Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: lui e' uno che se ne intende

Nor was this Resolution a recognition of the two-state solution, since
a considerable number of states who voted for it have refused to
recognize Israel’s right to exist.
 
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/12/02/dershowitz-legal-implication-of-the-united-nations-resolution-on-palestine/
 
 
The General Assembly vote declaring that Palestine, within the
pre-1967 borders, is a “state”, at least for some purposes, would have
nasty legal implications, if it were ever to be taken seriously by the
international community.  It would mean that Israel, which captured
some Jordanian territory after Jordan attacked West Jerusalem in 1967,
is illegally occupying the Western Wall (Judaism’s holiest site), the
Jewish Quarter of old Jerusalem (where Jews have lived for thousands
of years), the access road to the Hebrew University (which was
established well before Israel even became a state) and other areas
necessary to the security of its citizens.  It would also mean that
Security Council Resolution 242, whose purpose it was to allow Israel
to hold onto some of the territories captured during its defensive
1967 war, would be overruled by a General Assembly vote—something the
United Nations Charter explicitly forbids. It would be the first time
in history that a nation was required to return all land lawfully
captured in a defensive war.
 
If all the territory captured by Israel in its defensive war is being
illegally occupied then it might be open to the newly recognized
“Palestinian State” to try to bring a case before the International
Criminal Court against Israeli political and military leaders who are
involved in the occupation.  This would mean that virtually every
Israeli leader could be placed on trial.  What this would entail
realistically is that they could not travel to countries which might
extradite them for trial in the Hague.
 
These absurd conclusions follow from the theater of the absurd that
occurred when the General Assembly, for the thousandth time, issued an
irrelevantly one sided declaration on Palestine.  As Abba Eban once
put it:  “If Algeria introduced a General Assembly Resolution that the
world was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass 100 to
10 with 50 abstentions.”  That’s pretty much what happened the other
day.  I wonder whether the European countries that voted for the
Resolution knew what a tangled web they were weaving.
 
Nor was this Resolution a recognition of the two-state solution, since
a considerable number of states who voted for it have refused to
recognize Israel’s right to exist.  What they were looking for was a
one state resolution—that one state being yet another Islamic country
that voted for Hamas in the last election and that is likely to be
governed by Sharia Law that will not allow Jews or Christians equal
rights.
 
Neither will the General Assembly’s actions move the Palestinians
closer to accepting the ongoing Israeli offer to begin negotiations
toward a two state solution with no prior conditions.  The
Palestinians now have little incentive to negotiate a state, which
would require considerable compromise and sacrifice on all sides.
They now think they can get their state recognized without the need to
give up the right of return or to make the kinds of territorial
compromises necessary for Israel’s security.  The United Nations
action will only discourage the Palestinians from entering into
serious negotiations with Israel.
 
The United Nations’ action will also incentivize Hamas to continue
firing rockets into Israel on a periodic basis in order to provoke
Israeli retaliation.  Many in Hamas believe that the recent fighting
in Gaza actually helped the Palestinians get more votes in the General
Assembly.  They are certainly taking some of the credit for these
votes.
 
All in all, the United Nations vote will make it harder to achieve a
peaceful two state solution, acceptable to both sides.  But that has
been the history of General Assembly actions with regard to Israel,
beginning with the lopsided vote in 1975 that challenged Israel’s very
existence by declaring Zionism—the national liberation movement of the
Jewish people—to be a form of racism.  Although the General Assembly
was ultimately pressured into rescinding that blood libel, its bigoted
spirit still hovers over numerous United Nations agencies which
continue to regard Israel as a pariah.  It could be felt in the
General Assembly hall when so many countries that refused to recognize
Israel voted to recognize Palestine.
 
This is all a prescription for continued warfare, lawfare and enmity.
It is not a prescription for resolving a complex and difficult issue
in a realistic manner.  But what else is new at the United Nations!

 
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/12/02/dershowitz-legal-implication-of-the-united-nations-resolution-on-palestine/
 
 
Osservazione estremamente acuta.
Ma il primo degli stati a non aver riconosciuto la soluzione due popoli due
stati è lo stato di palestina, che lo stato ebraico non l'ha ancora
accettato. Abbiamo per ora una soluzione riconosciuta che è due stati, ma
entrambi per un popolo, quello arabo.
 
Essendo detta soluzione estremamente lontana da quella esistente sul
terreno (che è più o meno l'opposto), la faccenda è allo stato dell'arte
decisa dalla forza, con molte carte e chiacchiere che le girano intorno.
 
-- 
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of  freedom, must, like men,
undergo the  fatigues of supporting it.”  - North Idaho 21st Batallion of
Light Foot