Can somebody explain Palestine's UN status request?

[philly_bob]

What is Palestine asking for?

Is it asking to be accepted as a state? Or is it asking to become a member of the UN Security Council?

Very different things, and journalistic accounts are fuzzy.

If it was up to me, I would say Yes to state status, No (for now) to Security Council membership.

[TexasProgresive]

1. Statehood

I think the confusion is whether they put it before the Security Council or to the General assembly.

Edited to add a Y. Anybody else can't see stupid mistakes in their posts until they post.

[bemildred]

2. In international law, states have legal rights and responsibilities which non-states do not.

Mr Abbas is seeking those rights and responsibilities for his organization. It would, for example, make it harder to deny that the occupation is an occupation, if the land being occupied is recognized as part of another state, and easier for the PA to bring issues to the ICC, UN, or other venues not under Israeli control. The effects would be many, but not particularly concrete in themselves, and militarily it will do nothing of itself.

If you really support a two-state solution, I don't see how you can consistently object to this move in that direction.

[JoDog]

8. Except that the PA

will never accept a 2-state solution. Even if they are just granted Gaza by the UN, that would make any agreement a de facto 2-state solution. A 2-state solution would be a de facto acknowledgement of the existance of Israel and acceptance of its continued existance. If the PA were will to do that, they would be at the negotiating table. But since that is one of Israel's main requirements for the restart of talks, they refuse.

There is no such thing as "occupied land" in Israel. At most, Judea and Samarra are "disputed territories" that were occupied by Jordan before 1967 and then claimed by Israel after the 6 Day War. Even so, Israel has repeatedly offered incredible amounts of territory and concessions, including the 1994 proposal that would have given the PA about 95% of its demands (an offer which probably cost PM Rabin his life) and a 2000 proposal that conceded to almost 100% of the PA desires. Both were rejected. The PA was not then, and is not now, interested in 2-state compromise.

Please remember that there was a 2-state solution already: the original partition of Trans Jordan in 1947. It was split into 2 states: one for Jews and one for Muslims. Rather then accept that, the Arab citizens, backed by the nations that had agreed to accept any refugees as citizens, attacked Israel after it declared itself a political state in 1948. The same thing will happen again in 2012, unless the PA changes one of the basic tenets of its philosphy and accepts the continued existence of the Jewish state.

I'm not saying Israel hasn't done reprehensible things. Quite the contrary. There have been human rights abuses, and they must be dealt with. But anyone who thinks that the PA will settle for just Gaza and/or Judea/Samarra is ignoring history and the facts on the ground, both of which are essential for anyone looking to make a fair assessment of what will go into motion next Friday.

I strongly encourage everyone to take a look at these 2 short videos by an Israeli deputy minister of foreign affairs. And remember, there are 2 sides to every story. All we seem to hear in the West is the PA's side. Take a few minutes to listen to Israel's, just in the interest of being fair. And here's an extra on why the 1967 borders (actually the 1948 borders), combined with modern warfare technology, would likely mean Israel's death, as well as violating previous UN resolutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAuBc_cbXo0&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2hZ6SlSqq0&feature=share

[bemildred]

9. Good luck with all that. nt

[shaayecanaan]

40. Just about every allegation in this post is wrong...

a) Rabin never offered a withdrawal from Palestine in 1994. He offered a partial withdrawal from the Golan Heights, a completely different issue. I think you are confused on this point. There have been two notable offers from Israel. One in 2000 by Ehud Barak which offered about 85% of the West Bank, and one in 2008 that offered slightly more, by Ehud Olmert. Israeli commentators frequently allege that Ehud Barak offered 96%, but this deceit is only possible if you ignore East Jerusalem.

b) The PLO and PA have already recognised Israel's right to exist and have done so since 1994. The current debate is not about whether they recognise Israel but Israel's new demand that they recognise it as a "Jewish state". The Palestinians are reluctant to do so for fear that it would prejudice the interests of Israel's Arab population.

c) the most far ranging peace offer was not made by the Israelis but by the Palestinians. This was the 2008 peace offer made in the Palestine papers that would have entitled the Israelis to keep all their settlements in Jerusalem. But the Israelis refused because they wanted to keep all of their settlements in the deeper West Bank as well.

d) The fact that the West Bank was occupied by Jordan in 1948 makes it no less occupied today by Israel. If you steal a television from Fred, and then I steal that same television from you, I am still a thief, and the television is still stolen, notwithstanding that you had no entitlement to the TV in the first place.

e) the fact that you seem so misinformed (and that the extent of your misinformation consistently favours the Israeli side) would seem to indicate that the Western media is largely biased towards Israel, and indeed most analyses of the US media bear this out.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Don't forget the way the post referred to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria...

That*, combined with urging us to watch videos from a politician belonging to a party that's ultranationalistic and bordering on fascist, doesn't exactly come across as anywhere near even-handed.

The fact that the Palestinians are looking for official recognition of their own state within the West Bank and Gaza automatically shoots down any bullshit claims that the PA isn't interested in two-states...


* While I'm slightly more forgiving of Israelis referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, when an American does it, it sets my teeth on edge....

[azurnoir]

43. IMO someone saw the opportunity for a 'teaching moment'

sort of wooing a 'swing voter' or something

[King_David]

74. My teeth feel the same way when Germany

Refers to Munich as Mynchen .Yikes.

;)

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Are you claiming the West Bank is part of Israel?

Because just in case yr not aware, Munich is part of Germany, and of course the name is different in German.

[shira]

60. You're still claiming the Palestine Papers show there was a Palestinain peace offer ....

...that was more far ranging than Israel's offer?

After you were corrected about it multiple times? With all those stupid claims of yours? Shall we go back in time to see some of those embarassing claims of yours, like PA reasonably agreeing to 10,000 refugees?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=347701&mesg_id=347880

Shameful.

====

For example, how many refugees did the PA agree to in this "far ranging" offer at any time during their talks with Olmert? When did they offer to recognize a Jewish state? What was their proposal WRT the holy sites in Jerusalem?

[Shaktimaan]

88. this post is a mess

Even if they are just granted Gaza by the UN, that would make any agreement a de facto 2-state solution. A 2-state solution would be a de facto acknowledgement of the existance of Israel and acceptance of its continued existance. If the PA were will to do that, they would be at the negotiating table. But since that is one of Israel's main requirements for the restart of talks, they refuse.



Please remember that there was a 2-state solution already: the original partition of Trans Jordan in 1947. It was split into 2 states: one for Jews and one for Muslims.

what? all the elements are there, but they're all mixed up.

[bemildred]

90. You won't get far trying to make sense of it, or disputing it either.

For anything you can say there is a snappy comeback, and it is only if you try to assemble all the snappy comebacks that you see that they don't all fit together.

[hack89]

11. Those responsibilities make shooting rockets from Gaza a real act of war

the PA has put their fate in the hands of Hamas. I suspect they will come to regret it.

[bemildred]

13. So a state of war still exists, right?

That's why these peace treaties are so important to get done?

[hack89]

14. Not with the Palestinians

Syria is the only hold out. Palestine is not a nation so it can't be part of a declared war. Now after statehood, shooting rockets from Gaza is an excellent way of declaring war.

[bemildred]

19. Which is why they need a state, responsibility and authority go together.

Without a legitimate, functioning, empowered, Palestinian state, who is going to stop the rockets for you? With a Palestinian State, you have someone with a real incentive, to do something about it.

[hack89]

35. Except Hamas wants nothing to do with a Palestinian state

and will likely keep shooting rockets to undermine the PA. Lets not forget that they are refusing to hold scheduled elections. So even if the UN recognizes a Palestinian state, there will not be a unified government - there will be two separately governed enclaves controlled by groups hostile to each other. A civil war is not the best way to demonstrate that Palestine is a legitimate, functioning, empowered state. This move could be a complete unmitigated disaster - I am shocked that people refused to recognize just how fractured the Palestinians are.

[bemildred]

37. So then we should do it just to annoy Hamas, eh?

Whose side are you on, anyway?

[hack89]

59. They have to get it right the first time - there will no second chances

and your flippant remark shows how divorced from reality so many supporters of the Palestinian state are. A declaration of statehood will not magically heal all the major differences between Hamas and the PA - they won't even talk with each other so just how are they going to make peace with Israel? If the result of Palestinian statehood is violence between Hamas and the PA then all they have done is prove they are not ready for a state.

"Annoying" Hamas may permanently damage the Palestinian state besides getting a bunch of people killed.

[bemildred]

64. So you feel we need to appease Hamas? Make sure not to offend them? nt

[hack89]

66. No - you have to take their threat seriously

and understand the consequences of ignoring them. Are you secretly hoping the Palestine state will be stillborn? Your actions would lead one to think that is the case.

What do you think will happen when the PA declares a Palestinian state and Hamas refuses to recognize it? What if Gaza secedes from Palestine? Don't you think these are serious matters? Yet you ignore them - why?

[bemildred]

67. I expect a civil war. How the hell do think Gaza got to be the way it is in the first place?

The outcome of that war will depend on the astuteness of the leaders of the two sides and the resources available to them.

[hack89]

69. With Israel to clean up the mess when they are done?

Astuteness is not a trait exhibited by many in this mess.

[bemildred]

71. It seems a bit late, not to say contrary to the facts, to say Israel is not involved?

I quite agree that astuteness is in short supply, emotional blather is the order of the day; however I think that supports my version of what happens next, albeit without much expectation of a happy ending.

[pelsar]

38. when does that song stop?

you have someone with a real incentive, to do something about it.

heard that so many times that the tune seems to never leave.....remember oslo?, once they empowered their own society with their own security forces and culture the suicide bombers started and were celebrated, then we had Hamas taking over Gaza....and as they have consolidated their power, with their "real incentive" they've only mades things worse for their local citizen (5 star hotels, rockets, starving citizens and shari law...). We heard the same song in Iran as well, in Syria as baby Assad took over, Zimbabwa is another example.....

its been proven time and time again, empowering the leadership in a society does not suddenly 'give incentive" for them to act "responsibly in the western definition of the word. That song has been used already on the Palestinian society and doesn't seem to be taking.....at least neither hamas nor the PA are singing it, nor were the Palestinian protestors yesterday at kalendinian check point yesterday, who were very clear that that they want the jews/zionists out (yes they used both and they forgot to mention that they only meant the 67 borders....)


if they are a state, will you back us as we bomb their army headquarters in ramalla for any rockets that come out of Gaza (wouldn't that be part of their "responsabilities" of their leadership as in all states?)

[bemildred]

39. Why would you bomb Ramallah to stop rockets from Gaza?

Do you think that should work somehow?

[pelsar]

56. in war, the generals are responsible for the attacks...

if they have a state, then when we are attacked, which is a declaration of war, its considered a smart move to remove the planners and those ultimatly responsible for the attacks. Since the army HQ is in Ramalla, it makes sense to take it out.

on the other hand i may be wrong and you right...with the new found responsibility as a new state and a member of the UN, they might realize that they have a responsibility to not just stop those trying to murder the citizens of their neighboring country, but also claim responsibility for their actions....not because of anything israel might do, but because its simply the "right thing to do"

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Where's Israel's army HQ based? n/t

[bemildred]

63. Let me see if I can explain:

1.) The PA and the Palestinian rejectionists are enemies.
2.) So if - say - PRC or IJ shoot rockets at Israel, and Israel bombs the PA, then
3.) That encourages them (PRC, IJ, Hamas, etc.) to shoot more rockets so the PA will get bombed more.
4.) And in any case if certainly does NOTHING to discourage rockets.
5.) And in general, it is useless to take revenge on people who have nothing to do with it.

The point WRT the PA is simply that IF you want the Palestinians, in whatever form, to discipline themselves, you have to allow them the means, i.e. a strong, legitimate, and effective government; and ANY such government is going to ALSO be able to harm Israel, if it wants to. A knife is SUPPOSED to be sharp, if it is not, it won't cut.

[pelsar]

73. they already have the means....

they have more then enough security forces to enforce their own security, what they're lacking is the motivation, the political wisdom and the will of their leaders to exercise that wisdom (all very difficult and rare things....). They already have the flags, the national anthem, the streets to name for their heroes,....they are in fact missing nothing other than their own national/cultural will to discipline themselves,...(assuming that is their goal).

having a state, will not suddenly make their govt legit, nor will it suddenly curb the bribery, nor will it suddenly lurch toward western democracy and provide western freedoms...all of that could have been done since olso. It will give them the political means to make things worse in terms of upping up the stakes and creating additional false hopes for their own via pseudo law courts and "expert law opinions"....that is why i'm against it. We're not going to commit suicide or become vunerable just because some european court decides we should trust the PA to stop hamas from trying to kill us, or by declaring your a "humanitarian" that means you do only "good things" and should be trusted.


as far as the rockets, go, just as far as I'm concerned it none of the Palestinians business what kind of state israel is (jewish, druze, spaghetti monster), its none of our business to decide which political party we get to bomb, thats their problem. That whole arfat game of "we aren't doing the shooting, its those other guys.. is so worn out that its translucent. Having a state has a multitude of implications, responsibility for the actions of your citizens is a major component.

its not revenge, its having those in power who risk others lives, get to have their own lives on the line.....they may not like it a whole lot but it sure does change ones perspective.....

But and this is really the jist of it:
if they do get their state, this will be a case of unintended consequences....nobody and i mean nobody has any idea what events will lead to other events, that will lead to consequences of which no one has any idea....its literally a throwing of the dice......

[pelsar]

83. ok..so if they get their state and sharp knife....

and if they do attack us from the west bank.....(any one of their various armed groups), can we then at least bomb those headquarters? and receive the backing of the UN and the "left". I mean, if they believe were in a state of war (occupied jerusalem...) and they have chosen to use violence, doesn't that mean we can use the rules of war and bomb the shit out of the attacking army?

isn't a states responsibility to understand the consequences for their actions?....and using violence on a neighboring state gives the right of the attacked state to do what it has to do to stop the attacks?...isn't that reasonable?

[bemildred]

84. Some random thoughts:

I'd like to respond, but I'm not really sure what you want. The things that come to mind are sort of random, like I don't really believe in the "rules" of war, war is what happens when somebody doesn't want to follow the rules, usually people who didn't get to make the rules are the ones who don't want to follow them, but not always, sometimes people make their own rules but make "exceptions" for "emergencies" and whatnot.

You certainly have my permission to do your best to repel any invading Muslim army coming from the West Bank. Perhaps you can get the settler militias to attack the rear of the invading Palestinian legions.

The Palestinians are not a miltiary threat to Israel, they never have been, and there is no likelihood they will be any time soon. They cannot afford it, they have no experience, no army, no nothing, nobody is going to sell them F-16s, etc., and the IDF will immediately blow any such stuff up.

The Palestinians are, on the other hand, a large and growing political threat, so perhaps it's time to start thinking politically instead of militarily when it comes to working things out with the Palestinians.

I do see a renewed rhetorical interest in negotiations as a result of the UN vote, so maybe something good will come in that direction. The natural tendency of politicians is to do nothing. People usually get angrier at you when you do something than when you do nothing. Doing nothing pisses nobody in particular off. So sometimes you have to light a fire under their asses or nothing happens.

[pelsar]

85. yes i do agree that lighting a fire gets things moving....

i shall explain a bit better as i see there is another post about why israeli liberals are against it. Its pretty simple actually. Usually when one has a state, there is also state responsibilities that go along with it.

we don't see that happening. What we do see happening is the PA state taking advantage of their state status to continue to legally harass israel with a whole new set of western legal tools, but in fact have no responsibility on their own side for their political moves. For instance as a member state of the UN they are supposed to protect human rights, will they be condemned by HR, left groups etc when they put "their gays" in jail? Will their education system change at all?

Normally, as in Iran, saudi arabia, syria, its expected, but then they won't be taking us to the Hague for breaking some international law, hence we don't really care...but the PA will, so seems to me its only fair that they be held to the very same intl western standard. If thats is the case, then i'm all for their state, but realistically its not going to happen. i doubt the posters here will suddenly be up in arms if the PA doesn't have freedom of speech, doesn't have a gay pride parade, the college students doing their "summer camp fight the occupation" variation won't be troubled by the lack of women's rights in the west bank....

that is why for the most part were against it, the double standard will remain.

on the other hand, unintended consequences always seem to result around here.....

[bemildred]

86. No guts, no glory.

The present situation ain't so hot either.
Nice chatting, etc. ...

[King_David]

72. Aren't you needed in that other thread?

It is nearly up to 100 posts.

[azurnoir]

3. Palestine is asking for statehood status the security council ultimately has to OK that

the US says it will veto the request

[Harmony Blue]

4. They will approach the General Assembly

which does not provide state hood, but is definitely one step closer. The origin of the state of Israel also started in the GA but the GA has a lot of power since then to the Security Council.

[oberliner]

15. No they won't

They are going to the security council.

[Harmony Blue]

5. DP.

[bemildred]

6. Palestinians See U.N. Bid as Best Option Available

RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinian decision to apply for full United Nations membership at the Security Council, announced Friday by President Mahmoud Abbas, was the most viable of the only options possible: surrender, return to violence or appeal to the international community, a senior Palestinian official said Saturday.

The official, Nabil Shaath, spoke to journalists before leaving for New York as part of the Palestinian delegation heading to the United Nations. He said that the appeal would change the ground rules of the conflict, and that although the Obama administration had vowed to veto the request and Israel had threatened punitive countermeasures, the Arab uprisings should make them reconsider.

“If I were President Obama or Israel, I would ask myself what is happening in the region,” he said, adding of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel: “Mr. Netanyahu is a pragmatist. If the odds change, he may change his calculations.”

Going to the Security Council instead of to the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where a pro-Palestinian majority is virtually guaranteed, has been considered a riskier and more confrontational approach because it invites an American veto.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/world/middleeast/palestinians-see-united-nations-appeal-as-best-option-available.html

[oberliner]

17. I predict no US veto

I predict 8 yes votes and a whole lot of abstentions.

[bemildred]

20. I am in doubt. Not that I disagree, your proposition is plausible, but I will have to see it. nt

[oberliner]

31. It depends on the EU countries really

If they want to abstain as a bloc or vote yes as a bloc - that could be the determining factor.

I count 8 votes for yes (Lebanon, South Africa, China, Russia, India, Nigeria, Brazil, and Bosnia).

I count 3 that won't vote yes (USA, Germany, Colombia)

And 4 on the fence (UK, France, Portugal, Gabon)

I think probably the three European countries on the fence will join Germany in abstaining as a bloc and Gabon will also abstain.

It is, however, also quite possible for the EU countries to vote yes as a bloc - forcing the US to veto.

[bemildred]

32. Well, I have no clue at that level, let's see how right you are.

I'll give you credit for nerve either way.

[shaayecanaan]

34. It will be very hard for the UK to vote yes...

currently the Lib Dems want the UK to vote yes and the Conservatives would like to vote yes to something in the UNGA but not the Security Council. Cameron is really getting some heat from the US in that regard.

The most likely settlement is that the UK will abstain in both fora. France will either abstain or vote yes. Either way, the US will have to exercise its veto.

[oberliner]

49. If the UK and France abstain, the US won't need to exercise its veto

Nine votes are needed - and they wouldn't be there if the EU countries decide to abstain.

[azurnoir]

61. How many members are in the UNSC ? By my count there are 15

who else will vote no or abstain? I'd say Germany is a shoe in due to in part as it's FM say Germany's "special responsibility to Israel" but who else in your opinion?

[oberliner]

62. There are 15

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

If you look upthread (Post #31) you will see who I think will vote yes, who I think will not vote yes, and who I think is still on the fence.

[azurnoir]

68. yes I saw that can I ask what lead you to this conclusion? n/t

[oberliner]

75. Articles that I've read, news items that I've seen, etc.

It's my hypothesis based on my observation of the situation.

[azurnoir]

81. well there is a thread currently running here in I/P

from ForeignPolicy that 'hypothesis's' the US will use things such as aid to impoverished countries such as Gabon to 'influence' their votes at the UNSC or in other words vote our way or more of your children may die makes one proud to be American eh?

[oberliner]

82. That's crazy

I don't buy it.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. It'll be interesting to see how it goes n/t

[oberliner]

76. I think I might want to flip Gabon and Bosnia

From what I am reading now, Gabon is a Yes vote and Bosnia may be on the fence

[aranthus]

7. Full membership in the UN

Palestine currently has observer status, which doesn't allow it to vote or to call on UN bodies to act. The UN can not confer actual statehood. A state either is or it isn't, just like a rock either is or isn't. It also can't recognize {formally accept} Palestine as a state, because only another state can do that. But if the UN allows Palestine as a full member, that's considered a back door to recognition of statehood. To obtain full membership, the Palestinians first need the approval of the Security Counsel. A "no" vote by any of the U.S., UK, France, Russia, or China veto's Security council approval. Since it is anticipated that the US will veto the bid in the SC, the Palestinian end game is to go to the General Assembly for an upgrade to their status, so they can invoke assistance from UN organizations. Since no government can veto a GA resolution, that is likely to pass.

[oberliner]

16. I don't think the US will veto

I don't think there are 9 votes in the SC. US can abstain.

[bemildred]

10. Q+A: The implications of the Palestinian U.N. drive

(Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Friday he would request recognition of a fully-fledged Palestinian state at the United Nations when he goes to the world body next week, defying fierce opposition from Israel and the United States.

Here are some of the reasons behind the push as well as some of the possible consequences.

WHY DO THE PALESTINIANS WANT TO GO TO THE UNITED NATIONS?

Abbas says 20 years of U.S.-led peace talks have got nowhere and wants a vote in the United Nations to bestow the Palestinians with the cherished mantle of statehood. However, he recognizes that negotiations with Israel will still be needed to establish a properly functioning state.

Justifying the move, the Palestinians point to the success of a Western-backed, two-year plan to build institutions ready for statehood which they say is now finished.

THE PALESTINIANS WANT RECOGNITION ON 1967 LINES. WHY?

The Palestinian Authority (PA) says placing their state firmly in the context of territory seized by Israel in the 1967 war will provide clear terms of reference and mean Israel will no longer be able to call the land "disputed." Instead, it will make clear it is occupied. Israel fears this will enable Palestinians to start legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court (ICC) against some 500,000 Israelis who live in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

http://news.yahoo.com/q-implications-palestinian-u-n-drive-180016139.html

[hack89]

12. It is more accurate to say part of Palestine is seeking statehood

since Hamas does not support the PA's effort.

[LeftishBrit]

18. To become a state.

Basically, a sort of unilateral declaration of independence.

Would make it harder for Israel to maintain the Occupation. Would also require a bit more responsibility from sections of the Palestinian leadership, if it's to succeed.

Not surprisingly, both the Israeli and Palestinian Right are digging in their heels.

[bemildred]

21. Precisely.

How often does one see Hamas, the US right, and the Israeli right all in agreement?

Has Iran/Ahm-an-idjit taken a position? I can't find anything from that loudmouth about it. Would they piss off Hamas if they did? So many questions.

[shira]

22. J-Street and the BDS movement are against it too. Are they rightwingers? n/t

[bemildred]

23. Is Hamas?

You got any other dumb questions?

[shira]

24. Spinning opposition to the UN bid as "rightwing" is disingenuous given J-Street is against it...

...as well as the supposedly "leftwing" BDS movement.

[bemildred]

25. Aren't you needed in that other thread?

It's only up to 200 posts, long way to go yet.

[shira]

27. Nah, someone asked a question and it deserves to be answered honestly and accurately. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

33. But you said that BDS was right-wing...

now you're claiming that they are left wing so that you can point to evidence for left-wing opposition to the recognition of Palestine.

By the way, even that claim is false. The BDS movement has released a position paper saying that recognition of Palestine is good as far as it goes, they just think it needs to be followed up with boycotts and sanctions:-

http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/before-and-after-september-7154

[bemildred]

36. Don't bother. nt

[shaayecanaan]

45. I should really take up gardening (nt)

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Well, to be fair, I'm enjoying the lesson on what's left or right-wing...

It's so very simple. When someone says something that's seen as supportive of the Israeli government, they're left-wing. Even if only moments before they've been denounced as right-wing coz they said something that's not seen as being fully supportive of the Israeli government. I'm kicking myself now for wasting so much time and money on doing political science at uni where they tried to milk more money and time out of me by making it all far too complex, when in reality the difference between left and right-wing is so incredibly simple and easy to detect! ;)

[shira]

50. You strongly support BDS. They're against the UN bid. You must be disappointed....

...that a 'leftwing' organization like the global BDS movement is against the UN bid.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. No, can't say it bothers me too much if they do or not...

But thanks for caring so much about what I might think.

btw, I forgot to add one little bit to the 'Who's Left-Wing or Right-Wing' Theory of Simplicity. If a politician is Palestinian, they're Right-Wing by default, while even the most extreme Right-Wing Israeli governments are merely 'more liberal than (insert name of some other government here)...

[shira]

52. Why do you think the BDS'ers and J-Street are joining with rightwingers against the UN bid?

As to the rest of your post...

The current most extreme rightwingers in the Israeli gov't are definitely rightwingers. But if you could show how any Palestinian leaders are to the left of these rightwingers, that'd be great. Maybe make up a list of leftwing, liberal values, practices, and beliefs and do a side by side comparison...

I think you'll find Israel's rightwing leaders to the left of any Palestinian leaders on pretty much every single issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I've got no idea...

AS to the rest of yr post....

Thanks for making my point so convincingly!

[shira]

54. Of course not...

Let me know when you're ready to prove how Palestinian leaders are to the left of the most rightwing Israeli leaders.

I'll wait.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Yep, that's pretty much the size of it...

Sorry, but if yr going to sit and wait for me to 'prove' something to yr satisfaction, I can only hope yr not holding yr breath...

[shira]

58. Do you think Abbas is to the left of Avigdor Lieberman? n/t

[bemildred]

65. You can bother if you want, just don't do it on my account.

I like gardening. Arguing with true believers on the internet can be entertaining, but it rarely goes anywhere useful or interesting.

[shira]

46. I wrote "supposedly" leftwing. Hell, you think they're leftwing...

You're also not up to date. Your article goes back to June. Here's BDS from days ago against the UN bid...
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201191394042383843.html

[shaayecanaan]

79. They issued another position paper around one month ago...

essentially confirming the last one:-

http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/bnc-reiterates-its-position-on-september-7794

It is quite false to say that they oppose UN recognition of Palestine.

[King_David]

28. Rude nt

[shira]

29. And typical. n/t

[philly_bob]

26. Is Palestine going to Security Council or General Assembly?

Sorry, but I'm still confused. (See replies 4 and 15).

My best guess based on these replies is that PA is going to General Assembly to request UN membership as a state, and that request will be kicked upstairs by the General Assembly to the Security Council, where veto-politics arise.

[aranthus]

30. Security Council first, then the General Assembly.

See post 7. For full membership they have to get Security Council approval, and then the approval of the General Assembly. If they don't get Security Council approval, they can still go to the General Assembly for an upgrade of their status.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. They're asking to become a full member of the UN...

They're not asking to become a member of the SC, which is a process where every couple of years states put their hands up to sit for a term on the SC and the votes of other states decide whether or not they'll get there.

I feel very strongly that Palestine should become a full member of the UN, just like every other state. It should have all the responsibilities and access to UN bodies that existing states like Israel has. The US threat to veto the resolution in the Security Council is churlish and imo shows that there's little interest in two states existing side by side and that it's used as a convenient soundbyte by states like the US and Israel...

[shira]

47. MJ Rosenberg says PA bid should be contingent on recognizing Israel as Jewish state....

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011916105234424660.html

[Jefferson23]

70. He is suggesting the US could make this offer along with specific

language to protect Palestinian Israeli's. This would be in exchange for a yes vote by the US in the Security Council.

[aranthus]

77. As usual, MJR doesn't know what he's talking about.

Recognition as a Jewish state has very serious meaning beyond what it might mean for Arab Israelis {which is the nothing part of it}. The Palestinians know that, and that's why they will never agree to it. Not before they get a state, not after. but I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if Obama has the US vote yes on this anyway.

[Jefferson23]

78. Obama voting yes at the Security Council has a chance in your opinion?

If so, why do you even imagine such a thing could happen?

Rosenberg will not get an answer to his suggestion, Obama will not frame such a deal offer to Israel imo.

[aranthus]

80. Probably not.

If this were his second term, there would be a better than 50-50 chance he would, but he's got enough trouble trying to get re-elected. I agree that Obama would not make the offer that Rosenberg suggests.

[shira]

87. The PA's request is for the world to recognize and support a terror state...

...that will - without any question - deprive their citizens of basic civil rights, persecute women, gays and religious minorities, deny Palestinian refugees citizenship (even those currently within the OPT), and rule via sharia law. A state with no one truly in charge or representative of the Palestinian people due to a PM whose term ran out years ago (and elections postponed until whenever)....

A leftist dream.

Most of the world is anxious to recognize and support such a state.

It will be a virtual wonderland for Palestinians who are not refugees, women, gays, religious minorities, or anyone wishing to freely speak their mind. Okay, it will be great for the elites in charge - not so much for everyone else. But hey, to support such an endeavor is the 'moral' thing to do.

Anyone who utterly loathes Palestinians, wishes the absolute worst for them, and hates their collective guts must support such a state!

:)