Palestinian Statehood Vote: Palestinians Certain To Win U.N. Recognition As A State

  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Nov 29, 2012 4:29 PM GMT
    Palestinian Statehood Vote: Palestinians Certain To Win U.N. Recognition As A State

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/palestinian-statehood-vote-certain-to-win_n_2210431.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2012 2:47 AM GMT
    yourname2000 saidThank you GOD!

    This is such good news....because now when Israel pulls its "they're not human so we'll treat them like dogs" shit, they'll be doing so against a sovereign nation instead of just fighting an "internal conflict". And I hope that goes for their scummy blockade of Gaza as well....blocking humanitarian supplies from charities from the US and others....what kind of pond scum blocks medical supplies? --Oh yeah, that would be Isrealis....the new Nazis! (repeating that since it pisses off some of the American fool sympathizers, lol.)

    Now, if we can just have sanctions against Israel and ban them from things like the Olympics and other cultural events (a la how South Africa was ostracized for their own version of Apartheid) it will be an especially good day. They've gotten away with genocide and atrocities for too long.

    And I look forward to seeing how Israel cries foul over this....couldn't have happened to a more disgusting segment of humanity, imo.

    (And again: I love --and have actually loved, lol-- Jews, but despise the state of Israel as one of the worst authorities to have ever sullied this Earth.)

    Honestly, I don't get why the US government thinks that this resolution would hurt the peace process. But it's the same government that has no problem trading with regimes like China, Saudi Arabia, etc., but wont trade with Cuba.

    Anyway, when has Israel said of the Palestinian people: "they're not human so we'll treat them like dogs"?

    Canada also voted against the resolution, so it, and you since you're Canadian, support the Israeli government? I'm lumping you in with the Canadian government since you like to lump all Israeli Jews with the Israeli government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2012 3:26 AM GMT
    sxydrkhair saidI think he was making up a quote what Israeli leader would say about the Palestinians. If you read the history in the past, you will find that some disturbing quotes from Israeli leaders.

    On November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), Resolution 3379, which stated that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

    Mideast-Israel-Palest_Horo8-635x357.jpg

    Making up a quote? So lying then?
  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Nov 30, 2012 7:01 AM GMT
    sfbayguy saidCanada also voted against the resolution, so it, and you since you're Canadian, support the Israeli government? I'm lumping you in with the Canadian government since you like to lump all Israeli Jews with the Israeli government.

    Brilliant. Except he never clarified if he only hates Israeli Jews or also Israeli Arabs.
    Regardless he should now hate himself and not allow himself, as a Canadian, to enter his own house.


    sxydrkhair saidNot quite yet a state, its an "observer" position but hopefully soon an Official Sate!

    Looks like yourname2000 didn't realize that.

    So what does "observer" status give them and what's their next step?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2012 7:18 PM GMT
    sxydrkhair saidNo. You getting it all wrong. It is a quote that assuming someone would say it.

    EX: Mitt Romney would say, "The hell with the Palestinians". We all know Mitt Romney doesn't like Palestinians, but he doesn't say that "the hell with the Palestinians".

    And you don't see the problem with making up quotes based on assumptions?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2012 7:26 PM GMT
    morleyq said
    sfbayguy saidCanada also voted against the resolution, so it, and you since you're Canadian, support the Israeli government? I'm lumping you in with the Canadian government since you like to lump all Israeli Jews with the Israeli government.

    Brilliant. Except he never clarified if he only hates Israeli Jews or also Israeli Arabs.
    Regardless he should now hate himself and not allow himself, as a Canadian, to enter his own house.


    sxydrkhair saidNot quite yet a state, its an "observer" position but hopefully soon an Official Sate!

    Looks like yourname2000 didn't realize that.

    So what does "observer" status give them and what's their next step?

    That's a good point, since Israeli Arabs are also Israeli citizens. So using yourname2000's logic, Israeli Arabs must also side with the Israeli government and think Palestinians are "not human so we'll treat them like dogs" as yourname2000 asserts is the Israeli government position. Yet yourname2000 still doesn't understand the problem with generalizing and stereotyping.

    "Regardless he should now hate himself and not allow himself, as a Canadian, to enter his own house." LOL.

    Nonmember observer state status is an additional step closer to being recognized as a state with or without Israel's support. Since there is no progress in peace talks, the Palestinians are trying to bypass Israel's approval.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Nov 30, 2012 7:36 PM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    This is such good news....because now when Israel pulls its "they're not human so we'll treat them like dogs" shit, they'll be doing so against a sovereign nation


    No they won't. This does not make Palestine a state. This is the diplomatic equivalent of a strongly worded letter. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, like most of what the UN does.

    Israel's response:

    3c2afc89.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2012 7:43 PM GMT
    and the UK, Germany, Australia, and Colombia abstained.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 4:04 PM GMT
    I read Caribbean news about countries voting for Palestine state:

    Those voting in favour included Antigua, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.

    A total of 11 Caribbean nations voted in favour of the move, with one country, Panama, voting against, and three countries, the Bahamas, Barbados and Haiti, abstaining
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 1:12 PM GMT
    sxydrkhair saidYes thanks God! Palestinians have enough with Israel's war crimes.

    Thank you sxydrkhair for sending this video. I feel that it summarizes very well the history of the Palestinian situation and struggle and stressed the need for people of all backgrounds (jewish and non-jewish) to work together to solve this problem. Ultimately, human rights must be framed as a universal principle that applies to everyone and is not meant to take away rights from one population in favor of another. We must challenge the notion that questioning Israeli policies is "anti-semitic" since this move only strives to stifle any criticism to these policies. Moreover, when I hear comments such as how important is it for Jewish people to have their own homeland after centuries of persecution and the Holocaust, I think it is important to stress that the best way to honor the memory of those who have been oppressed and/or murdered because of their race and/or culture is to NOT REPEAT THE SAME BEHAVIOR ON OTHERS.

    Rubrod64.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Dec 02, 2012 4:35 PM GMT
    This vote at the UN is very hopeful, but the Palestinians have a long way to go before there`s a country called Palestine on the map of the world.

    Sadly, the UK abstained and couldn`t vote yes because it set the Palestinian Authority conditions they failed to meet, including one of which was to abjure any recourse to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, a right all other peoples have!

    Even sadder, Israel`s response was to announce the construction of three thousand new settler houses in the West Bank!
  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Dec 02, 2012 6:12 PM GMT
    Israel's response is way better than the Arab response was 65 years ago, with attacks against Jews and Arab states starting a war and invading Israel, seeking to destroy it and its people.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Dec 03, 2012 8:31 PM GMT
    Pouncer saidAnd they did, lol.



    And, the Israelis are building more "settlements."
    LOL.
  • gooddude1583

    Posts: 100

    Dec 03, 2012 10:47 PM GMT
    As an Israeli I supported the Palestinians at the UN. I have my doubts with the Palestinian willingness to compromise, but in the current stance of the Israeli government, I am completely in favor of the Palestinian cause. It is in Israel's own interest to see a two state solution with both people living in peace. It's the right thing to do for our own interests as well as what's morally right. May this be a beginning of a prosperous peaceful nation- go Palestine!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 3:36 AM GMT
    Hi again:

    I have been giving additional thoughts to this topic since my last message. Here it goes...(my apologies for the length of my message/article).

    Examining Historical Contexts Behind the "Two State Solution" in the
    Middle East


    I see some interesting similarities between the way the U.S. and Israel were founded. In both situations, persecuted populations immigrated to a territory that they considered a "promised land" as designated by "God." Also in both circumstances, their arrival meant the systematic dislocation of populations that were already living there. In the case of the U.S., American Indians were displaced and their multiple tribes methodically eliminated to the point that their population was significantly reduced in a span of centuries. In contrast, the Palestinians have shared a similar history of dislodgment although their population has scattered over other territories and countries in the Middle East. Since the Palestinian situation began much more recently, their population still (to my knowledge) still outnumbers the Israeli population. In regards to the American Indians, a combination of disease, displacement and the onslaught of the U.S. military throughout centuries contributed to their population decrease. In the present, what has allowed Israel to prevail has been the economic and military assistance from "modern" U.S. Are these historical similarities one of the reasons why the U.S. seems to have such an affinity for Israel? I wonder...

    In spite of the dislocation of both the American Indian and Palestinian populations in their respective historical contexts, both nations share in common their history of resistance ranging from peaceful dialogue, debate, protest and violent insurgency. In the latter situation, the American Indians that resorted to violent resistance were labeled as "savages" and the U.S. military's response to their uprising was brutal. In the case of the Palestinians, those who have seen violent resistance as their only recourse have been labeled as "terrorists" and the Israeli government's response to them has been equally as ruthless.

    As a person who advocates peaceful dialogue and non-violent resistance to injustice, I constantly struggle with the notion of the use of violence to promote change. It is easy from the comfort of my home to condemn the use of violence from either Israelis or Arabs. However, I am not 100% sure how I would behave if I felt that my concerns were constantly ignored and my nation continued to be moved elsewhere in a span of 65 years. Forceful removal, in my opinion, fits the definition of violence. Why should we be surprised when some Palestinians respond violently to this situation? Given the way that Israel has been founded, involving the eviction of large populations that were already there 65 years ago (some of whom are old enough to remember these events), it is difficult for me to imagine what a "two state solution" looks like. Does "recognizing" Israel means that those who were evicted from their homes/territories will never get them back? The news magazine "60 Minutes" years ago pondered a similar question. One possible scenario they suggested was that if Israelis and Palestinians were indeed living as equal citizens in a country together, what we know as "Israel" would cease to exist by virtue of the fact that Palestinians outnumber Israelis. They stressed that the only way Israel can maintain its predominantly Jewish identity, is by continuing its current policies of exclusion and/or displacement of Palestinians from government, social opportunities and/or territories.

    That begs my question again...what does "two state solution" really entail? I encourage all of you who care about fairness, equality and peaceful coexistence to challenge our leaders and political leaders with this question before we pursue this as an option to achieve peace in the Middle East. One very important component in achieving peace is to acknowledge the pain of populations and communities that have been unfairly treated. Therefore, any meaningful peace must involve the return of territories to the Palestinians and assistance in rebuilding their nation's infrastructure. In an ideal world, I would like to see both Palestinians and Israelis sharing territories and common governments together as equal world citizens. I know my dream may seem unattainable, but heck, hope and idealism are two things that must be preserved if peace is ever to be achieved.


    Rubrod64



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 1:28 PM GMT
    gooddude1583 saidAs an Israeli I supported the Palestinians at the UN. I have my doubts with the Palestinian willingness to compromise, but in the current stance of the Israeli government, I am completely in favor of the Palestinian cause. It is in Israel's own interest to see a two state solution with both people living in peace. It's the right thing to do for our own interests as well as what's morally right. May this be a beginning of a prosperous peaceful nation- go Palestine!


    One of the few heartening posts ever on RJ about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You're absolutely right!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 3:34 PM GMT
    rubrod64 said...U.S., American Indians were displaced and their multiple tribes methodically eliminated to the point that their population was significantly reduced in a span of centuries....


    I could only read up to where I saw something looking very wrong and then, sorry, but it stops me cold: I can't read anymore.

    I recall from many years ago reading a wonderful series of books by past Librarian of Congress Daniel J. Boorstin's wherein he describes how incoming European populations utilized Native American populations to condense the new civilization in America for economic purposes, which makes intuitive sense because to build a society you wouldn't want it to spread too thin.

    That runs counter your assertion.

    Just look at how capitalism has created such greatly populated cities so that the corporations now have such incredible control over lives. Hospitals determining which patients they will accept according to their insurance coverage, banks pissing off an existing customer knowing a new patsy, um, I mean client, is just around the corner, etc.

    And so what you wrote, that "multiple tribes methodically eliminated" didn't make any sense to me, being at odds with a Librarian of Congress (one of my favorite institutions) thus preventing me from reading anything else in that post. This being a forum on the internet, I google it just to check myself.

    Oh look what I found in 30 seconds....

    http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

    "The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby,"but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers."

    So yes, there were war atrocities. But....

    "To sum up, European settlers came to the New World for a variety of reasons, but the thought of infecting the Indians with deadly pathogens was not one of them. As for the charge that the U.S. government should itself be held responsible for the demographic disaster that overtook the American-Indian population, it is unsupported by evidence or legitimate argument. The United States did not wage biological warfare against the Indians; neither can the large number of deaths as a result of disease be considered the result of a genocidal design."

    Next time, please, google first.

    /threadjack
  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Dec 04, 2012 7:44 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 said
    rubrod64 saidtheir arrival meant the systematic dislocation of populations that were already living there.

    Your premises are incorrect. The analogy of Palestinians to Native Americans is wrong. Jews have lived on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for over 3300 years - long before the arrival of Arabs. In fact, most Arabs present today descend from those who arrived in the 16th century and since - the same period as Europeans arriving in the New World.

    Furthermore Jewish settlement did NOT cause dislocation of Arabs. To the contrary, prior to the 1948 war, the Arab population was on the rise (after centuries of decline) with immigrants arriving from neighboring Arab states.

    The Peel Commission wrote in 1939:

    The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

    ...The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.


    You can analogize that Europeans also purchased land from the Native Americans, but not only wasn't this always the case but the Native Americans didn't have a concept of private ownership of land. This was not true of the Arab landowners who sold their land to Jews.

    rubrod64 saidIn the case of the Palestinians, those who have seen violent resistance as their only recourse have been labeled as "terrorists"

    Except that it isn't "their only recourse". Israel and the Jewish Agency before it have been open to negotiation and compromise since at least the the 1930s. It is the Arabs who have rejected this.

    And how can you possibly misconstrue blowing up school buses as "resistance" rather than terrorism?!

    See also:

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    The Palestine Paradox
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2652202

    Arabs are not indigenous to Israel - now confirmed by Hamas
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691

    The two-state solution: Revisiting the Clinton Compromise Parameters
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2271313

    Do you realize how old and long just that very first forum is?
  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Dec 04, 2012 11:48 PM GMT
    Didn't know he was banned but I don't see his post anymore.

    I only followed the first link because what he said before that seemed pretty sensible and supported.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2012 1:53 AM GMT
    Hello again!

    I wish to answer to theantijock's response to my original article. theantijock, I took the time to carefully read your written response, quotes and the article that you attached to fairly review your point of view. It is unfortunate that it sounds like you did not give me the same consideration based on your statement indicating that you stopped reading my text without viewing all of it.

    It seems to me that you did not fully understand the message that I was seeking to convey. Looks like you reacted to a short phrase in a visceral fashion and made assumptions about what I was trying to say. As an American citizen who has grown outside the US, I have observed that some of my fellow Americans feel very uncomfortable with the fact that in their beloved country, atrocities have been perpetrated by a segment of the population against another. It runs counter to their romantic notions of the "land of the free" and "home of the brave". It is also disturbing to many to even think that their beloved capitalism and "free market" economies could in any way play a role in systematically violating human rights around the world.

    When I remarked "U.S., American Indians were displaced and their multiple tribes methodically eliminated to the point that their population was significantly reduced in a span of centuries" I was not implying anything about premeditated germ warfare. My assertion meant that the forced removal of American Indians from their territories, in addition to the INTENTIONAL efforts to eradicate their culture by placing Indian children in boarding schools where they were forced to give up their culture/language, multiple military massacres (like your article acknowledged) and policies depriving them of their human rights ALL had the EFFECT of eliminating and/or decimating multiple American Indian peoples and cultures.

    It troubles me when we get into a war of semantics when dealing with populations that have been INTENTIONALLY mistreated, dismissed and in some cases killed, such as American Indians and Palestinians. When an article like yours gets into providing a one-dimensional definition of what "genocide" is, the first question that I ask is: Who is coming up with this definition? Are those individuals who decide what genocide is members of the populations that have suffered, or do they represent the typical privileged (often) white male? If you think that describing what happened to American Indians as "genocide" is too harsh, think what happened to African Americans in a span of centuries. Africans were kidnapped, raped, killed, tortured, sold, and treated like cattle for centuries in this country and whole African villages were decimated as a result of Europeans' and Americans' involvement in the slave trade. Would you have a problem calling that a genocide too?

    The definitions set by the U.N. and Geneva Conventions should be seen as guidelines that can be debated and changed. It is incredibly narrow-minded and naive to define genocide simply as a strictly time-limited and highly localized event. If you take the time to dialogue with many American Indians or African Americans like I have, I bet that you will find that many of them feel that the term genocide applies to their community's histories. It is time to give the chance to those who have suffered the most from policies of exclusion and mistreatment to be the ones who define what genocide is and for them to have a voice in deciding what are the social, political and economic changes needed to reverse the effect of such injustices.

    Rubrod64
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2012 2:48 AM GMT
    morleyq said
    Wolverine4 said
    rubrod64 saidtheir arrival meant the systematic dislocation of populations that were already living there.

    Your premises are incorrect. The analogy of Palestinians to Native Americans is wrong. Jews have lived on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for over 3300 years - long before the arrival of Arabs. In fact, most Arabs present today descend from those who arrived in the 16th century and since - the same period as Europeans arriving in the New World.

    Furthermore Jewish settlement did NOT cause dislocation of Arabs. To the contrary, prior to the 1948 war, the Arab population was on the rise (after centuries of decline) with immigrants arriving from neighboring Arab states.

    Rubrod64 responds: Thank you for your interest in exchanging ideas. In my article I only referred to the Jews that arrived in Palestine AFTER the WWII migration in territories already occupied by Arab Palestinians. Just because ancestors lived in an area centuries ago and now is occupied by other populations does not justify systematically evicting the current population. I think you are trying to revise history only from a narrowly-defined "Israelis first" mind frame. It is also not a coincidence that the best jobs, housing, access to water, etc. is for the Israelis and not the Palestinians.

    The Peel Commission wrote in 1939:

    The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

    Rubrod64 responds: I wish that the current Palestinian situation and economy were in such a rosy state as the one you described above in 1920. If that were the case today, we probably would not have a Palestinian and Israeli conflict, would we? (see http://imeu.net/news/article0073.shtml).

    ...The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.


    You can analogize that Europeans also purchased land from the Native Americans, but not only wasn't this always the case but the Native Americans didn't have a concept of private ownership of land. This was not true of the Arab landowners who sold their land to Jews.

    rubrod64 saidIn the case of the Palestinians, those who have seen violent resistance as their only recourse have been labeled as "terrorists"

    Except that it isn't "their only recourse". Israel and the Jewish Agency before it have been open to negotiation and compromise since at least the the 1930s. It is the Arabs who have rejected this.

    And how can you possibly misconstrue blowing up school buses as "resistance" rather than terrorism?!

    Rubrod64 responds: I doubt that those Palestinians who lost their homes and neighborhoods that are now occupied (invaded!) by illegal Israeli settlements constitutes a "voluntary" land-sale. In regards to the "terrorism" question, this definition has been imposed by those in power (Israel and U.S.) I am certain many of those suffering from Israeli policies also consider Israeli actions "state sponsored terrorism." I agree that in a war situation, all sides are likely to commit reprehensible acts. However this does not take away the fact that Israel's policies are racist and is becoming (along with the U.S.) increasingly isolated in the world stage on this issue.

    See also:

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    The Palestine Paradox
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2652202

    Arabs are not indigenous to Israel - now confirmed by Hamas
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691

    The two-state solution: Revisiting the Clinton Compromise Parameters
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2271313

    Do you realize how old and long just that very first forum is?