Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding
News & Views, November 2012
A List of Nations Which Voted For, Against, or Abstained on Granting Palestine a Non-member State Status in the UN
November 29, 2012
Lists of the three groups of nations, according to their voting, on November 29, 2012:
1. The 9 nations opposing the Palestinian request for a non-member state status in the UN:
Israel, US, Canada, Czech Republic, Panama, and four small islands in the Pacific Ocean (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau).
2. The 41 nations abstaining (not voting) on the Palestinian request for a non-member state status in the UN:
Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Latvia, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Holland, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, South Korea, Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, UK, North Ireland, and Vanuatu.
3. The 138 nations voting for the Palestinian request for a non-member state status in the UN:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chili, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Ivory Caust, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kirghizstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Lichtenstein, Luxemburg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zeeland, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Serra Leon, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Surinam, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Eastern Timor, Trinidad Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Lists of countries which voted for, against, or in abstention, concerning Palestinian non-member state status in the UN, on November 29, 2012
الصفحة الرئيسية> أهم الاخبار >
نشر:2012-11-30 الساعة:11:43 AM
رام الله - شاشة نيوز - رصد لاسماء الدول التي ايدت الدولة الفلسطينية والدول المعارضة وتلك التي امتنعت عن التصويت .
الدول التي عارضت القرار من وبينها "دول مجهرية" لم يسمع بها الكثيرون من قبل .
كندا- الولايات المتحدة - بنما - جزر المارشال -التشيك - اسرائيل -مكرونيزيا -بالاو - ناورو -
*الدول التي ايدت الحق الفلسطيني وصوتت الى جانب فلسطين في الجمعية العامة للامم المتحدة ؟
افغانستان - الجزائر - انغولا -انتيغوا برغودا -الارجنتين -ارمينيا- النمسا -اذربيجان - البحرين -بنغلادش - روسيا البيضاء- بلجيكا- بيليز - بنين - بوتان- بوليفيا- بتسوانا - البرازيل- جزيرة بروناي - بوركينافاسو - بورونداي- كمبوديا- كيب فاردي "الرأس الاخضر"- جمهورية افريقيا الوسطى - التشاد- التشيلي -الصين - كوموروس - الكونغو -كوستاريكا - ساحل العاج - كوبا -قبرص - جمهورية كوريا الشمالية - الدنمارك - جيبوتي -الدومينيكا - جمهورية الدومينيكان - الاكوادور -مصر - السلفادور - ارتيريا - اثيوبيا -فنلندا -فرنسا -الغابون- جامبيا - جورجيا - غانا - اليونان -جرينادا -غينيا - غينيا -بيساو- جويانا - هندورس -ايسلندا - الهند - اندونيسيا -ايران -العراق -ايرلندا - ايطاليا -جمايكا- اليابان -الاردن-كازخستان -كينيا -الكويت -كرجستان- جمهورية لاوس الديمقراطية - لبنان - ليسوتو- ليبيا -ليختنشتاين -لوكسمبورغ -ماليزيا - جزر المالديف – مالي – مالطا – موريتانيا – موريشيوس – المكسيك – المغرب – الموزنبيق – ميانمار – ناميبيا – نيبال – نيوزيلندا – نيكاراغوا – النيجر – نيجيريا -النرويج – عُمان – الباكستان – البيرو – الفلبين – البرتغال – قطر - جمهورية روسيا - سانت كيتس ونيفس - سانت لوسيا - سانت فنسنت جرين - ساو تومي وبرينسيبي - السعودية – السنغال – صربيا – سيشيليس – سيراليون - جزر سلمون – الصومال - جنوب افريقيا - جنوب السودان – اسبانيا – سيرلانكا – السودان – صورينام - سوزي لاندا - السويد – سويسرا – سوريا – طاجكستان – تايلند - تايمور الشرقية - ترينيداد توباغو- تونس – تركيا – تركمانستان – توفالو – اوغندا - الامارات العربية المتحدة – تانزانيا- اوروغواي – اوزباكستان – فنزويلا – فيتنام – اليمن – زامبيا - زمبابوي .
*الدول التي امتنعت عن التصويت فهي:
ألبانيا، أندورا، أستراليا،
جزر البهاما، بربادوس، البوسنة والهرسك، بلغاريا، الكاميرون،
كولومبيا، كرواتيا، جمهورية الكونغو الديمقراطية، إستونيا، فيجي،
ألمانيا، غواتيمالا، هايتي، هنغاريا، لاتفيا، ليتوانيا، ملاوي،
موناكو، منغوليا، الجبل الأسود، هولندا، بابوا غينيا الجديدة،
باراغواي، بولندا، جمهورية كوريا، مولدوفا، رومانيا، رواندا،
ساموا، سان مارينو، سنغافورة، سلوفاكيا، سلوفينيا، جمهورية مقدونيا
اليوغوسلافية السابقة، توغو، تونغا، المملكة المتحدة (بريطانيا)،
وأيرلندا الشمالية، فانواتو.
Palestinian Bid for Non-Member UN Status, Correcting a Wrong 65 Years Later
November 29, 2012
News Commentary By Hassan El-Najjar
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine into two states, in order to avoid the then looming conflict.
The Jewish state was established on May 15, 1948, under the name of Israel. However, the Arab State of Palestine was not established, resulting in partial implementation of the resolution, due to the Israeli expansion beyond the partition lines.
The territories of the Arab State of Palestine in the Galilee, major parts of the West Bank, most of Gaza-Isdood Coastal Strip, and Auja southern border area were annexed by force to Israel. The West Bank came under Jordan control, and the reduced Gaza refugee enclave became under Egyptian administration until 1967, when Israel launched a war of aggression, controlling all Palestinian territories, Egyptian Sinai, and Syrian Golan Heights.
Today, November 29, 2012, the 65th anniversary of the Partition Resolutions, Palestinians applied for a non-member UN status, as a step towards their freedom and statehood.
As ever before, this attempt was opposed by the Israeli aggressors and their global Zionist supporters who control the US, and other governments of the English-speaking countries (Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zeeland). Many governments abstained in capitulation to global Zionists, they should be liable to questioning by their constituents.
138 countries wrote their names in the Honor List of supporting the Palestinian inalienable rights, including that of statehood today, 41 countries abstained for fear of upsetting global Zionists, and 9 countries opposed the UN General Assembly resolution. These were Israel, US, Canada, Czech Republic, Panama, and four small islands in the Pacific Ocean (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau).
So, the voting today on this simple human right for the Palestinian people has shown the isolation of the Israelis and their eight satellite governments. The voting also has shown that there are 41 governments which opted for appeasing the Zionist aggressors by their abstention.
But the most beautiful news today is that this UN vote has shown that there are 138 nations which have defied the Zionist global hegemony and sided with the Palestinian people against their Israeli oppressors.
Yes, there's hope!
World peace is finally possible, through global solidarity against oppression, apartheid, and foreign occupation!
Palestinian bid for upgraded UN status
BBC, November 28, 2012
President Abbas received a standing ovation when he delivered the Palestinian application for full member state status to the UN in September 2011
The Palestinians plan to ask the United Nations to upgrade their status to become a "non-member observer state" on 29 November 2012.
It follows a failed bid to join the international body as a full member state in 2011 because of a lack of support in the UN Security Council.
Here is a guide to what is likely to happen and its significance.
What are the Palestinians asking for?
The Palestinians have long sought to establish an independent, sovereign state in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip - occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. The 1993 Oslo Accord between the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel led to mutual recognition. However two decades of on-off peace talks have since failed to produce a permanent settlement. The latest round of direct negotiations broke down in 2010.
Palestinian officials have since pursued a new diplomatic strategy: asking individual countries to recognise an independent Palestinian state with borders following the ceasefire lines which separated Israel and the West Bank before June 1967.
In September 2011, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and chairman of the PLO, sought full member-state status at the UN based on pre-1967 frontiers. But the bid effectively stalled two months later after Security Council members said they had been unable to "make a unanimous recommendation". Mr Abbas is now expected to submit a downgraded request to the General Assembly for admission to the UN as a non-member observer state - the same position that the Vatican holds. Currently, the PLO only has "permanent observer" status.
The change would allow the Palestinians to participate in General Assembly debates. It would also improve the Palestinians' chances of joining UN agencies and the International Criminal Court (ICC), although the process would be neither automatic nor guaranteed. If they are allowed to sign the ICC's founding treaty, the Rome Statute, the Palestinians hope to take legal action in the court, for example, to challenge Israel's occupation of the West Bank.
What is the general process?
In theory, the chances of the Palestinians obtaining non-member observer state status are almost certain. A resolution need only be passed by a simple majority at the 193-member UN General Assembly, and there is no threat of veto as there would be at the Security Council. According to the PLO, more than 130 countries already grant the Palestinians the rank of a sovereign state.
However, Palestinian officials say they hope to win the votes of 150 to 170 countries at the UN to show the isolation of the US and Israel on this issue.
President Abbas addressed the General Assembly on 27 September and said his government would seek the UN upgrade in the current session. He said he realised that "progress towards making peace is through negotiations between the PLO and Israel", acknowledging international concerns about future talks. "Despite all the complexities of the prevailing reality and all the frustrations that abound, we say before the international community there is still a chance - maybe the last - to save the two-state solution and to salvage peace," he added.
After Mr Abbas laid out his intentions, his aides consulted other countries before drafting a resolution. It was not tabled until after the US presidential election.
The Palestinians' earlier attempt to gain full member-state status failed because it had to be approved by the 15-member UN Security Council. In the face of strong lobbying by Israel's close ally, the United States, it could not secure the nine votes it would have required. In any case, as a permanent member of the council, the US was expected to use its veto power to stop the bid.
Palestinian officials insist they have not abandoned their application to become a full UN member state, saying it is suspended for the moment.
Is this symbolic or will it change facts on the ground?
Getting recognition of Palestinian statehood on the pre-1967 ceasefire lines would have largely symbolic value. Already there is wide international acceptance that they should form the basis of a permanent peace settlement.
The problem for the Palestinians is that Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejects these territorial lines as a basis for negotiations. He has described them as "unrealistic" and "indefensible". He says that new facts have been created on the ground since 1967: about half a million Jews live in more than 200 settlements and outposts in the West Bank including East Jerusalem. These settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. Mutually-agreed land swaps have been discussed in previous talks as a way to overcome this problem.
The Palestinians argue that admission even as a non-member observer state at the UN would strengthen their hands in peace talks with Israel on core issues that divide them: the status of Jerusalem, the fate of the settlements, the precise location of borders, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, water rights and security arrangements. The Palestinians present the step as necessary to protect their right to self-determination and a two-state solution.
The draft resolution "expresses the urgent need for the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap, for the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides that resolves all outstanding core issues".
Israel says that any upgrade of the Palestinian status at the UN would pre-empt final-status negotiations. The prime minister's spokesman, Mark Regev, has been quoted in the Jerusalem Post newspaper as saying: "The Palestinians committed themselves to resolving all outstanding issues in negotiations, and such a unilateral action would be viewed as a violation."
What legal action could the Palestinians consider?
In April, the chief prosecutor of the ICC rejected a declaration by the Palestinian Authority unilaterally recognising the court's jurisdiction. The prosecutor said the ICC could not act because Article 12 of the Rome Statute established that only a "state" could confer jurisdiction on the court and deposit an instrument of accession with the UN secretary general. In instances where it was controversial or unclear whether an applicant constituted a "state", it was the practice of the secretary general to follow or seek the General Assembly's directives on the matter, he added.
While Palestinian chances of joining the ICC would be neither automatic nor guaranteed as a non-member observer state, officials have indicated they will make a new attempt after the forthcoming General Assembly vote.
"Those who don't want to appear before international tribunals must stop their crimes and it is time for them to become accountable," the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, recently told reporters.
According to the Reuters news agency, Mr Netanyahu has privately expressed concern that Palestinians might accuse the Israeli government of violating the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on forced displacement of populations by establishing settlements on occupied territory. The Palestinians might also seek to have the ICC investigate war crimes allegations from the 2008-2009 Gaza war.
Why is this happening now?
The main reason is the impasse in peace talks. Ahead of the original UN bid, the Palestinians pointed to the September 2011 date that US President Barack Obama had laid out at the General Assembly a year before as the deadline to achieve a two-state solution. The Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators - the US, European Union, Russia and UN - had worked towards the same deadline. A later statement by the Quartet called for an agreement by the end of this year.
Despite the lack of progress on restarting direct negotiations with Israel, Palestinian leaders argue that they have succeeded in building up state institutions and are ready for statehood. The World Bank has said the same, although it has expressed concern about whether the economies of the West Bank and Gaza are strong enough to support a future state.
Last year, the full UN membership bid easily won the support of ordinary Palestinians who had been energised by uprisings in other parts of the Arab world. Although there was disappointment at what followed, a decisive vote by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) in favour of admitting the Palestine as a member state in October 2011 helped to compensate. This was broadly seen as a step towards strengthening the Palestinians' position at the UN, although it led to the US suspending funding for Unesco.
How does this fit with previous declarations?
In 1988, the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, unilaterally declared a Palestinian state within the pre-June 1967 lines. This won recognition from about 100 countries, mainly Arab, Communist and non-aligned states - several of them in Latin America.
UN acceptance of Palestine even as a non-member observer state would have greater impact as the UN is the overarching world body and a source of authority on international law.
Who supports and opposes the latest UN option?
So far this bid has failed to excite public opinion in the occupied territories in the same way as in 2011 and the build-up to it has been more low-key. It is backed by Mr Abbas's Fatah movement, which controls Palestinian Authority-run parts of the West Bank, and was agreed with representatives of other groups in the PLO.
It was initially criticised by senior figures in Hamas, the rival Islamist group which governs the Gaza Strip. However, following the recent eight-day Israeli military offensive on Gaza, Hamas's political leader, Khaled Meshaal, said he "welcomed" the effort. The militant group, Islamic Jihad is also said to have given its unofficial support. "There is not a single party or faction that is not onboard," senior PLO official Hanan Ashrawi told journalists on 28 November.
Within the wider region, the 22-member Arab League has endorsed the approach.
The main opposition comes from Israel. Looking to dissuade President Abbas from his plan, it has threatened to withhold crucial tax revenues it collects on behalf of the PA and restrict movements of its officials from the West Bank. On 14 November, a position paper leaked from Israel's foreign ministry also proposed "toppling" Mr Abbas if Palestine's bid for UN non-member observer state status was approved. Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Lior Ben Dor said that if President Abbas continued with the bid, he would be in breach of the 1993 Oslo Accord, under which the PA was established.
In the past few days, Israeli officials have indicated that immediately after the vote sanctions would be introduced against the Palestinians. However, they say Israel will not take irreversible steps and will not act to bring down the PA. Only if the Palestinians use their upgraded UN membership to press cases at the International Criminal Court will Israel consider more drastic steps, they add. Speaking to the BBC about the UN bid, deputy Israeli foreign ministry spokeswoman Ilana Stein said: "It is mainly a declarative move, the question is what will the Palestinians do with it. Depending on what steps they take, Israel will act accordingly."
The US, a major donor nation to the PA, could also impose some financial penalties. After Palestine was admitted to Unesco, Washington cut funding to the organisation under legislation dating back to the 1990s. This mandated such a step if any UN agency granted full membership to Palestine before a permanent peace settlement.
The latest reports say Israel has attempted to negotiate with the US over the wording of the UN General Assembly resolution that would upgrade the Palestinians' status. There were attempts to gain guarantees that the Palestinians would not go to the ICC. However, on the eve of the vote, Mrs Ashrawi insisted: "We have not succumbed to blackmail or pressure."
Some European nations which provide large amounts of aid to the PA are worried that the Palestinians' UN strategy could prove risky. Only nine out of the 27 EU member states recognise Palestine bilaterally. Out of those which do not, France has said it will support the bid, Germany has said it will not and the UK has indicated that it might abstain. On 28 November, British Foreign Secretary William Hague told parliament that he would back the initiative if there were "certain assurances or amendments". These included a commitment not to pursue "ICC jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories at this stage", Mr Hague said. The Palestinian ambassador to the UK said the conditions were "unrealistic".
Both Palestinian and Israeli delegations have been on a diplomatic drive to win countries around to their point of view.
Israeli Satellite Government of Canada:
Baird going to UN to oppose Palestinian statehood bid
By Tom Parry, CBC News
Last Updated: Nov 28, 2012 5:37 PM ET
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he will be at the UN, which he addressed last month, to oppose an expected bid Thursday by the Palestinians for UN membership as a non-voting observer state. (Jason DeCrow/Associated Press)
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he'll travel to New York Thursday and will oppose any "unilateral" move by the Palestinian Authority for statehood at the United Nations.
The UN General Assembly is set to consider the matter Thursday, a year after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas formally asked the UN to consider his application for full membership in the UN.
That request has been blocked so far by the Security Council, but Thursday's resolution to recognize Palestine as a non-voting observer state is expected to pass. Unlike the Security Council, in the General Assembly no one country has veto power.
The Palestinian Authority representative at the UN, Riyad Monsour, says he expects Thursday to be a historic day for the Palestinian people and for the UN. But the vote will likely divide world governments.
The Palestinian delegation to Canada said in a statement Wednesday the vote is an "interim step" in light of the "impasse" over the request for full membership. "We call on all peace-loving countries to support our bid at the UN," Said Hamad, chief representative of the delegation, said in the statement.
Baird told MPs in the House of Commons Wednesday he was "tremendously disappointed" with the Palestinian Authority's decision to seek the status at the UN, which he said violates several accords. Baird urged both sides, Israel and the Palestinians, to get back to the negotiating table to find a lasting peace.
But he left no doubt where Canada's support lies, saying repeatedly that Canada supports the "Jewish state" and the people of Israel.
Harper holds fast During a press conference with Mexico's president-elect on Parliament Hill Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was asked why Canada wouldn't adopt a stance similar to Britain and support the Palestinian bid with the proviso that it commit to returning to peace talks.
Harper repeated Canada's oft-stated position.
"We favour a two-state solution in this region, that will not be accomplished in reality unless and until the Palestinian Authority returns to the negotiating table and is able to get a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel," Harper said.
"So we encourage them to do that and we will not support any other shortcuts or any other ways of trying to arrive at that solution without such a peace agreement."
Along with Canada, the United States and Israel are sharply opposed to the resolution, and Germany has announced it too will oppose the move. France, meanwhile, says it will back the Palestinian bid, as will China and a host of other nations.
Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague has indicated his government may abstain from the vote.
"We want to see a Palestinian state and look forward to the day when its people can enjoy the same rights and dignity as those of any other nation," Hague told his fellow MPs in the Commons in London today.
"But for us to support a resolution at the UN, it is important that the risks to the peace process are addressed so that the chances of negotiation beginning after it are enhanced rather than diminished."
NDP critical of government stance
In Ottawa, New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair called the resolution a reasonable request by the Palestinians and criticized the government's decision to vote against it.
"What we have from the Canadian side, under the Conservatives, is negativism, reproach, attack, threats," Mulcair said.
"We would like to see Canada playing a constructive role as we once proudly did on the world stage. Under Mr. Harper's Conservatives, we no longer play a constructive role."
Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said his party does not support the motion before the UN but predicts it will be accepted by the General Assembly.
"I have to say that I see the UN resolution as a bit of a diversion," Rae said.
"Yes, it's going to cause a big flurry.… but frankly that resolution doesn't take us any further. And the real key issue is to get the parties in front of each other and talking about negotiations."
Montreal MP Irwin Cotler noted in the Commons Wednesday that Thursday's vote will fall on the same date the UN General Assembly, in 1947, recommended the adoption and implementation of a partition plan for British-controlled Mandatory Palestine into Arab and Jewish states.
Canada Presses Smaller Countries to Oppose Palestinian Statehood
By Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East 29 June 2011
Montreal, June 29, 2011 –
According to a June 24 New York Times article, Canada has been lobbying smaller countries to oppose a Palestinian bid for UN members’ support for Palestinian statehood. The US, Canada, Italy, Germany and several central European countries are poised to oppose the bid, while Spain, France and most Latin American countries intend to support it; the UK is wavering. Although the Security Council’s recommendation on membership carries considerable weight, the UN General Assembly is the ultimate arbiter of requests for UN membership.
As a member of the G8 and OECD, Canada may have considerable influence with smaller countries. Many of the latter, reeling from the international recession, are seeking debt relief and easier access to overseas markets, including Canada’s. The Harper government has not formally renounced long-standing Canadian policy supporting the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Nonetheless, at the recent G8 meeting, Prime Minister Harper opposed the inclusion of any reference to the importance of the 1967 borders in the G8′s statement on the Middle East. Since the G8, the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister John Baird and other high ranking officials have been visiting Greece, Brazil, Paraguay and Guatemala, among other countries.
“Rather than urging other countries to deny Palestinians a state, Canada should be pressing Israel to stop violating international law,” says Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East President Thomas Woodley. CJPME notes that the Palestinians are resorting to a UN bid for support for a state because Israel’s multiple violations of international law have derailed direct peace talks. Israel has intensified the construction of illegal colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories and continued a sweeping blockade of Gaza, both of which violate international law.
International support for the Palestinian bid at the UN has grown steadily. In early 2011, the support of the majority of UN General Assembly members seemed likely. However, support is still far from certain. Palestinian officials will soon visit Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries that have yet to endorse the Palestinian bid. Palestinian ambassadors will be meeting in Madrid in July to strategize on their approach to the crucial European Union member states.
For more information, please contact: Patricia Jean
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East Telephone: 438-380-5410
Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.
firstname.lastname@example.org & email@example.com