Home | Global News | MPs take historic decision to recognise Palestinian state

MPs take historic decision to recognise Palestinian state

Palestine vote: MPs take historic decision to recognise Palestinian state

Voting by 274 to 12, a majority of 262, MPs on all sides urged the Government to ‘recognise the state of Palestine’

Parliament took the historic step tonight of voting unilaterally to back the recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Voting by 274 to 12, a majority of 262, MPs on all sides urged the Government to “recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel” as part of a “contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution”.

Support for the motion, while symbolic, marks a significant change in the political landscape, following the failure of successive peace negotiations and the bitter conflict in Gaza over the summer.

Significantly Labour whipped its MPs to vote in favour of the resolution, raising the prospect that the party would defy Israel’s wishes and recognise Palestine as a state should it come to power at the next election.

 

But even previously staunch supporters of Israel within the Conservative Party chose not to oppose the motion which was brought by the backbench Labour MP Grahame Morris.

Richard Ottaway, chairman of the powerful Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said he no longer felt he could vote to deny the Palestinians the right of recognition because of recent Israeli actions.

“I have been a friend of Israel long before I became a Tory,” he told the House of Commons. “I have stood by Israel through thick and thin. But I realise now that Israel has been slowly drifting away from world international public opinion. “The annexation of the 950 acres of the West Bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life. Under normal circumstances I would oppose this motion. But such is my anger over the behaviour of Israel that I will not be opposing it. I have to say to the government of Israel – if it is losing people like me it is going to be losing a lot people.”

Alan Duncan, the former international development minister, said he would be supporting the motion. “Refusing Palestinian recognition is tantamount to giving Israel the right of veto,” he said.

Palestinians are confronted by Israeli security forces in Jerusalem on Monday (AFP)

“Recognising Palestine is not about recognising a government. It is states that are recognised not governments. It is the recognition of the right to exist as a state – it is not about endorsing a state that has to be in perfect working order. It is the principle of that recognition that this House should pass today.”

But the former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind disagreed and suggested such a move should not be adopted because it would be purely symbolic.

“For me the most important question is what practical benefit would passing this resolution make?” he asked. “It might make us feel good. But recognising a state should only happen when the territory in question has the basic requirements of a state. And through no fault of the Palestinians that is not true at the moment and it seems to me that the resolution before us is premature as we do not have a Palestinian government.”

But Mr Morris, who secured the debate, said that Britain had “a unique historical connection – and a moral responsibility to the people of both Israel and Palestine”. He said: “In 1920 we undertook a sacred trust to guide Palestine to statehood and to independence. That was nearly a century ago and the Palestinian people are still yet to have their rights recognised.

Former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind said the move would be purely symbolic (AFP)

“This sacred trust is something we have neglected for far too long. But now we have a historic opportunity to atone for that neglect. We can take this small but historically important step.” But the debate caused significant divisions within Labour. Several Shadow Cabinet members were unhappy at a decision by the shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander to impose a whip on the vote.

While MPs and members of the front bench were told that they could “stay away” from the Commons and abstain, they were instructed they could not vote against the motion as it represented party policy.

This is disputed by a number of senior pro-Israel Labour MPs who argue that the party could only back recognition as part of a negotiated settlement in the Middle East.

Chomsky: U.S. Spawned a Fundamentalist Frankenstein

By:  C.J. Polychroniou

Sourcehttp://www.alternet.org/

For decades now, Noam Chomsky has been widely regarded as the most important intellectual alive (linguist, philosopher, social and political critic) and the leading US dissident since the Vietnam War. Chomsky has published over 100 books and thousands of articles and essays, and is the recipient of dozens of honorary doctorate degrees by some of the world’s greatest academic institutions. His latest book, Masters of Mankind: Essays and Lectures, 1969-2013, has just been published by Haymarket Books. On the occasion of the release of his last book, Chomsky gave an exclusive and wide-ranging interview to C.J. Polychroniou for Truthout, parts of which will also appear in The Sunday Eleftherotypia, a major national Greek newspap

Life in Gaza has returned to normalcy after Hamas and Israel agreed to a cease-fire. For how long?

I would hesitate to use the term “normalcy.” The latest onslaught was even more vicious than its predecessors, and its impact is horrendous. The Egyptian military dictatorship, which is bitterly anti-Hamas, is also adding to the tragedy.

What will happen next? There has been a regular pattern since the first such agreement was reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in November 2005. It called for “a crossing between Gaza and Egypt at Rafah for the export of goods and the transit of people, continuous operation of crossings between Israel and Gaza for the import/export of goods, and the transit of people, reduction of obstacles to movement within the West Bank, bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza, the building of a seaport in Gaza, [and the] re-opening of the airport in Gaza” that Israeli bombing had demolished.

Later agreements have been variants on the same themes, the current one as well. Each time, Israel has disregarded the agreements while Hamas has lived up to them (as Israel concedes) until some Israeli escalation elicits a Hamas response, which gives Israel another opportunity to “mow the lawn,” in its elegant phrase. The interim periods of “quiet” (meaning one-way quiet) allow Israel to carry forward its policies of taking over whatever it values in the West Bank, leaving Palestinians in dismembered cantons. All, of course, with crucial US support: military, economic, diplomatic and ideological, in framing the issues in accord with Israel’s basic perspective.

That, indeed, was the purpose of Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005 – while remaining the occupying power, as recognized by the world (apart from Israel), even the US. The purpose was outlined candidly by the architect and chief negotiator of the “disengagement,” Prime Minister Sharon’s close associate, Dov Weissglass. He informed the press that “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a [US] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

That pattern has been reiterated over and over, and it seems that it is being re-enacted today. However, some knowledgeable Israeli commentators have suggested that Israel might finally relax its torture of Gaza. Its illegal takeover of much of the West Bank (including Greater Jerusalem) has proceeded so far that Israeli authorities might anticipate that it is irreversible. And they now have a cooperative ally in the brutal military dictatorship in Egypt. Furthermore, the rise of ISIS and the general shattering of the region have improved the tacit alliance with the Saudi dictatorship and possibly others. Conceivably, Israel might depart from its extreme rejectionism, though for now, the signs do not look auspicious.

The latest Israeli carnage in Gaza stirred public sentiment around the world increasingly against the state of Israel. To what extent is the unconditional support rendered by the US toward Israel the outplay of domestic political factors, and under what conditions do you see a shift in Washington’s policy toward Tel Aviv?

There are very powerful domestic factors. One illustration was given right in the midst of the latest Israeli assault. At one point, Israeli weapons seemed to be running low, and the US kindly supplied Israel with more advanced weapons, which enabled it to carry the onslaught further. These weapons were taken from the stocks that the US pre-positions in Israel, for eventual use by US forces, one of many indications of the very close military connections that go back many years. Intelligence interactions are even better established. Israel is also a favored location for US investors, not just in its advanced military economy. There is a huge voting bloc of evangelical Christians that is fanatically pro-Israel. There is also an effective Israel lobby, which is often pushing an open door – and which quickly backs down when it confronts US power, not surprisingly.

There are, however, shifts in popular sentiments, particularly among younger people, including the Jewish community. I experience that personally, as do others. Not long ago I literally had to have police protection when I spoke on these topics on college campuses, even my own university. That has greatly changed. By now Palestine solidarity is a major commitment on many campuses. Over time, these changes could combine with some other factors to lead to a change of US policy. It’s happened before. But it will take hard, serious, dedicated work.

What are the aims and the objectives of US policy in Ukraine, other than stirring up trouble and then letting other forces do the dirty work?

Immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, the US began seeking to extend its dominance, including NATO membership, over the regions released from Russian control – in violation of verbal promises to Gorbachev, whose protests were dismissed. Ukraine is surely the next ripe fruit that the US hopes to pluck from the tree.

Doesn’t Russia have a legitimate concern over Ukraine’s potential alliance with NATO?

“The US is at the root of the current Ukraine crisis.”

A very legitimate concern, over the expansion of NATO generally. This is so obvious that it is even the topic of the lead article in the current issue of the major establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, by international relations scholar John Mearsheimer. He observes that the US is at the root of the current Ukraine crisis.

Looking at the current situation in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Ukraine, the China Sea and even in parts of Europe, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s recent comment on MSNBC that “We are facing a kind of dynamically spreading chaos in parts of the world” seems rather apropos. How much of this development is related to the decline of a global hegemon and to the balance of power that existed in the era of the Cold War?

US power reached its peak in 1945 and has been rather steadily declining ever since. There have been many changes in recent years. One is the rise of China as a major power. Another is Latin America’s breaking free of imperial control (for the last century, US control) for the first time in 500 years. Related to these developments is the rise of the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, based in China and including India, Pakistan, the Central Asian states, and others.

But the US remains the dominant global power, by a large measure.

Last month marked the 69th anniversary of the US atomic bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, yet nuclear disarmament remains a chimera. In a recent article of yours, you underscored the point that we are merely lucky to have avoided a nuclear war so far. Do you think, then, that it’s a matter of time before nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorist groups?

“Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of terrorist groups: state terrorists.”

Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of terrorist groups: state terrorists, the US primary among them. It’s conceivable that weapons of mass destruction might also fall into the hands of “retail terrorists,” greatly enhancing the enormous dangers to survival.

Since the late 1970s, most advanced economies have returned to predatory capitalism. As a result, income and wealth inequality have reached spectacular heights, poverty is becoming entrenched, unemployment is skyrocketing and standards of living are declining. In addition, “really existing capitalism” is causing mass environmental damage and destruction which, along with the population explosion, is leading us to an unmitigated global disaster. Can civilization survive really existing capitalism?

First, let me say that what I have in mind by the term “really existing capitalism” is what really exists and what is called “capitalism.” The United States is the most important case, for obvious reasons. The term “capitalism” is vague enough to cover many possibilities. It is commonly used to refer to the US economic system, which receives substantial state intervention, ranging from creative innovation to the “too-big-to-fail” government insurance policy for banks, and which is highly monopolized, further limiting market reliance.

It’s worth bearing in mind the scale of the departures of “really existing capitalism” from official “free-market capitalism.” To mention only a few examples, in the past 20 years, the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, carrying forward the oligopolistic character of the US economy. This directly undermines markets, avoiding price wars through efforts at often-meaningless product differentiation through massive advertising, which is itself dedicated to undermining markets in the official sense, based on informed consumers making rational choices. Computers and the internet, along with other basic components of the IT revolution, were largely in the state sector (R&D, subsidy, procurement, and other devices) for decades before they were handed over to private enterprise for adaptation to commercial markets and profit. The government insurance policy, which provides big banks with enormous advantages, has been roughly estimated by economists and the business press to be perhaps on the order of as much as $80 billion a year. However, a recent study by the International Monetary Fund indicates – to quote the business press – that perhaps “the largest US banks aren’t really profitable at all,” adding that “the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from US taxpayers.” This is more evidence to support the judgment of Martin Wolf of the London Financial Times, that “an out-of-control financial sector is eating out the modern market economy from inside, just as the larva of the spider wasp eats out the host in which it has been laid.”

In a way, all of this explains the economic devastation produced by contemporary capitalism that you underscore in your question above. Really existing capitalism — RECD for short (pronounced “wrecked”) — is radically incompatible with democracy. It seems to me unlikely that civilization can survive really existing capitalism and the sharply attenuated democracy that goes along with it. Could functioning democracy make a difference? Consideration of nonexistent systems can only be speculative, but I think there’s some reason to think so. Really existing capitalism is a human creation, and can be changed or replaced.

International donors pledge aid for Gaza

by MWC News
Source: MWC News
 

Global donors have pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the devastated Gaza Strip amid warnings that the battered Palestinian enclave remained a “tinderbox” following its summer war with Israel.

The Palestinians at Sunday’s conference in Cairo asked for up to $4bn in international aid to reconstruct Gaza devastated by Israel’s assault in July and August.

Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah, who is in the Egyptian capital for the conference, announced his country was pledging $1bn in aid to the besieged strip.

Washington promised $212 million to meet what Secretary of State John Kerry described as an “enormous” challenge in Gaza.

Kerry also urged renewed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, telling the conference that both sides needed to be helped to make “tough choices” for lasting stability.

“The people of Gaza do need our help, desperately, not tomorrow, not next week, they need it now,” Kerry told the gathering of some 30 global envoys and UN chief Ban Ki-moon.

European Union member states will contribute a total of $570 million to Gaza, the bloc’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said. Germany pledged $63 million and Norway about $13 million.

There is widespread concern that – after three destructive conflicts in the past six years – any help to Gaza will eventually be lost in the enclave’s cycle of violence.

Ban expressed the fears of many when he told the conference the situation in Gaza remained potentially explosive.

“Gaza remains a tinderbox, the people desperately need to see results in their daily lives,” Ban said.

The Palestinian government unveiled a 76-page reconstruction plan ahead of the conference, with the lion’s share of assistance to build housing.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told the conference the enclave’s need was desperate.

“Gaza has suffered three wars in six years. Entire neighbourhoods have been destroyed,” Abbas said.

Check Also

GaStat Report:Over a million women pilgrims perform the Haj

A total of 1,334,080 men and 1,018,042 women have performed Haj this year, according to …

Turkey’s first lady arrives in Bangladesh to visit Rohingya refugee camp

Turkey’s First Lady Emine Erdoğan and a delegation accompanying her arrived in Bangladesh on Thursday …