United Nations approves Palestinian bid, a step before statehood

 

United Nations approves Palestinian request despite deliberate US/Israeli obstruction.

By

Joseph Chez

 

November 29, 2012

It is inconceivable that the role-model of democracy in today’s modern world, the United States of America, has systematically stood in the way of Palestinians creating their own recognized state under the United Nations Charter. Since 1948, when Israel declared itself a nation, the U.S. was first to give recognition to the Jewish state, followed by the Anglo mother-country, the United Kingdom, whose Parliamentary Balfour Declaration became the blueprint for a Jewish homeland,
but also made
it possible for the roots of today’s Palestinian/Israel world issue.

At the behest of the United Kingdom which then had control of much of Arabia, on November 29, 1947 the United Nations passed a resolution partitioning Palestine in what was envisioned to become two states living side by side: one; the state of Palestine; and two, a homeland for a Jewish state.  However, Arabs/Palestinians who lived in what was then known as Palestine in Trans-Jordan, were given no voice to object to Palestine being partitioned and a major portion of their land, be given to Jews – primarily emigrating from Europe. Thus began the conflict in which Palestinians began to fight the British and Jews, who they saw as occupiers.  However, the fractured nature of Arab clans and coupled with facing a heavy hand of a foreign army, Arab/Palestinians could not successfully fight the well-armed British and/or the zeal of Zionist emboldened to establish a Jewish state.  

 

On May 15, 1948, as the  British Mandate was about to end, Jewish settlers declared their independence from British rule and by de facto became a recognized nation, primarily by the say so of England  and its sibling, the United States of America.  Palestinians still living within the new Jewish state, fearing for their lives, fled the area. Thousands more who chose to remain were either killed by Jewish settlers or were forcibly expelled from their own homes and  property - becoming refugees in the thousands - in neighboring Arab lands.

 

However, it must be noted, that as a consequence of the British Balfour Declaration and subsequent UK sponsored United Nation’s partition resolution, Arab objection and conflict against a perceived intrusion of a Jewish state, has continued to this date.  Regrettably, even though the 1947 UN Partition Resolution was to create two states, only Israel has since acquired “state” status while the apportioned Palestinian lands became occupied by Israel. 

 

To this date, Palestinians living in what is quasi recognized Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, have lived under occupation and in virtual life in prison. And yet, much to the displeasure of the community of nations, against the subjugation of Palestinians by the Jewish state, numerous UN resolutions have been passed requiring Israel to abide by International Law and to end the occupation – but to no avail. Israel has thumbed its nose at the numerous UN resolutions and has kept a tight grip on the freedoms of Palestinians. This situation of course could not have happened if it were not for Israel’s mighty American benefactor, whose veto power at the UN Security Council has systematically killed any chance of dispute against Israel.  Accordingly, since Palestine has never acquired state status, Palestinians have had no standing before the jurisdiction of the United Nations. In fact, it has been the diplomatic strategy of England, the United States of America and Israel, to keep Palestinians from acquiring any form of recognition from the United Nations. This is because if Palestine has no state status, it can not bring its grievances before the world body. Thus, Palestine as a stateless occupied land - will remain in limbo.

 

Increasingly however, nations of the world have begun to recognize the malevolent actions of the state of Israel, despite the relentless and successful campaign by the United States, England and Israel to discredit Palestinian grievances or, label any angry Palestinian reactions, as those of terrorist. So I am reminded of a recent CNN interview of an Israeli government functionary who was attempting to explain the terrorist acts of Hamas in Gaza, as a mutual threat to the freedoms of Israelis and Americans… For which the CNN reporter asked of the Israeli: “so what would you do, if you were under occupation?”

 

A greater question is what’s in it for the U.S. in giving cover for the misgivings and lawlessness of the state of Israel? Why stand in the way of Palestinians achieving statehood? The answer is simple but still, enigmatic. There are three ways in which to approach this question; religiously, politically or of economics:

 

As absurd as it is stupid, the US describes itself as a Judeo-Christian nation and thus, bound by such dogma, Christians have evangelized US foreign policy.  Yes, the Christian ethos is so strong in current politics that government cannot ignore the biblical damnation if it does not come to the aid of Israel. In fact, many American believers now describe themselves as Christian Zionists, committed to the security of Israel. (The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah …All who lift it will surely hurt themselves… Zechariah 12:1-14)

 

Politically, American Christians have become a feared block of voters which pick and choose politicians. The once comical “Jesus freaks” or “moral majority” are no longer the laughing block but instead, have permeated into every corner of public life. It is no wonder thus, that expressing allegiance to Christian values is the American litmus test. To this end, Christians demand a forceful presence in Congress, but also preach politicians for an unquestionable mighty arm force, for the greatness of the country and for the defense of Israel.  Additionally, Jewish Americans also have a dynamic influence in American politics.  So strong is their reach, that Congress dares not cross certain boundaries when it concerns Israel. AIPAC you may say - gives politicians life or oblivion.  In addition, Israel has played the religious angle to its favor.  We now know that AIPAC/Israel recruited GW Bush for president and delivered – if he were to only take out Saddam Hussein, a mortal enemy and imminent threat to Israel. More currently, AIPAC/Israel also lobbied for would be US President, Mitt Romney, if he were to also, attack Iran.  Interestingly, Mitt’s Mormonism had him rooted in biblical ties with Israel. So what happened with Barack Obama winning the presidency? He vowed to the same litany of, in defense of Israel.

 

Economically, the U.S. consumes one third of the world’s hydrocarbons even though it has one sixth the world’s population. Conveniently, the Middle East is awash in petroleum, thus giving the US a need for controlling interest of the oil spigot in the region. Presently, Saudi Arabia is considered the number one oil producing nation, and of course, the mighty one and only extracting oil company in Saudi Arabia is ARAMCO (ArabAmericanCompany).  However, through out the region there are also many other nations rich in oil in which the US has a footprint. Regrettably, many of the Middle Eastern nations have royal families or worse, dictatorial regimes which keep much of the oil profits but keep their population in check. To this end, the U.S. is in a tight spot and reverts to propping up those repressive regimes in order to keep the oil flowing – to the US. Needless to say, the region is imminently important to the economic well being of the nation.  But why watch Israel’s back? Geo-politically, Israel is positioned strategically in the region for the US to intervene in the event of oil disruption from competitor nations or would be aggressors.  Moreover, the US has the most influential industrial military complex, framed in such a way that it becomes a revolving door for massive weapons systems to be sold to the Pentagon, retiring generals becoming CEOs of military/aero space companies, generals becoming lobbyist in Congress, Congress buying more weapons systems, the Pentagon unnecessarily decommissioning weapons systems and then transferring those systems to Israel, and thus, resulting in Israel pressuring Congress for more military hardware aid.  Congress therefore, feels the heat from AIPAC/Israel and approves more weapons systems ordered by the US military complex. One might then ask, if the US Congress and the American military complex truly have the security interest of the country in mind, or if it is plain dollars and nonsense – in defense of Israel?  

 

Regardless, the US feels compelled to embrace the social, political, religious and military ties that bind the US with Israel. Israel on the other hand, fully understands this American weakness and exploits the American tightly-wound religious/political undergarment and does not miss the opportunity to squeeze the Americans where it hurts, at their option and at the appropriate time. 

 

Consequently, as the world becomes impatient with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, sectors within the community of nations want the United Nations to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli issue, although governments are keenly aware that the United States and England have a disproportionate influence in world affairs and within the UN, for which resolution after resolution against the occupying state of Israel, goes down to defeat.  Moreover, the United States of America has forcefully assumed the role of arbitrator concerning the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  The Europeans on the other hand, have followed in such endeavor, but have demurred to the process as set by the United States and England.  Thus the question rises; why would Israel’s benefactor lead the discussion in arbitration in this critical matter and isn’t there a conflict of interest?

 

To avoid the conflict of interest perception, The United States and Israel have done the obvious, i.e. to propose a series of peace talks between the parties in order to achieve the goal of a two state solution – in theory. Accordingly, the US has sponsored a number of prominent peace talks in which the two parties are urged to resolve the issues and ultimately come up with a suitable and mutually peaceful two-state arrangement.  The folly of such conceptual trap however, is that Israel’s vision is to keep the land they have occupied, as they assert, that it is the promised land given by God to the Jews.  And by God, they aim to keep it that way.  Thus, the Camp David Accord of 1978, the Madrid Talks in 1991, the Oslo Accord in 1993, The Taba Agreement 1n 1995, the Wye River Memorandum in 1998, Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of 1999, the Camp David Summit in 2000, and the most recent in 2003 being the Quartet of the UN, US, EU and Russia - promoting the Road Map for Peace talks – have all been framed to give the illusion of progress, although requiring the Palestinians to meet certain unattainable goals before Israel would agree to give up any occupied territory. Thus it was foreseeable that each and every agreement has failed as it was designed to do so.  Furthermore, the United States has consistently argued that it is not for the United Nations to resolve the issue but that the two parties must mutually agree to a resolution – which is the same recipe for failure.

In as much as the world has caught on to the Israeli/US deception, Palestinians have realized that peace negotiations with Israel is but a hoax and therefore, have decided to go the route of United Nations recognizing Palestine as a state.  However, the US and Israel continue to argue that the only way for a two state resolution, is not through the UN but to go back to the peace table and both parties reach agreement.  But, since the Palestinian Authority sees no viable peace alternative with Israel, on this date of November 29, 2012, Palestinians will have made their bid for elevated status before the United Nations General Assembly.  At the same time, Israel’s government has threatened to annex Samaria and Judea if Mahmoud Abbas makes the bid before the UN. Worse, the current Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman has also threatened to do away with any and all Palestinian government officials, as it has been the unofficial Israeli government policy to assassinate Palestinian leaders.

 Today, history is at a crossroads, but even in the last minutes of the Palestinian presentation before the United Nations, the United States, at the behest of Israel, continued to discourage Palestinians from having the United Nations intercede in the process of Palestine gaining recognition as a future state.

 Thus, this date of November 29, 2012, the United Nations with an overwhelming majority of 138 nations voting in favor of Palestinians, to 9 abstaining or against, voted to grant Palestine elevated status, a closer step before acquiring full nation status. And yet, the question remains why the United States of America, the role model it portrays to be, has chosen to side on the wrong side of history?

 

OBAMA MAY HAVE THE LAST WORD IN THE ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS

Sept. 22, 2009

By Joseph Chez

Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1996 reflecting the hawkish attitude of Israel and Netanyahu's own personal promise to derail any peace talks with the Palestinians. He however partially failed, given that the world body wants to resolve the issue of the Palestinian question of a two state solution.

Comprehensive talks on the Israeli/Palestinian issue were taken up by the Madrid/ Oslo Peace Accord beginning in 1991. However, subsequent agreements have followed without success. This may be because Israel has not necessarily been on board, but has felt pressured to participate. Thus, primarily for those reasons, Israel has made it difficult for the Palestinians to meet much of the requirements as called for in the Madrid/Oslo Peace Accord, or subsequent agreements, such as the Hebron Agreement, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David,The Beirut Summit and most recently, the Road Map for Peace. But despite the core issues of discord - final borders, Jerusalem and the right of return of displaced Palestinians - the most contentious issue has been the continued building of Jewish settlements in contested Palestinian land.

Since July 2002, the United States, Europe, the United Nations and Russia have actively pushed the Road Map for Peace, but with little success. In contravention of previous accords or Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, Israel continues building illegal settlements under its understanding of "natural growth." Israel in addition, has tightened its security in occupied Palestinian land and consequently, Palestinians have suffered in ways which have been deemed "inhuman" by the U.N. General Assembly. Of course, Israel claims its right of self defense and continues to reciprocate attacks on its people by Palestinian insurgents.

In 1996, when Netanyahu was first elected, he initiated the reciprocal policy of retribution against Palestinian or Arab attacks on Israel. His political ticket for election then was for Israel not to participate in the peace process with the Palestinians. Unofficially, the State of Israel has since continued the same doctrine to this day, although, the tit-for-tat military responses against the Palestinians have been "disproportionate" as labeled by the latest United Nation's findings.

On the verge of CHANGE of US policy, President Obama was elected and took office in 2009. Consequently, Israel felt it no longer had the exclusive support of the U.S. and therefore, a coalition of the extreme right, once again, elected Benjamin Netanyahu in April 2009 as Israel's Prime Minister. Regrettably, Netanyahu's political platform was no different this time than in 1996.

President Obama, well respected and with high world popularity, has felt confident in the resolution for peace in the Middle East. However, Benjamin Netanyahu has remained steadfast in his stance of no peace negotiations with the Palestinians or cutting back on settlement building. In fact, as President Obama was calling for an immediate cessation of illegal settlements in contested Palestinian lands, newly elected Netanyahu argued that "natural growth" must continue. To this day, the US government has tacitly accepted that fact.

Today, the first meeting since their election, President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu met in Washington and it was more than obvious that President Obama showed his frustration with the lack of movement on the peace process. Accordingly, President Obama has asked for the Palestinians to take more concrete measures to assure the security of Israel, while at the same time, he has asked for Israel to provide greater freedom for the Palestinians as well as restrain on continued settlement activity. In sum, President Obama has stated that, " despite all the obstacles, the history, despite the mistrust, we must find a way forward... We can not continue with the same pattern of talking tentative steps forward and then stepping back". He also emphasized that peace negotiations must be given the opportunity to succeed and that even though, it would not be easy, that it was absolutely critical for all parties, including the world.

The question remains however, is whether, despite the hawkish and unyielding Benjamin Netanyahu, will President Obama succeed in his efforts to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - over the contested piece of holy land? Is President Obama greater and more influential than any previous prophet? After all, the road to peace has been mired by insurmountable obstacles and endless delays which places any prospect for peace - distant and unattainable.

And yet, while the hawk is resolute in its position against peace and a two state solution, the dove may just have the final word: The United States of America will now recognize the legal and complete political sovereignty of the State of Palestine with borders pre-existing 1967, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242, 252 and subsequent United Nations measures, thereof.

Peace.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHOULD RECOGNIZE PALESTINE AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE

.....Whereas the United States of America believes in equality and justice for all of mankind, the people of the United States of America declares its support and recognition for the independent State of Palestine effective June 1, 2009.

Mankind remains hopeful. However, the Prime Minister of Israel will soon meet and greet President Barack Obama in Washington D.C. We know of course that the main topic of conversation will focus on the world's point of origin for its primary geo-political problem; the Israeli continued occupation of Palestinian territory and world efforts to bring about a two-state solution. Yet, once again the new Israeli leader comes to Washington to get its credentials legitimized and receive a nod and a wink of the eye. But, will President Obama follow the failed pattern of a failed foreign policy for the Middle East? Of course, President Barack Obama has publicly indicated that he hopes and supports for a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. On the other hand, the new Israeli leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for "strong measures" and containment of the Palestinian people. Conveniently however, he has also avoided supporting a two-state solution.

Since 1967, Israel has occupied land, in clear and defiant posture to the United Nation Security Council's Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw to pre-5 June 1967 lines. Still, each and every Israeli government, with the aid and abetting of the United States, has made little effort to abide by the UN Resolution. Instead, the process has been set up to deceive the world, by mock-trials placed on the Palestinians to see if they will meet certain criteria - before concrete peace talks could began. The requirements placed on previous agreements, were so insurmountable, they were conceived and designed to make any and all efforts for peace doomed for failure. In other words, the road to peace has had the look and feel of a mirage. Consequently, nothing changes in respect to resolving the issue of occupied lands or abiding by international law or UN mandates.

This time, Benjamin Netanyahu, on his subsequent second post as prime minister for Israel, again leads a far-right Israeli government. His agenda is a no-holds- bar against the Palestinians; "harsh measures and containment" he has said. Should we surprised? After all, it has been Israel's policy to only withdraw to pre 1967 lines, if and when the State of Israel felt safe and its boundaries were secured. Thus, under such pretext, Israel's only concern has been to retain and annex much of the territories it now occupies since June 1967.

Clearly, President Barack Obama without equivocation, must invoke its own posture for a two-state solution and not be drawn into a deceptive peace process as did his predecessors. Of much concern, is PM Netanyahu's support from the extreme right in Israel. His foreign minister , Avigdor Lieberman has made no secret of wanting to ethnically cleanse Israel and occupied lands of all Arabs. This should send chills to every decent American. Thus, continued complicity with Israeli deception can only be counter productive to the safety and stability of the entire world.

Notwithstanding, many sectors of opinion believe that the issue of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is unsolvable and thus, peace unattainable. Driving this premise is of course, far-right religious groups in the United States and in Israel. But, is a two-state solution difficult, or peace attainable? The answer is relative to the willingness to truly wanting peace and a Palestinian state along side the Israeli state. In my view, peace can only be accomplished when an independent Palestinian state is established. There should be no pre-conditions set by Israel or the United States, and UN Resolution 242 must be enforced. Jerusalem can be divided in to two sectors and either or both parties can choose to make their portion - their capital. A major concession by by Israel could be that it accepts the Arabs not accepting Israel as a state- as it would matter little since the world body, the UN, would give its full recognition. On the Arab side, Palestinians could concede to a "no right of return" for former Palestinians who previously owned land and were illegally driven out by Israeli authorities -and became refugees. Of course, there should be a just compensation for these Palestinians who lost their legal property.

Further, it is ironic that in the United States, its people democratically toppled the far-right Bush government, but only to have a far-right government elected in Israel. Consequently, President Obama and its Israeli counterpart now find themselves diametrically positioned - at opposite ends of the issue. So what President Obama must do? He must remain resolute on his judicious views and convictions - but also realize that PM Netanyahu is willing and able to continue the deception for peace. And yet, there is hope. For in the State of Israel, there are still voices of reason, sensibility and peace seekers. Yesterday, Shimon Peres, a former prime minster of Israel, went before AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group in the U.S. which lobbies in behalf of the State of Israel) and touching on the issue of peace, he said it best, "I only have one question, WHY NOT NOW"?

In 1948, when the Jewish state declared its independence, the United States of America was the first to recognize Israel's sovereignty and thus - the State of Israel was born. Today, 60 years later, the insurmountable Israeli/Palestinian problem can and should be resolved. In fact, putting aside deception and religious obstacles, the United States of America can just as easily put an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by simply, not just giving support to the peace process, but by officially proclaiming recognition for the sovereignty and independent State of Palestine - and peace will follow. Yes we can.

Joseph Chez