After both meetings, there was a press conference.

In Jerusalem with Netanyahu, BAN said “Settlements do not help the peace process… I told the prime minister that he should refrain from future construction”. [Just future construction? The goalposts keep getting moved...]

Netanyahu reportedly told BAN that the settlement issue must be discussed during negotiations, “it can’t be a precondition”… [So, the Palestinians need to negotiate about settlements? Somehow, this sounds different than just saying settlements are one of the final status issues in negotiations...]

According to the New York Times, “Mr. Netanyahu thanked Mr. Ban for his ‘good intentions’, but he said the settlement question should be dealt with as part of a final agreement. ‘It cannot be a precondition to enter into that agreement’, he said”. This is published here.

This NYTimes story added: “An Israeli official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue said Israel was ‘ready for mutual confidence-building measures in the framework of a peace process that is moving forward’ — in other words, as long as the measures came with guarantees that the Palestinians would stick with the talks. He would not specify what steps they might include. Another Israeli official said that in a closed meeting with Mr. Peres, Mr. Ban suggested that Israel, as the stronger party, should release Palestinian prisoners as one way of improving the atmosphere”…

In Ramallah with Abbas, BAN said “A viable Palestinian state is long overdue. I continue to believe a two-state solution is long overdue … The international community has been clear: all settlements are contrary to international law … [In the "exploratory" talks recently in Amman] the Palestinians have been forthcoming in producing proposals on territory + security, and I very much hope Israel will present their proposals. This is what I told Israeli leaders today”.

BAN also said, in answer to a question from the press, that “I fully share the Palestinians’ complaint that they have been under occupation for such a long time, suffering all these hardships without prospects of knowing when this will be over … We have wasted almost 20 years since Oslo … [But] negotiations is the best way to get results”.

Travelling with BAN was the former UN Special Envoy here, Terje Roed Larsen [who is still working on the Lebanon dossier]…

The long-serving Ambassador of the Observer Mission of Palestine, Riyad Mansour, was also present.

BAN added, in response to another question, that “On 23rd September I received the Palestinian application for UN membership, and I immediately conveyed it to the UN Security Council. I made it immediately clear that I fully support the aspiration of the Palestinian people to become a UN member within the framework of two states … it’s still in the hands of the UN Security Council”.

Abbas told BAN: “Mr. Secretary-General, I hope to be able to host you soon in an independent state”…
He also said there was “a need to stop the campaign of arrests” and to free detained parliamentarians”…

And, Abbas did not insult the Quartet … instead, he offered a light but rather indistinct compliment.

The Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat was seated in the front row, during the press conference [next to Terje Roed Larsen], and PLO Executive Committee Member Hanan Ashrawi was there as well.

“In the end”, Abbas said, I wish to assert that what we want is a two-state solution within the 1967 borders, and the need to end the Israeli presence on all our territory, including the Jordan Valley and East Jerusalem”.

[Last week, at the end of the 5th "exploratory meeting" in Amman in which Israeli + Palestinian negotiators sat together for the first time a long time, an Israeli envoy made sweepingly broad indications of Israel's territorial interests -- and said Israel wanted to keep a security presence along the Jordan River...

Abbas told journalists, in response to a question from the press, that "We toured the whole world to get 9 votes in the UN Security Council, though I knew at the end that we faced the veto ... Unfortunately, we did not achieve our goal of getting 9 votes ... At some point we will review all our steps in the near future".

Tomorrow, BAN is going to Gaza in the morning, and will address the Herzliya Conference at 8 PM, before flying back to New York after midnight.

[Earlier on this trip away from New York, the UNSG was in Ethiopia; Davos, Switzerland, and Amman...]

Palestine TV, which is covering the Ramallah rally live, listed a series of uninspiring speeches for demo in ex-Clock Square [now Yasser Arafat Sq] in Ramallah, then performance by Al-Ashaqeen.

At the start of today’s events, Palestine TV was showing split screen: rallies in both Ramallah + Nablus. Moment ago: melodius intonation of Quranic verse.

Main official speaker in Ramallah is Tayyib Abdur-Rahman, addressing Ramallah rally now. Imagine if Mahmoud Abbas were speaking live, via satellite hook-up…

Next major demonstration planned for Friday — the day Mahmoud Abbas is due to address the UN General Assembly, and the day he has said he will present [to the UNSG BAN Ki-Moon, who must then transmit it to the UN Security Council] the official Palestinian request for full membership in the UN.

As we Tweeted yesterday [@Marianhouk]:
- Palestinian WBank secondary school students free to participate tomorrow in pro-PalState194 rally, leaflets distributed Monday in schools
- Excitement + enthusiasm said to be high among WBank students before demo, but level of information about what’s going on seems rather low
- Surprised to hear that many students apparently believe that Palestine Papers, Al-Jazeera programs on negotiations, are malicious fakes

Abbas met the UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon today — but did not submit the letter that has to be given to the UN Secretary-General to start the process.

Why?

About a week ago, Abbas told journalists including correspondents from The New York Times that he would submit the letter to the UNSG as soon as possible after he arrived in New York.

The answer can only be — Abbas is allowing maximum time for diplomatic contacts and negotiations to play out.

On Friday, in the Muqata’a Presidential Headquarters in Ramallah, Abbas gave a televised speech in which he said he would hand the letter to the UNSG on Friday, at the end of Abbas’ scheduled address to the UN General Assembly. He is 14th on the speakers’ list on Friday, listed between Tajikistan and Japan.

Palestinian officials say they expect this means Abbas will be one of the last speakers on Friday morning — about 12:30, they predicted [but it could well be later].

It would be a dramatic visual if Abbas, speaking at the podium of the General Assembly on Friday, simply turned around and handed the Palestinian letter up to the UN SG, who will be seated behind a marble table on an elevated platform directly behind Abbas.

After Palestinian officials made clear that they intended to go through with their UN bid, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu was inscribed two or three speakers later, after Abbas speaks on Friday.

The Obama administration has said it will use its veto power, as one of the 5 Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, to stop the Palestinian bid, if necessary.

However, it became clear over the weekend that the U.S. would prefer to defeat the move in another way — by persuading enough members of the Security Council to not support the Palestinian bid, so that it will fail to win the 9 votes needed to pass, and be adopted.

This is trickier — and would require the U.S. to abstain [for its no vote would automatically become a veto].

It would also mean persuading the EU to adopt a common position, and also abstain. There are 4 EU members on the UN SC:
Britain + France, who are also permanent members with the veto power; and Germany + Portugal, non-permanent members who could either abstain [if there is a common EU position], or vote no.

A defeat by abstention, rather than by veto, would be a much softer blow to the Palestinian plan — a kinder, more gentle dissuasion –and easier to explain on the international level, and in the Middle East. It would be a nicer way to leave the door open for a second Palestinian try, without causing the same bitterness here on the ground that a U.S. veto would do [even if joined by Britain + France].

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said in New York today that “We along with all the other twenty six countries of the European Union have withheld our position on how we would vote on any resolution that may come forward in the General Assembly in order to exert as much pressure on both sides to return to negotiations. That is the only real way forward.”

TODAY’s RECOMMENDED READING:
(1) PALESTINIANS TURN TO UN, WHERE PARTITION BEGAN, by Neil MacFarquhar, published 18 September 2011 here.
(2) REJECTION OF PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD DENIES FREEDOM, by Ahmad Tibi, published today here
(3) ABBAS DEFIANT AS ‘ALL HELL’ BREAKS OUT OVER UN PLAN, by Maan News Agency using material from a Reuters report, published today here.

Hague’s remarks can be read in full here.

Significantly, he only mentioned the UN General Assembly.

According to the British Foreign office website, “The Foreign Secretary noted that ‘the Palestinians haven’t yet said exactly what they will put forward’, but commented that submitting a letter to the Security Council seeking full membership of the United Nations was ‘not a course of action that we recommend because it will just lead to confrontation’ and ‘such a move in the Security Council would clearly be vetoed by the United State … It’s not clear how many of the members of the Security Council would support it but it would leave no one any further forward. Now there are other options for the Palestinians, other motions they can put forward in the General Assembly best of all, as I say, an agreement to return to negotiations with the Israelis, with the Israelis agreeing to that as well. And that is what we will be putting pressure on both sides to do. I’ll be meeting President Abbas here in New York tomorrow”…

British Foreign Secretary Hague also said, according to the website, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “is a problem which my predecessors and many British Prime Ministers, many American Presidents have worked on extremely hard without as yet success. So clearly it is one of the most vexing, one of the most intricate, one of the most difficult problems in international affairs. But its importance is enormous, the consequences of failing to arrive at a two state solution could be catastrophic for the Middle East and the wider world so we have to keep trying and we have to retain enough optimism that it is possible to succeed. We’ll be fully engaged in that here in New York meeting Israelis and meeting the Palestinians”.

Mahmoud Abbas, it should be noted, is the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] — which is recognized at the UN since 1974 as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people — and Abbas is currently continuing as President of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority [PA].

“Membership in UN is something that is up to the member states of the UN … It does not fall within my mandate according to the Charter of the United Nations”

UNSG BAN also says:

“My only wish and hope is that we will not see any confrontational atmosphere in the UNGA over this issue.

“As a committed proponent of the two-state solution … the realization of that vision has been long overdue … Within that context I have been a strong proponent. I’m not in a position to prejudge any outcome which course of action the Palestinian president will take because I have not received any letter of application whatever … I’m going to have a bilateral meeting with the Palestinian leader in NY [the appointment has not been fixed yet]

“I have always been supporting the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations to have an independent state

“It is only natural that after such a loooooong time that the Palestinian people have been frustrated and trying to reach some of their goals. Whatever road they may choose is up to them … Now we are talking about recognition of a state within the UN or the admission of a state as a full member of the United Nations … but as far as their legit concerns and their aspirations or their enduring their sufferings, I fully sympathize…”

This video is posted both on Youtube here. and on the Al-Jazeera English-language website, here.

What he said, at a hastily-summoned press conference at UNHQ/NY on Thursday, was exactly this: “I am profoundly troubled by the lack of progress in the peace negotiations. It is vital that they resume. Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and achieving a two-state solution is long overdue. Time is not our friend”.

[As we reported in our last post, on 10 September, here, what the UNSG BAN said in Australia that day was somewhat different. According to AFP, he said this: “The two state vision where Israel and Palestinians can live… side by side in peace and security — that is a still a valid vision and I fully support it… And I support also the statehood of Palestinians; an independent, sovereign state of Palestine. It has been long overdue".]

The U.S. State Department spokesperson said last Thursday that the Obama Administration would use the American veto in the UN Security Council if the Palestinians pursued their announced intentention to seek full UN membership.

Though U.S. envoys Dennis Ross and David Hale are on their second trip to the region in as many weeks to try to avert the Palestinian move, Palestinian officials say they are going to pursue it — unless, of course, an excellent offer is made up until the last minute.

Even if a Palestinian State is somehow admitted as a full member of the UN Organization, Palestinian officials say, they intended to pursue negotiations with Israel on the next day…

Palestinian Authority [PA] Foreign Minister Riyad Malki told members of the Foreign Press Association [FPA - in Israel] at a briefing convened at FPA request on Thursday that at end of Mahmoud Abbas speech around midday on 23 September from the podium of the UN General Assembly in New York, after the very last sentence, Abbas – who is Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, in addition to acting President of the PA — will present the official request for the state of Palestine to be granted full membership to the UNSG”.

UNSG BAN Ki-Moon will be seated on an elevated table behind the podium. All Mahmoud Abbas will need to do is turn around and hand up the official Palestinian letter of request — and this will be in public, in full view of the whole world.

Malki’s briefing to the FPA was originally scheduled to be held at the King David Hotel in [West] Jerusalem. But. it was moved to the PA Foreign Ministry in Ramallah at Malki’s request.

Malki also told FPA members that “We are taking our file to the UN … We are ready for such a step…to protect the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and to independence…

129 states recognize Palestinian state, including some who have not yet declared this openly: they may do so during UN debate. “According to our information, in the UNGA we will get 170 votes, if not more…We are trying to add one new state, Palestine-194″ .

As we have reported earlier, if Palestine is admitted as the next new member of the UN, it will be the 194th. This is an iconic number for Palestinians — it coincides with the number of the UNGA Resolution 194, adopted in 194x which says that those Palestinian refugees willing to live in peace with their neighbors should be allowed to return at the earliest possible moment, and also should receive compensation for their losses”.

Asked by journalists what will happen afterwards, Malki said: “The day after, we wld like to see negotiations, yes, that is why we are going” to the UN…Instead of opposing the move, Malki said, “Israel today should recognize Palestine on 1967 borders with agreed swaps, and negotiate on the pending issues … Since the beginning of negot. we were talking about the 1967 borders, + even before. The PLO’s Palestinian National Council [PNC] 1988 Declaration [of a Palestinian State in a meeting in Algiers] recognized that”.

Asked to respond to criticism from some Palestinians that the move would deny their Right of Return”, Malki responded that the “Right of Return is something to be discussed afterwards. Go revisit tbe Arab Peace Initiative agreed at the Arab Summit in Beirut, which was then approved by the Islamic Conference Organization [OIC]“.

Malki,who himself asked ICC early 2009 to open inquiry after the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, said “We’ve already been in contact with Ocampo [the head of the ICC for last 2 years" about this, but Malki indicated the Palestinians wanted [or needed] to go to the ICC as a State. He added that “If I interpret Israel’s opposition to our becoming state [member of UN], yes, it’s that it would allow us to go to the ICC”.

This would be true whether the State of Palestine is admitted as a full member of the UN, or as an observer non-member state.

A moment earlier, when asked, Malki had said more cagily that “There will be no reason for us to go to the ICC if Israel does not take any action that’s considered to be illegal, or a crime against humanity … If Israel takes such an action, we might find ourselves compelled” — suggesting that there might be some kind of date or time limit before which a new state could not ask for prosecution of war crimes, but this was not clear.

The Israeli government announced on Thursday, after Malki’s remarks were reported, that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has changed his mind and will now go to the UN to try to counter the Palestinian bid. Despite the late time, Netanyahu has apparently already been added to the speakers list a week from Friday — the same day Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to speak.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may apparently miss one or both of these speeches. U.S. Assistant Secretary for International Organizations Esther Brimmer told journalists in Washington today that next Friday, Clinton “will have two special meetings, one on Somalia and also looking at nuclear safety issues that week”.

In his briefing in Ramallah, Malki did not mention option of upgrading status to observer non-member state via UNGA, which could be done even today. Though the U.S. has apparently also frowned at this suggestion, there appears to be intensive bargaining about this possibility now, at the moment, particularly by the EU’s High Representative Catherine Ashton.

If Palestinians are going to the UNGA, it should really be done first. Once their request is submitted for UN Security Council consideration of full membership, they will not be able to go to the UNGA until the UNSC disposes of the item, because the two bodies cannot be “seized” of the same matter simultaneously. And, the UNSC could sit on the matter for a good long time — even for years.

If, and when, the Palestinian bid is shot down in the UNSC either by a failure to win 9 positive votes, or by an American veto, they have suggested they will move to the UNGA thorough a “uniting for peace” maneuver. But, they cannot get full membership from the UNGA. From the UNGA, they can only get non-member observer state status.

And, having this in hand first, which could be done immediately [even tomorrow] would increase the points in their favor in the UNSC, because they would be requesting full membership as a state according to a UNGA decision.

However, the Jerusalem Post reported later Thursday that “Malki was contradicted later on Thursday by PA envoy to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, who told reporters the Palestinians were still ‘fine-tuning our options’ on what to do next week in regards to the PA’s bid for UN recognition. ‘The final decision will be taken in the next few days as to which path we would follow, whether it is through the Security Council for full membership or whether through the General Assembly’ for a lesser upgrade of status, he said”. This is posted here.

Palestinian sources in Ramallah have said for weeks that the final decision would be made at the last minute, in New York.

Mahmoud Abbas is due to address the Palestinian people about the anticipated UN bid via a speech to be broadcast on Palestinian television on Friday evening at 6 pm Jerusalem/Ramallah time. There has been criticism of the negative consequences, and there has also been a weary distancing from Palestinians who say they do not want to get too invested in the idea because they fear that the Palestinian leadership may back down at the last moment.

However, a number of cars were seen driving around Ramallah today with two flags posted on either side of their roof – one a Palestinian flag, and one white flag with the logo of the “national campaign” for Palestine-194.

AFP reported that the UNSG said: “The two state vision where Israel and Palestinians can live… side by side in peace and security — that is a still a valid vision and I fully support it… And I support also the statehood of Palestinians; an independent, sovereign state of Palestine. It has been long overdue …But… the recognition of a state is something to be determined by the member states …It is not by the Secretary General so I leave it to the member states to decide to recognise or not to recognise”. This report is published here.

It was, actually, an uncharacteristically bold and brave thing for him to say, coming just hours after the U.S. confirmed clearly that it held the opposite view — and would use its veto power in the UN Security Council to stop a Palestinian request for full membership in the organization.

A Palestinian State has already been declared, in November 1988. But, though a few legal scholars disagree on the basis of theory, it clearly doesn’t exist yet, “on the ground”.

Within hours of the Palestinian Declaration of Independence at a meeting of the PLO’s Palestine National Council in Algiers on 15 November 1988, the UN’s then-Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, issued this statement through his spokesman in New York saying:

“The Secretary-General has not seen the full text of the statements issued by the Palestine National Council in Algiers. However, on the basis of the press reports that have emerged thus far, he believes that fresh opportunities now exist for progress towards peace. The Secretary-General has consistently maintained that a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict should be based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and take fully into account the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. The Secretary-General believes that this session of the Palestine National Council has been of the greatest significance. He feels that all concerned should now seize the opportunity to make a determined new effort to achieve a just and lasting solution to the conflict in the Middle East”.

This statement is archived on the UN website here.

That was in November 1988.

The words spoken by BAN Ki-Moon this past week are also reminiscent of remarks made by Dr. Haidar Abdul Shafei, who headed the Palestinian team [which, according to Israel's insistence, could only participate as a subset of the Jordanian delegation], in his speech on 31 October 1991, at the opening of the Madrid Peace Conference:

“In the Middle East there is no superfluous people outside time and place, but rather a state sorely missed by time and place – the state of Palestine. It must be born on the land of Palestine to redeem the injustice of the destruction of its historical reality and to free the people of Palestine from the shackles of their victimization. Our homeland has never ceased to exist in our minds and hearts, but it has to exist as a state on all the territories occupied by Israel in the war of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, in the context of that city’s special status and its non-exclusive character.”

Those words were spoken before the world at the Madrid Conference in 1991.

Among the places the full text of Dr. Abdel-Shafei’s speech can be found is the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, here.

The lack of progress and real deterioration of the situation on the ground is the explanation given by Palestinian leaders as to why they are insisting on pursuing their declared intention now.

The New York Times has reported here that a group of journalists were told on Thursday afternoon, after a meeting in the Muqata’a in Ramallah between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and two U.S. envoys [Dennis Ross + David Hale], that “Mr. Abbas said that after they arrived at the United Nations on Sept. 19, the Palestinians would hand their application to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for submission to the Security Council, and that a copy would go to the General Assembly chief”.

Abbas also told the journalists that the two U.S. envoys had arrived “too late”, and said negotiations could continue again, if possible, after the Palestinian bid at the UN.

Matthew Lee, journalist at UNHQ/NY who runs Inner City Press, confirmed overnight that “#Palestine is listed as 14th speaker at #UN on Sept23 am, between #Turkmenistan & #Japan”. If each speaker is allotted 15 minutes, then some inevitably go a little over their time, and time is needed to escort their excellencies to and from the speakers’ podium, that means that the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO will be one of the last speakers of the morning session [which ends at 1:00 pm, or one of the first speakers in the afternoon session, which begins at 3:00 pm]…

Lebanon, who will be presiding over the UN Security Council for the month of September [and who may be chairing the Arab Group as well] is reportedly scheduled to speak on the 20th, when the Palestinian bid for membeship was scheduled for formal launch.

A local committee — which clearly has official Palestinian backing — presented a petition at the UN office in Ramallah on Thursday urging support for the Palestinian bid. It was not the official Palestinian move, though it was initially thought to be. This local committee is part of the National Campaign: Palestine 194 [see below].

In response, Israel immediately announced a mobilisation of Army reservists for duty in the West Bank…

Israel opposes the move, and says that any decision should be the result of negotiations — an argument which does not much resonate, due to the dismal history of negotiations here…

While states decide which other states they will recognize, unilaterally or bilaterally, the UN membership gets to decide which states can join the international organization — and the formal request seeking membership apparently passes first through the hands of the UN Secretary-General, who then is a kind of gate-keeper for the UN Security Council, which should then set up a committee to consider the application.

In theory, this gives the UNSG the means to sit on the letter of request, perhaps for a while…

Then, the Security Council can sit on the matter for a good long time, too, before taking any action.

However, once the Security Council is “seized” of a matter, and is dealing with it, the same matter cannot go to the UN General Assembly at the same time.

The U.S. has told the Palestinian leadership that it intends to veto any such application in the UN Security Council.

The Palestinians have said that they are determined to pursue their request at the UN now — but they also want to avoid “embarassing the U.S.”, if possible.

And, they will actually approach this move gingerly, softly, and politely.

Palestinians also note that the next U.S. Presidential campaign will kick off right after whatever happens in September at the UN. Nabil Shaath, head of the Fatah Foreign Relations Department, told the New York Times that maybe U.S. President Barack Obama can do in a second term what he did not do during this first term of office.

That might suggest that the Palestinian leaders would be happy to submit their request, and leave it for lengthy and extended study in the Security Council — until a more opportune moment.

Alternatively, they could go to the UN General Assembly first, seeking to upgrade the status of their observer delegation, now named Palestine, from observer “organization” to observer but still non-member “state”. This has been mentioned for months by senior Palestinian officials… but, unless there was just some linguistic carelessness, Mahmoud Abbas has said they are going to go straight to the UN Security Council…

However, one knowledgeable Palestinian source in Fatah in Ramallah said that whatever decision there will be, will only be made at the very last minute, in New York…

A document, in Q + A format, has just been distributed by a group called the National Campaign, which lays out some of what appears to be the official argumentation for the UN move. It says: “The United Nations General Assembly’s Sixty-sixth session will begin in September. As such, September will mark the beginning of a process for Palestine’s admission as a full member of the UN. However, there is no time limit on the membership application process. In some cases, admission of members took a matter of days. In others, this process lasted much longer”. This factsheet is posted here.

In the case of Israel’s membership in the UN, it took almost six months from the time it submitted its request on 29 November 1948, one year after the adoption of the UN General Assembly decision [in Resolution 181] to Partition the Mandate for Palestine that the League of Nations formally awarded to Britain in 1923, at the formal conclusion of the First World War. At the end of the Second World War, the British government wanted to get out of Palestine — after being unable to find a solution to the strife between Palestinian nationalists and Jewish immigrants whose arrival was specifically encouraged in the Mandate given by the League of Nations — and Britain asked the newly-formed UN, as successor organization to the League of Nations, to decide what to do.

Israel was admitted as a UN member in May 1949, a few months after the conclusion of the Israel-Egyptian armistice agreement brokered by the UN. But Jordan was not admitted until 1955 — its application was blocked by the Soviet Union, which wanted more of its constituent states to have seats in the UN [and, therefore, more votes], but the Soviet Union argued publicly that it had doubts that Jordan was a truly independent state because of the role Britain was playing in the Jordanian government, and especially in its military. This stand-off was arrived at in a grand package by which two Soviet republics (Belarus and Ukraine) were admitted as separate independent UN member states, and Jordan was finally admitted as a UN member state, along with a group of a dozen other states, including Ireland.

So, from the time that Israel was admitted to the UN in May 1949, until the time Jordan was admitted to the UN in 1955, Israeli and Jordanian troops were facing each other all along the armistice line [the "Green Line"] — with only Israel being a UN member state, and Jordan being refused membership…

And, UN military observer commanders complained that they could never get an answer from Jordan, especially about any question involving Jerusalem…

Thes Q+A Factsheet by the National Campaign to support the Palestinian campaign to join the United Nations [Palestine:194], posted here, also says “there is international consensus that Israel’s policies of occupation are illegitimate. Palestinians also believe that Israel’s policies and practices are turning the 44 year-old occupation into annexation, which is also illegal”. [This is probably the same document that was presented to the UN office in Ramallah on Thursday, initially misunderstood in some places as an official request for full UN membership].

While probably true, this may be the most problematic part of the move, for Israel is slowly revealing arguments that justify, in its view, the legality of Jewish settlements in the West Bank — and this justification, it is said, is in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which encouraged Jewish immigration into all parts of the Mandated territory.

This, it seems, is how Israel will now argue that the West Bank is “disputed” territory: not on the basis of the academic and convoluted discussion about the lack of a legitimate sovereign prior to the June 1967 war, an argument which was developed to justify refusal to acknowledge the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank [though Israel says it does apply the provisions on a de facto basis], but because Israel itself is now going to argue its own claim for some of this territory, the parts where Jewish settlements are located.

Israel disputes the territory, and various Israeli officials have threatened, in recent weeks and months, to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank if the Palestinian leaders go through with their UN bid.

But, until now, Palestinian negotiators have consistently complained, after various rounds of negotiations, that they don’t know what Israel really wants — other than continued Palestinian subjugation on the grounds of “security”.

This claim, which has not been officially publicly argued to date, may also explain — for other than emotional reasons — why Israel has been insisting on Palestinian recognition of Israel as a, or the, Jewish State [which Netanyahu has alternatively formulated as "as the State of the Jewish People"].

To deal with the pesky matter of what has been commonly understood as the meaning of UNSC Resolution 242 — an “exchange of land for peace”, meaning Israel should evacuate the territory it occupied in June 1967 in exchange for peace — a new argument has been advanced, by Dore Gold’s Jewish Center for Policy Affairs, that Resolution 242 “entitles Israel to new borders”…

Though this has not been officially argued, it is clear that the settlement enterprise which has enjoyed huge infrastructure, financial and military support of the Israeli government, has involved a massive deception of some ofits own people [and the world]. It also appears to be part of a careful but never yet publicly stated plan.

We can probably expect to hear revelations about this plan in coming weeks.

In the meantime, here are more excerpts from the late Dr. Abdul Shafei’s address to the Madrid Peace Conference on 31 October 1991:

“Self-determination, ladies and gentlemen, can neither be granted nor withheld at the whim of the political self-interest of others, for it is enshrined in all international charters and humanitarian law. We claim this right; we firmly assert it here before you and in the eyes of the rest of the world, for it is a sacred and inviolable right which we shall relentlessly pursue and exercise with dedication and self-confidence and pride.”

He told the Madrid Conference:

“We, the people of Palestine, stand before you in the fullness of our pain, our pride, and our anticipation, for we have long harbored a yearning for peace and a dream of justice and freedom. For too long the Palestinian people have gone unheeded, silenced, and denied our identity negated by political expediency, our rightful struggle against injustice maligned, and our present existence subsumed by the past tragedy of another people … We do not stand before you as supplicants, but rather as the torch bearers who know that in our world of today, ignorance can never be an excuse. We seek neither an admission of guilt after the fact, nor vengeance for past iniquities, but rather an act of will that would make a just peace a reality. We speak out, ladies and gentlemen, from the full conviction of the rightness of our cause, the verity of our history, and the depth of our commitment”.

In the same speech, Dr. Abdel Shafei also said:

“The settlements must stop now. Peace cannot be waged while Palestinian land is confiscated in myriad ways and the status of the Occupied Territories is being decided each day by Israeli bulldozers and barbed wire. This is not simply a position; it is an irrefutable reality. Territory for peace is a travesty when territory for illegal settlement is official Israeli policy and practice. The settlements must stop now. In the name of the Palestinian people, we wish to directly address the Israeli people with whom we have had a prolonged exchange of pain: let us share hope instead. We are willing to live side by side on the land and the promise of the future. Sharing, however, requires two partners willing to share as equals. Mutuality and reciprocity must replace domination and hostility for genuine reconciliation and coexistence under international legality. Your security and ours are mutually dependent, as entwined as the fears and nightmares of our children. We have seen some of you at your best and at your worst, for the occupier can hide no secrets from the occupied, and we are witness to the toll that occupation has exacted from you and yours. We have seen you anguish over the transformation of your sons and daughters into instruments of a blind and violent occupation – and we are sure that at no time did you envisage such a role for the children whom you thought would forge your future. We have seen you look back in deepest sorrow at the tragedy of your past and look on in horror at the disfigurement of the victim turned oppressor”.

And, he said:

“We, the Palestinian people, made the imaginative leap in the Palestine National Council of November 1988, during which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) launched its peace initiative based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and declared Palestinian independence based on Resolution 181 of the United Nations, which gave birth to two states in 1948: Israel and Palestine. In December 1988, a historic speech before the United Nations in Geneva led directly to the launching of the Palestinian-American dialogue. Ever since then, our people has responded positively to every serious peace initiative and has done its utmost to ensure the success of this process. Israel, on the other hand, has placed many obstacles and barriers in the path of peace to negate the very validity of the process. Its illegal and frenzied settlement activity is the most glaring evidence of its rejectionism, the latest settlement being erected just two days ago. These historic decisions of the Palestine National Council wrenched the course of history from inevitable confrontation and conflict towards peace and mutual recognition. With our own hands, and in an act of sheer will, we have molded the shape of the future of our people. Our parliament has articulated the message of a people with the courage to say yes to the challenge of history, just as it provided the reference, in its resolutions last month in Algiers and in the Central Council meeting this month in Tunis, to go forward to this historic Conference. We cannot be made to bear the brunt of other people’s ‘no’. We must have reciprocity. We must have peace”.

In today's meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the entire Libyan delegation announced that they represented the people, and not the government of Libya, and they called for a moment of silence in honor of the victims of the violence of the regime.

And, Col. Qaddhafi and his son both gave second speeches today (their second since the outbreak of the uprising this month). I was out and missed them. Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine wrote today on his blog here that "Well, he [Col. Qaddhafi] finally came right out and said it: ‘those who do not love me do not deserve to live’. With those words, uttered on Libyan state television today, Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi at least rhetorically outdid all his megalomaniacal and mass murdering predecessors including Saddam Hussein, Ceausescu, Stalin and the whole bunch. Anyone who still doubts that this man is ready and willing to visit the utmost bloodshed upon his people simply isn’t paying attention. The question is, is he able? The answer is, at this stage at least, quite possibly”.

Ibish later added this update to his post: “There is now some dispute over whether Qaddafi said ‘those who do not love me do not deserve to live” or “if people do not love me, I do not deserve to live’. Al Arabiya reports the later here. But first-rate tweeters reporter Muna Shikaki quoted him as ‘Qaddafi: ‘those who don’t like me don’t deserve to live’ and Sultan Al Qassemi wrote ‘Gaddafi now in TV “I’m in central Tripoli now. The people who don’t love me don’t deserve to live”.’ Those are two pretty good sources, in my view. Either way, the thrust of the arguments remain unchanged. At UN today, the Libyan ambassador finally abandoned Qaddafi after sticking by him till now in an open dispute with his deputy. With emotions and tears flowing, Amb. Shalqam embraced Sec. Gen. Ban and asked the UN to ‘save Libya, we want quick action, save Libya’. He rightly said Qaddafi’s message to Libyans was if I cannot rule you, ‘I will kill you’. I think that says it all. And there is no dispute that Qaddafi today threatened to turn Libya into ‘a burning hell’.”

The Independent reported that “The beleaguered Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi defiantly appealed to his hardcore supporters to ‘defend the nation’ against an uprising which was last night closing in on Tripoli after thousands of protesters braved gunfire to try to march through the capital. Standing on the ramparts of a fort overlooking the city’s Green Square, Colonel Gaddafi pumped his fist and told 1,000 pro-regime demonstrators: ‘We can crush any enemy. We can crush it with the people’s will. The people are armed and when necessary, we will open arsenals to arm all the Libyan people and all Libyan tribes’. Urging the crowd to ‘retaliate against them, retaliate against them’, the 68-year-old President was shown on state television calling on them to prepare to defend the nation and defend the oil’.” This report, written by a team in Bengazi, is published here.

AFP reported that Qaddhafi said in Friday’s speech: “Sing, dance and prepare yourselves … If needs be, we will open all the arsenals”. The U.S. warmed up to Libya after it gave up its nuclear weapons program (after revelations that it came from Pakistani nuclear scientist and salesman], but reports indicate that Libya still has chemical and biological weapons…

In the UN Security Council today, UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon said that “Colonel Qaddhafi and members of his family continue to threaten the population with civil war… Let us be frank, these remarks… raise grave considerations… I strongly believe that the first obligation of the international community is to ensure (protection)”

BAN also noted that “Today the Human Rights Commission convened in special session… it is the first time that a member of the HRC is the subject of a special session … The HRC today took steps to establish independent commission of inquiry and recommended that the UN General Assembly consider suspending Libya from HRC”

And, he said, “There are also indications of a growing crisis of refugees (since Feb 22, some 22,000 fled overland to Tunisia, and 15,000 to Egypt, but much larger numbers are trapped… And those who managed to cross the border said the journey was terrifying … It is crucial for humanitarian agencies to have access to the border”.

And, BAN said, the UN’s World Food Program is concerned about Libya’s food supplies

In those who can stand it — and especially for those who love these things — here is a UN video of today’s UN Security Council meeting on Libya:

According to a Reuters report published in Haaretz, a six-page draft UN Security Council resolution says that “The attacks against Libyan civilians may be ‘crimes against humanity’ warranting prosecution by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, according to a draft UN sanctions resolution. The text, drafted by France and Britain and circulated to other members of the UN Security Council on Friday, also calls for an arms embargo against Libya as well as travel bans and asset freezes for the country’s top leaders … The 15-nation council has only referred one other case to the ICC – the conflict in Sudan’s western Darfur region”. This Haaretz report is posted here.

Here are some selected Tweets on the situation in Libya over the last working week:

21 February:
@marianhouk: Could become one of the most expedited decisions ever taken by UN Security Council – case for humanitarian intervention in #Libya

@marianhouk: To the last man + woman! RT@cnnbrk – Gadhafi’s son: #Libya’s army has been told to restore
security “at any price” http://on.cnn.com/ge2mrQ

@marianhouk: Situation in Libya doesn’t need to be international for UN Security Council action under rarely-used humanitarian imperative resolutions…

22 February:
@marianhouk: It was like a music video @RT IvanCNN: Watch Gadhafi’s…strange…pre-dawn appearance with an umbrella on Libyan TV – http://bit.ly/hCZTR7

@marianhouk: The neo-Con right has tried for years to kick #Libya off the UN Human Rights Commission, then Council. This is inadequate to the carnage now

@themoornextdoor – Qadhafi: “….and the punishment is death” this is really all you need to know from this speech.

@lassecgen LAS Council decides to suspend participation of Libyan delegations in all LAS meetings.

@SultanAlQassemi – Abdul Fattah Younis: Gaddafi, that dirty man, wanted to say that I was killed by protesters so that my tribe, the Obeidat will stand by him

@marianhouk: “Greasy rats”! — one of the most disgusting and chilling things Qaddhafi said today, over + over

@marianhouk: Revelations abt Qaddafi murder of Musa al-Sadr and his secret burial ‘n Sebha, then murder of some who knew [n.b. reportedly including Qaddhafi's personal pilot]: @SultanAlQassimi + @_RichardHall

Wednesday 23 February:

@marianhouk: After revelations about murder + burial in Libya of Musa al-Sadr, when will we learn about Mansour Kikhya, who disappeared in Cairo?

@marianhouk: @weddady – on list of who owes how much to Libya, Nicaragua is $123,000,000+ http://af.reuters.com/article/eritreaNews/idAFLDE7181NC20110209

@marianhouk: Maybe to be repaid in kind, UN votes? @kelliestrom – Nicaragua loan $123 million from #Libya but balance is $302 million. Interest charges?

Thursday 24 February:

@pressfreedom – Deputy Foreign Minister of #Libya: Foriegn journos will be treated as #AlQaeda collaborators. http://bit.ly/eo4SCW #Feb17

@marianhouk: Astonishing US State Dep warning to journalists: Senior Libyan officials told US that unauthorized media in Libya are Al-Qaeda collaborators

@marianhouk: Be advised, US State Dept tells media, it’s now additionally hazardous.Libya says join authorized media teams or u r terrorist collaborators

@markknoller- State Dept planning final evacuation flight out of Tripoli tomorrow. http://go.usa.gov/gwk.

@RobertNisbet – #Libya: Obama will call David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy this afternoon to coordinate response to Libya

Friday 25 February:
@UN – Today’s Human Rights Council meeting is 1st time a member is the subject of a Special Session http://bit.ly/gdRlNI #Libya

@marianhouk: Kicking Libya off Human Rts Council to take advantage of moment? Or use of responsibility to protect mandate? RT @UN HRC to meet on #Libya

@marianhouk: Like UN Security Council imposing sanctions, kicking #Libya off UN Human Rts Council is inadequate to danger, carnage, and is opportunistic

@marianhouk: Will there be useful “teamwork” — or disconnect — between work of UN Security Council in NY + UN Human Rights Council in Geneva?

@marianhouk: UN High Commissnr for Human Rts Navi Pillay’s remarks on #Libya focussed on responsibility to protect civ. pop from crimes against humanity

@marianhouk: Guess Pillay couldn’t urge Libya ouster from UN Human Rts Commission even if she wanted to, but it’s sure on agenda http://on.ft.com/eSiwNf

@marianhouk: UN High Commissionr for Human Rts Navi Pillay to Geneva meeting: “There can be no doubt about the need for action by this Council now”..

@marianhouk: UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay: “The “Human Rights Council + its mechanisms should step in vigorously to help end violence in Libya”…

@marianhouk: Pillay: HR “Council should use all means available to compel Libyan Government to respect the human rights + heed the will of its people”.

@fearraigh75 – Interesting to learn Libya is a shareholder in the Pearson Group, owner of the Financial Times. In

UNSG BAN Ki-Moon has just chosen a poor alternative.

The Washington Post’s Column Lynch has reported that BAN “mounted a highly emotional defense of his embattled tenure Monday, telling reporters at a news conference that allegations that he sought to undercut the independence of the United Nations’ main anti-corruption agency were ‘unfair’.”

BAN went even further, saying to journalists: “I’m a very reasonable, very practical man of common sense. I do not take extreme, unreasonable policies. I always do the right things, proper things … If anybody or if any member states with the U.N. system, or any colleague of mine within the UN Secretariat, accuses me on the issue of accountability or ethics, then that’s something I regard as unfair”. This report is posted here.

Matthew Lee has been all over this story, on his Inner City Press website, and has refers to these BAN comments as a “meltdown” moment.

Matthew’s post on the immediate issues is here.

Matthew’s post on the UN Staff Union’s open expression of discontent on 5 August resolution is here.

And, Matthew asks, “Is [just] being there enough?”

Such firing usually brings Israeli reprisals — but that will have to wait until BAN leaves the Gaza Strip. [UPDATE: SMS Israel is reporting that Palestinian sources say the IDF fired "tank shells" at southern Gaza -- while BAN is in northern Gaza...]

BAN made a stop in the northern Gaza neighborhood of Ezbat Abed Rabbo (Abed Rabbo farms) in Jabaliya, which was one of the worst-hit areas during the IDF Operation Cast Lead (27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009). Almost every house was destroyed, and a whole area of small businesses as well — one by one by one.

With the Israeli ban on construction materials still in place — ostensibly because Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is still being held somewhere in Gaza since being seized in a cross-border raid in late June 2006 — there has been virtually no reconstruction. Families are still living in tents beside the rubble of their former homes.

Supplies of electricity and cooking gas are still unreliable and intermittant. Millions of liter of raw or partially-treated sewage from the densely-populated Gaza Strip, where 1.5 million people are trapped, has been pouring directly into the Mediterranean Sea. The current travels north — but this has apparently not bothered Israeli beach-goers so much that they have pressed for an end to the sanctions that the Israeli government ordered tightened after the mid-June 2007 Hamas rout of Palestinian/Fatah Preventive Security forces in Gaza.

Since September 2007, the Israeli Ministry of Defense has been in charge of these sanctions — which are directly administered by the Coordinator of [Israeli] Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT). The Israeli Supreme Court was asked by a coalition of Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups to prohibit the military from carrying out what they say is “collective punishment” of the entire population of Gaza. But the High Court of Justice instead allowed the Israeli Military to proceed, on the sole condition that it would not allow a “humanitarian crisis” to develop.

BAN has reportedly just said in Gaza that this continued blockade or seige is “unacceptable”.

BAN, and the Quartet of Middle East negotiators of which he is part, have repeated their calls this week for an end to rocket and missile and mortar firing from Gaza, and for Gilad Shalit’s safe return home.

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar is reported to have said this morning that Fatah and “factions” are responsible for the continued projectile firing from Gaza — which he said Hamas wanted to stop. Zahar apparently told al-A3alam TV that the shelling “diverts the focus from the occupation crimes”.

UNSG BAN was originally supposed to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — but Abbas reportedly is suffering back pain following an accidental fall last week, and was advised to rest for a few days after a medical check in Amman on Friday.

Instead, in Ramallah, Fayyad reportedly took BAN to the Masyoun area in Ramallah, and further west to a spot near the infamous Israeli prison, Ofer, where there are hundreds if not thousands of Palestinian detainees being held, and where there is an Israeli military court where there are hearings for some detainees.

According to the Palestinian News Agency, WAFA, BAN said: “I saw with my very eyes the hardships the Palestinians face as a result of Israeli settlement activities and land confiscation”.

AP reported that BAN’s tour of the situation on the ground (in a small part of the West Bank) was brief. AP added that BAN told Fayyad in Ramallah that “The Quartet has sent a clear and strong message saying that we strongly support your efforts to establish an independent, viable Palestinian state”.

After seeing some of the sights, BAN gave a press conference — apparently in the Palestinian Prime Minister’s office. Many journalists were not informed — by either the UN or the Palestinian Authority information services.

AFP reported that Fayyad told those who were at the press conference that “The visit to Area C was an opportunity for the secretary general to see the difficulties that we face on a daily basis in our efforts to develop and build in preparation for our state”.

According to AFP, “Ban ‘condemned strongly’ the decision to build the homes [Israeli government planning was advanced recently for an addition of 1,600 additional homes in the Jewish settlement of Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem near the Shuafat village neighborhood] and warned that, “for the negotiations to succeed, it is vital that the parties act responsibly on the ground … All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in the occupied territories, and this must stop,” he said.

AP reported that BAN said at the news conference that: “The world has condemned Israel’s settlement plans in east Jerusalem … Let us be clear. All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.”

Reuters reported that BAN said: “We have to get negotiations under way … We can and must find a way for Jerusalem to emerge from negotiations as the capital of two states with arrangements for holy sites acceptable to all.”

On the tour, the most important part of the UNSG’s visit, it seems that Fayyad did not take BAN to see Qalandia Checkpoint…

Ma’an News Agency reported that BAN “also met with popular committee representatives during a tour of Israel’s separation wall in the West Bank, where he was handed a letter at an observation point north of the Israeli-only Givat Ze’ev settlement and adjacent to the segregated Road 443. The letter asserted the popular committees’ commitment to civic, unarmed protest and pleaded with Ban to stand by Palestinian grassroots mobilizations against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. Ban was also asked to pressure Israel to end the repression of protesters and their organizers and act in their defense as UN-protected human rights defenders. ‘More and more Palestinians are choosing to oppose injustice and occupation with grassroots and non-violent resistance. This is why Israel has launched a campaign of repression against our movement, targeting activists and members of our popular committees with arrests and violence. During the recent years of struggle twenty unarmed demonstrators have been killed, hundreds imprisoned and thousands injured’, the letter addressed to Ban read. Moreover, the letter highlighted the detention of Palestinian civilians who call for non-violent demonstrations, charged with incitement and organizing illegal demonstrations, as well as jailed and often remanded until the end of their legal proceedings”. This Ma’an report is published here.

The UNSG met Israeli State President Shimon Peres this evening, after sunset (and the end of the Jewish Shabbat), for dinner at the President’s residence in Jerusalem.

According to remarks released from his office, Peres said that doctors [presumably he means independent doctors, not those called by Hamas] should be allowed to visit IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, still held somewhere in Gaza since he was captured in a cross-border raid in late June 2006: “Not to permit a medical check of a man that has been held in prison for three years? Unbelievable! I think that the United Nations should take a very clear position about it. I mean, it’s not of less of human importance than any other issue.”

BAN has been given rare permission by the Israeli military to enter Gaza for a visit — on Sunday. He said in his meeting with Peres that “Tomorrow I will visit Gaza, where the situation is deeply worrying. I appreciate the steps, the positive steps, the Israeli leadership has taken to allow some United Nations Civilian Recovery projects. This enables me to bring the people there a small message of hope. I understand and share Israel’s concern about the security challenges presented by Hamas. But Israel blockade continues to impose unacceptable hardship while empowering extremists. I am confident that blockade can be lifted while addressing Israel’s legitimate security concerns. In Gaza I also repeat my call on Palestinian militants to immediately end rocket fire and release Gilad Shilat on humanitarian grounds.”

The Jerusalem Post reported that “Later Saturday, during a meeting between the UN chief and President Shimon Peres, head of the Strategic Planning Directorate, Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel, was expected to update Ban on IDF cooperation with UN agencies and peace-keeping forces in the region. Eshel will also inform Peres and Ban about the status of the IDF probes of the military’s conduct during Operation Cast Lead. Two IDF representatives will address the issue of captive soldier Gilad Schalit, held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. On Sunday, at the request of the UN secretary-general, he will meet with IDF officers that tool part in the rescue efforts in Haiti”. This JPost report is posted here.