Palestinian Statehood: The Ayes And The Nays

Israel's apartheid is strikingly similar to what was seen in South Africa, Pilger's documentary goes to the heart of the matter.

(MELBOURNE) - John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two journalists

to have twice won British journalism’s top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US.

In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela.

John Pilger details the war in Palestine through interviews of Palestinian and Israelis.

It details the progress of peace and the strategies and policies at work on both sides of the issue.

Watch the program by John Pilger (continues below)

Countries that support the recognition of a Palestinian state:

Be a part of Peace and Progress!!

If your country is not on the list, urge your government to join in…. USA, Canada, Australia and Columbia in particular.

University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle, former PLO legal advisor in drafting its 1988 Declaration of Independence discounted Goodwin-Gill’s concerns, saying he built explicit safeguards into the 1988 Declaration of Independence he drafted “to make sure that his doomsday scenario does not materialize.”

This Memo is based upon most erroneous assumptions. But in a nutshell, in the 15 November 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence that was approved by the PNC representing all Palestinians all over the world, the Executive Committee of the PLO was set up as the Provisional Government for the State of Palestine—pursuant to my advice.

In addition, the Declaration of Independence also provides that all Palestinians living around the world automatically become citizens of the State of Palestine—pursuant to my advice. So the Executive Committee of the PLO in its capacity as the Provisional Government for the State of Palestine will continue to represent the interests of all Palestinians around the world when Palestine becomes a UN Member State. Hence all your rights will be preserved: for all Palestinians and for the PLO. No one will be disenfranchised.

The PLO will not lose its status. This legal arrangement does not violate the Palestinian Charter, but was approved already by the PNC. Unfortunately, this professor is not aware of all the legal and constitutional technicalities that were originally built into the Palestinian Declaration of Independence to make sure that his doomsday scenario does not materialize–at my advice.

All of your rights have been protected and will be protected by Palestine becoming a Member State of the United Nations, including the Right of Return. Indeed, in the Memo I originally did for President Arafat and the PLO back in 1988, I explained how we could obtain UN Membership.

All of the advice that I gave to President Arafat and the PLO in 1987 to 1989 was originally premised on the assumption that someday we would apply for UN Membership. That day has come. Please move forward. I have been working for this Day since I first proposed UN Membership for Palestine along the lines of Namibia at the United Nations Headquarters in New York in June of 1987. Palestine’s Application for UN Membership was my idea.

When my Client and Dear Friend the late, great Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi Chair of the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Negotiations instructed me to draft the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement, he most solemnly told me:

“Professor Boyle, we have decided to ask you to draft this Interim Peace Agreement for us. Do whatever you want! But do not sell out our right to our State!”

“Do not worry, Dr. Abdul Shaffi. As you know, I was the one who first called for the creation of the Palestinian State back at United Nations Headquarters in June of 1987, and then served as the Legal Adviser to the PLO on its creation. I will do nothing to harm it!”

As I promised Dr. Haidar, I would do nothing to harm Palestine and the Palestinians.

In addition, the Palestinians are acting in good faith and with sincerity. They are part of our Diaspora. But they have been critically misled and misinformed by that Opinion by the Brit Lawyer from the Brit University. The Brits created this problem in the first place. Why would any Palestinian listen to a Brit lawyer from a Brit University?.

They do not even understand that once we become a UN Member State, we can ratify the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and then file a formal State to State Complaint against Israeli Officials, upgrading the lower level Complaint President Abbas filed at my advice. They also do not know that once we become a UN Member State, we can ratify the Genocide Convention and sue Israel for Genocide at the World Court, pursuant to the advice I had already given President Arafat and President Abbas, and get a temporary restraining Order against the Zionists, that would then go to the Security Council for enforcement and if vetoed by the Americans, to the General Assembly for enforcement under the Uniting for Peace Resolution . With these proceedings we might be able to halt the Zionist settlement project of all Palestine in the immediate future. How else are we going to do this?

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law Legal Advisor to the PLO and H.E. Yasser Arafat on the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle Peace Negotiations (1991-1993) and H.E. Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi Author, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law (2003) and The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law (2011)

The internet is abuzz about the September bid at the UN for an upgrade in the status of Palestine. There are many arguments on all sides being presented. Even international legal experts differ, Guy Goodwin-Gill holds a very negative opinion about going to the UN while Francis Boyle a very positive one (Abdullah Abu Eid, a Palestinian legal expert holds a somewhat intermediary position). Some points are convincing to some of us and some not. The discussions are getting intense but in actuality are coming a bit too late. It is not clear that the opinions offered will affect the course going forward since no mechanism exists for Mr. Mahmoud Abbas to seek and receive input in a democratic and open way. What would have helped would be an open democratic decision making process at the PLO. The Palestinian National Council should have been revived democratically as agreed to three times already in discussions between the factions. If the PNC had been constituted, a real discussion among Palestinians would have happened that address these existential issues like whether to go to the UN or not and more importantly how to move before and after such events to ensure success regardless of the decision we collectively make. No real discussion of these issues was possible or allowed in the structure of Oslo. It is that lack of rational and democratic decision making since Oslo (intentional) that really harms the cause of Palestine.

Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh teaches and does research at Bethlehem and Birzeit Universities in occupied Palestine. He previously served on the faculties of the University of Tennessee, Duke and Yale Universities. He served on the board/steering/executive committees of a number of groups including Peace Action Education Fund, the US Campaign to End the Occupation, the Palestinian American Congress, Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, and BoycottIsraeliGoods.org. He is now president of the Palestinian Center for Rapprochement Between People. He advised many other groups including Sommerville Divestment Project, Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project, Palestine Freedom Project, Sabeel North America, and National Council of Churches of Christ USA. He is an active member of a number of human rights groups (Amnesty, Peace action, Human Rights Watch, ACLU etc.). He published several books of which the most acclaimed “Sharing the Land of Canaan: human rights and the Israeli/Palestinian Struggle” which was also translated to spanish. For more about his work go to: http://qumsiyeh.org

Also see:

General Assembly Palestinian Statehood Vote

Follow-Up Comments on Palestinian Statehood Vote

Debbie Menon is an independent writer based in Dubai. An advocate for Justice and Peace for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Her main focus is US-Middle East Policy issues while writing cutting edge commentary for today's growing number of Internet news viewers seeking unfiltered information about real events. She is committed to exposing Israel Lobbies control of U.S. Middle East Policy. Her Website, mycatbirdseat.com, is a source for many other Salem-News.com reports.

Debbie has a fresh perspective in her interpretation of historical events and their relationship to today's current news developments between Palestine and Israel. She can be reached at: debbiemenon@gmail.com

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Debbie Menon August 31, 2011 12:06 am (Pacific time)

John Quigley, author and professor of international and comparative law

The initiative is no threat to the Palestinians, and it will only improve their standing. This is because as a matter of international law, states must ensure that human rights are not being violated.

If Palestine were to become a member state it would be interacting with other states, and this is a much stronger position. It can pursue remedies at the diplomatic level in its capacity as a state. It will do favors for other states. It can demand favors in return. It can also pursue prosecutions of Israeli officials for war crimes, such as settlements, putting pressure on Israel on an issue that has been the principal obstacle to a peace settlement. Palestine will have leverage that is presently lacking.

This is all missing from the Goodwin-Gill opinion because he was not asked to deal with it, just the issue of an upgrade. His opinion does not relate to UN membership, and does not purport to have any relevance to the issue of UN membership.

Rather than posing a threat to the refugees, the refugees will in fact be in a much stronger position. Legally, while people might leave states, if the refugees are nationals then the state cannot refuse to allow nationals to return. It is safe to assume that Israel will use this as a pretext to argue that the refugees can only return to their new state, but they will always find a reason not to allow the refugees to return.

Goodwin-Gill and others in civil society also view the bid as a threat to the PLO, but this too is exaggerated. It was the PLO that decided in 1988 to constitute itself as the government of the State of Palestine, making clear that all Palestinians would be represented by it. The General Assembly accepted the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. That is what it was asked to do at the time, and that is what it is likely to do in September if asked to accept Palestine as a state.

Quigley has agreed with Boyle independently. And he just wrote a book on Palestinian Statehood published by Cambridge U Press.

[Return to Top]