اجعلنا صفحة البداية RSS خدمة Add to favorite Facebook Twitter

Advanced

Leaders unmoved by Israeli objections to State of Palestine IDs
Published Monday 07/01/2013 (updated) 08/01/2013 17:20
Font- Font+
A rainbow is seen on a windy winter day in Gaza City Jan. 7, 2013.
(Reuters/Ahmed Zakot)
RAMALLAH (Ma'an) -- The Palestinian leadership couldn't care less about Israel's objections to planned State of Palestine passports and other identity documents, a Fatah official said Monday.

Party spokesman Ahmad Assaf said Israel's opposition to the measure, implemented after the UN accepted Palestine as a non-member state in November, would not change their course.

"Since when does the occupier allow the occupied to attain liberation and self determination?" he remarked.

"If we had waited for Israeli approval, we would still have been living in the time before the PA (government was established), because Israel doesn’t want any Palestinians to live in this land and this is a fact."

He continued: "The whole world supports us while Israel is politically isolated, and if it’s necessary we will go to the UN again and the International Criminal Court and other bodies."

"The Palestinian train has started and will not stop until it arrives at its destination: an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital."

On Sunday, President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree giving the cabinet two months to come up with regulations to issue identity documents bearing the State of Palestine.

Passports, identity cards, population records, vehicle and driving licenses, and postage stamps are included in the decree. It follows similar amendments this week instructing official papers to bear the State of Palestine header, and embassies to use the State designation.

The office of the Israeli prime minister responded by calling the measure "devoid of any political meaning and creates no practical impact on the ground," in a statement quoted by the Voice of Israel radio.

"A Palestinian state will only be created as part of a peace agreement with Israel," the statement continued, echoing Israel and the US' objections to the November UN vote.

At the General Assembly meeting, 138 states voted in favor of accepting the Palestinian state.
Print
1 ) Reader / from Edmonton
07/01/2013 18:30
Israel can choose to end its occupation of Palestine. That is an option. Israel has no legal right to send Israeli citizens to Palestine: it never did. Israel invaded Palestine because it possessed the might to do so. Israeli might is not right.

2 ) Reader / from Edmonton
07/01/2013 18:48
Unmoved? They had better get moved. Jews have a right to Israeli citizenship, but that doesn't mean they have a right to Palestinian citizenship. When are you not in Israel? When you have illegally invaded a neighbouring state.

3 ) Robert / U.S.
07/01/2013 18:55
Lots Tof Rainbows for Palestine !!

4 ) Avril Wooster / UK
07/01/2013 18:56
Israel needs to now get real and accept what the rest of the world accepts....the State of Palestine. They can cry all they want but Zionism will NOT prevail hopefully for very much longer as it is an evil entity and all who support it now need to stop stealing, lying and causing much death and hardship to people who do not deserve it, the same as the Jews didn't when Hitler did the same. Enough is enough and if Israel is not careful it will lose even more credibility than it already has.

5 ) John / South Africa
07/01/2013 19:21
Nice photo of Gaza City, I always thought they lived in squalor in refugee camps

6 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
07/01/2013 19:28
Ahmad Assaf says, " ... because Israel doesn’t want any Palestinians to live in this land and this is a fact." 100% DAMN RIGHT !!! DAMN WELL-SAID !!! (I would only say for better accuracy he should have inserted--in between the words "land" and "and,"--the phrase: "west of the Jordan River." THAT would have been perfect; otherwise, he speaks 100% truth.) Separately, when our PM says a (second) Palestinian state will be created only as part of a peace agreement ... blah, blah (cont.)

7 ) Anthony Tiller / Holland
07/01/2013 19:30
Do the refugees live in the high rise building, or is that for the Dear Hamas Leaders?

8 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
07/01/2013 19:40
and more blah ... Know that this is 100% DAMN WRONG !!! ... DAMN WELL-LYING !!! (At least nobody can accuse me of lying or distorting the truth.) It IS better for them to use their own civil documents. The Palestinians are not a part of us and never will be; I APPLAUD their development and use of their own civil instruments. Next step: They should immediately take full control of collecting their own damn taxes and WE should not be taxing them for a damn thing. KEEP GOING !!!

9 ) AKeenReader / UK
07/01/2013 19:43
Let the right wing Israeli govt basta*ds say what they like. No one is listening to them any more except for a hand full of cronies as demonstrated at the UNGA recently. And I am sure that more have changed their minds since tghe settlement expansion news.

10 ) Amira / Canada
07/01/2013 19:43
Finally Palestinians are talking the right talk and taking action. What you need now is having a strong unified government.
Bravo and victory to Palestine!

11 ) Without financial independence / you remain Arabs canon fodder
07/01/2013 19:45
The PA has every right to walk away from the Oslo accords. Lets face it, they never implemented any of the agreements they signed up to. And now that the majority of their UN buddies have shown they are happy for them to bury the peace process we can all look forward to a life without the constant bull sh@ting about who is responsible for its failures. I do see one minor problem though. Whose going to pay the bills? Did someone say the Oil Skaikhs? He he, don't hold your breath !

12 ) Tobias / USA
07/01/2013 20:27
-a- The Palestinian leadership Should care less about Israel's objections
to planned State of Palestine passports and other identity documents, and
-b- The Israeli leadership Should Deny visas at all ports and checkpoints, to all people carrying a State of Palestine passport, including diplomatic passports !!

13 ) Bubba / USA
07/01/2013 20:28
I think Israel should create facts on the ground by withdrawing all economic and security support for Ramallah "state" (you want a state, you got it...now go and run it!) PA is not Hamas and they'll run their country into the ground.

14 ) Colin Wright / USA
07/01/2013 22:11
To Tobias #12 ' The Israeli leadership Should Deny visas at all ports and checkpoints, to all people carrying a State of Palestine passport, including diplomatic passports !!' Assuming you intend to withdraw to your legal borders, that would be your prerogative.

15 ) ian / australia
07/01/2013 22:22
What's ironic is that the creation of the State of Palestine with fledgling steps like postage stamps exactly echoes the beginnings of Israel which is sold as being so infinitely moving and profound. The role of grumpy, obstructionist kill-joy ('...the Israeli prime minister responded by calling the measure "devoid of any political meaning and creates no practical impact on the ground" ') is played this time round by the State of Israel. And as the underdog, the Palestinians have the good lines:

16 ) ian / australia
07/01/2013 22:22
(contd.) "The Palestinian train has started and will not stop until it arrives at its destination: an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital." And the defiance of Israeli meddling ("The Palestinian leadership couldn't care less about Israel's objections...") is bracing. They could even claim inspirationally that Palestine will "make the desert bloom"!

17 ) Around / World
08/01/2013 02:54
"The Palestinian leadership couldn't care less about Israel's objections to planned State of Palestine passports and other identity documents, a Fatah official said Monday". They will care a lot when holders of those new passports are not allowed to enter Israel. How would for example Fayed or Ashrawi go to their homes in Jerusalem? Or they will stay in Rammallah? Hard to believe. What will 50000 palestinians who are working in Israel say when they are not allowed to enter? Think about it.

18 ) Nizar / Tanzania
08/01/2013 08:11
"A Palestinian state will only be created as part of a peace agreement with Israel"

Really? Surely they mean a bantustan state which will never be accepted by Palestinians

19 ) someone / somewhere
08/01/2013 16:32
you dont allow comments on your arabic page. you allow foreigners to comment on your english page, and prevent us palestinians from commenting. Since thats how much free speech you allow, i will comment here: so on your arabic page you publish how abbas stopped his cars to allow an ambulance to pass. are we supposed to kneel and kiss his feet for doing that? no, wait, it is you who are doing the kneeling and the as... kissing! i wonder how much u got for publishing that? independent my a...!

20 ) Big Mike / USA
08/01/2013 17:26
I think that the Z state of Izrael is in denial of the facts !!! For a UN created state like that of 1948 Izrael to deny recognition to another UN created state as that of 2012 Palestine, is not politically correct and the secular Zstate will eventually have to succumb to those political facts or deny their alleged right to exist as a UNGA predicated state. to deny another is to deny their own right to exist.It was the same UNGA that allowed the Zstate and is no different than that of Pal state.

21 ) to 8 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel / Big Mike
08/01/2013 17:35
Right!!! and they should get their own nuclear power plant for there own electrical supply and get totally independent of the Z masters !!!

22 ) Herman / South Africa
08/01/2013 19:26
Palestinians are excellent suicide bombers. Now they expect Israel to also commit suicide by recognizing a Palestinian state. Palestinian doctrine does not recognize Israel's right to exist. The only way there can be a Palestinian state is if there is no Israel. The sooner the Israelis wake up to this truth, the better the chance for Israel to survive as a state.

23 ) Tal / South Africa
08/01/2013 20:47
Palestinians want Israel, period. If there was any honesty in the Western media stop saying we want West Bank and the ''occupied territories". Just speak the truth without code words.

24 ) Rob / Canada
08/01/2013 21:42
Isreal did not envade Palastine, they forced or incouraged the British to leave. Israel accepted partition and was invaded by the poor undermined Palastinions and other neighbours. I feel an indipendant Palastinian state is the ansewer. The question remains what are the boarders. To say that the pre 67 boarders is to say we want Isreal destroyed but that is politicaly not acceptable. Where is the call for Palistians willing to recognise Isreals right to exist.The real goal is Isreals distruction

25 ) Reader / from Edmonton
08/01/2013 22:05
The news is going around the world that Jerusalem is in Palestine.

26 ) Reader / from Edmonton
08/01/2013 22:12
Forget about Israel forming an apartheid state in the State of Palestine. It can't be done. There is no possible legal framework for it that doesn't involve Palestinian consent. Who is Palestinian is not determined by Israel: it is decided by Palestine. Palestine has removed the census records from the occupiers control.

27 ) Reader / from Edmonton
08/01/2013 22:19
Herman throws a bomb, but it's a dud. Palestine exists with or without Israel's recognition. The sooner Israelis wake up to this truth,the sooner they will return to their legal borders and leave the Palestinians in peace.

28 ) gabi / australia
09/01/2013 02:12
$ 24 - Israel did not accept the partition plan borders - they had taken more land than was allocated to them BEFORE declaring the State of Israel. Then when the Brits left other Arab states came in to prevent them taking more land that was allocated to the Arabs. "Pre-67 borders" means borders which were decided in 1949 - the armistice line - the green line - which, clearly, means acceptance of Israel. (btw I don't know why Israel shouldn't have to retreat to the Partition Plan borders anyway)

29 ) Chas MD / USA
09/01/2013 08:42
Reading all of these hostile comments convinces me more than ever that Israel should not budge an inch until the Palestinians have a normal, competent government that can enforce acceptance of a peace treaty. Why concede anything to people who state openly that they want to destroy Israel and its people?

30 ) EE / UK
09/01/2013 16:31
#29 - agree

31 ) There will never be a solution / as long as Bullsh@t rules
09/01/2013 19:27
28) You really do write a load of crap. Israel declared its state within the borders given it by the UN, which was only 20% of the original land promised by Balfour and agreed by the League of Nations. Jordan's attack on Israel's western border and east Jerusalem started the situation that led to the present impasse. That impasse will not be surmounted as long as Fatah and Hamas continue to maneuver for a total land grab of all Israel, as depicted by their logo and enshrined in their mandate.

32 ) Lee / Londonderry
09/01/2013 20:33
All that is stopping the Palestinians from getting their own state is for them to officially recognise Israel. There were no settlements built these last two years and yet Abbas ('I will not have one Jew in my State'-Egypt Mar. 2012) still would not talk. Abbas CANNOT recognise Israel as the Koran states 'once land is muslim it must not be changed'. Jews in Judea, Sumaria 1300 years before Islam. That is why the Palestinian flag omits Israel and denies that Jews were ever in the Middle East butA

33 ) LegalEagle / USA
09/01/2013 21:50
All of the above comments, only illustrate the fact that UN international law must be the agenda and not the ideas, threats and misplaced ideologies, religious or otherwise, of Israelis or surrounding Arabs. UN mandate/law, UN troops/and or NATO enforcement on the ground is needed. Israeli law or Palestinian law is within each border respectively. International law and enforcement is the only solution ultimately with demilitarized zones if necessary at first to insure peace. Otherwise it's war

34 ) to 33 ) LegalEagle / USA
10/01/2013 07:17
UN "Mandate" law as you call it only comes from the UN Security Council not from the General Assembly which has no power to mandate resolutions. US isn't going to change it's veto power in the UNSC against the Zstate if that is what you are calling for. Get real it will never happen!!!

35 ) gabi / australia
10/01/2013 09:55
# 331 - you really do write a load of crap. The Balfour Declaration gave no-one any land - it merely stated that Britain "looked with favour" on the establishment of a Jewish "homeland" - not a state - in Palestine, not including Trans-Jordan. Read the bloody thing before making stupid comments. And Israel declared a state - without borders. Read what David Ben Gurion had to say about his plan for a state extending to the Jordan river. And this was AFTER he said he accepted the UN Part. Plan

36 ) gabi / australia
10/01/2013 10:06
(contd.) Further, #28 - there was a proviso, which you clearly haven't read either, that the establishment of the "homeland" was not to disturb the current inhabitants - ie the Palestinians. I don't know how many times you Israeli propagandists spout this Balfour Declaration BS but it would be wise to read it before writing about it. #33 - International Law is the answer but how do you get Israel to stop ignoring it? And by ignoring it and making its own law it's turning itself a world pariah.

37 ) The 'gift of the gab' isn't / what's needed here.
10/01/2013 12:53
35) More crap! Balfour started the ball rolling, but the San Remo agreements defined the borders, and the League of Nations ratified them. The only reason it was changed by the UN was to appease Arabs who broke those agreements once they got their states. The San Remo borders for Israel included Trans Jordan that didn't exist then. 'Homeland' meant 'state' for 21 Arabs, so why not 1 for Jews? Your attitude is a perfect example of what stopped this problem from being solved back in 1922.

38 ) LegalEagle to 34 and 36 / USA
10/01/2013 15:01
The USA has always been the deterent to Israel being made to comply with international law. However, USA's number one concern is demorcratic and security concerns being kept within THEIR/USA ability to call the shots and somewhat rightly so due to US commitment of money and troops to this area of the world. A good portion of Israel has dual citizenship in US/Israel. Eventually NATO/US/UN troops will be used to secure two states and Zs will have to comply, but when? Perhaps after Iran is settled.

39 ) to 36 / Big Mike
10/01/2013 17:25
"turning itself a world pariah"??? It has been just that far too long!!!

40 ) gabi / australia
11/01/2013 01:23
#37 - the difference is that the Arabs lived in those states - the Jews didn't. Have a look at the percentage of Jews llving in Palestine in the years 1917 1922 1948, and see the fallacy of your argument. Trans-Jordan was the name given by the British to what is now Jordan - it did exist from the time the Brits took over - 1917. If you don't believe me, look at some old maps. And it was not "promised" to the Jews by Balfour or anyone else. Your attitude shows why the problem is intractable.

41 ) gabi / australia
11/01/2013 02:16
Also, #37 - The Arabs weren't "given" any states - they merely had the various areas where they were then living named according to the way the French and English decided it should be. THEY WERE THERE. THEY WERE NOT GIVEN ANYTHING. You really should read more history. And while you are at it, read a bit of Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris about the issues. And then you may recognise why your post shows a perfect example of why the problem will remain while ever you pro-Zionists spread this BS.

42 ) LegalEagle - thanks gabi / USA
11/01/2013 15:40
In short Israel/Jews were expelled from the land via their own Covenant with God and allowed return only under a monarchy government as King David. Anything short of that is unauthorized, that is, if they are going to use the bible for any claims whatsoever. Being indeed SHORT of that, they are only another democratic state as all the other nations with no special privileges and must come subject to the same laws that granted them statehood to start with, which mandate a state for Pals as well.

43 ) ian / australia
11/01/2013 22:39
#37 "Balfour started the ball rolling, but the San Remo agreements defined the borders, and the League of Nations ratified them." Does it never occur to you history buffs that the Balfour Declaration (and San Remo and the League of Nations) might be irrelevant...relics of a bygone era when it was OK, indeed, an expression of the natural order of things for one country to "promise" someone's historic home to a third party. That it just doesn't apply? The spirit of Balfour and San Remo is this

44 ) ian / australia
11/01/2013 22:40
(contd.) antiquated colonial vision of Great Powers carving up and apportioning the world. Geneva and the UDHR are attempts in the NEXT generation to rewrite law according to a new sense of moral behaviour. Put simply, they nullify it...like the laws which saw witches burnt at Salem, or Victorian children cleaning chimneys or Oscar Wilde in Reading Gaol...are today null and void. Don't get me wrong. Some old statutes are of enduring value and still apply (like Habeas Corpus) but ONLY because

45 ) ian / australia
11/01/2013 22:42
(contd.) they are re-confirmed according to today's values. If not, like say, suffrage (the right to vote) for men with property only...out they go, to the rubbish dump of history! Like the Balfour Declaration! And the San Remo agreement. Does that never occur? Anyone willing to argue the validity of Balfour? Anyone? (#28, #35, #36, #40, #41 Go gabi!)

46 ) to 42 ) LegalEagle / USA
12/01/2013 02:06
"allowed return only under a monarchy government as King David"??? here you go again not knowing the book you quote from. they returned under Roman empire and David was not their king. You need to read some more bible before laying out all your great insight.

47 ) gabi / australia
12/01/2013 07:07
to correct something I said in my post at 40 - when the Balfour declaration was (secretly, perfidiously) sent to the Zionists Jordan was never a part of the plan and could not be, because it remained under Ottoman control until the following year. I know it is always part of Zionist propaganda to say that Palestine included Jordan at that time, but that is just not true - more hasbara nonsense to (attempt to) justify the "Palestinians already have a state in Jordan" position taken by Israelis.

48 ) Two men settled this issue / in 1919. What's the problem?
12/01/2013 12:24
Ian. If you want to make that argument, you will also have to accept the fact that the Jews and Arabs have equal rights to the land, because at the end of 400 years of Ottoman rule they were there in similar numbers. That position was accepted in the Faisal/Weizmann agreement. And if that agreement had been kept to nearly a century of misery could have been avoided for both sides.
Gabi. I have tried to answer you twice, but Ma'an wants to make it look like you won the debate. Congratulations !

49 ) ian / australia
13/01/2013 00:22
#48 "And if that agreement had been kept to nearly a century of misery could have been avoided for both sides." My sense of Faisal/Weizmann is that it's when the "century of misery" BEGINS for Arabs in Palestine. F/W envisioned a large independent Arab kingdom as promised by Britain for fighting the Turks in WW1 (Lawrence of Arabia and all that). Within this kingdom was to be a Jewish "national home" (like a Bantustan I imagine, but nothing like an autonomous state, outlined in Balfour) and

50 ) ian / australia
13/01/2013 00:24
(contd.) sizable Jewish immigration to populate it. Without Arab independence, which the British never granted, Faisal, as stated in his famous addendum, "would not then be bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity." So what happened? The Brits and French devised Sykes/Picot and carved up the region, colonial-style, between them, Palestine became a British Mandate (ie. colony) not an independent Arab state and the Zionist project

51 ) ian / australia
13/01/2013 00:25
(contd.) continued with the increased immigration Weizmann wanted. And so the "century of misery" for the Palestinians began, squeezed by two cunning, ruthless powers: the British Empire (in its dying throws) and political Zionism. (I don't think your claim about Jews and Arabs being "there in similar numbers" bears much scrutiny but I agree, the inhabitants "have equal rights to the land". A pluralistic democratic state was always a good, enlightened option and still is.)

52 ) ian / australia
13/01/2013 00:35
#46 "they returned under Roman empire and David was not their king." ...er, no they didn't and yes he was. Now I don't think the Israelites REALLY returned to Canaan after 400 years of captivity in Egypt, led by Moses and Joshua sometime in the second millenium BC. I think that's a story the Levites made up in Babylon...but if they did, it was well before the Roman Empire. And I don't think David (or Saul or Solomon) in the 900s (BC) was so much a king as a tribal chief of a hill-top fort,

53 ) ian / australia
13/01/2013 00:36
(contd.) but he was definitely head honcho of the hill-top fort, so I can't see really how LeagleEagle (#42) got it so wrong. LeagleEagle's point is more than just ancient history...it's about the fraudulence of Israel basing its legitimacy on Bible stories and how in reality it's "only another democratic state as all the other nations with no special privileges..." Ouch! They won't like that, "not special" being the LAST two words Israelis ever want to hear.

54 ) gabi / australia
13/01/2013 01:32
# 48 - have another go! I often get my posts left out too. But while you are at it, consider this - you say that "at the end of Ottoman rule they were there in similar numbers" referring to Jews and Arabs. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Go to the various reports of the Mandate to the British govt. which lists the percentage of Jews, year by year. At the end of the Ottoman period (end of WW 1) it was less than 3%, gradually increasing but NEVER at the same proportion until years AFTER Israel was created

55 ) gabi / australia
13/01/2013 04:58
Thanks ian/australia!

56 ) Outlier / USA
14/01/2013 01:29
49, 50, 51, 52, 53. Ian, learn to edit.

57 ) ian / australia
14/01/2013 08:29
#55 A pleasure gabi/australia

58 ) ian / australia
14/01/2013 12:57
#56 "Ian, learn to edit." You're giving me a complex Outlier. I thought they were alright. #49-#51 was one response (to #48) and #52-#53 was another one. And they both had a lot of historical stuff to deal with. I know I don't do pithy and concise. But I'm working on it.

59 ) gabi / australia
15/01/2013 02:06
Outlier # 56 - is that all you have to complain about? Means you accept the substance of what he says, doesn't it? Grow up!
Name Country
Comment
Characters
Note: Comments will be reviewed for appropriate content. Click here for more details.

Share/Bookmark

Officials: Israeli-Palestinian talks to resume in Cairo Wednesday
Israeli forces detain Palestinian near Duheisha camp
Ambassador meets Italian official to discuss shipwreck

Close Next Previous
All Rights Reserved © Ma'an News Agency 2005 - 2014