Int'l Issues November 29: The UN will vote to recognize Palestine as a "state." - Page 18

Direckshun · 11-13-2012, 09:54 PM

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 · 11-19-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

Not to mention the fact that collateral damage is what it is not because of carelessness or indifference on the part of the Israelis but because Hamas intentionally uses civilians as shields in a conscious effort to increase such damage.

I didn't say the two situations were equivalent.

I'm just saying things are not as simple as one's prejudice might suggest them to be.

Direckshun · 11-19-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

We apologize for the Direckshuns among us. Good luck to you and all the other peace seekers in the area and may you and yours remain safe.

While I join you in hoping for his safety, it's pretty offensive to suggest my stances need to be apologized for.

Even some of the most pro-Israel, anti-Palestine folks on this forum who go dozens of rounds on this issue with me, like Donger, would agree that I do not apologize for Hamas or mince words when I discuss them. The source of my concern is with innocent Palestinian civilians who take the worst casualties in these conflicts and the ultimate, fair division of Israel into two states that respect history and culture.

I don't wish harm on anybody, and I want Israelis to live their lives free of the terror of wackjobs. I just believe Palestinians deserve the same well wishing.

To suggest that's a stance that needs anything other than full-throated support is just a backwards way of looking at the world.

patteeu · 11-19-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

While I join you in hoping for his safety, it's pretty offensive to suggest my stances need to be apologized for.

Even some of the most pro-Israel, anti-Palestine folks on this forum who go dozens of rounds on this issue with me, like Donger, would agree that I do not apologize for Hamas or mince words when I discuss them. The source of my concern is with innocent Palestinian civilians who take the worst casualties in these conflicts and the ultimate, fair division of Israel into two states that respect history and culture.

I don't wish harm on anybody, and I want Israelis to live their lives free of the terror of wackjobs. I just believe Palestinians deserve the same well wishing.

To suggest that's a stance that needs anything other than full-throated support is just a backwards way of looking at the world.

You blame the wrong people for the plight of innocent palestinians. You should be blaming the militants and radicals among them and the Arab states of the region who would rather use them instead of help them a achieve a lasting peace. Instead, you blame Israel.

Direckshun · 11-19-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nafman87

Because American Jews watch the same news that you do, and don't get the full truth. I have seen many anerican Jews who have never been to Israel not take Israel's side, then they come on a visit for the first time and see the truth.

It's pretty clear you watch zippo CNN.

If you did, you'd know they have five pro-Israeli commentators on for any commentator who's remotely close to pro-Palestinian.

You'd also know they have a four-hour show in the middle of the day hosted by Wolf Blitzer, who's about as pro-Israeli as you can get.

Direckshun · 11-19-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Why would they? Hamas is hugely popular with the rank and file right?

Hamas is popular because the general feeling in Palestine is that a two-state solution is not possible.

If it became possible, Hamas has to evolve, or suffer electoral consequences.

Direckshun · 11-19-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

How do you plan to demilitarize Palestine? I can easily see the deal going through, and then the new Palestine government saying, "We can't control what the factions do, we have no control over them." What penalties does the new Palestine state pay if rockets continue to be lobbed into Israel by the radicals?

Nevermind.

Direckshun · 11-19-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

My answer would be yes, depending on whether the land swaps could be worked out to insure Israel's security.

Awesome. So why won't the Likud come to this conclusion.

Direckshun · 11-19-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

You blame the wrong people for the plight of innocent palestinians. You should be blaming the militants and radicals among them and the Arab states of the region who would rather use them instead of help them a achieve a lasting peace. Instead, you blame Israel.

Trust me, there's plenty of blame to go around.

patteeu · 11-19-2012, 08:40 PM

Direckshun, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings with my earlier post but I honestly believe you are so pro-palestinian that you're unfairly anti-Israeli. I think you're a good guy anyway. I don't know whether you're naive or whether you emigrated from the West Bank or what, but despite your admirable rejection of Hamas violence, you don't seem willing to hold the right people responsible for the failure to achieve a lasting peace.

patteeu · 11-19-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Awesome. So why won't the Likud come to this conclusion.

Because unlike Charlie Brown, they aren't willing to keep letting Lucy hold the football for the kick. They've seen the palestinians reject a generous two-state solution before and respond with violence. They know they can't trust the palestinians as long as they're willing to be led by the likes of Hamas. Until the palestinians show good faith, there's really very little to talk about.

Direckshun · 11-19-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

Direckshun, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings with my earlier post but I honestly believe you are so pro-palestinian that you're unfairly anti-Israeli. I think you're a good guy anyway. I don't know whether you're naive or whether you emigrated from the West Bank or what, but despite your admirable rejection of Hamas violence, you don't seem willing to hold the right people responsible for the failure to achieve a lasting peace.

It's a sticky, thorny issue that people get unnecessarily emotional about.

I get it. Israel is so culturally significant to this country, and Palestine is so prominent in a culture that seems to fundamentally reject our culture. The natural inclination for us Americans is to auto-halo Israel, and auto-devil-horn Palestine. That's natural. Add into that the Likud's super-tight bond with the American conservative movement, and it's not hard to see how the board interprets the events in Israel the way it does.

It's understandable. But that doesn't make it correct. So I take pains to express the nuance here: that Israel is not blameless, that the Palestinians are not blameless. That Hamas has nobody's best interests in mind but their own, as they have no problem killing Palestinians to further their interests. That the Likud wants, above all, a Greater Israel. That the Israelis are scared for their safety and the Palestinians are scared for their culture.

This is an escalation that happens when both sides play to the worst of their bases. And it's leading the Middle East on an irreversible path of deadly solutions instead of smart solutions.

And it leads to threads like these.

Thanks for the kinds words.

mnchiefsguy · 11-19-2012, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

You blame the wrong people for the plight of innocent palestinians. You should be blaming the militants and radicals among them and the Arab states of the region who would rather use them instead of help them a achieve a lasting peace. Instead, you blame Israel.

There is much truth in this post.

Direckshun · 11-19-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

Because unlike Charlie Brown, they aren't willing to keep letting Lucy hold the football for the kick. They've seen the palestinians reject a generous two-state solution before and respond with violence. They know they can't trust the palestinians as long as they're willing to be led by the likes of Hamas. Until the palestinians show good faith, there's really very little to talk about.

What would good faith look like to you?

mnchiefsguy · 11-19-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It's a sticky, thorny issue that people get unnecessarily emotional about.

I get it. Israel is so culturally significant to this country, and Palestine is so prominent in a culture that seems to fundamentally reject our culture. The natural inclination for us Americans is to auto-halo Israel, and auto-devil-horn Palestine. That's natural. Add into that the Likud's super-tight bond with the American conservative movement, and it's not hard to see how the board interprets the events in Israel the way it does.

It's understandable. But that doesn't make it correct. So I take pains to express the nuance here: that Israel is not blameless, that the Palestinians are not blameless. That Hamas has nobody's best interests in mind but their own, as they have no problem killing Palestinians to further their interests. That the Likud wants, above all, a Greater Israel. That the Israelis are scared for their safety and the Palestinians are scared for their culture.

This is an escalation that happens when both sides play to the worst of their bases. And it's leading the Middle East on an irreversible path of deadly solutions instead of smart solutions.

And it leads to threads like these.

Thanks for the kinds words.

I think the problem is that you place equal blame on Israel and Hamas, when in reality the blame is much more balanced to the side of Hamas.

mnchiefsguy · 11-19-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What would good faith look like to you?

They could stop lobbing rockets into Israel for starters...that has been going on almost non stop for how long now?

11-13-2012, 09:54 PM
Direckshun Black for Palestine Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $1208436	November 29: The UN will vote to recognize Palestine as a "state." 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.
Posts: 43,628

11-19-2012, 08:40 PM	#264
patteeu The 23rd Pillar Join Date: Sep 2002 Casino cash: $473425	Direckshun, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings with my earlier post but I honestly believe you are so pro-palestinian that you're unfairly anti-Israeli. I think you're a good guy anyway. I don't know whether you're naive or whether you emigrated from the West Bank or what, but despite your admirable rejection of Hamas violence, you don't seem willing to hold the right people responsible for the failure to achieve a lasting peace. __________________ "I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode