UN official: US could stop Palestine membership bid

[azurnoir]

Palestine cannot join the United Nations if the US vetoes its application, General Assembly President Joseph Deiss said Friday.

The 15-member Security Council must recommend Palestine for UN membership before the General Assembly can vote on the application, Deiss said.

Israel and Washington strongly oppose Palestinians' bid for UN membership, and the US is widely expected to use its Security Council veto to stop the move.

In his Mideast policy speech on May 19, US President Barack Obama urged Palestinians not to take "symbolic actions" at the UN in September, which he said would not create an independent state.

much more at link

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391625

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This could be Netanyahu's litmus test for Obama and why Netanyahu's speech had Israel's 3 No's Jerusalem, Right of Return and pre-1967 borders

[aranthus]

1. Israel's 3 No's? Come on.

You aren't seriously trying to compare Israel's negotiating position to the decades long Arab refusal to negotiate at all, are you? That's just ridiculous.

[oberliner]

2. It's the latest propaganda sound bite from the Arab American Lobby

The Three “No’s” of Netanyahu

Posted by Jim Zogby at 3:20 pm

Today following their White House meeting, President Obama and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu made statements to the press.

For his part, Netanyahu laid out three "No's" that make movement toward peace impossible.

1) "No" to '67 borders because "they don't take into account ...demographic changes that have taken place over the past 44 years". (A remarkably antiseptic way of describing Israel's illegal settlement expansion!)

2) "No" to Palestinian reconciliation.

3) "No" to the Palestinian "right to return".

http://www.aaiusa.org/blog/entry/The-Three-Nos-of-Netanyahu/

(Aaiusa is the Arab American Institute)

Being disseminated to anti-hasbarists around the internet, no doubt.

[azurnoir]

3. Thanks didn't know it was an item

really I made it up as I was posting 'Jungian Archetypes" maybe?

[shaayecanaan]

8. Yes, how deceptive indeed..

to portray Netanyahu as obstructionist as far as peace as concerned. Frightful stuff really.

We must somehow create a term that would imply that this sort of criticism is unwarranted and beyond the pale. We could just play the anti-semitism card, but that sort of thing is a bit old hat, after all we've been saying all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic for a good while now. Perhaps we'll call it "delegitimisation" instead. That way the more effective the criticism the more illegitimate it must actually be.

[oberliner]

10. Neither deceptive nor frightful

Criticism such as this is not at all beyond the pale.

Netanyahu has been behaving like an ass (his cohorts in Likud, even worse).

Much of the pro-Palestinian propaganda put out by their lobby groups is in fact right on the money.

Just like much of the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by their lobby groups is similiarly right on the money.

Both sides often make very valid points.

[azurnoir]

4. it just seemed kind of an obvious turn around I guess to more than just me

and despite claims of another poster I really do not read Pro Palestinian or 'Leftist' blogs much

[oberliner]

5. Happens to me from time to time as well

I make a point that I think is obvious and people accuse me of spouting "hasbara talking points" - can be quite annoying.

[sabbat hunter]

6. two of the three no's

There can not be a RoR of Palestinians to Israel proper, as it would destroy the state of Israel. Monetary compensation should be given to those that were forced out, but not to those that left on their own, or were forced out by Arab armies (all three things happened) In return arab countries should compensate jews that were forced out after the founding of Israel (Which happened as well)


Also I fail to see why Jerusalem should be part of Palestine, especially the old city. It was never intended to be a part of a Palestine. Status quo for the old city is best (Israeli political control, various religions control the holy sites)

[shaayecanaan]

7. It was never intended to be part of Israel, either...

it just panned out that way.

[sabbat hunter]

9. True

it was supposed to be an international city under UN auspices. But long ago the UN gave up that right by not defending it against the invading Jordanian forces, or getting getting them out afterwards.

[Dick Dastardly]

11. After 10 years the residents of Jerusalem were supposed to

vote on whether they wanted to join Israel, Palestine or remain under the UN. Since the vast majority of Jerusalem since the 1850s was Jewish its pretty obvious they would vote to join Israel.

[shaayecanaan]

12. That is incorrect

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_303