An opportunity about to be lost - the recognition of a Palestinian state

Green Party policy recognizes a two state solution with a stated intent to live in peaceful coexistence.  It is not GPC policy to determine how that state is formed.  So I'm not sure what you want.  Do you want your usual condemnation of Israel front and centre or do you want a statement supporting an independent Palestinian state with a stress on the rejection of future terrorist actions, violence and/or war with Israel?

Can an independent Palestinian state be declared in the middle of what is essentially a civil war between Hamas and Fatah factions?  Is this a legitimate declaration or one designed to create pressure on Israel?  My research on Al Jazeera reveals that there is a good amount of mistrust surrounding this declaration and that no real state of cooperation exists between the West Bank and Gaza.  

So a statement by the GPC on the formation of an independent Palestinian state based on this present declaration should be well thought out and cautious.  

Is the Canadian government stance on the issue wrong?

Yes.

Does this mean an automatic endorsement of the present declaration going before the U.N. General Assembly by the GPC?

No.  

If this is a true declaration of independence with both Hamas and Fatah factions finally ending their war with each other then yes it deserves to be given a chance.  If however this is just a 'tactic' with a reasonable, forseeable result being an expanded civil war then it deserves to be treated with suspicion and Canada should abstain from voting.  That should be the stance of the GPC.   

Stephen, I believe the GPC will not call for a Palestinian state as it is inconsistent with publically joining Israel in happy birthday celebrations, which is a a short sighted and one sided statement designed to incubate donations as political funding is being Harperized.( see my previous blog on how the GPC is *completely* missing the point on the donations issue)

The GPC approach to Palestinains has always been stated by shadow cabinet along an *equal victimization* as Jews frame, which of course is utter nonsense.

I likely have that in writing somewhere from Walton. Thus the GPC stance is based on a house of cards.  The party needs a policy on sanctions in general and specifically against Israel until stolen land is returned. As of now, all shadow cabinet says in writing is the general case *sanctions don't work*. Former cabinet members such as yourself dismiss notions of the importance of porportionality and power in international relations as you side with the UN on that weak position.  Too bad shadow cabinet members Ellen Mitchelson and Eric Walton, who's area this issue belongs to refuse to debate us mere mortals on this forum.

I will post below an response which you did not previously see.___________________________________________

 

It would be useful to hear from shadow cabinet members Ellen Michelson and Eric Walton who's portfolio this matter is in.
Stephan, I agree with much posted but on the issue of proportionality the UN imho spouts gibirish.

My response in ***

Point #1 – quote "1875. The international community as well as Israel and, to the extent determined by their authority and means, Palestinian authorities, have the responsibility to protect victims of violations
****Wrong: The first responsibility is to PREVENT violations not band aid them after the fact.

 and ensure that they do not continue to suffer the scourge of war or the oppression and humiliations of occupation or indiscriminate rocket attacks.

 People of Palestine have the right to freely determine their own political and economic system, including the right to resist forcible deprivation of their right to self-determination and the right to live, in peace and freedom, in their own State.
***Wrong.  Israel has much more of this "right" than Palestinians, who have the almost worthless "theoretical right" or "legal right", but rights exist in reality on a sliding scale of value. Where on that value scale an individuals or groups "rights" are is determined by the FORCE available and applied to defend those rights.

The people of Israel have the right to live in peace and security. Both peoples are entitled to justice in accordance with international law."
***Where GPC policy utterly fails is non recognition of rights on an ontological value scale, pigeon holing it's definitions of rights on legal frameworks.But of course this is consistent with GPC's approach, because a real life sliding scale of rights implies correctness of proportionality arguments. It is time for the GPC to move from bland statements of both sides entitlements to what should be done to actualize justice beyond failed talking.

From 2: "This in no way implies equating the position of Israel as the occupying Power with that of the occupied Palestinian population or entities representing it.

***Here comes the part I believe is rubbish:

"The differences with regard to the power and capacity to inflict harm or to protect, including by securing justice when violations occur, are obvious and a comparison is neither possible nor necessary."
NONSENSE. I have never read a more insane policy statement. But I am open to hearing an argument in the off chance I am missing something.

Why exactly is "no comparison" possible? Do you and/or shadow cabinet  really believe that? Imo comparison is both possible and required. Since when are power and capacity non issues?
Answer: When power and capacity  finds it inconvenient to talk about power and capacity.
After all, we can not embarrass the powers that be by any statement that may imply a greater "proportion"(there's that word again) of responsibility to Israel and the US.


Point #5 – The mutual negative results of decades of civilian targeting from both sides which in my opinion reinforces the argument that body counts alone continue to be deceptive means of evaluation of victimization.
***Life and death are axiomatic and crystal clear. Bodies can be counted as they are *facts on the ground*. If those "facts on the ground"  are critical in negotiations to Israel, why are not other facts on the ground critical? The pushing aside of the body count is a bias against Palestinians and belittles their lives.Not something a social justice party should be applauding.

The mutual terror on both sides has bred a psychology that remains deeply ingrained and is as much a part of breeding new hatred as it is an explanation of the violence.
***Again a type of circular argument statement that gives no mention of proportion therefore trying to make the omission correct.
Major Point:
If the GPC and UN want a better "evaluation of victimization", then why in the decades of conflict have they not even tried to put such evaluation forward?

I propose the answer that any evaluation would give Palestinians the title to the "greater victim" (proportional representation in victimization). The GPC, Harper, AIPAC and Israel do not want that. They believe (wrongly imo), that negotiations may be biased in the Palestinians favour and be badly received in much of Israel's politic. The notion of the Palestinian victim would contradict the shield of the Holocaust. The Greater Victim frame is also a basis for sanctions against Israel. Sanctions are a standard tool as we have seen against oppression. There is a double standard by shadow cabinet saying sanctions just don't work when it is suggested they be placed on Israel.
But when they happen against South Africa and a number of states in recent times, the GPC in an about face,  seems to be through it's silence completely comfortable with them.

Point #6 – In keeping with my opinion that the official stances of Fatah and Hamas cannot be taken as a true representation of the aspirations of the Palestinian people despite the deception of public elections which give only a thin veneer of democracy.

***This statement is dangerous because it is a tool to push aside elected Palestinians when convenient and impose from the outside.

Constantine

From: stephenlafrenie
Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 11:30:07 AM
Subject: [gpc-members] Re: Proportionality arguments was GPC Celebrates Israel's Creation

Green Party statements relating to Gaza.

http://greenparty.ca/media-release/2009-02-13/green-party-supports-un-investigation-types-weapons-used-gaza

http://greenparty.ca/media-release/2010-06-01/freedom-flotilla-tragedy-highlights-failed-gaza-strategy

http://greenparty.ca/media-release/2008-12-31/green-party-calls-un-buffer-zone-and-stabilization-plan-gaza

I have created a folder here called GPC foreign policy documents in order for us to post statements and PRs etc. since I couldn't figure out how to attach files to individual posts. The folder http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gpc-members/files/

The UN investigation took the view that although proportionality was an argument it was not considered in the investigation as the focus was on the conflict itself and the obligation on both sides to the conflict to protect civilian populations in accordance with international law and obligations.

My points from the conclusions section that I think support the GPC's stance on the conflict and violent conflict in general;

Point #1 – quote "1875. The international community as well as Israel and, to the extent determined by their authority and means, Palestinian authorities, have the responsibility to protect victims of violations and ensure that they do not continue to suffer the scourge of war or the oppression and humiliations of occupation or indiscriminate rocket attacks. People of Palestine have the right to freely determine their own political and economic system, including the right to resist forcible deprivation of their right to self-determination and the right to live, in peace and freedom, in their own State. The people of Israel have the right to live in peace and security. Both peoples are entitled to justice in accordance with international law."

Point #2 – quote "1876. In carrying out its mandate, the Mission had regard, as its only guides, for general international law, international human rights and humanitarian law, and the obligations they place on States, the obligations they place on non-State actors and, above all, the rights and entitlements they bestow on individuals. This in no way implies equating the position of Israel as the occupying Power with that of the occupied Palestinian population or entities representing it. The differences with regard to the power and capacity to inflict harm or to protect, including by securing justice when violations occur, are obvious and a comparison is neither possible nor necessary. What requires equal attention and effort, however, is the protection of all victims in accordance with international law.

Point #3 (somewhat in support of Constantine's opinion) – quote "B. The Israeli military operations in Gaza: relevance to and links with Israel's policies vis-à-vis the Occupied Palestinian Territory

1877. The Mission is of the view that Israel's military operation in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 and its impact cannot be understood or assessed in isolation from developments prior and subsequent to it. The operation fits into a continuum of policies aimed at pursuing Israel's political objectives with regard to Gaza
and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole. Many such policies are based on or result in violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Military objectives as stated by the Government of Israel do not explain the facts ascertained by the Mission, nor are they congruous with the patterns identified by the Mission during the investigation.
1878. The continuum is evident most immediately with the policy of blockade that preceded the operations and that in the Mission's view amounts to collective punishment intentionally inflicted by the Government of Israel on the people of the Gaza Strip. When the operations began, the Gaza Strip had been under a severe regime of closures and restrictions on the movement of people, goods and services for almost three years. This included basic necessities of life, such as food and medical supplies, and products required
for the conduct of daily life, such as fuel, electricity, school items, and repair and construction material. These measures were imposed by Israel purportedly to isolate and weaken Hamas after its electoral victory in view of the perceived continuing threat to
Israel's security that it represented. Their effect was compounded by the withholding of financial and other assistance by some donors on similar grounds. Adding hardship to the already difficult situation in the Gaza Strip, the effects of the prolonged blockade did not
spare any aspect of the life of Gazans. Prior to the military operation, the Gaza economy had been depleted, the health sector beleaguered, the population had been made dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival and the conduct of daily life. Men, women and children were psychologically suffering from long-standing poverty, insecurity and violence, and enforced confinement in a heavily overcrowded territory. The dignity of the people of Gaza had been severely eroded. This was the situation in the Gaza Strip when the Israeli armed forces launched their offensive in December 2008. The military operations and the manner in which they were conducted considerably exacerbated the aforementioned effects of the blockade. The result, in a very short time, was unprecedented long-term damage both to the people and to their development and recovery prospects."

Point #4 (somewhat in support of Constantine's opinion) quote "C. Nature, objectives and targets of the Israeli military operations in Gaza. Both Palestinians and Israelis whom the Mission met repeatedly stressed that the military operations carried out by Israel in Gaza from 27 December 2008 until 18 January 2009 were qualitatively different from any previous military action by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Despite the hard conditions that have long been prevailing in the Gaza Strip, victims and long-time observers stated that the operations were unprecedented in their severity and that their consequences would be long-lasting."

Point #5 – The mutual negative results of decades of civilian targeting from both sides which in my opinion reinforces the argument that body counts alone continue to be deceptive means of evaluation of victimization. The mutual terror on both sides has bred a psychology that remains deeply ingrained and is as much a part of breeding new hatred as it is an explanation of the violence.

Quote : "1908. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis are legitimately angered at the lives that they are forced to lead. For the Palestinians, the anger about individual events – the civilian casualties, injuries and destruction in Gaza following from military attacks, the blockade, the continued construction of the Wall outside of the 1967 borders – feed into an underlying anger about the continuing Israeli occupation, its daily humiliations and their as-yet-unfulfilled right to self-determination. For the Israelis, the public statements of Palestinian armed groups celebrating rocket and mortar attacks on civilians strengthen a deep-rooted concern that negotiation will yield little and that their nation remains under existential threat from which only it can protect its people. In this way, both the Israelis and the Palestinians share a secret fear – for some, a belief – that each has no intention of accepting the other's right to a country of their own. This anger and fear are unfortunately ably represented by many politicians."

Point #6 – In keeping with my opinion that the official stances of Fatah and Hamas cannot be taken as a true representation of the aspirations of the Palestinian people despite the deception of public elections which give only a thin veneer of democracy.

Quote "1911. The division and violence between Fatah and Hamas, which culminated in the establishment of parallel governance entities and structures in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, is having adverse consequences for the human rights of the Palestinian population in both areas, as well as contributing to erode the rule of law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in addition to the threats already linked to foreign occupation. Even with the narrow focus of the Mission on violations relevant to the context of the December-January military operations, the diminishing protections for Palestinians are evident from the cases of arbitrary deprivation of life, arbitrary detention of political activists or sympathizers, limitations on freedom of expression and association, and abuses by security forces. The situation is compounded by the ever reducing role of the judiciary in ensuring the rule of law and legal remedies for violations. A resolution of the internal divisions based on the free will and decisions of Palestinians and without external interference would strengthen the ability of Palestinian authorities and institutions to protect the rights of the people under their responsibility."

I'll leave it there and close with the hope that the GPC never shrinks from taking a clear stance in defense of the United Nations and the precedent of international law and the true pursuit of global security through real peace.

Those are my thoughts
Stephen LaFrenie

--- CONSTANTINE KRITSONIS <krits@...> wrote:
> Stephen you say:
>
> *The proportionality argument is a deception in the end and doesn't achieve anything.*
*Proportionality arguments lead to the deliberate denial that the
'underdog' is equally guilty of using illegal methods, committing war crimes and every bit as brutal as the 'oppressor'. This attitude will not lead to peace but merely the perpetuation of conflict since these crimes will be all but forgiven should victory come to either side while the anger and hatred continues.**
>
> I see *proportionality facts* as being axiomatic to any meaningful peace dialogue.There must be some discussion and agreement on *how we got here*, where we are and where are we going. I do not believe proportionality is about *deliberate denial* of the underdog's transgressions...