UN votes to back Palestinian membership, prompting Israeli envoy to shred charter – video
www.theguardian.com
The vote was a resounding expression of world opinion in favour of Palestinian statehood and Israel delivered a fiery denunciation of the resolution

The UN general assembly has voted overwhelmingly to back the Palestinian bid for full UN membership, in a move that signalled Israel’s growing isolation on the world stage amid global alarm over the war in Gaza and the extent of the humanitarian crisis in the strip. The move drew an immediate rebuke from Israel. Its envoy to the UN, Gilad Erdan, delivered a fiery denunciation of the resolution and its backers before the vote, and fed pages of the UN charter into a shredder. The Palestinian envoy, Riyad Mansour, highlighted that the vote was being held at a time when Rafah, Gaza’s southernmost city that is the last haven for many people, faced attack from Israeli forces

  • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.comEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    True, except the difference Israel is still taking occupied land and building settlements, and excluding the people born there from them.

    The government at least needs to pick one of the two options to move forward (as well as acknowledging and making reparations for those with traditional connections to the land who were affected by past injustices):

    1. The two state solution: Palestine is a genuinely separate sovereign state, with a right to self determination, airspace, control of their territorial waters and so on. Israeli government representatives only enter Palestine on invitation from the government. Anyone born on Palestinian land, even on a former settlement, is a Palestinian unless they find another state to accept them and renounce their citizenship. Palestinians have equal protection of the law, and are expected to follow Palestinian laws on Palestinian land, or face the Palestinian justice system. If they renounce their citizenship, they are subject to Palestinian immigration law and might have to leave Palestine.
    2. The one state solution: The entire Israeli occupied ‘river to sea’ area is one state, and everyone born there is an Israeli citizen, with equal rights under the law, power to vote, etc…

    The problem is the current right-wing extremists in power in Israel do not want either solution; they want to have it both ways - when it comes to ownership and control, they want to deny the existence of a Palestinian state. But when it comes to citizenship, they want to claim everyone born on the land they occupy is not Israeli so they can deny them rights and exploit them. Their life is substantially controlled by the Israeli state, but they get no say in the leadership of the state - undermining claims it is a democracy. They don’t have equal protection under the law - Israeli authorities protect settlers taking land against people with generational connections to the land.

    None of this is new in history, as you point out. Most of the Roman Empire, most of the former British Commonwealth, etc… had similar things in the past, with massacres of the native people, lands confiscated, native people been treated as having fewer rights than the colonialists, etc…

    What is different is that those are all past atrocities (although fair reparations have still not been paid in many cases, at least further atrocities are generally not continuing to anything like the same extent), while Israel continues to commit the same atrocities to this very day.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      0·
      6 months ago

      I agree with you. To me, a two-state solution seems much more plausible, and even if there should be one state, it shouldn’t be Israel or Palestine but something of a new name with equal representation of both sides. Because otherwise Israeli leaders will do everything in their power to erode the power of Palestinians and then there will be a scenario you describe further.