Denmark has been opposed. At least until yesterday when we got the goddamn commies in power. I’m all for it though. (The Pali-state that is. Not the goddamn heathen commies)
I highly doubt that the US is the only country, but either way it feels pretty good.
Why? Because the group known as “Palestinians” don’t actually want a state. What they want is for there not to be a Jewish state.
If they really wanted a Palestinian state, they would have accepted the 1947 U.N. partition plan which set up an Arab state on the West Bank, Gaza, and more. Instead, they rejected that plan and went to war against the Jews.
If they really wanted a Palestinian state, they would have pushed for one before 1967 when the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control. Instead, they prepared for war against Jewish Israel.
If they really wanted a Palestinian state, they would offer citizenship to Palestinian Arabs everywhere, just like Israel offered citizenship to Jews everywhere. Instead, they have announced that they will deny citizenship even to Arabs living in refugee camps on the West Bank.
Right now there are Arabs living in refugee camps in Jordan; descendants of Arabs who fled Gaza in 1967. There aren’t any Jews stopping those Arabs from “returning” to Gaza. And yet they don’t.
In context, it’s pretty clear that the main goal is to undermine Jewish Israel.
Right, because these Palestinians are exactly the same people who rejected the 1947 plan! Well, except that all of those people are dead. :rolleyes:
Why do you support Jim Crow laws? You’re an American, so you must be in favor, since they existed.
They’re illegally there in contravention of human rights law on what basis do they become legal?
I do not think those Israeli born in the WB have the right to be there. They’re citizens of Israel, they were born in the WB as a result of a racist and illegal policy, they are not integrated with the population of the WB.
While all the reasons you mention above are easily dismissed by anyone remotely interested in the conflict, all of them, in summary, have nothing to do with you. When I asked for how you feel I was not inviting a sounding board of standard meme originated and propagated by state of Israel and Jewish lobby in US.
When I asked how you feel, I meant as someone who is expected not to be so myopic and vengeful.
How do you feel was more along the lines of how US foreign policy is not based on a careful examination and cooperation with major allies but rather sits in stark contrast with it and goes with absolutely zero voice of internal opposition.
How you feel meant what is it to you to hold such a strong and aggressive tone toward the plight of Palestinians especially generations born after 1967 as if you really can relate to the conflict and have a deeper understanding beyond talking points you are mirroring.
But, thanks for you input anyways.
I haven’t seen much evidence that their general attitude (as a group) has changed. Just a few days ago it was announced that a Palestinian State would not grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs, even those who are currently living in “refugee camps” on the West Bank.
I would say that Americans as a group oppose Jim Crow laws. This is evidenced by the fact that those laws have been repealed or stricken down by the courts and replaced by laws which forbid discrimination.
Israel shelling a sovereign nation will certainly raise more international eyebrows, but I doubt this sovereign nation can or wants to reign in it’s complicit role in terrorism.
If Palestine does become a country will it be eligible for UN Peacekeepers?
It seems to me that there is a distinction between the (allegedly) illegal acts of a State and the status of the persons affected by those acts.
So for example millions of ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II and most of their descendants are living in Germany. Would anyone say that those descendants are in Germany illegally? That they have no legitimate claim to live in Germany? And that this illegal status will be passed on to their children forever?
Why not? I care about the conflict.
Anyway, why do you care about the conflict? If you are in Canada, then what does it have to do with you?
Meme or not, my argument has merit. If the Arabs wanted a Palestinian State for constructive purposes only, I would feel bad if the US went against them.
No need for personal attacks. You may not like my answer, but there it is.
As noted, I think the US is not alone in this. But even if we were alone, I would prefer that we were on this side of the debate.
The “plight of the Palestinians” could be fixed in large part if a hypothetical Palestinian State announced that it would accept Palestinian Arabs from all over the world, just like Israel has accepted Jews. If the Palestinian Statehood movement took such a position, my feelings would be a lot more ambiguous.
Illegal is a matter of law, in this case the International Court has ruled that the settlers are in the West Bank illegally. Take note the settlers including the ones born there are citizens of Israel, the only country they automatically have the legal right to reside in is Israel. I don’t know why you would bring up ethnic Germans who were expelled from Eastern Europe when discussing the legal status of the settlers They (the rthnic Germans) and their descents clearly have legal right to reside in Germany as legal citizens of Germany. And let me make it clear it’s not just a matter of legalities either, I can’t see how anyone can claim that these settlers have any sort of right to be where they are.
And let us be even clearer this whole avenue of discussion is a red herring; thoguh the settlement policy has been around for years due recent rapid expansion, most of the settlers were not born in the WB and a large proportion the ones that were born there are chidlren who will clearly have to leave with their parents even if they were to be given the option to reside in the WB by virtue of their birth.
It seems to me that if a settler did wish to live in the WB as part of a furute state, there best option would be to stop opposing a Palestinian state, stop anatgonising the Palestinians, ask for Palestinian citizenship under the PLO charter (or should that be PNC, I cannot remember. Not all would be eligble though) and thrown their lot in with the Palestinians.
I don’t understand this, there’s never been any suggestion that a future Palestinian state wouldn’t accept members of the Palestinian diaspora. Obviously they would prefer that could move back to the homes in Israel they were expelled from. Obviously there’s practical implications intaking back the 2.4 million or so Palestinians living in say Jordan and there’s no reason that the founding of a Palestinian state should prejudice the rights of the Arab Israelis to live where they are currently.
Because I want to show that the principle you are asserting doesn’t make any sense. You are assuming and asserting that if a State violates international law by transferring somebody illegally, it follows that the person’s descendants have no legal right to remain in the transferee territory.
According to what law?
Anyway, it’s a yes or no question: Are you claiming that if Person X is illegally transferred to State Y, then his descendants have no legal right to stay in State Y?
Of course there has, and you would be well aware of this if the media coverage of the situation weren’t so anti-Israel.
Here is an excerpt from a newspaper article from yesterday:
Ever heard of a poll*? :dubious: Or perhaps Hamas, the group that the Palestinian people democratically elected in Gaza? Do you read the news?
Finally, I think when one talks about “The Palestinians” in terms of diplomacy, he/she is talking about those in charge.
*Please see page 30.
And how do you feel about the Arab immigrants -like Syrians- who came to Palestine illegally between 1930-1968? Why would Arafat, who was born in Egypt, have claim to Jerusalem? Why should he [have had] a greater claim than I?
This is the path I have also wondered about. What if the new Nation asked for UN Peacekeepers to help patrol the border and deal with terrorism. What if the new Nation wanted its ports unblocked for trade. Other nations might start making investments (the new China! Palestinian sweat shop labor instead of Chinese!).
I don’t know how much the legal status of Palestine has impacted involvement by the UN.
That’s why I’m all for a Palestinian state. Statehood forces a minimum amount of responsibility and accountability. If for instance you start to fire rocks across the border into a neighboring nation, then that would be an act of war. Israel and its allies should not try to oppose statehood, but work for it being generally accepted that it comes with these same set of general responsibilities that counts for all other nations as well. Which includes of course general religious freedom and that ethnic cleansing of resident Jews or Christians is a big no-no.
Upon reflection, I think (now) that a UN declaration of a Palestinian state would be the best possible thing for Netanhanyu. Consider this:
-he now has a government that he can formally negotiate with
-he can tell the settlers:“either move back into Israel or take your chances”
-he can request UN peacekeepers to patrol the borders
-if the Palestinian state collapses (and attacks Israel), he can unleash his forces and completely destroy the palestinians. No more rocket attcks
There are already folks whom in theory Netanyahu could negotiate with. The problems are that (1) the people he might negotiate with aren’t very serious about negotiating or making peace; and (2) the people he might negotiate with don’t have much power to make commitments which the world will expect to be honored. These problems will not go away in the event of statehood.
He could do that right now anyway with a unilateral pullout.
I suppose, but what exactly would that accomplish?
In which case he would be no better off than he is right now. Except of course for more Leftist accusations of “war crimes.”
Well what if you do it through proxy groups like Hezbollah? What if the state looks the other way as terrorist training camps are being operated within its borders? What if the state pulls a Cuba and invites hostile powers to set up military bases nearby?
Saudi Arabia is UN-recognized and from what I hear lacks religious freedom. Let’s see a few churches and synagogues in Mecca first, ok?
What I’d like to know is why Mr. Abbas referred to ‘the occupation’ as something that’s been going on for ‘63 years’ and acted as though Israel has been in the WB for that long. Does he mean to say that all of Israel is occupied territory?