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

I don't know how this is a response to my post.

I noticed that once again you fail to answer a direct question posed to you.

So I will ask again:

Do you really think Hamas would stop launching rockets if Israel did a 180 on their current policies?

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't know about the whole creation business, but Israel embraces policy that actively empowers Hamas amongst their own people.

If you want to get Hamas out of the way, you must embrace policy that gets them out of the way.

All Netanyahu's done is empower them.

You think Israel policy should be to just bend over and take it from groups sworn to her annihlation?

To not fight back or try and stop it, becaue the people who vote for terrorism and cheer in the streets for death might suffer from it?

I really don't get why you don't place the blame for the conditions on the shoulders of the people who actually caused it? Without the arabs constant refusal and policy of no, no, no, the palestinians would be celebrating their anniversary and might actually have prosperity.

Why do you blame Israel but not hold contempt for Egypt, Jordan or the many other palestinian leaders who should shoulder blame?

Unfortunately, You don't hold responsible the actions that have caused way more misery and death for the palestinian people and an even bigger space between peace.

Instead you only point fingers at the ones seeking actual peace from the very beginning, and look like Bahgdad Bob dismissing the actions of the ones to actual blame.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't know about the whole creation business, but Israel embraces policy that actively empowers Hamas amongst their own people.

If you want to get Hamas out of the way, you must embrace policy that gets them out of the way.

All Netanyahu's done is empower them.

What are you talking about here? Just the settlements in the West Bank, or would you add some other things to the list?

[ForeverChiefs58]

Here is another part of history that anger should be directed at the leaders of the self inflicted pro-palestinians whose rejection has cost the people:


The Peel Commission in 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory aspirations of the Jews and Arabs was to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and required some Palestinians to live under “Jewish domination.” The Zionists opposed the Peel Plan’s boundaries because they would have been confined to 1,900 out of the 10,310 square miles remaining in Palestine. Nevertheless, the Zionists decided to negotiate with the British, while the Arabs refused to consider any compromises.

In 1939, the British White Paper called for the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine within 10 years, and for limiting Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 over the following five years. Afterward, no one would be allowed in without the consent of the Arab population. Though the Arabs had been granted a concession on Jewish immigration, and been offered independence—the goal of Arab nationalists—they repudiated the White Paper.

With partition, the Palestinians were given a state and the opportunity for self-determination. This too was rejected.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't know about the whole creation business, but Israel embraces policy that actively empowers Hamas amongst their own people.

If you want to get Hamas out of the way, you must embrace policy that gets them out of the way.

All Netanyahu's done is empower them.

I think you do know about the creation business. I think you know it's

The rest of your post was more of the same appeasement message you've been preaching all along so we can continue to agree to disagree about that.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

I noticed that once again you fail to answer a direct question posed to you.

So I will ask again:

Do you really think Hamas would stop launching rockets if Israel did a 180 on their current policies?

I don't know what that means. A "180" on their current policies?

Be specific.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

What are you talking about here? Just the settlements in the West Bank, or would you add some other things to the list?

Israel's been inching to an apartheid state.

Oppression begets extremism, and extremism begets Hamas.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I think you do know about the creation business. I think you know it's

I think that was my implication, yes.

Originally Posted by patteeu

The rest of your post was more of the same appeasement message you've been preaching all along so we can continue to agree to disagree about that.

'67 borders, agreed upon landswaps, a shared Jerusalem, with a demilitarized Palestine is appeasement?

No doubt the Likud, and thereby the GOP, agree with you.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I think that was my implication, yes.



'67 borders, agreed upon landswaps, a shared Israel, with a demilitarized Palestine is appeasement?

No doubt the Likud, and thereby the GOP, agree with you.

What does that even mean?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

What does that even mean?

He's talking about Jerusalem.

What I don't get is how he always glosses over the "agreed upon landswaps" part. As if that agreement is ripe and just waiting to fall off the peace tree.

That's a potential sticking point for Israel as well as the palestinians, but there are a couple of palestinian-only sticking points that he doesn't mention. For one, the palestinians have to accept Israel's existence and secondly, they have to give up on the right of return. I've seen no evidence of a willingness to do either of those things.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Israel's been inching to an apartheid state.

Oppression begets extremism, and extremism begets Hamas.

Please be a little more specific than that, if you would.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't know what that means. A "180" on their current policies?

Be specific.

It was a response to your post that it was Israel's policies that were responsible for Hamas's actions. My question is simple, if Israel was to a 180, i.e. the complete opposite, of what its policies are now, do you actual believe that Hamas would stop sending rockets into Israel.

You are avoiding the question because you know Hamas is hell bent on genocide and will never stop trying to kill every Jew on the planet. Yet you support and defend them constantly.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Donger

Please be a little more specific than that, if you would.

I doubt he will, Direckshun does not do specifics. I fail to see the apartheid comparison, as far as I know, arab citizens in Israel have full rights, and can live and practice their religion in peace.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

It was a response to your post that it was Israel's policies that were responsible for Hamas's actions. My question is simple, if Israel was to a 180, i.e. the complete opposite, of what its policies are now, do you actual believe that Hamas would stop sending rockets into Israel.

I'm not arguing that Israel do the complete opposite -- I don't even know what that phrase means. I'm arguing that they discontinue many of their policies and adopt smarter policies.

I do think if they did this, Hamas' aggression would decline. I don't know about their militant factions stopping altogether, however. There are terrorist factions in Hamas and I support bringing them to justice.

But I'm not looking to appease Hamas. I'm looking for the Palestinians to give up on them. I think if Israel gives up on a lot of their shit policies, that can happen.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

Please be a little more specific than that, if you would.

Seeing as how I've already had this conversation a few times in the past couple days, I'll pass. I'm pretty sure I've already had this conversation in this thread.