HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Palestinians Win Statehoo...

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:03 PM

Palestinians Win Statehood Upgrade at U.N.

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

179 replies, 19113 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 179 replies Author Time Post
Reply Palestinians Win Statehood Upgrade at U.N. (Original post)
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 OP
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #1
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #2
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #5
BainsBane Nov 2012 #50
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #60
bemildred Nov 2012 #61
BainsBane Nov 2012 #62
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #72
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #73
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #86
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #96
ieoeja Nov 2012 #138
PatrynXX Nov 2012 #71
patrice Nov 2012 #3
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #4
MH1 Nov 2012 #84
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #139
yurbud Nov 2012 #136
Dont call me Shirley Nov 2012 #6
USMCMustang Nov 2012 #19
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #22
Ash_F Nov 2012 #37
Samjm Nov 2012 #101
Ash_F Nov 2012 #130
hughee99 Nov 2012 #135
Ash_F Nov 2012 #137
hughee99 Nov 2012 #142
Ash_F Nov 2012 #150
hughee99 Nov 2012 #151
Samjm Nov 2012 #155
libodem Nov 2012 #83
DeSwiss Nov 2012 #38
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #13
Hell Hath No Fury Nov 2012 #21
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #25
atreides1 Nov 2012 #17
dlwickham Nov 2012 #64
former9thward Nov 2012 #78
JudyM Nov 2012 #115
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #118
former9thward Nov 2012 #134
ieoeja Nov 2012 #144
former9thward Nov 2012 #147
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #156
former9thward Nov 2012 #157
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #159
hack89 Dec 2012 #174
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #168
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #169
madrchsod Dec 2012 #177
madrchsod Dec 2012 #178
cpwm17 Dec 2012 #179
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #102
Hell Hath No Fury Nov 2012 #7
LittleBlue Nov 2012 #8
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #11
MjolnirTime Nov 2012 #34
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #36
Chemisse Nov 2012 #75
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #42
BainsBane Nov 2012 #52
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #119
bunnies Nov 2012 #12
BainsBane Nov 2012 #53
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #18
2naSalit Nov 2012 #30
LittleBlue Nov 2012 #33
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #45
BainsBane Nov 2012 #55
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #70
King_David Nov 2012 #47
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #48
BainsBane Nov 2012 #58
ReRe Nov 2012 #76
quakerboy Nov 2012 #153
bunnies Nov 2012 #9
stupidicus Nov 2012 #10
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #14
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #23
King_David Nov 2012 #49
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #54
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #57
Bodhi BloodWave Nov 2012 #68
King_David Nov 2012 #82
leftynyc Nov 2012 #127
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #120
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #161
King_David Nov 2012 #163
Spazito Nov 2012 #24
Ash_F Nov 2012 #40
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #41
subsuelo Nov 2012 #79
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #59
King_David Nov 2012 #160
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #65
King_David Nov 2012 #162
Harry_Scrote Nov 2012 #141
harrose Nov 2012 #152
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #176
Scurrilous Nov 2012 #15
AzDar Nov 2012 #16
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #20
azurnoir Nov 2012 #26
Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #27
azurnoir Nov 2012 #28
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #31
libdem4life Nov 2012 #29
2naSalit Nov 2012 #35
libdem4life Nov 2012 #39
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #44
2naSalit Nov 2012 #63
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #113
libdem4life Nov 2012 #114
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #32
AnOhioan Nov 2012 #43
DeSwiss Nov 2012 #46
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #56
shaayecanaan Nov 2012 #51
polly7 Nov 2012 #66
KimonoGirl Nov 2012 #67
magical thyme Nov 2012 #69
LadyHawkAZ Nov 2012 #74
libodem Nov 2012 #77
unreadierLizard Nov 2012 #80
KimonoGirl Nov 2012 #85
unreadierLizard Nov 2012 #88
libdem4life Nov 2012 #89
Comrade Grumpy Nov 2012 #92
unreadierLizard Nov 2012 #93
leftynyc Nov 2012 #129
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #165
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #175
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #106
Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #112
bemildred Nov 2012 #132
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #121
leftynyc Nov 2012 #128
Ash_F Nov 2012 #131
booley Nov 2012 #154
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #164
godai Nov 2012 #81
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #94
ReRe Nov 2012 #87
Jefferson23 Nov 2012 #90
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #91
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #95
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #98
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #105
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #166
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #170
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #171
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #172
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #173
Welcome_hubby Nov 2012 #97
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #99
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #103
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #104
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #107
NeoBergie Nov 2012 #100
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #108
and-justice-for-all Nov 2012 #109
Pterodactyl Nov 2012 #110
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #111
Blackhawk44 Nov 2012 #116
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #124
Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #117
nydem14499rsgx Nov 2012 #122
Hosnon Nov 2012 #123
CrawlingChaos Nov 2012 #125
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #140
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #167
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #126
Pryderi Nov 2012 #133
Harry_Scrote Nov 2012 #143
Fearless Nov 2012 #145
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #148
Fearless Nov 2012 #149
Great Caesars Ghost Nov 2012 #146
adieu Nov 2012 #158

Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:04 PM

1. Tough for those who don't like it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:05 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:10 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:18 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:39 PM

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

It was subject to a simply majority vote only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:39 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:40 PM

62. Thanks

Yes, I just read that in a news article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:38 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:45 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #73)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:25 PM

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

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:21 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #86)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:04 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:23 PM

71. didn't score many points on that one

probably have to smooth that over later..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:07 PM

3. K&R & Next step? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:10 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:22 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #84)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:05 PM

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

He's vile.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:55 AM

136. he is those elements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:11 PM

6. To stop the apartheid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:24 PM

19. Apartheid to Some

 

Not to everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to USMCMustang (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:26 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to USMCMustang (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:40 PM

101. Because the Apartheid South African Government

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samjm (Reply #101)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:47 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #130)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:35 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #135)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:57 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #137)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:19 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #142)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #150)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:23 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #151)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:44 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to USMCMustang (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:17 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:53 PM

38. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:20 PM

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)?"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:26 PM

21. Bibi "moderate"???

Bibi is nothing but a shinier/happier extremist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:28 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:22 PM

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!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:50 PM

64. maybe the Arab states could increase funding

and maybe Iran could send more aid instead of weapons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #64)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:12 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:38 PM

115. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #78)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:02 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #118)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:34 AM

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"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #134)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:28 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #144)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:45 PM

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #134)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:01 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #156)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:53 PM

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......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #157)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:18 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #159)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:24 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #134)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:28 AM

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 , 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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #134)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:36 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:21 PM

177. +2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #177)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:24 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #178)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:08 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #64)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:15 PM

7. Congratulations!

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:17 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:19 PM

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

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:45 PM

34. so are yours, pal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:52 PM

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



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:01 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:56 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:22 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:18 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:20 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:22 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:40 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:43 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:01 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:26 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:18 PM

70. This is the best morality litmus test I know

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:10 PM

47. The Republicans hate her

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:31 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:06 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:04 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:17 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:19 PM

10. expected but still excellent news

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:21 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:27 PM

23. Omg thats so awesome!!

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

This is amazing news!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:15 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #49)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:26 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #49)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:31 PM

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



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:57 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:16 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #57)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:30 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:26 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:47 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #161)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:27 PM

24. Great photo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:54 PM

40. Awesome, good for him.

Anyone have a link to the Susan Rice speech?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:56 PM

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



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:31 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #59)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:47 PM

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

He despises the Jews of Israel.

He is from Naturei Karta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #65)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:50 PM

162. He is not Israeli,

He despises Israeli Jews.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:15 PM

141. I wanna shake that guy's hand!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:54 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harrose (Reply #152)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 06:05 PM

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")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:21 PM

15. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:22 PM

16. It's a start.

Also: Eff Susan Rice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:31 PM

26. and so it begins K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:35 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:38 PM

28. yes it is indeed n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:41 PM

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!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:38 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:53 PM

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

Thank god for the Europeans !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #39)


Response to libdem4life (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:41 PM

63. Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:05 PM

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:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #113)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:24 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:43 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:57 PM

43. Excellent news.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:04 PM

46. K&R

- Finally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:28 PM

56. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:21 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:52 PM

66. I love it!

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:56 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:13 PM

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....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:54 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:10 PM

77. woo hoo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:15 PM

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"(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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:24 PM

85. Blah, blah, blaaaaah

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KimonoGirl (Reply #85)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:26 PM

88. Clever riposte.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #88)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:38 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:51 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #92)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:05 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:40 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #129)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 12:02 AM

165. Was it useless during partition?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #129)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:59 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:56 PM

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"(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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #106)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:01 PM

112. thank you - brilliant response

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #106)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:46 AM

132. +1. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #80)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:31 AM

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

I think you missed a few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #80)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:37 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #80)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:43 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #80)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #80)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:54 PM

164. What an incredibly stupid post.

You should be embarrassed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:15 PM

81. The 9 'no' votes

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #81)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:09 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:26 PM

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!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:39 PM

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 wounds and still burying beloved martyrs of children, women and men who have fallen victim to the latest Israeli aggression".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #91)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:17 PM

95. Woa!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #95)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:26 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #95)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #91)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 12:09 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #166)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:55 AM

170. Look at my post #105

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #170)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:05 AM

171. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #171)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:07 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #172)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:40 PM

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

I shouldn't have jumped on you, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:24 PM

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

 

good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Welcome_hubby (Reply #97)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:27 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #103)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:51 PM

104. Many thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #104)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:07 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:31 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoBergie (Reply #100)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:07 PM

108. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:10 PM

109. Can Palastinians have their country back now? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:18 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:41 PM

111. Now Israel cant stop humanitarian aid to Palestine anymore

Am I right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:38 PM

116. what new priviliges?

 

Palestine now has what new priviliges
at the UN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackhawk44 (Reply #116)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:13 AM

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

I just read about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:03 AM

117. knr again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:32 AM

122. it's about time

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:34 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:06 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #125)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:15 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #140)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:30 AM

167. Palestinian National Initiative

Nobody focuses on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:21 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:00 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:22 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:36 PM

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

Seroiusly? What do they want, brownie points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #145)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:50 PM

148. Brownie points?

More likely a Czech in the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #148)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:53 PM

149. Now that pun Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:43 PM

146. There are 2 types of people in Israel.

 

israelis and the much more polarizing ZIONISTS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:05 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread