Fairly selective when it comes to citing and supporting International Law, our Israel-supporting friends.
I welcome citations to the contrary.
why is it bound to end baldy? I could just as easily claim that it will result in peace in the middle east. And when the vast majority of countries in the world are voting for it, why would we be blamed for not vetoing it?
We’re not just saying no, we’re saying HELL no, not on our watch. There are 5 permanent members of the security council and 3 of them are voting no. The US, France and the UK. Russia and China are voting yes (which seems reminiscent of cold war relationships in the middle east), France and the UK are voting no but the USA is going to veto. Why is voting no not enough? Why do we have to step in and frustrate the intention of the majority of the rest of the world.
cite?
Palestine now has embassies in 2/3 of the member states. It seems like a reasonable time to move for recognition.
I guess if you want to base the subversion of the global will on your speculations about what would happen, I suppose I can speculate as well. I think it will lead to peace in the middle east through a two state solution.
They are not asking for recognition of the state of PLO, All of Palestine is controlled by the folks who won PALESTINIAN elections
Like I said most members of the UN believe it is a state. Enough of a state to have Palestinian embassies.
You think most member states of the UN have “Palestinian Embassies”?
Ok, name five that do.
In your view, is it ever justified for the US to use its veto power at the UN? Or should the US always go along with the majority?
Are those “embassies” staffed by bona fide accredited diplomats with diplomatic immunity? Does “Palestine” receive diplomats from other countries? What kind of treaties are signed? Are “Palestine” passports recognized by anyone?
Perhaps more importantly, what is the argument for recognizing “Palestine” but not other areas which really are independent, like Taiwan, Transnistria, etc?
Another problem is that it will encourage the Israelis to engage in their own unilateralism, such as annexing parts of the West Bank which are heavily Jewish.
And that ends in a two-state solution how?!
Like I said, popular perception matters nothing when it comes to whether a particular entity is, or is not, a “state”. That’s like saying ‘in the opinion of 68% of people, the Earth is flat’. This simply demonstrates that 68% of people are wrong, not that the Earth is, in point of fact, flat.
I answered most of this already, so I’ll just respond to stuff that is new rather than repeat myself ad nauseum.
How, exactly, will it do that, given that as you have already conceded it is purely symbolic, and the Israelis will ignore it?
That’s just the problem. How can the PLO ask for recognition for “All of PALESTINE”, when they do not actually rule “All of PALESTINE”? When the entity that does rule part of it (and mind you won the last election) is against recognition?
When their borders are controlled by a semi-hostile nation? When their proposed capital city is, in fact, right now the capital city of a semi-hostile nation who has an unbeaten army and no intention of handing over their capital city to this non-government who can’t even rule over their own people, who voted them out because of their hopeless corruption, prefering Hamas (despite their terrorism and Islamic fundy nuttery) because at least they weren’t feathering their own bank accounts and actually seemed to give a shit about the average Palestinian?
When groups not under the control of the alleged government launch acts of war on that semi-hostile nation, and this non-government is helpless to stop them?
It is to laugh, if it were not so depressing.
You keep repeating that as if it meant something. Reality is not a popularity contest. The Earth is not flat if most people think it is, and God does not exist just because most people believe in him … neither is Palestine a “nation” until it actually has the indicia of a nation - not necessarily perfect sovereignty, but a functioning, unified government at least potentially capable of ruling an actual Palestinian state, capable of doing stuff like contesting (hopefully through negotiations) with Israel over important matters of war and peace.
Not the current mess.
Every time I see this thread bubble up, I’m sad that the OP flubbed the obvious set-up line.
(“Obama to Palestineans: Drop Dead”)
The most obvious way is that the Arabs accept the best proposal the Israelis are willing to make. For example the proposal from 2000 which would have given them a Palestinian State on Gaza and most of the West Bank.
You suck at analogy.
When one says that Palestinians have a right to a national self-determination regardless of the reality on the ground (active occupation and oppression including full control of movement of people and goods) that prevents that right to materialize. They are also free to look into various ways how to make it happen – some you don’t like (Hamas) some you find all the ways to sabotage (Fatah).
In the same way as saying that African-Americans have a civil rights regardless of the reality on the ground (do I need to list) that prevents those rights to materialize. They had looked (and still looking) in all the ways how to make it happen – some you don’t like (Malcolm X, Black Panthers) and some you find all the ways to sabotage (MLK).
You suck at understanding what is under discussion.
The issue is not whether “Palestinians have a right to a national self-determination regardless of the reality on the ground”. There is no issue with that: they do.
The issue is whether the UN ought, today, to make “Palestine” a member-state.
That they cannot do, except in a massive exercise of folly, in spite of the fact that Palestinians have exactly as much “right to national self-determination” as Israelis, or for that matter anyone … because Palestine is not, as of today, a state.
Statehood isn’t something that is granted from some higher organization, like an equal system of laws or civil rights in a country. Statehood is something that comes from within - and the Palestinians haven’t done it. Yet.
Is this a serious question?
You honestly had no idea that Palestine has had diplomatic missions in several countries almost since the moment it declared its statehood in 1988?
Holy shit, for a guy who has repeatedly shot off his mouth about the situation you clearly are embarrassingly ignorant about it.
What you did was the equivalent of demanding a cite for the fact that Christians have been leaving the occupied territories in massive numbers in the past few decades.
Perhaps your Luddite disdain for wikipedia is catching up to you. Do you have a problem with google too?
It is an extremely arbitrary and made-up condition that was never hoisted on any new country accepted as full UN member. It is a smoke screen for wilful ignorance of basic tenets of international process and justice.
Just one example – Bosnia & Herzegovina is a full UN member, in fact, current freakin’ Security Council member but it’s far from your condition “equal system of laws or civil rights in a country”. Kosovo and South Sudan, too.
It’s hard to be good at “understanding” when it’s only in someone’s head. Let’s keep it in synch with how world and the UN have operated and leave artificial conditions that are impossible to measure at the door.
And finally, even if there was a process of establishing the degree of “equal system of laws or civil rights in a country”, in the case of Palestinians, Israel would be the LAST, and I repeat, LAST country that a rational person would ask to give judgment. Incredible :rolleyes:
Dude. You have completely misunderstood my point.
I was NOT claimining that a state requires an “equal system of laws or civil rights in a country” as a condition of statehood or UN membership. That’s nonsense, as even total shitholes like North Korea, which spit on the very notion of human rights, can be states.
I WAS contrasting YOUR example of Black Civil Rights - with the issue of statehood. Civil rights are granted by some higher body, like the US Government. Statehood is not.
Once again, you suck at understanding what’s under discussion.
Of course we can but lets be clear about WHY we’re using this veto power. Its not some retarded notion of Palestine not being a state yet. Its to show support for Israel and I’m not terribly bothered by that but I don’t understand the constant need by some to pretend that it is something other than what it is. Once we recognize that we are doing it to show support for Israel, it begs the question of whether it is in America’s best interests to continue such unquestioning loyalty to a country that spits in our face while it holds out its hand for foreign aid money.
The cold war is over, what do we need Israel for? Are we using it as a base for military operations? Are they supporting our military efforts in the region in some significant or indispenible way? Is it just for “old times sake” How far does “for old times sake” go?
I don’t know the diplomatic ststus of every embassy and diplomatic mission but several country websites list the embassy of the state of palestine along with other embassies. But at this point I think you are looking for distinctions to try and undercut the general notion that palestine is recognized by a boatload of countries.
I think Taiwan should be recognized but I can see why China would want to veto that. Does Israel consider Palestine to be part of Israel? This is an attempt to deny statehood to a people and a land that noone else seeems to be laying claim to.
Yeah, I can see why once you have accepted your bullshit premise, for which there is zero support, Obama’s foreign policy would appear utterly baffling to you. 
Yeah I know its the jewishness of Israel that is of paramount importance to some people but when you say “absolutely” about a statement and then support the statement with nothing more than conjecture or opinion, its weakens your argument.
Why wouldn’t you be able to reach the same objective but on different terms if the Israelis became demoralized? Certainly the Israelis have a history of being willing to accept less than they have now (any time before 1948 probably qualifies) while the Palestinians do not, despite having a pretty demoralizing 65 years or so, they still seem to be unwilling to accept less than they have.
The sole Israeli argument for why the Palestinians should take what they are given is that the Palestinians do not have the power to take any more than what is offered… right now. Perhaps their position will deteriorate and the iIsraeli offer will deteriorate along with it but short of genocide, one day the tables will turn and when that day comes and Israel’s allies will not tolerate genocide. Do you believe that the Palestinians will exercise the same sort of restraint that the Israelis have demostrated if a peace that is acceptable to both sides is not achieved by then? What possible Palestinian sponsor will demand that Palestinians exercise that sort of restaint? Russia? China? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Who would stay Palestine’s hand if they ever got the upper one?
Peace is just as much in Israel’s best interests as it is in Palestine’s and the notion that the peace must be made by demoralizing Palestine (presumably to get them to accept israel’s terms) is fucking abhorrent.
Or did you mean something else?