Palestinians to seek statehood this friday, US promises to veto

[Kuya]

Barack Obama, the US president, has said "there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades" between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Obama expressed frustration at the failure of both parties to bridge their differences and at the Palestinians' decision to seek full membership of the UN through the Security Council later this week.

The US has said it will veto such an effort.

Sarkozy also warned that a US veto of the Palestinian bid would trigger violence.

"Who could doubt that a veto at the Security Council risks engendering a cycle of violence in the Middle East?" said Sarkozy.

The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), of whom Abbas is chairman, says it is pressing for statehood after talks with Israel led to nowhere.

The Obama administration say that only direct peace negotiations, not a UN vote, would allow the Palestinians to achieve the benefits of statehood.

Should the Palestinian bid fail, Abbas could ask for a vote of the General Assembly for an enhanced observer status, which is enjoyed by others such as the Vatican, in which case no veto would be possible.

While UN recognition would have largely a symbolic value, the Palestinians argue that it would strengthen their hands in peace talks with Israel, especially on the final issues that divide them.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...323726757.html

A top Palestinian official said Wednesday that President Mahmoud Abbas had no plans to agree to a delayed vote on his bid for membership in the United Nations, rejecting mounting pressure from the United States and France.

The Palestinians plan to submit their letter of application on Friday when Abbas is to speak to the U.N. General Assembly, but he faced a withering lack of support as the world body opened its annual meeting. President Barack Obama said there could be no "shortcuts" in the quest for Middle East peace, a message that was echoed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

http://www.salon.com/news/united_nat.../21/un_mideast

If the attempt has or will do anything, it will certainly bring the Israel/Palestine issue back into global perspective.

[Demosthenes11]

inb4 the elvis

[Xno Kappa]

http://melaman2.com/oldies/letters/Elvis/elvis.jpg

[hey]

President Barack Obama said there could be no "shortcuts" in the quest for Middle East peace

I'm obviously missing something. Isn't peace a good thing?

[Cleverness]

I'm obviously missing something. Isn't peace a good thing?

From what I read in the paper this morning which had an article on both sides, if it's true, alot of the issues I'd see with the Palestine state becoming true is the constitution they have drafted apparently makes Islam the only religion and, with a few exceptions, most Jews would be removed from their country. Apparently Isreal has several different religions there with equal rights(the Islams and such are just not forced to serve in the Defense Force apparently) but I suppose due to their past experiences with them, Palestine wants nothing to do with Jews in their country.

And then there's an issue of land where Palentine would want certain pieces of land lost to them back in the 70's during that whole ordeal, and some of those include very historical pieces to Isreal. The shortcut part Obama mentioned was most likely referring to this, since it would require both countries to sit down and properly distribute the land for there to be no issue, since if left to their own devices there wouldn't be anything stopping Palestine for asking for thousands of acres of land to hand over a few acres of sacred land to Isreal as payback, further escalating the issue between the two.

If the US vetos it'll apparently go to the Assembly where it'd be highly favored to pass. Obama was apparently going to be talking to the Palestine representative today in light of this happening so idk what came of it.

[Kuya]

I'm not sure whether he is genuinely concerned for the Palestinians. I've heard some analysis over the move made by Palestinians fo seeking statehood via the UN.

I've heard that it's a meassure that will lead to nothing concrete. That it will preassure the US and Israel to cooperate with the Palestinians more. That it will further isolate Israel in the region. That it will increase anti-US sentiment in the Middle East since the US is sure to veto. That it will antagonize Israel and make it harder to reach a peace deal and statehood deal.

My thinking is that this is the best move the Palestinians can make right now, and they should make it.

[Kuya]

From what I read in the paper this morning which had an article on both sides, if it's true, alot of the issues I'd see with the Palestine state becoming true is the constitution they have drafted apparently makes Islam the only religion and, with a few exceptions, most Jews would be removed from their country. Apparently Isreal has several different religions there with equal rights(the Islams and such are just not forced to serve in the Defense Force apparently) but I suppose due to their past experiences with them, Palestine wants nothing to do with Jews in their country.

And then there's an issue of land where Palentine would want certain pieces of land lost to them back in the 70's during that whole ordeal, and some of those include very historical pieces to Isreal. The shortcut part Obama mentioned was most likely referring to this, since it would require both countries to sit down and properly distribute the land for there to be no issue, since if left to their own devices there wouldn't be anything stopping Palestine for asking for thousands of acres of land to hand over a few acres of sacred land to Isreal as payback, further escalating the issue between the two.

If the US vetos it'll apparently go to the Assembly where it'd be highly favored to pass. Obama was apparently going to be talking to the Palestine representative today in light of this happening so idk what came of it.

This is alot of nonsense. What specific jewish sacred land are you referring to that the Palestinians might steal? And has the irony of you saying this while Israel is building settlements in the West Bank dawn on you?

Could you post the link to what you read, because it sounds like a lot of crap.

[Correction]

Apparently Isreal has several different religions there with equal rights

(the Islams and such are just not forced to serve in the Defense Force apparently)

Is this troll copypasta?

[Cleverness]

This is alot of nonsense. What specific jewish sacred land are you referring to that the Palestinians might steal? And has the irony of you saying this while Israel is building settlements in the West Bank dawn on you?

Could you post the link to what you read, because it sounds like a lot of crap.

Took me abit to find it. From the Daily News. This is the link to the anti-statehood one, I'll edit and post the pro one when I can find it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...d_jews_al.html

If and when the General Assembly of the United Nations accords the Palestinians the status of a state, for at least some purposes, the question then arises, What kind of a state will it be?

We know what the Palestinian leadership is saying to the West; the Palestinian Authority claims that it will become a "secular, democratic state." Now let's look at what it's saying to its own people, who will, after all, be the ultimate decision makers if Palestine is indeed a democracy.

The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that "Islam is the official religion in Palestine." It also states that Sharia law will be "the major source of legislation." It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership that supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion. Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one. It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics.

According to statements by the Palestinian Authority leadership, the new Palestinian state would prohibit any Jews from being citizens, from owning land or from even living in the Muslim state of Palestine.

The Palestinian ambassador to the United States was asked during an interview whether "any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave." His answer: "Absolutely."

After much criticism, he tried to spin his remarks, saying that Jews who are "amid an occupation, who are in my land illegally" would be excluded. Whatever he meant, one thing is clear: Jews will never be welcome as equal citizens in an Islamic Palestine.

In contrast, Israel has more than 1 million Arab citizens, most of whom are Muslims. They are equal under the law, except that they need not serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.

The new Palestine will have the very "law of return" that it demands that Israel should give up. All Palestinians, no matter where they live and regardless of whether they have ever set foot in Palestine, will be welcome to the new state, while a Jew whose family has lived in Hebron for thousands of years will be excluded.

To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, will have one official religion and will base its laws on the precepts of that religion. (Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law.)

It is noteworthy that the very people who complain most loudly about Israel's law of return and about its character as the nation-state of the Jewish people are silent when it comes to the new Palestinian state. Is it that these people expect more of Jews than they do of Muslims? If so, is that not a form of racism?

And what would the borders of a Palestinian state, as recognized by the General Assembly, look like? Were the Palestinians to get their way, they would get, as a starting point, all of the land occupied by Jordan prior to the 1967 war, in which Jordan attacked Israel. This return to the status quo that led to the Six-Day War is inconsistent with the intention of Security Council Resolution 242, which contemplated some territorial changes.

The new boundaries of this Palestinian state would also include Judaism's holiest place, the Western Wall. It would also include the access roads to Hebrew University, which Jordan used to close down this great institution of learning founded by the Jews nearly 100 years ago. The new Palestinian state would also incorporate the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in which Jews have lived for 3,000 years, except for those periods of time during which they were expelled by force.

It is contemplated, of course, that Israel would regain these areas as part of a land swap with the Palestinians. But there is no certainty that the Palestinians would agree to a reasonable land swap. Palestinian leaders have already indicated that they would hold these important and sacred sites hostage to unreasonable demands. For example, the Western Wall covers only a few acres, but the Palestinian leadership has indicated that these acres are among the most valuable in the world, and in order for Israel to regain them, it would have to surrender thousands of acres.

An apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine based on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster. That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the outcome of negotiations with Israel, and not the result of a thoughtless vote by the United Nations.

Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School, is author of "The Trials of Zion."

I'm not pro-Israel if it came off that way, previous person mentioned peace, I mentioned something recent I read that would state why it wouldn't exactly lead to that if they did it. Unless Palestine up and disappeared over night there's not really gonna be any peace between them and Israel at this point.

[Cleverness]

Prolly gonna double post but edit is being annoying, posting the 2nd pro article here. Both are 'guest contributors' but they ran both of these in the paper today. The pro one got less room even though they look about the same length.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...rongs_of_.html

This week in New York, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will attempt to secure a just future for the Palestinian people by applying for UN membership for the state of Palestine. After enduring decades of expulsion, discrimination and occupation, Palestinians yearn to establish a modern, democratic state.

We are at the mountaintop, but whether we cross sooner or later into the promised land of freedom and statehood depends largely on an American President who wasn't even born when Abbas' family and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced into exile in 1948. President Obama can delay Palestinians in reaching statehood - and contribute to further years of hardship and apartheid-like conditions - but he cannot deny ultimate success.

I hope he and the American public at large come to understand this. The American President missed much of the civil rights movement, but it has not passed unnoted in occupied Palestine that he is telling Palestinians eager to secure long-deferred rights to wait for freedom. African-Americans and Palestinians have a shared history when it comes to "good men" doing nothing to uphold their rights.

As the Arab Spring makes clear, our world is rapidly changing, yet the United States is planting itself on the side of a passing order by opposing the UN bid. And the U.S. Congress risks exacerbating the situation by threatening to strip Palestinians of vitally needed aid merely for insisting on being treated as free and equal men and women.

If the U.S. casts a Security Council veto, then the Palestinian leadership is not without recourse. The Palestinian case can be taken to the General Assembly, where it has overwhelming support. Success will bring enhanced observer status at the UN as a nonmember state. Israeli settlements could then be challenged at the International Criminal Court, as it is prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to "transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Israel's domination of the West Bank and East Jerusalem leaves Palestinians confined to disconnected Bantustans. Checkpoints and roadblocks intimidate Palestinian children and harm economic growth by making vast tracts of the West Bank inaccessible. And Palestinian agricultural land and aquifers are being swallowed up by settlements and the separation barrier, which also make a viable Palestinian state impossible.

We reject a system that has one set of laws for Jews and an inferior second set for Palestinians. As Arabs around the Middle East rise up and challenge sclerotic regimes, it is obvious that Palestinians cannot forever suffer the status quo.

For 18 long years, the Oslo peace process has run its course. Repeatedly, American "honest brokers" - often far more supportive of Israel than of Palestinian rights - have advised that negotiations are the only way forward. But negotiations are not the goal; freedom is.

Nor is freedom for Palestinians the only issue; security for the region is also in the balance. Without a Palestinian state, Palestinians will soon be the majority in one Israeli-dominated area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. So the choice is clear: two states now or eventually a large, nonviolent Palestinian-led movement calling for equal rights and one person, one vote.

After an American veto, the ground is apt to shift very quickly. It will be wrong to blame Palestinians for the tension to follow. Palestinians are merely claiming rights, as people everywhere can be expected to do. The problem rests with a right-wing Israeli government and its backers in the Obama administration and Congress who are all too willing to postpone indefinitely Palestinian freedom.

Tibi is a Palestinian citizen of Israel and is deputy speaker of the Knesset, Israel's parliament.

[Kuya]

I think you should rely less on he said-she said reporting and use more fact reporting sources. Let me give you an example:

Background: The facts behind the bid

What status do the Palestinians currently have at the UN?

Spoiler: show

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) currently has observer status at the UN, which allows PLO representatives to attend meetings and deliver speeches, but not to vote on resolutions or other substantive matters.

Observer status is generally reserved for intergovernmental organisations, including the European Union and the Arab League. A few non-governmental organisations, like the Red Cross, also have observer status.

Why do the Palestinians want to "go to the UN" in September?

Spoiler: show

Abbas says 20 years of US-led peace talks have gotten nowhere and wants a vote in the United Nations to bestow the Palestinians with the cherished mantle of statehood. However, he recognises that negotiations with Israel will still be needed to establish a properly functioning state.

Justifying the move, the Palestinians point to the success of a Western-backed, two-year plan to build institutions ready for statehood, which they say is now finished.

How does the UN admit new member states?

Spoiler: show

Countries seeking to join the United Nations usually present an application to the UN secretary-general, who passes it to the Security Council to assess and vote on. If the 15-nation council approves the membership request, it is passed to the General Assembly for approval.

A membership request needs a two-thirds majority, or 129 votes, for approval. A country cannot join the United Nations unless both the Security Council and General Assembly approve its application.

Could the Palestinians actually join the UN?

Spoiler: show

In theory, yes. But Washington has made clear it would veto such a request, meaning it has no chance of success. Even if the Palestinians secured a two-thirds majority of votes in the General Assembly, there is no getting around the need for prior approval of the Security Council.

Is "non-member state" status an option?

Spoiler: show

In addition to applying to become a full UN member state, the Palestinians could also seek upgraded observer status as a non-member state.

Only one other state - the Vatican - currently holds this status, though Switzerland did until it became a full UN member in 2002. Such status, UN envoys say, could be interpreted as implicit UN recognition of Palestinian statehood because the assembly would be acknowledging that the Palestinians control an actual state.

The advantage of this option is that it would require only a simple majority of the 193-nation General Assembly, not a two-thirds majority. Abbas said on Friday that more than 126 states already recognise the state of Palestine, meaning he could probably win such a vote with ease.

Why do the Palestinians want recognition on the 1967 lines?

Spoiler: show

The Palestinian Authority (PA) says placing their state firmly in the context of territory seized by Israel in the 1967 war will provide clear terms of reference and will mean Israel could no longer call the land "disputed". Instead, it will make clear it is "occupied".

Besides granting them the all-important title "state", diplomats say it might enable the Palestinians to join the International Criminal Court, from which it could pursue legal cases against Israel over the partial blockade of Gaza or regarding the settlements.

Israel fears this will in turn enable Palestinians to start legal proceedings at the ICC against some 500,000 Israelis who live in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
What are the practical consequences of the vote?

The idea of the United Nations "recognising" Palestine is perhaps a bit misleading, because the UN does not recognise countries - individual states do. More than 120 countries have already recognised the state of Palestine.

Yet UN recognition would certainly be a symbolic victory - as Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has described it - cementing the idea that a Palestinian state exists.

In practice, the impact of the vote - particularly in the short-term - will be limited. A "yes" vote at the UN will neither end the occupation nor give Palestinians full control over their state - borders, airspace, etc.

What are the potential disadvantages to the Palestinians?

Spoiler: show

Israel could decide to counter sue the Palestinians at the ICC over missiles fired at it out of Gaza, which is run by Hamas.

Some critics have warned of legal consequences for the Palestinians themselves, arguing the move could jeopardize the rights of refugees and the status of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

Others have dismissed the argument that Palestine's UN mission represents only those Palestinians living within the state of Palestine. But those in the diaspora, which in theory has a voice through the PA, could be left without representation.

If the UN vote does not change things on the ground in the Palestinian territories, the standing of the Palestinian leadership could be further undermined when the dust settles.

Some Israelis have warned disappointment could fuel anti-Israeli violence and even spark a new Intifada. PA officials have dismissed that prospect.

Are there other possible negative consequences?

Spoiler: show

Yes, both for the Palestinian Authority itself, and for the Palestinian population as a whole.

Israeli officials have suggested a range of possible measures, including limiting travel privileges for Palestinian leaders seeking to exit the West Bank, halting the transfer of crucial tax revenues to the Palestinians and even annexing West Bank settlement blocs to try to sidestep ICC legal action.

Some US officials have warned that they might cut their annual aid to the Palestinian Authority, which runs to some $450m - more than 10 per cent of the PA's annual budget.

It is far from clear if they will enact these threats. Depriving the PA of funds, for example, would rapidly push it to financial collapse, which would provoke instability.

In the case of bankruptcy, some leading Palestinians argue that the PA should hand over the keys of the big West Bank cities to Israel and tell it to pay for the ongoing occupation.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...234567545.html

[tyven]

I'm not pro-Israel if it came off that way, previous person mentioned peace, I mentioned something recent I read that would state why it wouldn't exactly lead to that if they did it. Unless Palestine up and disappeared over night there's not really gonna be any peace between them and Israel at this point.

unless your post mentions death to israel, kill the jews, down with america, etc. you are pro israel.

[Cleverness]

unless your post mentions death to israel, kill the jews, down with america, etc. you are pro israel.

Well shit :/

[Xno Kappa]

lol

[Mazmaz]

very historical pieces to Isreal

I fucking laughed.

[Cail]

I'm asking this because i dont know...didnt we (the world) just take land from the Palestinians after WW2 and make Israel?

[Kuya]

Kind of. Britain and maybe a few other countries decided to grab some land off one of the places they were occupying and give it to the jews.

[tyven]

i have no problem giving a state in america to the jews, maybe west va or alabama or some shit that doesnt really matter

[Pirian]

i have no problem giving a state in america to the jews, maybe west va or alabama or some shit that doesnt really matter

We already have one. It's called florida.

Also, all land everywhere was taken from someone, unless you're talking about the people that first migrated out of Africa, so arguing that land was taking from people and given to others seems kind of disingenuous in that the people it was "stolen" from "stole" it from somebody before them, and those people "stole" it from the people before them, and so on and so forth. The only difference now is that we mostly look down on the blatant killing off of the prior inhabitants (Although, that still happens, too).

[Cleverness]

Just give them Rhode Island. Noone really lives there anyway.