|
... more
UN General Assembly "Uniting for Palestine"
Summary ... The PA/PLO, according to several reports, will attempt to obtain statehood through use of what is known in the UN as a "Uniting for Peace" resolution. They have several options under this resolution. However, it is important to remember that the UN General Assembly can only adopt non-binding recommendations. The Assembly cannot determine boundaries nor can it confer statehood. A boundary between Israel and a future Palestinian state can only be determined by agreement between the two parties.
Decision making in the UN General Assembly is on the basis of one vote for each member state. This may reflect the principle of sovereign equality of states, but clearly a situation where Micronesia and China have equal weight does not reflect political reality. The drafters of the UN Charter were therefore careful not to grant the General Assembly any executive or legislative power. Except on matters of procedure and budget, all General Assembly resolutions are only recommendations. The other main organ of the UN is the Security Council, which was granted the primary responsibility for matters of international security and peace. In contrast to the General Assembly, Council decisions are binding if adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
During the early years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union used its veto power in the Security Council to prevent decisions being taken against North Korea. At the time the UN General Assembly was dominated by the Western states, and in order to try and bypass the stalemated Security Council the United States initiated General Assembly Resolution 377 
, commonly referred to as the "Uniting for Peace Resolution." The resolution declared that where the Security Council could not reach a decision because of a veto, a special session of the General Assembly could be convened "with a view to making appropriate recommendations for collective measures ... including the use of armed force when necessary." Such resolutions require adoption by a two thirds majority at a specially convened emergency session of the Assembly. Because of the present automatic anti-Israel majority in the Assembly, "Uniting for Peace" resolutions have been used frequently for condemning Israeli policies. Resolutions adopted at such sessions, however, are still only recommendations and are not binding on states
There are reports that this September, the Palestinian delegation to the UN, which has observer status at the organization, will attempt to introduce a new "Uniting for Peace" resolution. There are a number of possible scenarios for such a resolution. The most likely possibility would by a call for recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries. In fact, a 2003 Arab sponsored General Assembly "Uniting for Peace" resolution has already called for "Affirming the necessity of ending the conflict on the basis of the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security based on the Armistice Line of 1949." If adopted, a new such resolution would grant the Palestinians [sic] further international support for their demand for a return to the 1967 lines. It would not however be binding on Israel or on any other state, not even for those states voting for the resolution. Under international law, except for cases where a former border is inherited by new states, borders can only be delimited by agreement between the states concerned. No UN organ has the authority to delimit boundaries.
A General Assembly resolution recognizing a Palestinian state would not mean acceptance of Palestine as a member of the UN. In order to be accepted as a member of the UN, the Palestinians would have to officially declare that they are a state, an act they have refrained so far from doing. Should the Palestinians unilaterally declare themselves to be a state, it would be a violation of the Oslo agreements and of the Middle East Roadmap, but it might have the salutary effect of changing the current image of the Israel-Palestinian dispute from that of a homeless people under military occupation into a fairly minor border dispute between two neighboring states.
Even if the Palestinians were to declare themselves as a state, the General Assembly could then only accept Palestine as a member of the UN if there is a recommendation to that effect from the Security Council. In a 1950 Advisory Opinion , the International Court of Justice explicitly stated that "The General Assembly can only decide to admit [a new member state] upon the recommendation of the Security Council" and the admission of a state to membership in the United Nations cannot be done "by a decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission." The Security Council could make such a recommendation if it determines that Palestine fulfills the international law criteria for recognition. These requirements are that the presumptive state has an effective government, a permanent population, defined territory and an ability to conduct foreign relations. There is no need, however, for a state to have clearly defined boundaries provided there is at least some territory that is under its effective control. A Security Council recommendation cannot be adopted, however, if a permanent member of the Council vetoes it by voting against the resolution.
One other, less likely scenario, is that the General Assembly will call for a UN trusteeship to replace Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. The League of Nations mandate for Palestine could serve as a precedent, and the UN has undertaken such trusteeship functions in Namibia, East Timor, and Kosovo. For the Palestinians to propose such a trusteeship implies, however, that they do not see themselves as being ripe yet for statehood. It is unlikely that they will make such a statement. Furthermore many UN member states might be very reluctant for the UN to undertake such an expensive and thankless task. They have only to recall Britain's unhappy record as the Mandatory power.
A third possible scenario is that the Assembly will request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion confirming that the 1949 armistice lines are the boundaries of the Palestinian state. Requesting an opinion on the 1949 armistice lines might, however, be self defeating for the Palestinians as it would be extremely difficult for the World Court to find that a temporary Armistice Demarcation Line between Israel and Jordan is a binding international boundary. The Court in its 2004 advisory opinion on the "wall" in "Occupied Palestinian Territory," an opinion that was requested under a UN Arab sponsored "Uniting for Peace" resolution, refrained from making such a ruling regarding the 1949 Armistice Line.
The underlying issue remains that the UN General Assembly can only adopt non-binding recommendations. The Assembly cannot determine boundaries nor can it confer statehood. A boundary between Israel and a future Palestinian state can only be determined by agreement between the two parties. The international community can encourage or hinder agreement, but it cannot replace the parties in this respect.
[ Published: April 12, 2011 ]
In Depth Analysis
Where is Palestine?
Where, exactly, might another Palestinian state arise? "Another," because Jordan, constituting two-thirds of Mandatory Palestine, with a "Palestinian" majority population, already is a de facto Palestinian state. And although several international documents clearly state the boundaries of Israel, Netanyahu seems more than happy to change them and give land to Israel's sworn enemies.
Israeli Attack on Iran Won't Follow the American Script
Since Israel's exact capabilities are known only to a handful of senior government officials, it's impossible to predict exactly what an Israeli strike against Iran would look like. But based on past experience, one can confidently predict that it won't resemble the US blueprint. Israel is quite capable of dealing with situations with its limited resources and without provoking massive retaliation.
Is the Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt Finished?
The deterioration in relations between Israel and Egypt should serve as a reminder to all that the new generation in the Arab world is not marching toward moderation, particularly when it comes to making peace with Israel or even recognizing its right to exist.
Emet Blog
Benzion Netanyahu and the All Important UN Clause to Save the Jewish State
Benzion Netanyahu, (father of the current Israeli prime minister) who recently died in Jerusalem at the age of 102, along with Irgun activist Peter Bergson (nephew of Mandatory Palestine Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook), and liberal US Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, drafted an article for inclusion in the United Nations Charter that could yet save the Jewish state. Benzion helped to write the fundamental principle of Zionism — the right of Jewish settlement throughout the Land of Israel — into the United Nations Charter.
Bin Laden Lessons for Israel
The US assassinated bin Laden, tried to kill Hitler, and also hunted and eliminated Saddam Hussein, yet nobody said a word. For every targeted elimination carried out by Israel, it was hit with numerous condemnations and protests, yet the daily US surgical strikes in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Iraq are met with silence. Every time Israel unintentionally harm civilians, the world raises a hue and cry, yet if it happens in Libya, Iraq, Serbia, or Kosovo nobody protests.
Murder at Tomb Illustrates the Future of Jewish Holy Sites in a Palestinian State
On April 24, 2011 Jewish worshipers at Joseph's Tomb were attacked by members of the US-trained PA/PLO police. One person was murdered and several others wounded. Rather than keep the peace and root out the terrorists who are a threat to the safety of both Jews and Arabs, the PA/PLO police have yet again proven themselves to be a group that is willing to commit acts of terrorism themselves. And this is not the first time they have done this at Joseph's Tomb.
Views/Commentary
Those Contradictory Militants
The mainstream media, politicians, and others, prefer to use the term "militant" instead of "terrorist," especially in the case of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Doing so fulfills many different agendas, in addition to furthering the user's cause. Whatever the case may be, the usage generally distorts the story and causes confusion for the reader, which many times is its exact intention. As with much post-1970s journalism, the longer news media use such language, the less they sound like journalists and the more they are heard as political partisans.
Who Will Teach Tolerance to the Muslims?
There was a time when police officers told battered wives that they had to be more understanding of their husbands. Today they tell Americans to be more understanding of Muslims. They do work hard you know. And if they try to car bomb you sometimes, maybe it's because you don't please them anymore.
But There is a G‑d in Israel
The Jewish exiles shall be ingathered only through faith. If they have it, if they truly believe in the existence of the Creator and Guider of history, the G‑d of Israel, they can bring the final redemption today. Far from fearing what the Gentile will do if they do such a thing, let the Jew tremble as he considers the anger of the Almighty if he does not.
Selected Reading
Reconciliation (Unity) Agreement Between Fatah and Hamas
Under the auspices of Egypt, delegations from the Fatah and Hamas terrorist groups met in Cairo on April 27, 2011 to discuss the issues concerning ending the political division and the achievement of national unity. Both political parties mutually agreed that the basis of understanding made during the meeting are committing to both parties in the implementation of the Palestinian National Reconciliation Agreement. This is the basis of understanding agreed upon by Fatah and Hamas.
The Arab Pulse: What Policymakers Can Learn From "Palestinian" Social Media
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has released the first-ever study mining the Arabic-language "Palestinian" social media environment to determine Arab public sentiment and its potential impact on US foreign policy. At FDD's direction, the Washington, D.C.-based Web analysis company Constrat viewed approximately 10,000 Arab social media entries between May 3 and August 3, 2010, of which it analyzed approximately 20 percent for relevancy. In the end, the company analyzed 1,788 statements contained within 1,114 unique posts across 996 threads written by 699 authors.
Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?
When an armed force holds territory beyond its own national borders, the term "occupation" is usually used to describe its holding on the land. However, not all the factual situations that we commonly think of as "occupation" fall within the limited scope of the term "occupation" as defined in international law.
Commentaries, Documents, Booklets, and Miscellaneous Materials Relating to the Gaza Strip
These commentaries, documentation, and booklets provide much otherwise unknown information regarding the truth ("emet") about what is really happening in the Arab-occupied/Hamas-controlled Gaza area. Included are weekly and monthly summaries of humanitarian assistance, as well as the infamous Goldstone Report, Israel-related United Nations Resolutions, and miscellaneous materials providing information and analysis of the situation in Gaza.
The History and Meaning of "Palestine" and "Palestinians"
Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs. PDF Format