arte

The Palestinian people will forever deserve our unwavering solidarity for freedom

• Jessie Duarte
• 27 Nov 2017 01:03 (South Africa)
24 Reactions

Wednesday 29 November 2017 will be the 40th anniversary of the declaration of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people. It will be the 70th anniversary of Resolution 181-2 and the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War. As we commemorate these anniversaries, we must ask ourselves as a people who suffered oppression and as an international community, whether what we are paying to the people of Palestine is mere lip service.

Resolution 181-2. This is one of the many resolutions adopted by the United Nations but violated by the State of Israel. In sum, the resolution adopted a plan for the partitioning of the land of Palestine into the Jewish State of Israel and the Arab State of Palestine. The plan also suggested a special recognition of the city of Jerusalem which would serve as a capital for both the Israeli and Palestinian states.

The resolution was adopted in 1947. Thirty years later, in 1977, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people on the day that Resolution 181-2 was adopted, 29 November. The Assembly did so because it recognised that 30 years later, Palestinians were nowhere close to having a state of their own. In fact, 10 years after the Six-Day War of 1967, the lot of Palestinians was worse and Israel continued to violate international law.

Wednesday 29 November 2017 will be the 40th anniversary of the declaration of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people. It will be the 70th anniversary of Resolution 181-2 and the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War. The Six-Day War itself had direct devastating effects as, among others, Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank while over 300,000 Palestinians fled the West Bank. Israel continues to occupy the territories, again, in violation of international law.

As we commemorate these anniversaries, we must ask ourselves, as a people who suffered oppression, and as an international community, whether what we are paying to the people of Palestine is mere lip service. We must use this day of solidarity to make bold once again the assertion by Tata Madiba that South Africa will not be free until Palestine is free.

In his address at the state banquet hosting President Yasser Arafat, the late former President Nelson Mandela noted the supporting role played by Palestinians towards the liberation of the people of South Africa despite not possessing freedom themselves. This recognition was important, alluded Madiba, as it showed the immense sacrifices that Palestinians made, even placing the liberation of others above their own.

In that same tribute to President Arafat, Tata Madiba went on to state that: “… South Africa is proud to be part of the international consensus affirming the right of Palestine to self-determination and statehood…” Yet despite these long years and anniversaries, Palestinians are nowhere near to attaining justice and the right to self-determination.

Instead, Israel has continued to violate international law, occupation continues and the brutality of the Israeli system of oppression has, rightly, been likened to apartheid. Today, there should be no doubt that Israel is an apartheid state and in the words of former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, it is fast turning into a tyrannical, fascist one.

Despite the resolve of the Israelis and the friends in the West and, sadly, East to ensure that the quest of Palestinians is drowned out by smokescreens such as the threat Iran poses, as South Africans we must use our international muscle and clout to guarantee that we will keep Palestine firmly on the international agenda.

While the Obama administration abandoned the peace process and while the Trump administration kowtows to the whims of the Netanyahu regime, we must position ourselves in order to ensure the correction of this historical injustice despite the time that has elapsed. Now more than ever, we must ensure that the Palestinian people receive support and encouragement during this time of marginalisation. 

The National Policy Conference of the ANC in July this year, in preparation for the National Conference in December, was emphatic about the support that the ANC continues towards Palestine. The ANC reaffirmed its “unwavering steadfast commitment” towards Palestinians but expressed its disappointment in Israel’s lack of commitment towards peace. 

After debating the possibility of downgrading our embassy in Israel, the National Policy Conference recommended two options of proposals which the 54th National Conference must consider and decide upon. First, we downgrade our embassy in Israel based on the continuous violation of international law and UN resolutions by the Israelis and the ongoing building of settlements in the Occupied Territories. The second option is to shut down our embassy completely, taking or not taking into account the associated risks. 

As the ANC therefore prepares for its National Conference, South Africa’s future relations with Israel hangs in the balance and rightly so. For over two decades, South Africa has pleaded with Israelis and worked with them, together with local groups, to ensure that injustices do not continue. Yet these have gone on unabated and Palestinians are continually denied the right to return and to declare a state with East Jerusalem as its capital. 

At the same time, the ANC has also noted the importance of ensuring that Palestinian unity remains a priority as the fight for liberation and justice is intensified. The ANC’s historical relationship with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and, in particular, Fatah, must not be compromised through its engagement with Hamas. In fact, evidence already suggests that Palestinians recognise the urgent need, given the current cooling down on the international front of issues pertaining to their plight, to unite. The ANC certainly would support any initiative that unites Hamas, Fatah and the larger PLO formation. 

The Policy Conference went on to propose that the National Conference adopt a resolution whereby a Global Solidarity Conference on Palestine, consisting of the liberation movements of Palestine and all other progressive international organisations who support the liberation of the Palestinian people, are invited. It is in this respect that the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian peoples becomes pertinent. 

This particular sentiment was expressed by the former president of the ANC, Comrade OR Tambo, and it is fitting, as we close the year in which we celebrated his centenary, to be reminded of his words, when, sharing the stage with Yasser Arafat, he said: 

“… the unconditional upholding of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination must be an essential condition for a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict, including Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and the security of all states in the region, including the state of Israel.”

There will be no peace in the Middle East, no secure and prosperous Israel, without a secure and prosperous Palestine. No justice, no peace. DM

Jessie Duarte is Deputy Secretary-General of the ANC 

Jessie Duarte

NETANYAHU LOSES THE PLOT - YET AGAIN!

• December 28 2016  Sydney Morning Herald

Israel warned New Zealand that UN resolution was 'declaration of war': report

·         Henry Cooke

•  

Wellington: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally phoned New Zealand's Foreign Minister Murray McCully to warn him a UN resolution co-sponsored by the country was a "declaration of war",  according to a leading Israeli newspaper.
The UN Security Council resolution called for Israel to stop building settlements on occupied Palestinian land, including East Jerusalem, declaring the settlements "illegal".

Video duration

01:11

Netanyahu labels UN vote 'shameful'

Video duration

02:02

Kerry pleas for two-state solution in ...

Kerry warns Middle East peace in jeopardy

Less than a month before leaving office, Secretary of State John Kerry issues a warning to Israel over the waning chances at peace with Palestine.
It was picked up and sponsored by New Zealand and three other countries after US President-elect Donald Trump reportedly pressured Egypt into dropping it.
It was passed on Saturday after the US abstained instead of vetoing, as they historically have done on votes concerning Israel.
In the aftermath, Israel has withdrawn its ambassador to New Zealand and barred New Zealand's ambassador to Israel.
Netanyahu lashed out at other Security Council countries by curbing diplomatic contacts, recalling envoys, cutting off aid and summoning the US ambassador for a scolding. Netanyahu has publicly called it a "shameful anti-Israel resolution".
The Israeli daily Haaretz, citing unnamed Western diplomats, reported that a "harsh" phone call took place between Netanyahu and McCully on the day of the vote.
"This is a scandalous decision. I'm asking that you not support it and not promote it," Netanyahu reportedly told McCully.

Lashed out: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: AP

"If you continue to promote this resolution from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences."
McCully reportedly refused to back down, according to Haaretz, telling Netanyahu the resolution was consistent with New Zealand policy on the dispute.

Stood firm: NZ Foreign Minister Murray McCully. Photo: Getty Images

McCully's office have confirmed to Fairfax Media that a phone call between the minister and Netanyahu took place just before the vote. They refused to publicly comment on the content of the conversation.
Israel's ambassador to New Zealand Itzhak Gerberg will meet with Netanyahu on Thursday to discuss whether further sanctions against New Zealand are appropriate. Israel's embassy said that "until further notice" no more sanctions would be imposed.

US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, centre, raises her hand to abstain during the UN Security Council vote on Friday. Photo: AP

Earlier this week McCully publicly said that Israel shouldn't be surprised by New Zealand's position.
"We have been very open about our view that the [Security Council] should be doing more to support the Middle East peace process and the position we adopted today is totally in line with our long established policy on the Palestinian question," he said.
New Zealand has used its time on the Security Council to consistently call for a halt to settlements.
Its two-year term as a non-permanent member ends this month.
New Zealand was the only Western nation to co-sponsor the resolution, joining Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela.
The Security Council passed the resolution 14-0, with the United States abstaining.
Stuff.co.nz

ONE THOUSAND DAYS WHEN ONE IS TOO MANY - AND HILLARY CLINTON'S ROLE!

There is so much horror in the United States of America, and so many lies spread by its government to conceal their human rights abuses, torture of its own citizens, and endless abuses of privilege - just think of how the United Nations is controlled by the US Government - that it is difficult to know where to start to catalogue or list the dictatorial behaviour of recent administrations dating way back when.

Lies to its citizens aided and abetted by the media - think Rupert Murdoch - concealment, promises, such as to close Guantanamo Bay when there never was such an intention! - we are fortunate to have brave people in the world such as Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and Emad Bernat and all the others who put their lives at risk on a daily basis to expose what governments do their best to conceal from the citizens of the world.

Thanks to the internet and these brave people all the secrets will out. Let us hope that people around the world will see how they are being sacrificed for the few who control and pull the strings. Their days will end and the sooner the better.

Thank goodness for organisations such as NationofChange and AlterNet and Mondoweiss and many others for keeping us as informed as possible!

One Thousand Days When One is Too Many

NationofChange 230213

Think of that, count it off . . . 1,000 days; that is how long Bradley Manning has been incarcerated without a trial.

Even though he has been incarcerated for nearly three years most Americans have no idea what he did, why he did it or how he has been mistreated coming from the commander-in-chief to the courtroom at Fort Meade.The mass media has made sure to keep Americans ignorant about what is going on and why it is important. But many do see through the misinformation and are standing with Brad. We take action because like Brad, we want the truth to be told, the truth to be known and understood so we can improve the country.

In more than 55 cities this weekend and around the world, people will rally, hold forums, protest – take whatever action they can to lift the veil and expose the truth. Join them or create your own.What are some of the truths? There are so many. In this short newsletter, we want to focus on one – Hillary Clinton. She is the most popular woman in the world, according to polls. If she wants the presidency, the media tells us, it is hers. Yet, what do the Wikileaks documents which whistleblower Bradley Manning released show us? They show us she is not fit to be president and rather than being admired, she should be prosecuted. That will sound extreme to the ears of Americans who have had the truth hidden from them, but it is a factual statement.

The U.S. houses the United Nations. This gives the U.S. great opportunity to spy on UN diplomats when they come to New York for meetings. It is against the law to spy on diplomats when they come to such meetings.

But, the Wikileaks documents show that in 2009 Hillary Clinton ordered that foreign diplomats be spied on. She even ordered US diplomats to obtain DNA data, biometric data, iris scans and fingerprints as well as credit card and frequent flier numbers and so much more. Her orders, sent to 30 embassies, were fulfilling the request of the CIA for all sorts of information. The General Secretary, Ban Kai Moon (who was also spied on) called Clinton in for a meeting about this violation of law.

Did this get any media attention in the US? Were there calls for an investigation or a special prosecutor? No. Inside the US Empire there was silence from the mass media and political elite.When the Arab Spring in Egypt was on the verge of success, what role did Clinton play? She urged support for Omar Suleiman.

Then Manning’s Wikileaks documents exposed who Suleiman was. Suleiman was the man who did the dirty work for the authoritarian dictator of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak. Not only did he do Mubarak's dirty work, but he was the go-to guy for Israel in dealing with Egypt, making all sorts of deals that allowed the abuse of Palestinians. He was the one who did the dirty work for the US Empire. He was the CIA liaison for the source of the misinformation campaign on WMDs in Iraq and people targeted by the US were renditioned to the torturous abuse of Omar Suleiman.

But Clinton, who certainly knew all this, called on Suleiman to investigate Egypt’s violence and thought he’d be the perfect replacement for Mubarak. When this all came out in Egypt, not much was said about it in the US but Clinton’s pick, Suleiman, was no longer a viable candidate.

Clinton announced last week that she will be doing public speaking after she rests from her arduous job as Secretary of State. No doubt she will reap the pay-off for her years of hard work for the transnational corporations for whom US foreign policy is designed. The Wikileaks documents again show the truth of that fact. Of course, the American people are told we go to war for democracy, protection of human rights and the rights of woman in Afghanistan.

Sadly, the mass media says these things over and over so Americans learn to believe them, even though the Wikileaks documents show US foreign policy is of, by and for big corporations.

Anyone who has followed the Manning case has seen his mistreatment by the government from his initial incarceration to his abusive prosecution. Under military law, Manning was supposed to be arraigned within 120 days of his arrest but it took well over 600 days to do so.During that 600 days Manning was driven to near suicide. First he was kept in abusive conditions in Kuwait: kept awake at night and only sleeping during the day, his cell searched regularly, torn apart by guards and he was kept away from other prisoners. Manning thought he was going to die in an 8 by 8 animal cage in Kuwait.

He rejoiced when he was being put on a plane, not knowing where he was going, but knowing it was better than where he was. When he landed at BWI airport, he was so happy to be in the United States – to be home. But, he soon learned things would not get better as he was held in solitary confinement for nine more months at the abusive Quantico Marine Base, where every five minutes he was required to respond to the question, "Are you alright?", and throughout the day not allowed to lie down or sit leaning against the wall in his cell. These are only two examples of many abuses he suffered.

No one else will ever suffer at the Quantico brig because it is now being closed, no doubt in part due to the notoriety Manning supporters heaped on the base with repeated protests until Manning was released and finally treated appropriately.

That’s right, activists made a difference. It was after our final protest where dozens were arrested and paramilitary units, helicopters and horses were turned against us that he was put in appropriate pre-trial confinement. Occupy, veterans and other activists have consistently supported Manning. We are in solidarity because we all want transparent and peaceful government.

That is why what we do this weekend makes a difference. 1,000 days. It needs to be memorialized, forced into the consciousness of Americans misled by mass media propaganda that prefers to focus on Manning's sexuality rather than the facts contained in the documents he released.

Really, that is the essence of it. Manning took on the heart of American corporatocracy – the Empire. The media cannot even let us know how big the national security state really is, always understating the real annual cost of our $1.3 trillion security state; never acknowledging that the US has more than 1200 bases and outposts around the world. In fact, no one in the media or political class ever even acknowledges that the US is an Empire. It is almost amusing because it is so absurd.

We live in the largest Empire in world history but the media, political class and the plutocrats behind them never acknowledge the US is an Empire.That is why Manning has been mistreated from the initial release of the “Collateral Murder Video” showing the U.S. military killing journalists and others in Iraq, Manning became a target of the Empire. He has lifted the veil so the truth can be seen.

And, no doubt it will. As the U.S. Empire fades, as all empires do, people will examine the Wikileaks documents and be amazed at what they contain—a daily history of the Empire’s military and diplomatic corps. That treasure trove will show a very corrupt, abusive and violent empire. Manning will be on the right side of history and so will those of you who stand with Brad.

Let’s make his 1,000 days in prison something all Americans are aware of by joining on of the events this weekend and if there is no event in your area, create one. Go to your local paper and ask them to report on Manning, the Wikileaks documents and to start a discussion about US Empire.

Manning said in chat logs that he hoped to start a debate in the US so we could improve the country. Let’s use this weekend to help make that a reality.

Kevin Zeese JD and Margaret Flowers MD co-host Clearing the FOG on We Act Radio 1480 AM Washington, DC and on Economic Democracy Media, co-direct It's Our Economy and are organizers of the Occupation of Washington, DC. Their twitters are @KBZeese and @MFlowers8. Zeese is a member of the Steering Committee of the Bradley Manning Support Network.

This article is based on a weekly newsletter by Occupy Washington, DC. You can sign up to receive it free here.

PALESTINE - FOR AND AGAINST

The following articles published in The Age newspaper over the week ranging from 5 to 11 November 2011 provide some diverting and diverging views on the Palestine bid for statehood - or at least standing as a nation at the United Nations:

ALP senator laments Gillard's Palestine stand

By Daniel Flitton

November 5, 2011

A PROMINENT Labor senator has expressed dismay at Julia Gillard's decision to overrule Kevin Rudd on a key United Nations vote on Palestine.

NSW Labor Senator Doug Cameron said Australia had missed a chance to help win peace in the Middle East.

The government is yet to declare how it will vote on the contentious plan for Palestine to join the world body, although Britain, France and Colombia told the UN overnight they will abstain on a vote.

The Age revealed yesterday Mr Rudd had also urged Australia to abstain from a separate resolution on Palestine becoming a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, only for Ms Gillard to ignore the advice and side with Israel, the US and 11 other countries in opposing the proposal.
Senator Cameron said yesterday he supported Mr Rudd's position and that recognition would have helped their cause and not harmed Israel. ''It would have meant we could take a very small step towards fixing the problems in the Middle East, which is so important in the overall fight against terrorism,'' he said.

Asked on ABC radio if he was disappointed Ms Gillard had overruled Mr Rudd, Senator Cameron responded: ''Yes, I am.''

Mr Rudd told reporters in Brisbane, when asked if he was satisfied with the UNESCO vote: ''I support the government's policy.'' The New York Times reported the Palestinian bid for UN membership - which Washington had threatened to veto - had moved closer to outright rejection in the Security Council.

Britain, Colombia and France told a private meeting of the council's membership committee they would abstain, raising doubts Palestinians could muster the nine votes needed on the 15-member body before the US would likely wield a veto. Should Palestinians push ahead to seek observer status in the General Assembly - similar to the Vatican - Australia would then be force to take a position.

A spokeswoman for Mr Rudd yesterday issued a statement in response to questions from The Age that has not changed since September.

''If a Palestinian resolution is introduced to the General Assembly - and that is not yet certain - the government will consider it carefully. The government will not make a decision until it has seen a draft resolution,'' it read.

Obama's gaffe exposes uneasy relationship with Israel

November 10, 2011

By Simon Mann in Washington


A CANDID moment between French and US Presidents has laid bare the testy relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's allies, and underscored the lingering discord between the White House and the Israeli Prime Minister.

In an exchange at last week's G20 meeting in Cannes, Nicolas Sarkozy allegedly branded Mr Netanyahu a ''liar'', inviting agreement from Barack Obama.

According to French journalists, who overheard the exchange, Mr Obama obliged, responding: ''You're sick of him, but I have to work with him every day.''

The loose remarks reflect mounting international frustration with the stalled Middle East peace process, as well as a barely concealed animosity between Mr Obama and Mr Netanyahu.

The gaffe gave Mr Obama's Republican opponents ammunition and prompted the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League to express concern over the extent to which the ''private views'' might inform US and French policy towards Israel.

''We hope that the Obama administration will do everything it can to reassure Israel that the relationship remains on a sure footing and to reinvigorate the trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which clearly is not what it should be,'' said the league's national director, Abraham Foxman.

Republican presidential wannabe Michele Bachmann demanded that Mr Obama apologise to Mr Netanyahu, linking the incident to the administration's lax efforts to protect Israel from the nuclear ambitions of Iran and to other ''tragic errors'' of the President's foreign policy.

The uneasy relationship between the two leaders was most on show in May when Mr Netanyahu lectured Mr Obama before reporters in the Oval Office, after the President had raised the prospect of a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders as a means of advancing the peace process. Mr Netanyahu flatly rejected the idea and appeared to patronise Mr Obama by offering a history lesson.

In an earlier meeting between them, Mr Obama had reportedly sat down to dinner, making the Israeli leader wait in another room at the White House.

Despite the embarrassment, a former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, did not believe the blunder would damage US-Israel relations, particularly over the issue at hand - Iran's nuclear ambitions.

''The subject is too serious to be affected by personalities. They agree on the nature of the threat and they also agree on the way to deal with it. That is by ratcheting up sanctions.''

Public backs Palestine bid

November 11, 2011

AUSTRALIANS broadly back an independent Palestinian state joining the United Nations but mostly confess to ignorance about the Middle East conflict, a poll has found.

The findings come as it appears the question of Palestinian membership at the UN will fail in the Security Council. The US has indicated it would veto any such resolution and Palestinian negotiators are now likely to take their quest to the General Assembly, where the Gillard government will be required to take a position.

The Roy Morgan poll, commissioned by advocacy group Australians for Palestine, found Australians had roughly equal sympathy for Israelis and Palestinians. But 62 per cent of those surveyed said Palestine should be accepted as a UN member after being told ''Israel and the USA are opposed to it'', although the question neglected to mention other countries also opposed.

The figure dropped to 52 per cent of people saying Australia should vote in favour of the Palestinian bid.

Voting against Palestine may cost Australia a seat on the Security Council

By Richard Woolcott

November 11, 2011

Our national interest requires a rethink on the Middle East.

The importance of Australia's candidature for election next October as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for a two-year term (2013-14) should be better understood and supported by our politicians and the Australian public.

Unfortunately, our prospects have been undermined by our recent vote against Palestine's admission to the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

The Security Council is the principal organ of the UN with the power to impose sanctions and the responsibility for initiating peacekeeping operations. Like the G20's role in dealing with international economic and financial issues, the council deals with the maintenance of international peace and security. It is the world's pre-eminent crisis management forum.

Membership of the council is important to us. It will enhance our international standing as a responsible middle power. As I know from my experience in representing Australia on the council, membership offers an opportunity to make a difference, to influence situations in the direction of peace and to contribute to reforms.

The election, by secret ballot, will be contested. There are three candidates for two seats. When then prime minister Kevin Rudd announced our candidacy in March 2008, Finland and Luxembourg had already been in the field for well over a year.
Should we fail in our bid, the addition of two more western European voices, in addition to Britain and France, both permanent members of the council, would unbalance it, as happened in 1996 when we were defeated by Sweden and Portugal.

I have recently returned from two weeks in New York. Since my time at the UN, the global situation has changed enormously. Unprecedented economic growth, especially in China and India, and the increase in membership to 193 have driven change. The UN now reflects a different and much more complex, multipolar and interconnected world.
Australia has a proud record in the United Nations. We have played a major role in peacekeeping and peace-building since 1947. We have provided some 60,000 servicemen and police to more than 50 multi-lateral operations, including our major contribution to the UN Transitional Authority that brought peace and elections to Cambodia. We are in the top 10 contributors to the World Food Program, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, the UN Development Program and the Human Rights Commission.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has described the Security Council's work as ''vital''. She worked to secure the support of the Pacific Islands Forum in Wellington in September and again at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth. She will have more opportunities to seek support for our election at the APEC and East Asian Summit talks later this month.

In these circumstances, I find it both surprising and a decisive setback to our election prospects that the Prime Minister decided Australia should vote against the admission of Palestine to UNESCO.

The applications committee is to report to the Security Council today on Palestine's bid for statehood. If it is decided to vote in the council, the US is committed to a veto. Ultimately, however, the issue will presumably go to the General Assembly in the attempt to upgrade Palestinian representation. A positive approach to this issue is actually in the US and Israel's long-term interests.

Putting it bluntly, I consider that if we again vote against Palestinian ''statehood'' when it comes to the General Assembly, we are most unlikely to be elected to the council. At worst we should abstain.

I have never argued that we should change policies to secure a vote. What I have argued is that policies should be changed if they are ineffective or overdue for change, which is the case on a number of our votes on Middle East issues. We will do considerable damage to the more even-handed and reasonable policies we have been moving towards in the Middle East if we continue to vote against Palestinian statehood. This is also illogical because we support a two-state solution.

Middle Eastern diplomats outside Israel have depicted the present situation as like two people arguing over a pizza, but before the argument is resolved one side (Israel through the acceleration of its settlements program) has started to eat the pizza.

I do not think the security of Israel, which we rightly support strongly, is at issue. Israel's security needs to be underpinned by a negotiated two-state solution. Statehood itself can only result from a negotiated settlement, as all sides know.
This is a historic moment although it will not create a state, as the Palestinians themselves know. It does, however, reinforce their moral position and progress towards the accepted two-state solution.

We can and should win a seat on the Security Council. But I fear we will be defeated again, as we were in 1996, if we continue to vote against upgrading Palestinian representation, especially when it comes before the General Assembly. This will be a matter for regret and it will not be in our national interest.

Richard Woolcott, former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, was Australia's ambassador to the UN (1982-88) and represented Australia last time it was elected to the Security Council in 1985-86.