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

  • News
  • Thread starter Jack21222
  • Start date
  • #26
Ma2012
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.
......
This is a very logical comment: whether they create one secular country for people from different religions and forget the concept of "Jews country" or simply they should create a "Jews State" and leave the non-Jews to live in peace in their part. You can not take the land and leave the owners of this land living in closed Ghettos beyond the walls!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Ma2012
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.
60% of Palestinian were forced to leave their own country in 1948 to the Arab countries. We all know what was their fate after 60 years: refugees camps without the basic rights to work or to own houses, massacres ...etc.

References:

Palestinian Refugees in Palestine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre

Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Palestinian Refugees in Jordan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

Palestinian Refugees in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Iraq

It is ethic cleansing to ask people living for centuries on their land just because other group of people want to establish "pure Jews country"!!! as you mentioned the old Jews of Palestine were forced to be christian and them they were forced to be Muslims, so the current Palestinian are the ancestors of all nations lived in Palestine since 10000 years including the Jews.

Just because a group of people live in your place before 2000 years, this do not give you the right to get off from complete nation!! Otherwise this is applicable to all modern nations including the American.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Bobbywhy
Gold Member
1,722
50
A major concern for the Americans is that the Palestinians might use their new status to try to join the International Criminal Court. That prospect particularly worries the Israelis, who fear that the Palestinians might press for an investigation of their practices in the occupied territories.

Another worry is that the Palestinians might use the vote to seek membership in specialized agencies of the United Nations, a move that could have consequences for the financing of the international organizations as well as the Palestinian Authority itself.

Anticipating approval of the resolution, Western diplomats have pushed for a Palestinian commitment not to seek membership in the International Criminal Court and United Nations specialized agencies after the vote. Another step would be an affirmation by the Palestinians that the road to statehood was through the peace process. And a third could be a Palestinian commitment to open negotiations with the Israelis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/w...ct-of-palestinian-authority-upgrade.html?_r=0
 
  • #29
Bobbywhy
Gold Member
1,722
50
Israel and the United States have been trying for weeks to stop the Palestinian effort, including threats to cut off funding and tax revenues, without success. Anticipating approval of the resolution, Western diplomats have pushed for a Palestinian commitment not to seek membership in the International Criminal Court and United Nations specialized agencies after the vote. In retaliation, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is now threatening to nullify the Oslo Accords, if the world recognizes a Palestinian state.

Here are 15 Reasons Israel so vehemently opposed Mr. Abbas’ bid for recognition as a “nonmember observer state”. Now the Palestinian Authority could:

1. Participate in U.N. assembly debates, but could not vote, sponsor resolutions, or field candidates for assembly committees.
2. Accede to treaties and join specialized U.N. agencies, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Criminal Court. Such a U.N. designation would give the Palestinian Authority full sovereign rights over its airspace, which is now under Israeli control. The Palestinians could bring claims of violation of its airspace to the International Court of Justice.
3. Petition the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agency to inspect Israeli military installations for any undeclared Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction.
4. Join the Law of the Sea Treaty giving it control of its national waters off Gaza. Those waters are now under an Israeli naval blockade.
5. Petition the International Court of Justice to dispute Israel's claim on a gas field near Gaza.
6. Join the International Criminal Court and then challenge every Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and petition the court to investigate the possibility that each and every one of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
7. Ask the court to investigate any alleged war crimes and other charges against Israel committed on Palestinian territory since July, 2002, including against IDF soldiers who served during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
8. File cases against Israeli leaders and civilians involved in encouraging the settlement enterprise, including in east Jerusalem. The basis for such criminal cases would be the allegation that Israel had transferred its own population into a conquered or occupied area, contrary to International Law.
9. Organize international sanctions against Israel.
10. Call for commercial and academic boycotts of Israel.
11. Sponsor massive nonviolent demonstrations against Israeli settlement policies.
12. Build up their own military forces.
13. Request the U.N. to provide a U.N. Peacekeeping Force on the Green Line.
14. Find it easier to sign on to international treaties, many of which don’t require full UN membership and to raise issues that damage Israel’s public image and further isolate Israel in various international forums, even concerning issues such as West Bank environmental issues.
15. Israel may be embarrassed by conflicts over an increase in diplomatic delegations wanting to visit and establish full embassies in the West Bank.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-un-palestinians-20121129,0,3735708.story
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4313130,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=293860
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...f-reprisals-for-no-vote-at-un/article5788978/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/support-palestinian-statehood.html
 
  • #30
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
The United States was born on March 4, 1789 …

no, the united states were born …

they didn't become singular until the civil war :wink:
I am honestly curious how this is detrimental to peace in the region.
it creates a two-track peace process :redface:

the israelis will be following the security council resolution 242 track, requiring the arabs to give israel secure and recognised borders, free from threat of force, and with israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders, with adjustments

(that track has the backing of the united state, europe, and russia)

the palestinians will be following the general assembly resolution 194 track, requiring israel to allow about 5 million palestinian refugees the "right of return" into israel itself

(that track has the backing of the vast majority of the general assembly)

oh well … at least, with two tracks, there's no chance of a collision! :frown:
 
  • #31
1,944
0
Just a minor point, but the US pays for half the cost of the UN. The idea the UN can make decisions the US vehemently disagrees with is absurd. The Palestinians might leverage the UN to their advantage to some degree, but nothing that would seriously threaten Israeli interests without US consent.
 
  • #32
172
1
A major concern for the Americans is that the Palestinians might use their new status to try to join the International Criminal Court. That prospect particularly worries the Israelis, who fear that the Palestinians might press for an investigation of their practices in the occupied territories.
I understand why this worries the Israelis, but I do not understand why it worries anybody else. There are only 2 possibilities: either Israel has committed war crimes or it hasn't. If Israel hasn't committed war crimes, they have nothing to fear from the ICC. If they have committed war crimes, there should be justice (and they should stop). So, what's the problem there?
 
  • #33
2,123
79
And Americans were still happily exterminating heathen natives, well into the nineteenth century.
And who were these "Americans"? They were mostly recent European immigrants seeking land as was already stated. Some of these immigrants were Norwegians who settled in significant numbers in places like Minnesota.
 
  • #34
26
0
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.

[ ... ]
This is a very logical comment: whether they create one secular country for people from different religions and forget the concept of "Jews country" or simply they should create a "Jews State" and leave the non-Jews to live in peace in their part.
Neither of these seem to be an option for Israel as long as the anti-Israel anti-Jew views of militant Arab Muslim fundamentalists are, even just tacitly, accepted (which they seem to be) by a significant portion of Arab Muslims, especially Palestinian Arab Muslims.

You can not take the land and leave the owners of this land living in closed Ghettos beyond the walls!!
It's a sad situation for the Palestinian refugees. They're between a rock and a hard place with few viable options. But then so are Israelis who want a secure Jewish state.

I would be surprised if Israel ever stops the ongoing Jewish settlement of Palestine. The construction of 3000 new Israeli homes in the West Bank has recently been approved by the Israeli government. It looks to me like the current situation, and unfortunate ghettoization and squeezing out of Arab Muslim Palestinians can be continued by Israel indefinitely.
 
  • #35
26
0
60% of Palestinian were forced to leave their own country in 1948 to the Arab countries. We all know what was their fate after 60 years: refugees camps without the basic rights to work or to own houses, massacres ...etc.
Yes, it's been very difficult for indigent Palestinian refugees. But then this is the plight of indigent people anywhere. They're pretty much exploited and marginalized. Some refugees have managed to build decent lives. Many, or most, haven't. This isn't entirely, imo, the fault of Israelis, or entirely due to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. It's also, imo, a function of Arab Muslim culture and religion.

It is ethic cleansing to ask people living for centuries on their land just because other group of people want to establish "pure Jews country"!!!
I guess you could call it ethnic cleansing of sorts. A similar thing happened to the indigenous people of North America due to European expansion.

But the Jews, themselves being victimized throughout history, are in a situation where they're surrounded by lots of Arab Muslims who want to destroy them. So, I don't see that Israel has much choice but to continue the current situation indefinitely.

That's the practical side of the situation. As for the moral arguments, I think somebody mentioned that they're disallowed PF. With good reason, I think, as discussions along those lines often degenerate into emotional rants.

After much consideration, I support the position and policies of the Netanyahu administration. I think the world would do a lot more to help disadvantaged Palestinians if they would denounce Hamas and other such organizations.

... as you mentioned the old Jews of Palestine were forced to be christian and them they were forced to be Muslims, so the current Palestinian are the ancestors of all nations lived in Palestine since 10000 years including the Jews.

Just because a group of people live in your place before 2000 years, this do not give you the right to get off from complete nation!! Otherwise this is applicable to all modern nations including the American.
I don't disagree with your points. But it's like beating a dead horse (not in the sense that that would be any less productive, in a literal sense, than beating a live horse ... but, figuratively, in the sense that, as I think wuliheron mentioned, the question of who runs Palestine is a done deal). Israel is there to stay, and settlement expansion will continue. The Jews wanted Palestine, and with the help of some powerful allies they took it. Whether this was right or wrong in some moral context is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Ma2012
Neither of these seem to be an option for Israel as long as the anti-Israel anti-Jew views of militant Arab Muslim fundamentalists are, even just tacitly, accepted (which they seem to be) by a significant portion of Arab Muslims, especially Palestinian Arab Muslims.

It's a sad situation for the Palestinian refugees. They're between a rock and a hard place with few viable options. But then so are Israelis who want a secure Jewish state.

I would be surprised if Israel ever stops the ongoing Jewish settlement of Palestine. The construction of 3000 new Israeli homes in the West Bank has recently been approved by the Israeli government. It looks to me like the current situation, and unfortunate ghettoization and squeezing out of Arab Muslim Palestinians can be continued by Israel indefinitely.
You insist that Palestinian are Arab Muslims militants, but this is not the topic here. May be you should check your information again? Anyway, we have to stick to the main topic.

I do believe that you present a valid and important point about the long term strategy of the current Israeli government and the real reason behind their opposition to Palestinian state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,773
As always, these threads go downhill.
 

Related Threads on Palestine recognized by the UN as a non-member observer state

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
739
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top