Britain recognize the state of Palestine

There is a difference between the law and reality in which you draw Israel on the ground, which is the relationship between the owner and the holder, and the Palestinian owner and Jewish holder, and want Israel to compel the owner to surrender to the rule of tenure and not the rule of law, any recognition of what facilitates, which succeeded it already where Palestinians disguised less than half of what the decision of the partition resolution and East Jerusalem alone any east Jerusalem as the capital of their state, and this is a very significant decline from the Declaration of the Palestinian National Council with the goal of flexibility and indeed overriding weakness of the Palestinian side. In both cases, the State of Palestine recognition alongside the State of Israel has been confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly several times in the partition resolution in its decision in 1989 in its special session in Geneva and in its decision at the beginning of 2014, and that all States that have agreed to these decisions recognize the state of Palestine, the Arabs recognize the State of Palestine, as well as Muslim countries, namely in the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation member. The problem for this country is that its territory is reduced and the diners and the rest is occupation and oppression of the population even having to empty the land of its inhabitants, as Israel wants. Palestine is not a member of the United Nations, but has elements of a state land and the people and the government and international recognition. But because Israel denies the Palestinians the right to stay for the remainder of the land next to her, the confirmation of the international recognition of Palestine is devoted to the principle of a two-state solution, which is adopted by the international community, which is the defeat of the Zionist project, which wants the absence of the Palestinian element. In light of this, we must understand the value of Sweden's position, and the position of Britain, which needs a special analysis. The British House of Commons, issued on October 13 / October 2014 decision after discussions several weeks continued by a majority of 274 votes against 12 votes only recognizes the Palestine as a state alongside the State of Israel until embodied two-state solution, and is considering other countries such as Spain to join Sweden and Britain. And recognition of Britain's state of Palestine, despite the fact that the House of Commons non-binding resolution of the British government, it appears technically a foregone conclusion, but in fact his distinctive specificity, and can be considered as an explanation albeit belatedly -bad about a hundred years Tgariba- to promise British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour in the second of November, / November 1917 during the First World War, which was interpreted by the Arab side, he promised to the Jews, and like one of the most important foundations on which it is based in the establishment of the Zionist state. Jews were promoted to the interpretation of a particular statement of Great Britain's Foreign Secretary which explained that the British government's policy in Palestine -alta was occupied by Britain forcibly from Turkey at that time, based on the grounds that the government feel sympathy with the Jews in Palestine, and they want to have a national homeland , meaning that Palestine be a haven for Jews from Arabs within her family. Jews have interpreted this announcement as the allocation of all of Palestine to the Jews and licensing them to expel the Arabs of them, and the right that the British government's policy was in favor of this interpretation in practice. Has engineered a peace conference in Versailles in November 1918 Mandate her on Palestine was then the British Mandate cover to enable the Jews of Palestine and encouraging migrations to and manipulation of the Arab sector and the suppression of the Great Arab Revolt Qassam revolution in 1936 and then the game division initiated by Britain to abandon its mandate unilaterally, without an agreement with the United Nations in April / April 1947 to allow the seizure of the Zionist gangs on Palestine as a prelude to the release of the partition resolution seven months later. The decision of the division is the official coronation of Britain's role in the establishment of the Zionist entity, which received the Washington beyond this role. It must be noted in this regard that Britain did not show an opinion in the interpretation of the Jews to the partition resolution is that the international community's recognition of the principle of a historic right of Jews to Palestine, and the strengths that complement and support the right to translate a partition resolution. The new Council decision of Commons is the first British recognition that the Balfour Declaration and the partition resolution does not mean that the whole of Palestine became the king of the Jews, but these documents means that the Palestinian people have the right also in the state of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. This explains the Israeli response to the violence and subsequent Israeli and writings on Britain's interpretation of the Declaration of Balfour and the partition resolution in line with the position of the international community and international law positive, albeit inconsistent with justice is that the whole of Palestine Arabs of the authors and do not harm the team of the Palestinians stick to the background of this right in order to be a clear distance between natural right and legal right postural, and between this and that, and the political reality imposed by force. This means that there are three consecutive points to answer the question: Palestine whom? The first answer is that they are all full of the Palestinian Arabs, and the second answer is that most of the Jews and the Arabs, some of the owners, the Israeli and the answer is that they are all Jews. Also recognize the importance of the British, as well as the breadth of international admissions, is applied to stop the work of the Israel program for the absence of the name of Palestine and the Palestinians of international files and documents even if they are dead, and the confirmation of the recovery of the Jewish Palestine theory. Israel has exceeded the stage of the conflict between them and the Arabs when conditions are created within the Palestinian Arab camp against another Palestinian Arab, as though the cancer had been carried to the body and become directs cells to fight the original body's defenses, and this is a very advanced stage in the history of the Zionist disease. As a result of this camp, the Arab-Zionist trying to Zionist project is helping to plan, and therefore the Israeli talk about that Israel does not object to a two-state solution and do not mind in the creation of a Palestinian state is absurd, but they want to make this state is determined by its parameters through negotiations between them and the Palestinians after that brought the case to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just not a conflict, and any party to get out of this limit is considered a terrorist. It is clear that the idea of negotiations, which is a central idea in Israeli politics since the founding of Israel, aimed at the relationship between the thief and the owner of the right to apply to become a thief is the owner and the owner of the right is a rapist. It is no secret that the word means negotiations in the Israeli and American dictionary of understanding on the implementation of the project and the liquidation of the Zionist cause. And that when the occupation tool for gorging and filtering the negotiations thereon become especially dangerous sliding after it has experience of these negotiations for more than a quarter of a century, and negotiations were aimed at the negotiations, any negotiations goal in itself, not as a means to achieve the objective unknown. And claim the independence of occupied Palestine is useful in three ways. First, it confirmed that Israel's relationship to the land occupation is governed by the principles of international law relationship, and the second is that long-term occupation has dropped the occupier's rights and is a constant issue in international law and has become a matter forcibly and not an occupation, especially if Israel insisted on the Judaization of occupied territories is legal transcends international law, that any negotiations in this case object and lose their importance. The third face is that the relationship is no longer between Palestine and Israel, but between Israel and the international community, must therefore be on the Palestinian leadership to resort to the United Nations General Assembly in order to render a decision to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories even confirm the right to resist the occupation and not to recognize any Israeli behavior contrasts with this situation. The General Assembly has already passed a similar resolution to that I ask him which confirmed that the presence of South Africa in Namibia territory not Antdaba but it is the occupation, then the Security Council passed a resolution outlining the implications of such an occupation. Although the Assembly resolution passed in the sixties and Security Council resolution passed in the early seventies and independence was followed by more than twenty years, the resolutions were the pillars of international diplomacy against the apartheid regime of South Africa, whether or raped against Namibia.