Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAbbas signs international conventions; Kerry cancels visit
(Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signed more than a dozen international conventions on Tuesday, citing anger at Israel's delay of a prisoner release in a decision that jeopardized U.S. efforts to salvage fragile peace talks.
His unexpected move was aimed at solidifying the standing of Palestinians in global bodies, defying both Israel and the United States that have long opposed such unilateral action.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately announced that he was cancelling a trip to the region on Wednesday that Washington had hoped would result in a three-way deal aimed at extending the negotiations into 2015.
"This is a moment to be really clear-eyed and sober about this process," Kerry told reporters in Brussels, where he was attending a ministerial meeting of NATO.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/01/us-palestinian-israel-usa-idUSBREA301ZE20140401
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I did not believe you could find it within yourself, Abbas.
Stand strong.
Fucking incredible.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)I don't see the 'good' here for Palestinians.
What's the UN going to do? The ICC probably won't do anything considering the Palestinians tried that route just 2 years ago...
http://972mag.com/international-court-rejects-palestian-appeal-and-palestinian-statehood/40188/
Try and hold on tight there, shira and don't forget to buckle up.
shira
(30,109 posts)Then there's this:
Yet the scope of that territory is undefined. An “occupation” can arise even
in an area that is not the territory of any state – but ICC jurisdiction does
not extend there. Thus even if Israel is an occupying power throughout the
West Bank for the purposes of substantive humanitarian law, this does not
establish that settlement activity occurs “on the territory” of Palestine.
Moreover, the ICC lacks the power to determine the boundaries of states,
and certainly of non-member states. Moreover, the Oslo Accords give Israel
exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israelis in the West Bank. Palestine
cannot delegate to the ICC territorial jurisdiction that it does not possess.
Second, the ICC only takes situations of particular “gravity.” Yet
settlements are not a “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions. No
international criminal tribunal has ever prosecuted non-grave breaches.
The ICC’s gravity measure involves the number of people killed; for
settlements it would be zero. Indeed, the ICC prosecutor triages situations
by the numbers of victims; settlements do not appear to have direct
individual victims. Finally, the ICC would at most only have jurisdiction
over settlement activity from the date of Palestine’s acceptance of
jurisdiction. Settlement activity in this time frame would not immediately
cross the Court’s gravity threshold.
http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/ICCJURISDICTION.pdf
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1) The Palestinian territories are legally well-defined. They are the territory that lies outside the internationally recognized borders of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, but border all four.
2) Palestine declared itself an independent state in 1988. it is not a sovereign state - due to the occupation - but it is a state, one that has been steadily gaining international recognition, and is currently regarded as a UN observer state, alongside the Holy see and Taiwan.
3) If your argument is "Just because Israel is occupying Palestinian territory doesn't mean the Palestinian territories are under occupation by Israel," then your argument is wrong, and you're counting on your supporters being exceptionally stupid people (to be fair, that does seem to be the case)
4) Israel does not have the privilege of determining what the ICC does and does not regard as "grave breaches," particularly not in an instance where it would be the party in offense.
I think Jefferson's right. Here you go;
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)some xtra-duty depends.
shira
(30,109 posts)None of that is their very own exclusive land; nevermind sovereign.
It's fine if you don't believe me, so go on and attempt to name any legal binding document that defines exactly what Palestine's borders are.
I'll wait....
Ah fuck it... maybe I should start the ball rolling first: The green line is an armistice line. And THAT's a binding legal document. What do you have stating otherwise?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The green line is a temporary demarcation line, and not a border. Negotiations are currently centered around making that line hte border between the two state, but it is not itself currently hte border.
So, is there border? Well, of course there is; there has to be a legally-defined border. Else we're in this awkward place where Israel isn't actually a state, since declared borders are mandatory for state recognition. Since i don't think Israel has the magic power to flummox the entire world into letting israel be the first and only borderless state, we must assume that there is indeed a border that the rest of the worl d recognized.
And what do you know, there IS!
Yes, I'm aware that this is a map of Resolution 181, and I already know you're gearing up the "UNGA resolutions are non-binding!" argument. You're right. They're not. But, that's an irrelevant point. Israel's own declaration of borders, which was recognized by the rest of the world, IS legally binding... and as it happens Israel decided to stick with the outlines above when it did so in 1948;
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf
Also at that link you can find the United States' recognition of the state of Israel within those same bounds. This was the basis recognized by the rest of the world as well, in their own missives and declarations.
What that means is that everything outside the orange spots on that map, lies outside Israel's legal borders. All that yellow space also lies outside the borders of the other nations nearby - Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. These territories are claimed by the Palestinians; thus, the Palestinian Territories.
Now of course, you're gasping like a magikarp out of water. "B-b-but, Scootaloo!" you snarl, "a lot of that yellow is within Israel right now!" Well... no, it's really not. Israel has unilaterally annexed some chunks of that - territory occupied between '47 and '49 - buuuuut unilateral annexations aren't actually legal. That's why the US is levying sanctions against Russia for its own unilateral "annexation" of Crimea. You see, to annex territory beyond your own borders, you need the consent of the government you are annexing territory from. You can't just march in and go "Okay, mine now." In cases where there isn't a government to wheel and deal with - as was the case with Palestine all the way to '93 - then you just can't legally annex territory, period, it doesn't mean "free land!" - it actually means the opposite.
And yes, they're not sovereign territories - I just covered that in point #2 - occupation, and all that.
shira
(30,109 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)he actually did it 
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)In solidarity, my friend. 
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)APRIL 1, 2014
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority discussing the peace talks in the West Bank town of Ramallah on Tuesday. C
JERUSALEM — The fraught Mideast peace talks were thrown into confusion on Tuesday as a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority was canceled after Mr. Abbas moved to join 15 international agencies, a move vigorously opposed by Israel and the United States.
Mr. Abbas, who has been under pressure from other Palestinian leaders and the public to press his case for statehood through United Nations agencies, said Tuesday that he was taking that course because Israel had failed to release a fourth batch of long-serving Palestinian prisoners by the end of March, as promised when the talks started last summer.
“We do not want to use this right against anybody or confront anybody,” Mr. Abbas said as he signed the papers, in a speech broadcast live on Palestinian television. “We don’t want to collide with the U.S. administration. We want a good relationship with Washington because it helped us and exerted huge efforts. But because we did not find ways for solution, this becomes our right.”
Israel and the United States have argued that Palestinian membership in these international agencies is a mistaken approach to Palestinian statehood, which should instead be negotiated directly between Israel and the Palestinians. Congress passed a law saying such membership could trigger a withdrawal of United States financial aid to the Palestinian Authority and other steps.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/world/middleeast/jonathan-pollard.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)A list of high-priority intelligence targets published over the weekend includes the names of over a hundred current and former heads of state, who were systematically targeted by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). The list appears to be part of a wider “Target Knowledge Base” assembled by the NSA in order to help produce “complete profiles” of what the NSA calls “high-priority intelligence targets”.
The list is contained in a classified top-secret briefing created by the NSA in 2009. It was published by German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, which said it acquired it from American intelligence defector Edward Snowden. Snowden, a former computer expert for the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency, is currently living in Russia, where he has been offered political asylum.
The leaked briefing explains the function of an extensive NSA signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection program codenamed NYMROD. The computer-based program is allegedly able to sift through millions of SIGINT reports and collate information on individual targets from the transcripts of intercepted telephone calls, faxes, as well as computer data.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2014/04/01/abbas-target-3-nsa-target-list/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SabbahsBlog+%28Sabbah+Report%29
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)I wonder why?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Did you mean to say something meaningful? It's so hard to tell.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)What were they looking for? He's not that subtle. As a working hypothesis, I suppose they were looking for dirt, but who knows?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Abbas, the big threat? ha ha
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Hmm. Another security failure due to Snowden.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)to know..hey, the US listens in on everyone in a big way. Look at Merkel and her cell phone, for crying out loud.
If any leader is not extremely guarded since then, I don't know what to say.
But I think you are quite right, I imagine they would want to know of any dissenters, anyone who
would be considered a trouble maker trying to influence Abbas. Anyone with clout, and with this
latest move, who will be advising them. I suspect many good people may come forward to help
them..at least I hope so.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)If not before. For anyone who was not already wise.
One would have to assume Abbas knows, but he may not be able to do much about it. On the other hand, he seems to have kept this to himself, and I do believe encryption works if you use it. Perhaps it's harder to install moles. Or maybe they just didn't believe he would treally "grow a pair" as the Robot says.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)But he did it, so that is where they are...thank goodness.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)RAMALLAH, West Bank — Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas pushed ahead Tuesday with efforts for wider recognition of Palestine as a state, saying he would pursue membership status in scores of international agencies, treaties and conventions.
The Palestinian move came after Israel did not release a group of Palestinian prisoners as previously promised in a U.S.-brokered deal that included a temporary suspension of Palestinian efforts to join U.N. agencies or treaties.
The U.N. General Assembly recognized Palestine as a non-member state entity in 2012.
Israel has released 78 prisoners in three groups, and was to release the final 26 prisoners Saturday.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-palestinian-abbas-statehood-20140401,0,4447265.story
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)noticed folks who the difficult party is.
I hope they release the details of the agencies soon.
Today is a good day for the Palestinians.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The agreement was that Israel would release prisoners, if Palestine did not go through with unilateral action through the United Nations. Israel refused to release the last 26 prisoners unless additional demands were met. The agreement lapsed, unfilled. Abbas has absolutely ZERO obligation to do favors for Israel, such as pretend the agreement is still on even after Israel broke its word and rejected the agreement - after accepting it.
If Israel is not going to meet its end of such a simple bargain, there is no reason to continue dealing with Israel. For any nation, really, but especially for the Palestinians.
Actions have consequences. Israel scuttled negotiations with this shit. If that bothers you, I suggest you take it up with Netanyahu.
shira
(30,109 posts)...out of Cyprus or the Russians from Crimea. So other than a few headlines bashing the nefarious Zionists, and let's agree that will thrill the world's Jew haters, what's going to be accomplished here?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That remains to be seen and is largely dependent on what the Palestinians just signed onto, and whether they make more motions in this direction.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Probably something that Israel will never give the Palestinians. A nation.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)US: No Palestinian prisoner release is violation of terms of talks
Israel's failure to release a final batch of Palestinian prisoners, scheduled for Saturday night, amounts to a violation of the terms of the original agreement reached between Israel and the Palestinians at the start of talks nine months ago, brokered by the United States, US officials have told their Israeli counterparts.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/US-to-Israel-No-Palestinian-prisoner-release-is-violation-of-terms-of-talks-346878
shira
(30,109 posts)Abbas reportedly told Erekat that he wasn't willing to quit until the fourth prisoner release takes place at the end of the month.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Erekat-I-suggested-to-Abbas-to-abandon-the-negotiations-344762
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Abbas did as he said he would
shira
(30,109 posts)End of story.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)right now Israel can do several things-withhold the PA's tax money, annex the West Bank or area c or wait and see what comes next from the US to name just a few
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
73. I knew you'd defend Abbas staying on just long enuff for prisoner releases. n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=61238
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...so that the 4th batch of prisoners would be released. Then Abbas would drop out of negotiations.
Are you denying that?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however the claim is reportedly, reported by who exactly, it pointedly doesn't say Erekat just an anonymous report, that apparently was ignored by by the US government
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Erekat-I-suggested-to-Abbas-to-abandon-the-negotiations-344762
now I do realize you're desperate to excise Israel of any guilt here but it's just not washing too well, but do keep trying okay?
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)reality is in front of us, Israel reneged on it's agreement no spinning out of that one
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)"I'm done with you" remark.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The PLO’s unanimous vote to go to the UN means the roles have changed: The Palestinian captive has a chance to make the Israeli captor face justice.
By Bassem Khoury | 02:00 02.04.14
Fifteen documents have been signed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, documents that will bring Palestine towards membership in United Nations institutions related to human rights and international law. Despite the naysayers and the pressure from all sides, the PLO leadership has shown that it will no longer be a passive observer, and that it will use the growing leverage it has for justice for the Palestinians.
The Israeli occupation and the colonial infrastructure it has built impose a matrix of control on Palestine, leaving all aspects of life - particularly its economy - hostage to strategies implemented with complete disregard to human rights or international law. The Palestinians’ fate is determined by Israel’s will.
However, a new dynamic is now clearly emerging. Israeli policies too are being influenced by economics, with international law and human rights being the catalysts. Thomas Friedman’s recent description of Israel - as facing a dichotomy and choice between its colonialism and its economic prosperity - is both accurate and relevant.
So what has changed? Is there now a different Israel from before, one whose colonial products Europe wants to label as such, one whose banks European investors are withdrawing from investing in? The answer is - Israel hasn’t changed. It is the same colonial entity pursuing the same ethnic cleansing policies it did for decades. So why has this movement ten off now? How is it related to U.S. Secretary of State Kerry’s adamant efforts, or so they appear, to broker a deal?
The change of “potentially seismic proportions”, altering the nature of the conflict, occurred on 29th November 2012, when Palestine became a non-member state by a two third majority United Nations General Assembly vote. This vote was enabled by the Europeans’ decision to vote in favors, a decision spearheaded by Ireland, Malta and Luxemburg, and followed by France, Italy, Spain and the Nordic countries, in spite of pressures for “a common European position of abstention”. This rendered the UN decision irrevocable. It was said that Abbas went ahead with the UN vote in spite of pressures on him to desist; the U.S. had warned that this act crossed red lines and endangered American national interests.
What is so significant about the non-member state status? Non-member states have accession rights to international treaties and international organizations. First on the accession list are the Geneva Convention - which the Palestinian President has petitioned to join today - and the Treaty of Rome. Thus, Palestine’s status will become that of an “Occupied Country”. Any illegal actions by the Israeli occupier constitute a war crime, allowing potential ICC persecution of any person, legal entity or country infringing Palestinian sovereignty and holding anyone benefiting from the occupation liable under international law. The ICC has already proven its jurisdiction; the precedent was set by Nigerian farmers against Shell Oil for polluting the Niger delta in its efforts to extract oil. The ICC indicted Shell, who was forced to make a hefty settlement.
Infringements on Palestinian sovereignty by Israelis and internationals are widespread. Flights overflying Palestine or tourists and pilgrims visiting Jerusalem via Israel without Palestine’s consent; Volkswagen’s billion-dollar deal for Dead Sea minerals; Heidelberg Cement’s quarries and Veolia’s tram connecting the Jerusalem colonies are all examples of blatant violations. In a nutshell: Any of the 700,000 or so colonialists or anyone who builds, or gives services to the colonial infrastructure is a potential war criminal.
To give negotiations a chance, a nine-month moratorium on joining international treaties was agreed. This expires formally on the 29th April 2014, and Palestinian policy makers have referred to this date as “D-Day”. They have insisted that without a breakthrough Palestine will act; Palestinian negotiators show off a CD ready with instruments of accession to the 63 UN-related treaties and conventions.
Today’s decision is a step in the right direction. It included steps to join the Geneva Convention and human rights and civilian protection institutions – but not yet the International Criminal Court. But that may just be a matter of time. Israelis threatening Palestinians should remember how The Hague dealt with war criminals like Milosevic.
Secretary Kerry reportedly referred to this in conversations with Abbas as a “nuclear weapon”; and Tzipi Livni herself was cautioned by legal experts not to leave Israel if the Palestinians resorted to such an action. Nonetheless, most commentators have remained dismissive of this option. Some have acknowledged its value but caution (now proven otherwise) that the ability of Palestinians to take decisive actions is weak, while others speak of the unwillingness to compromise current “comfortable” positions.
According to Palestinians, 97 countries invest in the colonies. They don’t want to be called out by the Boycott Divestments and Sanctions movement; they want to avoid prosecution now that the European position has changed, fuelling divestments from the colonies by the Dutch, Swedish and Norwegians, to name just a few. This is forcing Israel to choose between colonialism and living within secure and recognized borders. We are witnessing a snowball that continues to roll; Friedman wrote of “a real source of leverage for the Palestinians in their negotiations with Israel."
The two most unlikely scenarios are that Israel will acknowledging its fault and withdraw to the June 4th, 1967 line, or that Palestine’s D-Day will pass without taking measures, even more comprehensive than those announced by Abbas already. Observers highlight that Abbas - who was severely tarnished by the initial mishandling of Goldstone Report - will not allow a repeat. Other unlikely scenarios are the instigation of chaos, making it impossible for Abbas to take decisions; and actively promoting “alternative” Palestinian leaders. As violence cannot be contained, Israel’s security would be at stake, and the Mohammed Dahlan leadership option is not an imminent threat, this scenario is not plausible.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.583287
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The likely scenario is that in classic brinkmanship diplomacy, the U.S. will impose bridging proposals. These will go far more than the maximum Israel was ready to give, making them potentially plausible for acceptance by Palestinians.
Sources close to the negotiations speak of a defiant Palestinian position and of a stern warning that there is a limit to what can be accepted. The PLO leadership’s unanimous vote to start the UN process, and with the potency of economic and diplomatic weapons becoming apparent and actualized, the roles have changed; the captive has a chance to make the captor face justice. I wonder if the cynics - those who didn’t believe the Palestinians would truly act on their principles - realize what this could potentially mean.
Bassim Khoury is the former Palestinian Minister of National Economy.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.583287
bemildred
(90,061 posts)On the other hand, it's a really bad idea, in a situation where your reputation is already trashed, to savage the objects of your reputation-trashing-actiivites some more.
I rely as a heuristic on the idea that Bibi will make the worst of the available possibilities, and the alternative leaders and chaos ideas: a.) work together well, and b.) are old habits, so I think we might see both.
I think we can assume this will make military theatrics more difficult for the IDF to carry out. And vice-versa, the Palestinians would do well to avoid blowing up any pizza parlors.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)recantation, Israel will be risking a lot on the international stage. Giving your enemy more
fuel to shock the world is not going to help you and the US may try to, but I do not believe
we can successfully shield itself this time around...and I think Bibi knows that. There would
be journalists all over this, would not be like 2008.
Palestinians need to avoid anything even remotely violent, agreed.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)And he is under political pressure within Fatah, I hear.
And it's not like if he goes along, something good will come of it.
On the other hand, why now is a good question when you consider the history of the "talks".
I think the answer, or at least a plausible explanation, is that the Palestinians have better international support than in the past, and in particular Uncle Sugar has already stated that he can't stop it now. You can call that an observation or a hint.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The late American psychiatrist Robert Custer, a pioneer in the treatment of compulsive gambling, identified three stages on the way to total addiction: first winning, then losing and finally desperation, when the gambler loses his sense of proportion and commits to ever-growing wagers. Judging by his willingness to put the release of imprisoned Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating table, there is room for concern that John Kerry may also be on a path to losing it all.
Like a gambler sinking deeper and deeper, Kerry has whipped out one of the strongest aces in the American hand, so that all the time, energy and reputation that he has invested in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process won’t go down the drain. But the potential return on his bold bid was modest from the outset: release of Israeli prisoners, a “quiet” freeze on settlements and an extension of negotiations that only a few still believe in.
But not only has Kerry failed to secure his limited goals, the prospect of Pollard’s release may have actually contributed to the breakdown of his efforts on Tuesday. When the Palestinians compared the pittance they were receiving, in their view, to the plum Pollard prize that Kerry was bestowing on Prime Minister Netanyahu, they decided to walk away in a huff. If Bibi gets Pollard, they told Kerry, we will look like fools if we don’t demand something just as big, like jailed Palestinian activist Marwan Barghouti.
In America, reactions to the proposed release deteriorated throughout the day, from surprise in the morning to discomfort by noon to open opposition at sunset. “It’s a sign of weakness and desperation,” said former U.S. diplomat and peace envoy David Aaron Miller. We welcome Pollard’s release, said Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, but “it should not be intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Senator John McCain described the administration’s linkage between the two as “disgusting” although he supports Pollard’s release; his Republican colleague Mark Kirk, a loyal friend of Israel, said Pollard should “rot in jail forever.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.583296
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I've heard he's scheduled to be released in 2015 anyway, so all releasing him early would do is shave a year off his sentence. That really doesn't seem like all that big of a deal to me.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Whether he gets parole is another question, since also as I understand it, he is not cooperative and remorseful etc.
ETA: I have no idea why he is such a hot item, he seems to have taken on symbolic significance of some sort. The US' spooks generally dislike him a lot, from what I can tell, the vitriol rises to Snowden-like levels. Why the Israeli gov't and the Neocons are so anxious to get him freed I don't grok, he looks pretty unremarkable to me.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That's the part I missed hearing about.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The emergence of the convicted spy Jonathan Pollard as a bargaining chip in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations is a lamentable sign of America’s desperation to keep both sides talking. Peace between Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved only if they want it for themselves, something that is very much in doubt right now.
An Obama administration proposal to free Mr. Pollard, an American intelligence analyst serving a life sentence after spying for Israel, as a political gesture toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is a bad idea and would do nothing to advance progress on the core issues of a peace deal.
After nine months of talks, there is no sign of progress on any of these issues. In addition, Israel has refused to follow through on a promise made in July to free 104 prisoners in four groups in exchange for a Palestinian vow to refrain from pressing the statehood issue in United Nations agencies and the International Criminal Court.
Mr. Netanyahu and other Israelis have long demanded the release Mr. Pollard, who has spent nearly 30 years in prison; the Americans have long resisted. He is up for parole next year and said to be ailing, so it might conceivably be worth releasing him early if it could help Mr. Netanyahu take the leap on a truly big decision, like a final peace agreement. But releasing him as a small-bore tactical step to persuade Israel to do what it had already promised? That is not a price worth paying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/opinion/bad-move-on-jonathan-pollard.html?_r=0
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)snip* Abbas signed letters of accession for the following treaties and conventions:
1. The Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the First Additional Protocol
2. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
3. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
4. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in armed conflict
5. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
6. The Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land
7. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
8. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
9. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
10. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
11. The United Nations Convention against Corruption
12. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
13. The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
14. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
15. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=686937
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 07:28 PM - Edit history (2)
Maybe those are April Fools Day jokes.
Also love the PA signing onto the UN Convention against Apartheid, while the PA is at the same time working for an ethnically pure Jew-Free Palestine.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I guess that means we finally agree that Israel is guilty of apartheid.
shira
(30,109 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Presumably you would support the government of Israel being taken to the Hague for that heinous crime?
shira
(30,109 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)to present an argument that is even internally consistent, let alone true.
Do you think that the Gaza disengagement was ethnic cleansing or not?
shira
(30,109 posts)Now you support the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza and the WB, do you not? Or does that not count as ethnic cleansing in your book?
Because if not, IHL disagrees with you:
Deportations, transfers, evacuations
ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)That's a serious charge, particularly because since Nuremburg, acting on orders is not a defence to charges of crimes against humanity.
Accordingly, every Israeli soldier that took part in the Gaza disengagement plan is guilty of crimes against humanity, according to you.
Presumably, you consider that those Israeli soldiers were morally obliged to disobey their orders?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)That's when you know they will say anything, when they accuse the Government of Israel, the designated haven for global Jewry, of ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)if you have a problem horse that you need to get on a truck, you just hold the carrot about two inches away from its nose and get it where you want to go in small, incremental steps. If you do that you can get that horse to go just about any damn place.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:34 PM - Edit history (2)
The Gaza withdrawal was "legal" ethnic cleansing IMO. As opposed to Jordan illegally ethnically cleansing Jews out of Judea/Samaria back in '48. The former "legal", the latter not.
There's the case of Israel now, if it decides to "legally" cleanse part of the WB again of Jews at some later date, then IMHO that will be "legal", but it will be ethnic cleansing nonetheless.
Now it's your turn.
You support the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza and the WB, correct? You oppose it in all other cases, no matter the reasoning. Am I right or wrong and why?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)although I do not consider that to be ethnic cleansing, for the same reason that it was not ethnic cleansing when the Russians kicked the Germans out of Stalingrad, nor was it ethnic cleansing when the Chinese kicked the Japanese out of Manchuria.
Clearly it would be ridiculous if it were otherwise. An invading power should hardly have the right to object to being expelled from someone else's territory on the grounds that it would be racially discriminatory when they never had a legitimate entitlement to reside there in the first place. This remains the case even if the natural consequence of such an action would be to create a China that is "Japanesefrei" or a Russia that is "Germanfrei".
Certainly, if amongst the Jewish settlements there were longstanding Jewish populations then I would support them remaining in the West Bank. This would be the case for the Samaritans at Nablus. It would also be the case for the Jewish quarter and other historically Jewish areas of East Jerusalem, although of course it is almost certain that those areas will remain part of Israel anyway. There was also a longstanding Jewish population in Hebron until 1929 but I do not think that there is any connection between them and the current crop of settlers.
In the same way, I would support any solution of the Cyprus problem that involved the expulsion of recent Turkish settlers, but I would oppose any attempt to remove Turkish Cypriots that were resident there before the annexation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey. Again, I would not characterise that as ethnic cleansing. It surely must have been evident to those Turkish settlers that one day they would probably have to leave, just as it must be equally evident to the Jewish settlers that take up residency in the West Bank.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's International Law, and Article 80 of the UN Charter still makes that law applicable.
Turkish settlers have no such right to live in Cyprus.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)(if you contend that the provisions of the Palestinian mandate apply) is that that document also guarantees the full civil and religious rights of the existing Palestinian population.
In particular it states that no resident of Palestine may be excluded from Palestine on the grounds of his religious affiliation.
If you contend that Jews are free to settle anywhere in Palestine, you will probably find it difficult to argue that Palestinians are not free to settle anywhere in Israel.
A further problem that you have is that the British government in 1922 made clear that the Balfour Declaration was intended to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, rather than of Palestine:-
'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine."
shira
(30,109 posts)...Hamas rules Gaza and the PA rules over Palestinians in the WB.
As my new and favorite go-to guy, Eugene Kontorovich writes:
The Palestinians govern themselves. To anticipate the inevitable comparison, this is not an Israeli-puppet “Bantustan.” From their educational curriculum to their television content to their terrorist pensions, they implement their own policies by their own lights without any subservience to Israel. They pass their own legislation, such as the measure prohibiting real estate transactions with Jews on pain of death. If Israel truly “ruled over” the Palestinians, all these features of their lives would be quite different. Indeed, the Bantustans never won international recognition because they were puppets. “The State of Palestine” just got a nod from the General Assembly because it is not.
Whether the Palestinian self-government amounts to sovereignty is irrelevant and distinct from the question of whether Israel is denying them democracy. Indeed, Israel’s democratic credentials are far stronger than America’s, or Britain’s–the mother of Parliaments. Puerto Rico and other U.S. controlled “territories” do not participate in national elections (and this despite Puerto Rico’s vote last year to end its anomalous status). Nor do British possessions like Gibraltar and the Falklands. These areas have considerable self-rule, but all less than the Palestinians, in that their internal legislation can ultimately be cancelled by Washington or London. The Palestinians are the ultimate masters of their political future–it is they who choose Fatah or Hamas.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/17/israel-palestine-and-democracy/
Read the rest of the article. It's very instructive.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)that we are probably past that point. Netanyahu is incapable of keeping an agreement and the US equally unable to hold him to it. I suspect that in the next little while we will see the International Court of Justice explicitly rule on whether the settlements constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. Hopefully you've realised by now that your arguments in favour are not terribly impressive.
This is absolutely ridiculous, and really is indicative of the level of shit that you read, and that Commentary prints.
Australian legislation, for example, can technically be cancelled by prerogative of the British monarch:-
Disallowance by the Queen
The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor‑General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor‑General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
In practice, of course, Britain has set very strict limits on how these prerogatives could be used (in the case of Australia it has passed legislation - the Australia Acts - agreeing not to overturn Australian law).
Nevertheless, I suppose then that Australians can only wish for the sort of democracy that Israel allows the Palestinians? Christ, what a load of shit.
shira
(30,109 posts)No one seriously considers Australia as a British possession today as they do the 3 examples under US & British control.
But if you feel so strongly about it, you should let Kontorovich know. He has a twitter account. Of course, he'll probably mop the floor with your puerile arguments but go for it.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I am probably more interested in what the ICJ or the ICC has to say than what someone on twitter has to say. I have a feeling that we won't have to wait terribly long in that regard.
Maybe you could email them at the Hague and give them copies of your friends tweets or something and point out what a devastating interlocutor he is. I am sure they would appreciate that.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)While ignoring others when it doesn't suit your agenda.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)There will be more coming down the pike, no doubt.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)you wear or fly Orange 
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)So it's no wonder how you deflect from the Nakba or ignore the plight of the Palestinians.
Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #98)
Post removed
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Also, please stop with the unfounded personal attacks.
Mosby
(16,320 posts)Care go on the record?
You know some of those "illegal occupiers" as you call them are families that have been living in Judea and Samaria for hundreds of years.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)From the West Bank.
I' sure that's just too hard for some to wrap their tiny minds around.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)s should be fairly obvious from the name "Samaria", the population was mostly Samaritan until the Third Samaritan Revolt in 556 AD, when about 100 000 Samaritans were killed and the rest converted to Christianity, and later to Islam.
There is still a small remnant of Samaritans near Nablus and genetic studies indicate that they are very closely related to their Muslim neighbors, who were probably Samaritan themselves a thousand years ago.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)"We hope that by then Israel will gain its composure and won't ignore its responsibility to release prisoners," the official said.
Maliki told the three diplomats to who he submitted the request that the Palestinian move was a response to Israel's failure to carry out the fourth stage of a prisoner release to which it committed as the negotiations opened in July 2013. Israel's decision not to follow through with its end of the deal has prompted the Palestinians to feel freed from their own promise not to appeal to international institutions, Maliki said.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that none of the conventions are connected to the United Nations, but the list released by the Palestinians indicates that nine are UN conventions, including international treaties against torture, corruption and genocide.
The Palestinians were also seeking to become signatories to the international conventions on the elimination of racial discrimination and discrimination against women, both of which were approved by the UN General Assembly.
They have also asked Switzerland for permission to join the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the protection of civilians in wartime, and asked the Netherlands for permission to join the Hague II treaty on the laws of war.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.583409
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)CAIRO (AFP) -- The Arab League has called an emergency meeting of foreign ministers for April 9 on the floundering US-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian, its chief Nabil al-Arabi announced Wednesday.
The meeting will discuss Israel's refusal to release Palestinian prisoners, a key sticking point in the negotiations, Arabi told reporters.
President Mahmoud Abbas requested the meeting, Arabi said, adding it would "examine developments in the light of Israel's refusal to release a fourth tranche of prisoners and extend talks."
Late on Tuesday, Abbas said he had begun steps to join several UN agencies and ratify international treaties, angering Israel and prompting US Secretary of State John Kerry to cancel a trip to Ramallah on Wednesday.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=687059
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)snip*6:41 P.M. U.S. Ambassador the UN Samantha Power tells a House Panel that that the U.S. "will oppose any attempt to upgrade the status of the Palestinians everywhere in the UN."
Power noted that a newly formed American-Israeli team meets monthly to discuss and coordinate responses to possible unilateral actions by the Palestinians at the UN. "If the Palestinians go to the ICC it will be a profound threat to Israel and devastating to the peace process," Power says. (Barak Ravid)
6:04 P.M. Housing Minister Uri Ariel calls on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel the Oslo Accords in response to a Palestinian move to join 15 international conventions.
In a Facebook post, Ariel said that the Palestinian constitutes as a "breaking of all the rules and commitments." He added: "We need to respond in kind – and act for the annulment of the Oslo Accords, which led to only terror and killings. The Palestinians have proven once again that there is no reason to give them false gestures and release terrorists and murderers for a process with a predictable ending." (Barak Ravid)
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.583449
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It is interesting to consider the ICC as a threat to the peace process. What sort of peace process is that?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The ICC, I wondered if the jurists ears were ringing today. Would be great to see a peace process...haven't seen one yet.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)yes indeed it is
shira
(30,109 posts)THAT would be a step towards peace.
Rather, the PA will just use the ICC as a new political weapon in their ongoing war.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)As a threat.
shira
(30,109 posts)...by going to the ICC. That's for certain.
But not much will happen other than some hateful incitement, demonizing Israel & Israeli Jews. That's about it. They tried proving a massacre at Jenin, intentional targeting of civilians in Gaza, etc. All attempts were #MajorFails. Anything they try against the settlers would set a precedent against Turkish settlers in Cyprus or Russian settlers in Georgia/Crimea & that's unlikely to happen. So best case scenario is to attempt to delegitimize and demonize Israel more, in an attempt to further isolate it. Haters will love it as that's what they live for regarding I/P, but beyond that? Meh.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)JERUSALEM (AFP) -- A frustrated US secretary of state demanded Thursday action from recalcitrant Israeli and Palestinian leaders, saying it was time for them to demonstrate leadership in the crisis-hit peace talks.
But John Kerry acknowledged in Algiers that negotiators from the two sides had made "progress" in lengthy overnight talks in Jerusalem, also attended by the Americans.
More than a year of intensive Kerry shuttle diplomacy appeared to be on the brink of collapse this week after Israel announced a fresh wave of settlement tenders and the Palestinians resumed moves to seek international recognition for statehood.
Washington expressed disappointment, describing them as "unhelpful, unilateral actions," but insisted diplomacy still had a chance.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=687282
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)While Palestinian sources described an acrimonious meeting with Israeli negotiators early Thursday morning, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that the talks had "made progress" in narrowing some questions that arose over the last few days.
Speaking during a state visit to Algeria, Kerry said the talks were at a "critical stage" and that gaps remain between the sides that "will have to be closed and closed fairly soon."
He put the onus of closing the deal on Israeli and Palestinian leaders themselves. He urged Israelis and Palestinians to "find the compromise that is critical to be able to move forward."
Kerry claimed that the disagreement between Israelis and Palestinians was "not over the fundamental substance of a final status agreement, it's over process that would get you there."
The US Secretary of State said it would be a "tragedy" for both sides to lose this opportunity "to get to those real issues that are the differences of the final status agreement."
The Bethlehem-based Ma'an News Agency quoted Palestinian sources as saying that the "long and heated" nine-hour meeting attended by Kerry's special envoy Martin Indyk, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and Israel's lead negotiator, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, ended early Thursday morning without any agreement.
The sources told Ma'an that the meeting had been a "fierce political battle," in which Indyk was forced to mediate heated arguments between the two sides.
According to Ma'an, Erekat told the Israelis, "We are here to negotiate in the name of the UN-recognized State of Palestine, not in the name of a Palestinian Authority whose inputs and outputs are controlled by Israel."
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Palestinian-sources-describe-acrimonious-talks-with-Israel-Kerry-says-progress-made-347399
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Author Julian Pecquet Posted April 2, 2014
Congress sought to tie funding for the PA to preservation of the status quo at the UN in this year's omnibus spending bill.
While it's not clear Abbas' decision violates the letter of the law, appropriators have made it clear they think its spirit has been trampled on.
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations & Related Programs, told Al-Monitor that aid should be revisited.
She said the goal of US assistance since the 1990s has been to help strike a peace deal, and that the UN move appears antithetical to that.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/palestine-un-aid-cuts-peace-talks-abbas.html##ixzz2xpjXLua7
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)As the US-imposed April 29 deadline for a "framework" agreement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority looms, time is also running out for the American administration itself.
The Obama administration must now conjure up an escape route to avoid a political crisis if the talks are to fail, as they surely will.
snip*Preparing for the foreseeable failure, US Secretary of State John Kerry remained secretive about his plans, leaving analysts in suspense over what is being discussed between Mahmoud Abbas' negotiators and the Israeli government. From the very start, Kerry downgraded expectations. But the secrecy didn't last for long. According to Palestinian sources cited in al-Quds newspaper, the most widely read Palestinian daily, PA president Abbas had pulled out of a meeting with Kerry in Paris late February because Kerry's proposal didn’t meet the minimum of Palestinian expectations.
According to the report, it turned out that Kerry's ambitious peace agenda was no more than a rehash of everything that Israel tried to impose by force or diplomacy, and Palestinians had consistently rejected: reducing the Palestinian aspiration of a Jerusalem capital into a tiny East Jerusalem neighborhood (Beit Hanina), and allowing Israel to keep 10 large settlement blocks built illegally on Palestinian land, aside from a land swap meant to accommodate Israel's security needs.
Moreover, the Jordan Valley would not be part of any future Palestinian state, nor would international forces be allowed there either. In other words, Israel would maintain the occupation under any other name, except that the PA would be allowed a level of autonomy over Palestinian population centers. It is hard to understand how Kerry's proposal is any different from the current reality on the ground.
in full: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=687647