13 Comments

1. 

   AntAloyOctober 30, 2012 at 1:07 pmReply

   Thank you for the interesting article. I would like to draw your attention to a few UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSC) – which are binding and the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 
   There are over 150 UN Resolutions that remain sadly ignored by Prime Minister Netanyahu and unimplemented. Also the concern pertaining to outposts is an issue the UK Government has been troubled about. 
   On the 24th April 2012, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:
   “I strongly condemn the Israeli government’s decision yesterday to turn three illegal outposts in the West Bank into settlements. I urged the Israeli government in my statement on 5 April to remove – not legalise – outposts across the West Bank.”
   The West Bank and East Jerusalem is occupied Palestine – recognised by 132 nations in the world including India, China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Iceland).
   Palestine is still illegally held and sadly Israel has ignored the ruling of the International Court of Justice (subsequently supported by the UN and EU) with respect to the “security barrier”. This “wall” is 3 times the length of the Berlin Wall.
   May I draw your attention to a couple of issues that the ICJ (2004), with relevance to the ‘security barrier’ which it viewed with alarm.
   The EU subsequently supported the UN vote pertaining to the ‘security barrier’. The ICJ also found the following:
   • That the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court pointed out that the restrictions placed on the local population located between the barrier and the Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the opinion stated that taking control of private land to build the barrier injured private property owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
   • The illegality of the barrier under international human rights law. In this context, the court stated unequivocally, and contrary to the position held by Israel, that international human rights law applies in its entirety in occupied territory, along with humanitarian law. The court ruled that the separation barrier violates rights set forth in conventions to which Israel is party. The court mentioned the rights to freedom of movement and the right against invasion of privacy of home and family, which are enshrined in Articles 12 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right to work, to an adequate standard of living, health, and education, which are enshrined in Articles 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
   Please also see UN Resolutions below.
   Yours sincerely
   Anthony
   *** UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 – BINDING
   The Security Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security; noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;
   http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB
   *** Resolution 694 (1991) – BINDINGAdopted by the Security Council at its 2989th meeting on 24 May 1991
   The Security Council,
   Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),
   Having learned with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991,
   1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the save and immediate return of all those deported;3. Decides to keep the situation under review.
   *** Resolution 672 (1990) – BINDING
   Adopted by the Security Council at its 2948th meeting on 12 October 1990
   The Security Council,
   Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),
   Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people,Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,
   1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers;2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.

2. 

   SergiuszSchellerOctober 30, 2012 at 2:07 pmReply

   These are all correct, but it’s not the point. The point is Palestinians and the Palestinian authorities are not ready for a state and no matter how many resolutions are issued, it does not change this fact in a slightest bit.

   • 

     representanideaOctober 31, 2012 at 1:57 amReply

     SergiuszScheller  
     This comment exposes your lack of knowledge on the matter, your lack of understanding of the  politics already established within Gaza and West Bank, and, finally, indicates that you have fallen prey to the media. 
     1. Palestinians hold elections and have governance in both the West Bank and Gaza. Yes, they aren’t perfect, but they make the best with what they have. 
     2. You cannot state that a certain group of people aren’t ready for self determination without stating WHY. You comment has no substance. If you intend to undertake a intellectual discussion on a certain topic, you should at least be armed with some (impartial) analysis based on FACTS. You’ve come clearly unarmed.
     3. Your above analysis is regurgitated dogma from the Israeli government. Please read something other than online newspaper reports before setting out to becoming included in such matters. In all seriousness, your analysis was simply not worth reading.
     4. The only solution to the Israel – Palestine problem is a ONE state solution. Israel is not a democracy. It is an inherently racist state. It only gives full freedom and rights to Jews. No other state in the world does this. (Yes, other states do endorse a certain religion, but they still give equal rights to ALL citizens). 
     Israel is a racist state and eventually the tide of humanity will turn against its military occupation and it will become engulfed with millions of people seeking to restore the rights of Arabs in the current Apartheid regime.
     I am a member of the Australian Friends of Palestinian Association and our main aim is to restore full independence to Palestine.  We have members in the Australian Senate and House of Representatives and will not stop until Israel is stopped.

     • 

       SergiuszSchellerOctober 31, 2012 at 2:42 amReply

       representanidea SergiuszScheller 
        I very much appreciate your opinion, but you have presented me with nothing else than some accusations of immorality and bias, which I certainly do not appreciate. Therefore I am not going to proceed with countering your arguments as it seems to be fruitless, since you have already  expressed  your opinion so rigidly. I hope yours and Australian Friends of Palestine endeavours prove to have some impact in the Middle East.

     • 

       kjwriteNovember 6, 2012 at 10:02 pmReply

       representanidea SergiuszScheller You purposely lie here and lecture someone for not agreeing with your narrow viewpoint. Point 4 is a lie, or perhaps you can explain Arab political parties and Arab representatives in the Knesset? If YOU want to have an intellectual discussion (that you have accused the writer of being unable to achieve) then you should approach the issues with facts. So by a one state solution do you mean kick out the Jews? By all means support this UN resolution that means negotiations between Israel and Palestine will be next to impossible. I see these same comments from every Palestinian activist as soon as something is written or posted that they do not agree with. Learn some historical facts as well, yes it would be great for Palestinians to have their own independence, but to say ‘restore full independence’ is false, as these are people that never had a nation before. I am tired of these stupid comments that just say “you’re wrong because you’re wrong”.

3. 

   HenrySeversOctober 30, 2012 at 4:52 pmReply

   You say you do not wish to defend Israeli policies, but implicitly your article seeks to uphold the status-quo. As neither Jew nor Arab, I find rationalising the subjugation of any people on the basis that they are ”not ready” for statehood and self determination an horrifically antiquated claim to casually throw out there – esp given the momentous events of the Arab Spring. Of course, there will never be a time when Israel believes the Palestinians are ready for statehood, they will always fight against it. I would point out that the gradual erosion and encroachment of the slither of land the Palestinians have been ”allowed” to occupy is the very crux of the issue you allude to, and the reason why there is no infrastructure, no stability, no access to basic resources etc. Simply because a region is more peaceful today than it’s ever been in the past is not the benchmark for a just and cohesive society. Only a two state solution, where not only are both countries officially recognised and afforded the same rights, but both are held accountable and suffer the same consequences when international law is violated.

4. 

   Richard RoskellOctober 31, 2012 at 3:12 amReply

   From the comment by Mr. Scheller: “Palestine can only become a state if it has all the features of a state – territory and population are not enough.”
   I suggest that Mr. Scheller think back to the beginning of modern Israel. If one were to consider Gaza or the West Bank alone or together, they have a more state-like character than did Israel in 1948.

   • 

     SergiuszSchellerOctober 31, 2012 at 10:52 amReply

     Richard Roskell  Well I suggest you sir do your reading on Israel in 1948, which certainly was more of a state than Palestine right now. A simple evidence of that is the fact that the Israeli institutions took power over smoothly from the British to which the whole society adhered. The amount of ignorance beaming from all these comments is rather troubling.

   • 

     SergiuszSchellerOctober 31, 2012 at 10:52 amReply

     Well I suggest you sir do your reading on Israel in 1948, which certainly was more of a state than Palestine right now. A simple evidence of that is the fact that the Israeli institutions took over  power smoothly from the British to which the whole society adhered. The amount of ignorance beaming from all these comments is rather troubling. @Richard Roskell

5. 

   Purav PatelOctober 31, 2012 at 7:22 pmReply

   Having written the article you have responded to, I feel it is necessary for me to counter your own. As valid as I feel your argument is with regards to the security implications of Palestinian statehood, I believe that the logical conclusion that you come to is that essentially, Palestine can never exist. As you argue, relations between the two groups ‘haven’t been as peaceful as they are now for some time’. Surely there is then no better time to act than now?On a simple moral basis, the concern should not be what the security implications are within the region. If Palestine were to be recognised as a state, the UN would have full power to sanction the state, should there be attacks on Israel. The problem would become one of International Relations and not one of a suppressed and persecuted nationality – as it currently is.The internal politics of Palestine should not present an obstacle to granting people the right of self-determination. This is something that can be, and should be, dealt with by supranational governance. At the moment, the UN or any other country is unable to exert their influence on the terrorism of the Palestinian minority towards Israel. Statehood for Palestine would open this door.

6. 

   SergiuszSchellerOctober 31, 2012 at 9:42 pmReply

   Thank you for your reply, I really value your insights, unlike some of the others presented here. The problem is that the only institutional framework recognised by the international society  has virtually no control over Gaza Strip, which really is the biggest obstacle to Palestinian statehood. I do not say that Palestinians have no right to their own state – claiming they shouldn’t is simply against any humanitarian values. But at a current moment – when Hamas rides on poisonous anti-Semitism and terrorist tactics of violence against innocent civilians – any solution forced onto Israel will have reverse effects. When would it be possible? When Hamas drops its jingoist attitude, engages in state-building with the PLO and learns to share power peacefully, which will then provide for economic growth and social development. Otherwise, Israel will never allow Palestinian state, no matter how much the European public opinion hates it.

7. 

   SergiuszSchellerOctober 31, 2012 at 9:57 pmReply

   Thank you for your reply, I really value your insights, unlike some of the others presented here. The problem is that the only institutional framework recognised by the international society has virtually no control over Gaza Strip, which really is the biggest obstacle to Palestinian statehood.  I do not say that Palestinians have no right to their own state – claiming they shouldn’t is simply against any humanitarian values. But at a current moment – when Hamas rides on poisonous anti-Semitism and terrorist tactics of violence against innocent civilians – any solution forced onto Israel will have opposite effects. When would the Palestinian state be possible? When Hamas drops its jingoist attitude, engages in state-building with the PLO and learns to share power peacefully, which will then provide for economic growth and social development. Otherwise, Israel will never allow Palestinian state, no matter how much the European public opinion hates it. Plus, how can you say that security is less important than a moral obligation for national self-determination. Are you saying that its more important to have a state than to make sure that people are not being killed? The reality is gruesome and difficult, but any policymaker, given so many uncertainties, we’ll choose security of his own people and relative stability rather than taking a higher ground because of a moral imperative. When basic national security is threatened, idealism has no voice at all

8. 

   SergiuszSchellerOctober 31, 2012 at 10:12 pmReply

   Oh, and one more thing – how does supranational governance deal with any kind of terrorism in other countries? Does the UN combat terrorism in Pakistan and Yemen or is the American drones? Counter-terrorism is still a domain of individual national security institutions and with Palestinian state in place, Israel would have way bigger problems ensuring its security.