Yes to Palestine

[bemildred]

Later this month, the Palestinian Authority intends to go before the United Nations to request recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Although there is strong backing for the bid, the United States, in the name of supporting Israel, has stated its willingness to use its Security Council veto power to keep the Palestinians from joining the U.N. as a full voting member. The U.S. has also refused to join in a more symbolic General Assembly vote that could change the Palestinians' status from a "nonvoting observer entity" to a "nonvoting observer state."

Here are five reasons why the U.S. should support the Palestinian bid and not exercise its veto at the U.N.

Negotiations have failed.

Two decades of negotiations have not brought the Palestinians a state of their own. Israelis and Palestinians blame each other for the current impasse.

But the question of who is at fault is irrelevant. What matters is that in 1993, when the Oslo accords set up a framework for a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution, there were a little more than 100,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. Now that number stands at more than 300,000. According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, about half a million Israelis now live "over the Green Line" in what is designated as the future Palestinian state. Every day the Palestinians wait for a negotiated state, another sliver of that state is absorbed into Israel. A few more years and practically nothing will remain.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0915-aslan-palestinian-vote-20110915,0,3871067.story

[Tesha]

1. Ahh, but NY-9 provides one reason to veto that will over-ride all the reasons...

...not to veto; our politicians are scared shitless
of losing their seats.

Tesha

[holdencaufield]

2. Just a couple of observations...

"...about half a million Israelis now live "over the Green Line" in what is designated as the future Palestinian state..."

Designated by whom? The land over the Green Line belonged to Jordan in '67 -- they have made it clear they no longer wish to own it. So, where is it written that the "Green Line" is the border?


"...Every day the Palestinians wait for a negotiated state, another sliver of that state is absorbed into Israel. A few more years and practically nothing will remain..."

A really good reason to come to the table and talk to Israel.

[bemildred]

3. Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really not know?

The Green Line is commonly used as the basis of a political settlement, the Israeli government talks that way, 1967 armistice line "with swaps". One sees it ad nauseum.

[holdencaufield]

4. But never settled

Why would Israel (or the Palestinians for that matter) accept a border that isn't to their benefit? Neither side can impose their will on the other other and the UN can't force the issue. So -- NEGOTIATION is the only way to settle the border which won't be on the original '67 Green Line.

These little amateur-theatricals at the UN aren't going to bring either side to the table -- it's designed to drive them further away.

[bemildred]

5. Who the heck said "settled"? The question was "Designated by whom?"

Not "settled by whom?"

The outcome of the UN theatrics appears to me to be very much in doubt. We have a week to go and the noise machine is just really starting to crank up.

[holdencaufield]

6. They've always been in doubt

As much as they've love to pimpslap Israel, a lot of countries must realise that if the Palestinians can pull this off, why not the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, the Chechens in Russia, the Nubians in Kenya, Muslim separatists in Kashmir, Rohingyas in Myanmar...?

A declaration of statehood and full admission to the UN will open up a huge can of currently stateless worms that these countries don't want opened.

[bemildred]

7. Indeed. nt