November 29: The UN will vote to recognize Palestine as a "state."

[Direckshun]

Currently, Palestine is a non-member observer entity in the UN.

The Palestinians have pressed forth to introduce a measure to upgrade them in the UN's eyes to a non-member observer state.

While being upgraded from non-member observer entity to non-member observer state doesn't sound like much, it does provide Palestine an opportunity to actually contribute and perform within the UN.

Most damning, of course, is that it would tell Israel and the United States that their treatment of Palestine is tantamount to suppression of what should be a legitimate, free country. An act bordering on apartheid, which the ICC (run by the UN, which could soon include Palestine) as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." I don't regard that as a possibility.

But essentially, this has the ability to be a game changer in favor of two-state negotiations in favor of the Palestinian people, as opposed to the Likud/GOP alliance, which does not want any such two-state solution. All the facts on the ground right now favor Israel, as they expand their land, take more of the Palestinian land, and pretend with each passing year that the '67 borders with agreed-upon land swaps is some crime against Israel's humanity.

The only real arrow in Palestine's quiver is international opinion. And this particular vote in the UN cannot be unilaterally shot down by the United States, so it is sure to be voted on, and sure to be passed by roughly 75% of the UN.

As such, the United States and Israel are, understandably, freaking the **** out. The US is threatening to withdraw funding for much of the UN. Israel is threatening to discard the Oslo Accord, which allowed Palestine self-governance. This could potentially mean apartheid in everything but name.

So things are going to get really, really fascinating.

I ultimately think that Israel and the US' bark is worse than their bite. Obama prides himself on effective diplomacy which cannot happen if he's going to war with the UN. Israel's Netanyahu is far less concerned with international opinion, but doesn't want Israel to end up on the wrong side of the distinction between internationally frowned-upon to internationally despised. Though he may be heading that way anyway.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...rver-state-bid

Palestinians Defy Obama With UN ‘Observer State’ Bid
By Flavia Krause-Jackson
on November 08, 2012

Palestinians defied newly re-elected U.S. President Barack Obama by pushing ahead with a second statehood bid at the United Nations that will raise their profile at the world body and highlight the stagnation of the Mideast peace process.

The Palestinian Authority yesterday circulated a resolution to put the Palestine Liberation Organization on a par with the Holy See, according to a draft that will be put to a vote in the UN’s 193-member General Assembly, where the initiative has enough support to pass and the U.S. lacks veto power.

The latest steps by the Palestinians present Obama with his first foreign-policy challenge three days after he won a second term. A year ago, the Palestinians abandoned an attempt to be recognized as a full member state through the Security Council after Obama indicated the U.S. would use its veto there.

The PLO, which currently is an observer “entity,” is seeking a nonmember “observer state status,” according to the draft obtained by Bloomberg News.

By resurrecting the statehood issue in the General Assembly, the Palestinian leadership is trying to force the White House to pay attention to a moribund Palestinian-Israeli peace process that has dropped off the list of foreign-policy priorities for Obama.

In doing so, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is jeopardizing relations with Obama, as well as about $500 million in U.S. economic and security aid that members of Congress have threatened to cut if Palestinians proceed at the UN.

Issue Fades

The Palestinians have seen their cause fall into relative obscurity internationally since formal peace talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government were frozen two years ago.

Peace talks stumbled over the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War. Abbas said he wouldn’t return to negotiations unless Israel froze all settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Netanyahu has refused to renew a 10-month freeze on construction that expired in 2010.

Abbas will present the resolution in person in New York, according to a UN official speaking on condition of anonymity. A vote is expected to take place by the end of the month, the official said.

Still, the move isn’t without risks.

When the Palestinian Authority was accepted last year into the UN cultural agency UNESCO, best known for its designation of “world heritage” sites, the U.S. response was to cut off funding that provides almost a quarter of the agency’s budget.

The U.S. has said that American law would require similar cutoffs for any UN agency that grants the Palestinians the same status as member states.

International Criminal Court

The upgrade may open the door for Palestinians to join other UN agencies, including the International Criminal Court, where they could ask for Israel to be tried for war crimes.

“Israel’s main worry is the ICC,” Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat said in an Oct. 24 interview. “They don’t want me to have a sword on their neck.”

The initiative could also jeopardize international aid that accounts for about 14 percent of the Palestinians’ gross domestic product and invite retaliatory measures from Israel.

As for the U.S., the administration’s position hasn’t wavered. The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, has said repeatedly that “unilateral actions,” such as the upgrade of the Palestinians’ UN status, would only derail efforts to restart direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

Tell me, how does it compare to the olive branch(es) offered by the "Palestinians" or Hamas?

Hamas actually has made efforts in previous ceasefires to clamp down on their various factions firing on Israel.

Hamas isn't the only entity between the two that's broken a ceasefire.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

Okay.

Just saying.

When I make this argument:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Not necessarily.

Israel doesn't need the Palestinians to recognize their existence for them to exist.

Palestine needs Israel to recognize their existence for them to actually exist.

And your response is:

Originally Posted by Donger

Israelis exist and "Palestinians" exist. Neither are going to un-exist.

Then you're making this conversation harder than it needs to be.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hamas actually has made efforts in previous ceasefires to clamp down on their various factions firing on Israel.

Hamas isn't the only entity between the two that's broken a ceasefire.

Hamas openly states they will not accept attempts for ceasefires or peace agreements. The PLO may have tried to calm the Hamas organization but I dont believe for a minute that Hamas tried any such thing

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just saying.

When I make this argument:



And your response is:



Then you're making this conversation harder than it needs to be.

It's pretty clear that both sides need to acknowledge both sides' right to exist. Now, which side do you think is more willing to do so? Israel or "the Palestinians" and Hamas?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hamas actually has made efforts in previous ceasefires to clamp down on their various factions firing on Israel.

Hamas isn't the only entity between the two that's broken a ceasefire.

No, what overtures of peace has Hamas made to Israel, and how do they compare to what Israel has done/offered?

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hamas actually has made efforts in previous ceasefires to clamp down on their various factions firing on Israel.

Hamas isn't the only entity between the two that's broken a ceasefire.

Brown for bullshit.

Please provide a link to when in history Hamas has made so much effort, and Israel the one that has broken the ceasefire. Go ahead...everyone will wait.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hamas actually has made efforts in previous ceasefires to clamp down on their various factions firing on Israel.

Hamas isn't the only entity between the two that's broken a ceasefire.

History is clearly against you here.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hamas actually has made efforts in previous ceasefires to clamp down on their various factions firing on Israel.

Hamas isn't the only entity between the two that's broken a ceasefire.

Link and proof, please.

[HonestChieffan]

This came to an abrupt end for ole diewreck

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

It's pretty clear that both sides need to acknowledge both sides' right to exist. Now, which side do you think is more willing to do so? Israel or "the Palestinians" and Hamas?

Neither side is remotely willing.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Neither side is remotely willing.

That is not true and you know it. Israel has consistently been willing to compromise. If the Palestinians had taken the deal that Israel and Bill Clinton offered them at the end of his second term, they would have their state right now. Funny how that deal is often forgotten.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

No, what overtures of peace has Hamas made to Israel, and how do they compare to what Israel has done/offered?

Hamas hasn't made overtures of peace. Peace is bad for business if you're Hamas.

They have agreed to ceasefires, and have made efforts clamping down on their various militant factions during ceasefires.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Link and proof, please.

That Israel has broken ceasefires before? I'm confused, I didn't even think that was remotely in question.

A simple Google search turns up several examples. 2009. 2011. Several days ago. This isn't new information.

Are you actually arguing that Israel has never broken a ceasefire?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

That is not true and you know it. Israel has consistently been willing to compromise. If the Palestinians had taken the deal that Israel and Bill Clinton offered them at the end of his second term, they would have their state right now. Funny how that deal is often forgotten.

Two state solution, based on the '67 borders with agreed landswapping, with a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Do you think either one of these parties want this agreement?

Israel, no. Because the Netanyahu administration does not want a two-state solution. They want all of Israel.

Hamas, no. Because Hamas clings to power only so long as the Palestinians are terrified. Peace is bad for business.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

That is not true and you know it. Israel has consistently been willing to compromise. If the Palestinians had taken the deal that Israel and Bill Clinton offered them at the end of his second term, they would have their state right now. Funny how that deal is often forgotten.

3 times since 1948 Palestine has had their land given to them and it's never enough. Radical Palestinians want more land, they want it all and death to Israel.

Need we say more ?