HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » Palestinian UN observer s...

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:19 PM

Palestinian UN observer state bid on 29 November

Source: BBC

12 November 2012 Last updated at 21:11 GMT

Palestinian UN observer state bid on 29 November

The Palestinian Authority will present its bid for Palestine to become a UN "non-member observer state" on 29 November, President Mahmoud Abbas says.

The request is being made despite US and Israeli opposition.

Mr Abbas said that if the bid were successful, he would begin negotiations with Israel "the next day".

A Palestinian bid to join the international body as a full member state in 2011 failed because of a lack of support at the UN Security Council.

-snip-


Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20299149

40 replies, 2377 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 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Palestinian UN observer state bid on 29 November (Original post)
Eugene Nov 2012 OP
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #1
aranthus Nov 2012 #3
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #6
aranthus Nov 2012 #7
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #8
King_David Nov 2012 #10
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #13
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #17
King_David Nov 2012 #23
azurnoir Nov 2012 #18
King_David Nov 2012 #9
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #14
King_David Nov 2012 #15
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #16
King_David Nov 2012 #22
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #27
azurnoir Nov 2012 #19
King_David Nov 2012 #21
azurnoir Nov 2012 #24
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #2
aranthus Nov 2012 #4
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #5
azurnoir Nov 2012 #11
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #12
azurnoir Nov 2012 #20
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #26
azurnoir Nov 2012 #29
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #30
azurnoir Nov 2012 #31
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #32
azurnoir Nov 2012 #33
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #34
azurnoir Nov 2012 #35
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #36
azurnoir Nov 2012 #37
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #39
azurnoir Nov 2012 #40
oberliner Nov 2012 #25
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #28
azurnoir Nov 2012 #38

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:07 PM

1. There should be a Palestinian state.


What is Israel afraid of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:43 AM

3. Rockets landing in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

A hostile military force encamped on the Judean Hills. Loss of water supplies. A Palestinian state needs to happen, but don't pretend that it's not a significant risk for Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aranthus (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:49 AM

6. So keep apartheid instead?


Oh, that's right. I'm not supposed to talk about that. It's alright for Israeli citizens to chip away at the Palestinian's land, but not alright for Palestinians to seek a homeland at the UN.

Israel has significant risks from its own citizens that it won't control.

I'm all for a demilitarized Palestinian state, whether they like it or not, that has UN patrols instead of IDF ones.

I'm also for all Israeli citizens to be moved off of Palestinian territory and back into Israeli territory; whether they like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:02 PM

7. Do you read posts before you respond to them?

I stated very clearly that a Palestinian state needs to happen, and you're going off as if I never wrote that.

We have very different views of what aparthied means. Don't want to get into a huge argument over it. As for the rest of what you have written, we actually agree on most of it.


"Israel has significant risks from its own citizens that it won't control." Agreed.

"I'm all for a demilitarized Palestinian state, whether they like it or not, that has UN patrols instead of IDF ones." I think that this is unrealistic, and could never be enforced.. Israel is just going to have to live with a fully sovereign Palestinian state, which means it will have weapons. And UN troops will only prevent violence as long as the two sides really want to prevent violence themselves. UN observers are of marginal use otherwise.

"I'm also for all Israeli citizens to be moved off of Palestinian territory and back into Israeli territory; whether they like it or not." I think that this will have to happen. If the Palestinians actually want the Israelis to stay (which I doubt) then that would be fine by me. I think where we disagree is just what is Israeli and Palestinian territory. I think that has to be negotiated in good faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aranthus (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:47 PM

8. Sorry. I was wrong. I thought that I was going into another dustup with


an apologist. My mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:34 PM

10. Imagine if someone on DU called a fellow member

An apologist for Hamas or an Apologist for Hamas' Terrorism against humanity ?

Probably they would eat pizza..Deservedly so ...

Your out if line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:53 PM

13. Imagine if all the illegal Israeli settlers


were uprooted and were forced to live inside Israel.

Imagine that.

If anybody is out of line is those who support illegals in the first place.

Key word: illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:45 AM

17. No, they don't "eat pizza"

Also, you just equated Israel with Hamas. Good going there, Dave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:56 AM

23. Gotcha.

Good going .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:53 AM

18. No they would not I've seen people called Hamas supporters

among other things and those doing the name calling walk away with out so much as a hidden post much less being PPRed
juries here are random and what one jury might hide another would not it all depends on who's chosen to be on them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:50 PM

9. Apartheid apartheid apartheid tralala tralala .. The musical ain't out yet ....

Labeling Israel "The Apartheid state or entity" is all the rage from far left to far right nowdays ..

It's "in" and everyone's doing it.


... Israel the Apartheid State :

In Tel Aviv They put French Fries in their Shwarma...gross..Israel the Apartheid State

In the Knesset they have Coca Cola Machines not Pepsi ....Israel the Apartheid State

They have in supermarkets Milky and Milky afooch....Israel the Apartheid State

Pesach time the Bakeries sell Kosher Lepesach Bread Cakes and Bagels...Israel the Apartheid State

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:00 PM

14. You missed a verse or two


In lands belonged to Palestine, Illegal settlements grow

The olive groves when burnt do shine in weariness and woe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:12 PM

15. I missed nothing

As Shaktimaan proved you don't even know what the word means... Everything is apartheid to you... Even a walk on the Tayelet or a snack on Dizzingoff or a beer on Allenby or a walk on Hayarkon ...




It's all Apartheid to you ... And Greek to everyone else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:34 PM

16. Sure you did, KD.

Firstly, you're ridicule of a serious situation is not funny. Secondly, you rhyme poorly. Thirdly, Shaktimaan proved nothing except that you are a fan. Fans are for American Idol.

So let's get back to those illegal settlements that you like to ignore.

Or do you want to throw more bad 3rd grade rhyme my way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:49 AM

22. Disappointing there was no "Apartheid " in that reply

Apartheid apartheid .. It's the way we roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:50 AM

27. Disappointing there's no substance to yours.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:57 AM

19. I think you forgot this verse in the West Bank

Israeli children cannot be jailed under the age of 14,
while Palestinian children as young as 12 have been held by Israel.
Israeli children must be given access to a lawyer within 48 hours,
whereas Palestinians can be held for three months without legal aid.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=534074

this under the same governing authority and nearly text book apartheid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:45 AM

21. West Bank is governed by Jordanian law nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:26 AM

24. so Jordanian law makes special provisions for Israeli children living in the West Bank geez that's

a new one, and Jordanian law holds sway in Area C and B too, gee I had been led to believe that Israel had juristidiction over every asspect of law in Area C and what would be considered security in Area B, well gosh darn it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:20 PM

2. This would cost the UN more of its US funding

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:46 AM

4. Perhaps. I don't think that it should.

I realize the danger of encouraging the Palestinians to think that they could achieve a state without actually making peace with Israel. However, upping the Palestinians' status combined with a proper push from Washington might unstick negotiations. Also, I don't think it's worth the drop in our international status to withhold UN dues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aranthus (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:48 AM

5. It is black letter US law, just ask UNESCO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:42 PM

11. is it? there is some contention as said law interferes with the POTUS making foreign policy

now UNESCO was a minor and run up to the election move, this time it would not be quite so minor

http://www.justice.gov/ola/views-letters/112/102111-ltr-re-hr-2829-UN-transparency-accountability-reform-act-2011.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:48 PM

12. The current administration has previously honored the law

And decided not to challenge it. No reason to expect it to do differently. Note also that the loss of funds was and remains a very big deal to UNESCO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:59 AM

20. yes he did as I already pointed out

however then it was just UNESCO this would be more all encompassing and could well endanger not just US but global security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:38 AM

26. The other problem could be the lack of appropriation in the final FY13 or FY14 budget

The executive branch can only spend what the legislative branch appropriates. The UNESCO money was reallocated to a different budget line. The House and/or Senate could easily do that to the UN funds, saying they were following the law. Legally the president could do nothing.

The president is right on this one. This level of brinksmanship is dumb. If the UN goes through with it, and he decides to fight the funding cuts, he will spend political capital much needed elsewhere. I am not sure he would fight for the UN funding under those circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:06 PM

29. ya we don't need the IAEA do we? and who cares about the rest of the stuff like child food programs

women's health, but when it comes to the budget there is this little thing called a veto ...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:23 PM

30. Some of the UN related payments go directly to the agencies, like UNESCO

Not sure about the IAEA, but you can look through Federal budget lines if you like.

As for a veto threat, two things could happen...a combined appropriations bill or a single appropriation bill for the UN payments. The former would be laden with enough things the administration wants that it would be veto proof. The latter might never make his desk. There will also be a court challenge which the administration could well lose. The president is right, pushing the Palestinian issue at the UN at this time this is a bad idea if they want to retain US funding.

I do not believe that this administration would go to the mat for full UN funding. Its not a core issue for the US or the party. Too many other domestic issues it needs to win on and this one is not worth the political capital.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:27 PM

31. and exactly what political capital does a second term POTUS need?

political capital stopped being an issue 11/6/12 IMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:05 PM

32. With the Hill split, the administration can not ramrod things through.

It will have to pick its battles. There will be a few easy wins early on, but hard issues will have to be worked. That is called using political capital. This administration has too much to do as it is. A fight over UN funding would be an unneeded distraction. Given that kind of choice, I expect to see some sort of end around so the administration is not put in a binary situation, which the repukes would love and use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:08 PM

33. well it seems you confuse domestic issues with foreign affairs

Congress can only can only stone wall domestic issues

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:54 PM

34. And you do not understand the funding process of the US Govt.

Without an appropriation, the executive branch has no money to spend. It can not willy-nilly take funds from one area and apply to another. Clear black letter law. The president can not simply ordered something funded.

Even if the courts agreed that the current law constrained the ability of the executive branch to run foreign affairs and declared it unconstitutional, the Hill would still have to fund it annually. For years the UN has complained that they wanted more money from the US, and for years, regardless of what the president wanted, it got what the Congress was willing to appropriate and no more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:17 PM

35. we are not speaking about morewe're speaking about nothing being appropriated

a different animal altogether

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:28 PM

36. When you discuss anything about the US Government...appropriations are what matter

The president has less influence than many believe. His budget is only the starting point and sometimes not even that.

I am retired from the Executive Branch...I lived this stuff daily for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:34 PM

37. ah so you were part of the Executive branch of our government

which part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:39 PM

39. Both military and as a civilian

I was a camp follower for a while, and when we returned to the US rejoined civil service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:45 PM

40. so the US military is part of the executive branch of the government and you held an office?

which one and how did you get there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:37 AM

25. Will this make the situation better or worse?

For the Palestinian people, I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:33 AM

28. At best it would stay the same, though I would expect some deterioration in trade with Israel

The real impact may be to the UN itself...still TBD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:35 PM

38. Abbas: PA Ready to Resume Negotiations following UN Bid Vote

President Mahmoud Abbas Tuesday said that the Palestinian Authority is ready to resume negotiations with Israel the day after the vote on the resolution the PA will submit to the United Nations on November 29th.

During a joint press conference between Abbas and the Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhamed Amr, which was held following Abbas’ meeting with the Egyptian President Muhamad Morsi, Abbas said that PA is keen to continue consultations with the Egyptian leadership to coordinate and unite positions regarding a number of issues, such as the Palestinian bid to UN.

The Arab Foreign Ministers pledged to support the Palestinian cause by contacting world countries to vote in favor of the bid.

http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=21057

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread