P F Tinmore, et al,
I am often reminded that:
"As long as a society is divided, security sector reform can never achieve its main objective, which is to
provide security and justice for all. "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Towards Palestinian National Recognition
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © . . . .Ramallah and Geneva, Second Edition 2011
I always thought that the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) was a little too optimistic when they wrote that. They imply, by using the term of "society," that the Israelis and Arab Palestinians are "one" (the same people), just of a different mind. I tend to think the entire Middle East as an organism, infected with a virus. As Erin Daly (Widener University Delaware Law School) and Jeremy Sarkin (Professor of Law at the University of South Africa) once wrote:
“Reconciliation is the soil in which democracy takes root. Democracy can thrive only where the disparate factions in society have chosen to be governed in common. Democracy requires that the disappointed minority accede to the will of the majority – a concession that can happen only if the minority and the majority are sufficiently reconciled that they accept each other’s presence in the polity and the content of each other’s choices as legitimate, even if they don’t agree with them.”
“Societies that produce despots are polarized ones in which enough members are disaffected that they are willing to turn against, or support, a regime that turns against their fellow citizens. If reconciliation is going to have a deterrent effect it must be reconciliation among the people, not just between the leaders. (…) Despotism will be deterred when the people will have enough connection to one another that they will not allow a despot to divide them; when the people have enough respect for human rights that they will not tolerate abusive means even to achieve ends that they might otherwise like; when they are sufficiently invested in their communities and in their nations that they ask questions and demand accountability from their leaders.”
The Arab-Palestinian people have not yet achieved enough connection with the Israelis that they will not allow a despot to divide them. Instead, as the Arab-Palestinians continue a level of belligerents that threaten the peace and security of Israel, the longer it will take for the Arab-Palestinian to develop a basic foundation on which they can "stand alone" (Article 22 Criteria).
(COMMENT)
Look, you just don't understand the criteria. You make it up so as to include you Palestine.
No, I include Palestine because it is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun. It is what it is what it is. The sky is blue and Palestine is ruled by "Israel."
(COMMENT)
Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk. As you know, Article 33(1) plays a major rule in the "reconciliation" process when settling disputes between peacefully using the generally recognized international adjudication process. But some of these processes, like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), are cut short because Article 92 stipulates that the ICJ may only issue binding rulings in disputes between states.
Ever since the Declaration of 1988, the international community had debated the contention of Palestinian Statehood; on both the political level and on the application of law level. The fact that the UN has only granted accord to Palestine "non-member observer" State status (
A/RES/67/19); as opposed fully membership endorsement. BUT there is a rub (friction) found in the Resolution.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
"Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;"
In fact, upon close examination of the Resolution (on the Status of Palestine), it does not say that there actually exists a "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;" BUT only "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence" on that territory.
I suppose that the very first thing that should be determined is whether or not the State of Palestine has actually emerged as having a state population, state territory, effective government.
British Yearbook of International Law-1977 said:
The formation of a new State is, as will be remembered from former statements,
a matter of fact and not of law. It is through recognition, which is a matter of law, that such new State becomes subject to International Law. As soon as recognition is given, the new State's territory is recognized as the territory of a subject of International Law, and it matters not how this territory is acquired before the recognition. I Hence also, the acquisition of territory by a new State was not regarded as a mode of acquisition of territory in international law, though revolt was a method of losing territory: 'Revolt followed by secession is a mode of losing territory to which no mode of acquisition corresponds.'
SOURCE: Page 99, IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Yes, that is an interesting opinion. If statehood is a "matter of fact and not of law," THEN could you be correct? And does that have an implication on whether or not the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is actually a state "in fact?"
IF --- the argument is that the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" cannot exercise the powers of government because of the control exerted by the Israelis over the territory,
THEN --- the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is not a state and therefore cannot enter into treaties. Therefore have no case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice.
IF --- the argument is that the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" have created a state (in fact) then it has exercised "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967," as reaffirmed by the General Assembly Resolution 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19);
THEN --- again have not validity in the complaint the Israel prevents independence and self-government.
You will also notice a peculiar remark in :
General Assembly Resolution 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19) said:
Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status,
AND
Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and
role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;
Who actually is "recognized" by whom as the government --- reaffirmed --- representing the people of Israel in 2012. If there is a struggle within the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" --- who is it with? It was the PLO that declared independence for the Palestinian People --- creating the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." If the PLO recognized as the representative to the UN in 2012, remaining so continuously to this day, then what is the relationship of the people to the PLO? Who "is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun?"
There are lots of questions that need to be resolved.
Most Respectfully,
R
