Congressman Walsh supports Jordan is Palestinian

26 Comments / 26 Comments

1. @ Ted Belman:

   You may repeat your mantra as long as you wish but it aint worth a pile of figs unless Israelwants to see the the fall of the Jordanian monarchy. Considering the good relations between the two states, this is hardly credible. Jordan is Palestine purely in your imagination.

2. @ dweller:
   dweller Said:

   But there was no explicit decision to create a state — or even to explicitly acknowledge the existence of one.

   Therefore even BEFORE a court declares the UNESCO membership admission unconstitutional, any attempt to USE that flawed decision — to assert, by extrapolation elsewhere, the privileges or prerogatives of sovereignty — is subject to attack.

   Sorry you fail to understand that only states can be admitted as members of UNESCO under the specific provisions of UNESCO’s Constitution – Article II Paragraph 2 – which states:

   2. Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.

   If Palestine is found by a court of law to not be a state – it cannot remain a member of UNESCO – and those 194 countries that participated in that decision will look pretty stupid. But until this happens (if ever) Palestine has been recognized as a state by these countries.

3. @ david singer:

   “Problem is a court has to first declare it to be unconstitutional. Until it does – it is just an opinion.”

   Has to first declare the decision unconstitutional perhaps.

   But there was no explicit decision to create a state — or even to explicitly acknowledge the existence of one.

   Therefore even BEFORE a court declares the UNESCO membership admission unconstitutional, any attempt to USE that flawed decision — to assert, by extrapolation elsewhere, the privileges or prerogatives of sovereignty — is subject to attack.

4. @ dweller:
   Problem is a court has to first declare it to be unconstitutional. Until it does – it is just an opinion.

5. @ david singer:

   “[U]ntil they change their decision – it stands and must be taken into account – not dismissed – in any further discussions on the future of the West Bank and Gaza.”

   The Palys are not sovereign just because UNESCO says they are.

   “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose

   since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it;

   an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.”

   [16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178]

   That principle applies to an unconstitutional ruling or decision as well.

6. @ dweller:
   dweller Said:

   “If we take a horse’s tail and call it a leg, how many legs will the horse then have?

   —The correct answer is four.”

   “You see, gentlemen,” Mr Lincoln went on to say, “you can call a horse’s tail a ‘leg.’

   —But that does not make it a leg.”

   Traditional

   Go tell those 194 states that – and get them to see the stupidity of their decision. However I repeat – until they change their decision – it stands and must be taken into account – not dismissed – in any further discussions on the future of the West Bank and Gaza.

7. @ david singer:

   “So far as those 194 countries are concerned – they have recognized the State of Palestine.”

   They violated their OWN procedures to do it

   — thus flagrantly exposing their organization’s own illegitimacy.

   As far as their ‘recognition’ of the ‘State’ of ‘Palestine’ is concerned

   — UNESCO has not the capacity to create states.

   “If we take a horse’s tail and call it a leg, how many legs will the horse then have?

   —The correct answer is four.”

   “You see, gentlemen,” Mr Lincoln went on to say, “you can call a horse’s tail a ‘leg.’

   —But that does not make it a leg.”

   Traditional

8. dweller Said:

   The question is, what does it stand as?

   So far as I can see, it stands as flagrant & telling evidence of the Organization’s illegitimacy.

   Nothing more — or less.

   It stands as the decision of 194 member states of UNESCO recognizing Palestinian statehood and an end to the claim of Palestinian homelessness.

   How can those countries keep insisting on the need for a a two-state solution – when their own decision has brought it about?

   dweller Said:

   I surely don’t deny that the rogue decision was made.

   I DO deny, however, that the mere existence of that decision has thusly rendered the applicant a ‘state’

   — or that it, in any way, implies or evidences that such a ‘state’ exists.

   It simply hasn’t that capacity.

   So far as those 194 countries are concerned – they have recognized the State of Palestine.

   You may have a different opinion – as do I – and as does the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

   But in the world of diplomacy it signifies virtually total international recognition by every state on this planet that Palestine is also now a state.

   In trying to end the Arab-Jewish conflict – this important development cannot be ignored or removed from the political discourse.

   In achieving what has been sought for the last 19 years by those 194 countries – a Palestinian state – there are pluses and minuses.

   It should for example signal the end of UNWRA (because the Palestinians are no longer homeless)and the rejection of a one state solution by any of these 194 countries (because they have recognized that Palestine is a state).

   These are but two of the consequences of the decision to recognize the state of Palestine. I am sure there will be more

9. @ david singer:

   “Unless some country is prepared to take UNESCO to Court – the decision stands.”

   Well certainly it ‘stands.’

   The question is, what does it stand as?

   So far as I can see, it stands as flagrant & telling evidence of the Organization’s illegitimacy.

   Nothing more — or less.

   “[Y]ou can’t bury your head in the sand and deny [UNESCO’s unlawful decision] exists…”

   I surely don’t deny that the rogue decision was made.

   I DO deny, however, that the mere existence of that decision has thusly rendered the applicant a ‘state’

   — or that it, in any way, implies or evidences that such a ‘state’ exists.

   It simply hasn’t that capacity.

10. @ dweller:
    Unless some country is prepared to take UNESCO to Court – the decision stands.

    Of course the decision was unconstitutional – but if all those countries are prepared to accept it and accept the consequences of their unlawful decision – you can’t bury your head in the sand and deny it exists.

11. @ dweller:
    Well the 194 countries swallowed that propaganda – hook line and sinker – and now they have to live with it.

12. @ david singer:

    “Palestine could not have been admitted if it was not a member – since only states can be admitted as members.”

    However, UNESCO did not know that “Palestine” was a ‘state’ at the time the question was called, and the vote taken.

    As your linked article clearly observes:

    “There was no vetting Committee to look at and first decide whether Palestine was a state – again a necessary prerequisite to entitle it to apply for membership under Article II paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution.”

    Clearly UNESCO — for whatever its member nations’ reasons — failed to adhere to its own procedures.

13. @ david singer:

    “How do you think Palestine could have applied for membership of UNESCO or the United Nations – if it did not consider itself a state?”

    There are no limits to the capability of the Arab mind to make itself believe its own propaganda.

14. True but Israel won’t allow it to millitarize, no matter what.

    You maybe correct. But that is a different issue to statehood.

    No, in my opinion the vote wasn’t a statement about Palestine being a state but about changing the rules of who can be admitted. i.e even if they aren’t a state, were going to admit them anyway

    .

    No Ted. The Constitution clearly states:

    “Article II

    Membership

    1. Membership of the United Nations Organization shall carry with it the right to membership of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

    2. Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.”

15. david singer Said:

    Area A is now recognized as part of the State of Palestine. There is no requirement that it be demilitarized or recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

    True but Israel won’t allow it to millitarize, no matter what.

    david singer Said:

    The UNESCO vote was seminal. Palestine could not have been admitted if it was not a member – since only states can be admitted as members.

    No, in my opinion the vote wasn’t a statement about Palestine being a state but about changing the rules of who can be admitted. i.e even if they aren’t a state, were going to admit them anyway.

16. @ BlandOatmeal:
    Mudar represents the Palestinians. All their leadership is working in concert with them. He agrees to nothing that they haven’t agreed to. He needs to have all kinds of anti-terrorist forces to keep control and keep him alive. Also such forces will prevent coups by various minorities. He will govern as head of a representative Cabinet. After all Jordan is in the ME, not Europe.

17. @ Ted Belman:

    I know you are against the two-state solution – but it was achieved on 31 October 2011.

    Area A is now recognized as part of the State of Palestine. There is no requirement that it be demilitarized or recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

    The UNESCO vote was seminal. Palestine could not have been admitted if it was not a member – since only states can be admitted as members.

    I have argued the decision was unlawful – that Palestine is not a State – but until it is reversed that decision stands.

    Those 194 countries are now saddled with the consequences of their unlawful decision.

18. @ Ted Belman:

    I told Zahran as much and he agrees that they aren’t shooting for democracy. They want a benevolant dictatorship. He wants to impose his vision of what is good for them.

    I see your point, Ted; but do you realize that you’re following in the footsteps of the CIA? Installing Zahran as dictator of Jordan has a good chance of turning out like the CIA overthrowing Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963 and replacing him with Nguen Cao Ky. Diem excercized power through the Roman Catholic minority, just as Abdullah is doing through the Bedouin. We tried to give Vietnam a dictator representing the majority pagans and Buddhists; but instead, the populace supported the Communists — just as the Levantine Jordanians are likely to support the Muslim Brotherhood. In Vietnam, we probably would have done better by sticking with our staunch allies, the Catholics; but we’ll never know for sure, will we?

19. david singer Said:

    I know it doesn’t suit your stated goal of Israel acquiring sovereignty in all of the West Bank. But you can’t bury your head in the sand and try to make this dramatic change in achieving the two-state solution disappear.

    Cheap shot. I have trouble understanding your point. I am against the two-state solution. I do not consider the UNESCO vote as seminal. Voting for admission isn’t synonymous with voting on recognition.

    I would like it if Area A became a state albeit one with limited sovereignty otherwise know as autonomy.

    I really do not understand your position. I’ll have to read your article.

20. @ Ted Belman:

    Ted:

    Of course I will repeat my mantra till the cows come home.

    I know it doesn’t suit your stated goal of Israel acquiring sovereignty in all of the West Bank. But you can’t bury your head in the sand and try to make this dramatic change in achieving the two-state solution disappear.

    How do you think Palestine could have applied for membership of UNESCO or the United Nations – if it did not consider itself a state?

    Perhaps you and your readers might like to read my latest article:

    http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/palestine-two-opportunities-better-missed/24773

    Put it up on Israpundit. I will be happy to deal with any comments that are posted.

21. @ david singer:
    You can repeat your mantra til the cows come home but no one is listening. People and governments have ignored whether Palestine is now a state and have continued in the belief that it isn’t, except for the UNESCO fiasco. Your basic argument if I understand it is that they can’t have it both ways. To that I say , why not. And you have come back that you want to put their feet to the fire.

    Why not take a different tact. Make the case, if you can, that Palestine is now a recognized, state, whether declared or not, and then set out what should flow from that.

22. Congressman Walsh alleges:

    It has been 64 years since the United Nations General Assembly approved the Partition Plan for Palestine and the struggle to implement a “two-state solution” began. Today, we are no closer to that end. That reminds me of the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By that definition, everyone who continues to cling to the delusion of a two-state solution is insane. There is no such thing as a two-state solution. It cannot work, it has not worked, and it will not work.

    Does he not know the two-state solution was achieved with Palestine’s admission to UNESCO on 31 October 2011? Whether it works is another matter.

    But there is no point in ignoring what has occurred. The Palestinian Arabs are no longer homeless or stateless according to all 194 member states of UNESCO – including America.

    If Congressman Walsh doesn’t accept this outcome – then he should be urging President Obama to lead the push in UNESCO for its decision to be referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on whether it was lawful or not.

    If America is not prepared to take this lead role – then it – like the other 193 countries that have done nothing to try and reverse that decision – will have to live with its consequences.

23. @ Yidvocate:

    I disagree with his conclusion that such a constituted state would pose a greater threat than Jordan as constituted today. The “Jordan is Palestine” option would end all Arab sovereign claims to “greater” Israel and create an enemy state (which it already is notwithstanding the “treaty”)that is contained and can be managed much more effectively than the present reality, having to contend with the enemy in our midst. Greater Israel is the only solution that provides truly defensible borders and a viable Jewish state.

    Hi, Yid. In typically crass, reflexive BlandOatmeal fashion, I told you to go to hell on another post. Now, you go and say something halfway nice about me! It’s not fair. You get a point for being nice, but Felix Quigley was right: We’re all full of ourselves (including Felix).

    Back to business, you can see the points I highlighted:

    1. I don’t believe ANYTHING in the Middle East “ends all claims” to anything. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is still a best seller in the Arab world; and it is fair to say that if all Arabs save one were suddenly felled by a plague, the one remaining would be reading the “Protocols” and spewing out invective against Israel.

    2. I’m not clear about your position on the “Greater Israel”, and its relationship with a “democratic” Jordan. Putting that aside, though, I believe there are many potential solutions which would provide secure, defensible borders for Israel. None of these, of course, have been put forward by the international community. Let me list a few:

    a. Ethnic Cleansing. I know that’s a “No No!” word; but it was very much in vogue right up to the ’50s; and is still approved of in practice (such as the ethnic cleansing of Serbs out of Croatia and Kosovo).

    b. “Reservations” for the Pals in Israel, somewhat along the lines of American Indian reservations.

    c. There are other possibilities, but I’m out of time.

    Concerning “Greater Israel”, I believe Israel has a valid claim to Israel (as is, including YeShA but excluding Eilat), the Temple Mount, southern Syria beyond Damascus, nearly all of Lebanon and much of Sinai. She has a charter to these places, given by God. Other areas could legitimately included by right of conquest, or bargained away.

    I have to run…

24. BlandOatmeal Said:

    A “democratic” government in Jordan, in which non-Bedouin Levantine Arabs (called “Palestinians” by the international community) form the majority, would be an unmitigated threat to both Israel and the US. How can one expect these “Palestinians”, who have waged an incessant war against the Jews, and who cheered in the streets and threw candy to children at the news of the 9/11 atrocity, to use Jordan for anything but malicious mischief against both Israel and the US?

    If I had a vote in the matter, I would choose the king and the Bedouin over the “Pals”.

    This is the crux of the matter. You are right.Democracy is foreign to the Arab world they just want a strong leader preferably one of them.

    I told Zahran as much and he agrees that they aren’t shooting for democracy. They want a benevolant dictatorship. He wants to impose his vision of what is good for them. They have already agreed on a Bill of Rights and a Bill of Entitlements. He then intends to detoxify them for at least 10 years and so on. All the leadership team is in agreement. Even so all kinds of reactionary forces will try to take over.

    I have already made contact with Congressman Walsh. Jusr aS i GUESSED HE AND HIS ADVISOR HAVE BEEN READING MY ARTICLES IN aMERICAN tHINKER.

25. I agree with Bland’s assessment in principle as I strongly believe that Jordan is and has always been the non-Bedouin Levantine Arab homeland. Curious how the international community only requires this one country of all Arab/Muslim nations to be the poster child of democracy before it can be considered such. I disagree with his conclusion that such a constituted state would pose a greater threat than Jordan as constituted today. The “Jordan is Palestine” option would end all Arab sovereign claims to “greater” Israel and create an enemy state (which it already is notwithstanding the “treaty”)that is contained and can be managed much more effectively than the present reality, having to contend with the enemy in our midst. Greater Israel is the only solution that provides truly defensible borders and a viable Jewish state.

26. A quote from Jeane Kirkpatrick, US UN ambassador under Ronald Reagan, and a strong supporter of Israel in the UN:

    “Her most well known piece was “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” published in Commentary Magazine in November 1979.[9] In that piece, Kirkpatrick mentioned what she saw as a difference between authoritarian regimes and the totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union; sometimes it was necessary to work with authoritarian regimes if it suited American purposes.[4] She wrote: “No idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime and anywhere, under any circumstances… Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road [to democratic government] took seven centuries to traverse… The speed with which armies collapse, bureaucracies abdicate, and social structures dissolve once the autocrat is removed frequently surprises American policymakers.”[1]”

    — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick

    I agree with Jeane, concerning expectations many have that “democratization” is likely to bring about good in a country. Jordan under King Hussein has steered a course in its relationship with Israel that has been relatively cautious (when compared with Egypt and Syria) and at times cooperative. A “democratic” government in Jordan, in which non-Bedouin Levantine Arabs (called “Palestinians” by the international community) form the majority, would be an unmitigated threat to both Israel and the US. How can one expect these “Palestinians”, who have waged an incessant war against the Jews, and who cheered in the streets and threw candy to children at the news of the 9/11 atrocity, to use Jordan for anything but malicious mischief against both Israel and the US?

    If I had a vote in the matter, I would choose the king and the Bedouin over the “Pals”.