank vs. Arabs in Gaza
Although their share the same religion, & language, and label themselves "Palestinians", these two groups have nothing else in common.
In fact, the Arabs in WB are Jordanians, who consider themselves more cosmopolitans and cultured. They loath the Egyptian living Gaza - whom they consider as peasants, fundamentalist Muslims. This explains why the Islamists managed to get foothold in Gaza & not in the WB.
I'm perplexed by how many people, especially informed experts, still write as if the vote on Palestinian statehood will take place. At best, they'll get a vote to make them an observer state. That, in fact, may be their plan B - get observer statehood, which then allows them to join the ICC and request peacekeeping forces from the UN in Gaza and the West Bank.
The whole United for Peace resolutions is a red herring. It worked in the 1950s because of the Soviet Union's boycott of Council meetings. That won't work again.
All in all, the idea of a Palestinian statehood vote is a manufactured crisis in international affairs.
Come September 2013 and you might see the new observer state Palestine take the next step toward statehood - by which time a number of other government may have recognized it and Obama won't be needing to be re-elected.
governing principles and paradigms at play here
let's not forget the governing principles and paradigms at play here:
# nations, especially democracies, do not belong to religions/races/ethnicities, but to all their citizens. Israel belongs to its citizens and those who were illegally kicked out or illegally prevented from returning after war, including Jews, but not JUST to Jews.
# human rights are not vested in groups, but only in individuals, regardless of group membership
# the people of the West Bank have a right to enfranchisement (either their own country or to Israeli citizenship), and this right is not contingent on them recognizing Israel as the state of the Jews (states belong to their citizens/residents, not to a religious subset of them).
# the only legally binding human rights, are those tied to present geography or immediate blood kinship, not to ancestral heritage or religious association
# you do not have the right to move somewhere just because others of your religion live there or your distant ancestors used to live there. There is no principle in international law sanctioning such a right.
# the right to self-determination applies to geographically contiguous people, not to people of a religious/ethnic/cultural/racial group
# Israel is a hybrid theocratic state where ID cards show the religion of the citizen (via the presence or absence of the Hebrew date), orthodox rabbis decide who is eligible for immigration, and civil or inter-religious marriage(miscegenation) is forbidden within the country.
# without the wars of 1948 and 1967, and the consequent excuse for ethnic cleansing, Israel would never have had the demographics to constitute anything resembling a "Jewish democracy". As it is, there are already as many non-Jews as Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean (Israel + West Bank + Gaza strip).
# Unlike Israel, Egypt and Jordan didn't transfer their own population into the West Bank when they occupied it. The 4th article of the Geneva Convention says it's a war crime to build settlements and transfer population into an occupied territory. By not annexing the West Bank for 40 years, Israel has conceded any argument that the West Bank is anything other than occupied territory.
Excercise in Intellectual foot dancing.
# No nation which gains land as clear result of defending itself can be morally compelled to return that land to its aggressor.
# Law of common sense dictates that, when you attack your neighbor (1948), because of its religion, or any other reason, and lose that war. You should expect to bear the consequences of your belligerence.
Otherwise, in your long essay, all one needs to do is, Replace the name:
Israel with Pakistan
Jewish with Muslims.
1948 & 1967 with 1947.
It will turn your entire thesis on its head.
What the hell do you think the reason for which Pakistan was ripped from the heart of Mother India, and made independent - Religious sovereignty.
On the eve of their independence, the Pakistani Muslims threw more then 8M Hindus from their homes and land, and tossed over the border into India - because of their religion (and India reciprocated with equal number of Muslims).
Where are the refugee camps along the India-Pakistan borders? Why Arab countries did not follow the same example and absorb them - much like Jordan did.
You gotta laugh when a hasbarist starts talking "morals"
"No nation which gains land as clear result of defending itself can be morally compelled to return that land to its aggressor."
Israel attacked first in the Six Day War, which does rather take the wind out of your "defending itself" argument.
Because that's the problem with your argument i.e. you can claim all the "moral high ground" you want, but that concept is simply an excuse for an argument not a pointer to international law.
After all, when was the last war where the two protagonists DIDN'T point the finger at each other and shouted "But! But! They started it!!!!!"
Heck, even the wehrmacht claimed that Poland started WW2: see "the Gleiwitz incident"
That's one of the reasons why international law simply does not **CARE** who started it.
It Simply Does Not Care Wether Or Not The Occupier Is Claiming Righteous Victimhood.
All it cares about is this: if the smoke clears and YOUR army is standing on FOREIGN soil then YOUR army has become an army of occupation.
And you simply can not claim territory for yourself merely because you have an army of occupation sitting in it.
Sorry, but them's the rules.
What transpired this war, and how it came about - it is all well documented. You can read them for yourself.
It was after Egypt closed the straights of Hormuz in Sinai, a lifeline to Israel's commerce to Africa. Then he (along with Syria & Jordan), amassed their military forces on the Israeli border with clear intent to attack this tiny country.
With luck of strategic depth, they left no choice for Israel, BUT to initial a preventive attack onto its enemies.
Sings The Song of Hasbarah......
"It was after Egypt closed the straights of Hormuz in Sinai, a lifeline to Israel's commerce to Africa."
Errr, dude, Egypt's territorial waters cover the Strait of Tiran at that precise location, so Egypt was well within its rights to say that no Israeli-flagged ship could traverse its territorial waters.
And, besides, I happen to know something that you clearly do not i.e. that "lifeline to Israel's commerce" wasn't actually being plied by **any** Israeli-flagged ships i.e. all the ships running the "Eilat route" were foreign-flagged.
Which meant that Nasser's "blockade" was merely a paper blockade, since he knew full well that There Were No Israel Ships To Block.
"Then he (along with Syria & Jordan), amassed their military forces on the Israeli border with clear intent to attack this tiny country."
Gosh! That must be why Nasser had all this troops dug into foxholes, and all his tanks positioned well to the rear i.e. in a classic Russian defensive formation.
Didn't you know that? Sharon certainly did, which is why he fought that land battle in the way that he did.
"With luck of strategic depth, they left no choice for Israel, BUT to initial a preventive attack onto its enemies."
OK, I'll just stop you right there and point out that while int'l law allows for "pre-emptive strikes" no allowances are made for "preventive strikes".
You can't attack someone merely because he is rattling his sabres at you.
You can't attack someone merely because he has mobilized his troops.
Neither of those "proves" that the hammer is about to fall on you, and if you knew ANYTHING about international humanitarian law (clearly, you do not) then you would know that the criteria for "pre-emption" is this one:
"a necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation"
Since it is a fact that the IDF struck when the Egyptian Foreign Minister was on landing approach to Washington for an emergency meeting with the US President then I would suggest to you that what the Israelis were "preventing" was not
(a) an imminent attack by Egypt
but was, instead
(b) any chance that the President might clunch a deal that would diffuse this crisis.
Mister,
You have no clue of what you are talking about. You are talking to Israeli, like most of us, have had direct and tangible experience with the Arab hatred of Jews.
In regards to Israeli settlements in WB. It came only after Israel had learned the significance of Arafat's "10 Step Phase Plan" adapted in 1974, where they laid out 10 phase plan to dismantlement Israel piece-by-piece. Be it through diplomatic negotiations (Camp David & Taba in 2000 & 2001). By terror, or demographic. (Why the hell do you think, they insist so much on their Right of Return?)
It was then, when Israel reached the conclusion, PLO has no plan to sign peace with Israel. In 1981 Ariel Sharon had decided to turn the tables on the Palestinians, and apply their own plan against them - one settlement at a time.
Had the Arab accepted UNR 181 in 1947, all this mess would not have happened, and state of Palestine would have celebrated it 63rd birthday.
The bottom line is. Arab leaders had made a big mistake - their ultra-ego prevents them from admit their mistake vis-a-vis the Pals. Now they refuse to accept the tragic consequences of their tragic mistake - and conveniently blame it on the Jews.
. . to witness the israeli confusion and bafflement as those sub-par Palestinian Arabs launch these sophisticated moves.
Who knows? Eventually, Israel may stomp, Mussolini-like, out of the UN it clearly views as populated by its inferiors. That will give the N the opportunity to undo it's biggest mistake, and revoke Israel's recognition and label it as the rogue entity it is.
I would not wish to be making Obama’ s decision on this, it would keep me awake nights. Although there are three possibilities, his choice is only between a veto and an abstention. It would be much easier to explain an abstention because it can accommodate two elements that are not mutually exclusive; that the US does not favour the bid and even considers it counter productive, if not potentially dangerous, but that it is not the an appropriate use of the veto to defy so large and varied a section of global opinion. Therefore the US will abstain while insisting in unequivocal terms that any attempt by any nation or group to jeopardise Israeli security will swiftly receive the full force of a US military response.
It is difficult to see how this would actually do Israel any harm. But it could do wonders for US credibility, even to the point of recreating the global optimism that first welcomed Obama’ s accession to the White House.
I am reminded of a nineteenth century account of a family crossing the snow swept Russian tundra in a sleigh, pursued by a pack of ravenous wolves drawing closer by the minute, who reluctantly threw their youngest overboard to effect their escape.
The sensible thing for the UN to do at this juncture is send a UN peacekeeping force to the area to ensure that neither party ignites a conflict.
Quod non fiet, mihi crede
I think you must mean current and future aspirations. In any event, how many supporters Israel has will become clear at the UN in a couple of weeks.. All that is really necessary is for Israel to retire behind internationally agreed borders and then everybody can relax and Israel’s security becomes a responsibility of us all. You are, perhaps, mistaken about people not talking about Jewish history for reasons of ‘political correctness; it is simply of limited interest compared, for example, with the history of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China to name but a few. The ‘political correctness’ into which we are all corralled is a product of Jewish paranoia which sees any criticism of even the most aberrant Israeli behaviour as anti-semitic and then cuts and pastes it onto the Nazi treatment of Jews, gays and gypsies. Most people have tried hard enough to be understanding for years but now they have had about enough of it.
I apologise if my comment led you to think I consider Jewish history to be unimportant, I never used that word. I wrote that is was of less interest compared with others. This is a subjective view since obviously and understandably it is of the ‘utmost’ interest to you and doubtless many others, but not everyone; there are nigh on seven billion of us, remember. A connection between the Temple Mount and the Palestinian statehood moves at the UN is a bit too deep for me, I am sorry. Similarly, I find it difficult to understand in what way the ‘under-statement’ (and I am not sure what that word means) of the contribution of Jews to the world can be regarded as anti-semitism. Might it not simply be ignorance or disinterest? Does it matter more that Einstein, for instance, was Jewish than that Alexander Graham Bell was a Scottish Presbyterian? That, by the way, is a rhetorical question not seeking an answer.
I very sorry to hear that there are “…Palestinians together with Islamic fundamentalist within their ranks and in the region” who want to kill you and deny your history. It must be singularly disagreeable to live with such convictions. However, you should understand that others of us have URL similar concerns.
After a while these exchanges can become circuitous so, if it’s all the same to you, I will thank you for your contributions and bid you ‘goodnight’.
"The harm that it would cause to Israel and it current and future supporters is that once the vote is passed, it could never be reverersed."
And? So?
After all, the vote will be on a very specific topic i.e. wether (or not) to allow the state of Palestine to join the UN.
It what way would a decision in favour **need** to be reversed?
Palestine will become a full member state of the UN, and as such it will receive exactly the SAME privileges and protections that all other member states ( including, I will point out, Israel) currently receives.
Again: what, exactly, is **wrong** with that?
After all, one of the protections it will have is that prohibiting other states from seeking to slice 'n' dice it up which, of course, is exactly what Netanyahu wants to do.
But note this: being protected against dismemberment is not the same thing as saying that the borders of this state (indeed, the borders of any state) are set in stone.
They are not: states are "sovereign", and so nothing prevents them from entering negotiations with anyone with the aim of agreeing to a mutually-beneficial alteration of their shared border.
Why did you think otherwise?
"Its about Palestinians not willing to accept Jews."
Again, how does allowing the state of Palestine join the United Nations as a full member state alter (for good or for bad) their evident unwillingness to say that They Love You With All Their Heart?
Answer: It doesn't, precisely because UN membership gives the Palestinians no extra "rights" to be anti-semitic, no does it compel them to swear out loud that they think you are just the bestest neighbours that anyone could ever hope for.
Israel can respond with:
Make sure the division between Hamas & PLO will be kept alive. Such that, State of Palestine will be only by name. Gaza (Hamastan) is one state, and WB is another. (The can forget about ever gain control over Jews holiest sites in Jerusalem).
Stop buying produce from these two territories - a major income for the Palestinian farmers.
Stop cooperating with PLO on internal security matters, which no doubt, Abu Mazen government will fall.
Let Hamas take over the government of Palestine. Since it refuses to recognize the state of Israel, it will be declared enemy state, after which all bets are off.
As a sovereign state, Palestine will have the same obligations and responsibilities of its actions - much like any other state.
Israeli & Jewish lawyers throughout the world will file massive criminal complains with the International Court, against the leaders of Palestine, for each and every rocket, a suicide bombing, which resulted in Israeli casualties.
Then we will see how far the Pals will progress.
Oh, dear, you appear to forget something....
"As a sovereign state, Palestine will have the same obligations and responsibilities of its actions - much like any other state"
!!!!!
Even if the USA absents itself from the Security Council when the vote is taken then Palestine will ***still*** be a state that is under the direct authority of an Army Of Occupation.
It will be a state, but it will ***still*** be a state that is under the belligerent occupation of the neighbouring state of Israel and, THEREFORE, that occupying power will have obligations and responsibilities towards the occupied that - so sorry - the occupied do not have towards their occupier.
This is a belligerent occupation i.e. the very presence of that word "belligerent" invalidates your nonsensical argument, precisely because it is the OCCUPIER who is the BELLIGERENT.
Man, I was going to suggest that zionists are terminally tunnel-visioned, but that's not strictly correct, is it?
Noooooo, a zionist can't see what's going on around him because of a different reason i.e. he has his head firmly shoved where The Sun Don't Shine.
Palesinians "Plan B" vs. Israel's "Plan A"
People are shook up on the prospect that, the Palestinians will declare statehood. Swell.
While all eyes are indeed focused on the PLO, many are oblivious to Israel own "Plan A" of responding to this prospect. here are few of them.
1). After the recognition, the belief is PLO will file lawsuits against Israelis for "cast lead" in 2009.
Israeli lawyers, and Jewish ones from around the world, will espond with their own lawsuits in Hague, on behalf of the Israeli families, against PLO leaders. A lawsuit for each and every PLO suicide bombing since 2001.
They will do the same against Hamas leaders, for each and every rocket launched from Gaza onto Israel - until this court will be chocked - unable to function..
2). It is well known secret that, PLO's survival in the WB is the result of the close cooperation between PLO & Israel internal security forces.
The moment Abu Mazan goes through his plan, Israel will abandon him and leave him to the dogs from the Hamas, backed by Iran. And he knows it.
3). As a sovereign state, PLO leaders no longer will have the legitimacy tot demand their citizen be settled in someone else's state - bye bye "right of Return".
4). From 20 Sep. 2011, Palestine is state recognized by the world community. It will also be fully responsible for any hostile move which comes from its land onto Israel. No longer defined as the "defenseless occupied land".
These are just few of the options and tools available to the Israelis which could make Abu Mazan & co quite uncomfortable and life harder for them.
PLO's 10 Step "Phase Plan" to dismantle the state of Israel
Here is the very reason why Israel & US object to Pals unilateral declaration of statehood.
Comments & clarification
a) The word “Homeland”. PLO means the entire state of Israel.
b) PLO's ultimate goal is to unify their “Homeland” with Jordan, & rule both.
c) PLO refuses to accept UNR 242. which calls for peaceful co-existence between PLO & Israel.
d) PLO admits of its goal to become a socialist-Islamic state.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Program Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestine National Council. Ratified in Cairo, 8 June 1974
On the basis of the Palestine National Charter and the Political Program drawn up at the eleventh session, held from 6-12 January 1997; and from its belief that it is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover from all their national rights and, first and foremost, their rights to RETURN AND TO SELF-DETERMINATION ON THE WHOLE OF THE SOIL OF THEIR HOMELAND; and in the light of a study of the new political circumstances that have come into existence in the period between the Council’s last and present sessions, resolves the following:
1. To reaffirm the Palestine Liberation Organization’s previous attitude to RESOLUTION 242, which obliterates the national right of our people and deals with the cause of our people as a problem of refugees. THE COUNCIL THEREFORE REFUSES TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS RESOLUTION AT ANY LEVEL, ARAB OR INTERNATIONAL, INCLUDING THE GENEVA CONFERENCE.
2. THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION WILL EMPLOY ALL MEANS, AND FIRST AND FOREMOST ARMED STRUGGLE, TO LIBERATE PALESTINIAN TERRITORY AND TO ESTABLISH THE INDEPENDENT COMBATANT NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE PEOPLE OVER EVERY PART OF PALESTINIAN TERRITORY THAT IS LIBERATED. This will require further changes being effected in the balance of power in favor of our people and their struggle.
3. The Liberation Organization will struggle against any proposal for a Palestinian entity the price of which is recognition, peace, secure frontiers, renunciation of national rights, and the deprival of our people of their right to RETURN AND THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION ON THE SOIL OF THEIR HOMELAND.
4. Any step taken towards liberation is a step towards the realization of the Liberation Organization’s strategy of establishing the democratic Palestinian State specified in the resolutions of the previous Palestinian National Councils.
5. Struggle along with the Jordanian national forces to ESTABLISH A JORDANIAN-PALESTINIAN NATIONAL FRONT WHOSE AIM WILL BE TO SET UP IN JORDAN A DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL AUTHORITY in close contact with the Palestinian entity that is established through the struggle.
6. The Liberation Organization will struggle to ESTABLISH UNITY IN STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO PEOPLES AND BETWEEN ALL THE FORCES OF THE ARAB LIBERATION MOVEMENT that are in agreement on this program.
7. In the light of this program, the Liberation Organization will struggle to strengthen national unity and to raise it to the level where it will be able to perform its national duties and tasks.
8. Once it is established, the Palestinian national authority will STRIVE TO ACHIEVE A UNION OF THE CONFRONTATION COUNTRIES, WITH THE AIM OF COMPLETING THE LIBERATION OF ALL PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, AND AS A STEP ALONG THE ROAD TO COMPREHENSIVE ARAB UNITY.
9. The Liberation Organization will STRIVE TO STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY WITH THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES, and with the forces of liberation and progress throughout the world, with the aim of frustrating all the schemes of Zionism, reaction and imperialism.
10. In light of this program, the leadership of the revolution will determine the tactics which will serve and make possible the realization of thee objectives.
The Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization will make every effort to implement this program, and should a situation arise affecting the destiny and the future of the Palestinian people, the National Assembly will be convened in extraordinary session.
Source: http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12354
All made rather redundant by an exchange of letters in 1993.
"I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:"
"The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."
Oopps. There goes your nonsense about the PLO "homeland" = all of the Mandated territory.
"The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338."
Well, gosh, *you* say the PLO doesn't recognize UNSC242, yet *they* say that they do.
Who to believe....
Who to believe....
Did yiou even read PLO own plan.
John
I posted PLO's own manuscript with point of interest highlighted with capital letters. It is clear you didn't read any of it.
Here it the paragraph which exactly talks about their position on UNR 242. THIS IS PLO'S OWN WORDS - NOT MINE
"1. To reaffirm the Palestine Liberation Organization’s previous attitude to RESOLUTION 242, which obliterates the national right of our people and deals with the cause of our people as a problem of refugees. THE COUNCIL THEREFORE REFUSES TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS RESOLUTION AT ANY LEVEL, ARAB OR INTERNATIONAL, INCLUDING THE GENEVA CONFERENCE."
"I posted PLO's own manuscript"
You post a PLO document that clearly says that it was ratified in 1974.
I point you to a PLO document that was dated 1993.
Plain commonsense insists that when those two documents explicitely contradict each other then *my* document trumps *your* document, for obvious chronological reasons.
Pretty simple, really.
After all, I can point you to documents that "prove" that the USA criminalized the drinking of alcohol in 1919.
Q: Does that mean that the USA still practices prohibition?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: 21st Amendment, 1933
All was needed. to insert a clause in the 1993 document which overrides similar clauses in the 1974 document, declares them null and void. They never did it and for good reason. They can apply each version in situation which will suit their insidious objectives.
!!!!!!!!!
They did exactly that in an Extraordinary Meeting of the PNC in April 1996.
They conveyed the precise meaning of that vote to Bill Clinton in January 1998.
They met **again** in December 1998 to reconfirm that vote following Israeli objections.
They conveyed the precise meaning of that vote to Bill Clinton in December 1998.
Queue the loud crowing from The Usual Crowd........
Office of the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyau: "Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed his satisfaction at the result of the PNC vote today, achieved as a result of the firm stance taken by the Government of Israel on the issue of the vote to revoke those clauses in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of the State of Israel."
Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu: "It is now important that the Palestinians carry out their part in full. Yesterday they took a positive step, they abrogated the Palestinian Covenant which called for the destruction of Israel, through a vote of the members of the PNC."
Office of the Israeli Minister of Defense, Yitzhak Mordechai: "The Defense Minister said that the clear support of those PNC members present and the representatives of the other senior Palestinian institutions in the ratification of Arafat's letter to Clinton, with the cancellation of those clauses in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel represents an important and crucial step in the carrying out of basic Palestinian commitments undertaken in agreements in Israel and particularly the Wye Agreement"
President of the United States of America, Bill Clinton: "I thank you for your rejection—fully, finally and forever—of the passages in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. For they were the ideological underpinnings of a struggle renounced at Oslo. By revoking them once and for all, you have sent, I say again, a powerful message not to the government, but to the people of Israel. You will touch people on the street there. You will reach their hearts there."
You are, as you always do, simply spouting ignorant nonsense.
In the light of this program, the Liberation Organization will struggle to strengthen national unity and to raise it to the level where gardening tips it will be able to perform its national duties and tasks.
John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(27)
SHOW COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE