Israeli/Palestinian Conflict Paleostinians UN



Pure democracy in action. (tyranny)

Yes, and Finland, to my eternal disgust, voted in favor of the non-binding measure with the rest of the freak show that’s dominated by non-democratic states called the United Nations General Assembly in a 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions vote for observer status for the Palestinian Authority.

In a classic case of “good cop -bad cop”, Hamas draws out its rockets, Israel responds, the Fatah feigns moderation as it pursues an agenda with the sole purpose of whittling away at the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel.

The Palestinians now have open access to the ICC courts and other UN governing bodies  which will be exploited to their maximum potential in their attempt to further delegitimize Israel on the international level. Watch out for law warfare (or lawfare) on steroids as Palestinians themselves use the courts in an avalanche of litigation against the Israelis at the ICC.

Abbas I hear, called Israel a ”racist state” three times during his speech before UNGA yesterday, that should gall every fair minded person who knows that the Arabs demand a completely ”Jew Free” Palestinian state, as well as the fact that Israel has an Arab demographic hovering around 20% of the overall population.

That should tell you all you need to know about what’s to come in the future. More lies, more obfuscations and more manipulating of the facts, coupled with more outright demonization of Israel as the UN becomes officially at war with the Jewish state of Israel.

NOTE: This is the exact same immoral international body in the 70’s that voted in favor of a non-binding measure that cast Zionism being equal to that of  racism. They’ve now once again come full circle.

U.N. votes to recognize Palestine as ‘non-member observer state’

By Colum Lynch and Joel Greenberg, Friday, November 30, 1:09 AM

UNITED NATIONS — The General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Thursday to grant Palestinians limited recognition of statehood, prompting exuberant celebrations across the West Bank and Gaza Strip and immediate condemnations from the United States and Israel.

The 193-member U.N. body voted 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions, to recognize Palestine as a “non-member observer state,” a status that falls well short of independence but provides Palestinians with limited privileges as a state, including the right to join the International Criminal Court and other international treaty bodies.

Speaking before the vote, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said the U.N. actions offered the only means to salvage a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We did not come here to delegitimize a state established years ago, and that is Israel,” he said. “Rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of a state that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine.”

But the United States and Israel said the Palestinian bid would complicate efforts to restart stalled Middle East peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement accusing Abbas of having “violated the agreements” between the two sides, and pledging that “Israel will act accordingly.”

“The decision at the U.N. today will change nothing on the ground,” said Netanyahu, insisting that only direct talks will confer true statehood on the Palestinians. “It will not advance the establishment of a Palestinian state; it will push it off.”

Speaking in Washington minutes after the vote, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the U.N. action “unfortunate and counterproductive.”

“We have been clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and Israelis achieve the peace they both deserve: Two states for two peoples, with a sovereign, viable and independent Palestine living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel,” she said.

The date of the Palestinian statehood bid carries symbolic importance for both sides, coming on the anniversary of the General Assembly vote on Nov. 29, 1947, to partition British-ruled Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, a step that led to the creation of Israel.

Thursday’s vote exposed deep divisions within Europe over Palestinian statehood, with France, Italy and Spain supporting the Palestinians, and Germany and Britain abstaining. But the Europeans remained united in calling for Middle East peace talks to be restarted as soon as possible.

More here.

Fact sheet below the fold.

 1.       The Palestinians have failed to build the necessary institutions for a viable state, which is in part why the UN Security Council refused to act on the matter last year. The Palestinian Authority lacks political legitimacy, economic stability, sovereignty over its territory, or control over terror groups inside its borders                                                      

A.      No political legitimacy

  • Unfortunately, stable West Bank political institutions have yet to be created. Palestinian President Abbas is 8 years into his four-year term. There is no independent judiciary or free press.
  • It’s for exactly this reason that Palestinian PM Fayyad, charged with building Palestinian institutions, has long opposed unilateral moves in the UN ( and opposes the current one (

B.      No economic stability

  • Reports from the West Bank as recent as October indicate that “purported economic growth has been nothing but a fleeting mirage,” with many public sector employees – who make up over a quarter of the territory’s purchasing power – “unable to meet bank loan repayments and the devastating effect is felt throughout the financial system.” (
  • The Palestinian UDI push will complicate – perhaps indefinitely – the goal of rebuilding the economy in the West Bank. US laws sharply limit the amount of assistance that the US can provide to institutions which accept a Palestinian state outside the bounds of a negotiated settlement with Israel (; the text of SEC. 7086. (a)(1) & SEC. 7036. (a) limiting assistance &; legislation “consider[ing] further restrictions” & The legislatively-mandated sanctions will be damaging to the Palestinian economy and, according to a Council on Foreign Relations analysis, may trigger “heightened tensions and possibly violence in the Palestinian territories” (
  • Palestinian analysts have also recognized that Israel may follow the US lead in withholding funds from the Palestinian Authority, endangering its economic viability (

C.      No territorial sovereignty because of Hamas/Fatah split

  • The split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip – the former controlled by Fatah and the latter by the Iran-linked Hamas terror group which took over in a violent coup – leaves it unclear what exactly a Palestinian state would look like when declared in those territories. It would be by-definition a failed state, with different factions controlling different parts of the country.
  • A TIP poll conducted in November 2012 found that a majority of American voters (52 percent) agree that “The United States should NOT support a U.N. resolution recognizing a Palestinian state because Palestinian political factions have divided control of the territories and can’t control violence against Israel.”

D.      No control over violence and hostilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

  • Hamas in the Gaza Strip claims it is not able to fully control the smaller terror organizations, including rising al Qaeda-linked Salafist terror groups that operate inside the territory ( That dynamic sets up a situation in which the terrorist rulers of the area, who seized control in a violent coup, would by their own assertions, be unable to enforce its will inside its own borders, up to and including decisions on when to start conflicts with neighboring states.

2.       Strain with US over undermining US diplomacy and “defying” President Obama will damage Palestinian efforts to gain international legitimacy and build domestic institutions

  • President Obama has consistently and strongly opposed the Palestinian efforts to upgrade their status at the UN, and has consistently called on Abbas to return to negotiations (
  • Abbas’s push has prompted analysis of the diplomatic consequences of openly “defying” the President on an issue central to the President’s foreign policy ( & & This shortsighted stunt will cause long-term strain with the U.S., and risks leaving the Palestinians without the diplomatic or financial capital required for long-term institution building.
  • The Palestinian gambit has triggered strain between the US and critical allies. French backing for UDI led the US to “publicly disagree[] with France, one of its closest allies” ( The groundwork for the bid involved Abbas working to distance the Arab League and the European Union from the U.S. ( &
  • The unilateral Palestinian effort at the UN will complicate Palestinian efforts to gain genuine international legitimacy. U.S. law mandates diplomatic sanctions in response to the move, including closing the PLO office in Washington DC (

3.       Currently the Palestinian Authority lacks either the will or the ability to prevent any near-term Palestinian state from becoming a terror state

  • In the Gaza Strip, Hamas has committed itself to fulfilling its genocidal declarations to destroy Israel, and has already wavered on the ceasefire which brought an end to Operation Pillar of Defense (
  • Even Fatah-linked terror organizations continue to commit themselves to conducting terror campaigns against Israeli civilians (

4.       Palestinian officials have indicated that the goal of their unilateral upgrade effort is to allow them to hijack international legal forums. Their tactics in the UN are already an end-run around legitimate international mechanisms.

  • The UNGA doesn’t have the power to create a state. The UN institution empowered to do that is the UNSC, which rejected the Palestinian application last year. The current attempt is an end-run around UN institutions and risks damaging their credibility.
  • Senior Palestinian officials have boasted in Arabic media outlets that the Palestinian Authority will use a United Nations declaration to “sue” Israel internationally ( The ICC prosecutor has previously declined Palestinian petitions on the grounds that according to the UNGA Palestine wasn’t a state.
  • Overcoming that obstacle and attempting to use the Hague to attack is Israel risks politicizing that institution, which would be torn between the anti-Israel politics of some member-states and relatively clear black-letter law ( It would also bring the ICC into conflict with a range of U.S. institutions and laws, risking a diplomatic crisis in which the U.S. would use financial leverage and diplomatic capital to reassert its interests ( Either scenario would badly damage the credibility and viability of the ICC and of international law.                                                           
  1. The unilateral move attempts to pocket irreversible concessions made by the Israelis under the Oslo peace framework, breaks that framework, and then seeks to start negotiations again from zero. Some have described the consequences as “hammering a nail into” the coffin of the peace process (
  • Unilaterally seeking to change the status of the West Bank is a clear violation of the Oslo Accords (Article 31(7) of the Interim Agreement: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations”
  • The move will make it incredibly difficult for future Israeli leaders to sell the Israeli public on the trustworthiness of Palestinian negotiators (
  • Abbas Zaki, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, described the post-UDI situation as one in which the Oslo Accords have ceased to exist, and the goal of the effort to internationalize the conflict – not resolve it with Israel (

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.