Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Palestine recognized by the UN as a non-member observer state

  1. Nov 29, 2012 #1
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/un-recognizes-palestine-as-non-member-observer-state-1.1058351

    I am honestly curious how this is detrimental to peace in the region. I don't really see any downside to this. Anybody care to enlighten me?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 29, 2012 #2
  4. Nov 29, 2012 #3

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Even when the thread was started by the creator of this website (the thread rootx linked to).

    This thread doesn't have a chance.
     
  5. Nov 29, 2012 #4
    I found it's one of the topics that you only want to discuss with your personal friends. Recently, I was working and some people near started discussing this. That poisoned the environment for next two days! (The only good part was I kept myself out of that discussion)
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  6. Nov 29, 2012 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  7. Nov 29, 2012 #6

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It gets down to the very definition of a nation. Is it the physical borders of the country or is a nation a group of people. If people are using different definitions, then the discussion isn't going to be particularly rational - and one can just pick their definition based on their viewpoint of the issues.

    If it's the physical borders, then Israel should have consisted of all the people that lived in that area. If a democratic government, then both Jewish and Palestinian should have had the same rights.

    If it's the group of people that are important, then the Jews in Israel are definitely a different group than the Palestinians and they can't exist in the same nation without one being consumed by the other just based on demographics and population growth.

    Nations consisting of different ethnic groups almost always fall apart into civil war, so I tend to think it's the group of people that wind up being more important.

    With, of course, the United States being the big exception. I don't think people realize just how rare it is for people from such drastically different backgrounds to coexist in one nation (even considering how imperfectly we sometimes seem to do it).
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  8. Nov 29, 2012 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Could be because religion hasn't been a major dividing issue, so differences have been more rational.
     
  9. Nov 29, 2012 #8
    No, it wasn't, at least not specifics. Unless you're saying that giving Palestine access to the International Criminal Court is detrimental to peace. Have I missed something else in the article? I've read it 3 times and I cannot figure out specifically how this is bad for peace.

    The only thing presented in the article, aside from access to the International Criminal Court, are bald assertions that this is "a setback" and it "pushes peace backwards." What is missing from the article is specifically how that happens.

    I was not aware that Palestine is a banned topic here, as I now see was stated in the other thread. I apologize for starting this one, and understand if it must be closed.
     
  10. Nov 29, 2012 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That was one of the reasons given, yes. Also:
    More here:
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/miller-abbas-un-statehood/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
    So simply: creating an adversarial situation with the people you are supposed to be negotiating peace with is detrimental to peace.
     
  11. Nov 29, 2012 #10
    You just posted those bald assertions I was talking about.
    This doesn't address how it's detrimental, it's just saying it's not likely to be beneficial.
    This is what I meant by bald assertion. He asserts that this pushes peace backwards, but doesn't actually explain how, or what changes.
    This is a bald assertion by Rice, just stating that this is not progress towards peace without backing it up at all.

    Then, from your link,
    This is an angle that I hadn't considered, but it sounds really petty on Israel's part, if this is true. "We're mad that you're recognized as a nation by the UN, so we're not talking to you." That sounds like something said by a petulant child, not a first-world nation.

    I personally believe that leaving Palestine in a state of limbo (not a nation, not a part of Israel) was unsustainable. Either they were part of Israel, and therefore should have the same rights and protections that Israeli citizens have, or they were their own country, and they should be acknowledged as such. There was no sustainable middle ground.
     
  12. Nov 29, 2012 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The Israelis are asking for three simple things in order to negotiate in good faith.

    Sounds fair to me.
     
  13. Nov 29, 2012 #12

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Cotton Mather (the guy whipping up the Salem witch hunt hysteria) was also convinced the heathen Natives were the devil's disciples.
    Not surprising, really..:frown:
     
  14. Nov 29, 2012 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ok....let me try to explain, but we do need to make sure we are clear on a recurring fact first:

    This move by the UN is completely unconnected to any peace process.

    Do you agree with that statement? There are currently no peace negotiations going on or planned and this move by the UN does not include any discussion about starting them. So this, in and of itself, does nothing to advance toward peace. All it can do is help or hurt relationships that can later help or hurt peace.

    Right?

    So stating that "Palestine" is a "state" is making a statement that is contrary to the reality that Palestine can only really become a "state" after negotiating peace with Israel (or destroying Israel, of course). Do you see how that could annoy Israelis? Make them trust the PA less and want to negotiate less?

    So to me, what you are calling a "bald assertion" is more an obvious reality and a logical extension.
    I happen to disagree about what this says about Israel's maturity, but that's just opinions and doesn't change the reality. If you poke someone in the eye, they aren't going to like it.
    I completely agree, but this move by the UN doesn't have anything to do with that. It changes nothing on the ground.

    I realize that you are on the side of the Palestinians here and you see this as a good thing for them, to give them international standing. And that may be true. But don't confuse good for the PA with being the same as good for the peace process. It isn't the same thing.

    I guess we can make it even simpler: if an Israeli says they don't like this, that means it hurts the peace process. That's really all there is to it. It doesn't matter if you agree with their reason for not liking it -- it won't change the fact that they don't like it.

    So for example:
    This statement shouldn't need additional explanation. If peace can only happen through negotiation, then a one-sided resolution short-circuits that process. It seems perfectly obvious to me and it is tough to know how else to explain it.

    Heck, this move by the UN, at the request of the otherwise impotent Abbas may not even have anything at all to do with Peace with Israel or statehood for Palestine. It may even just be an internal power struggle.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  15. Nov 29, 2012 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not sure what your point is by bringing that up. The Salem witch trials happened a hundred years before the US existed.

    The statements made by Bob and Evo about our unusual diversity, inner peace and the possibility that it is because of religious freedom that doesn't exist in places where such conflicts exist are all true facts.
     
  16. Nov 29, 2012 #15

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And Americans were still happily exterminating heathen natives, well into the nineteenth century.
     
  17. Nov 29, 2012 #16
    Responding to if the US is really an exception:
    Immigrants coming to the US are usually well off and second have not yet established long enough. So, comparing the US/Canada multicultural societies to countries like Israel-Pales or India or Russia is like apples to oranges IMO. In other countries, people coexisted for many many centuries and almost annihilated each other.

    I find this topic much interesting than Israel-Pales in which I haven't seen anything new. Same people making same comments.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  18. Nov 29, 2012 #17
    I would like to agree with that, but everything in the articles we've posted have been claiming this will hurt the peace process. In fact, the point I've been making is that this will neither help nor hurt the peace process. It is, as you say, unconnected.

    If the point is that Israel doesn't like recognizing that Palestine is a state, I can agree with that. But Israel doesn't like Palestine anyway, so I don't see how that changes anything. Don't tell me that Israel is willing to negotiate with Palestinians that lob missiles at them, but as soon as they try to become recognized as a country, THAT'S what crosses the line.

    I also disagree that Palestine can only be considered a "state" after negotiating peace with Israel. Was the United States born on July 4th, 1776? Or was it born September 3rd, 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris? Right now, the international community recognizes Palestine as a state. That's good enough for me.
     
  19. Nov 29, 2012 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't think Manifest Destiny had anything to do with religion: we wanted the land.
     
  20. Nov 29, 2012 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That is true. I'm much more cynical about war than to think it tends to be about religion. Religion is just a cover story for fighting over land, IMO, and in the US we don't have people fighting over land like that.
     
  21. Nov 29, 2012 #20
    A possible bright spot here:

    This move could strengthen Abbas's more moderate Palestinian Authority at the expense of the more violent Hamas.
     
  22. Nov 29, 2012 #21

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's a mischaracterization of my post. My point was that because this is not directly related to any peace process, the indirect effect is that it will later get in the way. Can you not see beyond the direct effect to the indirect effect?
    It isn't a binary proposition, it is a process. That's why they call it a "peace process".
    Er, no, that's not what is happening. Israel is not willing to negotiate with Palestinians that lob missiles at them. That's one of the main sticking points preventing negotiations right now.
    The United States was born on March 4, 1789, with the ratification of the US Constitution. Good example: the Palestinians are in a very similar sort of limbo as the colonists were in between 1776 and 1789. Negotiating peace is one of two steps, the other is to form a viable government. I'm not certain of which order they have to happen in, though.

    However, the entire point of the Revolutionary War was to settle the colonists' claim in 1776 that they were an independent nation. The claim isn't settled until the war ends and the British accept that it has ended!

    A few countries -- most notably, France -- chose to recognize the US as an excuse to enter the war. No doubt, you can see that that worked out better for the US than it did for Britain.

    [edit] Quick clarification of a point that I don't think is a mere technicality:

    The first government of "The United States" was under the Articles of Confederation. The "United States" was thus a confederation of independent states/countries ("league of friendship" in the text of the Articles), not a country. Not unlike the EU, really, but in some ways even weaker, as it didn't abolish independent state currencies. The ratification of the Constitution changed us from a confederation into a country.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  23. Nov 29, 2012 #22
    In Canada, we have something similar. There are cities where almost everyone is just Chinese and cities where all are Indians etc. Whites usually move out of these areas voluntarily. The immigrants cities grow really really fast! There appear to be some tensions but people take these things lightly for now. Will this be same in a century or so from now?
     
  24. Nov 30, 2012 #23

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I guess you are right.
     
  25. Nov 30, 2012 #24
    The war is over and has been for a long time. Israel has 80 nukes and a cutting edge military thanks in no small part to US support. Egypt and Syria are too busy fighting their own internal battles, Libya too busy rebuilding, Iraq conquered, and the only ones left to give Israel grief is Iran. In Iran's case the US economic sanctions and blockades have weakened their military severely and invasion is a forgone conclusion.

    Close to 100,000 Palestinians work for Israel and the number has been increasing in recent years, some war. A good friend of mine lived on Kibbutz for years and saw children as young as five years old harvesting crops. They have basically become Israel's ghetto just as Mexico has become a ghetto for the US. The place where you get slave labor, cheap goods, and illegal trafficking. Like any good ghetto you build walls around it and when the occupants riot you send the cops in to trash the place.

    The UN recognizing the Palestinians is merely more political doublespeak that denies the reality of the situation and helps to perpetuate the lie that this is a war and the Palestinians have any chance whatsoever. The US military is now equal to the next six largest in the world combined and spends twice as much as any of them. The minute this ghetto started rioting we sent in the fleet to make sure things didn't get out of hand the natives didn't rock the boat too hard. If it become necessary in Mexico we'll do the same thing again because it's empire baby and this train ain't stopping until it derails.
     
  26. Nov 30, 2012 #25
    I agree with russ watters' views on this. I also think that Netanyahu's position is the best for Israel and that the US should and will remain committed to supporting Israel's interests.

    I'll just add that I think that Arab Muslims don't have much of a future in the Palestine region, unless they're resigned to living in isolated communities whose borders are controlled by Israeli forces.

    The Arab Muslims and the Israeli Jews have wanted the same land since long before the 1947 partitioning. I expect that the current situation with steady annexation and control of sparsely populated areas by Israeli settlers will continue for a long time. I don't see any sort of 'two-state solution' as ever happening. Israel can't afford to allow it.

    The best move for the Arab Muslims remaining in the Palestine region is, imo, to emigrate to the Arab Muslim states that border Palestine. As russ watters noted, this recent UN resolution just accentuates the adversarial situation (which is a losing situation for Palestinian Arab Muslims) and therefore has to hurt any sort of peace process which would have to be based on mutual concessions.

    Finally, I think that the Israeli Jews have a legitimate historical claim to Palestine. Palestine was the Kingdom of Israel long before the Islamic faithful set about converting, subjugating and killing infidels.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook