So Will The Sky Fall If The UN Declare Palestine a State?

[brazil84]

@YogSosoth

No surprise there. According to you, peaceful is if the Palestinians just laid down and offered for Israel to take anything they want in exchange for the promise, sometime, in the future, of having a plot of land that resembled a state based on Israel’s conditions. :rolleyes:

Lol, nice strawman.

Anyway, the Arabs have been offered a “Palestinian State” by Israel time and again. They have always turned it down.

Abbas fought for an negotiated with the member countries of the UN to get that deal done. It was as peaceful a solution as there can be and it came about through negotiation.

Appeasement is usually peaceful . . . . at least at first.

While this isn’t the goal, its one step in getting a state and I am impressed that the Palestinians could do it so peacefully

The goal is not to get a state . . . the goal is and always has been to put an end to the Jewish State.

[Honesty]

@brazil84

Lol, nice strawman.

Anyway, the Arabs have been offered a “Palestinian State” by Israel time and again. They have always turned it down.

Appeasement is usually peaceful . . . . at least at first.

The goal is not to get a state . . . the goal is and always has been to put an end to the Jewish State.

My god, talk about paranoia: Geez, I think South Sudan has a more of an existential threat than Israel. Do you really, really, really think that the United States would allow another country to “put an end to the Jewish State” The answer is NO, in case there was any debate.

I wasn’t aware that Palestinians were offered a State; in fact, I read today that Israel is so angry that is suffered a catastrophic temper tantrum. According to the article I read, Israel is now withholding due tax revenue from the PA because they went to the U.N. That’s so petty and juvenile. The fact the PA doesn’t even have power over its economy (taxation) speaks volumes.

• Honesty

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Honesty

My god, talk about paranoia: Geez, I think South Sudan has a more of an existential threat than Israel. Do you really, really, really think that the United States would allow another country to “put an end to the Jewish State” The answer is NO, in case there was any debate.

I will certainly agree that Brazil’s comments are up to his usual standards, but I think you’re falling for mythology of stupid Gentiles being controlled by savvy Jews when you claim the United States would never allow Israel to be destroyed.

They were perfectly willing to do so in 1948, forced the Israelis to pull out of Egypt in 1956, were again willing to let Israel be destroyed in 1967, intervened in 1973 only after immense groveling in the part of Israel and then forced Israel to withdraw from Lebanon in 1978 and later 1982.

And let’s not talk about WWII and the Holocaust.

None of what I am saying is to suggest that Israel is seriously threatened by any current nation-states, though the same can’t be said for potential non-state actors now or in the future.

[brazil84]

@Honesty

My god, talk about paranoia: Geez, I think South Sudan has a more of an existential threat than Israel. Do you really, really, really think that the United States would allow another country to “put an end to the Jewish State” The answer is NO, in case there was any debate.

Let’s assume that’s true. It doesn’t change the fact that the Arabs are engaged in activities with the goal of putting an end to Jewish Israel. i.e. they are aggressors.

You may very well be right that it is impossible for them to succeed. But appeasement is nonetheless counter-productive.

Nice try at changing the subject, though.

I wasn’t aware that Palestinians were offered a State

Then perhaps you should learn some more facts before injecting yourself into this discussion.

According to the article I read, Israel is now withholding due tax revenue from the PA because they went to the U.N. That’s so petty and juvenile.

Lol, it’s also because the Arabs were not paying their electric bills. Is it “petty and juvenile” to expect free electricity?

[BrainGlutton]

Look, this is all moot, anyway. The world is giving Israel to the Mormons.

[RedFury]

To the OP:

Yes it will. On Israel if they don’t change their current colonialist course. But they are going to have to – as a matter of international law already ruled upon: Decision Dismisses Israel’s Arguments, Accepts Palestinian Claims Without Reservation

Of course when the issue comes b4 the UNSC, the US is going to have to make a move. And sooner or later, they’ll have join the rest of the world. Whether I’ll see it happen or not is rather trivial. But Israel will not/cannot continue acting as a rogue State…no matter what any & all apologists preach.

Do Palestinians need compromise? But of course. Just not to this.

The End.

[FinnAgain]

Decision Dismisses Israel’s Arguments, Accepts Palestinian Claims Without Reservation

And for those who are interested in facts rather than grudges prosecuted via the UN …

[BrainGlutton]

@Alessan

Pretty much, yes.

The Fence (it’s only a wall for about 5% of its length, mainly as a way of stopping sniper fire on Israeli highways) may be arbitrary, but then again, so was the Green Line. And from what I’ve seen in person, Israelis already treat it as a de facto border. I was in the Territories for a few weeks last month as part of my reserve duty, and everyone there already referred to the land west of the fence as “Israel”, as in, “Can anyone give me a ride back to Israel?”. That may seem obvious to you, but it’s a huge change from only 10 years ago, when only the most dedicated leftists would refer to the Territories as a foreign country.

Borders make their own reality. You draw a line on a map, and sooner or later, you’ll stop thinking of the other side as yours. That’s one reason why I think the Fence is the best thing to happen to the peace process in years - it’s done far more than anything else to change Israeli perceptions about the West Bank.

Would you want Israel to keep East Jerusalem?

[RedFury]

@FinnAgain

And for those who are interested in facts rather than grudges prosecuted via the UN …

Say hey, always impartial friend Finn – I salute your hasbara mastery. Even if your link has zilch to do with ICJ’s discoveries.

Best always.

[FinnAgain]

I’m glad you found a new word, Red.
Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara.
Really get it out of your system.
You done?
Wanna Hasba’ it up some more?

I’ll wait.

Now, you claim that my link has “zilch” to do with the ICJ’s discoveries.
What an odd thing for you to say, Red. I wonder why you might have said such a thing? Of course, anybody who actually clicks my link will see that it’s a citation which discusses massive errors by the ICJ in ingoring relevant facts and law, to the point where several judges pointed out the breaches in their written opinions.
Why, your argument sure would look silly if I could just quote a block of text from those judges, right from my link.

63. The security-military necessity is mentioned only most minimally in the sources upon which the ICJ based its opinion. Only one line is devoted to it in the Secretary-General’s report, stating that the decision to erect the fence was made due to a new rise in Palestinian terrorism in the Spring of 2002. In his written statement, the security-military consideration is not mentioned at all. In the Dugard report and the Zeigler report there are no data on this issue at all. In Israel’s written statement to the ICJ regarding jurisdiction and discretion, data regarding the terrorism and its repercussions were presented, but these did not find their way to the opinion itself. This minimal factual basis is manifest, of course, in the opinion itself. It contains no real mention of the security-military aspect. In one of the paragraphs, the opinion notes that Israel argues that the objective of the wall is to allow an effective struggle against the terrorist attacks emanating from the West Bank (paragraph 116). That’s it. In another paragraph, the ICJ discusses the force of §53 of The Fourth Geneva Convention, according to which it is prohibited for an occupier state to harm local property, “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”. Regarding that, the ICJ stated:

“[O]n the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the destructions carried out contrary to the prohibition in Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were rendered absolutely necessary by military operations” (paragraph 135).

[…]
64. This minimal factual basis regarding Israel’s security-military necessity to erect the fence did not go unnoticed by the judges of the ICJ. The dissenting judge, Judge Buergenthal, noted in his opinion:

“I am compelled to vote against the Court’s finding on the merits because the Court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping findings” (paragraph 1).

Judge Buergenthal mentioned the possibility that, on the basis of all the facts, the conclusion would be that the building of the wall violates international law; however, in his opinion,

“[To] reach that conclusion with regard to the wall as a whole without having before it or seeking to ascertain all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel’s legitimate right of self defence, military necessity and security needs, given the repeated deadly terrorist attacks in and upon Israel proper coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territory to which Israel has been and continues to be subject, cannot be justified as a matter of law. The nature of these cross-Green Line attacks and their impact on Israel and its population are never really seriously examined by the Court, and the dossier provided the Court by the United Nations on which the Court to a large extent bases its findings basely touches on that subject” (paragraph 3).

In his separate opinion, Judge Kooijmans stated his opinion that:

“[T]he present Opinion could have reflected in a more satisfactory way the interests at stake for all those living in the region. The rather oblique reference to terrorist acts which can be found at several places in the Opinion, are in my view not sufficient for this purpose” (paragraph 13).

A similar attitude can be found in the separate opinion of Judge Owada. He notes that the ICJ had ample material before it regarding the humanitarian and socioeconomic effect of the building of the wall. In contrast,

“What seems to be wanting, however, is the material explaining the Israeli side of the picture, especially in the context of why and how the construction of the wall as it is actually planned and implemented is necessary and appropriate” (paragraph 22).

[RedFury]

@BrainGlutton

Would you want Israel to keep East Jerusalem?

Can’t respond for Alessan, but that seems the current ultra right-wing Gov’s plan: Housing Move in Israel Seen as Setback for a Two-State Plan…along with any number of other punishments.

The sheer gall of Palestinians!

[RedFury]

Cheers, Finn! Good to know you are up to your regular script on this particular topic.

“Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara”

Nope. Not yet. Mayhaps when you stop using it? That’ll be the day.

Sleep tight, bestest pal.

[FinnAgain]

Brilliant factual refutation.

[Ibn_Warraq]

Well, this has been a productive debate which certainly hasn’t strayed from the OP. :rolleyes:
Anyway, back to the OP.

A Palestinian state has been declared and, unless I’m greatly mistaken, the sky still has not fallen.

Perhaps a better question would be, will anything change.

[RedFury]

Walls of text[sup]®[/sup] getting shorter on the apologists side.

Hmmm…wonder what that means? Couldn’t possibly be they are out of (plausible*) arguments?

*if hasbara had any to begin with.

[RedFury]

@FinnAgain

Brilliant factual refutation.

TY.

:::bows::::

High praise indeed considering The Source[sup]©[/sup]

[RedFury]

@Ibn_Warraq

…Perhaps a better question would be, will anything change.

Indeed. But is there a level playing field at the moment?

[Alessan]

@BrainGlutton

Would you want Israel to keep East Jerusalem?

The Jewish neighborhoods, and the Old City (with the latter involved guarantees of worshiping rights to all religions). Beyond that, I could do without it.

[voltaire]

First, let me say that I know/care less about this issue than pretty much everybody posting in this thread. So, I have an impression that I’d like to invite correction of if it’s way off base, particularly from those who are most familiar with the Israeli point of view…

I’ve been operating under the impression that, particularly after the results from the Gaza pullout, Israel has absolutely no intention of allowing a fully independent state in the West Bank any time in the foreseeable future. And by “fully” independent, I mean a WB with a military capable of defending it’s own borders.

(Again, these are just the impressions I’ve been operating under.) If all the other issues could be ironed out, they’d probably agree to an independent but completely demilitarized WB. They might (at most) agree to some sort of mutual-protection/non-aggression pact with Jordan (if they would ever even agree to such) providing the bulk of any necessary military within the borders of the WB. But ISTM unfathomable that they’d agree to a real, fully-independent state with theoretically unlimited military capabilities in our lifetimes.

So, how far off am I with these impressions? Because it seems that, if true, this is the biggest elephant in the room that stands in the way of any permanent deals. Land swaps, drawing the borders, right of return, Jerusalem - those are all difficult issues to contend with, but if I’m not way off-base, those are relatively easy to get done compared to Israel accepting a fully independent WB with its own military. And if so, it almost seems like quibbling about the other, lesser issues is always destined to be unproductive, or even counterproductive, if they continually provoke the kind of tensions that will never allow the two sides to eventually achieve the kind of mutually-beneficial trust that’s necessary to coexist fully independently.

Now, what’s the Palestinian POV? Would they ever agree to any deal that Israel would agree to with respect to the military situation in the WB?

(Now I’m fully expecting to simultaneously be told how wrong I am by about a dozen people for a dozen different reasons.)

[voltaire]

@RedFury

“Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara Hasbara”

I’m warning you! If you say “Hasbara” once more…