PDA

View Full Version : Palestinian Statehood?


EditorOne
16th-September-2011, 08:24 PM
Palestinian statehood is closer to happening now than any time since 1947, although that doesn't mean it is actually close to happening. I'm interested in any thoughts anyone might have about the rightness, wrongness, practicality or impracticality of Palestinian statehood, and to make it make any sense at all, I suspect we'd be smart to limit historical consideration to those entities in existence in 1947 and still in existence today. We could go back 6,000 years or so, but whether King David danced in Jerusalem seems less relevant to me than post WWII attempts by still-existing nations and multi-national organizations to sort this out. All the players are still in the field, with some changed roles; Turkey, for instance, is a much more formidable player both because of its own development and because of the changed roles of Iraq and Iran and the Arab Spring movements.
We live in interesting times, which, for the benefit of those who haven't heard it yet, is not an INTP observation but related to an ancient, sardonic Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

Masterlord
16th-September-2011, 10:15 PM
The UN was created to stop the injustices that occurred in WW2 and before from ever happening again. It clearly failed. In 1948, jews comprised 33% of the population, but were granted 55% of the land. That was clearly unacceptable to the Palestinians, so they revolted. Three and a half million people became refugees. Israel enforces an illegal blockade on the 1.8 million people that live on a 24 mile long strip of land. Israel killed 9 activists who were carrying 10,000 tons of aid on their vessel...nowhere near Israel's sea border.

The world has stood still as Israel has violated every international law in the book. It has occupied a people's land, it has built illegal settlements, it has murdered women and children and the US condones it: The US has used its veto power to block UN resolutions condemning Israel 41 times.
When an Israeli prime minister has public talks with the president of the United States, he decries the president's assertion that any peace agreement will be set on the 1967 borders. The world knows that the 1967 borders has been a precondition for any peace agreement. It has been accepted by the the previous three Israeli prime ministers, but now Netanyahu denies it?

Netanyahu speaks of peace, but he refuses to stop the construction of settlements? That is, settlements that are illegal under international law and hamper the peace process? There has been no peace process in 3 years. Last September, the Palestinians wanted to get on the bargaining table to negotiate, but Netanyahu refused to stop settlement construction, a precondition for initiation of the peace process.

Desperate people will resort to desperate tactics. This maneuver to go to the UN is all the Palestinians can do to protect themselves and what little land they have left. The US, heavily influenced by AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups cannot wrangle free from Israel. Whatever Israel wants, the US grants.

You should read this great article, or anything by Noam Chomsky on the subject of Israel.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/tony-judts-final-word-on-israel/245051/2/?single_page=true

This is the bleak picture that is Palestine.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R4bDDgSUj2g/TA9LjtG8bVI/AAAAAAAAMK0/fINuj2UwL-s/s1600/Palestinian_land_loss_Map.jpg

The US will obviously veto Palestinian ascension to the UN, but I hope this will illuminate the Palestinian struggle to the entire world. The subjugation of a people cannot go on any longer. Yes, there are countries around the world who have humanitarian crises, dictators and war, but they have their own COUNTRY. The Palestinians don't even have that. If Palestine becomes a member, then Israel will not be just occupying a people and their land, they will be occupying a NATION.

Most of the world has turned against Israel.

Soon, all of the world will turn against Israel.

I sincerely hope that the Palestinians will be granted statehood. The US gave Israel statehood in 1948, they should do the same for the Palestinians in 2011.

Sosekopp
16th-September-2011, 10:26 PM
If Israel somehow manages to get a more moderate government (i.e. Kadima/Labor), and Palestine somehow manages to get a government not composed of what the Israeli government considers to be terrorists (Hamas), then I think Israel and Palestine will be able to agree on a two-state solution. This is very unlikely, though.

EditorOne
17th-September-2011, 12:20 AM
"If Israel somehow manages to get a more moderate government (i.e. Kadima/Labor), and Palestine somehow manages to get a government not composed of what the Israeli government considers to be terrorists (Hamas)"

If I told you that in the 1930s and 1940s a Jewish organization detonated bombs at the King David Hotel and elsewhere, assassinated British officials and otherwise behaved in ways we never hesitate to label as "terrorist," and that that organization, the Irgun, produced a leader, Menachem Begin, who became an Israeli prime minister, would the irony of the present situation overwhelm you? :)

Masterlord
17th-September-2011, 12:48 AM
If Israel somehow manages to get a more moderate government (i.e. Kadima/Labor), and Palestine somehow manages to get a government not composed of what the Israeli government considers to be terrorists (Hamas), then I think Israel and Palestine will be able to agree on a two-state solution. This is very unlikely, though.

Complete bullshit. There is no "moderate" party in Israel. They may be fiscally and socially moderate, but on Palestine, there is no moderate party. The central ideology of each and every party eligible for election in Palestine is "zionism".

What's funny is that Israel sanctioned the creation of Hamas because they considered the Palestinian Authority to be too extreme. The goal of this occupation is for Israel to take over all the historical lands of Palestine.

There are no negotiations.

The world has to stand up for the rights of the Palestinian people and say "Enough is enough."

The toxicity that exists in the middle east is because the rest of the world has ignored it. There is no existential threat to Israel from Iran. The existential threat to Israel is the neofascist right wingers that run the country. Muslims did not have problems with jews until 1948 happened. Israel's propaganda machine within its borders and in the western world has just brainwashed the masses.

A22
17th-September-2011, 01:56 AM
About the creation of the Palestinian state: I think it will happen soon. But I hardly believe the UN will accept Palestinians within their members. If the historical not-doing-anything-about-it-unless-uncle-sam-tells-us-to UN policy¹ wasn't enough, I remember reading a headline on some newspaper that said that the UN chief and several countries don't think the current political situation of Palestine allow them to become an UN member.

¹ Also: It was presented to the UN a series of documents showing israel war crimes during their offensive in Gaza early 2010. UN kind of ignored it.

...

I couldn't put it better, Masterlord.

and Palestine somehow manages to get a government not composed of what the Israeli government considers to be terrorists (Hamas)

So just because israel calls their enemies terrorist they are terrorists?

There are no negotiations.

I don't usually see things that way but unfortunately I can't see otherwise in this situation.

Sosekopp
17th-September-2011, 02:16 AM
I really shouldn't have joined this discussion, because I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'll read up on the topic and get back to you here or in another thread at some point in the future. Sorry for disappointing you.

SkyWalker
17th-September-2011, 04:16 PM
The UN was created to stop the injustices that occurred in WW2 and before from ever happening again.

It was simply set-up to rule the world (one world government).

"To stop injustice" works pretty well to get support.

Masterlord
17th-September-2011, 09:38 PM
It was simply set-up to rule the world (one world government).

"To stop injustice" works pretty well to get support.

No, it was set-up to appease the people who were upset with the failure that the League of Nations was.

It has no influence on nations and their policies, but it does have the power to put issues in the spotlight. If there was no United Nations, then no one would give a DAMN about the plight of the Palestinians.

scorpiomover
20th-September-2011, 01:12 PM
Personally, I'm all for it. It was all agreed by all parties anyway, as part of the Roadmap. The only problem with the Palestinians getting their own state, was that the Roadmap required that the Palestinians cease and desist from all terrorist activities, including suicide bombings for at least 2 years. That never transpired. So they violated the agreement, and kept violating it.

I never figured out why the Israelis let the Palestinians into their borders at all. If Mexicans started becoming sucide bombers in cities in America, I reckon that the Americans would shut the borders to Mexico, and put every Mexican into a camp, or deport them. After all, that's what happened to the Germans and Japanese citizens of Britain and America during World War II.

I say, give them their own state. Then seal the borders to Israel, permanently, or at least until the Palestinians show they can enter a foreign country without wanting to blow up the citizens of that country. I would still let the Palestinians who are resident in Israel, to remain, so long as they show that they aren't going around blowing anyone up either.

But apparently, the Palestinians don't like it when they cannot get to Israel. The news reported about the Eritreans who are leaving Eritrea, are all heading to Israel, because it's got the most freedoms, and it's got the best opportunities for jobs and earning money. So I think it's not surprising that the Palestinians want to keep working in Israel.

However, there is an old saying: Don't bite the hand that feeds you, or if may not offer you any more food. Case in point.