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.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You're done. You're wrong.

No, I'm not. You try to justify Hamas's actions at every turn, even when they are reprehensible.

You say "I don't support Hamas, but...."and then go into a diatribe about how it is Israel's fault and if evil Israel would just change their ways, then Hamas would quit bombing women and children and launching rockets into Israel.

In fact, I don't believe you would even acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organiztion....can you type that sentence? Can you say:

Hamas is a terrorist organization. I condemn their terrorist acts as crimes against humanity.

I doubt you will, but it will be fun seeing dance around a simple, direct, request.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just so we're clear, you're wrong on each of these as well.

So honestly, you fundamentally do not understand my views.

Which, after 100 posts, there's really nothing I can do for that at this point. You just don't get it.

Is your main view if Israel gives in on certain points Palestinians will throw Hamas out and work towards peace?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

No, I'm not. You try to justify Hamas's actions at every turn, even when they are reprehensible.

Justify?

At every turn?

You're wrong.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Is your main view if Israel gives in on certain points Palestinians will throw Hamas out and work towards peace?

I don't know if I'd phrase it that way, but that's basically it.

If Israel embraces a far different approach to Palestine and the two-state solution, the Palestinians will punish Hamas at the polls if they do not reciprocate when it would be all too easy to do so.

Hamas will either have to radically moderate, or the Palestinians will elect someone else who will.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Justify?

At every turn?

You're wrong.

Okay, whatever. If we held a poll in DC asking whether you supported Hamas or not, I think we all know how that would turn out.

And, by the way, you are ignoring this:

In fact, I don't believe you would even acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organiztion....can you type that sentence? Can you say:

Hamas is a terrorist organization. I condemn their terrorist acts as crimes against humanity.

I doubt you will, but it will be fun seeing dance around a simple, direct, request.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Okay, whatever. If we held a poll in DC asking whether you supported Hamas or not, I think we all know how that would turn out.

A poll on ChiefsPlanet doesn't reflect my positions.

You're in left field.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

A poll on ChiefsPlanet doesn't reflect my positions.

You're in left field.

So everyone else would be wrong, but you would be right. Got it.

Still waiting for the condemnation of Hamas. Not holding my breath though.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So everyone else would be wrong, but you would be right.

"Everyone" wouldn't vote that I support Hamas.

The people who follow these threads and engage in extensive discussion with me over the issue -- most notably Donger and patteeu -- would most likely vote that I do not.

Which, again, and I can't stress this enough, I do not give a shit.

And this is boring the piss out of me.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

"Everyone" wouldn't vote that I support Hamas.

The people who follow these threads and engage in extensive discussion with me over the issue -- most notably Donger and patteeu -- would most likely vote that I do not.

Which, again, and I can't stress this enough, I do not give a shit.

And this is boring the piss out of me.

Well do not post then, if you are so bored. How's that statement condemning Hamas coming along?

You just can't stand being pressed on a direct question or statement. Mis-Direckshun should be you name, it fits your argument style.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Well do not post then, if you are so bored.

I'm considering it.

[patteeu]

I don't think Direckshun supports Hamas. He's admitted that they don't want peace. But he sure does have an unrealistic point of view about how easy it would be to undermine Hamas in the eyes of palestinians and how willing palestinians would be to embrace peace with Israel if only Israel would change some of it's unspecified policies. Essentially, he wants Israel to turn the other cheek and allow Hamas to run rampant with a campaign of violence along with other unilateral concessions in order to draw the peace-loving spirits of the palestinian people to the surface. It's completely unrealistic, IMO.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't know if I'd phrase it that way, but that's basically it.

If Israel embraces a far different approach to Palestine and the two-state solution, the Palestinians will punish Hamas at the polls if they do not reciprocate when it would be all too easy to do so.

Hamas will either have to radically moderate, or the Palestinians will elect someone else who will.

So if Israel embraces a different approach and Palestine continues to ignore Israel's right to exist what would be the Israeli's next step?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think Direckshun supports Hamas. He's admitted that they don't want peace.

Angels we have heard on high.

Originally Posted by patteeu

But he sure does have an unrealistic point of view about how easy it would be to undermine Hamas in the eyes of palestinians and how willing palestinians would be to embrace peace with Israel if only Israel would change some of it's unspecified policies.

I do not believe that the path for Palestine would be easy. I think it would be pretty difficult. It would take a phenomenal amount of restraint and patience.

Like just about anything worth pursuing does.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't know if I'd phrase it that way, but that's basically it.

If Israel embraces a far different approach to Palestine and the two-state solution, the Palestinians will punish Hamas at the polls if they do not reciprocate when it would be all too easy to do so.

Hamas will either have to radically moderate, or the Palestinians will elect someone else who will.

I'm not seeing or hearing that. Where did you develop that opinion?

Hamas still says in its bylaws, campaign material and at every speech to the crowds that come to hear them speak is, the destruction of Israel. They have no right to exist and should be thrown off the land of the righteous owners, the Palestinians.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

So if Israel embraces a different approach and Palestine continues to ignore Israel's right to exist what would be the Israeli's next step?

I don't think that's the order this goes in.

If Israel adopts a smarter approach to Palestine, then we are in a much better position for a two-state solution to be adopted. Part of the two-state solution, I believe, is mutual recognition of existence.