Palestinian statehood
A total of 138 nations, including 12 European nations, voted for the Palestinian resolution. The increased support from Europe is significant; nine countries, led by the US and Israel, voted against the resolution while there were 41 abstentions with three nations not voting at all. The passage of the resolution means the Palestinian Authority’s UN observer status changes from “entity” to “non-member state”. This will also allow Palestine access to the International Criminal Court and some other international bodies.
While the change in status may, in real terms, mean little — as Washington and Tel Aviv have been emphasising — in symbolic terms it is important. The vote clearly demonstrates the number of nations supporting Palestine, contrary to Israeli opinion. The world, with a few exceptions, seems ready to acknowledge this and accept that some lasting solution needs to be found, in order to grant the Palestinians their rights. President Abbas deserves applause for bringing about this change in thinking through numerous talks and by doing so, moving his country closer to regaining a place on the map and becoming a nation whose people deserve the right to determine their own future. The UN decision marks an important point in this long struggle which till now has received far too little support from the rest of the world, mainly as a result of US pressure.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 1st, 2012.
COMMENTS (14)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1735283394-0/sidra--(9)1735283394-0-270x192.webp "passenger overboard from norwegian cruise search called off")
1720030784-0/Smog-free-Lahore-(14)1720030784-0-270x192.webp "country s first ever smog tower installed")
G. Din and Correction I came to this page after three days. I am amazed at the conversation that you have been having between you in these columns. I have enjoyed reading your dialogue. I shall not try to answer everything. Please let me make a few short submissions. I am an old man of 72. I have been a student of history and retired from a university some years ago. In the course of my study I formed certain ideas which I would like to share, if I may. We grow up in a family where we imbibe the values and influences of the family, especially the elders. In school we learn from our teachers and from co-students. In college we deepen our understanding of some subjects. At university we move towards specialization and in-depth study of matters. For a study of history one has to rise above the values and influences and prejudices and beliefs and faith - all of which are enemies of an intellectual pursuit. One is objective in direct proportion to the extent to which one is able to rise above those values, influences, prejudices, etc. One's study of history to be of value will have to try to achieve objectivity as far as humanly possible. We do not apply usages and values of one age to other ages. Every age has its own usages and values. It is unlikely that anyone today could set out on a career of world conquest like Alexander the Great. If someone did, he would probably provoke the hostility of much of the rest of the world. Nor do we need to criticize Alexander for his efforts at world conquest, whatever his actual achievement. In our own times (I have re-read the editorial above), the Palestinians are entitled to their State as much as Jews were. My view is that the Palestinians shall achieve their State in due time. It is not a question of if, but when. I do not seek to load my views on to others. I only state my views. It is for others to decide what they can accept and what they cannot accept. But if they disagree with me, I do not set out to pour on them invective and ridicule. As an outsider I am grateful to The Express Tribune for permitting me the hospitality of these columns. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 6 Dec 2012, 1915 IST
And also, if you had inferred anything from my post, it was that this issue was not merely about 'Muslims' and 'victors' (how does everything boil down to this for you? Then you wonder why I ask you to grow up) - I talked about the multi-religious nature of the Palestinian nation. I also discussed how it is not the 7th century and that standards set centuries ago cannot be applied to today's world. I also asked you how if you claimed that might is right, you seem to be so deeply troubled by Muslim invasions of India centuries ago?
Waiting on a response from Mr Bhutani. Was more than pleased to have a decent, enlightened, detached commentor for once, rather than an egotistical nationalist. Even if he disagrees with me, would love to engage him in a discussion that doesn't come down to Islam vs Hinduism vs India vs Pakistan...etc.
Sigh. If I am to wipe some froth, G Din, you'll be wiping away an ocean. I have said my 2 rupees, past experience shows me that bigots like you will not be changed by words alone. Your brand of nationalism is a deep rooted disease that only much reflection and introspection can overcome. Land is land and people are people. Ideologies are ideologies. Unfortunately for the world, there are people who would choose to hate a particular land, particular people, and particular ideologies, rather than rise above that or try to spread understanding. You are one of them, G Din. A cursory glance of your ''contributions'' to ET are ample proof.
Pitiful response by the way. Truly pitiful.
@Correction: Please wipe off all that froth around your mouth. It is not pretty, in fact it is downright uncouth and embarrassing! Remind yourself that the question posed to Dr. Bhutani was: "Why is it when Muslims are at the receiving end, suddenly this simple principle ("Victors, keepers") is no longer valid?" It is not about the Jewish right to their homeland! Try and limit yourself, to the extent you can, to respond to that question in as graceful a manner as possible for you! When you do, I will be glad to engage! Helpful hint: It is always wise to take a deep breath before hitting the "Post comment" button!
It's also deeply saddening that when an enlightened Indian like Mr Bhutani makes a comment on Express Tribune, the sort of Indian with whom you have can have a rewarding, wholesome debate or exchange of views, bigots like G Din emerge from their caves of ignorance to continue Islam bashing. Ignorance and bias are true killers. Mr Bhutani, your grasp of history is immaculate, and while I disagree with some of your views, your calm collected way of describing them has impressed me. G Din - dude, we're not 5. And you get no trophies for being a hater. Nationalism is stupid. Please grow up.
As always, your ''NO. NO. NO. I am right, Islam sucks, Pakistan sucks, Hinduism is love'' argument falls flat on its face. If you feel Palestinians have every right to ''wage'' their battle for the return of their land, then how can you oppose the Muslim invasions of India in the first place? Because if might is right, as you tried to say, then well, the Muslims deserved what they got in ruling India.
On a final point to Mr Din: You’re not getting it. Populations shift. Borders move. Not. Historical. Constants. A presence 3000 years ago justifies nothing. Especially when most Palestinians are actually closer to ancient Hebrews than modern day Ashkenazim Jews. You’re clearly one of those Islamophobes looking for opportunities to get cheap shots at Muslims and Islam, which is disappointing. Your comparisons are nonsensical. And if invasions in the 7th century set your precedents, then who are you to stop me from coming to your country, driving you out and seizing your land? The fact is that it is not the 7th century and that’s not the way things go.
G Din, G Din, G Din... you're like an Indian Zaid Hamid sometimes...
Again, you seem to miss the point and display a lack of insight. The Kingdom of Israel itself lasted only 200 years, the Arab period over 1,300. Borders and populations are not historical constants. If you think one nation (Britain) giving a second (the Jews) the land of a third (the Palestinians) is justified, then I can’t have a rational discussion with you. The Palestinians, through genetic studies, have been proved to be a mixture of Jews, Arabs, Crusaders and other peoples of that area. They have a historic claim to that piece of land and removing a nation from their homeland is known as ethnic cleansing. This is exactly what Israel did in 1948. 750,000 Palestinians were expelled, forbidden from returning and their land was expropriated by Israel. Coming to the religious assertion, let me tell you that not all Palestinians are ”brother Muslims” – they are a rich blend of Muslim, Christian, Circassian and Druze. Israel did not just destroy Muslim villages in 1948 – Dozens of Christian villages were besieged and their occupants forced to leave. Take Kfar Birim or Iqrit for example. Catholic Palestinians. Expelled. Made homeless. Killed. Viewing this conflict through a religious scope does not do it justice.
@Dr V. C. Bhutani: "This is my reading of history." This says it all. Obviously, it is a highly subjective reading, isn't it? History is a continuum, my friend! No one, if he/she expects to be taken seriously, has the right to define the cut-off point. "Disregard everything prior to that because my dazzling brilliance has determined it to be so". You cannot do that precisely because history is an organic whole, flowing in a cause-and-effect stream alongside Time. All of us are products of History; the connection to the past cannot be severed any more than an offspring can disown the womb it came out of! We also ought not to fall into the trap of this mindless, cliched thinking: "It is no use going back several centuries into history to dig up instances of Muslim conquests." Pray, why not? You might have determined it to be of no use to you, does that oblige me to trust your judgement in such matters? Aren't the effects of such conquests still amidst us? So, should we pretend that they are not there? Another gem: "Two wrongs do not make a right". Such statements are mindless humbug and have no place in any rational discussion anywhere. Some events may not be to your liking but that doesn't make them wrong. Or, conversely, right. What may look "obviously" wrong to you will, of necessity, look "obviously" right to your adversary. So, whose is the "Gold Standard"? You are the victim of "absolutist" thinking, sir, characterizing events and objects as "absolutely" good or "absolutely" bad . We embrace the "good" ones and discard the "bad" ones, eh!. Simplistic thinking, but betraying intellectual lassitude! Much better is expected of a man of such "scholarship and analytical reasoning" as yourself.
@G. Din: I disagree with you completely. It is no use going back several centuries into history to dig up instances of Muslim conquests. The ethos and values of those ages were different. We do not set out to accuse Alexander the Great of launching aggression on all the peoples between Macedon and Northwestern India. If we attempted that, we would be hugging absurdity. Nor do we now set out to apportion blame for the treatment of Jews over the centuries by both Christians and Muslims. Those centuries are long gone by. We shall be better employed if we attempted to apply the values and usages of the time in which we live. Jews got their state in 1948 but proceeded to sort of settle scores with their Arab neighbours by occupying lands belonging to many of their neighbours. This is not acceptable, regardless of the injustices heaped on Jews for more than two millennia. Two wrongs don't make a right. If Israel does not see time while there is still time and if the US does not wake up to the sheer impolicy of supporting Israel in everything right or wrong, then both Israel and the US shall be in for some rude shocks in due time. This is my reading of history. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 3 Dec 2012, 2135 IST
@Dr V. C. Bhutani: " That Israel continues to occupy territories that do not belong to it is the other basic fact of the situation. " When Islamic hordes invaded other countries and settled down, did anyone say that they occupied those countries which did not belong to them? No! Why not? Because they had conquered those territories fair and square and earned the right to overlord the people living in those territories for generations. Why is it when Muslims are at the receiving end, suddenly this simple principle is no longer valid? Israel was the victim who turned the tables on its tormentors. It has every right to annex all those territories. Likewise, Palestinians have every right to wage a struggle to win their lands back. Rest of the world should be ashamed to take the side of a sore loser!
I couldn’t agree with you more. As outside observers we have to take note of the ground situation and where we go from here. The point is Palestinians are entitled to their state as much as Jews were in 1948. That Israel continues to occupy territories that do not belong to it is the other basic fact of the situation. This is also the cause of the periodical flare up of missile firing at Israel by Hamas. If Israel goes on with this attitude it is logical to expect that Hamas’s firing of missiles shall resume and also that the missiles shall go on becoming more lethal. Even Israel’s Iron Dome shall not be able to stop all missiles fired at Israel. If even a small number went through they will cause unacceptable damage in Israel. It is in Israel’s interest to engage in negotiations at a general Middle East Conference which should eventuate in the acceptance of Israel and Palestine by both and by others and the evacuation of Israel’s occupation of territories that it has illegally occupied since 1968. Israel must return to its pre-1968 borders. Nothing less will solve the Middle Eastern Question. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 2 Dec 2012, 0335 IST
India voted for Palestine. Yay!
@Misery Ghalib: Balochistan next?
Kashmir next ?