(Australian) PM takes wrong course on Palestinian statehood

[Violet_Crumble]

Julia Gillard's apparent opposition to the looming United Nations General Assembly resolution on a Palestinian state may all but sink Australia's hopes for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. If the resolution eventuates, and if Australia votes no, Australia's claims to be an independent player on the world stage will be a mockery. Once more, the country will have publicly bedded down with Israel and the US and a handful of the latter's irrelevant mendicants. Australia's competitors for the two slots in the UN Security Council race, Finland and Luxembourg, will only have to show Australia's dance card on Israel and Palestine to ensure that nary a vote comes our way, not just from Africa and the Middle East, but the broader Muslim world.
Does this mean we risk being blackmailed into voting for Palestinian statehood? Definitely not; it's about being smart, and consistent. Australia has long mouthed the two state solution. Now, unfortunately, it's showing all the signs of swallowing the Israeli and, more alarmingly, the Obama Administration's line that the time it not ripe for Palestinians to achieve what Jewish Israelis saw as birthright - a state of their own. That there needs to be more talk to resolve the vital issues of Jerusalem, of final borders, of Palestinian refugees and Palestinian disunity.

More talk? It's almost 20 years since the Declaration of Principles signed between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation under Yasser Arafat, and an Israeli Government led by Yitzhak Rabin, later murdered by a Jewish extremist. True, the declaration did not explicitly mention Palestinian statehood, but only the wilfully blind refused to see this as the end game. If statehood is good enough for Israelis why should it be denied to the Palestinians?

That the Israeli Government and its supporters at home and abroad oppose the resolution reflects the double standards which epitomise the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians, it's argued, are not ready for statehood; far too many internal disputes, nasty people on the ground, and issues to be resolved. Worse, the resolution would involve ''unilateral'' action by the Palestinians.

Unilateral? Now that's a novel argument. Israel illegally planting around half a million of its Jewish citizens in the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is not unilateral? I haven't detected a huge amount of ''multilateral'' support for that modern colonisation. The reality is that perhaps 150 of the United Nations 190-plus members might actually support a Palestinian state. So ''unilateral''? - spare me.

Peter Rodgers is a former Australian Ambassador to Israel and a Visiting Fellow at the ANU's Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/pm-takes-wrong-course-on-palestinian-statehood/2285239.aspx?storypage=0

[shira]

1. This article has so many holes in it...

1. Mahmoud Abbas just admitted the other day that part of the reason for declaring UDI is to legally change the territories from being DISPUTED to OCCUPIED, although Israel only occupies disputed territory in Area 'C' of the WB where less than 5% of the WB Palestinian population lives. There is no military control of Gaza, nor is there any in areas 'A and B' of the WBank where Palestinians have autonomy (the opposite of the legal definition of occupation).

2. Since the land is disputed, settlements on territory that BOTH people claim cannot be illegal as this former Ambassador to Israel claims.

3. Further, the UN and Palestinians are illegally giving away disputed land that is meant to be negotiated as per binding agreements in UNSCR242 as well as the peace accords with Egypt, Jordan, and the PA at Oslo - which all call for negotiated settlement of that disputed land - certainly not UDI. It's not Israel's fault the PA has refused 2 credible peace offers in the last 10 years without making a reasonable counter-offer in return.

=========

This is all a sham. Who will occupy the Palestine seat at the UN? A representative from Fatah or Hamas? This is a joke of course as the 2 parties will never agree to someone who could represent their interests in the UN.

How will the Palestinian people and refugees benefit from UDI? They won't, as refugees will continue to rot in camps around the Arab world and Palestinian lives within the WB and Gaza will remain unchanged (and miserable) under Arab rule, just like life under Arab rule in Syria and Egypt. The only 'benefit' will be for Fatah/Hamas to gain a stronger position in order to further delegitimize and demonize Israel and grant Abbas the privilege of being Palestine's first President (unelected of course). And this is good enough for the Israel haters.

[shaayecanaan]

2. That response has so many holes in it...

First of all, its not a unilateral declaration of independence. Palestine already declared independence back in 1988. Instead, this is a motion by the international community affording recognition to Palestine, which is obviously multilateral rather than unilateral.

"Since the land is disputed, settlements on territory that BOTH people claim cannot be illegal as this former Ambassador to Israel claims."

The settlements are not on disputed land. They are on Palestinian land. With the exception of East Jerusalem, Israel has not annexed the West Bank nor declared it Israeli territory. As such it cannot be claimed as Israeli land. If Israel were to actually claim the West Bank as Israeli territory, they would be required to recognise the Palestinians as Israeli nationals.

"Further, the UN and Palestinians are illegally giving away disputed land that is meant to be negotiated as per binding agreements in UNSCR242 as well as the peace accords with Egypt, Jordan, and the PA at Oslo - which all call for negotiated settlement of that disputed land"

This must set a record as the most incoherent sentence ever posted in this forum. The really sad and pathetic part is that it seems to be a cut and paste, although how exactly you came to decide that it was worth reposting here is beyond me.

[shira]

3. Abbas just admitted the other day the land is disputed, not occupied...

Abbas said that the PA application to the UN calls for transforming the Palestinian territories from the status of disputed lands to a state under occupation.
http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=236671

He said the same thing in Arabic too...
http://www.wafa.ps/arabic/index.php?action=detail&id=112075

======

I can assure you I didn't cut and paste the part about the UN acting against Oslo, UNSCR242, and the peace agreements Israel signed with Egypt and Jordan. All state the land is to be negotiated.

[shaayecanaan]

5. Occupied land is by its very nature "disputed"

the Sudentenland was "disputed" during WW2. That didnt make it any less occupied.

[shira]

6. Definition of occupation, according to Amnesty...

The definition of belligerent occupation is given in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations:

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own. It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

The question may arise whether the law on occupation still applies if new civilian authorities set up by the occupying power from among nationals of the occupied territories are running the occupied territory’s daily affairs. The answer is affirmative, as long as the occupying forces are still present in that territory and exercise final control over the acts of the local authorities.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/089/2003/en/7fc9a988-d6ff-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/mde140892003en.html

Now with that in mind, how is Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank occupied?

[azurnoir]

11. area B is under Israeli security area A is totally surronded by area's B and C

IDF security and Gaza as I have read is considered occupied due to Israel's control ovcer it's sea and air access and penchant for at will bombing and incursions

[shira]

14. By Amnesty's account and Int'l Law, Israel at best occupies

Palestinians have had self-autonomy and not been under military rule since the mid 90's.

THAT is the definition of occupation and Israel no longer fits that bill in Gaza and for the vast majority of Palestinians in the WB.

It's time you guys call it something else besides Occupation....

[azurnoir]

17. you never finish your title statement

to area B of the West Bank is under Israeli military control which would qualify as occupation and the vast majority as you put it of Palestinians in the West Bank are packed into 2 small areas

Gaza is still considered occupied because of Israel's total control of its air and water access and Israel's penchant for bombing and invading

[shira]

20. Neither Gaza or the WB containing 95% of all Palestinians fit the legal definition of occupation...

...according to Amnesty and International Law.

Unless of course there's one standard for Israel and another for the rest of the world WRT occupations.

There is nothing in International Law WRT occupation being defined primarily as air/sea control.

[azurnoir]

39. what fatuous claims

the West bank and Gaza do not contain even half of all Palestinian people let alone 95% as you say

10,574,521 total Palestinian population globally

3,761,000 West Bank and Gaza

This page was last modified on 8 September 2011 at 22:41.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#Demographics

the numbers stated are taken from the chart in the sidebar which can't be repossted here but are quite plainly visible

to claim the West Bank is not occupied is beyond ridiculous and Gaza while Israel removed it's boots excepting frequent military incursions from the ground it does have control over all access saving one land passage that is for foot traffic only and it has been opined that for that reason Gaza is still under occupation

[shira]

41. 95% of Palestinians in the WB are under no occupation - but PA rule. n/t

[azurnoir]

45. no they are not as my previous post plainly showed

but it is interesting the majority of the Palestinians living in the West Bank are crowded into 2 small areas

[Violet_Crumble]

7. So? Even if he did, he'd be wrong...

Unlike the Right-Wing types who claim the West Bank isn't occupied, but disputed, the link you posted shows that Abbas indeed believes (and very correctly) that the West Bank is occupied:

“The goal is to delegitimize occupation which must end,” he explained. “The Palestinians are the only people in the world who have remained under occupation.”

btw, the only reference to 'disputed' in the article isn't a direct quote from Abbas, but someone saying about him: 'Abbas said that the PA application to the UN calls for transforming the Palestinian territories from the status of disputed lands to a state under occupation.'

[shira]

9. He did say it and it was reported in Arabic...

Check out the 8th paragraph...
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wafa.ps%2Farabic%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddetail%26id%3D112075

[Violet_Crumble]

12. As I've already said, that's not a direct quote...

And as I've already said, even if he did say it, so what? Is he doing what the Right Wing types do and claiming the West Bank isn't occupied, but merely disputed? Definately not...

[shira]

18. He's definitely claiming the WB is currently under dispute...

He wants a legal change from disputed to occupied. There's no other way of understanding this.

I understand this is a narrative killer, making it harder to claim Israel is on stolen, occupied land they have zero claims to.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. No, he's not claiming anything of the sort. Please read my previous posts...

1. There is no direct quote from him using the word 'disputed'. It was someone else saying he said it. Also, as he repeatedly has referred to it correctly as an occupation, and did so multiple times in the article you posted a link to, it's very, very clear that he is not claiming that the West Bank is merely 'disputed' instead of occupied the way right-wing types do. In the same article you posted a link to, he says (and this is a direct quote, not a paraphrase): “The goal is to delegitimize occupation which must end,” he explained. “The Palestinians are the only people in the world who have remained under occupation.”

2. Even if he ever did wake up one day and go 'Hey! I've just realised I've been wrong all this time and I now think the West Bank is disputed instead of occupied!', my question again would be 'So what?' International law says otherwise, and I'm at a loss as to why anyone would think what one person is claimed to have said trumps not only international law, but everything they've ever said before...

3. As there's consensus that it is an occupation (I'll refer you back to what I posted about the Israeli govt and Israeli Supreme Court having recognised it as an occupation), I'm wondering if there's some level of confusion when it comes to what some of the main arguments about the occupation are. That'd include things like is the occupation itself legal and whether the settlements are legal. I've seen those things argued plenty in the past here at DU, but it's a rarity for anyone to try arguing that there's no occupation...

[shira]

23. In post #6, there's a link to Amnesty defining occupation based on Int'l Law...

Israel in no way fits that description, neither in Gaza or the parts of the WB in which over 95% of Palestinians have been under PA authority for over the last decade.

Call it something else b/c it's not occupation.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. That looked applicable to the West Bank...

Which is why Amnesty International refers to it as the Palestinian Occupied Territories on its own website. One would think if AI were arguing that it wasn't an occupation, they wouldn't refer to it as one...

[shira]

28. How is it applicable to the WB? Did you read that excerpt from AI? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Israel's occupation of the West Bank meets the criteria in that excerpt...

This is the excerpt, right?

'The definition of belligerent occupation is given in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations:

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own. It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

The question may arise whether the law on occupation still applies if new civilian authorities set up by the occupying power from among nationals of the occupied territories are running the occupied territory’s daily affairs. The answer is affirmative, as long as the occupying forces are still present in that territory and exercise final control over the acts of the local authorities.'

Even though it's written in relation to Iraq, it applies to the West Bank...

[shira]

32. Yes, that's it. Read it a few times. Israel pulled its forces out and the PA/Hamas have governed...

...for many years now, so there is no occupation.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I replied to you further down in the thread...

Seeing as how yr saying the same thing twice in two different parts of the thread, let's pull it into one, not that I can see any point in continuing this for much longer...

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Of course the settlements are illegal under international law...

It's not under dispute that Israel is the occupying power, nor that it's a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 states: 'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

[shira]

10. Not if they're in disputed territory, as Abbas has now admitted to.

Disputed means both peoples have legitimate claims to the land in question.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. There's absolutely no argument that the West Bank is occupied territory...

The Israeli Supreme Court and the Israeli government have acknowledged it's an occupation.

'The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal.<49> In recent decades, the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence.<50><51>'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#Israeli_judicial_decisions

[shira]

15. Not according to Amnesty for >95% of all Palestinians in the WB. See #6 above. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Even the Israeli govt and Supreme Court recognise it as an occupation...

Please read what I posted in the post yr replying to. Anyone who tries to claim Israel isn't occupying the West Bank is totally incorrect.

[shira]

19. Which parts of the WB? Before or after Palestinian autonomous rule due to Oslo? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

22. The entire West Bank. Everything between the Green Line & the Jordan River...

I can supply a map if that makes things easier...

[shira]

24. Amnesty and Int'l Law disagree. See the Amnesty quote and link in post #6.

Another term besides Occupation is required.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. No, both view it as an occupation...

Which of course is what it is, and why the Israeli government and Supreme Court have acknowledged it as a belligerent occupation:

'The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal.<49> In recent decades, the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence.<50><51>'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#Israeli_judicial_decisions

Amnesty International also see it as occupied territory, which is why it's referred to as such in all its publications, this one being an example...

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories - Amnesty International Report 2010

[shira]

27. The definition AI supplies based on Hague Conventions doesn't apply.

Everyone here can see AI's very own definition, based on Hague Law, doesn't apply to Gaza or 95% of all Palestinians in the WB.

What's obvious is AI is very selective in its hypocrisy and double standards when they claim Israel is an occupier. They're caught in their own lie.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Of course it applies...

If 'everyone here' saw what you claim they do, I'd have to come to the conclusion that 'everyone here' have massive problems with comprehending what they read, but I'm pretty confident that most residents in this part of DU are reasonably switched on when it comes to reading and digesting information...

So, as well as AI, the Israeli government and the Israeli Supreme Court are liars? After all, they've recognised it as a belligerent occupation as well...

[shira]

31. Sorry, the excerpt from AI in post #6 above is quite clear. The IDF hasn't had effective control...

...in Gaza or most of the populated WB for many years now. The PA and Hamas are the governments in control.

No Occupation.

This isn't rocket science.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Well, it'd be clear to most people, including myself...

I think yr reading it wrong, however. Israel does control the West Bank, and to claim otherwise is totally ignoring reality...

[shira]

35. Let's go over the Amnesty/Hague definition of Occupation...

'The definition of belligerent occupation is given in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations:

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

The IDF is no longer the military authority either in Gaza or the parts of the WB where over 95% of all Palestinians live. They do not exercise any effective control in either area.

The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

Again, the IDF turned over governing authority to the PA back in the 90's and had to re-invade to effectively take back control in 2002 due to the 2nd Intifada. Since then, the PA has been back in control. In Gaza, there hasn't been any effective military control or enforcement there since 2005.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own. It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

Same thing. The IDF relinquished effective control in both Gaza and the WB years ago.

The question may arise whether the law on occupation still applies if new civilian authorities set up by the occupying power from among nationals of the occupied territories are running the occupied territory’s daily affairs. The answer is affirmative, as long as the occupying forces are still present in that territory and exercise final control over the acts of the local authorities.'

This would apply if Israel had a puppet gov't in control there along with their own military controlling affairs.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. The IDF isn't the military authority in the West Bank??

That's news to me. In the West Bank, Israeli settlers exist under Israeli law while Palestinians are subject to Israeli military rule. That's occupation. Giving the PA the job of garbage-collectors and providing municipal services isn't handing governing authority over at all.

That last paragraph you quoted doesn't support what you claim at all. It speaks of situations like the one in the West Bank where the running of daily affairs in some areas was handed to the PA. It doesn't say anything at all about puppet governments. Israel doesn't need a puppet government as the military control the West Bank...

[shira]

37. There are no IDF boots on the ground where >95% of all Palestinians live...

The IDF does not maintain law and order there, nor do they do anything to prevent torture and other human rights abuses happening there - as they would be REQUIRED to do as an Occupier. The local authorities - the PA - is in control of law and order there since the 1990's, not the IDF.

Same goes for Gaza.

If Israel were to try to maintain law and order in the territories as an occupier, they'd have to reinvade and take the PA/Hamas completely out of power.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. IDF increases West Bank presence following Itamar terror attack

The Israel Defense Forces launched an inquiry on Sunday and sent reinforcements into the West Bank two days after the massacre of five members of the same family in the settlement of Itamar.

The probe is being overseen by the Samaria District brigade commander, Col. Nimrod Aloni, and the IDF commander in the West Bank, Brig. Gen. Nitzan Alon. Officers serving in Central Command are also helping in the investigation. The conclusions will be submitted to Chief of Staff Benny Gantz.


Military sources confirmed on Sunday that the authorities mishandled the initial signal triggered by the electronic security fence ringing the settlement. Two Palestinian terrorists climbed over the fence and killed Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their children in their home.

While Itamar is protected by a civilian security firm, the Givati infantry company responsible for the area oversees a much wider strip of territory that stretches across the northern West Bank. Another issue to be investigated is the extent to which the Givati Brigade supervises the settlement's security procedures.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-increases-west-bank-presence-following-itamar-terror-attack-1.349017

As the occupying power, Israel is required to prevent human rights abuses. A bit of a problem for them, as they're actually carrying out human rights abuses against the Palestinians...

[shira]

42. Let's see if we can agree on something. Is Gaza occupied?

Because if so, Israel would have to send troops into Gaza to bring law and order there.

Amnesty, BTW, claims Israel still occupies Gaza.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Fair enough. We won't be in such extreme disagreement about that one...

When it comes to Gaza, I'm not sure one way or the other. While some aspects of an occupation are there (control of airspace, waters, and who enters and leaves Gaza*), others aren't (an occupying force being there)...



* Israel and Egypt seem to have been working together on Gaza's border crossings with Egypt, and I'm assuming that's now changed and Egypt alone controls the crossings)

[azurnoir]

40. your claims are fatuous indeed

when speaking of solely the West Bank only 55% of Palestinians there live under complete Palestinian control in area a which comprises 17% of the West Bank land area area B is under Palestinian civil authority and Israel military control and comprises 24% of the West Bank land the remaining 59% of the West Bank is under total Israeli control

figures taken from this source

This page was last modified on 6 September 2011 at 16:06.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Administration

[shira]

43. see #41. n/t

[azurnoir]

44. you are still incorrect as the post you replied showed

but do feel free to making the same claims, but it does not change facts

[Scurrilous]

4. Israel’s UN Ambassador Held 70 Meetings With Counterparts

<snip>

"As part of Israel’s campaign to foil the Palestinian bid at the United Nations this month, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. held seventy meetings with his counterparts trying to convince them to vote against the move.

Ron Prosor is claiming that the Palestinian move at the United Nations is a unilateral move that will not lead to the establishment of a Palestinian State, but instead “will lead to bloodshed in the region”.

In an interview with conservative Israeli newspaper, Maariv, Prosor said that Israel is very active in lobbying against the Palestinian decision to ask international recognition of statehood.

The ambassador added that the meetings aim at convincing the world that the only means for peace and for establishing a Palestinian state is through negotiations, and not through what he called “unilateral Palestinian decisions."

http://www.imemc.org/article/61975