I've been away for a while and just curious why President Obama

[akbacchus_BC]

vetoing Palestine wanting to have state status via the UN. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for President Obama to veto Palestine?

Was on vacation in Poland, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus. Most of these countries are doing well from a tourist point of view but I was really impressed with Warsaw and Belarus (Belarus is rebuilding itself but more modern buildings).

Would like to hear your views about the vetoing of Palestine!

[MadHound]

1. It was, like almost all actions taken by the US vis-a-vis Israel and/or Palestine,

Deeply influenced by politics.

Sure, we've been preaching a two state solution for years now, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, any politician in this country is going to do what is best for his reelection, not what is best for the world.

[akbacchus_BC]

2. Thanks for your response. I honestly thought this was a good way for

President Obama to agree for Palestine to become a state. Guess I was wrong and the piper is still being paid vis-a-vis Israel.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Yep. It's about re-election, not foreign policy. Just like the platitudes at the UN.

[akbacchus_BC]

6. Thanks, now why is Israel so important for President Obama to be

re-elected. I really do not get it why the US, Canada (my home country), Germany and France are so adamant for Palestine not being recognised as a state.

For crying out loud, if Palestine could be recognised by the super powers, am pretty sure peace could be attained in the Middle East. Just my humble opinion!

[DonCoquixote]

12. the answer

Note: I am anti Zionist, but NOT anti-semite. There are many Jews who are LOUD, CLEAR voices against Zionism. However, the fact remains, if they were to recognize Palestine, the Zionists would make sure that a message was sent, just like in Queens where the Rabbis and Ed Koch made sure to Punish Obama for being too "kind" to the Palestinians.

[TheWraith]

3. The logic presented is that any statehood has to start with a viable peace deal.

And that a UN vote doesn't do anything to resolve the actual problems.

That's the theory, anyway. In practice, it's an extension of what's been US policy basically forever, which is "Nobody do anything too hasty."

[akbacchus_BC]

8. And my question is ... wasn't Palestine a peaceful place until a place

was created for Israel? I need to go read up some more and I thank you for your response.

I just do not understand the vetoing process, especially by the US!

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Not really, no

Jews began settling there in the 1920's under British rule and there was plenty of violence between the Jews and the Arabs then. Before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire, which had just been involved in World War I.

Whether or not the Palestinians have statehood in name matters very little if the Israeli army is still occupying their land. If Palestine is granted statehood via this route, it will just show how completely powerless the UN is and how sovereignty doesn't have all that much meaning if you don't have enough guns to enforce it.

But Palestine's leadership probably sees that they don't have any other choice given that Netanyahu won't make concessions because of security concerns. And in Netanyahu's defense, he has a right to be concerned about security.

The entire thing is a clusterfuck and there are no good answers...

[Bluebear]

5. The Nation had a piece...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1985143

[akbacchus_BC]

10. Thanks, very enlightening. The pandering never stops, even with

the greatest country!

[Bluebear]

13. No prob!

[JDPriestly]

7. I support Obama's stance.

[akbacchus_BC]

9. ok, cannot argue with you!