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.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

They won't recognize Israel because they don't really believe in it. Their end game is to eventually own all of Israel. It's not like a secret or anything.

"someday, a young Palestinian will raise a flag over Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Palestine"

Abbas

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm not sure Israel considers Oslo operative anymore. Israeli officials have made statements in the past indicating that if the palestinians were to go through with their recognition gambit at the UN, it would be the end of Oslo. I don't know if these statements were official policy or just talk.

Oslo or no Oslo, building in E1 largely kills the two-state solution.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The only thing that's important in this regard is whether or not Israel believes that the palestinians want a two-state peace. If they aren't convinced, then no peace can be had.

The Likud doesn't want a two-state solution. So.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The Likud won't recognize Palestine because they don't really believe in it. Their end game is to eventually own all of Israel. It's not like a secret or anything.

Works both ways, does it not.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The Likud doesn't want a two-state solution. So.

Just because The Likud don't conduct themselves the way you want them too, does not mean they do no want a two-state solution.

One side in this argument wants genocide...can you guess which one? Here's a hint...they have nothing to do with Likud.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Just because The Likud don't conduct themselves the way you want them too, does not mean they do no want a two-state solution.

No, but when they build settlements in E1, that definitively means they do not want a two-state solution.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Works both ways, does it not.

Not really. One owns the high ground given to them by the UN in 1948.

Swing and a miss.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Oslo or no Oslo, building in E1 largely kills the two-state solution.

It doesn't kill a two-state solution, but it might be the beginning of killing a two-state solution that ends up with shared control of Jerusalem. Abbas should have thought of that before he pushed forward with his UN gambit.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Not really. One owns the high ground given to them by the UN in 1948.

How is that a response to what I said?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The Likud doesn't want a two-state solution. So.

Even if that were true, Likud is one of several political parties in Israel and it's clear that a large portion of Israelis are willing to support a two-state solution if they can be confident about Israeli security. If a reasonable negotiating party for a two-state solution emerges among palestinians and if Likud refuses to negotiate, Israelis will not be shy about electing a government that will.

Unfortunately, the same is not true for the palestinians. They have no interest in peace with Israel and no political leadership attempting to lead them down that path. Not Hamas and not Fatah. No one. That's where the problem lies, not with Likud.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It doesn't kill a two-state solution, but it might be the beginning of killing a two-state solution that ends up with shared control of Jerusalem. Abbas should have thought of that before he pushed forward with his UN gambit.

If you give up shared control of Jerusalem, you're giving up on the two-state solution.

There is no two-state solution without shared control of Jerusalem.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Even if that were true, Likud is one of several political parties in Israel and it's clear that a large portion of Israelis are willing to support a two-state solution if they can be confident about Israeli security. If a reasonable negotiating party for a two-state solution emerges among palestinians and if Likud refuses to negotiate, Israelis will not be shy about electing a government that will.

One hopes.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

If you give up shared control of Jerusalem, you're giving up on the two-state solution.

There is no two-state solution without shared control of Jerusalem.

That's nonsense. There's no reason why a palestinian state can't be established without Jerusalem. No reason other than the fact that palestinians prefer war and violence over a state of their own, that is.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

How is that a response to what I said?

Lukid is protecting what they already have. Hamas wants to take it for no reason other than to kill every Jew still alive. Big difference.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That's nonsense. There's no reason why a palestinian state can't be established without Jerusalem.

How about the fact that it's as likely as Jews agreeing to a two-state solution without Jerusalem.