Q: You have stressed that resorting to the UNSC is a “first step”. Are you saying that the Palestinian leadership is mulling other moves?

Now that Palestine was admitted as a non-member state in the UN, we have full rights any state has. We can ask the UNSC and other UN agencies to apply certain moves on the Palestinian reality. We might not be sufficed with decisions by the UNSC and may demand practical moves by the UN. Nevertheless, it is still premature talking now about the moves we are mulling.

Q: in response to the Israeli decision to block the Palestinian tax revenues, the leadership decided to turn to the Arabs to provide the $100 million safety network. One could have the impression that the Palestinian leadership is certain about its implementation. Does this mean that the PA will be spared a financial crisis?

Even after this sum of money is paid, we will face a financial crisis for a specific period of time as we have suffered from such a crisis for over a year. Therefore, our intention was not to call on solving the financial crisis but to urge the Arab brethrens to meet their financial obligations.

After Israel imposed a siege on the West Bank in 2003, the Arab summit meeting that was held in Beirut decided on monthly emergency financial assistance which was greatly helpful to the PA at that time. We are looking forwards now to a larger financial assistance which is the safety network. We hope our Arab brethrens would not allow the collapse of the Palestinian situation due to Israeli punitive measures and the Israeli piracy.

Therefore, based on our experience and on the Arab approval and immense joy by the UN resolution, we are certain that our brethrens will stand by us and won`t surrender to US pressures.

Q: One of the decisions made by the leadership is the formation of a higher leadership committee in charge of following up the political organizational process related to the State of Palestine. Who are the members of this committee and what is their mandate?

The committee is composed of over 10 leader members. Its first meeting will be held this evening. There was an approach to form this committee even before the UN move. The goal behind its formation is to prepare a detailed paper on “the aftermath of the status of Palestine`s non-member state in the UN”. It will address the necessary political measures and how should we apply the UN resolution and benefit from the rights and advantages it gives us for the sake of defending our higher national interests and ending the occupation.

Also, the committee will outline visions on internal Palestinian measures, including the reconciliation as well as the requisite organizational and administrative procedures to consolidate our internal conditions in order that we can be able of facing possible pressures from the Israeli occupier or punitive measures from Israel and its allies.

Q: Are there positive signs to a possible progress in the reconciliation soon, taking into account that Hamas official Nasser a-Shaer attended the leadership meeting yesterday? Was his participation symbolic or rather a real sign?

In my assessment, his presence was a real sign because it was the first time that brethren Nasser participates in such a meeting. Hamas representatives had never attended leadership meetings even before the division occurred.  National reconciliation is now a national necessity and because history would not be tolerant towards any Palestinian official or faction that would impede the implementation of the relevant agreements.

A decision was already taken by President Abu Mazen and the PLO Executive Committee on holding a meeting as soon as possible to the committee in charge of activating the PLO…

Q: But no date has yet been set for this meeting.

The date is going to be set very soon according to the outcomes of the underway contacts.



**According to a new agreement, Palestinian nationals will not need visa to travel to Venezuela**

Riad al-Maleki: PA foreign minister.

We signed economic cooperation agreement, cultural agreement, tourism agreement, agricultural agreement and health agreement which include the building of a specialized eyes hospital in Palestine. Another agreement we signed has cancelled the need to obtain visa entry to travel to Venezuela.

These new agreements will open a new chapter in the history of the special bilateral relations between Palestine and Venezuela.



**Israel expedites the implementation of home-demolition plans in al-Bustan neighborhood**

Fakhri Abu Diab: The Committee to Defend the Lands of Silwan.

Q: Why do you think the Israeli decision on demolishing over 80 homes in al-Bustan could be implemented any moment?

The various bodies of the occupation are currently floundering and trying to take revenge from the Palestinian people due to our political and military achievements. They view Jerusalem as a weak chain which they can take advantage of to displace the maximum number of Jerusalemites and demolish the highest number of Palestinian homes to accomplish a set of goals, including imposing a collective punishment on Palestinians and to tighten its grip on Jerusalem through Judaization enterprises.

Over 80 homes of al-Bustan neighborhood, which is located in short proximity to the southern sides of al-Aqsa mosque, are under threat of being demolished. The attorney who represents the residents received a letter from the Jerusalem Municipality saying it will demolish 30 of these homes despite of a court ruling that has delayed the demolition until June 2013. The letter includes a list of the specific homes that are planned to be demolished soon.

Unless the official Palestinian authorities and the entire world counter this Israeli decision, we may wake up one day to see over 800 residents as displaced.  

Q: There are reports that Israel plans to turn the Umayyad Palaces into utilities for their alleged temple. Could this be connected to the decision on expediting the demolishing of homes in al-Bustan?

Absolutely yes. The area where the Umayyad Palaces are located directly separates between al-Bustan neighborhood in Silwan and the al-Aqsa mosque. At the northern part of Silwan there is “Ein Silwan” (Silwan Well) that is adjacent to the Umayyad Palaces and which the Israeli side plans to turn it into basins for Jewish purification rites that belong to the alleged temple.



**An Israeli plan to displace again residents of 12 Palestinian communities in Hebron district**

Abdel Hadi Hantash: An expert in settlement-related affairs.

Q:  Would you give us more details about the Israeli plan to displace the residents of 12 Palestinian communities in Yatta?

The Israeli occupation authorities prepared a plan long time ago to displace the residents of 12 communities under the so-called “Alon” plan. In 1998, the occupation authorities displaced the residents of this area which is called Musafer Yatta, southeast of Hebron district. The Committee to Defend the Lands of Yatta had filed a claim at the Israeli Supreme Court which issued a ruling whereby allowing the entire residents to return to their homes. They are trying now to displace the residents again.

There is an extreme Israeli organization called “Ravetim” which has also been seeking to displace the residents under the pretext these communities represent “illegal Palestinian settlement outposts” that should be controlled by the Israeli army and used for settlement expansion purposes.



** Will the “State of Palestine” replace the “Palestinian Authority” on the Palestinian passports?**

Hasan A`lawi: Undersecretary of the PA Interior Ministry.

Q: Is it legitimate to ask this question at this time?

Absolutely Yes.

Q: Do you mean that measures on this regard may be taken soon?

Absolutely Yes.  An historic achievement for the Palestinian people has been made. It should not be limited to a moral achievement but should rather be reflected on ground. We plan to take this into our consideration soon.

Nevertheless, I should emphasize what was already pointed at by President Abu Mazen that we have obtained a state which is still under occupation. Another question was posed: have Oslo agreements been cancelled? The answer is definitely No, they were neither canceled by the Palestinian side nor the Israeli side despite of the Israeli daily violations to the entire items of Oslo agreement. The issue of the passport in particular was subject to extremely unfair conditions in Oslo agreement. However, this issue should be reconsidered. All achievements that were made by the PNA should be maintained as a treasure, but now as a state under occupation and in wake of the recent European reactions to the Israeli violations, we should consider indicate on the entire Palestinian citizens` passports “State of Palestine”.

Q: Does this matter depend on a sovereign Palestinian decision or require consultations with world states?

It certainly requires consolations with world state because we use our national passport abroad. It also requires internal consultations by the Palestinian leadership including the PLO Executive Committee and the Palestinian government.

UN vote on statehood changes rules of Palestinian struggle

Osama Al Sharif* (http://www.arabnews.com/un-vote-statehood-changes-rules-palestinian-struggle)



The look on Susan Rice's face said it all. The US representative at the United Nations had a bad day at the office last Thursday, when 138 nations voted for a General Assembly resolution to upgrade Palestine's status to a non-member observer state at the international body. Israel and the United States voted against, along with seven other countries, while 41 countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom abstained. It was a diplomatic fiasco for the Obama administration not because the resolution was passed, but because Washington could not persuade its closest European allies to adopt its position.

President Mahmoud Abbas has achieved an important, and rare, diplomatic victory for the Palestinians. The implicit recognition of the state of Palestine by the world community will prove to be an important catalyst in the decades-old quest to secure self-determination and an independent state in the occupied West Bank and the besieged Gaza Strip. Rice described Thursday's win as "unfortunate and counterproductive" while Israel dubbed it as "inconsequential." But in reality the historic vote was a clear message to an increasingly isolated Israel that the world could no longer tolerate its open-ended occupation and that it must accept the inevitability of Palestinian statehood.

Aside from the United States, Canada, the Czech Republic and Panama, Washington had to rally the support of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau; hardly a credible coalition of nations. Voting in favor were many European countries, including France, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Israel was stunned by the fact that Germany, one of its staunchest European supporters, decided to abstain rather than vote against.

The vote came in the wake of Israel's eight-day aggression on the Gaza Strip. That attack was halted as Israel came under regional and international pressure. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu could not fulfill the strategic aim of the offensive, which was to destroy Hamas' military infrastructure, especially its arsenal of missiles. The diplomatic defeat at the UN only added to Netanyahu's troubles.

The Gaza affair and the UN triumph have lifted Palestinian aspirations. President Abbas and the Hamas leadership have moved closer to concluding national reconciliation. It is a move that should bolster Palestinian political stand even more. If reconciliation takes place soon it would constitute a third defeat for Israel in less than a month.

On the ground, Israel's reaction to the UN vote was expected. In a defiant and arrogant move it announced the building of 3000 units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Furthermore, it decided to seize and withhold more than $ 120 million in Palestinian tax revenues in a move to punish the Palestinian Authority (PA). Further punitive measures are expected. It is a sign of desperation and isolation. Arab countries have promised to provide a financial safety net for the PA and their support for the Palestinian leadership at this juncture will prove crucial.

Despite Washington's rejection of the Palestinian UN move, it must realize that it has to redress the peace process and restore its credibility as an intermediary. It will have to find ways to deal with and engage a recalcitrant Israeli government that has frustrated the US administration before. Most likely Netanyahu will be re-elected next month and this will test the position of President Obama in his second term. If the US chooses not to take the lead in reviving the peace process in the coming few weeks, the Israeli government will surely bury any remaining hope for a negotiated settlement.

Palestine's new status will allow it to gain membership in international bodies, including the International Criminal Court. Taking its case to the ICC will be a last resort, as President Abbas has indicated. This last resort will only come if the US fails to revive the peace process and if Israel continues with its settlement activities in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Both scenarios are plausible.

Taking Israel to court will change the rules of engagement. What seemed impossible few years ago may become possible in the near future. The US cannot continue to protect Israeli transgressions forever. The Palestinians, on the other hand, cannot be expected to sit and do nothing as Israel devours more of their land.

It is imperative that Washington sends a clear message to Israel now. The UN vote, symbolic as it is, has changed the legal and political realities of the dispute. The State of Palestine is a fact and it will not wait for Israel to give it legitimacy. More than 20 years of negotiations under US auspices have failed to deliver a two- state solution. It is in Israel's interest to end its occupation and recognize Palestinian rights. Otherwise, the day will come when Israel could become an international pariah.



[email protected]



Palestine’s new status: A history rerun or a new strategy

By: Ramzy Baroud* (http://www.arabnews.com/palestine%E2%80%99s-new-status-history-rerun-or-new-strategy)



Palestine has become a “non-member state” at the United Nations as of Thursday Nov. 29.The draft of the UN resolution beckoning what many perceive as a historic moment passed with an overwhelming majority of General Assembly members: 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions.

It was accompanied by a passionate speech delivered by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. But decades earlier, a more impressive and animated Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat sought international solidarity as well. The occasion then was also termed ‘historic.’

Empowered by Arab support at the Rabat Arab League summit in October 1974, which bestowed on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the ever-opaque title, "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," Arafat was invited to speak at the UN General Assembly. Despite the fervor that accompanied the newly found global solidarity, Arafat's language signaled a departure from what was perceived by Western powers as radical and unrealistic political and territorial ambitions.

In his speech on Nov. 13, Arafat spoke of the growing PLO’s legitimacy that compelled his actions: “The PLO has earned its legitimacy because of the sacrifice inherent in its pioneering role and also because of its dedicated leadership of the struggle. It has also been granted this legitimacy by the Palestinian masses... The PLO has also gained its legitimacy by representing every faction, union or group as well as every Palestinian talent, either in the National Council or in people’s institutions...” The list went on, and, despite some reservations, each had a reasonable degree of merit.

The same however can hardly be said of Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA), which exists as a result of an ambiguous ‘peace process’ nearly 20 years ago. It has all but completely destroyed the PLO’s once functioning institutions, redefined the Palestinian national project of liberation around a more ‘pragmatic’ – read self-serving – discourse that is largely tailored around self-preservation, absence of financial accountability and a system of political tribalism.

Abbas is no Yasser Arafat. But equally important, the Arafat of 1974 was a slightly different version of an earlier Arafat who was the leader of the revolutionary Fatah party. In 1974, Arafat made a statehood proposal that itself represented a departure from Fatah's own previous commitment to a ‘democratic state on all Palestine.’ Arafat's revised demands contained the willingness to settle for "establishing an independent national state on all liberated Palestinian territory." While the difference between both visions may be attributed to a reinterpretation of the Palestinian liberation strategy, history showed that it was much more. Since that date and despite much saber-rattling by the US and Israel against Arafat’s ‘terrorism’ and such, the PLO under Arafat’s Fatah leadership underwent a decade-long scrutiny process, where the US placed austere demands in exchange for a US ‘engagement’ of the Palestinian leadership. This itself was the precondition that yielded Oslo and its abysmal consequences.

Arafat was careful to always sugarcoat any of his concessions with a parallel decision that was promised to Palestinians as a national triumph of some sort. Back then there was no Hamas to stage a major challenge to the PLO’s policies, and Leftist groups within the PLO structure were either politically marginalized by Fatah or had no substantial presences among the Palestinian masses. The field was virtually empty of any real opposition, and Arafat’s credibility was rarely questioned. Even some of his opponents found him sincere, despite their protests against his style and distressing concessions.

The rise of the PLO’s acceptability in international arenas was demonstrated in its admission to the United Nations as a “non-state entity” with an observer status on Nov. 22, 1974. The Israeli war and subsequent invasion of Lebanon in 1982 had the declared goal of destroying the PLO and was in fact aimed at stifling the growing legitimacy of the PLO regionally and internationally. Without an actual power base, in this case, Lebanon, Israeli leaders calculated that the PLO would either fully collapse or politically capitulate.

Weakened, but not obliterated, the post-Lebanon war PLO was a different entity than the one which existed prior to 1982. Armed resistance was no longer on the table, at least not in any practical terms. Such change suited some Arab countries just fine. A few years later, Arafat and Fatah were assessing the new reality from headquarters in Tunisia.

The political landscape in Palestine was vastly changing. A popular uprising (Intifada) erupted in 1987 and quite spontaneously a local leadership was being formed throughout the occupied territories. New names of Palestinian intellectuals were emerging. They were community leaders and freedom fighters that mostly organized around a new discourse that was created out of local universities, Israeli prisons and Palestinian streets. It was then that the legend of the Intifada was born with characters such as children with slingshots, mothers battling soldiers, and a massive reservoir of a new type of Palestinian fighter along with fresh language and discourse. Equally important, new movements were appearing from outside the traditional PLO confines. One such movement is Hamas, which has grown in numbers and political relevance in ways once thought impossible.

That reality proved alarming to the US, Israel and of course, the traditional PLO leadership. There were enough vested interests to reach a ‘compromise'. This naturally meant more concessions by the Palestinian leadership in exchange for some symbolic recompense by the Americans. The latter happily floated Israel’s trial balloons so that the Israeli leadership didn't appear weak or compromising. Two major events defined that stage of politics in 1988: On Nov. 15, the PLO’s National Council (PNC) proclaimed a Palestinian state in exile from Algiers and merely two weeks later, US Ambassador to Tunisia Robert H. Pelletreau Jr. was designated as the sole American liaison whose mission was to establish contacts with the PLO. Despite the US’ declared objection of Arafat’s move, the US was in fact pleased to see that the symbolic declaration was accompanied by major political concessions. The PNC stipulated the establishment of an independent state on Palestinian 'national soil’ and called for the institution of “arrangements for security and peace of all states in the region” through a negotiated settlements at an international peace conference on the basis of UN resolution 242 and 338 and Palestinian national rights.

Although Arafat was repeatedly confronted by even more American demands – that truly never ceased until his alleged murder by poison in Ramallah in 2004 – the deceleration was the real preamble of the Oslo accords some few years later. Since then, Palestinians have gained little aside from symbolic victories starting in 1988 when the UNGA “acknowledged” the Algiers proclamation. It then voted to replace the reference to the “Palestine Liberation Organization” with that of “Palestine.” And since then, it has been one symbolic victory after another, exemplified in an officially acknowledged Palestinian flag, postage stamps, a national anthem and the like. On the ground, the reality was starkly and disturbingly different: fledgling illegal Jewish settlements became fortified cities and a relatively small settler population now morphed to number over half a million settlers; Jerusalem is completely besieged by settlements, and cut off from the rest of the occupied territories; the Palestinian Authority established in 1994 to guide Palestinians towards independence became a permanent status of a Palestinian leadership that existed as far as Israel’s would permit it to exist; polarization caused by the corruption of the PA and its security coordination with Israel lead to civil strife that divided the Palestinian national project between factional and self-serving agendas.

The support that ‘Palestine’ has received at the United Nations must be heartening, to say the least, for most Palestinians. The overwhelming support, especially by Palestine’s traditional supporters (most of humanity with few exceptions) indicates that the US hegemony, arm-twisting and Israeli-US propaganda was of little use after all. However, that should not be misidentified as a real change of course in the behavior of the PA which still lacks legal, political and especially moral legitimacy among Palestinians who are seeking tangible drive towards freedom, not mere symbolic victories.

If Abbas thinks that obtaining a new wording for Palestine status at the UN would provide a needed political theater to justify another 20 years of utter failures, then time is surely to prove him wrong. If the new status, however, is used as a platform for a radically different strategy that would revitalize a haggard political discourse with the sole aim of unifying the ranks of all Palestinians around a new proud national project, then, there is something worth discussing. Indeed, it is not the new status that truly matters, but rather how it is interpreted and employed. While history is not exactly promising, the future will have the last word.



[email protected]



The fine print of Palestinian statehood  

By: Nadia Hijab* (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/201212312551221368.html)



What does the UN fine print - which promoted Palestine as a non-member observer state - really mean?

The PLO/PA's apparent interest in reviving itself provides opportunities for Palestinian civil society and its allies to hold the leadership accountable for Palestinian rights [GALLO/GETTY]

Congratulations are raining as friends of the Palestinians respond with delight to the United Nations' resounding "Yes!" to Palestine's non-member observer state status as of November 29, 2012. But before giving free rein to their excitement, the Palestinian people - and their allies - should read the actual text of the resolution.

Many Palestinians did not read the Oslo Accords Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) signed in the 1990s. If they had, they might have noticed that the Accords did not mention international law and human rights, did not provide for a state and did not even mention the "occupation". Plus, the accords tied the Palestinian economy into knots that Israel could tighten or loosen at will.

The same leadership that signed those accords now believes the UN upgrade will put the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, freedom, equality and justice back on track.

Perhaps. There may be some openings yet the reasons for apprehension are legion, as is shown by a reading of the text.

The resolution itself is a messy text (based on the penultimate copy of the document circulated the day before submission) stuffed with references to past UN resolutions, statements and peace processes. But that is not so worrying in and of itself.



Arab peace initiative



What is truly alarming is that, despite repeated assertions by the Palestinian leadership that they are determined to protect the rights of Palestinian refugees, the brief reference to the cornerstone UN Resolution 194 (III) is buried in the preambular paragraphs. In the operative paragraphs, "the Palestine refugees" are just one of the core issues that must be resolved, along with Jerusalem, settlements, border, security and water.



Resolved, how? The resolution enshrines the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which speaks of a "just and agreed upon" solution for the Palestinian refugees, in operative paragraph 5. This effectively reaffirms Israel's control of any solution, an Israel that has never allowed the refugees to return and that continues to this day to dispossess the Palestinians in pre-1967 Israel and the occupied territory. Thus, the UN resolution gives ever-more formal sanction to disposing of the majority of the Palestinian people.



Another worrying factor is the repeated references to a peace process so discredited that it is long past time to bury and not to praise it.

Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the operative paragraphs make no direct reference to the Oslo Accords. Rather, they refer to the "relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap".  



Is this a positive sign? Perhaps.



Another potentially positive sign is the affirmation, in operative paragraph 2, that the new status would be "without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role" of the PLO at the UN. Many Palestinians feared that the UN bid would come at the expense of PLO representation of the entire Palestinian people, under occupation, refugees and in Israel.

Yet in practice can Palestinians be represented by both a state and the PLO? Despite the careful wording of the resolution, a Palestinian negotiator said in private exchanges that "state representation (entity)... overrides the PLO representation" and that an ambassador would be representing the state of Palestine. The negotiator also said the PLO is "the interim government representing the state and not the entity represented that is Palestine".

Clear? Not so much. It seems that the ambassador of Palestine would represent those Palestinians in the state of Palestine, that is, not all Palestinians, with the PLO's position unclear.

The Palestinians' political reality is even more worrying than the resolution's language. Not only did this same leadership sign the disastrous Oslo Accords, it stood helplessly by as Israel more than doubled its illegal settlers since 1993 with no signs of stopping its rampant colonisation.



Freedom from occupation



In addition, the Fatah-Hamas 2007 split has greatly weakened the Palestinian national movement. Even if they reconcile, as they seem determined to do in the wake of Israel's assault on Gaza this month, this is not necessarily cause for celebration. There is nothing democratic about either faction. Although Hamas does hold internal elections, both have brutally oppressed dissent rather than encouraging true Palestinian representation.

"If Israel cuts aid to the PA, it will have to manage its own occupation. If the US cuts aid to the PA, it will lose its clout over the Palestinian agenda."

In the final analysis, it boils down to a question of trust. True, the PLO did not bend to British demands that, among other things, it did not agree to join the International Criminal Court for a "Yes" vote (Britain abstained.) But it has squandered the huge resources at its disposal to lead civil resistance to the Israeli trampling of Palestinian rights. It did not make use of the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion to hold other states accountable for their support of Israel's occupation.

It tried to torpedo the Goldstone Report after Cast Lead. It adopted a weak, limited boycott of Israeli settlement goods only after the rest of the world responded powerfully to the Palestinian civil society 2005 Call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS); and the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA) took on the role of Israel's policeman.

Can such a leadership really lead the Palestinians to freedom from occupation, justice for the refugees and equal rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel? Can it take advantage of the ICC and ICJ, and other UN conventions and bodies to protect its waters, airspace and people? The jury is out.

The biggest ray of sunshine on the horizon is the virulent opposition to the UN bid by the Israeli and American governments. In fact, they have been boxed in. If Israel cuts aid to the PA, it will have to manage its own occupation. If the US cuts aid to the PA, it will lose its clout over the Palestinian agenda.

Furthermore, the PLO/PA's apparent interest in reviving itself provides opportunities for Palestinian civil society and its allies to hold the leadership accountable for Palestinian rights. But first, it would be good to read that document, to know just what to hold it accountable for.



*Nadia Hijab is the director of Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network. She is also a public speaker, writer and media commentator.



Palestinians deserve justice

The world needs to tell Tel Aviv that its atrocities and colonist plans cannot go unpunished any more

Gulf News Editorial (http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/palestinians-deserve-justice-1.1114262)



Most reasonable nations have responded with anger to Israel’s plan to build 3,000 more colonist homes in the West Bank — and rightly so.

The move to ramp up construction was a knee-jerk reaction by the Jewish state to the UN General Assembly’s overwhelming support for recognising Palestine as a nation state — with Britain, Sweden and France all deciding to haul Israeli ambassadors on the mat for the new colony homes. However, chastising diplomats simply is not enough when it comes cutting the West Bank in two if the new colony goes ahead.

In letters sent late on Monday to the UN Secretary-General, the Security Council and the General Assembly, Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour said at the same time as Palestine’s leadership reaffirmed their readiness to begin peace negotiations, “Israel continues to flagrantly pursue its illegal policies and practices”. And he rightly castigated Tel Aviv’s actions as sheer provocation.

What the Jewish state needs to remember is that the UN vote of recognition also reaffirmed the internationally backed just-goal of seeing both states living side by side in peace.

By rejecting recognition, Israel is also rejecting the notion of peace — and its actions in the Gaza Strip are ample evidence that it harbours the means and the intent to wipe out Palestinians.

Sadly, the likelihood of the Security Council condemning Tel Aviv for its policy of ghetto-isation is minute. With the US walking in lockstep with the Israeli leadership, any language which condemns Tel Aviv will be struck out from the records. The willingness of Washington to veto action or sanctions against Israel is becoming tired.

What is needed is not just a vote of recognition from the General Assembly, but words and acts of leaders who are committed to a fair and just solution — ones who are willing to tell Israel that its deeds against the Palestinian people cannot go unpunished any more. The UN Security Council needs to commit itself to treating Palestine on the same footing as any other nation.

A non-member state but with legal weight

“Al-Quds” Editorial



Regardless of disagreements between analysts over assessing the extent of the achievement made in the UN recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state, this recognition has advantages and gains on various levels. We will detail here only one level which is the legal and which has granted Palestine capabilities and potentials the Palestinian leadership said it will wisely use after consultations with friends and brethrens.



In wake of the Israeli settlement-related escalation that has reached a new peak in the past two days with announcements by the Israeli government on proceeding with the implementation of relatively old plans as well as new ones, there should be thinking on how we could benefit from these capabilities and potentials.



The Israeli government is apparently persistent with its insolence pertaining to settlement actions with total disregard to all international objections, European and Australian in particular, to the extent that one of its officials described the European diplomatic protests including the summoning of Israeli ambassadors as “not disastrous”. Therefore, the international community should be urged to take more effective and pressing stances forcing Israel to take international reactions into its consideration and to make it afraid of.



The situation has presumably changed after Palestine obtained statehood, because this status entitles it to join The Hague Supreme Court and the International Criminal Court, in addition to a number of UN agencies. This possible membership was among the reasons Israel, the USA and others opposed recognizing the Palestinian statehood, and the pressures being applied on the PA to compel it not to join these two international courts.



It is high time that we benefit from the advantages of the statehood status, mainly in light of the Israeli government`s obstinacy and determination to Judaize the Palestinian homeland with settlements, aiming at making the two-state enterprise a mission impossible at least geographically. Raising again the issue of “E`” area, which separates the northern West Bank from the southern West Bank,  was clear evidence to an approach that is drastically contradicting with peace efforts.



Joining the International Supreme Court will allow filing claims related the issue of settlements as they represent a violation of international laws and human rights conventions, particularly the Geneva Fourth Convention. A ruling by this court on the illegality of settlements, though it won`t be procedurally binding, will place pro-Israel states in an embarrassing situation and will increase the isolation of Israel internationally.



As for membership in the ICC, it will represent a strong tool to prosecute Israeli officials who persist with settlement policy, which is by itself amounts to a crime against humanity. In this case, they won`t be capable of leaving Israel to any country signatory to the Rome Protocol on which this court was established.



It is indeed a non-member state; however, this state can cause legal pressures, and perhaps push towards economic pressures by European states and other world states that advocate right, justice and freedom. The State of Palestine should use its capabilities in the near future.





In search of the political Palestinian narrative

By: Daoud Kuttab* (http://www.amin.org/articles.php?t=ENews&id=4021)

        

JERUSALEM- Despite the vote at the United Nations in support of Palestinian statehood, this non-violent effort by the Palestinian leadership is facing an uphill battle. Another narrative is competing for the hearts and minds of Palestinians. Prime minister Salam Fayyad spoke of this narrative in simple terms. Referring to the perceived success of Hamas, especially after Gaza, Mr. Fayyad admitted: “Hamas has delivered, we have not.

The Hamas narrative follows the same one tried by the founders of the Palestine Liberation Organization: the military/resistance one. The Palestinian guerrilla factions, starting with Fatah in 1965, argued that the only way to liberate Palestine was through armed struggle. Fatah began before the 1967 Israeli occupation with an armed operation from southern Lebanon and, after occupation, used Jordan to initiate attacks. In March, 1968, when a joint Palestinian-Jordanian force repulsed an Israel incursion in the Jordanian town of Karameh (the word means dignity), the PLO was able to get volunteers and support throughout the Arab world.

Over the years, the various PLO factions used force against what would be considered legitimate military targets, as well as what many in the world would consider illegitimate civilian targets, be they in Israel, the occupied territories or abroad. This has brought both attention and scorn to the Palestinians. The struggle for liberation was tainted by the use of the term “terrorism,” which made gaining worldwide support difficult.

The relatively non-violent Palestinian intifada that began in 1987 encouraged the PLO to put aside its guns and attempt the political track. In 1993, Yasser Arafat set down his gun, raised the olive branch and shook hands with the Palestinians’ archenemy, Yitzhak Rabin. The Oslo peace process brought hope, which was partially dashed by Mr. Rabin’s assassination by a radical Jewish settler and the election of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister.

While the PLO temporarily put down its guns, others never believed in the peace process and continued following the argument popularized by the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. After the 1967 defeat, he said: “What was taken by force can only be retaken by force.”

Military opposition carried out by Hamas began with suicide bombings and then moved to the use of rockets, especially after the evacuation of Israeli settlers and the Israeli army’s redeployment from populated Gaza areas. The Israeli withdrawal was considered a victory for Hamas, even though it brought a crippling siege that’s now in its sixth year.

The use of force was not restricted to Islamists. Seven years after the famous White House handshake between Mr. Arafat and Mr. Rabin, Palestinians were still under occupation; they had some of the trappings of state without any sovereignty. Secular Palestinian nationalists and, at times, even members of the Palestinian police took part in the second intifada, which was much more violent and costly in human terms and that deepened the hatred on both sides.

The death of Mr. Arafat while trying to walk both peaceful and military tracks led to a new phase in the Palestinian struggle. Mahmoud Abbas, who campaigned under the slogan of “No to the militarization of the intifada” and publicly scorning the Hamas rockets, brought to the conflict one of the longest periods of relative calm.

Israelis reacted to the military and political narratives with different arguments, but with the same result: refusal to end their occupation. In response to the military acts, Israelis delegitimized the Palestinians as terrorists whose aim is the destruction of Israel and, therefore, not qualified to be partners for peace. The Israeli public response to the Palestinian political narrative was much more nuanced. Palestinians had to prove that they unequivocally recognized Israel as the state of the Jewish people, that they teach their kids to love Israelis, and that everything can be resolved through negotiations that one Israeli leader said would drag for tens of years.

Hence, Israel’s demands for the amendment of the PLO charter, the continuous demands for changes in the Palestinian curriculum and incitement. This was never quid pro quo. It was an excuse to cover the real Israeli attitude, which is not to give up land. Foreign powers unable to press Israelis often bought these silly arguments even while Israel was building exclusive settlements and transferring its citizens to the occupied territories, in contradiction of international humanitarian law.

We now witness manifestations of both narratives. The war on Gaza, which saw the assassination of a Hamas leader and rockets from Gaza reaching southern Israel, Tel Aviv and the outskirts of Jerusalem, brought back international players who have abandoned Palestine for some time. On the other hand, the vote at the UN General Assembly for Palestine to acquire non-member observer state status brought back memories of when Zionists celebrated the partition plan issued by the same General Assembly exactly 65 years earlier.

Proponents of both the military and political narrative can claim relative victory now, even though the occupation and settlements continue to deny Palestine’s independence. As warring Palestinians from Fatah and Hamas are now set to reconcile, the looming question will be which method they agree on which to base their unified strategy. After decades of repeated failures, the Palestinian people are looking for a path that would lead to freedom. While the military track will test the wills of Israelis and Palestinians, the non-violent strategy will only work if there’s a concerted international will supporting it. Will the world support this non-violent track for statehood or will they force Palestinians to go back to using arms to reach their goals?



* A Palestinian columnist based in Amman, Jordan. - [email protected]