Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Hurdles to Palestine bid for UN non-member state status

The United Nations will vote Thursday on upgrading the Palestinian status from an 'observer' to a non-member state. Will Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah pragmatic party Fatah succeed in getting such a recognition when UN dominating power US and countries like Australia, France and Germany chose to oppose it?

It is paradoxical that Israel’s current government is so vehemently opposed to Abbas’s bid for recognition.

After all, it was 65 years ago this week, on Nov. 29, 1947, that the Palestinians and their friends in the Arab world expressly rejected United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which recognised the need to establish a Jewish state alongside an Arab state in the former British Mandate territory of Palestine.

Now, the Palestinians are 'admitting their mistake' and asking the same assembly to recognise a state of Palestine alongside Israel, and requesting that the boundaries of their state be determined as a result of negotiations with Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel’s right-wing parties - which in 1993 rejected the Oslo Accords that envisaged Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of Palestinian autonomy in those areas - are now using, and abusing, that same agreement to prevent Palestinian statehood.

This week’s request wouldn’t be taking place if both sides had abided by the Oslo Accords’ original time frame, if Israel’s peacemaking prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, hadn’t been assassinated in 1995, and if we’d reached a permanent agreement by May 1999, as initially envisioned, some analysts opined.

Britain, one of the world's former colonial master would like the Palestinians drop the demand until it is further discussed by the world body.

However, London is prepared to back a key vote recognising Palestinian statehood at the UN if Mahmoud Abbas pledges not to pursue Israel for war crimes and to resume peace talks.

Abbas has called for Britain's backing in part because of its historic responsibility for Palestine. The government has previously refused, citing strong US and Israeli objections and fears of long-term damage to prospects for negotiations

On Monday night, the UK government signaled it would change tack and vote yes if the Palestinians modified their application, which is to be debated by the UN general assembly in New York later this week. As a 'non-member state', Palestine would have the same status as the Vatican.

Abbas is also being asked to commit to an immediate resumption of peace talks 'without preconditions' with Israel, a condition deemed to be bias and siding Tel Aviv. The third condition is that the general assembly's resolution does not require the UN security council to follow suit.

Australia will abstain from voting on a contentious Palestinian bid for upgraded United Nations status after Prime Minister Julia Gillard caved in to intense pressure from within her party.

The Labor government will not vote for or against the Palestinian resolution when it comes before the UN General Assembly on Thursday, even though Gillard strongly opposes it. She told a Labor caucus meeting on Tuesday she would support the abstention after canvassing the views of her ministers and backbenchers and finding many with views sharply different from her own.

But she warned she did not think the resolution would advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.

However, the key factor is still Washington's refusal to support such a bid. While Barack Obama himself has shown some 'positive attitude' towards the Middle East peace, his administration is still plagued with anti-Palestine sentiment, linking Palestine to Iran, Libya and 'Muslim terrorists'.

I personally see a big divide to the voting on Thursday. With US and allies opposing it, Palestine will remain the world's 'persona non grata'. Its going to be tough... and failure is imminent.


mat gaza said...

they wont succeed bro.

the us wont let it pass through, the israel will boycott the forum while others will abstain.

so, where would this lead palestine to?

penangan said...

salam tn,

menyedihkan. saya sendiri tak yakin bangsa2 bersatu akan berjaya memberikan taraf ini kepada palestin.

mereka di pbb banyak termakan kata2 dan kongkongan amerika syarikat, sekutu utama israel.

jadi, macam mana usul ni hendak diluluskan dengan suara majoriti?

britain pula hanya bermain kata2, saja nak tunjuk baik walhal dialah punca segala masalah suatu masa dahulu.

sampai bila pun palestin akan jadi warga 'sampah' di bangsa2 bersatu!

sedih memikirkan nasib masa depan mereka!

karipuley said...

let them try... as the had a few times before.

i also share your view... not gonna be easy... the US is always there nailing them!

Anonymous said...

they had failed a couple of times and if they fail again, it will be the same story...

bani ansar said...

inilah amerika yang kita dan seluruh dunia agung-agungkan selama ini, penuh dengan sifat hasad dengkinya dengan negara lain.

dalam mengambil pendiriannya, malaysia perlu menunggu apa keputusannya esok dan jika ternyata amerika dan sekutunya sekali lagi menghancurkan harapan masa depan rakyat palestin, maka ia perlulah dikutuk sekeras-kerasnya.

himalaya said...

they are not only facing the israelis at home but also a strong american dan western opposition at the united nations.

the palestine-israel conflict will be prolonged to fulfill the US desire to stop any new islamic power from rising.

they had levelled iraq, afghan and others, killing their hardline leaders like gaddafi and saddam hussein who were branded as terrorists.

look at how they run iraq and afghan, sucking away their oil and other natural reserves for their own benefit.

muslim nations are not united... they remain divided!

Anonymous said...

First, we must admit that US has tremendous power and influence. What they say determines what is decided at the UN. Other members of the Security Council can only water down the wordings of resolutions. And, through financial aids, grants and what have you, many of the 190 plus members at the UN General Assembly will raise their hands when the US Ambassador does.

Then, we must recognize that things have been changing. Yes, the Soviet Union has broken up, leaving a less powerful Federation of Russian States. And China has gained prominence, though not yet a Super Power - they have just begun to build an aircraft carrier, already sabre rattling a little but their economy slowing down, their country so riddled with corruption that the outgoing President Hu warned the Politbureau that the Chinese Communist Party may lose ytheir power and the country weakened. Seasoned military analysts have said they'll take quite some time yet to reach a Super Power stage. Russia and China form a formidable challenge to US adventurism in the future - Israel could not simply bomb Iranian nuclear facilities even if US lets them without seriously thinking possible Russian and Chinese reactions.

Then, changes in US itself. The Jews, Zionists and so-called Neo-Conservatives (half or one quarter Jews etc) could not get their man Mitt Romney to become President despite pumping literally billions of US dollars into his election campaign advertisements etc. The Blacks, Latinos, Asians and other non-Whites have increased in numbers and do exercise their votes. If this trend sustains in future, there will be hope for a settlement of the Palestinian problem.

As for now, and for the matter at the UN, we will have to resign to the fate of the Palestinians like before. But we need to continue to shout against the Israelis and the pro-Zionist Americans all the same. Do whatever we can to help get a change, and pray that US Presidents after Obama will follow his stand and not be goaded by the Zionists like stupid George W Bush was in bombing Iraq.

Anonymous said...


I agree with most of what you said. But the phrase "the US desire to stop any new islamic power from rising" may be clarified.

Of course Al Qaeda and the blowing up of the New York Twin Towers have made many Americans anti-Muslims. But the non-Jews, non-conservative Whites in the US don't really see the Muslims as enemies. Many simply follow the flow of opinion in the country, but quite a number have taken to Obama's stand of speaking for and supporting the truth.

And the truth is that there should be a balance of power everywhere in the world. And he has now embarked on finding the "pivot" in that balance of power even in the East, visiting and befriending Burma, Thailand and Cambodia a week ago. That which no American President has done for a long, long time.

I'm not trying to be "a little brown American", as said of pro-US people of this area in the past. It is my hopeful thinking that the US will play a more responsible role, discarding the "Ugly American" image of old, and have more Barrack Obamas in the future. So that the Palestinian problem can be solved. And Israel cease their abominable habit of bullying.

Anonymous said...

True, despite Obama's somewhat acceptable disposition on the Middle East issue, the US administration is reluctant to change it's support for Israel.

This is because there are so many Jews holding posts at the higher levels in the US administration. Those who ran away from Europe etc to US were generally the moneyed ones, who could afford better education and get to high US administration jobs.

A former Ambassador and a high official in the State Department, Dennis Ross, even withdrew his support for Obama when the latter was not taking a proactive stand for Israel. Such Jews may no longer hold official positions but their views are still sought by those in the administration on an unofficial basis.

For a solution to the Palestinian problem, there is a need for Obama-like Presidents at the top and the lessening of Jews - particularly Zionists (politically active Jews) - in the administration. That'd take a pretty long time. But we must continue to talk about it for a realization, however gradual, by the international public.

Anonymous said...

Hah, The Washington Post says, "THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY will almost certainly win a vote Thursday (not yet in New York, now 3.30 pm Thurs in Malaysia) in the U.N. General Assembly granting observer status to a state of Palestine."

But the reasons for getting it are less than gratifying - they say PLA has become so weak, vis-a-vis its rival, the Gaza-based Hamas movement, that some governments, such as Britain, are considering voting for the resolution, even though they oppose it in principle. They fear that the PLA is fading into irrelevance.

Whatever they are, if true, it'll be a step forward for the Palestinians.

Anonymous said...

Here's an example of how US Administration officials may muddle up official US policy lines by speaking out their personal views - be they on Israel, Palestine or President Morsi of Egypt -

Washington Post reports of a series of tweets this morning that seem to imply that an official(s) at the US Embassy Cairo considers Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is at risk of becoming a dictator. That differs from the State Department’s official statement.

The tweeter account @USEmbassyCairo communicates the personal views of embassy staffers as if they were official positions, creating some obvious contradictions in U.S. diplomacy which is carried under the account @StateDept.

These personal views do mess up the official stand and influence people's thinking on what the US stand is on important issues. They could be Neocons, Jews or Zionists.

The US is said to be opposing the Palestinian Authority's request for non-member state status at the UN, but if the Assembly approves the Palestinian request as envisaged by the paper's earlier report, those out to confuse or influence the views of others against the Palestinians would have lost in this instance.