ninkilim.com/30
Some argue that the concept of Palestine was created by Yasser Arafat, but historical records clearly indicate that the region and its inhabitants have been referred to by names similar to 'Palestine' for over 3,200 years. Terms like 'Peleset' appear in ancient Egyptian texts as early as the 12th century BCE, signifying a long-standing recognition of this area well before modern political movements.
The origins and early leaders of the Philistines are not detailed with specific names, but they are mentioned in various ancient texts, including the Bible, Egyptian, and Assyrian records, where they are known as "Peleset" or similar variations. Therefore, there isn't an individual identified as the "founder" of Philistia, but rather a group of people who established themselves in the region, leading to the creation of this cultural and political entity.
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence was proclaimed on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council in Algiers, establishing the State of Palestine.
Yasser Arafat was the first president of the Palestinian National Authority. He was elected in the first Palestinian presidential election on January 20, 1996.
The first Palestinian government was formed following the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1994 after the Oslo Accords. The first government included figures like Yasser Arafat as Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas as Foreign Minister, and Nabil Shaath in various high-level roles.
Yes, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) was established as part of the Palestinian Authority following the Oslo Accords. The first election for the PLC took place in 1996 in various cities across the Palestinian territories, with Ramallah being a significant administrative center.
"Palestine" does not have a formal, written constitution. Instead, it operates under the Palestinian Basic Law, which was first adopted in 2002. The framers of this document include the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Palestinian Authority's legal framework, influenced by Yasser Arafat and subsequent leaders.
During the British Mandate for Palestine (1922-1948), the currency was the Palestine pound, printed by the British government.
The term "Palestine" is derived from "Philistia," which was the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who occupied part of the southern coastal region of Canaan in the 12th century BCE.
Please read this @GovernmentZA @PresidencyZA https://x.com/R34lB0rg/status/1866427109209682203
I know a lot of people who would be partying like it's 1999 if this story really happened.... https://x.com/R34lB0rg/status/1866427109209682203
Please read this @FranceskAlbs @CraigMokhiber https://x.com/R34lB0rg/status/1866427109209682203
In the heart of Pretoria, the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Naledi Mokgopa, convened a late-night meeting with her team. The topic was bold, unprecedented, and laden with international implications: proposing a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to unseat Israel from the UN.
The spark for this audacious move was ignited by years of frustration over the international community's perceived inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. South Africa, with its history of overcoming apartheid, felt a kinship with the Palestinian struggle, and the moment seemed ripe for change.
After weeks of diplomatic groundwork, gathering support from African nations, key Arab states, and even some surprising endorsements from European countries disillusioned by the status quo, South Africa officially tabled the resolution. Titled "Resolution for a Just International Framework," it argued that Israel's consistent non-compliance with UN resolutions on Palestinian rights and international law warranted its removal from the UN.
The UNGA session was electric. Representatives from around the globe debated, sometimes heatedly, the merits and ramifications of such a drastic measure. Ambassador Mokgopa spoke eloquently about the need for accountability and justice, drawing parallels between historical injustices and the current situation in Palestine.
To everyone's surprise, the resolution passed with a overwhelming majority. The atmosphere in the assembly was tense, with a mixture of satisfaction from some quarters and disbelief from others. The United States, Israel's long-standing ally, was caught off-guard. With veto power in the Security Council, they could typically block resolutions against Israel, but here, the UNGA had acted within its sovereign assembly rights.
Israel reacted with fury. The Prime Minister, in a fiery speech from Jerusalem, condemned the decision as an act of political vendetta and anti-Semitism, vowing to challenge it at every international forum available. However, the reality was stark: without the Security Council's need for involvement in this specific UNGA action, the U.S. found its usual veto power powerless.
The U.S. attempted diplomatic maneuvers, calling for emergency meetings and trying to rally support for a counter-resolution or at least a delay for reconsideration. But the momentum was against them. Countries that had long been frustrated with the U.S. and Israel's dominance in Middle Eastern politics saw this as a moment to assert the UN's role as a body of equals.
Israel, left with few options, decided to take the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion, hoping to buy time and possibly sway public and political opinion. The ICJ, known for its slow judicial process, would indeed delay any immediate action, but this was merely a band-aid on a much larger issue.
In the months that followed, the international landscape shifted. Israel was diplomatically isolated like never before, with many countries reevaluating their positions. NGOs and international human rights organizations began to campaign for a new era in Middle Eastern politics, one where Israel might have to negotiate from a position of international accountability rather than impunity.
South Africa, meanwhile, emerged as a champion for international justice in some circles, though it also faced accusations of overstepping and introducing chaos into UN dynamics. Yet, the resolution's passage was a testament to the UNGA's ability to act when pushed by collective will, showing that even the most entrenched geopolitical realities could be challenged.
In this fictional tale, the UNGA's decision to unseat Israel, while dramatic, underscored a pivotal moment where the international community chose to redefine the rules of engagement in global politics, signaling to the world that no nation was above the collective will of the United Nations General Assembly.
In the heart of Pretoria, the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Naledi Mokgopa, convened a late-night meeting with her team. The topic was bold, unprecedented, and laden with international implications: proposing a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to unseat Israel from the UN.
The spark for this audacious move was ignited by years of frustration over the international community's perceived inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. South Africa, with its history of overcoming apartheid, felt a kinship with the Palestinian struggle, and the moment seemed ripe for change.
After weeks of diplomatic groundwork, gathering support from African nations, key Arab states, and even some surprising endorsements from European countries disillusioned by the status quo, South Africa officially tabled the resolution. Titled "Resolution for a Just International Framework," it argued that Israel's consistent non-compliance with UN resolutions on Palestinian rights and international law warranted its removal from the UN.
The UNGA session was electric. Representatives from around the globe debated, sometimes heatedly, the merits and ramifications of such a drastic measure. Ambassador Mokgopa spoke eloquently about the need for accountability and justice, drawing parallels between historical injustices and the current situation in Palestine.
To everyone's surprise, the resolution passed with a overwhelming majority. The atmosphere in the assembly was tense, with a mixture of satisfaction from some quarters and disbelief from others. The United States, Israel's long-standing ally, was caught off-guard. With veto power in the Security Council, they could typically block resolutions against Israel, but here, the UNGA had acted within its sovereign assembly rights.
Israel reacted with fury. The Prime Minister, in a fiery speech from Jerusalem, condemned the decision as an act of political vendetta and anti-Semitism, vowing to challenge it at every international forum available. However, the reality was stark: without the Security Council's need for involvement in this specific UNGA action, the U.S. found its usual veto power powerless.
The U.S. attempted diplomatic maneuvers, calling for emergency meetings and trying to rally support for a counter-resolution or at least a delay for reconsideration. But the momentum was against them. Countries that had long been frustrated with the U.S. and Israel's dominance in Middle Eastern politics saw this as a moment to assert the UN's role as a body of equals.
Israel, left with few options, decided to take the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion, hoping to buy time and possibly sway public and political opinion. The ICJ, known for its slow judicial process, would indeed delay any immediate action, but this was merely a band-aid on a much larger issue.
In the months that followed, the international landscape shifted. Israel was diplomatically isolated like never before, with many countries reevaluating their positions. NGOs and international human rights organizations began to campaign for a new era in Middle Eastern politics, one where Israel might have to negotiate from a position of international accountability rather than impunity.
South Africa, meanwhile, emerged as a champion for international justice in some circles, though it also faced accusations of overstepping and introducing chaos into UN dynamics. Yet, the resolution's passage was a testament to the UNGA's ability to act when pushed by collective will, showing that even the most entrenched geopolitical realities could be challenged.
In this fictional tale, the UNGA's decision to unseat Israel, while dramatic, underscored a pivotal moment where the international community chose to redefine the rules of engagement in global politics, signaling to the world that no nation was above the collective will of the United Nations General Assembly.
What would it take it unseat Israel from the UN?
The answer is surprising:
Any single member could propose a Resolution for UNGA to vote on.
And there is little Israel and the US could do about it. https://x.com/R34lB0rg/status/1866425316845166727/photo/1
If UNGA would create, vote and pass a resolution to unseat Israel from the UN, there is little the US with their veto power in UNSC could do about.
Israel would most certainly spit venom and either withdraw voluntarily or make itself a clown and challenge the decision before the International Court of Justice.
Given the fact that any country can delay the ICJ by filing a opinion, it would take years or decades before the court can actually decide.
Every accusation is a confession -- Sigmund Freud https://x.com/R34lB0rg/status/1866404199334064425/photo/1
