Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Respuesta al reconocimiento del Peru a un estado árabe-palestino
Response to Peru's Recognition of Palestine



בס"ד



My Response to the recognition by the State of Peru of a non-existent Arab Palestinian State nnn Mi respuesta al reconocimiento official del Estado Peruano a un estado árabe-palestino inexistente



The Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Relations issued the following press release:

Peru Recognizes a Palestinian State

El ministerio de relaciones exteriores del Peru emitió el siguiente comunicado de prensa:

El Perú reconoce al Estado Palestino



Here is my response:
He acá mi respuesta:



1. The United Nations General Assembly voting in 1947 in which Peru voted in favor of the “partition of Palestine” does not constitute a precedent of support for an Arab Palestine. The Palestine of back then was a British protectorate held in a temporary manner between the dissolution of the Ottoman Turkish empire in 1917 and the national resolution that would bring about the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. This was ratified, to begin with, with the Balfour declaration in 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1947 the Arab countries and the Arabs of the above-mentioned protectorate vehemently opposed such partition and refused any recognition of the State of Israel. With that it was the Arabs themselves who rejected the partition and declare as their goal the destruction of any Jewish national entity on the Holy Land, which they held as a priority greater than the exercise of free self-determination of the Arabs themselves.
1. La votación de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en 1947 en las que el Perú votó a favor de la “participación de Palestina” no constituyen un antecedente de apoyo a una Palestina árabe. La Palestina de aquel entonces era un protectorado británico sostenido de manera interina entre la disolución del imperio Turco-Otomano en 1917 y la resolución nacional que llevaría al establecimiento del Estado de Israel en 1948. Esto fue ratificado para empezar con la declaración Balfour en 1917 que favorecía el establecimiento de un hogar nacional judío en Palestina. En 1947 los países árabes y los habitantes árabes del protectorado susodicho se opusieron vehementemente a tal partición y se negaron a todo reconocimiento del Estado de Israel. Con esto fueron los propios árabes los que rechazaron la partición y declararon por objetivo la destrucción de toda entidad nacional judía sobre tierra santa, cosa que sostenían como prioridad por encima del ejercicio a la libre autodeterminación propia como árabes.



Moreover, the PLO declared as their own objective since its foundation in 1964 that the territories on the west bank of the Jordan river was not of their concern for being these “part of Jordan”. The PLO had as a goal, hence, the destruction of Israel proper. It is worth of mention that Jordan resign in 1994 from any territorial claim over Judea and Samaria, on the west bank of the Jordan river.
Más aun, la OLP declaró como objetivo propio desde su fundación en 1964 que los territorios a la margen occidental del río Jordán no les incumbía por ser estos “parte de Jordania”. La OLP tenía por objetivo, pues, la destrucción del Estado de Israel propio. Cabe mencionar que Jordania renunció en 1994 a todo reclamo territorial sobre los territorios de Judea y Samaria, en la margen occidental del Jordán.



2. The current offensive on the diplomatic front is not a step towards peace, but a manipulative maneuver by the PLO with the goal of exerting pressure on Israel in order to obtain concessions from it without having to give anything in exchange. The apparent abandonment of violence on the side of the PLO is of temporary nature, if even real, and a strategic move to obtain territorial advances and to grab positions that compromise the security and integrity of Israel and of it's inhabitants.
2. La presente ofensiva en el frente diplomático no es un paso hacia la paz, sino una maniobra manipulativa por parte de la OLP con el objetivo de ejercer presión sobre Israel para obtener concesiones de este sin tener que dar nada a cambio. El aparente abandono de la violencia por parte de la OLP es de naturaleza temporal, si acaso real, y estratégico para conseguir el avance territorial y la toma de posiciones que comprometen la seguridad e integridad de Israel y de sus habitantes.



3. The coexistence of which the Ministry of Foreign Relations makes reference in its January 24th release is by no means the goal of the PLO, and granting them diplomatic recognition does not lead to peace.
3. La coexistencia a la que hace referencia el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores en su comunicado del 24 de enero pasado no es en absoluto la meta de la OLP, y el garantizarles el reconocimiento diplomático no conlleva a la paz.



4. The PLO is not a state, and the Palestinian Authority is not a plenipotentiary government. There is not, thus, any real basis for granting such recognition. Peru has extended recognition to a country that does not exist, and is in fact supporting an organization of terrorist precedents, as well as violent and direct violation of Human Rights and of International Law.
4. La OLP no es un estado, y la Autoridad Palestina no es un gobierno plenipotenciario. No hay, por lo tanto, fundamento real para garantizarles tal reconocimiento. El Perú le ha otorgado el reconocimiento a un país que no existe, y en la práctica está apoyando a una organización de antecedentes terroristas, violentos y de franca violación a los derechos humanos y al derecho internacional.



5. The defensible borders of Israel cannot be placed at nine miles off the Mediterranean shores. Such temporary border only existed because of a cease-fire line of the exhausted armies and the resulting armistice in 1949. It was precisely because in the eagerness to obtain defensible territory that Israel liberated the territories of Judea and Samaria, and until the depression of the Jordan valley, which constitute a natural and defendable border. The border that guarantees security is, thus, that of the Jordan valley on Israel's eastern border.
5. Las fronteras defendibles de Israel no pueden quedar a catorce kilómetros de la costa del Mediterráneo. Tal frontera interina solo existió por causa del cese al fuego de los agotados ejércitos en el el resultante armisticio en 1949. Fue precisamente por el afán de obtener territorio defendible que Israel liberó los territorios de Judea y Samaria, y hasta la depresión del valle del Jordán, que constituye una frontera natural y defendible. Las fronteras que garantizan la seguridad son, pues, las del valle del Jordán en el oriente de Israel.



6. The peace process has failed in countless occasions because of the unwillingness of recognizing the PLO claims, which does not consist of the concept of coexistence, but is rather designed for the destruction of the State of Israel.
6. El proceso de paz ha fracasado en oportunidades sin cuenta por faltar a reconocer la realidad del reclamo de la OLP, que no es consistente con el concepto de coexistencia, sino que está diseñado para la destrucción del Estado de Israel.



But more worrisome even is the blindness about the results of Israeli concessions: the welcoming to Arafat in 1993 would result in the violent Intifada of the 1990s. The formal retreat by Israeli troops from southern Lebanon in 2000 and from the Gaza Strip in 2005 lead to the power takeover by fundamentalist groups which are extremely dangerous. Territorial concessions did not, thus, lead to peace. Such is the threat exposed through the widely demonstrated tragic precedents. If Peru is interested in really accomplishing peace, it would refuse to recognize a Palestinian Arab State unless Israel itself grants such recognition.
Pero más preocupante es la ceguera a los resultados de las concesiones israelíes: la bienvenida a Arafat in 1993 resultaría en la violenta Intifada de los 1990s. La retirada formal de tropas israelíes del sur del Líbano en el 2000 y de la Franja de Gaza en el 2005 conllevaron a la toma de poder por parte de grupos fundamentalistas islámicos sumamente peligrosos. La concesión territorial no condujo, pues, a la paz. Tal es la amenaza expuesta con los ya ampliamente demonstrados antecedentes trágicos. Si el Perú se interesa realmente en conseguir la paz, debería rehusarse a reconocer a un estado árabe palestino a menos que Israel mismo otorgara tal reconocimiento.



By the exposed above and with the fundamental premise about the PLO's war intentions, that we exhort the government of Peru to revert its decision on the recognition of a Palestinian State. nnn Por lo expuesto arriba, y con la prémisa fundamental de las intenciones bélicas de la OLP, exhortamos al gobierno en el peruano a revertir la decisión de reconocimiento de un estado Palestino.

1 comment:

Rafael V. Rabinovich said...

This was the press release issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Lima: This is the text in English, my translation:

Peru recognized the Palestinian State
________________________________________
Press Release Number 001-11
......
1.- Since 1947 Peru, as the then member of the “Special UN Commission for Palestine”, has maintained in a consistent manner a clear position on the Palestinian Question, in agreement with the norms and principles of International Law and the right to free self-determination of the peoples, in regarding to the establishment of two States in that territory.
2.- For over six decades Peru has recognized the right of the Palestinian people to constitute an independent State, supporting the UN Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on this matter. At the same time Peru has promoted the complete respect to Human Rights, and a firm rejection of acts of terrorism, as well as of the illegal use of force.
3.- In consonance with its traditional and unchangeable policy to the favor of a peaceful solution of controversies, Peru declares respect and complete support to the peace process in the Middle East, and reiterates support for the negotiations that aim for the coexistence of two States: Israel and Palestine, with the right to live in peace within secure borders, borders recognized and free from threat or acts of force. It is under that premise that Peru joins in the efforts of the international community, and encourages peace initiatives to that end.
4.- In Light of the stated above, the Peruvian State has decided to grand recognition, from today on, to Palestine as an independent and sovereign State.
5.- In this spirit, Peru recognizes the undeniable right of the State of Israel to Developer in peace and harmony with its neighbors, within secure borders and free from any threat against its people, and therefore we call upon all those who have not yet done so to grant full recognition to the State of Israel.
6.- Last, Peru joins the call of the international community for the immediate renewal of the peace process between Israel and Palestine, based on the complete fulfillment by all the parts of the duties assumed in previous agreements, particularly the “Road Map” of the Quartet and in respect with International Law, including the Resolutions adopted by the United Nations.
Lima, January 24, 2011
Ministry of Foreign Relations (watermark)