TYT: Obama Wrong About Palestinian State?

[pokerfan]

Run time: 05:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHK6A7b_52E   Posted on YouTube: September 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 301   Posted on DU: September 22, 2011 By DU Member: pokerfan Views on DU: 1719

 
The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks down President Obama's speech at the United Nations regarding Israel and a Palestinian state.

[MrSlayer]

1. Yes, Cenk is right.

But this is what has to be done politically for President Obama.

[PFunk]

2. Yup.

Leave it to Cenk to state things clearly.

[Enthusiast]

3. I agree with Cenk.

BUT.

Obama can not come down on the side of Palestinians if he wants to be reelected. This is a fact. It is just too bad that U.S. foreign policy is often on the wrong side. This is nothing new. We have been doing this shit for decades.

[DrDan]

4. K&R

playing for the Jewish vote

[thesquanderer]

5. A question... borders?

Is it possible for the U.N. to recognize a state, without recognizing its borders? I mean, regardless of whether or not the state itself and is neighbors all agree on those borders, I would think that some U.N. recognized borders would be part of the U.N. recognition of the state. I suspect that that may be the stumbling block. What borders would be used for the purpose of U.N. recognition? I suspect that may make this situation not exactly analogous to what Israel did in 1948.

EDITED TO ADD:
Interesting article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/14/palestinian-statehood-united-nations-vote says

"Abbas is asking the UN for a territorial solution: a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with its capital in Jerusalem.

So it sounds like it in indeed asking for establishment of internationally recognized borders as well.

An interesting angle is that some Palestinians themselves are against this, because they think it pre-negotiates a concession of sorts:

" is not asking the UN to rule on the right of return or the 'ownership' of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem – the real 'dealbreakers' when the two parties sit down to direct negotiations." Those advantages are seen as disadvantages by many Palestinians.

[Dumpster Macaine]

6. Palestinian Borders

I don't quite get it either. The Arab State (Palestinian) was already drawn on the 1947 U.N. Map, next to Israel. They already drew the borders.

[Worship Money]

9. Unfortunately

That wound up being nothing more than a proposal. The Arabs never actually accepted that plan.

And the wars and land seizures in 1948 and 67 complicated matters to the extreme. There was never actually any "original" agreement that we (or they) can go back to.

[Dumpster Macaine]

7. Double Standards

I also agree with Cenk. He could have added though, while Pres. Obama demands Palestinians work out their problems directly with Israel, basically throwing them to the wolves, Obama never suggested the Southern Sudanese work out their new State with Khartoum, or Kosovo with Belgrade. That would have been ridiculous. Against our perceived enemies the full moral weight of the U.N. and our military will be applied. For our geo-political allies there's always a get-out-of-jail free card. How quickly Southern Sudan and Kosovo achieved Statehood, while the Palestinian cause, with all the explosive consequences in the region, are asked to roll over and play dead to Zionist expansionism. An obvious double standard eroding U.N. legitimacy, not to mention exposing U.S. Imperialism.

[avaistheone1]

11. SNAP

:kick:

[pansypoo53219]

8. israel itself has to admit there needs to be a palestine.

maybe england can just create that too.

[izquierdista]

12. Plenty of senile Lords there

Maybe one of them can take crayon to map and create another few decades of resentment like they've done elsewhere.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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