P F Tinmore, Phoenall,
et al,
You have to be kidding me!
Noura Eracat lays out the problems and suggests solutions to the situation in Palestine.
Palestinian Politics: Representation and Accountability with Ms. Noura Erakat - YouTube
Noura for president
Islamonazi propaganda
What issues do you have with what she said?
(COMMENT)
Professor Noura Eracat is an excellent speaker. And you can tell by the shear energy she put forth in her presentation that she believes in her perspective and the cause behind her plea for understanding. And just as I say, it is important to listen to her content, it is very important to understand the consequences of adopting the perspective she holds. It is one of those gray matter intensive and thought provoking dialogs.
Professor Eracat makes a couple of important points about the Arab-Palestinian Leadership and its performance. First among them, and very important is that the Leadership has not made the case for total recognition of the State of Palestine as truly a "state." That is neither Israel's fault or the fault of the US. The Arab Palestinian either can govern itself --- or it cannot. Neither the US or Israel stops the ability of the Arab-Palestinian from completing the intermediate steps preparatory to independence in a self-governing way. She outlined them, but clearly put the lack of progress on the Arab-Palestinian Leadership. Remember, they declared independence in 1988; a quarter century ago and they still haven't made the necessary progress.
Professor Eracat make three observations on the issue of the Oslo Accords that she finds objectionable. Remembering of course, that the Oslo Accords are a binding agreement between the two parties (Israel and the PLO), and that the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestinian People.
The three observations:
She points out that the Oslo Accords do not reference International Law. The accords are a product of pure negotiations. As I pointed out in this forum many time, the Settlements are a outcropping of the Accords; agreed upon by both parties. And she admits that in the face of the agreement, which is consensual, Israel is in compliance.
She points out that the process for the furtherance of peace, the negotiation is bi-lateral; with the aid of a mediator (in this case - the US). Her position is that the US is not an honest broker in the affair. She wants the US to continue aid to Palestine, yet give-up its interest in the peace negotiation process in favor of Brazil or Turkey. And she readily admits that both the parties (Israel and Palestine) are either "unwilling or unable" (her words) to pursue the peace process.
Finally, she objects to the Oslo Accords because it puts Israeli security in a priority above the Human Rights of Palestinians; the condition that withdrawal is contingent upon the establishment of a "zero threat" from the Palestinians. This is a chicken and egg argument; which comes first. And while she promotes Human Rights Laws, she readily admits that it is highly unlikely that a "zero threat condition" can be achieved. Yet she still demands that Israel should give-up its security separation, the containment, and quarantine of the threat merely for the sake of Palestinian Human Rights and the associated threat she says is unlikely to be achieved. (What sense does that make.)
She admits that the Palestinians readily agreed to the settlement arrangement in lieu of aid and compensation. She agrees that Israel is in compliance and not in violation of either the Geneva Convention or the Rome Statues because they the Palestinians agreed to it. She considers it a reasonable assumption that a zero threat cannot be achieved.
OK, where is the actual complaint?
The complaint is with the Palestinian Leadership. If the US is viewed as the dishonest broker, then it is quite clear the the Arab Palestinian is the belligerent and hostile obstructionist to the furtherance of peace (opposing the zero threat option); one of the major causes for the continued occupation.
Where's the beef???
Most Respectfully,
R
