A Palestinian state is a moral right (Observer editorial)

[Violet_Crumble]

The case for a Palestinian state is unanswerable and must be supported in the west

For the Zionist movement seeking an independent state of Israel, desire became reality in November 1947, when the General Assembly of the United Nations passed Resolution 181 supporting the establishment of a Jewish state in a partitioned Palestine.

That state was declared on 14 May 1948 by David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish people's council in a Tel Aviv museum. The state of Israel was recognised that evening by President Truman of United States and by the Soviet Union a few days later.

More than six decades later, Palestinians, who at first refused to accept the partition plan of the newly minted UN, are seeking similar recognition, firstly in front of the Security Council, asking for their own state based on the 1967 borders free from occupation and settlement by half-a-million Israelis, able to determine their own affairs.

<snip>

Palestinians, this newspaper believes, are right to be wary of the vague promise that things might be better in a revived peace process at some unspecified time in the future. Despite Oslo and 20 years of peace negotiations, as comparison of maps makes only too clear, the space available for a Palestinian state has only shrunk with each passing decade as Israel has continued to appropriate more land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/observer-editorial-palestine-statehood

[USA_1]

1. One State Solution is Best

Allow true democracy in Israel with full freedom and equality to all Palestinians. Within a relatively short span of time, Muslims will be the majority and this will force an end to the existing apartheid there.

Now I know this is not fashionable or politically correct to say it we all know that the reason why Israelis don't want it is because:

''Israelis see a one-state solution as a demographic threat that would overturn the prevailing Jewish majority within Israel''*

but everyone who truly believes in democracy will applaud it. As one who supports true democracy I'm all for it. Too bad this wasn't done 40 years ago or we would have had peace by now.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

[holdencaufield]

2. I agree...

I also propose a one-state solution for India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. Bring them all together under the banner of Greater India. If only they hadn't partitioned India into different countries in 1947 -- there would be no communal violence in India today, right?

After all -- casualties related to the Indian partition are an order of magnitude greater than those of Israel & Palestine and with an order of magnitude fewer headlines, soundbites and half-arsed opinions about how to stop them.

[LeftishBrit]

6. So's pie in the sky

A one-state solution right now would mean civil war.

'true democracy in Israel with full freedom and equality to all Palestinians.'

And all Jews too? Well, it would be a nice idea, but it's not going to happen. Won't work on either side, and that would mean WAR.

[azurnoir]

11. what are your feelings about the Palestinians UN bid, if I may ask?

I think it is a first in a legitimite Palestinian and gives weight both legal and political to that goal

[LeftishBrit]

14. I support it, but suspect that it will be sabotaged by internal Palestinian politics.

[azurnoir]

16. if your speaking of Hamas IMO not really no that Hamas won't try

however statehood would give the PA additional weight to oppose Hamas and the Palestinian people in Gaza support statehood perhaps Gaza could see a 'springtime' of its own

[USA_1]

15. ''Won't work on either side''

That's what secessionists who hated integration said during the 1860s in the USA. History proves they were largely wrong.

[provis99]

3. is an independent Scotland also a moral right?

Sometimes, the Guardian is just full of shit.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Actually there's a difference between devolution and independence

Devolution is partial self-rule - akin to the position of a state within the USA. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now do have devolution in that sense, but not full independence.

[LeftishBrit]

7. If a majority of Scots want it, yes.

There is likely to be a referendum on this, but it's not likely to get a majority. A significant minority of Scots do want independence; but not at present a majority.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Did you get beyond reading the title of the OP?

It's always a good idea to do that before calling something 'full of shit'. So, after you've finished reading it, feel free to return and explain what exactly is 'full of shit' about that editorial. I'd also be interested to know if you support Palestine being recognised as a state or not...

[shaayecanaan]

4. Hear hear...

on the 23rd of September, I'll certainly be having a beer for Palestine. Actually it will be 24th of September here, but whatever.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. I was thinking of starting a new drinking game starting the 24th...

Every time someone on an internet forum comes out with something along the lines of 'there's no such country as 'Palestine'!!!', have a drink. I'd also be suspecting there'll be a mad flurry of <whine> 'The unilateral move by 'Palestine' to be recognised as a state is something no other state has ever done before. They're calling for the destruction of Israel by doing that!' </whine> which could mean one drink for each mention of 'unilateral' or 'destruction of Israel', but I'm an advocate of responsible drinking and I fear the consequences of so much binge drinking ;)

[azurnoir]

12. well I don't much drink but I could think of something I suppose

:evilgrin: I will be closely following the vote

[Violet_Crumble]

13. I'm doing a dry September, so coffee's my alternative n/t