[Hawkeye_a]

The Palestinians, having boycotted peace negotiations with Israel for several years now, are planning to request the U.N. for a state within the pre June 6 1967 boundary this month.

Security Council(SC) vs General Assembly(GA)
They are expected to loose the security council vote, by way of a U.S. veto.

The General Assembly is expected to vote in favor of the acceptance of a state within those borders.

Without the affirmative vote of the SC, the resolution of the GA is non binding. This is completely dependent on the U.S. invoking it's veto power, which, given the inclinations of the current leadership, is not *a sure thing*.

If the SC vote is vetoed and the GA passes, this entire exercise will be largely symbolic.

The Unilateral Request For a Vote
This unilateral action by the Palestinians would be a violation of the Oslo Accords (from the early 90s), and would set the peace process back by 20 years(minimum) as it would take out all the stops for both sides and all the progress and compromises made by both sides since would be "non-binding".

The Environment
Lebanon, Syria and the Sinai(Egypt) are in relative chaos. Turkey has chosen a path to degrade relations with Israel, quite severely IMHO, and has gone so far as to expel high ranking officials of the Israeli mission in Turkey, and has said it will ramp up their naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean. (IMHO, Turkey has turned away from the "west" and is courting influence in the Muslim world by vilifying Israel). Iran's rhetoric and nuclear ambitions go ahead, virtually unabated.

Opinion
The fact that the Palestinians have boycotted negotiations and are now on the verge of violating existing agreements and setting the peace process back by decades leads me to believe that peaceful coexistence through compromise is not a priority/goal of the Arabs.

These conditions do not bode well for peace IMHO. And this vote has the potential to be a spark that will set something bad in motion. I am not a looney-dooms-day-sooth-sayer or a weird right-wing-Christian-end-of-days-fanatic. I really hope war is averted and peace and calm prevails.

What i have posted above is what i have read in the press regarding the issue and some opinion. I am not aware of the details of the legal and political agreements in place, etc. So if someone has greater knowledge of the issues, lets start the discussion.

Discuss.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

this entire exercise will be largely symbolic

The UN in a nutshell.

[OAW]

The vote will overwhelmingly pass the GA. The US will veto it in the SC. Israel will continue to expand its settlements in the Occupied Territories because at the end of the day internal US politics won't allow the US government to reign in its ally. So the conflict will undoubtedly continue.

The real question is whether or not the Palestinian Authority will play the only real card it'll have left at that point. If the US blocks a Palestinian state in the Security Council .... and if the Israelis continue to confiscate the land that this supposed Palestinian state would control anyway ... then why even bother to continue discussing this fantasy called the "Two State Solution"? Just declare it dead and accept Israeli rule. Disband the Palestinian Authority and demand that Israel annex all the Occupied Territories and grant full and equal citizenship to its inhabitants.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Occupied territories! LOL!!!

Captured invaders territory?

Lost territory?

Spoils of War Territory?

They will never get that land back..

It is there to rub into the noses of the Arabs as a reminder of why you don't attack unless you have a plan.

[imitchellg5]

Even if the security council passed the vote, which the US won't allow, I don't really think official UN recognition would make any difference. The UN's involvement itself wouldn't even really change. Pretty much every aspect of the UN seems to be a complete joke, perhaps with the exception of disaster relief. My guess is that Israel will simply continue to expands it borders, both official and imagined, until Palestinians are simply forced out of the land and into other areas such as Jordan and Egypt, which isn't ideal considering the internal issues within those countries (and the huge financial burden in Jordan that the refugees have on the state).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Occupied territories! LOL!!!

Captured invaders territory?

Lost territory?

Spoils of War Territory?

They will never get that land back..

It is there to rub into the noses of the Arabs as a reminder of why you don't attack unless you have a plan.

The State of Israel is a party to the United Nations Charter as well as the Geneva Conventions. Under the international law established by these treaties, there is no legal basis for territorial gains by war ...even by a state acting in self-defense as Israel was doing in 1967. Consequently, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are in fact "Occupied Territories" under international law.

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Even if the security council passed the vote, which the US won't allow, I don't really think official UN recognition would make any difference. The UN's involvement itself wouldn't even really change. Pretty much every aspect of the UN seems to be a complete joke, perhaps with the exception of disaster relief. My guess is that Israel will simply continue to expands it borders, both official and imagined, until Palestinians are simply forced out of the land and into other areas such as Jordan and Egypt, which isn't ideal considering the internal issues within those countries (and the huge financial burden in Jordan that the refugees have on the state).

I almost think at this point as ugly as that option is, would be the best option moving forward. This will drag out for a hundred years or longer otherwise.

The UN is useless. And Israel does what it wants so it wouldn't matter anyways.

[OAW]

Looks like Saudi Arabia is threatening to abandon the "special relationship" it has with the US if the US government vetoes Palestinian statehood in the UN Security Council.

Veto a State, Lose an Ally - NYTimes.com

OAW

[Big Mac]

The PA apparently wants a future Arafatistan that is judeinrein. Would the international community support ethnically cleansing Jews from the biblical heartland, the land of their ancestors, to create a new sovereign terrorist haven?

I'm seeing now on Twitter that Abbas is possibly backing off and getting rid of his request for statehood recognition.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm seeing now on Twitter that Abbas is possibly backing off and getting rid of his request for statehood recognition.

I'm reading that the Obama Administration is working on a "compromise" where the PA goes to the General Assembly to have its status elevated to an "observer state" which would put it on par with the Vatican ... but it would not seek full statehood recognition by the Security Council. Clearly the US government doesn't want to be put in a position where it uses its veto on the Security Council to block Palestinian statehood in opposition to the overwhelming majority of all other UN member states. That definitely would not be a good look.

OAW

[Big Mac]

Why would it not look good? Since when has the US or any other permanent member of the Security Council cared what other countries thought about its decisions?

The only thing a "Palestinian" state is good for is a permanent continuation/escalation of the conflict, ensuring more suffering and death on both sides. No country with any decency should support its creation. There are more than 20 Arab countries in existence that control 99% of the land of the Middle East. What good would an Arafatistan do in addition to Gazastan/Hamas Land? (I wonder why those disgusting creatures haven't declared a state yet themselves.)

If such a state is ever declared, the Israelis subjected to should perhaps use the same types of tactics used by the Arabs against Israel all this time. I know it would be gross to have to stoop to their ignominious level, but if it worked so well for the Fakeistinians why not play the same game?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Why would it not look good? Since when has the US or any other permanent member of the Security Council cared what other countries thought about its decisions?

Because a veto in the Security Council would diplomatically isolate the US and Israel globally. It would demonstrate the US government's steadfast support for its ally Israel come hell or high water for some. For others it would further make the US look like Israel's b*tch by refusing to reign in its ally despite the cover provided by the overwhelming majority of global diplomatic and humanitarian sentiment. Regardless of where one falls in that spectrum this situation goes well above and beyond the typical US policy of protecting Israel in the UN regardless of its behavior. In the context of the Arab Spring where the US government is (surprisingly IMO) throwing former dictatorial allies under the bus and supporting the aspirations for freedom among the "Arab street" ... it would be unseemly at a minimum and downright incomprehensible at worst to object to Palestinian self-determination just a few months later because the standard "maintain stability" argument is no longer applicable. But more importantly, you have all US non-Israeli allies in the region in opposition to such a move. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey being the most important. But what's different now is that all three are talking about serious diplomatic breaks with the US to one degree or another over the issue. That is unprecedented ... especially with Saudi Arabia. Things are coming to a head IMO ... and we may very well see the US government being forced to decide whether its long-term interests are served by siding with Israel even if the cost is its alliances with all the other major players in the region.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The only thing a "Palestinian" state is good for is a permanent continuation/escalation of the conflict, ensuring more suffering and death on both sides.

You are probably right unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

No country with any decency should support its creation.

But they do. Overwhelmingly. Perhaps that's an indication that Israel is legitimately on the wrong side of global opinion due to its actions and it's not a case of 90+ of humanity being "anti-Semitic"?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

There are more than 20 Arab countries in existence that control 99% of the land of the Middle East. What good would an Arafatistan do in addition to Gazastan/Hamas Land?

Because the Palestinians don't live there. They live in Palestine. And forced migrations are illegal under international law as established by the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Not to mention that they are generally considered to be downright immoral and uncivilized in the modern era.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

(I wonder why those disgusting creatures haven't declared a state yet themselves.)

For Hamas to declare a state in Gaza would mean they would have to officially recognize the State of Israel .... which they simply will not do.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If such a state is ever declared, the Israelis subjected to should perhaps use the same types of tactics used by the Arabs against Israel all this time. I know it would be gross to have to stoop to their ignominious level, but if it worked so well for the Fakeistinians why not play the same game?

I think an honest assessment would show that there have been "ignominious" tactics used by both sides. But rather than re-hash all that, what do you think about abandoning all this nonsense and going with a One State Solution? Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza. All inhabitants made citizens. One person, one vote. Perhaps with the West Bank and Gaza being semi-autonomous regions ... but ultimately subject to Israeli sovereignty?

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why would it not look good? Since when has the US or any other permanent member of the Security Council cared what other countries thought about its decisions?

I personally think it has to do with the US diplomatic relations with Turkey. Turkey is still a important resource for the US and with Turkey and Israel being at odds right now, any such favorable treatment of Israel could cause problems between the US and Turkey.

[Big Mac]

That's an interesting point, Athens, one I had not considered. But if Turkey were so alienated by America being pro-Israel, I don't think we'd have any relations with Turkey at all.

The funny thing is, while most of the world considers the US biased toward Israel, the US is not nearly as pro-Israel as many claim. And even the purportedly strongest pro-Israel American presidents like Reagan and Bush actually made a number of anti-Israel policy choices.

[Athens]

Turkey is a lose canon right now. There is no way to tell how they would react if the US sided or appeared to side with Israel. Turkey could just be posturing for political points at home but how far will that go. I have not been keeping up on Turkey's politics for a long time so im not sure of much right now. But I do know from following the news they kicked out Israeli ambassadors and wanted a apology for the incident last year with the aid ships. What they got was not good enough and the people are upset. So if the country is riding on emotions right now it could even affect US/Turkey relations.

Regardless, the US needs both Israel and Turkey as allies in the middle east and this puts the US in a bad position. Just have to see how this plays out.

[LegendaryPinkOx]

I don't know why people think Israel is the only friend the west has in the Middle East. If it is Iranian nuclear ambitions we are worried about, you forget that no Arab state wants to see Persian nuclear proliferation. America has strong relationships with both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE and is at this very moment helping construct 2 Nuclear Power stations with support from the US Electric Power Research Institute, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the IAEA, about 100 miles South West of where I live in Abu Dhabi. ( Nuclear Power United Arab Emirates | UAE Nuclear Energy | Abu Dhabi | Dubai )

Speaking personally, as an American, I wouldn't mind seeing more distant relations with Israel, especially with the way Israel has been treating the Gaza strip.

[Athens]

Iran is such a small part of it. Has more to do with stability in the region between the Arab states and the Stability between the Arab states and Israel a non Arab state. If the region was to fall apart oil would be affected. And Oil runs the US. Its also a strategic location, Israel for the majority of the Middle East and North Africa and Turkey for Russia and Eurasia. The US has invested military interest in both locations from Air Bases, supplies and jump points. Iran nuclear ambitions are a threat to Israel not the US. Its a threat that could also cause stabilization issues for the entire region. If Israel disappeared from the map tomorrow you would not see peace in the region. The Arab states would just start fighting each other.

Both locations are vita for American Interests.

[Big Mac]

A brilliant article: Palestinians Defy the U.N. Charter - By David French - The Corner - National Review Online

[Hawkeye_a]

PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Leader of the Palestinians Abbas are set to address the U.N. sometime this week.

With the number of anti-Israeli muslim countries in the U.N., this is going to be a spectacle.

Nothing short of a miracle will save the "peace process" at this point, IMHO. While i think the process might have been dragged out too long, i cannot help but place the blame for that solely on the Palestinians for constantly boycotting negotiations and constantly demanding preconditions above and beyond existing agreements.

With Israeli ambassadors rescued from Egypt, expelled from Turkey and evacuated from Jordan, i wonder which "side" is jeopardizing existing peace, and to what end.

Cheers

[Athens]

Maybe its time to dump the current peace process and start from scratch. Can any one honestly say it was progressing or making a difference? For as long as I have been a live it seems like nothing has really changed.

[Athens]

I was actually agasint the idea of this attempt at state hood with in the UN until I read this

A vote in their favor would be all but assured, meaning they could pursue legal actions against Israel, though analysts suggest that an elevated status could prematurely raise expectations for change in the region.

and more important this one which clinched it

Hamas, the Palestinian organization that controls Gaza, has warned Abbas not to take that step, saying it would show a willingness to acknowledge and negotiate with Israel, which would "deprive the Palestinian people from their right to come back to their homeland."
We are warning him not to go," senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said. "This is going to make more division inside the Palestinian people."

If Hamas is against it, must be a good thing.

Israel calls for peace talks amid Palestinian statehood push - CNN.com

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I was actually agasint the idea of this attempt at state hood with in the UN until I read this

and more important this one which clinched it


If Hamas is against it, must be a good thing.

Israel calls for peace talks amid Palestinian statehood push - CNN.com

You seem to be in favor of legal implications against Israel. In all honest, i would be as well, if the same legal process could be applied to those on the other side of the border. Unfortunately it cannot.

The part that Hamas does not like is acknowledgment of Israel.

As for your link..... Have a look at the past 2-3 years. The Israelis have been calling for return to peace negotiations constantly, only to fall on deaf ears on the Palestinian side. Netanyahu implemented an unprecedented settlement freeze, agreed to a two state solution, agreed to negotiate a final status, etc... And the Palestinians's ?

[Athens]

Edited previous post and bolded the key points I was posting about.... Some how you mis-understood my post....

My point was anything Hamas does not like must be a good thing. Like how drug dealers are the ones that don't want drugs legalized because it hurts there business.

UN status would result in a lot of expectations with the Palestinians as well. Not just Israel. The Palestinians would have to rise to a new level of accountability which is why Hamas does not like the idea. I wasn't taking any Jabs at Israel...

[OAW]

Netenyahu implemented an "unprecedented settlement freeze"? Surely you jest.

The continued expansion of existing settlements is the fundamental cause of the PA pulling out of the peace talks. The fact that Israel isn't breaking ground on new settlements is a distinction without a difference. The bottom line is that the land that the Palestinians want for a two-state solution is constantly shrinking due to Israeli intransigence and foot-dragging.

OAW

[Athens]

I really never could understand the push for settlements on Israels part in hostile lands. I dunno if it was political in nature or if it was just due to lack of land. I imagine the answer is complex with a mix of many reasons.

[Hawkeye_a]

Well... i'm glad all hell didn't break loose. But the votes haven't been cast yet.

The Palestinian strategy is to prolong the "conflict" (since 1947 IMHO) and appear as the victim in this conflict. Note that the 800k Jewish refugees from Muslim countries have moved on in Israel.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I think the "message" of the settlements being sent to the Palestinians is, the longer you hold out and prolong this conflict the more you loose on the ground.

Look at South Sudan, they followed through with a negotiated peace, applied to recognition and got it. And i doubt the South Sudanese leadership were big fans of those they had to negotiate with. The previous two Israeli governments (of Barak and Olmert) made offers giving them almost everything (~98%) and they didn't respond. And now they bitch and moan about not liking Netanyahu. If they are serious about statehood AND peace, they need to suck it up, work it out, sign the paper and move on.

I found it rather telling when Abbas addressed the U.N. last week.... the thing that stuck with me was.... "63 years of occupation"... do the math.

[Athens]

I think the "message" of the settlements being sent to the Palestinians is, the longer you hold out and prolong this conflict the more you loose on the ground.

Something tells me that isn't the message they are understanding. It also seems like the chicken or the egg statement. Because that is one of the factors that continues to prolong the conflict. Or at the very least is being used as a excuse to prolong the conflict.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

The Palestinian strategy is to prolong the "conflict" (since 1947 IMHO) and appear as the victim in this conflict. Note that the 800k Jewish refugees from Muslim countries have moved on in Israel.

Note that to most of the world's governments, Palestine is viewed as the victim. And even are generally treated as victims, even if they aren't trying to be.

I found it rather telling when Abbas addressed the U.N. last week.... the thing that stuck with me was.... "63 years of occupation"... do the math.

Israel became a nation in 1948.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Note that to most of the world's governments, Palestine is viewed as the victim. And even are generally treated as victims, even if they aren't trying to be.

Yup, the side which has access to the vast oil riches of the middle east is seen as the victim. If Israel, without any natural resources comparable to Arab oil, could absorb and nurture 800k genuine refugees, i don't see why the Arabs can't do the same (unless, of course, they want to prolong suffering for a perceived better bargaining position).

It's quite humorous, they have been offered a sovereign state on a silver platter, several times in the past 60+ years. (I don't think any group of people have ever been *offered* a state.)

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Israel became a nation in 1948.

Yup, and the borders controlled by Israel were a lot different from the borders they do now( which happened in 1967). So it appears that Abbas wants to go back to to pre-1948 borders. Doesn't sound like someone who wants a fair and lasting peace.

Oh, and apparently they want their new state to be "Jew free". The bleeding hearts who have been duped into supporting the Palestinians are so misinformed.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yup, the side which has access to the vast oil riches of the middle east is seen as the victim. If Israel, without any natural resources comparable to Arab oil, could absorb and nurture 800k genuine refugees, i don't see why the Arabs can't do the same (unless, of course, they want to prolong suffering for a perceived better bargaining position).

A couple questions. Does Israelis and Jewish people distinguish Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Palestine as separate states or all as one?

Second question, The lands that make up current Palestine has oil?

Third question, maybe more a statement actually. Israel isn't accepting refugees. Those that move to Israel are packing up and voluntarily moving to Israel. Those migrating to Israel are coming with money. Refugees are people with out a home and resources and lack a choice.

(I don't think any group of people have ever been *offered* a state.)

Um Israel? Im sure there are a couple others maybe.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yup, the side which has access to the vast oil riches of the middle east is seen as the victim. If Israel, without any natural resources comparable to Arab oil, could absorb and nurture 800k genuine refugees, i don't see why the Arabs can't do the same (unless, of course, they want to prolong suffering for a perceived better bargaining position).

Wait, what? Both Israel and Palestine are devoid of oil, and pretty much any natural resources. That's a huge issue in the Arab/Israeli conflict, and the one that needs resolution as soon as possible. Water rights and land usage (and I'm not talking about illegal settlements, I'm talking about arable land) are incredibly important no matter if you're Israeli or Palestinian. All the money in the world can't buy you a source of water and more land in a very geographically challenging area. Forget notions of politics or religion, both Israel and Palestine (and western Jordan) need to be able to access water.

And where are you getting this 800k refugees number from? Israel has very tight immigration control. You can't just waltz in.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

(I don't think any group of people have ever been *offered* a state.)

Israel was. Also, look at American history.

[Hawkeye_a]

@Athens, imitchellg5

Yes the Jews in Israel were just handed a state, so i wonder what all the fuss is about now.

I suppose India, South Africa, the U.S., etc...were all handed states on a silver platter?

[imitchellg5]

I wouldn't say that anyone has ever been offered a state on a silver platter, especially Israel. It's more like they've been given legal right to a land via some body of power, handed all the region's problems, and then been expected to act in the manner of an organized government.

In terms of post-colonial countries, they were handed ruined husks of states with a bag of shit.