Home / Yehoshua / Palestinian Bid At The United Nation
Palestinian Bid At The United Nation

Palestinian Bid At The United Nation


The UN: Problem or Solution

Palestine – a state interrupted

Palestine – Partition and Theft

Palestinian Identity


Mohamed Khodr: US and Israel Faced The Greatest Slap Heard Around the World


12/08/2012 Mohamed Khodr

It is that is enraging the world and turning it into a hostile Anti-Jewish planet.

Mohamed Khodr: US and Israel Faced The Greatest Slap Heard Around the World

“A shocking crime was committed on the unscrupulous initiative of few individuals, with the blessing of more, and amid the passive acquiescence of all”.

Tacitus: Senator and Historian of Roman Empire

“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the and the expropriation of their lands.”

– Yoram Bar Porath; Yediot Aahronot, July 14, 1972.


Palestine in the UN

Palestine 194

International recognition of the State of Palestine

United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19

UN security council rejects Palestinian statehood bid

FAQ: The Palestinians’ United Nations Statehood Bid

Palestinian United Nations bid explained

United Nations set to accept Palestines bid to have its flag flown

Q&A: Palestinians’ upgraded UN status

‘Palestinian Bid For United Nations’ – 7 News Result(s)

Palestinian Bid At The United Nation

Why Israel rejects recognition


Contrary to common knowledge, it is essential to emphasis that Israel does not reject a Palestinian state. In fact, Israel’s position is that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a two state solution: a Palestinian state living in peace side by side with an Israeli-Jewish state.

However, Israel opposes the unilateral step that the Palestinians have chosen. By submitting their request to the United Nations, the {Palestinians are trying to avoid direct negotiations which Israel believes is the only way to reach a peace agreement first and then to request recognition as a state.

Even if a resolution regarding a Palestinian state is reached at the UN, the Palestinians will not be able to avoid negotiations with Israel to solve core issues such as the status of Jerusalem, security, borders, refugees and water. These core and sensitive issues will need to be discussed and agreed upon through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

President Madmound Abbas’ request is still being discussed by the Security Council. The time needed for such discussions allows the international community – the Quartet- to bring the two sides together in order to resume direct negotiations.

The Quartet – the UN, the United States, the European Union and Russia – has called for the immediate resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, provides a time table for meetings within the next three months and has declared the end of 2012 as the deadline to reach a peace agreement. Israel has accepted these goals and is ready to resume the talks immediately; The Palestinian Authority has yet to reply.

It is imperative to note that the Quartet’s goal is in line with US President Barrack Obama’s stand as expressed in his recent speech at the UN. There, he clearly delivered the guidelines on how peace should be built, not through unilateral steps or resolutions at the UN but by direct talks. Mr Abbas’ UN initiative may have attracted widespread media coverage and brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict yet again to the forefront, after international attention had been diverted mostly to the storm brewing in the Arab world. However, the high expectations built by Mr Abbas’ bid at the UN might be deflated if they are not fulfilled. This could lead to unrest and violence in the Palestinian territories, which will add to the instability in the already turbulent and volatile Middle East region.

Here, a significant issue that should be noted is the involvement of Hamas which controls the Gaza Strip. In preparations for its unilateral declaration of a state, the Palestinian Authority headed by Mr Abbas signed a reconciliation agreement with Hamas. This agreement was not implemented on the ground; but recognising a Palestinian state without any change in the position of Hamas would serve as a de facto international recognition of Hams as a legitimate partner of the Palestinians.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation which declares that Israel should be destroyed. On a daily basis, it launches tens of missiles and Kassam rockets at villages and towns in the south of Israel. Hamas, which is recognised by the international community as a terrorist organisation and is outlawed in numerous countries, cannot be a partner to any agreements as long as it does not comply with the conditions put forward by the global community.

Hamas’ character was well reflected earlier last week when the world watched the people of Israel welcome home with great joy the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. However, that happiness was tempered with sorrow at the thought of more than five years that was lost, along with the price that was paid for his freedom.

The arrangement balances the desire to bring home an abducted soldier and the need to maintain the security of the citizens of Israel. More than 1000 Palestinian prisoners convicted in a court of law for horrific bombings and attacks will be released.

The deal was the result of a difficult decision made by the government of Israel. It stems from the Israeli moral commitment that no soldier should be left behind in the hands of terrorists. But the sight of the celebrations in the Gaza Strip which greeted the release of unrepentant terrorists, who had murdered hundreds of innocent civilians, was appalling. To grant recognition to Hamas would be against the values of peace-loving countries.

Israel is prepared to make the same painful compromises it had made in the past. But since Israel’s security is of utmost importance, Israel is not prepared to have another Gaza in the West Bank. This is the reason why Israel insists on a peace agreement which will seal any cracks in its security.

A UN resolution will not create a state but in fact will impose immense difficulties on any future negotiations. In order to reach a two state solution, a peace agreement needs to be worked out between the two parties. When this happens, Israel will be among the first countries to recognise the state of Palestine.

However, the crucial question remains: Do the Palestinians want to engage Israel in a serious peace process that will end the conflict and enable them to fulfil their legitimate aspirations for a state of their own?

The writer is Israel’s Ambassador to Singapore

Why Bid by Palestine is long overdue

By Matthew Isacc Weiss FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

On Sept 23, President Madmound Addbas of the Palestinian Authority presented an application to the United Nations (UN) requesting that Palestine, encompassing the territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, be admitted as a full member state. The Palestinian move at the UN is not only long overdue but an appropriate and inevitable response to decades of Israel’s unrelenting denial of Palestinians’ inalienable national rights.

Security considerations are among the main arguments Israel has marshalled to defeat the Palestinian bid at the UN. According to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel cannot afford to retreat to the 1967 borders as the Palestinians insist. Rather it must retain strategically sign peace proposals that would have satisfied significant areas of the West Bank such as the Jordan River Valley to ensure “strategic depth” and defensible borders”.

Israeli policymakers, though, frequently invoke security as a blanket justification for a range of policies these are driven by ulterior motives that have little if anything to do with Israel legitimate security needs.

Take, for instance the route of Israel’s Separation Wall. Originally designed as a barrier against the infiltration of Palestinian suicide bombers into Israel, this legitimate purpose would have been amply achieved had Israel constructed the barrier entirely within its own territory. Instead, the mammoth wall juts deeply into the West Bank, confiscating huge swaths of privately owned Palestinian land and effectively annexing the territory to Israel. In retrospect, the route of the wall can only be interpreted as a thinly veiled attempt to grab valuable real estate that Palestinians desire for an independent state under the guise of security.

Israeli officials argue that Palestinians grievances can be effectively redressed through direct negotiations between the parties. The contend that on more than one occasion Israel has made sweeping peace proposals that would have satisfied the Palestinians essential requirements for an equitable two state solution to the conflict, but every time Israeli negotiators ran into a brick wall of uncompromising Palestinian opposition.

However, this official Israeli narrative is flawed on many counts; The Palestinians rejected these supposedly generous and flexible offers not because they were unwavering in their hostility towards Israel, but rather due to the fact that the proposals fell well short of Palestinian and international standards for a just peace, as enshrined in UN Resolutions 242 and 228. For instance, the two state proposal unveiled by former prime minister Ehud Barak at the Camp David negotiations in 2000 proposed to fragment a future Palestinian into three isolated stands of territory, a far cry from the viable state Palestinians rightfully demand.

The vision of peace outlined by Israel’s current Prime Minister is even more untenable. The Palestinian state Mr Netanyahu has in mind would possess all the trappings of independence – a flag, national anthem and maybe even a currency- while lacking the core attributes of a sovereign state, such as effective control over its natural resources, airspace and borders. Moreover, Mr Netanyahu refuses to cede control of East Jerusalem, the cultural and commercial epicentre of Palestinian life, and allow it to serve as the capital of a Palestinian state.

The reason the peace process has failed is not because the Palestinians have irrationally rebuffed every reasonable proposal, but rather because the Israeli government has simply used negotiations as a smokescreen to divert the interestingly communities attention from its ongoing dive to expand Jewish only settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem at Palestinians expense. The confiscation of vast tracts of privately owned Palestinian land to make room for Israeli settler colonies has destroyed the very prospect of an equitable division of territory that must be at the core of any just and durable peace agreement.

Beyond the diplomatic arena, Palestinians have resorted to every conceivable strategy for pressing their right, ranging from violent means of struggle such as suicide bombings and guerrilla warfare, to exclusively peaceful strategy demonstrations against the Separation Wall and various acts of civil disobedience. Israel’s response to each and every one of identical: brute force, expropriation of more Palestinian demands for genuine self-determination.

Contrary to what Israel and the United States claim, the Palestinian decision to go to the UN is not premature, but is rather long overdue. The Palestinians cannot afford to continue to place their fate in the hands of a US-sponsored peace process in which the “rules of the game” are consistently rigged against them. They have every right to sidestep this charade and act swiftly and decisively, and through overwhelmingly peaceful means, to prevent Israel upon which they seek to establish a viable state. As Dr Martin Luther King Jr, the famous American civil right leader, stated: “Justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

The writer is a post-doctoral research fellow, Middle East institute, National University of Singapore



  1. Pingback: Senator Bill Nelson « dearmmlee

  2. Pingback: Senator Marco Rubio « dearmmlee

  3. Pingback: Senator Tom Udall « dearmmlee

  4. Pingback: WORLD ULTIMATUM TO SATANYAHU – 1967 Border or One Democratic Palestine!!!! | The Poison Apple of the World

Leave a Reply

Scroll To Top