12 thoughts on “Russian Leader Visits Palestine, Recognizes New State – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. The best thing that can happen to Israel is a UN declaration of a state of Palestine in the 1967 borders.
    Most of the Israeli will also endorce it and it will make removing the setelments much more easy.

    1. Why would most israelies support the UN in twisting israel’s arm?
      Won’t happen. Most israelis are against ending the occupation, and such a UN decision will only serve to strengthen the “crazy nazi” camp of israeli politics. It will also help the branding of all israeli leftists as traitors.

      If such a declaration is also given real teeth to use against israel, it might force it into peace.

  2. The State of Palestine has maintained embassies in China, India, and Russia for decades. 109 states have formally recognized the State of Palestine. Legal scholars have placed the total count of formal, tacit, and implied recognitions at about 135 countries. The Office of the ICC Prosecutor is reviewing those recognitions in line with the Article 12(3) declaration of Palestine. The overwhelming majority of the World’s population lives in countries that recognize the State of Palestine.

    Months ago Prof. Ruth Lapidot advised Israelis that the Palestinians have already unilaterally declared statehood, and that they did not need to do it again. She noted that recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state. http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=160381

    The Palestinians formally declared their statehood in 1988. The Oslo Accords never created obligations for third-party states that would have prevented them from recognizing Palestine. In any case, nearly one hundred other countries had already recognized its existence. Article 6 of the Montevideo Convention reflects customary international law, that means recognition of statehood (unlike recognition of governments) is considered irrevocable. http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-02/rights-duties-states.xml

    “Premature recognition” is an irrelevant issue. When the US finally recognizes a state like Palestine, the recognition is customarily retroactive in effect, and validates all the actions and conduct of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence. See Oetjen V. Central Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297 (1918) http://supreme.justia.com/us/246/297/

    For example, the US didn’t recognize the Soviet Union until 1933. It pursued a number of assigned legal claims against the Soviet Union from the commencement of its existence. See for example the “Litinov Assignment” case. http://books.google.com/books?id=hHcGETE9lnEC&lpg=PA177&ots=DaR9kk6qId&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Great Britain similarly refused to recognize the Tinoco regime in Costa Rico. In 1923, the successor regime refused to repay Tinoco’s British bank loans. Great Britain extended retroactive recognition to the regime and agreed to international arbitration of the case by US Chief Justice William Howard Taft. Taft decided the case in favor of Great Britain.

    I have no doubt that Israel will conveniently discover a multitude of old offsetting claims against the State of Palestine when it finally gets around to recognizing it.

  3. Russia is merely reaffirming the recognizion of a Palestinian state from 1988. USSR became Russia, but the recognizion is still valid, according to Medvedev:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12212907
    China has also recognized a Palestinian state in the aftermath of the 1988 Declaration of Algiers.

    If those recognitions have to be reaffirmed every 20 years, then they’re maybe not that ground-breaking 🙁

        1. I don’t know if I would use the word ‘laughable’. Israel is the one taking an avantage – in the short run, at least – of the occupation.
          If nobody forces the thief to give back what he stole, why would he ? Moral reasons ? If he had any moral, he wouldn’t steel in the first place.

          1. I meant in the context of thinking that a Palestinian state is unlikely to happen any time soon, especially without Israel’s consent.

    1. The Russian Federation was established as a “continuator state” of the USSR. It retains the former state’s rights and responsibilities under existing international agreements – including a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

      The Russian Federation demonstrated its continuing recognition of the State of Palestine a long time ago. For example, it has accepted letters of credence from “Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the State of Palestine to the Russian Federation” from time to time. See http://www.palestine.ru/English/embassy/ambassador.html

      So, no, this is not an Earth-shaking announcement to the viewers of RT (Russia Today) News or the old hands at the Israeli Foreign Ministry. That obviously doesn’t include FM Lieberman or the AIPAC media echo chamber.

  4. President Barack Obama risks international isolation and a failed US presidency

    Obama risks international isolation and a failed presidency if he authorizes a US veto against a UNSC resolution demanding the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The European Union (including France and Britain), Russia, China plus a majority of the international community – are all expected to vote for the resolution and to back the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

    The American president will have to think very carefully indeed before emulating his much-ridiculed predecessor, George W Bush, in appeasing Israel’s policy of illegal expropriation of Palestinian land – and thereby increasing the liklihood of another war in the Middle East that would probably escalate into a nuclear conflict.

    To isolate America from its allies in Europe and around the world in order to appease Israeli expansion, would almost ensure the first single-term presidency since George HW Bush in 1993.
    ________________________________________

  5. Suppose all member states in the entire world, apart from one or two notable exceptions, soon come to recognise the sovereignty of Palestine as it existed before 1967. Each one formally affirms (or reaffirms) their decision in writing; TV and radio stations broadcast the news, UN declarations are handed down, maybe some type of special summit is convened. In other words, a very public endorsement of the present Palestinian position takes place.

    What happens then? Is the situation made better or worse than it is now?

    Well, it could go either way. Palestine becomes a state and Israel has to deal with that. Everything from then on is OK and normal friendly relations are established between the two countries.
    But, somehow, I can’t quite see that happening. In an ideal world, perhaps. But this one is very far from being that. One day, maybe. But not today; no even tomorrow.

    Both sides have shared too much history and pain to let the whole matter drop in so democratic a fashion.

    Yet there is little doubt that those concerned with the future of the two societies would acknowledge the need for a prolonged period of peaceful interaction. To have the conflict go on much as it has done for the past sixty or so years benefits no one; armament manufacturers might disagree there but few others would.

    Could these combined worldwide efforts extract the desired response from both parties? Yes, but external pressure, as this would seem to be, does have its limitations. Such a method can take time to run its course and that could make the situation much worse than it already is. And it is very bad just now.

    If this new state, call it Palestine 2, is ever to be brought into this world, forceps delivery might not be enough for a live birth. There may also be a need for some serious internal pressure to carry it through to term, a statement any woman who’s ever had a child will know only too well (ask your mother if you don’t believe me)

    A mix of the external and the internal, a push and pull technique, may serve everyone better in the long run. Even in the short run, this would cause less distress than might otherwise be the case.

    ‘… if t’were done, when t’is done then t’were done well, it were done quickly…’

    1. Perhaps you are overlooking the fact that Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute allows a State with territorial jurisdiction to refer situations to the International Criminal Court for prosecution?

      Many of the States that have recognized Palestine have simply made announcements to the press, but dozens have signed written agreements establishing the formal framework of their bilateral relations, e.g. http://www.forward.com/articles/12761/

      The Palestinian Justice and Foreign Minister turned over more than 60 of those bilateral agreements to the ICC Prosecutor, together with a complaint regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Palestine since 2002, e.g. http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=169152

      Israel has been successful in pressuring countries like Great Britain and Spain to quash prosecutions of its officials and to alter their national laws. Somehow I don’t think that will happen if the ICC takes-up the matter.

      When Israeli officials start dodging arrest warrants, they will stop their futile attempts colonize and apply their municipal laws to the territory of another state. The settlers will no longer have access to Israeli courts. So, they will have to decide if they want to be treated as resident aliens in Palestine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link