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

[brazil84]

@Mijin

This point doesn’t make any sense. There’s a difference between “openness” and “uniqueness”.

To me “open” means something which stands out for everyone to see. What do you mean by “open”?

In fact, we can’t even infer a clear message from that particular policy,

Perhaps not, but the question on the table is whether the US is willing to openly disagree with Israel. It seems to me that the answer is “yes,” depending on your definition of “open.”

Having the vote is not the same thing as winning the vote.

I would say it’s basically the same thing. Everyone knows that “Palestine” will easily win a vote in the General Assembly. Anyway, if the point is to have a debate, why is it necessary to have a vote?

For the latter part of your point, I see no reason to suppose that a significant proportion of world governments pretend to support the two-state while really hoping for something like the one-state, or the status quo. Why do you suggest that?

Because everyone knows that there is a big danger that an Arab state on the West Bank is very likely to end up under the control of Iran and/or Muslim extremists, just like Gaza, and that such a state would be used as a staging ground to foment Muslim extremism in other Middle Eastern countries; to try to provoke a hot war with Israel; and to generally cause mischief.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mijin

America’s treatment of Israel here is unique, it’s not particularly open.

Not in regard to recognizing Jerusalem as its capital. NO other country does. That situation is unique because no other country claims a city largely outside its territory as a capital - the uniqueness is not a creation of the US. But I’m sure brazil84 knows that too.

In fact, we can’t even infer a clear message from that particular policy, given that most varieties of two-state solution (which the current administration supports) involve jerusalem being home to both capitals. Not to mention things like the jerusalem embassy act etc.

And further not to mention that a two-state solution requires two states. Really, Israel has no reason to oppose this other than to (continue to) support a one-state policy, all the way to the Jordan, instead.

@brazil84

Because everyone knows that there is a big danger that an Arab state on the West Bank is very likely to end up under the control of Iran and/or Muslim extremists, just like Gaza, and that such a state would be used as a staging ground to foment Muslim extremism in other Middle Eastern countries; to try to provoke a hot war with Israel; and to generally cause mischief.

“Everyone” knows that? Really? :dubious:

Or is that merely the usual rhetorical method to brush aside uncomfortable thoughts? Like, perhaps, the one that extremist behavior is the only kind they think is available to them? The notion that a certain people are simply incapable of responsible conduct, much less self-rule, is a repugnant one here in the 21st century.

[brazil84]

@ElvisL1ves

That situation is unique because no other country claims a city largely outside its territory as a capital

So you concede then, that Israel and the United States openly disagree about what constitutes the “territory” of Israel?

“Everyone” knows that? Really?

Yes. Of course it’s impossible to prove, but I think pretty much everyone’s standby rationality mode is capable enough to appreciate that there is a very big chance that sooner or later the West Bank would go the same way as Gaza.

The notion that a certain people are simply incapable of responsible conduct, much less self-rule, is a repugnant one here in the 21st century.

I agree.

[Mijin]

@brazil84

To me “open” means something which stands out for everyone to see.

Right, and an “open disagreement” requires at least writing or speaking about the disagreement.

A technicality about birth certificates for US citizens born in Jerusalem is not an open disagreement by any sensible definition. Especially given the far more overt gestures that imply America does recognize jerusalem as being partly within the state of Israel.

I would say it’s basically the same thing. Everyone knows that “Palestine” will easily win a vote in the General Assembly.

Well, if so, it will either win on its merits or there is significant bias / ignorance.
And if it’s the latter, then try to address that.

This might seem a bit of an idealist position, but in my view anything is superior to “let’s not even discuss this”; because that’s the position that allows war and intolerance to continue.

Anyway, if the point is to have a debate, why is it necessary to have a vote?

Well it’s not like this is the first ever debate. Presumably a significant proportion of UN members want to start making some progress on the issue.

Because everyone knows that there is a big danger that an Arab state on the West Bank is very likely to end up under the control of Iran and/or Muslim extremists, just like Gaza, and that such a state would be used as a staging ground to foment Muslim extremism in other Middle Eastern countries; to try to provoke a hot war with Israel; and to generally cause mischief.

So just speculation.

While we’re doing that, my speculation is that few governments believe this.
I think they would agree with me that a Palestinian state would be far less volatile a situation than having an isolated and desperate population there.

And I think the palestinian situation is currently a huge recruiting tool for extremist groups. Anything to stabilize that region, heck, just about any change at all, can only improve things in that respect.

[SecondJudith]

@brazil84

everyone knows that there is a big danger that an Arab state on the West Bank is very likely to end up under the control of Iran and/or Muslim extremists, just like Gaza, and that such a state would be used as a staging ground to foment Muslim extremism in other Middle Eastern countries; to try to provoke a hot war with Israel; and to generally cause mischief.

Completely unlike now.

[ElvisL1ves]

@brazil84

So you concede then, that Israel and the United States openly disagree about what constitutes the “territory” of Israel?

I never said it didn’t. Perhaps you’re confusing me with one of the many other people who are calling you wrong.

I think pretty much everyone’s standby rationality mode is capable enough to appreciate that there is a very big chance that sooner or later the West Bank would go the same way as Gaza.

Then everybody does *not *“know” that.

I agree.

Then why do you state that “everyone knows” otherwise? :dubious:

[brazil84]

@Mijin

Right, and an “open disagreement” requires at least writing or speaking about the disagreement.

Writing or speaking by whom?

Well, if so, it will either win on its merits or there is significant bias / ignorance.And if it’s the latter, then try to address that.

Why?

This might seem a bit of an idealist position, but in my view anything is superior to “let’s not even discuss this”; because that’s the position that allows war and intolerance to continue.

So you condemn any and all Democratic filibusters in the U.S. Senate?

So just speculation.

Not really. Why would one expect the situation to be very different from that of Gaza?

[Kobal2]

@E-Sabbath

Of course, the problem is that as soon as Palestine is a country, and fires missiles at Israel, it’s war, not rebellion. And the government of Palestine can’t stop that from happening. So really, it’d be wonderful from Israel’s standpoint, provided their goal is to conquer Palestine once and for all.

Or am I missing something?

Forgive me for being candid here, but assuming Palestine became a sovereign state, and further assuming that Israel didn’t infringe on said sovereignty (meaning no more checkpoints, no more settlements and so forth) - what would Palestinians have to lob rockets at Israel about any more ?

[brazil84]

@ElvisL1ves

I never said it didn’t.

Well that’s the issue I was discussing.

Perhaps you’re confusing me

No, it didn’t register with me that you were attempting to change the subject away from US disagreement with Israel. My apologies.

Then everybody does *not *“know” that.

Why not?

Then why do you state that “everyone knows” otherwise? :dubious:

There is a difference between thinking something is a big danger and thinking it is certain. There is also a difference between finding something repugnant and believing that it’s false.

[brazil84]

@Kobal2

Forgive me for being candid here, but assuming Palestine became a sovereign state, and further assuming that Israel didn’t infringe on said sovereignty (meaning no more checkpoints, no more settlements and so forth) - what would Palestinians have to lob rockets at Israel about any more ?

Because there is strong sentiment among the Arabs in the area that there should be no Jewish sovereignty anywhere in the Middle East; that even an Israel confined to the 1947 armistice lines is unacceptable.

[Mijin]

@brazil84

Writing or speaking by whom?

An “open disagreement” involves at the least both parties stating conflicting positions. That obviously hasn’t happened here, hence why you’re now playing dumb.

So you condemn any and all Democratic filibusters in the U.S. Senate?

I condemn the whole concept of the filibuster.

Not really. Why would one expect the situation to be very different from that of Gaza?

What you were saying was speculation.
Asking now why would one expect things to be different from Gaza is hardly going to transform it into concrete fact.

I had no problem admitting that some of what I said was speculation (I labeled it as such). The fact that you can’t even do that suggests to me that you aren’t interested in debate any more but just want to strike at every point that is put to you.

[Dick_Dastardly]

These are my own pants got this right.

[brazil84]

@Mijin

An “open disagreement” involves at the least both parties stating conflicting positions. That obviously hasn’t happened here, hence why you’re now playing dumb.

No need to make accusations of bad faith:

Here is a direct quote from the United States Foreign Affairs Manual:

U.S. policy recognizes that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory . . . .

Do you accept that Israel has formally annexed the Golan Heights?

I condemn the whole concept of the filibuster.

I’m glad to hear that, there are a lot of partisan hacks floating around.

What you were saying was speculation.

Maybe it will help if you explain what you mean by “speculation.” To me, it means predictions which lack a reasonable factual basis.

suggests to me that you aren’t interested in debate any more but just want to strike at every point that is put to you.

Again, please do not attack my good faith.

[E-Sabbath]

@Kobal2

Forgive me for being candid here, but assuming Palestine became a sovereign state, and further assuming that Israel didn’t infringe on said sovereignty (meaning no more checkpoints, no more settlements and so forth) - what would Palestinians have to lob rockets at Israel about any more ?

Good question! Perhaps the continued existence of Israel. Perhaps that Israel keeps Jerusalem. Perhaps the weather. Perhaps these terror groups are not fully under the control of the Palestinian government. Perhaps some other country wants to distract its own populace.

But, sure as Carter has little liver pills, I don’t think Palestine being its own state would change anything, insofar as occasional people wandering over and blowing themselves up, or missiles flying freely and gaily.

The only thing that might change is the response. What do you think the response would be?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@smiling_bandit

I would say the UN can declare anything it pelases, but it isn’t going to actually do anything about it. Which is probably for the best, as its idea of helping is often rather… counterproductive. You have to actually have a state before it can be recognized.

Not necessarily. How do you think Israel came to be in the first place? Statehood came before state…iness.

[ralph124c]

This new Palestinian state-how will it finance itself? It has farms and a few small factories.
But much of its workforce works in Israel.
I don’t think the new state will have an awful lot of money.

[clairobscur]

@ralph124c

This new Palestinian state-how will it finance itself? It has farms and a few small factories.
But much of its workforce works in Israel.
I don’t think the new state will have an awful lot of money.

From what I read, they have made a lot of efforts in this department in order to show that the future state would be viable (to some extent only, of course). Amongst other things in making people actually pay their taxes (presumably so that nobody could argue “this wanabee state is barely better than Greece (*)”).

(*)Sorry for the cheap shot, just joking. I’ve nothing against the Greeks, really (well, except for this whole “Macedonia is our registered trademark” issue).

[Shinna_Minna_Ma]

@Kobal2

Forgive me for being candid here, but assuming Palestine became a sovereign state, and further assuming that Israel didn’t infringe on said sovereignty (meaning no more checkpoints, no more settlements and so forth) - what would Palestinians have to lob rockets at Israel about any more ?

Why don’t you go ask those in Gaza why they are lobbing rockets? After all, Israel expelled its citizens and left all Gaza open for whoever wanted it. Almost immediately afterwards the rockets began to fall on southern Israel. The people there must have some reason, I guess.

[Kobal2]

@brazil84

Because there is strong sentiment among the Arabs in the area that there should be no Jewish sovereignty anywhere in the Middle East; that even an Israel confined to the 1947 armistice lines is unacceptable.

@E-Sabbath

Good question! Perhaps the continued existence of Israel. Perhaps that Israel keeps Jerusalem. Perhaps the weather. Perhaps these terror groups are not fully under the control of the Palestinian government. Perhaps some other country wants to distract its own populace.

Sorry, I should have been more clear - I meant to ask what would the Palestinian *state *would have to throw rockets about. Seems to me the nascent government would have a strong, one could even say an existential incentive to cut the shit.
At least until they figure they can take whatever it is Israel can throw at them, which is to say more or less forever since none of Israel’s neighbours has reached that point yet and they’ve had one hell of a headstart :p.

But, sure as Carter has little liver pills, I don’t think Palestine being its own state would change anything, insofar as occasional people wandering over and blowing themselves up, or missiles flying freely and gaily.

Sure enough, but that doesn’t mean Israel would declare war on the new state just because of troublesome elements in their midst, assuming as I surmise that said rockets are being lobbed by independant assholes coming from all over the Middle East to fuck shit up (and not get their own countries bombed in retaliation…) rather than by decree of the Palestinian State.
I mean, the US doesn’t declare war on Iraq (again…) just because a subset of the Iraqi people have taken up mortaring US bases as a hobby.

Israel might use such attacks as a casus belli, sure, but to what end ? I don’t think they want to out and out invade Palestine, least not that way - they could have done it a hundred times over by now.

The only thing that might change is the response. What do you think the response would be?

Would, or should ? Would… I have no clue. I suppose it depends on whoever’s strong in the Knesset at the time. Warhawks would quickly make a mess of things and basically things would be back to misery as usual. More moderate Israeli politicos might instead want to put pressure on the PalState to increase police efforts and whatnot, in other words at least try and give them a chance to show some good faith & get their shit together.

As for should, what am I, a Nobel Peace prize already ?

[Farmer_Jane]

@Huerta88

For some misguided reason, both parties have agreed to treat the U.N. as if it were real and not some overgrown bloated student body council.

I echo this, though it’s impossible to buck the UN entirely.

The UN does not make states. I expect there will be more violence in the region in forms of protests and terror attacks, though.

eta: I do think that Israel will make a move to recognize a Palestinian state, but on their own terms - effectively annexing (again) the land it already has, such as Ariel or S. J’lem. I do not think that J’lem will be solved by September, though. I don’t know what the Resolution wording says.