By Ted Belman
David Singer, an Australian lawyer, has been pushing the idea that the admission of Palestine into UNESCO is important. He did so again in Palestine – Two Opportunities Better Missed
[..]
This foray into UNESCO has turned out disastrously for Palestine, UNESCO and the scores of millions of people worldwide reliant on UNESCO – as events since that decision on 31 October 2011 have shown.The idea that the two-state solution should be achieved by a negotiated solution has gone out the door. 194 countries have now recognized that Palestine is a state and that the Palestinian Arabs are no longer homeless. No more negotiations are required to create a state for the Palestinian Arabs.
If the state of Palestine now wants to make demands on Israel – a new negotiating process will first have to be agreed on between Israel and Palestine. The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap have become extant.Palestine can only blame itself for the position it now finds itself in. The 194 nations that made the decision to admit Palestine as a member state of UNESCO – where the UN Security Council for good legal reasons feared to tread – are equally culpable.
All of these countries have forfeited the right to talk of international law as the final determinant in this long running conflict or any other conflicts – following their willingness to breach international law when it suits them.
The law of the jungle has taken over from the rule of law.
I agree with everything he wrote. But until such time as the US and the EU recognize the state of Palestine nothing will change. Their position is clear there must be a negotiated agreement. While it is true they are trying to affect the negotiations the fact remains that they have insisted on a negotiated settlement.
There is no ‘State of Palestine’ to make such demands.
Saying there is does not make it so.
@ BlandOatmeal:
There’s no time like the present.
@ Andrew:
Ah, yes, the same Peter Singer who thinks so highly about the innocent birds & beasts
— but who simultaneously believes it should be legal for an innocent child to be withheld the rights of other human beings — incl the fundamental right to go on living — till s/he’s at least one year old.
That way, if the adults in his or her life found the child’s existence “inconvenient” at any time during that year (as well as the previous 9 months), there would be no impediment to simply “disposing” of that inconvenience
— no fuss, no muss.
“All-ie, all-ie in free!“
“until such time as the US and the EU recognize the state of Palestine nothing will change.” I think we will find that as soon as Obama is re-elected he will do everything to force Israel into ceding a Palestinian state. However, he and his backers will prefer conflict with Israel and the Jews in order to cover the coming financial collapse. If Israel attacks Iran unilaterally he will prefer this so as to blame the rising price of oil, and the resulting civil rioting, on Israel and the Jews. The Iran war will be the cover for the coming collapse of the US dollar and global financial structure. The recent massive trade deals between China, Japan, India, Iran and Russia have abandoned the US dollar. The Jews will be the world scapegoat. The “palestinian issue” is just a red herring.
Alan Said:
Two different Singers. You are thinking of Peter Singer
Isn’t this the same David Singer who is a well-respected animal rights advocate?
He is so right on his concerns about animal life and caring about our more innocent friends, but so wrong about the Palys, although he’s not a much a lilly-livered anti-Israel Lib as many of his contemporaries are.
Speaking of animal rights, it would be interesting to get Singer’s thoughts on what Hamas did to the birds, camels, donkeys and horses in Gaza during “Cast Lead” and other acts of terrorism.
The admission of the PA to UNESCO was primarily important in that it showed
1) how little sway the US has in the UN, outside of the Security Council; and as a corollary,
2) how ineffective the UN has become as an instrument of American foreign policy.
If we continue to get situations like this in the UN, the US will eventually have to quit the UN — which means, since the US is the UN’s main financial prop, the UN will cease to be taken seriously as an international forum. That situation will likely be reminiscent of the collapse of the League of Nations and its replacement by the UN; and indeed, the UN is likely to be superseded by yet another forum: The New World Order.
THAT eventuality will be extremely important.