Palestinians Win Statehood Upgrade at U.N.

[Poll_Blind]

Source: Jewish Daily Forward

United Nations — The United Nations General Assembly voted to grant de facto recognition to a sovereign state of Palestine by upgrading the U.N. observer status of the Palestinian Authority from “entity” to “non-member state.”

The overwhelming vote came minutes after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked the world body to issue a “birth certificate” for a new nation of Palestine.

“Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel,” Abbas told the 193-nation assembly after receiving a standing ovation.

“The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine,” he said.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/166943/palestinians-win-statehood-upgrade-at-un/?utm_campaign=&utm_source=direct-jd.fo&utm_medium=jd.fo-other&utm_content=general-general

---

Much more at the link!

PB

[dipsydoodle]

1. Tough for those who don't like it

[Poll_Blind]

2. Yeah, if you're watching the UN still, Susan Rice is SHRIEKING right now!

Seriously, she's on right now, probably on CNN but definitely Al Jazeera.

PB

[dipsydoodle]

5. I'd literally just walked in door

Al Jazz score is: Palestine wins UN observer state vote 138 to 9 with 41 abstentions.

138 : 9 and so the abstentions would've made sfa difference to the tally.

[BainsBane]

50. But the US didn't veto it

Rice's outrage is likely cover to placate Israel.

Edit: Evidently the US can't veto resolutions before the general assembly. Apparently this doesn't come before the Security Council.

FYI, "shrieking" strikes me as gendered and mildly offensive. I mean this as more of a heads up than a complaint, since issues of language have been much discussed on DU lately.

[dipsydoodle]

60. It wasn't subject to a veto - that's why.

It was subject to a simply majority vote only.

[bemildred]

61. We have no veto in the UNGA, we voted against it. nt

[BainsBane]

62. Thanks

Yes, I just read that in a news article.

[JackRiddler]

72. There is no veto of a General Assembly vote.

Veto power exists only for the five permanent members of the Security Council.

[Poll_Blind]

73. No kidding, she was literally SHRIEKING. Men can shriek. Women can shriek. She was SHRIEKING.

Actually, more like shriek-growling. I thought it was fabulously idiotic. And that's before you take the idiotic things she said into account.

PB

[dipsydoodle]

86. This I assume which is already up on Youtube for posterity.

.

[Alamuti Lotus]

96. speaking into a microphone, but still had to yell.. that takes talent

what a nice lady, let's put her in charge of something important--STAT. I want to see her talking to Iran, China, and Russia like that. And I really would, just to see which one breaks protocol and bursts out laughing first.

[ieoeja]

138. Nobody who has ever been the target of shrieking would call this shrieking.

She is loud. But she is talking, not "HOW CAN YOU WORSHIP SATAN!! !! WHAT IS WRONG .. HOW CAN YOU .. OH MI GOD . YOU ARE SICK!!!!! YOU DISGUST ME!!! HOW CAN YOU WORSHIP SATAN!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

Approximate response from a woman learning that I was an Atheist.



Rice is simply trying to project her voice. It is pretty silly given that she has a mic. But it is most defintely not shrieking.

[PatrynXX]

71. didn't score many points on that one

probably have to smooth that over later..

[patrice]

3. K&R & Next step? nt

[Poll_Blind]

4. Haul both their asses back to the negotiating table with the newly-added stick that...

...as an observer state, the UN recognizes Israeli settlements as illegal occupations of a sovereign country.

If Netanyahu wishes it, he can use this for leverage to beat off the extremely right-wing elements in his coalition government.

PB

[MH1]

84. Netanyahu wish it, to "beat off the extremely right-wing elements"? LOL, I seriously doubt it. nt

[Poll_Blind]

139. LOL, I know. Just enunciating that he's got a choice.

He's vile.

PB

[yurbud]

136. he is those elements.

[Dont call me Shirley]

6. To stop the apartheid

[USMCMustang]

19. Apartheid to Some

Not to everyone.

[Alamuti Lotus]

22. I know it's not what you meant...but ironically yes, that is the precise definition of apartheid..

personally I've never quite been fond of the comparison, though for very different reasons than might be expected, but that's not as important as the unintended comedy factor.

[Ash_F]

37. Apartheid to anyone who knows what Apartheid is.

Ironically, the US and Israel were among the last hangers-on in support of Apartheid South Africa. That support became a political black eye as the world came to its senses and now no politician in either country wants to talk about the fact that they supported it back then. And here we are again.

[Samjm]

101. Because the Apartheid South African Government

Was VEHEMENTLY anti-communism. And it gave the US a good anti-communist foothold on the continent.

[Ash_F]

130. Pretty sure that's not it

Pretty sure it was because anti-Black bigotry was still fashionable in the US into the 80's. That changed and the same is happening with anti-Arab bigotry.

[hughee99]

135. Yes, I clearly remember when being a bigot went out of fashion in the very early 1990's,

it was about the same time as Glam metal and the mullet went out of fashion where I grew up. I think there was something that happened in the Soviet Union around then, but surely that's just coincidental.

[Ash_F]

137. If I take you implication to be correct, that is literally as a bad as the "states rights" people...

...who wish to revise the history of the civil war. I don't know if you are just ignorant of the timeline or what, but that is a pretty gross argument to make on DU.

First of all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_Act
That was 1986. "President Ronald Reagan vetoed the law but was overridden by Congress (by the Senate 78 to 21, the House by 313 to 83)". Attitudes were gradually changing through the 60s all the way up to that.

Here is a NYT article that was written that day with some surprisingly admirable quotes from several Republican leaders, and a less than admirable one from the likes of Jesse Helms, of course. I highly recommend reading it.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/03/politics/03REAG.html

Now today is not quite as big as the second of October 1986. That day is further down the road, maybe another 5-10 years. But it is a good day.

[hughee99]

142. A pretty gross argument to make?

During the cold war, the US backed many governments with serious human rights issues because they were anti-communist. I'm not "revising history" or dismissing what anyone did, but it is the truth.

If South Africa had apartheid and a pro-communist government, the US wouldn't have supported the government. If they had complete freedom for all, but were anti-communist, the US still would have supported the government. Yes, there were bigots in the US and the US government at the time that were willing to overlook or even support apartheid but THIS was not the reason they got US support.

When the cold war was winding down, the US government no longer had the same incentive overlook such abuses.

What's the "gross argument" here, that I'm suggesting that the US support for South Africa was based on something other than a hatred of black people?

[Ash_F]

150. That argument does not line up with the timeline of events.

As detailed in the previous post with links. Are you being purposefully ignorant?




You know what, have a nice day.

[hughee99]

151. What???

The US supported the South African Government for DECADES under apartheid. YOU seem to be suggesting that the primary reason for this support was a dislike of black people. I have suggested that the primary reason for this support was a dislike of communism. Yes, over time the issues in S.A. became more and more unacceptable to some in the US government, but the repukes were more than willing to excuse almost anything in support of an anti-communist ally (like Saddam Hussein, for example).

Yes, the 1986 resolution shows that this situation became unacceptable (to those in congress, anyway), but has no relevance as to why the US supported S.A. in the first place.

The prevailing attitude during the cold war was to support anti-communist governments (which S.A. was) and in large part ignore whatever crimes they may commit. The US didn't go looking for governments that oppressed blacks just so they could support them, regardless of their other other politics. To me, this sounds a lot like what you've been arguing. During the 80's, this policy of overlooking the crimes of our allies was certainly something that was changing. Maybe that was because some felt that the Soviets were "softening", maybe it was related to a change in attitude as you've said, maybe it was just because of partisan politics, but the end result was a number of new laws and resolutions (like this one and the Boland Amendment) that attempted to address some of these issues.

[Samjm]

155. Yes, I agree with you 100%

I'm from South Africa, and this is the understanding of those of us who were there at the time. We knew the world was opposed to Apartheid, but we also knew that the US supported things kind of "under the table". They also supported South Africa in the so-called Bush War with Angola to prevent the spread of Communism in the area.

Apartheid didn't just happen in the 80's. It had been going on for decades. The US did support the Apartheid government and their biggest benefit to doing so was to stop Communism on a continent that would be ripe for its world views.

[libodem]

83. It's Aparthied

It's segregation of the most sanction imposing kind, if they are even considered Israeli people, at all. They are blocked at both ends and deprived of everything that could make life easier.

[DeSwiss]

38. +1000

[Alamuti Lotus]

13. this move shakes up the status quo, slightly

and that's what it was intended for--the move was made by the illegitimate Abbas government to force the occupation forces back to the negotiating table, which has been just so unbelievably successful for all parties so far. It's basically the only card that the collaborationist Abbas regime can play over the resistance formations: he can present his new level of diplomatic acceptance by the world powers as an argument to Israel that he is in the best position to make the concessions they want of a neutered and subservient Palestinian "state", so they have to talk to him. Meanwhile, the debate in Israel over this event is "do we overthrow him now (Avigdor Lieberman--the extremist), or wait a few months and overthrow him later (Netanyahoo--the moderate)?"...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

21. Bibi "moderate"???

Bibi is nothing but a shinier/happier extremist.

[Alamuti Lotus]

25. you missed my point

in the context of the present discussion in Israel (do we overthrow them now or later?), his "later" stance makes him the "moderate" in the discussion. That's absurd, which is precisely the point.

[atreides1]

17. Good question

If the US and Israel follow through on their threats to deny funding then we'll sit by and watch the Palestinian people suffer!!!

[dlwickham]

64. maybe the Arab states could increase funding

and maybe Iran could send more aid instead of weapons

[former9thward]

78. Arab states provide more funding? That is funny.

What funding? The Arab states treat the Palestinians like shit. The refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan are hellholes. The Arab states simply use the Palestinians as propaganda props against Israel.

[JudyM]

115. +1 n/t

[Scootaloo]

118. "The Arab states treat the Palestinians like shit." - But they don't bomb them or steal their stuff

And there's a certain level of irony in you griping about the Palestinian refugees being used as "propaganda props", while yourself using them as such props to demonize other Arab nations while ignoring where the real responsibility for those refugees lies.

If your butt is really that sore about the use of those refugees as propaganda pieces - and I don't think it is, I think you're just repeating a tired-ass anti-Arab screed - then the obvious solution is to end their refugee status and allow them to return to their homes - or, at least, to their new nation.

Guess who's standing in the way of either solution, though? It's not Jordan or Lebanon.

[former9thward]

134. No its not Jordan and Lebanon.

Its the Palestinian Authority. They have rejected every attempt to grant them a state -- starting in 1948 when their predecessors rejected the UN mandate for two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian. This has continued through 2000 when Bill Clinton at the Camp David summit endorsed a plan to give them a state. Arafat rejected it. But I am sure you will say Clinton is part of the "anti-Arab screed"

[ieoeja]

144. Didn't Egypt and Jordan occupy Palestine before Israel took over the occupation?

You are correct in that too many people treat this issue like it started in 1967. I actually had an argument with an older gent who never heard of the Arab invasions of 1948, 1949, the 1950s. He even did not know of the 1973 invasion! I don't know what source he was using, but it completely wiped clean the Arab slate on this issue.


Today, the Palestinians have become to the Arab nations what the Tea Party is to the Republican Party: a monster of their own making.

They told them to flee Israel so they would be out of the way of their invading armies. Then more fled because of abuses by Israelis extremist elements during that war.

After the 1st invasion came to a pause, they were told to wait as the invading armies had made some inroads into Israel. Then the 2nd invasion resulted in a counterattack that had the British and French rush to keep Israel from taking the Suez! Israel withdrew to the originally mandated borders (with an exception around Jerusalem, I believe).

At that point the Palestinians split into two major groups. Those that wanted to return to their old homes, and those that wanted to leave. Israel did not trust the former (which was understandable, but probably a mistake on their part). And the Arab nations refused to let them enter their lands wanting to use them as props.

There must have been a third group wanting to establish a separate nation. But that must have been a pretty small group as we never heard from them.

Not that it mattered what they wanted. As stated previously, I'm pretty certain other Arab nations kept their armies poised in the Palestinian territory and were the actual rulers from 1948 to 1967. Then Israel from 1967 to the present. The Palestinian Authority was not established until 1994. Prior to that I don't think Palestine had any internal governing body to speak of.

Today, I believe most Arab nations would like to normalize relations with Israel. But they kept their own populace, and especially the Palestinians, so militantly anti-Israel that they can not.

[former9thward]

147. All good points.

I have traveled to 90% of the Arab states in the greater Middle East region. Most of them are economically backward and use Israel as an excuse for their economic troubles. It is for that reason the Arab states can't allow a two state solution. It would take away an excuse of their failure to bring their countries into the 20th century (the 21st is too much to ask for).

[Scootaloo]

156. Well, considering the 2000 "offer" forbade any right of return to the Palestinian "state..."

I would point out you don't know what you're talking about, but I guess that already goes without saying given your stated position.

[former9thward]

157. I'll trust Bill Clinton on the subject more than you.

I know, he didn't know what he was talking about either. You are so smart. At least in your mind such at it is......

[Scootaloo]

159. I'd suggest some research

Because the Clinton Parameters required the Palestinians to waive their right of return, and would have freed Israel from any need to provide compensation as well. It would have allowed some repatriation to a Palestinian state - after five years' negotiation with Israel on the issue.

On Edit: Yes, the title line of my previous post is factually incorrect. There was not a total denial of that right, only a conditional deferrment of it. My bad.

[hack89]

174. Unconditional right of return will never happen

I can see a conditional RoR perhaps limited to those who were alive in 47 with reparations for their descendents living in neighboring countries. But that would require the Arab countries to let Palestinians out of their refugee camps so I don't see that happening.

[Douglas Carpenter]

168. The Myth of the Generous Offer - Distorting the Camp David negotiations By Seth Ackerman

for FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-myth-of-the-generous-offer/

The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon, 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn't clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Violence or negotiation?

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader's "response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault" (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). "Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He "used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn't get at the Camp David bargaining table" (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

Settlements off the table

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel. Sharon has made his position on the negotiations crystal clear. "You know, it's not by accident that the settlements are located where they are," he said in an interview a few months after his election (Ha'aretz, 4/12/01).

They safeguard the cradle of the Jewish people's birth and also provide strategic depth which is vital to our existence.The settlements were established according to the conception that, come what may, we have to hold the western security area [of the West Bank], which is adjacent to the Green Line, and the eastern security area along the Jordan River and the roads linking the two. And Jerusalem, of course. And the hill aquifer. Nothing has changed with respect to any of those things. The importance of the security areas has not diminished, it may even have increased. So I see no reason for evacuating any settlements.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak has repudiated his own positions at Taba, and now speaks pointedly of the need for a negotiated settlement "based on the principles presented at Camp David" (New York Times op-ed, 4/14/02).

In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02).

Ariel Sharon responded by declaring that "a return to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel" (New York Times, 5/4/02). In a commentary on the Arab plan, Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston (2/27/02) noted that the offer was "forcing Israel to confront peace terms it has quietly feared for decades."

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-myth-of-the-generous-offer/

[Douglas Carpenter]

169. The Chief Israeli negotiator and Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo ben-Ami said that he would have

rejected the Camp David 2000 offer if he had been a Palestinian leader. To to have accepted the Camp Dave 2000 offer would have turned the Palestinians Territories into a non-viable state - disconnected into multiple cantons. The Taba conference of January 2001 did offer some hope - but the Israelis - not the Palestinians walked out. Although to be fair, they were on the eve of Israeli elections which everyone foresaw a win by Sharon who absolutely vowed that he would not accept any agreement with the Palestinians. This was all very unfortunately because all sides did state and the European Unions records does support the claim - that they were actually getting close to an agreement. But it was certainly not the Palestinians who walked away. You can read this document which was published later in Haaretz :

http://prrn.mcgill.ca/prrn/papers/moratinos.html

The Israeli redeployment from the Gaza only made the Gaza non-viable as an entity completely cut off from the world - everyone knows. There is not a single credible human rights organization in the world involved in this issue who would say otherwise. At the same time they were withdrawing from the Gaza they were continuing relentless expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

It is a bit disingenuous of the Israelis to claim that they have made any concessions when - they have done nothing but relentless expansion at all points. Here is a table recording Israeli settlement expansion from 1972 to 2011.

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/comprehensive-settlement-population-1972-2006

[madrchsod]

177. +2

[madrchsod]

178. israel has internal problems that will have to be dealt with.

using the enemy from without has kept a lid on internal problems. once peace takes root the israeli`s will have to deal with their internal struggles.

[cpwm17]

179. I don't see peace on the horizon with current Israeli attitudes

http://morallowground.com/2012/11/06/poll-majority-of-israelis-support-apartheid-against-arabs/

A new poll has revealed shocking widespread discriminatory views held by Israeli Jews toward the country’s Arab citizens and majority support for apartheid policies toward occupied Palestinians.

Israeli policy reflects Israeli opinion.

[Alamuti Lotus]

102. "the Arab states" are in no position to act independent of US policy..

It is always a little funny (not really) to see "the Arab states" mentioned as if they're some independent, cohesive entity; they're not.

The monarchies (Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE--I'm leaving out Oman, because in many ways the ruling family there differs from the remainder of the GCC monarchies) are all deeply conservative, repressive hyper-capitalist dictatorships that openly support the US/Israeli position and are just as much client states of US foreign and economic policy as Israel is (and in the latter case, it is not the other way around no matter how many times such a shady suggestion is made). These dictatorships are facing increased pressure from the people due to their acquiescence in US policy and the disastrous effects it has on their countries, but remain steadfast in their bad decisions.

Of the republics, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen are ruled by pseudo-dictatorships backed and commanded by the US and its agents. The Muslim Brotherhood-based governments in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt are all heavily funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and either openly or in a slightly veiled manner act in the interests of business-as-usual. Iraq is ruled by a government largely hostile to US interests and is friendlier with Iran and Syria (ironically enough), but is crippled by competing nationalist and pseudo-sectarian divisions and is still weakened after nearly a decade of brutal US occupation. Syria, and to a lesser extent, Lebanon, are embroiled in the fighting against the so-called "revolution" of foreign jihadi formations backed by the US and its Gulf clients.

The remaining republics that are not presently under direct or indirect foreign occupation (Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon) or crippled by civil wars (Somalia) already back to the Palestinians to some degree, but are limited in their capacity to do so. The Sudan is perhaps the only country to openly back the resistance formations in Gaza with arms and aid, but faces severely restricted access and is regularly bombed by Israel for doing so (the most recent such event was just a few weeks in advance of the last Israeli assault on Gaza).

Which of these states should take the lead on this? None of these situations exist in a vacuum or by accident.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. Congratulations!

This is a long-overdue step forward for the region.

[LittleBlue]

8. Rice is embarrassing herself

Spewing lie after lie. "Palestinians will wake up tomorrow no better than today." Yeah, because the US has improved that so much over the last 20 years, surely they should keep trying the same thing. You voted "no" because you only want peace... yeah sure.

Considering her ancestors' struggle for freedom and equality, they would be ashamed of her today.

[Poll_Blind]

11. Her true colors are shining through. Not just about this issue, but about who she is as a person.nt

PB

[MjolnirTime]

34. so are yours, pal.

[Poll_Blind]

36. LOL, my NINE years of posts here versus your...LOL...your, what again? Flimsy quip?

PB

[Chemisse]

75. Are you kidding? Just because Rice is under attack by the Repubs doesn't mean

we have to give her our auto-support.

We're Dems. We are allowed to think for ourselves.

[sabrina 1]

42. They were apparent a long time ago. I was amazed to see how few remembered the polarizing

figure to the Dem Party she has always been. And yes, she should be ashamed of herself, but that would mean she would have to stop being what she is, a Neocon, war supporting, oil warrior and how she ever got into the Dem Party is a mystery. I guess she came with the Third Wayers who are the 'left' representation of the Neocons.

[BainsBane]

52. If you think this is about Rice

You haven't been paying attention to US policy in the region for the last several decades. The political dynamic within the US means the govt is ALWAYS pro-Israel.

[Scootaloo]

119. Rice is just holding the policy line, actually

The United States has always opposed Palestinian statehood. We mouth "two-state" platitudes, but when it actually comes to negotiations, our role is to hold the Palestinians down so that Israel can get some punches in.

I haven't quite figured out why this is. It's irrational; US support for the Palestinians would go a long way towards fixing our image in the region, and would do no irreparable harm to our relationship with Israel. We frankly have nothing to gain from the position we're taking.

I don't blame Rice; Any US ambassador to the UN, from any administration, would have said the same thing, and very likely word-for-word. I blame the bizarre and irrational standing policy we have towards the Palestinians.

[bunnies]

12. I really liked Susan Rice during the first Obama campaign...

now I'm beginning to think I was seeing her through some serious rose-colored glasses. sigh.

[BainsBane]

53. You might as well say you don't like Obama

Because there is no daylight between the two of them on this issue. ANY US ambassador to the UN would object to this. My only surprise is the US didn't use its veto.

[Alamuti Lotus]

18. I can't imagine what the Republicans have against her, she articulates business-as-usual just fine..

[2naSalit]

30. The Rs are just

trying to get John Kerry to leave his seat in the Senate so they can try to hustle that racist, misogynist ScottyBorwnNose back in to the Senate and hopefully gain another seat. Because, as stated above, Ms. Rice is highly skilled and on their side of most arguments. And she has a nasty little conflict of interest with the Keystone XL pipeline... what more could the Rs want, besides another seat in the Senate?

Congrats to Palestine!

[LittleBlue]

33. I can't tell the difference between her speech and those of Bush's cronies

Making up one embarrassing lie after another in front of the whole world. I'm indifferent to the Republicans dragging her down. Let them eat their own.

[sabrina 1]

45. This is her, she was always like this. I wonder why so few remembered why the Left always had

huge problems with her?

Republicans would flock to her defense if she took the D off her jacket and replaced it with an R. She would not have to change a single other thing.

The battle seems to be both Dems and Repubs fighting for the approval of those who actually run this country, not anything to do with policies, which she totally shares with the war mongers on the right and always has.

[BainsBane]

55. This is US policy

Not Rice in particular. How can you possibly think she isn't speaking for the Obama administration on this? That is her job.

[cpwm17]

70. This is the best morality litmus test I know

She sides with the war-mongers, and she's not just speaking for herself.

[King_David]

47. The Republicans hate her

and have vowed to block her appointment as Secretary of State.

[MessiahRp]

48. Just another reason to not consider her as SOS, IMO.

Our role in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is one of the biggest jobs confronting any SOS. When you approach it with that level of one sided bias, how can you EVER attempt to broker legitimate peace?

She's not up to the job, IMO.

[BainsBane]

58. And what Ambassador to the UN would do anything different?

She represents the Obama administration and US policy on this matter. Her votes in the UN aren't about her individual beliefs. She carries out the President's wishes.

[ReRe]

76. You're right, her ancestors ARE....

.... turning over in their graves. I've seen this craven behavior by many people of her and our generation who have gone off the deep end like this. It's disgusting, moreso, when you actually knew the ancestors.

[quakerboy]

153. A question

How much freedom do you think she has to say what is on her own mind on the floor of the UN?

I am guessing that they are... strongly discouraged from deviating from the established and set agenda and talking points.

I would tend to blame US foreign policy before blaming her personally.

That said, I would be rather embarrassed to sit there and give that speech. Not sure I could do it.

[bunnies]

9. Good. They deserve to have access to the ICC.

Whether the US or Israel like it or not. Good for them!

[stupidicus]

10. expected but still excellent news

eom

[Poll_Blind]

14. Caught this beautiful picture on Haaretz just a few minutes ago:

Caption read:

A Hassidic Jew holds a Palestinian flag and a sign during a rally supporting the Palestinian U.N. bid for observer state status, in the West bank city of Ramallah today.

PB

[darkangel218]

23. Omg thats so awesome!!

See, Jewish people want peace, and want Palestinians to be souverign and happy!

This is amazing news!

[King_David]

49. Yes Jewish people want all that , however that pictured misguided Jew from

The Naterei Karta , hardly represent anything more than a few dozen Jews.

They attended a Holocaust denial conference in Iran too.

[darkangel218]

54. Maybe they just want to make peace?

Its not like they deny the Holocaust themselves.

Whatever helps the peace process I'm all for it. Nothing good can come or happen in a time of war.

[Poll_Blind]

57. Who are you to label and value or devalue Jews?

PB

[Bodhi BloodWave]

68. Should be obvious shouldn't it? He is da KING! :P nt

[King_David]

82. That group , The Naturei Karta

Joined David Duke at a Holocaust Denial conference hosted by Nut job Ahmadinajet in Iran.

Who am I?

Mainstream Gay Jew that says fuck that Homophobic, anti Zionist ,right wing, 'Jewish' insignificant tiny group.

That is who I am.

[leftynyc]

127. He's right

The person you're hailing as a hero is part of a sect of Judaism that are not Zionists and who also attended the holocaust denial pow-wow the fucking Iranians held.

[Scootaloo]

120. ...Where their leader spoke AGAINST holocaust denial.

Now maybe I can say that at the discussion of the holocaust, I may be the representative, the voice of the people who died in the holocaust because my grandparents died there. They were killed in Auschwitz. My parents were from Hungary. My father escaped and his parents remained. He wasn’t able to get them out of Hungary and they died in Auschwitz as were other relatives and all the communities that they knew. So to say that they didn’t die, to me you can not say that. I am the living remnant of the people who died in the holocaust and I am here, I believe sent by God, to humbly say, simply to speak to the people here and say, 'you should know that the Jewish people died, and do not try to say that it did not happen. They did die.' There are people throughout the Jewish communities, still alive in their seventies and eighties and every one of them will tell you their stories. It is something which you cannot refute, but that being said, it doesn’t mean that the holocaust is a tool to use to oppress other people."
- Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss

But that doesn't play into your own agenda, of pretending you have some sort of authority to grant or dismiss Jewishness dependent on a person's support for political zionism, does it?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

161. I'm not a religious Jew, but who are to discount them?

[King_David]

163. Who am I ?

That dude is from the Naturei Karta sect, They Joined David Duke at a Holocaust Denial conference hosted by Nut job Ahmadinajet in Iran.

Who am I?

Mainstream Gay Jew that says fuck that Homophobic, anti Zionist ,right wing, Jewish insignificant tiny group.

That is who I am.

[Spazito]

24. Great photo!

[Ash_F]

40. Awesome, good for him.

Anyone have a link to the Susan Rice speech?

[Poll_Blind]

41. I don't see a link on YouTube yet. You HAVE to see the video. She's like shriek-growling.

PB

[subsuelo]

79. Here it is (video of Rice)

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15546351-un-upgrades-palestinian-status-bolstering-statehood-claim?lite

Scroll down a bit

[sabrina 1]

59. That is beautiful! I wish them peace, both the people of Palestine and the people of Israel.

Looking at that photo provides some hope.

[King_David]

160. He has nothing to do with the people of Israel,

He despises the Jews of Israel.

He is from Naturei Karta.

[Marrah_G]

65. Good for him!

That's nice to see. I hope more and more Israeli's start to stand up and tell their leaders that they want it all to stop.

[King_David]

162. He is not Israeli,

He despises Israeli Jews.

He is from a right wing,homophobic,anti Zionist Jewish sect called Naturei Karta.

[Harry_Scrote]

141. I wanna shake that guy's hand!

[harrose]

152. This person is from Neturei Karta

Neturei Karta is an offshot of Satmar Hasidim. Neturei Karta is not interested in peace between Israel and Palestine because they believe (for theological reasons) that Israel should not exist at all until the Messiah comes. Their goal is to have the State of Israel cease to exist. And, were the Messiah to arrive tomorrow, they would be all for conquering the land of Israel from the same Palestinians they wanted to give it to today.

[Marrah_G]

176. sigh...

More religious nuttery. So sick of it.

Thank you for pointing that out ( though part of me wishes I could just go on thinking "good for him&quot

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

[AzDar]

16. It's a start.

Also: Eff Susan Rice.

[Poll_Blind]

20. See also:

Susan Rice Vocally Supported the Iraq War, and Every Mid-East War Since

PB

[azurnoir]

26. and so it begins K&R

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. this is a good day....a very, very good day

[azurnoir]

28. yes it is indeed n/t

[darkangel218]

31. +1

I will have a beer when I get home, in the honour of the State of Palestine! It's about time they're recognized their statehood, I just hope Israel will respect UNs decision.

So hopeful for peace, enough with the suffering!!

[libdem4life]

29. In my lifetime...literally...since my birth year. I'm very proud of the UN.

[2naSalit]

35. just an eversoslight

whiff of justice and a barrel full of hope. I never thought I'd live to see it, though it's just a tiny start. I remember the six day war and everything after that... Israel is due for some comeuppance, may I live to see that day too. Since the occupiers have blasted the bejesus out of what little the Palestinians have, it would be justified for them to be forced to vacate the illegal settlements and the Palestinians be allowed to inhabit them... they are on their rightful property after all... And the infrastructure and water is already there. That would be the best outcome in my view.

[libdem4life]

39. Hopefully also in my lifetime, in spite of our so-called leaders.

Thank god for the Europeans !!!

[2naSalit]

63. Indeed.

[Alamuti Lotus]

113. that's giving credit where it's squarely not due--most of Europe abstained

Albania, Andorra, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Macedonia, Montenegro, Moldova, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom all abstained; the Czech Republic voted against.

France, the Scandinavian and the Mediterranean governments largely voted for, but the largely germanic and former eastern bloc (now American bloc) governments all took the gutless road.

Prof. Asad Abukhalil posted an image of the votes at his unspeakably brilliant blog, see below:

[libdem4life]

114. You are correct as to voting meaning Western Europe. The abstentions beat Nays.

I have found it interesting that the former USSR nations did not support the political freedom they experienced. At least they did not vote it down.

[hrmjustin]

32. I wish them well, and I hope it works out.

[AnOhioan]

43. Excellent news.....

[DeSwiss]

46. K&R

- Finally.

[darkangel218]

56. +1!

[shaayecanaan]

51. Countries who voted no...

United States
Israel
Canada
Czech republic

and a group of tiny Pacific nations.

There was a "moral majority", but it was clearly in favour of Palestine.

[polly7]

66. I love it!

Hoping this is just the beginning for real change. Good for them!!

[KimonoGirl]

67. White Phosphorus

The US/Israel keep saying it was a symbolic vote... then why were they pissing their pants trying to stop it?

Simple answer.

War Crimes. Justice will come.

[img][/img]

[magical thyme]

69. Well it's about time

and how embarrassing to be an American voting against this. What are we afraid of? That Bibi will be unhappy? Losing the Zionist vote in the US? Seriously....

[LadyHawkAZ]

74. I sincerely hope that this is the light at the end of the tunnel

and that there can be some sort of peace in the near future.

[libodem]

77. woo hoo

[unreadierLizard]

80. What a shame.

This does nothing but advance Hamas's cause.

Now they're free to launch aggressive attacks into Israel even MORE with the support of some of the American left-wing, who are, rather stupidly, choosing to side with terrorists who want to implement Sharia law in their "country&quot That's a proven fact, both Hamas and Fatah want Sharia).

Israel just can't win. The most oppressed people in the world just get more body blows from the Useless Nations.

[KimonoGirl]

85. Blah, blah, blaaaaah

[img][/img]

[unreadierLizard]

88. Clever riposte.

I suppose it's a-okay that Hamas fires rockets into Israel in the same breath they demand respect?

[libdem4life]

89. Um, bottle rockets vs the US nuclear arsenal. It's wearing thin.

[Comrade Grumpy]

92. Have you gone through the looking glass?

Are you really calling the Israeli's "the most oppressed people in the world"? Really?

And the assertion that this somehow advances Hamas' cause is equally ridiculous.

And "the Useless Nations." Really?

Did you get lost on your way to some other web site?

[unreadierLizard]

93. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a RW shill.

I've been a lurker on this site for years. I support the President and despise Republican obstructionism.

Does that mean I agree 100% with the party line? No.

[leftynyc]

129. It's time you realize

you're in a very small and vocal minority in this country on this issue. Or not....you can continue to fool yourself if you wish. And the UN is fucking useless.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

165. Was it useless during partition?

If so useless, why is the US even a member?

[Comrade Grumpy]

175. I don't really care if it's a minority position.

So was being against slavery or for the right of women to vote...before they became majority positions.

Actually, I suspect about 90% of Americans couldn't give two shits about aid to Palestine or Israel.

Is the UN useless when it's imposing sanctions on Iran, or only when it does something you don't like?

[Alamuti Lotus]

106. You're beautifully and stunningly full of shit; here's why

I will refrain from suggesting you're just a rightwing shill; this nonsense is more pervasively ignorant and annoying than merely that. Point by point..

This does nothing but advance Hamas's cause.

For their own reasons, Hamas largely opposes the present move by the Abbas government. Moving on..

Now they're free to launch aggressive attacks into Israel even MORE

Actually, no. Since the Palestinian Authority has attained for itself some semblance of acceptance as a formal state government, they are possibly now officially responsible for rocket attacks as being formal acts of war. That may still need to be determined, but I expect Israel to pursue that argument.

with the support of some of the American left-wing who are, rather stupidly, choosing to side with terrorists

Fuck. You. With half-hearted apologies for the crude obscenity, but that's the only proper way to respond to such a crude obscenity.

who want to implement Sharia law in their "country&quot That's a proven fact, both Hamas and Fatah want Sharia).

Fat'h is a secular nationalist movement, formerly very much radical and communist-leaning (not radical anymore, of course), much of which is composed of non-Muslims who don't accept Islamic law as the basis for government. That's traditionally been a reason that the Islamist factions (this includes and pre-dates the Hamas movement) have never supported the PLO, basically because they were traditionally perceived as a bunch of godless commies. Before the radicalization of Hamas during the First Intifadeh, most of the Islamist movements associated with factions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza largely stayed away from the fighting, or even collaborated with the occupation forces (neither Hamas nor Israel is proud of this very real part of their shared history).

Israel just can't win. The most oppressed people in the world just get more body blows from the Useless Nations.

/facepalm... teh stoopid, it burns!

[Douglas Carpenter]

112. thank you - brilliant response

[bemildred]

132. +1. nt

[Scootaloo]

121. Could you maybe shoe a few more blather-points into your Gish Gallop?

I think you missed a few.

[leftynyc]

128. It changes nothing

and puts the Palestinians in further peril because of the aid they expect. While the short sighted people on this board are cheering, they're going to wake up to the fact this hurts more than it helps. They honestly think there will be a backlash if we stop aid to the Palestinians when in fact, a large majority of Americans will support that in a heartbeat. And who is going to make up that money? The Arab states? Their "Brothers"? That's laughable.

[Ash_F]

131. "Israel just can't win."

In the end, Israel will come out ahead because of this. The world is changing for the better as it has been from founding of the UN in the wake of WWII's atrocities, to the civil rights movement of America, to the abolishment of apartheid in South Africa.

Some Palestinians have right-wing fundamentalist views so anyone born a Palestinian has to grow up facing racist discrimination right from the outset? How about, instead, Israel rejects those views while not abusing Palestinians? In 20 years you will be embarrassed that you were among the last who latched on to this.

[booley]

154. I disagree

this could weaken Hamas since they have held that working with the international community was a waste of time. That Palestine would achieve nothing if they didn't resort to violence.

Well now Hamas' political rivals just used the international community to get Palestine one step closer to being recognized as it's own sovereign nation.

Whether anyone wants sharia or not is a separate issue and has nothing to do with whether Palestine should be a sovereign nation.

Also not sure how Israelis are more oppressed then the Palestinians when Israel is already recognized as it's own country , isn't occupied by any other country and has the fourth most powerful military in the world.

I imagine Palestinians would love to be so "oppressed" as that.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

164. What an incredibly stupid post.

You should be embarrassed.

[godai]

81. The 9 'no' votes

Voted 'no': US, Canada, Czech Republic, Micronesia, Solomon Islands,Panama, Nauru,Marshall Islands, Israel.

[AldoLeopold]

94. Wasn't that the coalition of the willing?

[ReRe]

87. K&R

Oh, Happy Day! Oh Happy Day! All I can think of is that first refrain in the old spiritual.

A Birth Certificate for Palestine!

Can't wait to watch this on the over-night!

[Jefferson23]

90. Hope for two states....PRICELESS. From Abbas:

Abbas addressed the General Assembly, saying that Palestinians were not seeking to "delegitimise" Israel, but to affirm the legitimacy of Palestine as a state.

Abbas referenced the recent Israeli assault on Gaza, saying that Palestine had come to the UN at time when they were "still tending to [their] wounds and still burying [their] beloved martyrs of children, women and men who have fallen victim to the latest Israeli aggression".

[AldoLeopold]

91. I'm going to get banned for this and I don't care

"By going to the UN , the Palestinians have violated the agreements with Israel and Israel will act accordingly," said the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, said "the only way to reach peace is through agreements" between the parties, not at the UN.

"No decision by the UN can break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel," he said.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the vote "unfortunate and counter-productive", saying it put more obstacles on the path to peace.

You know what? I've supported Israel. I've stated on this forum and in my own personal life, despite my post youth, that we need to make sure that there is peace and reconciliation despite the mistakes made by all parties involved, including and especially by our nation. That the plight of the Jewish people is deserving of help and understanding.

But to deny these people even symbolic statehood. To defy the UN and an international democratic vote, and then to threaten the Palestinian people because they DARED to go before the United Nations? I find this sickening, putrid, and totally unlike the Israeli people I thought i knew. Now I know what the world must often think of the United States when we thumb our noses at the UN.

I'm going to refrain from cursing - but I personally declare Israel a rogue state. They are thugs. They are zealots. They have become insane. They are worthy of rebuke. They are worthy of scorn.

[darkangel218]

95. Woa!

[AldoLeopold]

98. Combined with this horse manure from our nation

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/palestine-joins-unesco-us-reacts

This is all a huge historical joke. A huge juke. I'm about to puke up my rotel dip (with chopped cilantro, my personal addition).

I've never been more disappointed in our country and the Israeli people.

I'm still in favor of a two state solution, but I'm really a changed person over this concerning middle east politics. It's really telling.

[AldoLeopold]

105. Also

and then I'll shut my hole, I want to stress that My rebuke is for the Israeli government, not the Israeli people. I just can't accept that the average Israeli would find this anything but offensive and horrendous.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

166. Please don't generalize. It's unproductive.

[AldoLeopold]

170. Look at my post #105

[Fantastic Anarchist]

171. Got it.

[AldoLeopold]

172. You were dead on though

I felt stupid after I made my initial post - I was just angry and shouldn't post while angry.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

173. We've all been there. We're human.

I shouldn't have jumped on you, either.

[Welcome_hubby]

97. lol@Susan Rice trying to attract GOP'ers by seeming super-pissed off

good luck.

[AldoLeopold]

99. I'm trying to find video of her about this

Can you post a link or is just on broadcast tv?

[Alamuti Lotus]

103. look above to dipsydoodle's post #86..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=321287

[AldoLeopold]

104. Many thanks!

[Alamuti Lotus]

107. no problem

even for a US policy speech, it is stunningly full of shit, bombast, and hyperbole. It's getting quite a good laugh on pro-Palestinian facebook and twitters; probably not the reaction she was hoping for.

[NeoBergie]

100. Such Good News

It is embarrassing that the US does not support the decision, but not surprising. I am happy for the Palestinians for being recognised... as a people who deserve a homeland too.

[hrmjustin]

108. Welcome to DU!

[and-justice-for-all]

109. Can Palastinians have their country back now? nt

[Pterodactyl]

110. Well, I'm glad that's settled. Now we finally know the borders!

[darkangel218]

111. Now Israel cant stop humanitarian aid to Palestine anymore

Am I right?

[Blackhawk44]

116. what new priviliges?

Palestine now has what new priviliges
at the UN?

[darkangel218]

124. Yes, now they could join the ICC ( International Criminal Court ) if they wanted to

I just read about it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

117. knr again

[nydem14499rsgx]

122. it's about time

[Hosnon]

123. 138 + 9 + 41 + 3 = 191

The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly...

There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions. Three countries did not take part in the vote to upgrade the Palestinian Authority’s observer status at the United Nations to “non-member state” from “entity.”

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/166943/palestinians-win-statehood-upgrade-at-un/?p=all#ixzz2DgmN3Iqp

What are the two missing countries and how did they vote?

[CrawlingChaos]

125. Largely symbolic?

I was just listening to Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada and he says this was merely a safe, empty gesture. He doesn't believe it will result in Palestinian access to the ICC and points out the resolution was supported by Ehud Olmert, who would surely be one of the first to be hauled before the ICC for crimes against humanity, if the status upgrade did indeed have any substance. That realization let a lot of air out of my balloons.

Interview here is well worth a listen:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/palestine-un-bid-and-arafat-exhumation-ali-abunimah-wbezs-worldview

[Poll_Blind]

140. I saw the same thing (probably the same interview) with him on...

...Haaretz. Honestly, he sounded like he was a shill. Because when he and the Israeli ambassador (who was also on) are reading off the same script, I am left scratching my temple.

That was my honest first-reaction, anyway.

Now, Norman Finkelstein was being interviewed by RT (before the vote, IIRC) and it was interesting, IMO, because he had a similar tone to Abunimah, but he was actually backing his opinion up with facts, mainly that Fatah works hand in hand with Israel, often to do the dirty work for the Israelis.

And this may be true. I don't know. But focusing on the value of Fatah as a collaborator with Israel would seem to indicate that you're ignoring Hamas.

And IMO, if it comes down to "Who is better for the Palestinian People?", it's going to be difficult to find a data point where I'm like "Oh yeah, Hamas." Both organizations are screwed up, but I don't get the chewing on Fatah. Because chewing on Fatah (IMO) is like turning a blind eye to Hamas. Or in this context, anyway.

It's like me ripping into the Israeli Labor party. Sure they have their faults, but what about Likud, Shas? Those guys are far worse.

So I'm puzzled.

Nothing some more reading on the issues couldn't fix, I'm sure.

PB

[Fantastic Anarchist]

167. Palestinian National Initiative

Nobody focuses on them.

[cpwm17]

126. Since it is impossible to get to an actual "two-state solution" from here

Israel may try to turn the West Bank into a number of separate Gaza Strip like captive enclaves, where Israel deposits Palestinians expelled from land that Israel wants for Jews. It's already not much different than that right now.

Israel may just pull their soldiers out of the enclaves and claim they have their state, but Israel will demand that they can control everything and will do just that no matter what anyone else agrees to. Israel's demand for control is why the Camp David Summit failed in 2000.

[Pryderi]

133. Good. Direct negotiations have failed for years. UN involvement has been sorely needed. n/t

[Harry_Scrote]

143. Waiting for the angry chorus

Who, just last week, were composing threads about how Arab/Palestinians were mercilessly firing into Israel... How Jewish children have been hurt/threatened by these etc. etc.

Personally, I'm surprised and hopeful for Palestine. Coexistence can be done!

[Fearless]

145. "The Czech Republic was unique in Europe, joining the United States, Israel, Canada, Panama..."

Seroiusly? What do they want, brownie points?

[dipsydoodle]

148. Brownie points?

More likely a Czech in the post.

[Fearless]

149. Now that pun Israel.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

146. There are 2 types of people in Israel.

israelis and the much more polarizing ZIONISTS

[adieu]

158. I think it's a step forward

to acknowledge the existence and the right of Palestinians to exist as a nation. Let's move on and help them get up to speed with the rest of the world.