Why I want Obama to veto Abbas’ UN resolution on Palestine

UN resolution backed by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas would fatally undermine Palestinian rights

Thaer Ganaim APA images

The UN Security Council may vote as soon as today on a resolution setting a twelve-month deadline to achieve a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal and calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip by the end of 2017.

The draft was formally put forward by Jordan at the behest of Mahmoud Abbas, the de facto leader of the Palestinian Authority bantustan.

The text of the resolution was published in the Israeli daily Haaretz and is reproduced in full below.

PA foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki said, as Haaretz reports, that the resolution is a “French-sponsored version.”

Here’s why I hope that one of the permanent members – almost certainly it will be the Obama administration – vetoes this terrible resolution.

I evaluate any steps related to Palestine through a simple and consistent lens: does this measure take us closer to the fulfillment of Palestinian rights, all Palestinian rights?

These rights are set out most succinctly in the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS): an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land during and since 1967; an end to Israel’s institutionalized racism against Palestinians in present-day Israel (the areas on which Israel was established in 1948); and the return of Palestinian refugees to their land and homes.

I believe in a positive vision of a Palestine whole and free, where all people live in a decolonized and reunified territory without discrimination based on religion or ethnicity and without sectarian territorial partition.

This is why I have consistently opposed steps to “recognize” the so-called “State of Palestine.”

Those “recognition” initiatives are an effort to undo the death of the “two-state solution” and rescue Israel as a racist Jewish state, as Joseph Massad explained in an essential article for The Electronic Intifada this week.

This resolution tries to do exactly the same thing, except in a more legally binding and therefore dangerous manner. It makes the claim that “a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-state solution.”

It insists that the entire question of Palestine be reduced to the question of the 1967 occupation and that merely ending this occupation would effectively end all Palestinian claims.

The resolution uses vague, deceptive and in some places outright dishonest language that would enshrine in international law the “liberal” Zionist two-state solution and deal a devastating blow to Palestinian rights, particularly the right of return for refugees.

The places it speaks about “rights” relate to the Palestinian “right to self-determination” – a vague formula which has come to mean in effect a bantustan state and no more.

It also states the “right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders” – meaning in effect that it recognizes Israel’s “right” to be a racist state.

As of this writing, there were reports the draft could still be amended in order to try to avoid a US veto. But of course any further amendments would make it worse than it already is.

The resolution is long, so I will not go through every point but I will raise a few key issues.

The right of return

The resolution does not speak about the “rights” of Palestinian refugees. Instead it speaks about the “the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative.”

(UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948 resolves that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date” and should receive compensation).

This draft speaks of a “just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative [sic], international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194.”

This convoluted language – which refers to the Arab League “peace initiative” of 2002 – is designed to reassure Israel that Palestinians would not insist on their right of return but would instead accept various relocation and resettlement plans designed to guarantee Israel its violently gerrymandered Jewish majority. (I explained how the Arab Peace Initiative undermines Palestinian rights, especially refugee rights, in a 2008 brief for the Palestine Center.)

Palestinian refugees are not the “problem.” Israel’s denial of their rights, solely on the racist basis that they are not Jewish, is the problem.

Endorsing settlements

The draft resolution declares among other things that “the negotiated solution will be based” on “borders based on 4 June 1967 borders with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent and swaps.”

The repeated insistence on the term “based on” here is very much like when we are told that an almost entirely fictional and fantastical Hollywood movie is “based on a true story.”

This is simply a formula to allow Israel to keep most, if not all, of the illegal colonies it has built in the occupied West Bank including Jerusalem – as the Abbas authority has previously proposed and endorsed.

In fact, under precisely the same formula, Abbas offered Israel that it could keep virtually all of the settlements, resulting in what PA negotiator Saeb Erekat called, using the Hebrew name for Jerusalem, “the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history.”

It is especially notable that the draft resolution calls for a “phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967” by the end of 2017.

But nowhere does it call for the dismantling of Israeli settlements or withdrawal of settlers. It only calls for the withdrawal of “security forces.” Instead it adopts a version of the US formula that settlements are merely an “obstacle” to “peace.”

True, the draft states that the “policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

But earlier resolutions, for example UN Security Council Resolution 465 of 1980, demand that Israel actually “dismantle the existing settlements and … cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning” of new ones. This draft mentions resolution 465 in passing in its preamble but does not repeat its explicit demand that settlements must be removed from occupied land.

This is because the resolution is, in effect, pro-settler and pro-settlement.

Replacing Israeli with American occupation?

Along the lines of previous failed “peace” initiatives, this draft resolution calls for Israeli occupation forces to be replaced by “a third-party presence.” In the past, Palestinian Authority figures have spoken of asking American or NATO armed forces to take the place of Israeli occupation forces to act as Israel’s proxy and protector.

In this way, Israel would be relieved of all the direct costs of occupation but would continue to enjoy its full benefits.


The draft resolution repeats the lie that over the last few years under the dictatorial leadership of Abbas there has been “important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts.” Many have debunked this lie, but I have done so in detail in my book The Battle for Justice in Palestine.

The only thing that Abbas has built is a terrifying “security” apparatus – a police (non)state that collaborates with the Israeli occupation to suppress Palestinians.

Such is the oppression and fear of this petty dictatorship that two-thirds of Palestinians in the West Bank are now afraid of criticizing Abbas lest they be harassed or worse by his Israeli-backed and American- and EU-financed militias and intelligence.

The vision this Abbas-backed resolution puts forward is the same old prison for Palestinians masquerading as “self-determination” and “statehood” that Palestinians have resisted and rejected for decades.

The fact that Israel opposes the resolution should not fool anyone. This is because, as Massad explained, the current Israeli government prefers forcible annexation of all the land to the step-by-step “liberal” Zionist approach that this resolution embodies.

But in the end the result is the same: Israel gets the settlements and the land and gets to remain a racist state while Palestinians surrender their rights.

We are now in the bizarre position where the most likely course to save Palestinians from this disaster is an American veto.

Full text: Draft UN Resolution

This is the draft of the UN resolution as published by Haaretz:

Draft Resolution (17 December 2014)

Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,

Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,

Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012 and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,

Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties,

Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),

Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,

Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement,

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,

  1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;

  2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

  • borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps ;

  • security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region.

  • A just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);

  • Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;

  • an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;

  1. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;

  2. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

  3. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;

  4. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement and provocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;

  5. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;

  6. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;

  7. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations;

  8. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

  9. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties;

  10. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;

  11. Decides to remain seized of the matter.




Reiterate that a P5 veto is in the best interests of the People of UNGA 181 State of Palestine

I. Whereof, its a conflicted text vis-a-vis Laws of Nations UN Charter of false premise that UNSC could vacate UN Charter, Chapter XII., Article 80 Terms of UN Trusteeship Agreement of November 29th UNGA 181:

1 False Premise: UNGA 181 State of Palestine could acquire territory of East Jerusalem throgh contravention to UN Charter Chapter I., Article 2 preamble in UNSC 242

1.1 Whereof, City of Jerusalem is a UN Sovereignty: UNGA 181 Part III., City of Jerusalem "corpus separatum"

2 False Premise: UNSC could contravene UN Charter, Chapter XII., Article 78 "The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality

2.1 Whereof, December 4th, 2012, A/RES/67/19 recognized the State of Palestine as a UN non-member Observer State with PH5 referencing UNGA 181

2.1.1 Whereof, UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries defines the territory/sovereignty of the UNGA 181 State of Palestine

2.1.2 Every UN Member may at anytime petitio the International Court of Justice on this question of Laws of Nations

2.2 False premise: UNSC could assume UN Charter, Chapter XII., Article 83 "strategic territory" obligations for UNGA 181 State of Palestine sovereignty of territories of Negev, east & north Gaza, Haifa, South Beersheba [chin] & north Beersheba [forehead], & Galilee occupied by State of Israel in 1949

2.3 False Premise: UNSC could contravene UN Charter, Chapter VII., Article 39's UNSC 242 Israeli breach of 1949 Armistice Agreements vis-a-vis UN Organization


II Whereof, Its a conflicted principles of Laws of Nations & Humanity text of false premise to contract unknown " 'third-party' security guarantees".

1. False premise that UNSC could create International Law obligations for an unknown nation-state;

2. False premise that UNSC could create Laws of Nations obligations for an unknown International multi nation-state Organization:

2.1 UNSC may at any time effect UN Charter, Chapter XII., Article 83 with appropriate text to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict vis-a-vis UNGA 181 Part III City of Jerusalem of UN Sovereignty

3 False premise: Israel-Palestine Conflict is a Civil War of secessionist insurgency

3.1 If it was a Civil War with secessionist insurgency, the UNSC could not partition a respective nation-states sovereignty that would be a contravention of UN Charter, Chapter 1., Article 2.

III Whereof, Its a Laws of Armed Conflict conflicted text of false premise that references (IV) I-973 Geneva Convention:

1. While simultaneously presenting a false premise of proposing undefined "land swaps" that contravene (IV) Geneva Article 49 itself

1.1 False premise: If proposed "land swaps" are UNGA 181 State of Palestine territory occupied in 1949 for UNGA 181 State of Palestine occupied in 1967, How is this "land swaps"?

2 False premise that UNSC could contravene UN Charter, Chapter VII., Article 39 UNSC 242 Israeli breach of 1949 Armistice of legitimizing what cannot be legitimized of (IV) I-973 Geneva Article War Crimes


IV. Whereof, its a conflicted text of false premise that purposes to circumvent UNSC 242 that would mandate unilateral State of Israel withdrawal to 1949 Armistice Lines without political transfer to a Government of the UNGA 181 State of Palestine;

1 Political Transfer for UNSC 242 Compliance mandates both parties, State of Israel & State of Palestine, fulfilling mutually agreed metrics for political transfer of UNGA 181 State of Palestine territories of West Bank & Gaza

1.1 Idiocy to believe or purpose that the IDF withdraw to 1949 Armistice Lines while leaving State of Israel war criminal citizenry of settlers behind: This is the abyss of irresponsibility of Abbas/Fatah & Arab State sponsors.

2 Security Transfer for UNSC 242 Compliance mandates both parties, State of Israel & State of Palestine, fulfilling mutually agreed metrics for security transfer of UNGA 181 State of Palestine territories of West Bank & Gaza

2.1 If Arab :League members Egypt, Jordan, or any other member is purposed to deploy troops to fulfill the "'third Party' security guarantees", Step up & be named specifically to assume the International Law contractual obligation.

3 Non-Issues for UNSC 242 Compliance: Borders, Jerusalem, & UNGA 194 exceed UNSC 242 modalities

3.1 https://www.facebook.com/photo...


U.N. General Assembly resolution 273(111) that admitted Israel as a state to the U.N. stated: "Recalling its resolution of 29 November 1947 (the Partition Plan) and 11 December 1948 (the Right of Return), and taking note of the declaration and explanation made by the representative of the government of Israel before the ad hoc Political committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, the General Assembly … decides to admit Israel into the membership of the United Nations.” Non of the two resolution were implemented, Israel's membership to the UN is null and void - that is if the UN respects its resolutions.


Reply to Hanna Kawas,
Yes, exactly, Israel has not fulfilled the explicit conditions of GA Res 273 of 11 May 1949 for its admission to the UN. And has violated many general provisions of the UN Charter. The Cambridge branch of the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) will therefore introduce at the PSC Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 24 January 2015 a motion calling for this:

"Considering that effective measures should be taken to resolve the present situation arising out of Israel’s unlawful policies that violate the Charter and UNGA Res 273;

Recalling that Article 6 of the Charter states,

“A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”;

this AGM resolves that the PSC Executive Committee shall
request the government of the United Kingdom, enforced by a petition and lobbying, to submit a motion to the Security Council recommending that the General Assembly expel Israel from the UN in compliance with the Charter, Article 6."

I hope this gets a majority of the roughly 300 delegates who will be there. I think we need to raise the pressure on Israel by means of these kinds of political sanctions.



How to find the way forward?

This resolution means this and that "in effect". Will there ever be a proposal that meets the needs of morality and justice in the eyes of all? I hope so.

Who will broker it? Who will enforce it?

Please address these practical questions too. The world needs them at least to be addressed. Without a plan that could work we are in trouble and those that don't want progress on human rights for all are the only beneficiaries of that deadlock.


Ali's right..The 'two-state solution' has been dead and buried long ago and should remain such. What is proposed is not two equal states living side by side but one that is dominant over the other. But even that is a moot irrelevant point since this land from water to water should be ONE Nation, like any other nation with diverse religious and ethnic people living under the same roof without prejudice, without bias and with complete Egalitarianism. This house divided has not, cannot and will not stand in asymmetrical justice. Without equality, you cannot have justice and without justice you breed injustice forever.
Also no mention but 'compensation' for the those folks who are not allowed to return to their homes. The symbol of the Right to Return for the refugees is a house key. How more symbolic for a persons right is that? What is to be done? Throw some money at them and hope they go away? i don't think so. (Article 13(b) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”).
Was America divided up between white people and black people into two separate nations? Of course not. Even trying to segregate into two equal but separate cultures under the same roof did not solve the conundrum as segregation never would nor could ever do. It's an oxymoron
The history of this land is deep and inseparable and those who live here, want to live here should be allowed to live here and must have that right but by unbiased law. Their should be no favoritism, no separation, no segregation, no favoritism for one group over the other. That is injustice incarnate.
The solution for today is as it was back in 1948: One Person-ONE Vote-ONE Nation founded upon egalitarianism,secularism and justice-Of course that includes the right of the return(nonnegotiable) for all and their descendants living in a free,truly democratic society...


With that tragedy either being the formalization of Israeli apartheid or Arab-led pogrom forcing Jewish Israelis to flee.the country en masse

What needs to be realized is that these people, by and large, are not ever going to come home. It doesn't matter how many international statutes that you bring up, they aren't worth the paper that they're written on. This is simply an unrealistic demand, and to link it to negotiations aimed at ending the occupation is reckless and dangerous.

You can fantasize about liberal democratic principles all you want but there is no reason to believe that a binational state is possible. Hopefully someday all international borders are done away with but we aren't anywhere close to that utopia. The entire reason why we are where we are is specifically because these two national movements were unable to coexist to the point where the entire region descended into civil war, and not much has changed since then - in many ways, attitudes between the two parties has gotten worse as a result of decades of war.

Ali Abunimah's picture

These are rote arguments that rely on very questionable assumptions that are always rolled out to argue against decolonization, and where used to reinforce apartheid in both South Africa and Northern Ireland. The rights of the disenfranchised are always called “unrealistic,” “utopian,” “fantasies” etc. by supporters of the status quo. These are very familiar claims which is why I take them on in detail in my book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine.


Zionists did not ever intend to come and live in Palestine to SHARE it with anyone
at all. The so-called Jewish " homeland" by which was meant "state" (see
Theodor Herzl's diary) was always intended to be controlled exclusively by
Jews and by Jews only---in every aspect of life. The very use of the word "homeland" was for the purpose of selling the idea. As the King of Italy remarked to Herzl, "But what about those who already live there?" What indeed! (No support
of Herzl came from Italy.)

And author Benny Morris excused the brutalities of 1948-49 with the observation
that "That was the only way to get it done." ( That is, to achieve the exclusivist goals of Zionism.)

I would only add to Abuminah that decolonization has never occurred anywhere without the use of force. Nor has it ever occurred without disagreements among those working for its realization. The examples most commonly cited never succeeded without the use of force by those fighting for freedom and justice.South
Africa is only one example. To believe that decolonization can be attained
without the use of force is indeed a utopian fantasy.

-----Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA


As always I agree entirely with you Peter and your mention to Ali that decolonisation has never come about without the use of force. I've often heard Ghandi and his achievement in ending decolonisation by purely peaceful means held up as an example.However those who promote this example forget that that struggle involved the slaughter of thousands of peaceful people left entirely defenseless.


So which specific assumptions are you challenging? You bring up Northern Ireland and South Africa as examples (I personally question the wisdom of drawing any lessons from post-apartheid South Africa for a number of reasons; simply put I don't think it represents what you want it to represent), but what about the example of places like Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Iraq? When a disenfranchised people suddenly achieve positions of political power, retribution against their perceived oppressors is not uncommon, if anything it is to be expected.


Israel (with US support) is not a "PERCEIVED OPPRESSOR". It is the
oppressor. Examples here would simply be redundant.

Is this anonymous person trying to squirm out from responsibility for Israeli oppression by announcing that it is only PERCEIVED"??

My choice response would be unprintable here.

-----Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA


Moreover I was making a general statement on the political dynamic between dominant minorities and disenfranchised majorities. I was certainly not trying to absolve Israel of any wrongdoing towards their Arab neighbors.

But you are free to continue nitpicking semantics while ignoring my broader point.


"The entire reason why we are where we are is specifically because these two national movements were unable to coexist"
Zionism is no liberation movement, it is a settler colonialist movement, following is one of the objectives of the Basel Declaration that was adopted by the First Zionist Congress in 1897: "The appropriate promotion of colonization with Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen."


But the fact remains that Zionism and Palestinian nationalism have not and cannot exist within the same polity, at least right now.

Anti-Zionism is integral to Palestinian nationalism. A bi-national state would quickly descend into unbridled tribalism.


I'm confused by realist's comment. Of course Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are incompatible. They are by definition opposites. What are you trying to say? Nobody I know is even remotely suggesting that Zionism and Palestinians' rights can go together.
What do you mean by 'bi-national'?
One democratic state is not a bi-national state. It leaves collective identities like ethnic 'nations' in the historical dustbin and builds individual human rights into constitutions and laws. Benny Morris made the mistake of conflating 'bi-national' and 'one democratic state' for the length of a whole book a few years ago. Because of that it became a truly absurd book.
The problem in bi-national is the ethnically and religiously defined 'national' part, don't you think?
But really: what do you mean by 'bi-national'?


In the specific cases of international law cited above both by Ali Abuminah
and Emannuel Tierra, I find I simply lack the competence in international law
to comment and undecipher. Incidentally there are excellent comments above
which deserve close scrutiny eg by "toto che handala"

On some significant points I do not see even the remote possibility of any
resolution.The entire Zionist project and all its attendant projects contradict justice and decency. Instead it has substituted PR myths such as "peace" and
the involvement of a "third party" which means whether stated or not Israel's collaborator in military conquest, plunder and injustice the USA. Instead there should be one Palestine which does not discriminate between sects, social backgrounds etc. (Many may be surprised to learn that just such a proposal for Palestine was proposed in 1946 but was immediately rejected by Israel and the US, just in time for the massacres and Israeli crimes of 1948-49 and since). No one should be fooled: in such a construction one sect may predominate. That depends not on the military conquest and destruction of the Zionists but on which group or groups are victorious in forming a government ...Of course, the "settlements" under Israel must go. All must be under the jurisdiction of the sovereign government of Palestine. Many refugees have been living in horrible conditions for decades due to the conquest of Israel backed by weapons and subsidies from the US (probably at 4 billion per year today). These residences should be open on an equal basis to Palestinians. They by no means BELONG to one group. Water resources would be distributed as well to local farmers. If the force of the sovereign State of Palestine should be required, so be it. If Israelis (I am reluctant to say"Jews") wish to apply for residency on equal bases, that is their choice. The wall must go, there must be no foreign troops in Palestine. ----Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, US


Incidental to my remarks here is to thank Ali Abuminah for his excellent article.
Particularly appreciated is the citation of the draft (excerpted) for readers as well as sources.

Having re-read the article by Joseph Massad referred to, I can only say that it is
a cogent attack not only on the worn out so-called "two-state solution" but
on US involvement as well. For an excellent description of the US
international role as it concerns Palestine and Israel, see Naseer H. Aruri's
DISHONEST BROKER... This is on target until it drifts off into a belief
in a utopian fantasy of a major grass roots organization etc. It also
fails to include present US administrations due to its date of publication.

More central is the focus on the racism and settler colonialism of Zionism
from the beginning of its history to the end of the 20th century on relevant
pages in Michael Prior CM's landmark book THE BIBLE AND COLONIALISM:
A MORAL CRITIQUE. (Sheffield Academic Press, 1997 ),especially Chapters 4 and 5, pp. 106-208). I agree with Prior that Zionism has always been
premised on racism and exclusivity. There is no place in a secular state for
such a belief although it may certainly exist as a faith not determining in
governmental decisions, policy, operation etc. This is equally true of those
not of the Zionist belief.

WARNING: Let us remember the fate of Muslims democratically elected in
Egypt. How did Israel and the US act to support democracy? Of course
they supported its demise.

There cannot be a two state "solution" when one of the states is an armed
occupier whose goal is to liquidate , expell, exterminate OTHERS who are
not "Chosen People".

I doubt the Obama Administration will veto Abbas's proposal. Our struggle
must continue and not be contingent on such an unlikely dream.

----Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA


Ali Abunimah cleverly dismantles the proposed Jordanian-sponsored/French-revised draft resolution presently being submitted to the UN Security Council calling on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian Territories by 2017.

Reading through this draft is like reading through the Balfour Declaration and the meriads of historic double promises made by the colonial powers in the aftermath of WW1 as they munched the newly acquired lands from Ottoman rule. Instead of having the guts and the courage to admit that such mincing of words would simply elongate the misery and the injustice that has engulfed historic Palestine, the writers of this draft resolution have opted for the esiest way out: to lie, to double-talk and to sell the Palestinians out yet again. Have they not learnt anything from recent history?


As a palestinian, I am writing to make my message delivered to you and to any person who wants to read it. We, as palestinians, are living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. We are humiliated and mistreated by the Israeli militias and Jewish settlers. And for this reason, we appreciate efforts of our own presidents and our own Arab leaderships.
In my opinion, and probably in the rest of Palestinians opinions living in West Bank and Gaza, we are in favor of creating a state of Palestine even in one foot square area. Because We know that Israel will take all our land and property, we insist on making any state for the world to acknowledge. We feel that that nobody wants us to exist on this planet. The world either wants us to leave Palestine and live in diaspora, or die sooner or later in the land of Palestine.

We need a state of Palestine on 1967 borders. Nobody will give us our 1948 land and Israel will not accept us to return even if we convert to Judaism.Israelis colonists are enjoy the free price of our land. Nobody stops them from stealing our land. I believe if there is a palestinian state, supported by Arabs, Nato or US, Israelis cannot steal our remaining land.


To Khalid,
What are we solidarity activists to do, support only one group of Palestinians - those in the West Bank and Gaza? Even though everybody involved has had the time and the opportunity since 1967, or maybe 1988, to establish a Palestinian state on one square meter of land, maybe it can still happen. Maybe BDS will get strong enough to force Israel to the table. It seems you think so, and want that to happen. That would maybe solve many problems for those Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
But do you want to leave the problems of the Palestinian citizens of Israel and the refugees and their descendants out of your two-state solution? I mean, is having the West Bank and Gaza as a Palestinian state just a first step? Once that state got established, we could all keep working on justice and equality for the Palestinian citizens of Israel and for the refugees and their descendants?
Or would giving up on rights for Palestinians outside the West Bank and Gaza be the price to be paid for the Palestinian state?
Another thing I ask is, if we can put enough pressure on Israel to get them to give up what they see as Judea and Samaria, wouldn't this amount of pressure (BDS, naval blockade, who knows?) be enough to go all the way? Enough to demand right of return and equality within the territory occupied in 1948?


Antoine's comment is spot on.

The worst part of this awful resolution is the deceptive addition of 'as stipulated by the Arab Peace Initiative' at the end of the clause dealing with the refugees and their descendants; this would prevent return and maybe compensation as well.

As for two states, what reason is there for wanting a separate Israeli/Jewish state except that that state can remain an (apartheid) ethnocracy?

Funny ain't it, hoping for a US veto! But I'm afraid Usrael might just accept this, which would be a setback.

Ali Abunimah

Ali Abunimah's picture

Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of The Battle for Justice in Palestine, now out from Haymarket Books.

Also wrote One Country: A Bold-Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. Opinions are mine alone.