What is your opinion regarding the Palestinians approaching the UN?

[EDIT: Deleted all of my comments because I’m not sure I want to jump into this one.]

I’ll leave this for people who do want continue this discussion:

List of UN resolutions concerning Israel (many of them address Palestinians): here

I am of mixed opinion. On the one hand, the Palestinians do not seem to agree on a unified voice (Hamas vs. Abbas). And as an outsider without direct knowledge other than what I get from the papers and from a certain well know jellie, the Israeli right is not all that interested in a peace deal and definitely not interested in a Palestinian state. The coalition nature of Israeli politics means the small ultra orthodox groups control the decision making in this arena.

Until each side works out their internal differences, it seems premature to go to the UN.

IMHO, the Palestinians are using the whole UN bid as a grand stand play in order to bypass the necessity to negotiate a real peace with Israel. The whole thing is a non-starter from the beginning but no matter what is pretty much a no loose play for them.

On the one hand, if in the very unlikely event they are formally recognized, they gain legitimacy that they previously lacked, which they will no doubt use in the ongoing campaign to “push Israel into the sea”.

If, on the other hand, in the more likely event they are not formally recognized they get to whine about how the US and Israel are big old poopy heads, and sadly many will buy into that idea.

They are not ready. For one they also need Gaza and real borders fro this to work. Since they have neither, the ploy means nothing.

It’s just a tactic in the long war. Maybe they can put a little pressure on others to come back to the bargaining table. It won’t work. Israel has no incentive to make peace. At least, the conservatives have no incentive.

Let’s start with some basics: 1. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26 1933.

The convention set out the definition, rights and duties of statehood. Most well-known is Article 1, which set out four criteria for statehood, as quoted below.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

(a) a permanent population;

(b) a defined territory;

(c) government; and

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Article 3 of the Convention also declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states, so a country can exist even if other countries don’t recognize it.

@YoBob Quite correct – but it’s still a beginning, and they can milk it for other gains – like an upgrade in their status at the UN. I’ll add my personal view at the end and try to keep this short.

@reijinni Simply incorrect. Look it up: Israel left Gaza in ‘05 and even after the little one month war a couple of years back – left completely. In fact, Gaza has democratically elected Hammas, a globally recognized terrorist group as their government – Ismail Haniya is President – so Israel is definitely not in Gaza. It “belongs” to the palestinians – one problem is that Hammas is in power there – while the PLO (Abbas) is in power in the west bank. This is a big problem – for them.

@zenvelo You nailed it.

@wundayatta I disagree. Not that you are entirely wrong, I am just a bit more optimistic than that.

I think that the Palestinians have to get their shit together first – regardless of the State of Israel’s internal political connundrum. However, if they wish to go to the UN and feel frustrated with the stand-off and endless to and fro of the negotiations with Israel, usually fruitless (both sides are at fault) then let them take their chances at the UN. The sad thing is that they are causing a small ripple in the pool by forcing the US to play the veto card; this is not the right time for the US to do this because of the delicate situation the US is in globally, vis a vis the Arabs, and with regards to the Palestinians for future talks. It’s a lose lose situation for the Palestinians to do this – as it will not get them a state – I wish it would – and will only make it easier for Israel, and I do not agree with Israel on this, to prolong the event.

Something must change profoundly for there to be peace in the middle east. Israel is becoming ever more isolated, partly because of the Arab spring and its subsequent events, partly because Israel still does not know what to do with regards to the West Bank.

It’s complicated, but I think it’s time for Israel to make a bold move. I just don’t think Netanyahu has it in him.

Israel should agree to a Palestinian state along the 67 borders with minor adjustments – hey, it’s been over 40 years and there are generations living there – settlers if you will, sent there by all the past governments so they are not entirely to blame.

Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, is de facto Arab anyway. Jerusalem, the holiest of cities to many religions, should become a wonderul example of peace and harmony – and if the Palestinians want to call their side Al Kuds (Jerusalem in Arabic) then fine with me.

The UN should sit along the borders and there should be buffer zones and a time table before they can arm themselves and form a military. After all, Hammas is a terrorist group funded by Iran. Which is also why the declaration of statehood is still kind of premature. But again, that’s their problem. If Israel has internationally recognized borders, it will be easier to defend against attacks anyway. Show me a country besides Canada with no terrorism issues on their borders, or smugglers etcetera. This will be Israel’s problem, but easier to deal with because a Palestinian State should also deal with this problem – it would be in their interest. Egypt and Jordan to the south and east would ally with Israel in this case, too. Everything would be so much easier – and besides, there will be so much prosperity that comes with peace that people will be too busy with start-ups to bother with terrorism. There is an infrastructure to create. It will take a generation at least.

This is my dream.

@zensky, what I said that Palestine is two governments and it needs to be one in order for the state to work.

They are not ready. For one they also need Gaza and real borders fro this to work. Since they have neither, the ploy means nothing.

They also need Gaza – did I misinterpret that? Not that it makes that much of a difference. Why not respond to what I’ve written and attempt a discussion.

@zensky, I will as soon as I can get a god thought together.

@zensky Why is the US forced to play the veto card? I don’t understand that. Obama seems to have empathy for the Palestinian position from things he has said in the past. Why does the US have to say nay? I don’t question the US support for Israel, I believe we will always support Israel, but supporting Israel does not have to be anti-Palestinian in my opinion.

The is no way Obama can not veto the resolution and expect the support of most American Jews. You know this. There are certainly liberal Jews in America who favor a two state solution. But far more Jews are conservatives who see things only in terms of preservation of Israel. To them, preservation of Israel means keeping the Arabs and Palestinians down everywhere in the world for fear if they ever gain any power, they will wipe out Israel.

As you know, these are old, old scars and memories that drive these fears and policies. I’m glad that @zensky is optimistic, but I am not. However, this kind of obstructionism will sooner or later bite Israel in the ass, and it may come to the point where the US has to actually go to war for Israel, or risk the use of nuclear weapons. That would not be fun.

@zensky, When I say they need Gaza, I said that because they only have the West Bank, of a portion thereof and not Gaza. If they can rule both the West bank and Gaza, they might have something.

@wundayatta So, in the end do you think it does save face for the US if they can veto, even if they support the two state solution? I always thought the US was an unlikely player to broker a treaty, because I don’t see the Palestinians ever trusting the US and their motives. I would have guessed a European country possibly would have a better shot bringing together an agreement.

@JLeslie I think it saves face for Obama with most American Jews. Of course, the American Jews it does not save face with would never vote Republican, anyway.

As to a real solution in the middle East being brokered by a European country… I don’t know. Would anyone take that on? Would the US feel slighted if they did? Is the US the only country that could do this? I don’t know.

@wundayatta I think the Christian Right might go more insane than the Jews, but I don’t disagree the Jews might be annoyed even pissed. Just to make sort of the same point you did, but not the same, the Christian Right will never vote for Obama no matter what, in fact, there were many Jews who did vote for Bush because of his support of Israel, wich drives me crazy, who might otherwise have voted Dem in other elections, but I don’t see the Christian Right ever votng for Obama whether he vetos or not. It is amazing the Jewish vote matters so much, I guess maybe the electoral college helps that?

Oh my word! you cluck on and on like a hen.
Palestine has offered surrender dozens of times in the past 50 years, they are more than willing to accept a permanent border agreement but that has always been unacceptable to the Zionist leaders of Israel. They want it ALL, from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates river as prophesied. And nothing, not even peace will get in the way of that damned scripture.
And for all those Christians who think zionist Judaism is akin to your own beliefs check out this” this” and most importantly This.
Text book Sun-tzu.

@Boogabooga1 The hard core right wing zionsist are not the majority in Israel. Most citizens of Israel want a two state solution, and are willing to make concessions.

@Boogabooga1

“They want it ALL, from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates river as prophesied”

Not only “as prophesied”, but as negotiated in a treaty with the Arabs in exchange for a “lasting peace”, which was, might I add, subsequently ignored by the Arabs in their desire to “push Israel into the sea”.

I can hardly blame the Israels for being distrustful of any future treaties and I can quite understand why they view the territory in question as a part of Israel since all of the land on their side of the river was what they gave up over half of their territory in the above mentioned treaty for.

@YoBob I feel that you are “full of shit” Med to the Euphrates river not only encompasses All of Palestine but most of Syria and half of Iraq. So I cant comprehend how the Palestinians could ever have agreed to surrendering THREE COUNTRIES.
Links please.

(Google maps is a free educational tool)

@Boogabooga1 – Yep, I misspoke (coffee hasn’t kicked in yet), the treaty I was referring to did not cover all land from the Med to the Euphrates. However, it did set borders that have subsequently come under dispute.

@zensky – Awesome answer! I’m amazed you had only 1 lurve on it.

Thanks.