Australia says ‘No Statehood to Palestine’

Baharuddeen Abu Bakar, Retired Senior Teaching Fellow, IIUM | .

The Australians, a second-rate power, voting (along with the Americans, of course) seem to think Palestine should not have statehood. What effect does this have on the status of the native population of Palestine? Does this reduce them to a status only slightly better than trespassers - a nation but not a  State - in the land they have occupied since time immemorial?  Are the Palestinians recognised as a people only for the purpose of being killed?

The Australians voted, at the behest of Zionist-Israel. Russia, China and France voted for the resolution. Looming over the entire proceeding was the American veto; it did not have to be exercised this time because the matter was defeated at the Security Council. This spared the US the embarrassment of using the veto in a matter where its own conduct is questionable.

The immediate consequence of this is that not being a state, the Palestinians cannot enjoy certain rights under statutory International Law operated by the UN; for instance the application to the Security Council was made for their benefit by another Security Council member, not by the Palestinians.  Palestine has only observer status in the UN.

However there are certain principles of international law considered so fundamental to human conduct that they apply to all peoples whether or not they are members-states of the UN: slavery, genocide, piracy and aggression. These are called jus cogens. That is why 9-11 took place; to serve as an excuse for the Zionist-inspired ‘American global war against terrorism’; as an excuse for waging war on the Middle East; without it, the US would be guilty of aggression against the Middle-East.

 But international law, unlike national law, is difficult to enforce without UN help.  It requires member-states to move the Security Council first, and that is where the US veto is useful for the Zionists. The Americans can stop victims such as the Palestinians, at the very threshold.  This has now been made more certain by denying them statehood even if their complaint is about genocide, a jus cogens.

The Security Council was debating the application by the Palestinians to require Zionist–Israel to end its Occupation and to enter into time-limited negotiations for the purpose, and to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. The application was defeated because the positive votes (minus   abstentions) did not count to the magic number required. The Security Council has 16 members.

Of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, the United Kingdom, having betrayed its duty of trust to the League of Nations (forerunner of the UN) which gave it the mandate to prepare Palestine for  self-determination  but betrayed the Palestinians by promising Palestine to the Jews under its  Balfour (Betrayal)Declaration, felt having created the imbroglio,  it should abstain, and mercifully, it did. A historian commented: “a nation belonging to a people (the Palestinians) was promised by a second nation (the British) to a third, the Jews.” This has never before happened in history; where by virtue of having occupied a territory thousands of years ago, it is considered a valid basis to claim it now, thousands of years later.(Arnold Toynbee)

Palestine meets the criteria for statehood: a resident people, a government capable of exercising control over a well-defined territory (including a capital). With respect to the last element, those who apply international law subjectively say: “although its borders, as in the case of Israel, need not be defined or undisputed.” This exception in the case of Israel is intended to accommodate its territorial ambitions to include the whole of the West Bank. Israel is quite unabashed about it as its official, published maps show.

Australia and certain members of the Security Council, acting as agents for Israel, have posed a new condition for statehood, not required in international law: Make peace with Israel (which of course implies on Israel’s terms)! 

 Many member-states of the UN have on-going wars with their neighbours - e.g. India and Pakistan - and yet have achieved statehood and having achieved it, have not lost it. More seriously how can the matter be in the hands of those who have contributed to this state of affairs for Palestine? Aren’t they passing judgment over their own conduct?

Even if Palestine agrees again to negotiate with Israel, Israel will sabotage it as it has in previous efforts -Camp David, Oslo, Wye River- so that Israel has more time to annex the rest of the West bank, and drive the Palestinians into the desert.

 Each accord was aborted by Israel except for the parts agreed to by Palestine to its disadvantage. As soon as Palestine announced that it was seeking to sign up to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, Israel announced that it would withhold more than a hundred million of tax revenue it had collected on behalf of Palestine from the Palestinian people, a right given to Israel as part of the Oslo Accord. The US objected to the decision to seek redress against Israel and the US at the ICC for genocide. And the US claims to stand for Rule of Law.

The whole episode is weird; full of ironies. When the Palestinians resist occupation and, now annexation, of their land by military conquest, as they are entitled to under international law, it is the security of the occupiers that is upheld and the Palestinians are called terrorists. When the Palestinians resort to international law and diplomacy including the world-governing body by applying for observer status, the Zionists call it “vulgarizing the peace process” in preference to sublime peace itself; they never talk about peace itself; only the ‘peace process.’ The Zionist entity wishes to keep the Palestinians engaged in the peace process while  Zionist-Israeli building of illegal settlements on Palestinian lands goes on apace, to present a case later based on these ‘realities on the ground’.

 Palestinians, who are already corralled into Bantustans ala apartheid South Africa, can be spirited away to substantiate the founding myth of Zionist Israel: ‘a land without a people (Palestine) for a people without a land’ (the Jews).’ In attacking Gaza, the Zionists did not allow an escape route for civilian Palestinians, now in seeking international law solutions, Australia and friends by denying statehood, seek to cut off the ground from under the feet of the Palestinians.

With the denial of statehood to Palestine, the Palestinians may now be dealt with like the aborigines of Australia; the Australians having taken the land of the native Australians then decided who may and who may not immigrate to Australia; hence the ‘White Australia’ policy.  The Zionists are now trying to do the same, create an Israel only for Jews.

Voting against the Palestinian application must have been an easy decision for Australia to make. The Australians are past masters at grabbing the lands of others; they regard the land they took from the Australian aborigines as terra nullius, unoccupied land; the people actually in occupation do not qualify as people. The aborigines were just a part of the landscape as if they were just another specie of kangaroo. Terra nullius is a convenient legal principle invented by the West to serve as the legal basis for colonial acquisition of territory.  With colonial powers applying the concept and mutually recognizing their respective terra nullius acquisitions, terra nullius acquired an international law status as well;  hence the ‘land without a people’ slogan  adopted by the Zionists with respect to Palestine.

The Brits, having entered into a treaty arrangement with the Sultan of Kedah, to land in Penang, impliedly acknowledging him as the local power, conveniently declared Penang as simply terra nullius, ‘disappearing’ the local Malays, so that the Brits could impose their own law in place of the prevailing Islamic law. The Zionists too had taken their lessons from the Brits and Australians.  The Zionists came to Palestine saying: ‘a people without a land for a land without a people’; the Palestinians could be ‘disappeared’.

If Australia did not have the right Zionist connections it could be imagined; an Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser had shed tears of great sorrow that his mother was not a Jewess; so that he could emote in self-pity with them about the Holocaust?

 Our neighbours, the Australians, with whom we have a Five-Power Defence Agreement and sundry other agreements for regional cooperation, must now be dealt with caution by Malaysia. Witness the attempt by Australia to locate an asylum seekers processing centre in Malaysia which would have turned us into the ignominious sub-contractors to Australian racism; endorsing their feeling that the asylum-seekers, even those who faced genocide (a jus cogens, again) back in Sri Lanka, are not to be allowed to set foot in Australia without a visa obtained before hand!  Our leaders had agreed to the arrangement but we were saved by the Australian Court which declared the arrangement unconstitutional.

Malaysia must now be wary of its Australian ties lest we find ourselves unwittingly cast in any anti-Palestine role given Australia’s knee-jerk support for Israel.

Share on Myspace