Friday, September 23, 2011

Palestinians Formally Request U.N. Membership - NYTimes.com

Palestinians Formally Request U.N. Membership - NYTimes.com

The New York Times
  • Reprints
  • This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.


    September 23, 2011

    Palestinians Formally Request U.N. Membership

    UNITED NATIONS —President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority formally requested full United Nations membership on Friday as a path toward statehood, rejecting arguments by the United States and Israel that it was not a substitute for direct negotiations for peace in the Middle East.

    Mr. Abbas was greeted by sustained applause from many of the delegations as he approached the lectern to deliver his speech to the General Assembly shortly after handing a letter requesting the membership to Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General.

    "I don’t believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for full admission in the United Nations," Mr. Abbas said, receiving another round of applause. Earlier, he called statehood “the realization of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people,” and said actions by Israel represented “the last occupation” in the world.

    The request for Palestinian statehood on land occupied by Israel has become the dominant issue at this year’s General Assembly, refocusing global attention on one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Mr. Ban was to submit the request to the Security Council.

    The council will likely take up the issue in earnest next week, diplomats said, when the question becomes whether the United States and its allies can stall it. Washington is also working to prevent the Palestinians from gathering the nine votes needed for it to pass in the full council and thus avoid further wrecking the image of the United States in the Middle East by casting yet another veto against something Arabs want.

    The final vote is not expected to take place for more than a month.

    Among the 15 members, some are expected to stay solidly in the Palestinian camp including Brazil, China, India, Lebanon, South Africa, and Russia. The United States is a solid vote against, and the five European members — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal — are all question marks. The positions of Colombia, Gabon and Nigeria are also not entirely clear.

    The African Union supports membership, but it is not entirely clear if Gabon and Nigeria will go along. President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria did not mention the issue in his speech to the General Assembly, unlike many leaders from the developing world who support Palestine, and the statement by President Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon, was somewhat enigmatic. He said he hoped to soon see a Palestinian state, but noted that both the Palestinians and the people of Israel are friends of Gabon.

    In Europe, Germany tends to lean against, its relations with Israel always overshadowed by the legacy of World War II. France leans the other way, while Britain sits on the fence. Portugal and Bosnia have been close to the Palestinians and the Arab world in the past, but their support is not assured this time around.

    In theory, United Nations procedures demand that the special 15-member committee — one from each state — that studies the membership issue report back in 35 days, but nothing is more flexible than a deadline at the United Nations. Security Council members can stall things for weeks and weeks by requesting more information or by saying they are waiting for instructions from their capitals.

    Behind them, though, looms the policy enunciated by President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, who said that the Palestinians should get enhanced membership in the General Assembly, moving from an observer entity to a non-member observer state.

    Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said it would wait to see what happens in the Security Council before moving forward. By tradition, the General Assembly does not take up an issue when the Security Council is studying it and vice versa, but it is not impossible.

    The historic day of speeches engendered a sense that the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had come full circle. The Palestinians call their membership application a desperate attempt to preserve the two-state solution despite encroaching Israeli settlements, as well as an attempt to shake up the negotiations that they feel have achieved little after 20 years of American oversight.

    The question is whether trying to bring the intractable problem back to its international roots will somehow provide the needed jolt to get negotiations moving again.

    The general point of view of the Israeli government and its supporters is that the Palestinians and their Arab allies gave up the right to the United Nations resolutions detailing a two state solution by rejecting that original plan and waging war against Israel for six decades.

    But after every war, the United Nations resolutions and indeed the peace treaties with other Arab states have all reaffirmed the resolutions that outline the two-state compromise, starting with General Assembly resolution 181 in 1947. In the annex of their membership application submitted to Mr. Ban today, the Palestinians listed every United Nations resolution that envisioned a two-state solution that has not been implemented, they said.


    Peace Now, or Never - NYTimes.com

    Peace Now, or Never - NYTimes.com

    The New York Times
  • Reprints
  • This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.


    September 21, 2011

    Peace Now, or Never

    Jerusalem

    AS the United Nations General Assembly opens this year, I feel uneasy. An unnecessary diplomatic clash between Israel and the Palestinians is taking shape in New York, and it will be harmful to Israel and to the future of the Middle East.

    I know that things could and should have been different.

    I truly believe that a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a more stable Middle East and to grant Israel the security and well-being it desires. As tensions grow, I cannot but feel that we in the region are on the verge of missing an opportunity — one that we cannot afford to miss.

    The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, plans to make a unilateral bid for recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations on Friday. He has the right to do so, and the vast majority of countries in the General Assembly support his move. But this is not the wisest step Mr. Abbas can take.

    The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has declared publicly that he believes in the two-state solution, but he is expending all of his political effort to block Mr. Abbas’s bid for statehood by rallying domestic support and appealing to other countries. This is not the wisest step Mr. Netanyahu can take.

    In the worst-case scenario, chaos and violence could erupt, making the possibility of an agreement even more distant, if not impossible. If that happens, peace will definitely not be the outcome.

    The parameters of a peace deal are well known and they have already been put on the table. I put them there in September 2008 when I presented a far-reaching offer to Mr. Abbas.

    According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.

    The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

    The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.

    Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence.

    These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.

    We Israelis simply do not have the luxury of spending more time postponing a solution. A further delay will only help extremists on both sides who seek to sabotage any prospect of a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution.

    Moreover, the Arab Spring has changed the Middle East, and unpredictable developments in the region, such as the recent attack on Israel’s embassy in Cairo, could easily explode into widespread chaos. It is therefore in Israel’s strategic interest to cement existing peace agreements with its neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.

    In addition, Israel must make every effort to defuse tensions with Turkey as soon as possible. Turkey is not an enemy of Israel. I have worked closely with the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In spite of his recent statements and actions, I believe that he understands the importance of relations with Israel. Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Netanyahu must work to end this crisis immediately for the benefit of both countries and the stability of the region.

    In Israel, we are sorry for the loss of life of Turkish citizens in May 2010, when Israel confronted a provocative flotilla of ships bound for Gaza. I am sure that the proper way to express these sentiments to the Turkish government and the Turkish people can be found.

    The time for true leadership has come. Leadership is tested not by one’s capacity to survive politically but by the ability to make tough decisions in trying times.

    When I addressed international forums as prime minister, the Israeli people expected me to present bold political initiatives that would bring peace — not arguments outlining why achieving peace now is not possible. Today, such an initiative is more necessary than ever to prove to the world that Israel is a peace-seeking country.

    The window of opportunity is limited. Israel will not always find itself sitting across the table from Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas and the prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who object to terrorism and want peace. Indeed, future Palestinian leaders might abandon the idea of two states and seek a one-state solution, making reconciliation impossible.

    Now is the time. There will be no better one. I hope that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas will meet the challenge.

    Ehud Olmert was prime minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009.


    More in Opinion (1 of 25 articles)

    Op-Ed Columnist: The Social Contract

    Read More »


    Thursday, September 22, 2011

    Statements by President Obama and PM Netanyahu before meeting at UN General Assembly 21-Sep-2011

    Statements by President Obama and PM Netanyahu before meeting at UN General Assembly 21-Sep-2011

    Statements by President Obama and PM Netanyahu before meeting at UN General Assembly

    21 Sep 2011

    Netanyahu: "I want to thank you, Mr. President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations."

    President Obama and PM Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly (Photo: GPO)
    President Obama and PM Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly (Photo: GPO)



    President Obama: As I just said in the speech that I gave before the UN General Assembly, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the United States' commitment to Israel's security is unbreakable.

    Indeed, I think it's fair to say that today our security cooperation is stronger than it has ever been. I’m looking forward to a good discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the events not only here in the United Nations, but also of the developments that have been taking place in the region.

    As I just indicated, peace cannot be imposed on the parties. It's going to have to be negotiated. One-sided declarations in the United Nations will achieve neither statehood nor self-determination for the Palestinians, but Israelis and Palestinians sitting down together and working through these very difficult issues that have kept the parties apart for decades now… the ultimate goal of all of us, which is two states, side by side, living in peace and security.

    Recent events in the region remind us of how fragile peace can be and why the pursuit of Middle East peace is more urgent than ever. I think we need to pursue that peace, and know that the Prime Minister recognizes that America's commitment to Israel will never waiver and that our pursuit of a just and lasting peace is one that is, not only compatible, but we think puts Israel’s security at the forefront.

    So, it is a great pleasure to have the Prime Minister here. I want to thank him for his efforts.

    PM Netanyahu: I want to thank you, Mr. President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations. We both agree this is the only way to achieve peace. We both agree that Palestinians and the Israelis should sit down together and negotiate an agreement of mutual recognition and security. I think this is the only way to get to a stable and durable peace. You’ve also made it clear that the Palestinians deserve a state, but it’s a state that has to make that peace with Israel, and therefore their attempt to shortcut this process, not negotiate peace - that attempt to get state membership in the United Nations will not succeed. I think the Palestinians want to achieve a state in the international community, but they’re not prepared yet to give peace to Israel in return.

    And my hope is that there will be other leaders in the world, as part of the UN, who will meet your call, Mr. President, and oppose this effort to shortcut peace negotiations - in fact to avoid them - because I think that avoiding these negotiations is bad for Israel, bad for the Palestinians and bad for peace. I know that these leaders are under enormous pressure and I know that they are also in this house which has, from personal experience I can tell you, automatic majorities against Israel, but I think that standing your ground, taking this position of principle, which is also, I think, the right position to achieve peace - I think this is a badge of honor and I want to thank you for wearing that badge of honor, and also to express my hope that others will follow your example, Mr. President. So I want to thank you.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011

    Le brillant discours de Nicolas Sarkozy devant l'ONU | JSS News - Israël - Diplomatie - Géopolitique

    Le brillant discours de Nicolas Sarkozy devant l'ONU | JSS News - Israël - Diplomatie - Géopolitique

    Le brillant discours de Nicolas Sarkozy devant l’ONU

    Rédigé par le Sep 21st, 2011 and filed under Grands Discours. Vous pouvez suivre les réponses à cet article grâce au RSS 2.0. Vous pouvez laisser une réponse ou un trackback à cet article

    Discours prononcé par le Président français Nicolas Sarkozy, à l’ouverture de la 66e Assemblée générale des Nations Unies à New York, le mercredi 21 septembre 2011. Un discours plein de vérités ou il est dit, entre autres choses, que la paix ne peut venir que des protagonistes du conflit, uniquement grâce à des négociations et que réclamer des conditions pour négocier n’est pas logique…


    Monsieur le Secrétaire général,

    Lorsque nous nous sommes retrouvés, ici même en septembre de l’année dernière, lequel d’entre nous pouvait imaginer qu’en un an à peine, le monde, déjà bouleversé par une crise économique sans précédent, allait à ce point changer ?

    En quelques mois, les « printemps arabes » ont fait se lever une immense espérance.

    Depuis trop longtemps des peuples arabes soumis à l’oppression ont pu relever la tête et ont réclamé le droit d’être enfin libres. Avec leurs mains nues, ils se sont opposés à la violence et à la brutalité.

    A ceux qui proclamaient que le monde arabo-musulman était par nature hostile à la démocratie et aux droits de l’Homme, les jeunes arabes ont apporté le plus beau démenti.

    Mesdames et Messieurs, mes chers collègues, nous n’avons pas le droit de décevoir l’espérance des peuples arabes.

    Nous n’avons pas le droit de briser leur rêve.

    Car si l’espérance de ces peuples était brisée, cela donnerait raison aux fanatiques qui n’ont pas renoncé à dresser l’Islam contre l’Occident en attisant partout la haine et la violence.

    C’est un appel à la justice qui a ébranlé le monde, et le monde ne peut pas répondre à cet appel à la justice par la perpétuation d’une injustice.

    Ce miraculeux printemps des peuples arabes nous impose une obligation morale, une obligation politique de résoudre enfin le conflit du Moyen-Orient.

    Nous ne pouvons plus attendre !
    La méthode utilisée jusqu’à présent, je pèse mes mots, a échoué.
    Il faut donc changer de méthode !

    Il faut arrêter de croire qu’un seul pays, fut-il le plus grand, ou qu’un petit groupe de pays peuvent résoudre un problème d’une telle complexité.
    Trop d’acteurs majeurs sont laissés de côté pour pouvoir aboutir.

    Je voudrais dire que personne ne peut imaginer que le processus de paix ne puisse se passer de l’Europe, que personne ne peut imaginer que le processus de paix puisse se passer de tous les membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité, que personne ne peut imaginer que l’on puisse se passer des États arabes qui ont déjà fait le choix de la paix.
    Une approche collective est devenue indispensable pour créer la confiance et apporter des garanties à chacune des parties.

    Alors bien sûr, la paix sera faite par les Israéliens et par les Palestiniens.
    Par personne d’autre.
    Et nul ne peut prétendre la leur imposer.
    Mais nous devons les aider.

    La méthode ne fonctionne plus.

    Reconnaissons ensemble que fixer des préalables à la négociation, c’était se condamner à l’échec.
    Les préalables, c’est le contraire de la négociation. Si l’on veut entrer dans la négociation, qui est le seul chemin possible pour la paix, il ne faut pas de préalables.
    Changeons de méthode !

    Tous les éléments d’une solution sont connus : la Conférence de Madrid de 1991, le discours du Président Obama du 19 mai dernier, la feuille de route, l’initiative arabe de la paix et les paramètres agréés par l’Union européenne. Alors cessons de débattre à l’infini des paramètres et que les négociations commencent. Adoptons un calendrier précis et ambitieux.

    60 ans sans que cela avance d’un centimètre. Est-ce que cela ne nous impose pas de changer de méthode et de calendrier ?

    – Un mois pour reprendre les discussions ;
    – Six mois pour se mettre d’accord sur les frontières et sur la sécurité ;
    – Un an pour parvenir à un accord définitif.

    Et la France propose d’accueillir, dès cet automne, une Conférence des donateurs afin que les Palestiniens puissent parachever la construction de leur futur État. La France veut vous dire qu’il ne faut pas chercher d’emblée la solution parfaite, parce que de solution parfaite, il n’y en a pas !

    Choisissons la voie du compromis, qui n’est pas un renoncement, qui n’est pas un reniement, mais qui permettra d’avancer, étape par étape.

    Voilà donc 60 ans que les Palestiniens attendent leur État. Est-ce qu’il n’est pas venu le moment de leur donner de l’espérance ?
    Voilà 60 ans qu’Israël souffre de ne pas pouvoir vivre en paix.
    Voici 60 ans que la question de la coexistence pacifique des deux peuples palestinien et israélien demeure lancinante.

    Nous ne pouvons plus attendre pour prendre le chemin de la paix !

    Mettons-nous à la place des Palestiniens.
    N’est-il pas légitime qu’ils réclament leur Etat ?
    Bien sûr que si ! Et qui ne voit que la création d’un Etat palestinien démocratique, viable et pacifique serait, pour Israël, la meilleure garantie de sa sécurité ?

    Mettons-nous à la place des Israéliens.
    N’est-il pas légitime qu’après 60 ans de guerres et d’attentats, ils demandent des garanties pour cette paix si longtemps attendue ?
    Bien sûr que si ! Et je le dis avec force : si quiconque à travers le monde menaçait l’existence d’Israël, la France serait immédiatement et totalement aux côtés d’Israël. Les menaces à l’endroit d’un Etat membre des Nations Unies sont inacceptables et ne seront pas acceptées.

    Nous sommes aujourd’hui devant un choix très difficile. Chacun sait bien – et arrêtons avec les hypocrisies ou la diplomatie d’un jour – chacun sait bien qu’une reconnaissance pleine et entière du statut d’Etat membre de l’ONU ne peut être obtenue dans l’immédiat. La raison première en est le manque de confiance entre les principaux acteurs. Mais disons-nous la vérité : qui peut douter qu’un veto au Conseil de Sécurité n’engendrera pas un cycle de violence au Proche-Orient ? Qui peut en douter ?

    Faut-il pour autant exclure une étape intermédiaire ? Pourquoi ne pas envisager pour la Palestine le statut d’Etat observateur aux Nations Unies ? Ce serait un pas important, nous sortirions après 60 ans de l’immobilisme, l’immobilisme qui fait le lit des extrémistes. Nous redonnerions un espoir aux Palestiniens en marquant des progrès vers le statut final.

    Pour marquer leur engagement déterminé en faveur d’une paix négociée, les dirigeants palestiniens devraient, dans le cadre de cette démarche, réaffirmer le droit à l’existence et à la sécurité d’Israël. Ils devraient s’engager à ne pas utiliser ce nouveau statut pour recourir à des actions incompatibles avec la poursuite des négociations.

    Mes chers collègues, nous n’avons qu’une alternative : l’immobilisme et le blocage ou une solution intermédiaire qui permettrait de donner de l’espoir aux Palestiniens, avec un statut d’Etat observateur. Parallèlement, une même retenue devrait être observée par Israël, qui devrait s’abstenir de gestes qui préjugent du statut final.

    L’objectif ultime c’est bien la reconnaissance mutuelle de deux Etats nations pour deux peuples, établis sur la base des lignes de 1967 avec des échanges de territoires agréés et équivalents.

    Que cette Assemblée générale, qui en a le pouvoir, décide d’avancer, décide de sortir du piège mortel de la paralysie, décide de renvoyer les rendez-vous manqués et les relances sans lendemain !
    Changeons de méthode !
    Changeons d’état d’esprit !

    Que chacun s’efforce de comprendre les raisons de l’autre, les souffrances de l’autre, les angoisses de l’autre.

    Que chacun ouvre les yeux et soit prêt à faire des concessions.

    Et en terminant, je veux le dire avec une profonde et sincère amitié pour le peuple palestinien, je veux dire aux Palestiniens : pensez aux mères israéliennes qui pleurent les membres de leur famille tués dans les attentats. Elles éprouvent la même douleur que les mères palestiniennes à qui l’on annonce la mort brutale d’un des leurs.

    Je veux le dire avec une profonde et sincère amitié pour le peuple israélien : Ecoutez ce que criait la jeunesse des printemps arabes. Ils criaient : « Vive la liberté ! ». Ils ne criaient pas : « à bas Israël ». Vous ne pouvez pas rester immobiles alors que ce vent de liberté et de démocratie souffle dans votre région.

    Je le dis avec une profonde et sincère amitié pour ces deux peuples qui ont tant soufferts : le moment est venu de bâtir la paix pour les enfants de Palestine et pour les enfants d’Israël. Mais il serait trop accablant que l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies ne profite pas de l’opportunité du réveil des peuples arabes au service de la démocratie pour régler un problème qui fait le malheur de ces deux peuples qui, de toutes façons, sont condamnés à vivre à côté les uns des autres. Si nous prenons une solution de compromis, nous redonnerons de la confiance et nous redonnerons de l’espoir.

    Je veux le dire avec gravité aux représentants de toutes les nations. Nous avons une responsabilité historique à assumer. C’est l’Assemblée général des Nations unies qui porte ce rendez-vous avec l’Histoire.

    Rassurons Israël et donnons un espoir au peuple palestinien. La solution est sur la table. Préférer la solution du compromis à celle du blocage, car le blocage satisfera peut-être tout le monde ici mais elle créera des violences, des amertumes et des oppositions qui mettront en péril le réveil des peuples arabes. La France vous dit que la tragédie doit cesser pour une raison simple, c’est qu’elle n’a que trop duré.

    Je vous remercie.

    Sunday, September 18, 2011

    Israel to become Associate Member State of CERN

    CERN Press Release

    Israel to become Associate Member State of CERN

    image

    CERN Director General Rolf Heuer, Israeli Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, H.E. Mr. Aharon Leshno-Yaar and CERN Council president Michel Spiro shake hands. More photos.

    Geneva 16 September 2011. CERN1 Director General Rolf Heuer and Israeli Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, H.E. Mr. Aharon Leshno-Yaar today signed a document admitting Israel to CERN Associate Membership, subject to ratification by the Knesset. Following ratification, Israel will become an Associate Member of CERN for a minimum period of 24 months. Following this period, CERN Council will decide on the admission of Israel to full Membership, taking into account the recommendations of a task force to be appointed for this purpose. Israel has a long-standing relationship with CERN, and has been an Observer at the CERN Council since 1991.

    “It is a vital part of our mission to build bridges between nations. This agreement enriches us scientifically, and is an important step in that direction,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer. “I am very pleased that CERN’s relationship with Israel is moving to a higher level.”

    “I am very happy with this decision,” said Eliezer Rabinovici, Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Study at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Israel’s scientific observer to Council. “I view it as recognition of the Israeli contributions, both scientific and technological to CERN over the years. The Israeli scientific community is looking forward to the continuation of this joint adventure.”

    Israel has a strong tradition in both experimental and theoretical particle physics, with a major involvement in the OPAL experiment at CERN’s flagship accelerator through the 1990s, the Large Electron Positron collider. Israel’s accession to Observer status in 1991 followed an agreement to contribute funds to the CERN budget to support Israeli scientists, as well as providing equipment to CERN. The Israeli fund also contributed to LEP running, supported LHC construction and R&D for future accelerators. During its association with CERN, Israel has also supported Palestinian students at CERN, notably sending mixed Israeli-Palestinian contingents to CERN’s summer student programme.

    In 2009, Israel was accepted as a special Observer State, with the right to attend restricted Council sessions for discussions of LHC matters. Israel currently has a strong involvement in the ATLAS experiment, and participates in a number of other experiments at CERN.

    Contact:

    CERN Press Office, press.office@cern.ch
    +41 22 767 34 32
    +41 22 767 21 41

    Follow CERN at:

    1. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is the world's leading laboratory for particle physics. It has its headquarters in Geneva. At present, its Member States are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Romania is a candidate for accession. India, Israel, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, Turkey, the European Commission and UNESCO have Observer status.