Palestinian Politics: Representation and Accountability with Ms. Noura Erakat

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

This is pure BS.


(COMMENT)

The law does not prohibit the Palestinians from granting land usage. The Oslo Accords are not a violation of law.

Article 49 of the Geneva Code speaks to nonconsensual actions; as does the Article 8 of the Rome Statutes. In this case, the Israelis have the permission by the Accords to take the action. It is not "nonconsensual" - but under the authority of the Palestine Liberation Organization which is the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

In fact, that was her point.

Most Respectfully,
R

A treaty cannot authorize Israel to violate the law.

Oslo Accords are not a treaty but rather a series of agreements. The diff is legally significant.
The failure of anyone to successfully challenge their legality in more than 20 years of existence proves their legitimacy..
Their failure in practice renders your argument moot.

OK, what is the diff4erence?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore; et al,

This is pure BS.

The problem I see here is that Arafat was placed in power and paid money by foreign powers to be the head of the Palestinians.

​

You misquoted her. She said that Israel is not violating the terms of Oslo.

There is another problem with Oslo. If the terms do not comply with international law it is void.

​

Source for quotes
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

(COMMENT)

The law does not prohibit the Palestinians from granting land usage. The Oslo Accords are not a violation of law.

Article 49 of the Geneva Code speaks to nonconsensual actions; as does the Article 8 of the Rome Statutes. In this case, the Israelis have the permission by the Accords to take the action. It is not "nonconsensual" - but under the authority of the Palestine Liberation Organization which is the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

In fact, that was her point.

Most Respectfully,
R

A treaty cannot authorize Israel to violate the law.

Oslo ACCORDS. Not treaty.

 

[toastman]

A treaty cannot authorize Israel to violate the law.

Oslo Accords are not a treaty but rather a series of agreements. The diff is legally significant.
The failure of anyone to successfully challenge their legality in more than 20 years of existence proves their legitimacy..
Their failure in practice renders your argument moot.

OK, what is the diff4erence?

There is no treaty between Israel and The Palestinians.
That's the difference

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

This is pure BS.


(COMMENT)

The law does not prohibit the Palestinians from granting land usage. The Oslo Accords are not a violation of law.

Article 49 of the Geneva Code speaks to nonconsensual actions; as does the Article 8 of the Rome Statutes. In this case, the Israelis have the permission by the Accords to take the action. It is not "nonconsensual" - but under the authority of the Palestine Liberation Organization which is the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

In fact, that was her point.

Most Respectfully,
R

A treaty cannot authorize Israel to violate the law.

Oslo ACCORDS. Not treaty.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

 

[toastman]

A treaty cannot authorize Israel to violate the law.

Oslo ACCORDS. Not treaty.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

The link you provided said treaty, not accord.

 

[SAYIT]

A treaty cannot authorize Israel to violate the law.

Oslo ACCORDS. Not treaty.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

I'm not certain what international law you believe has been violated but the failure of either side or even a third party to challenge the Accords in court should tell you you're barking up the wrong tree again. While Professor Louis Rend Beres ("Why the Oslo Accords Should Be Abrogated by Israel") makes the case that international agreements must be between 2 states, Professor John Quigley, writing for the American University Law Review claims:
"Whatever binding force the agreements may have applies equally to the two parties. Since both parties are subjects of international law, and since the agreements reflect an intent to be bound, both are bound."
As already stated, there has been no attempt to void, abrogate or otherwise challenge the Accords which, while binding, do not rise to the definition of a treaty and are not treated as such. That's why there are different terms (accords, agreements, letters, memorandums).

 

[proudveteran06]

I just got around to watching this. This woman is brilliant.
I have a policy of not voicing comment on internal Palestinian affairs --- I don't get a vote...

Interesting. Do you get a vote in Israel?

I admit ; Didn't watch all of it but enough. What " suggestions" does she have that wouldn't eventually annex Israel to Palestine and deny Israelis access to their religious sites?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.

A treaty cannot authorize Israel to violate the law.

Oslo ACCORDS. Not treaty.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[proudveteran06]

P F Tinmore; et al,

This is pure BS.


(COMMENT)

The law does not prohibit the Palestinians from granting land usage. The Oslo Accords are not a violation of law.

Article 49 of the Geneva Code speaks to nonconsensual actions; as does the Article 8 of the Rome Statutes. In this case, the Israelis have the permission by the Accords to take the action. It is not "nonconsensual" - but under the authority of the Palestine Liberation Organization which is the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

In fact, that was her point.

Most Respectfully,
R

A treaty cannot authorize Israel to violate the law.

Oslo ACCORDS. Not treaty.

There is no violation of " law" if two sides agree. Too bad that violation wasnt thought of before 1967 or when Jordan forbid Israelis entrence into E. Jerusalem for access to their Holy Sites in ' 48

 

[SAYIT]

I just got around to watching this. This woman is brilliant.
I have a policy of not voicing comment on internal Palestinian affairs --- I don't get a vote...

Interesting. Do you get a vote in Israel?

I admit ; Didn't watch all of it but enough. What " suggestions" does she have that wouldn't eventually annex Israel to Palestine and deny Israelis access to their religious sites?

Read Rocco's detailed analysis in this thread. Basically Erekat admits Israel is in compliance with the Oslo Accords and further admits that the PA's unwillingness or inability to establish a real gov't has been critical to the Palestinian failure to launch.

 

[toastman]

Interesting. Do you get a vote in Israel?

I admit ; Didn't watch all of it but enough. What " suggestions" does she have that wouldn't eventually annex Israel to Palestine and deny Israelis access to their religious sites?

Read Rocco's detailed analysis in this thread. Basically she admits Israel is in compliance with the Oslo Accords and further admits that the PA's unwillingness or inability to establish a real gov't has been critical to the Palestinian failure to launch.

Their inability to establish a real government was a big reason as to why the Palestinians couldn't declare independence in 1948 BEFORE Israel

 

[teddyearp]

Their inability to establish a real government was a big reason as to why the Palestinians couldn't declare independence in 1948 BEFORE Israel

And that is what I am going to give as my take on this thread. The title being Representation and accountability.

I watched only a little bit of the video (I wish that when making a point here, we wouldn't have to take up an hour or so of our time, lol), but what I did watch reminded me of the plain facts. There is no 'Central' government for the Palestinians. There never has been.

The current 'unity' government has no teeth because, one, it is split into factions who will not give total control to one body; no we still have the PA, the PLO, Hammas, Fatah, etc., all with their own agenda. They talk about being in unity, but especially Hammas and Fatah, etc., will not give up their military power.

This situation would be similar in Israel if the the Irgun and Palmach had not been folded into the IDF back at the beginning.

Finally when it comes to "Representation" for the Palestinian people, sure the elect members to the PLC, but how much weight does that body have over Abbas, Hammas, Fatah, the PLO, etc.?

IMHO, it is the failure of the Palestinians to get some clear leadership, elect and create an actual government that will be in sure control of all factions that is the problem. I believe that is part of what the person in the video in the OP; if she didn't talk about it, she should have.

One last thing. I suppose that one could argue that here in the US we have factions as well with our split party(s) system. However, that is not true. It would be the Republican (or put any party name here) "Faction" if they acted on their own without any government restriction.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.

Oslo ACCORDS. Not treaty.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

It looks like the PLO was not considered to be the Palestinian's representatives in the period before Oslo.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ1v6WAv1GA]Lateline - Is there a solution to the Palestinian problem - YouTube[/ame]

My question is what money, power, and promises were passed around to get Arafat on board as the Palestinian representative and get him to sign the disaster known as Oslo?

I believe that bribery or coercion in any agreement brings its legitimacy into question.

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

It looks like the PLO was not considered to be the Palestinian's representatives in the period before Oslo.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ1v6WAv1GA]Lateline - Is there a solution to the Palestinian problem - YouTube[/ame]

My question is what money, power, and promises were passed around to get Arafat on board as the Palestinian representative and get him to sign the disaster known as Oslo?

I believe that bribery or coercion in any agreement brings its legitimacy into question.

In that case flush just about all legislation in the US down the drain.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Wow, I can't believe you said this.

It looks like the PLO was not considered to be the Palestinian's representatives in the period before Oslo.

(COMMENT)

The PLO had been the representative of the Palestinian People for nearly two decade before the Oslo Accords were agreed upon. And the status of the PLO as that representative has been continuous since it was established four decades ago this October.

The Oslo Accords were created in the 1990's:

• Oslo I - A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993;
• Oslo II - A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

The status of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian People was:

• Acknowledged by the UN in A/RES/3210 (XXIX) 14 October 1974
• Recognized by the League of Arab States (LAS) - Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974: "To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."
• AND within A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 - 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,

Even your own source, Professor Noura Erakat, explains this in the excerpt of her presentation where she describes the difference between the PLO and the PA, and the impact of the two being collapsed into one.

What are you thinking?

Are you impeaching your own source?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Wow, I can't believe you said this.

It looks like the PLO was not considered to be the Palestinian's representatives in the period before Oslo.

(COMMENT)

The PLO had been the representative of the Palestinian People for nearly two decade before the Oslo Accords were agreed upon. And the status of the PLO as that representative has been continuous since it was established four decades ago this October.

The Oslo Accords were created in the 1990's:

• Oslo I - A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993;
• Oslo II - A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

The status of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian People was:

• Acknowledged by the UN in A/RES/3210 (XXIX) 14 October 1974
• Recognized by the League of Arab States (LAS) - Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974: "To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."
• AND within A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 - 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,

Even your own source, Professor Noura Erakat, explains this in the excerpt of her presentation where she describes the difference between the PLO and the PA, and the impact of the two being collapsed into one.

What are you thinking?

Are you impeaching your own source?

Most Respectfully,
R

I believe it's referred to as desperation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Wow, I can't believe you said this.

It looks like the PLO was not considered to be the Palestinian's representatives in the period before Oslo.

(COMMENT)

The PLO had been the representative of the Palestinian People for nearly two decade before the Oslo Accords were agreed upon. And the status of the PLO as that representative has been continuous since it was established four decades ago this October.

The Oslo Accords were created in the 1990's:

• Oslo I - A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993;
• Oslo II - A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

The status of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian People was:

• Acknowledged by the UN in A/RES/3210 (XXIX) 14 October 1974
• Recognized by the League of Arab States (LAS) - Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974: "To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."
• AND within A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 - 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,

Even your own source, Professor Noura Erakat, explains this in the excerpt of her presentation where she describes the difference between the PLO and the PA, and the impact of the two being collapsed into one.

What are you thinking?

Are you impeaching your own source?

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't watch the video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ1v6WAv1GA]Lateline - Is there a solution to the Palestinian problem - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

It looks like the PLO was not considered to be the Palestinian's representatives in the period before Oslo.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ1v6WAv1GA]Lateline - Is there a solution to the Palestinian problem - YouTube[/ame]

My question is what money, power, and promises were passed around to get Arafat on board as the Palestinian representative and get him to sign the disaster known as Oslo?

I believe that bribery or coercion in any agreement brings its legitimacy into question.

Your conclusions are not supported by your source. Feel free to challenge the Oslo Accords in court but as of this message no one has successfully done so and even Erakat made no attempt to deny its legitimacy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.


(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

It looks like the PLO was not considered to be the Palestinian's representatives in the period before Oslo.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ1v6WAv1GA]Lateline - Is there a solution to the Palestinian problem - YouTube[/ame]

My question is what money, power, and promises were passed around to get Arafat on board as the Palestinian representative and get him to sign the disaster known as Oslo?

I believe that bribery or coercion in any agreement brings its legitimacy into question.

Your conclusions are not supported by your source. Feel free to challenge the Oslo Accords in court but as of this message no one has successfully done so and even Erakat made no attempt to deny its legitimacy.

That is just a source. I normally don't single source.

Agreements cannot trump international law. Oslo does not give Israel permission to expropriate land, destroy private property, create or expand settlements. It does not give permission to Israel or the PA to violate the rights of the Palestinians. These are all violations under international law with or without Oslo.

RECOGNIZING that the aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, i.e. the elected Council (hereinafter "the Council" or "the Palestinian Council"), and the elected Ra'ees of the Executive Authority, for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years from the date of signing the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (hereinafter "the Gaza-Jericho Agreement") on May 4, 1994, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;

What was Oslo? A five year plan to negotiate peace. That was twenty years ago.

 

[proudveteran06]

It looks like the PLO was not considered to be the Palestinian's representatives in the period before Oslo.

Lateline - Is there a solution to the Palestinian problem - YouTube

My question is what money, power, and promises were passed around to get Arafat on board as the Palestinian representative and get him to sign the disaster known as Oslo?

I believe that bribery or coercion in any agreement brings its legitimacy into question.

Your conclusions are not supported by your source. Feel free to challenge the Oslo Accords in court but as of this message no one has successfully done so and even Erakat made no attempt to deny its legitimacy.

That is just a source. I normally don't single source.

Agreements cannot trump international law. Oslo does not give Israel permission to expropriate land, destroy private property, create or expand settlements. It does not give permission to Israel or the PA to violate the rights of the Palestinians. These are all violations under international law with or without Oslo.

RECOGNIZING that the aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, i.e. the elected Council (hereinafter "the Council" or "the Palestinian Council"), and the elected Ra'ees of the Executive Authority, for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years from the date of signing the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (hereinafter "the Gaza-Jericho Agreement") on May 4, 1994, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;

What was Oslo? A five year plan to negotiate peace. That was twenty years ago.

He first states the " Palestinians" don't have to negotiate then he admits that was the plan for the " Two State Solution". . Slip of the tongue