Skip to main content

View Diary: The ground shifts again: Hamas and Fatah sign reconciliation deal (82 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Except, (12+ / 0-)

    that absolutely no one is talking about a UNSC resolution.  Everyone knows the US will veto whatever Israel wants.  Folks are talking about a General Assembly resolution along the lines of UNGA Resolution 371.  That can lay the groundwork for international economic and diplomatic action against the Occupation.  

    "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

    by weasel on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 02:37:33 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I believe Weasel is correct. I know for sure the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrJayTee

      vote on the resolution will be held by the General Assembly.

      I am not sure, if the the UNSC has a veto right.  

      But, just getting the majority approval of the GA would be an enormous step forward.

      And, then a request for the PA for international assistence in maintaining security, after the IDF withdraws, which will be expected "immediately."

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 03:10:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Weasel is referring to UNGA 377 (3+ / 0-)

        The Uniting for Peace resolution would allow the GA to create a non-binding endorsement of the State of Palestine. It is not formal UN recognition nor would it allow Palestine to become a member state. And the GA cannot unilaterally resolve boundary disputes, so the Green Line wold not become an International Border.

        It would allow the GA to recommend that other member states go do their own thing is pressuring Israel, but at the end of the day all military occupations end with either a peace treaty or a war.

        •  not really accurate (6+ / 0-)

          to local standards.

          377 could, in fact, allow for member status in the UN of a new state, with or without UNSC action, either way.

          Not sure where you are getting your information.

          Individual staes, alone and collectively, can recognize a new state along whatever boundaries they wish.  It isn't a UNGA action.  it is an action of individual states.

          There really isn't a precedent for an occupation of this kind post WW2 (and post formation of the UN)  , in duration, violence and willful transfer of populations, so I wouldn't generalize about how this might end.  The use of armed might in acquisition of territory is pretty much off the table for a member state.  

          Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

          by Eiron on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 04:03:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unfortunately, there are lots of precedents (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TakeMeOutOfMyMissouri

            many far worse.

            Consider:

            Sudan/South Sudan
            Sudan/Darfur
            Nigeria/Biafra
            South Africa/Namibia
            Morocco/Western Sahara
            Iraq/Kurdistan
            Iran/Kurdistan
            Turkey/Kurdistan
            Soviet Union/Multiple
            Serbia/Kosovo

            And those are only the ones off the top of my head.

            •  In all of these (4+ / 0-)

              the separatist regions were recognized as part of the state they which to separate from. People in those regions were considered citizens of that state.

              Palestine is not a separatist region and Israel does not consider the Palestinians citizens. It is occupied and come what may Palestine will be recognized.

              •  two points (0+ / 0-)

                1.  That was not true in all cases with respect to the Soviet Union, which occupied recognized independent states.  I am also not sure that was true in the case of Namibia. I also failed to include the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which was also a recognized state.  

                2.  I am not entirely sure, that one can legitimately view external recognition as significant in determining whether people have a right to be free.   I would suggest that far more relevant is whether their rights are protected, they form an identifiable group connected with a geographic territory and they have the opportunity to participate on a substantially equal basis with citizens of other groups

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site