Birth Certificate for the State of Palestine

Sixty-five years after the U.N. partitioned mandatory Palestine, the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to recognize Palestine a non-member observer state. 138 countries voted in favour, 41 abstained, and 9 rejected. For Palestinians struggling for statehood, it is the beginning towards recognition as a full member state in the international body.
http://youtu.be/dxx9eoKpYBU
Though symbolic, the move was a historic recognition for the Palestinians, a step towards a dream that slowly seemed to materialize into reality. The word "PALESTINE" is rooted in the depth of every Palestinian. It means identity for the uprooted people scattered across the world, many driven in 1948 to live in squalid refugee camps, while many others became pillars and builders of countries in the Middle East.
People wept when the vote was announced at the U.N.'s General Assembly in New York today. Delegation members hugged and congratulated Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who defied intense pressure from the U.S. and other Western powers to back down.
Palestinians in the West Bank city of Ramallah and elsewhere in PALESTINE celebrated, danced, and chanted  national songs.
"We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a state established years ago, and that is Israel; rather, we came to affirm the legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine," Abbas said in his historic speech at the U.N.
The Palestinian state that was recognized today is 22 percent of mandatory Palestine: the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital, a victory  for the Palestinians, a rebuff to Israel and its allies.But for the move to advance towards peace and a two-state solutio, U.S. meaningful involvement is required.
The hope that was placed on U.S. President Barack Obama after his election in 2009 subsided quickly as he proved unable or hesitant to change the rules of the Amerian game. Like his predecessors, he placed presure on the Palestinian leaders to make unilateral compromises that did not and would not lead to a 2-state solution.
The late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat had accepted the Oslo Accords in 1993 as a stepping stone for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. He died without realizing the dream he lived and struggled for. His body was exhumed two days ago to search for evidence that he was poisoned. Peace talks have stalled, and violence replaced peace moves. The state that Arafat sought became cantons divided by walls and checkpoints.
Abbas believed it was now or never. Abbas, a form believer in peace, was determined to win recognition for a state under occupation.He has warned that the window  for a two-state solution was closing, and hopes the U.N. recognition would nudge the U.S. to break the impasse and work towards meaningful talks.
The boundaries of Falasteen, or Palestine, the area between the Mediterranean Sea and th Jordan River, have changed over the years.
In 1994, Jordan's King Hussein told me he worked towards peace between Israel and Jordan to protect  the borders of his Kingdom. Today, Abbas won recognition for the boundaries of the Palestinian state under occupation.

MARIE COLVIN

It is with deep sorrow that I write today about the loss of my dear friend, Marie Colvin, who, just a few months ago, urged me never to stop writing.

I still remember  the  sms messages she sent me from Cairo. I was working for UNHCR, sitting in my office in Beirut, watching the Revolution on TV and aching to be with Marie in Tahrir Square. “Your place is here, not in an office, come to Tahrir. I’m waiting for you,” Marie wrote.

Again, she would call me from Libya to tell me how much excitement I was missing by not covering the war there, and the sadness that filled her heart to see so many people killed.  

I have worked closely with Marie since 1987. We shared the good and bad times. I learned so much from her, about life, and journalism.

Our foreign correspondent friends in Jerusalem would look at us in confusion and disbelief when we told them about the great time we had covering stories in Gaza, a, a city many would visit only if a big story unraveled, but a place we made our second home.

We covered peace and war, and the adrenaline kept us going, believing that the more risk we took, the more deeply we would seek the truth and relay it to the world.

I worked with Marie during the first and second wars in Iraq. Her passion for seeking the truth stopped at nothing. I remember how her dedication to help people made her rent a bulldozer in Iraq to uncover mass graves and help families reunite with the bones of their loved ones.

Her courage was unique. Wars she covered in all places of the earth should have hardened her, but she was soft, kind, and caring. She was not tough. The kind of human stories she told so well showed the real  person she was.

She lived her life passionately, both as a journalist and as a human being. War correspondents are not normal human beings, she would tell me.

It is rare to find journalists so dedicated. She risked death so many times, we knew she would die trying to save lives, but the loss of such a legendary journalist and a good friend is always shocking.

She did not go to wars to prove herself, she had a point to prove, she was on a mission.

Last month I invited her to my new home in Washington and told her: “Take care of yourself”, she replied, “You know me”.

It’s a very sad day for all of us. This day underlines the risks journalists take.

Abbas issues emotional plea for Palestinian statehood recognition at UN

GENERAL ASSEMBLY, United Nations- It was a historic, emotional day for the Palestinian people.

Many members of the Palestinian delegation and may others sitting in the hall and balconies of the General Assembly wept as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made his passionate plea for state recognition on behalf of his people.

As a refugee himself, uprooted from his hometown in 1948 when the state of Israel was created, Abbas spoke of the pain of displacement and the suffering of the refugees. "Enough, enough, enough," he said. "It is time for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence...to end their displacement and end their plight."

"This is the moment of truth...we are the last people to remain under occupation," the Palestinian President said.

Abbas was welcomed to the podium by applause, cheers, and a standing ovation by many delegates, not including the Americans and Israelis who seemed isolated by their rejection of the Palestinian decision to approach the United Nations. He was interrupted 15 times by applause and cheers during his speech.

Abbas did not spare the U.S. and Israel from criticism.

"I don't believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for a full membership at the UN and our admission as a state," he said.

It was obvious Abbas was impatient with Israel's rejection to halt settlement expansion and with the U.S.' inability and refusal to press Israel to accept agreed parameters after 20 years of futile negotiations.

Abbas' credibility was on line. He knew he could not go on negotiating forever. His people gave negotiations a chance and were losing patience.

 The status quo of building more settlements, changing facts on the ground, demolition of homes, the eviction of Palestinians from Jerusalem, and many more actions would have imminently led to violent protests.

The Palestinian President urged his people to use peaceful means to resist occupation.

In an unprecedented move, Abbas warned of the possibility of the collapse of the Palestinian Authority and the death of the two-state solution if the Palestinians continued to be deprived of freedom and independence.

"This policy will destroy the chances of achieving a two-State solution which enjoys international consensus, and here I warn loudly: The settlements policy threatens to also undermine the structure of the Palestinian National Authority and even end its existence," Abbas said.

It was an appointment with history for many Palestinians. For others, such as Abbas' rival Hamas, it was a symbolic move void of content.

An Arab American friend agreed and said" As long as the Palestinians approach the world with emotions, they will never get a state."

A Jordanian of Palestinian origin called me from Amman to say that the speech made him feel "proud, and hoped this UN bid will bring the Palestinians a step closer to their state."
It is not clear what step the Palestinians will take next. But whatever it is, it does not look like they're heading for negotiations with this Israeli government any time soon.

Obama's U.N. speech not about Palestine, but domestic politics

UNITED NATIONS - A last-ditch effort By U.S. officials to dissuade Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas from seeking full membership for the state of Palestine through a U.N. Security Council vote has failed. The Americans are now resigned to the fact that it's too late for Abbas to back down and efforts are now focused on dealing with the day after.

Abbas met U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday following Obama's speech at the U.N. blasted by Palestinian officials as one of the worst they have heard.
Officials who met Obama on Wednesday and who watched him deliver his speech at the U.N. said they saw a "defeated man."

"He sounded like the Palestinians were occupying Israel and not the other way around," a senior Palestinian official said, echoing the sentiments of other angry members of the Palestinian delegation at the U.N. 

Palestinian officials said the meeting between Obama and Abbas was friendly, with each leader holdingon to his position and discussing the day after the vote.

A source close to the U.S. administration said Washington was worried that once Abbas fails to gain statehood membership at the U.N., Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would take to the streets in anger.
"Why not, if the masses demonstrate peacefully, what does the world have to fear," responded one Palestinian official.

One could sense defeat and probably isolation among U.S. officials.Anger maybe for having failed.

Many observers saw Obama a shattered man as he delivered his speech at the U.N. He was tense and weak, and a disappointment.

An expert on the Middle East said Obama's speech "was part of the election campaign and was directed towards the Jewish lobby not to the heads of state and the General Assembly. It was full of factual mistakes and inaccuracies." 

Abbas may not have intentionally sought to isolate the U.S. and Israel by taking his cause to the larger international forum, but he has succeeded in  exposing the resentment by many international players to the U.S.' monopoly of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and how its bias to Israel has harmed American interests in the Arab world.

It was clear from French President Sarkozy's speech and peace proposal (talks with a one year timeline and upgrading the status of the Palestinians to non-member state at the U.N.) that other parties were willing to jump in and that from now on, the American's may find it difficult to alone dictate terms of peace.
The Quartet, consisting of the EU, the U.N., Russia and the U.S., may play a bigger role in mediating peace, despite their divided positions.
It is unclear whether Abbas' move would invite punitive actions by the mostly pro-Israel Congress and Israel itself. It is too early to say whether this was a calculated move by the Palestinian President or a gamble that would risk relations with the U.S. and some Arab states, and aid. 

It is obvious that this is the first time that Abbas publicly challenges the United States, and publicly invites other international players to have a go at resolving the decades-old conflict.
Whether Abbas' U.N. bid ails or not, the sides will ultimately return to the negotiating table. Israel will come under pressure to resume talks on the basis of Obama's principles that call for a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with agreed swaps of lands between the sides.
"The court is in Israel's court now," a source close to the U.S. administration said.

As the emboldened Abbas walked into the Millennium U.N. Plaza Hotel after Obama's speech on Wednesday, a South Sudan delegate ululated in support. 

Abbas determined to push for state membership, come what may

NEW YORK – Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has decided to go all the way!

His mind is set on seeking full membership for the state of Palestine at the U.N. Security Council on Friday.
His discussions with leaders and officials in New York are now focused on the day after the request submission. 
Abbas has told delegates visiting him in New York that following the submission of the state membership request on Friday, he will fly back to Ramallah in the West Bank and discuss options with the Palestinian leadership.
An official close to Abbas said: 
"President Abbas has told all his visitors the Palestinian leadership will discuss three options after the U.N.: Either go to the General Assembly and seek an upgrade in status to non-member state,or return to negotiations without pre-conditions, and the third option is to hand over the keys of the Palestinian Territories to Israel and say now you pay the cost of occupation,which really means a one-state solution."

It is clear the issue of Palestinian statehood has taken centre-stage at the UN this year. Abbas has been holding back-to-back meetings with different Arab and Western leaders and officials,  some supporting his U.N. bid, while many others trying to talk him off the idea of going to the Security Council to avert an imminent U.S. veto.

The U.S. has been consistent in its opposition to the Palestinian decision to approach the Security Council or the General Assembly for full membership and an upgrade of status.

“The Americans are telling us no Security Council, no General Assembly, direct negotiations with Israel only.  We have negotiated for 20 years, we have done what the Americans wanted us to do, and we have knocked on every door to achieve results through negotiations alone. What did we get? Nothing,” a senior Abbas aide said.

The Europeans are divided and so are the Arabs.

Abbas has been cajoled, threatened, pressured, and warned, but nothing has worked with him.

As European pressure failed to deter Abbas, the Arabs began leaning on him.

Abbas, the refugee from Safad, who remembers the pain and agony of displacement as a child in 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced to flee their homes and villages that later became part of the state of Israel.

That refugee boy, now 76-year-old President of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and President of the Palestinian Authority, is telling the world that Palestinian statehood is long overdue.

Unlike his predecessor Yasser Arafat, Abbas is not a military man and shuns violence as a means to achieve his goals. He believes he has heeded U.S. advice even when this has damaged his standing among his own people (such as the delay of discussion at the UN over the Goldstone Report).

“He has reached the point where he has no faith in the role of the American Administration as a neutral mediator. Where would he turn to for justice other than the United Nations? So he decided to internationalize the Palestinian conflict  and place the United States and others in the international community before their responsibilities,” another senior aide said.

“He will go to the Security Council on Friday and for him, it’s a win-win situation,” he added.

In New York, U.S. President Barack Obama was busy with the issue of Libya. Both US Republican presidential front-runners Rick Perry  and Mitt Romney were also in New York campaigning. They slammed Obama’s Middle East policy and insufficient support for Israel.

As he meets more delegates at his headquarters at the Millennium U.N. Plaza Hotel in New York, Abbas turns more confident that he would not drop his U.N. bid and would press ahead for full membership. He is listening as world leaders make maximalist and minimalist offers to keep the Palestinians away from the Security Council. 

The Palestinians are also split over the U.N.bid. Some say it is a symbolic move that will cost the Palestinians a lot such as deteriorated relations with Washington, the suspension of much-needed aid, and probably isolation. Others counter it is time words are translated into deed, and those who seek a two-state solution, would have a chance to prove it through a vote.

“Abbas drew attention back to the Palestinian cause as delegates frantically try to come up with offers and new ideas before Friday. He is watching and listening, but his mind is so far made up,” one aide said.

What are the Palestinians expecting at the U.N. in September?

The Palestinians are confused. The contradicting and often vague comments and statements made Palestinian officials regarding the Palestinian quest for recognition as a state by the United Nations has left the people at a loss.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says the move to seek recognition for the State of Palestine at a U.N. meeting planned for September is not a “stunt”, and though negotiations remain his first option, Israel's failure to stop settlements expansion and failure to renew meaningful talks has compelled him to seek the United Nations help to end the conflict peacefully.(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html?_r=1)

Then Abbas says if he is presented with a peace offer before September, he will back down. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4084937,00.html)

Most Palestinian officials I have spoken to, particularly diplomats and officials working hard on seeking recognition at the U.N. insist that with or without new peace offers, the U.N. bid is going ahead.

There is little understanding even among senior Palestinian officials about the technicalities of trying to win that recognition. Contradicting statements are also made about how to go around the imminent U.S. veto, how they will use the U.N. laws and by laws and regulations, intense lobbying, diplomatic battles, etc…to win recognition.

Then there is the question of what happens the day after. What if the Palestinians do not win the recognition after raising the hopes of their people? Some anticipate a “Third Intifada” or uprising, and Israel prepares for the day and places its troops on high alert. Others say they will continue the diplomatic struggle because the “recognition battle” starts by submitting the request to the U.N. Secretary General in July and the process proceeds for a year.

I went to Ramallah, where the Palestinian leadership is based in the West Bank, to try to understand. I met Palestinian diplomats working at the U.N., senior Palestinian officials, journalists and columnists, Abbas advisers and others. I left with more confusion and with the belief that not many people really know what’s brewing in Abbas’ mind.

“It’s a win-win situation,” said one senior Abbas aide.

“We are going to the U.N. regardless of any peace offers we might get because any peace proposal so far has failed to bring about a halt to settlements construction and (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu has clearly rejected talks based on the 1967 borders,” he said.

This statement has been echoed by at least three other senior Palestinian officials.

Another source close to Abbas said the Palestinian leader was clear when he repeatedly stressed that negotiations were his first choice and if he was presented before September with a peace offer that leads to an Israeli commitment to stop Jewish settlements building and to restart talks based on U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech (1967 borders with agreed swaps), Abbas would abandon the U.N. bid and renew talks.

Will there be recognition in September? Have the Palestinians secured the recognition of the required 130 states? The normal Palestinian was told “Yes” by some officials, and “No” by others, and “We will get there by September” still by some other officials.

A Palestinian official working at the U.N. said the Palestinians have so far won the recognition of 114 states only, but they will effort to reach the 130 states. However, this is not sufficient for the Palestinians to gain recognition for the State of Palestine as a new member at the U.N.

Nasser Qidwa, the former top Palestinian diplomat at the U.N. was very clear.

“Unfortunately, there will be no recognition of the State of Palestine in September. It is not going to happen,” Qidwa said.

“Why? Because the vote by the Security Council is a requirement and there’s no way going around this,” he added.

Some other officials had told the press how they can go around this by using other mechanisms, including the two thirds of the General Assembly votes and the Uniting for Peace Resolution, and explained other U.N. technical methods that the Palestinian on the street has no understanding of.

The U.S. veto is important. The United States has so far cast 27 vetoes only on resolution in favor of the Palestinians. In his last speech on the Middle East, President Obama has vowed to continue to defend Israel in all public international forums. This will continue, even if the U.S. was isolated internationally by being the only country casting the veto.

So, we know there is no recognition in September. Do the Palestinians have a plan?

Yes, they say.

“This is a process that begins in September. This is not the end,” a senior Palestinian diplomat at the U.N. said.

“We plan to take the state recognition a step forward and we are certain we will win an improvement of our status at the United Nations,” he said.

Will the Palestinians be closer to a state after September?

Yes and No, officials say.

Yes, because the struggle at the U.N. will continue and the international community will work harder to present peace proposals that are based on the 1967 borders. Pressure will increase on Israel to accept Obama’s offer to restart talks on the basis of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with agreed swaps. How long can Israel reject and resist. Obama’s speech was significant because he was the first U.S. President to publicly state what has been a long-time private U.S. policy.

Washington believes that a peaceful end to the conflict rests with having a Palestinian state next to Israel on the West Bank, (including East Jerusalem), and Gaza Strip. Swaps would be negotiated between the sides, and thus the issue of the settlements would be resolved once the borders have been agreed. That was the basis on which Obama’s former peace envoy George Mitchell worked for months before he resigned.

Abbas and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had also negotiated  based on these principles but they disagreed on the location and percentage of the areas that would be swapped.

All parties are aware that the opportunity for a 2-state solution is closing.


Israeli President Shimon Peres recently told CNN in an interview that failure to strike a deal with the Palestinians urgently threatens the Jewish character of the Israeli state.
"If there will be one state without a clear majority or an un-Jewish majority, that is against everything we are trying to work for," Peres said. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4084332,00.html)

 The West Bank is still completely under occupation, settlements are still expanding, Arab East Jerusalem is quickly being taken over by the Israelis, and the Palestinian people are convinced there is no real basis for future talks.

Will the Palestinians wait indefinitely for the U.S. and the international community to convince Israel to return to the talks?  Experience has taught us that the situation would explode any time.

It could be a third uprising, but not necessarily a violent one. The situation could lead to a strong push for a one-state solution, a nightmare scenario for Israel. Refugee leaders in exile are already debating ways to push for that solution and the younger generation in the Palestinian Territories is already losing hope for a 2-state solution.

Obama understands Israel's strategic interests more than its leaders

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress on Tuesday full of “No’s will not give the Palestinians the state they aspire for and will not achieve the security and peace the Israelis so badly need.

For the Palestinians, negotiations under Netanyahu’s terms would seem futile. Their choices are to go to the United Nations to seek recognition for a state on the 1967 borders, or take to the streets in non-violent protests demanding an end to the 44-year-old occupation, or both.

Netanyahu insists that Israel is not a “foreign occupier” because the land is the Jews’ ancestral homeland.

He has told the Palestinians: 

-        Recognize Israel (borders to be determined by Israel) as the state of the Jewish people

-        No to the right of return of refugees

-        No to the return to the 1967 borders

-        No to a unity pact between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas

-        No a divided Jerusalem
(http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-to-congress-ready-to-make-painful-compromises-but-jerusalem-will-not-be-divided-1.363802)

The standing ovation and the extensive applause Netanyahu received from members of the Congress made the Palestinians wonder whether the Israeli leader represented the Americans more than U.S. President Barack Obama.

Congressmen applauded as Netanyahu challenged Obama’s speech that outlined the parameters  for peace between the Palestinians and Israel. 
The Palestinians’ experience tells them that Obama is serious about ending the conflict and helping the Palestinians achieve self-determination, though he might mean well, he is unable to press Israel to make the compromises  required to return to meaningful peace talks.

Does Netanyahu understand the factors that led to the popular explosions in Tahrir Square in Egypt, the mass protests that led to the toppling of Tunisia’s president, and protests elsewhere in Yemen, Syria, and Libya?  

Has Netanyahu not been informed of far-reaching proposals made by former Israeli prime ministers such as those made by Ehud Olmert and the understandings reached at Taba in 2000 between negotiators from both sides?

 The Israeli leader may have won a diplomatic battle in Congress, but how will he win when his country becomes more isolated in the region? Egypt is moving away from Israel. The departure of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has brought about huge changes that have a great impact on Israel. One example is the effect the reopening of the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza will have on Israel.

How will Netanyahu react when the Palestinian masses move towards the checkpoints in non-violent protests and the refugees march towards the borders from neighbouring states?

The scenario is more conflict and death.

Obama has asked the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to make the necessary compromises to restart talks. It is obvious Obama understands the changes that are reshaping the Arab World and has rushed to support the peoples’ quest for freedom and dignity. It seems obvious that Obama understands better than Netanyahu where the strategic interests of Israel lie.

There is still a chance for talks to begin but as Obama said, peace cannot be imposed, it must be negotiated.