UN may declare Palestine its own sovereign state

[Playinghardball]

Source:Raw Story
By Eric W. Dolan

The United Nations may declare Palestine a sovereign state whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem during its annual General Assembly meeting in September.

According to the New York Times, support for a UN resolution to recognize an independent Palestinian state has steadily been growing.

The declaration of Palestine state would put Israel in a bind. If the UN were to pass such a resolution, Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow UN member. Israel has been building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza for decades.

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations broke off months ago after Israel refused to halt the construction of further settlements.

Read more at:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/04/un-may-declare-palestine-its-own-sovereign-state/

[provis99]

1. stupid. that will just start another mideast war.

[vim876]

2. Whaddya mean "start"? nt

[Paradoxical]

3. Uhhh...what is this theory based on?

[Hugabear]

19. Yes, god forbid the Palestinians have their own state

You know, like it was originally supposed to be when Israel was created?

[NoBlueDogs]

28. Well said! n/t

.

[PCIntern]

35. you mean "Trans-Jordan"?

[FLAprogressive]

4. I'm sure this will get played in the US as "anti-semitism" or some bullshit

[howaboutme]

5. Why not a one state solution?

It would lead to the only non-racist answer that would be fair to all parties. It is an abomination to all mankind to allow any nation to exist for the purpose of racial and religious purity, and not ostracize it from the world.

[fujiyama]

7. Too much bad blood at this point

Israel was founded as a nation that would be a homeland for Jews. But considering the way many Palestinians have been treated since its formation, I doubt there would be any trust on either side.

Also, you note that it's an abomination for religious states to exist (which I agree on principle), but Israel is far from the only one in this regard.

[Chef Eric]

8. Really? You think Israel exists "for the purpose of RACIAL and religious purity"?

That's odd. I'm Jewish, and I've been around Jews my whole life. But I NEVER met another Jew who considered the Jews to be a "race." An ethnic group, perhaps. But a race? No. In fact, I can only think of ONE GROUP in the last 100 years that truly believed that the Jews were a "race." They were quite prominent in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.

[howaboutme]

11. Wouldn't diversity provide strength and respect for Israel?

The point made is about discrimination against others. It is not about the definition of Israelis as being about religion/ethnicity/race/dna/non-religious atheism. That discussion is irrelevant to the issue. Even among the Jewish there is no consistent answer. http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

The question is about a nation that bases eligibility for immigration, citizenship, rights of residents upon ethnicity. How many nations have such restrictions? Why would a nation lack respect to those who were forcibly removed from their stolen lands? The golden rule is about behavior and the way people treat and respect others. When that respect or lack of, is ethnic based what terminology is appropriate? Why would any American support open borders in the USA yet oppose the principle in Israel?

Israel would be made a stronger and much more respected nation through diversity and respect of peoples than it ever will using the status quo. Yes it would take time to peacefully bring back together the same peoples that once shared that land, but we did it in the USA, and so have other nations.

[stevenleser]

21. Just about every country has immigration policies based on ethnicity.

They don't call it that, but I guarantee you that in virtually every country out there, an average German person requesting to immigrate will have a much higher chance of a successful outcome than an average Haitian applicant.

[Chef Eric]

23. First of all, it was YOUR point that Israel exists for the purpose of "racial purity."

And now you say that the point is "irrelevant"? Your arguments would be more cogent if you did not try to sidestep your own points.

Second, I'm sure if you asked any Jewish Israelis, they would tell you that Israel's goal is not to become "stronger and more respected." They would tell you that Israel's goal is merely to remain a Jewish state, the way it was founded in 1948. And they would tell you that it is for THEM to decide how to meet that goal, just as it is for Americans to decide how to meet their goals.

Third, I'd like to remind you about the original U.N. partition plan in 1947. The resolution called for two states in Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews accepted this plan. The Arabs did not accept it; they preferred war.

That is not to say that the Jews in Israel have not made their share of mistakes. They have made many mistakes, some of them big. But the biggest mistake of all was made by the Arabs in 1947-48, and both sides are still paying for it.

[howaboutme]

30. No version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.

Chef you say - That is not to say that the Jews in Israel have not made their share of mistakes. They have made many mistakes, some of them big. But the biggest mistake of all was made by the Arabs in 1947-48, and both sides are still paying for it.

Both sides may still be paying but the American people have made the biggest sacrifice of all, and that needs to be reminded and it has not received the proper attention. Hundreds of billions in aid and trillions of dollars and runaway inflation that the 70s oil embargo cost the USA as a direct result of the Israeli and Arab conflicts. The embargo came about because of our unfettered support of Israel in their acquisition of lands that were taken in the late 60s war. Those are the most expensive lands in history for Americans. This doesn't even touch the debate about the causes of terrorism against the USA, (and it isn't about Muslims hating our freedoms). These events involving Israel have been extraordinarily expensive hits to our society from which the USA may never recover, so to be fair we the USA people have a right to have a huge say in this conflict.

The only way that this nightmare for the USA, for Israel and the Palestinians will ever end is to have the Israelis and Arabs get together on common land, just as the South Africans did and create an multi-ethnic society. Instead of a Frederick De Klerk, Israel has been hamstrung with a Peter Botha.

To quote this Post article. "The main obstacle to a single-state solution is the belief that Israel must be a Jewish state. Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid were similarly entrenched virtually until the eves of their demise. History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090204665.html

BTW where's the the OP? A fishing line was thrown into the pond but left unattended.:-)

[Chef Eric]

34. A one-state solution is not a solution at all

...at least not for those who believe in Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

There are other countries on this planet that were established in order to preserve singular cultures based on specific religions. Pakistan, for example, is an Islamic Republic. Do you question Pakistan's right to exist as an Islamic Republic? Iran is an Islamic Republic too. Do you question Iran's right to exist as an Islamic Republic?

[former9thward]

9. I guess in your book all the Islamic Arabic states should be ostracized.

Israel has all racial groups and allows any religion. The Arab states demand purity in all respects.

[Puregonzo1188]

14. I actually have no problem with that. Palestine should not have been partitioned.

Though a two-state solution based on '67 borders is what the Palestinian people seemed to want and it's not my place to second guess them.

[stevenleser]

17. Israel is definitely not racially pure and is also not religiously pure.

There are Muslim Israelis and Christian Israelis.

I just dont get the one state solution idea and what would motivate anyone to propose such craziness. You have two different people who want the right to self determination without the other and you want to force them together. Why not force you to share a one room apartment with Sean Hannity or whomever else you find repugnant and finds you mutually so. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The solution is to give the Palestinians a state in the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza and give them reparations for what they lost in Israel.

[cali]

32. you can't get there without bloodshed that makes what's been going on

look like a cotillion. And then what do you do about Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc? In a perfect world the one state solution would be the best solution.

[Capitalocracy]

36. A single, democratic, equal state would be the best solution.

But at this point, I'll just take a solution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Will NATO provide a no-fly-zone over the new state? It will likely need one.

[jimlup]

10. Even if the General Assembly passes this the US will veto it.

That would essentially end it.

[stevenleser]

15. No, its not a security council resolution, its a general assembly vote.

If it were a security council resolution, then yes, any of the permanent members could kill it with a veto. Not so with general assembly votes. General assembly measures need a 2/3rds majority of all states present.

[jimlup]

18. Yes but the US and Israel regularly ignore General Assembly resolutions

If the US votes "NO" it is effectively a veto. Just sayin' I'm too lazy to find the reference but precedent exists here. The US effectively veto's if it votes "NO". I wish it were not true but it is.

[stevenleser]

20. Again, you are thinking about something different.

You are either thinking about Security Council resolutions or you are thinking about "recognition" of a state which is not only a 'US' thing. Every country has the right to recognize or not recognize another countries legitimacy.

If 2/3rds of the UN votes for this, it is recognition of the new Palestinian state by 2/3rds of the world's countries right off the bat. Whether the US and/or Israel recognize them would be irrelevant at that point.

[jimlup]

26. No that is not what I said.

The US regularly violates General Assembly votes. Particularly when the correspond to Israel/Palestine. I'll dig up the reference but it will take awhile.

Basically what I am saying is that you are naive. The US wouldn't be happy about it but they won't abide by it. Mark my words.

[stevenleser]

37. Whether the US "abides" by it is irrelevant. And the word is "naiive"

Unless you think the US is going to militarily intervene in the situation, the US is not a factor.

What you wrote makes no sense whatsoever.

[Puregonzo1188]

12. As it should.

[lonestarnot]

13. Rugh ro.

[jillan]

16. Oh goody! Now we can look forward to even more bloodshed.

[I Drink Water]

22. And of course, the WH is against it.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. More stupid posturing.

What a poorly written article.

[Scurrilous]

25. Good news.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Corruption Winz]

27. I love how people love owning land....

Just to inevitably destroy it. Don't worry about just enriching and bettering the land you currently have. No. Don't be silly. Attain more land and fuck it up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Why should that be given any more credence than the original UN mandate for Israel

which was promptly ignored by the Arab nations?

[cali]

31. good. it's past time for this.

[WinkyDink]

33. I guess we're not in the late 1940's anymore, Toto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine