Obama, Europeans press Palestinians to drop U.N. bid

The US and other countries that oppose an independent Palestinian country (how ironic since the US celebrates its own every July 4th), had absolutely no problem recognising the NTC, a government that was not even elected by the Libyan people, but which - on the very day they got into Tripoli if I recall - had international oil companies lining up for contracts.

This General Assembly an illegitimate, US/UK/France backed govt in Libya gets Statehood, the Palestinians are told to shut up and negotiate (which leads nowhere) and for another 60 plus years. It could not be clearer that these traditional imperial countries do not support freedom or independence; they support those countries who allow them to get their resources. This will not, in the long term, be in the US best interests. What a farce.

@Christina, "Is the UN a democratic institution and if it is and the majority of its members would welcome Palastines membership then why should the few be allowed to overcome the many?"

Democratic means voice of the people, which in theory would be he General Assembly. With the 'senate' ie. the security council, there is no democracy because one country can veto anything, which the US frequently does. So when 181 votes to 3 occur - like they do every year when the world tells the US to end its illegal embargo of Cuba - it is the opposite of democracy.

The non-aligned would love to see no more security council, and quite frankly, so do the majority of people on this planet.

Once the Palestinians' bid is vetoed Israel will announce its next program of settlement expansion.

The whole think about Palestinian "statehood" is nothing but shell game. Muslim countries don´t give a shat about statehood for anybody, least of all Arabs in Palestine. It is all about the destruction of Israel and nothing else.

What an outrageous statement, WiiliB. Or...

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism... - PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.

Never mind.

vladrin,

Wow, practicing bad history lessons? Prior to 56 Egypt had restricted Israel's access to the Suez. A UN resolution called on them to stop doing this. Prior to the Suez Crisis, Nasser threatened to nationalize the Suez Canal, Nasser knew this was asking for trouble that could lead to war. Anyway, Israel was not the instigator in that fight, although it did join forces with them. In 67 both Egypt and Syria had huge amounts of troops amassed on their borders. Nasser illegally closed the Straits of Tiran. Egypt did start that war with its actions. Then they did it again in 73 along with Syria again. In 82 after being attacked by the PLO over and over again, Israel went into Lebanon. All of these certainly can be connected to aggression from countries bordering Israel. While I don't agree with any racist tones, I certainly can't agree with your mistaken history lesson. Now, Hamas is making the same mistakes and still the average Palestinians pay for it. How about not attacking Israel and making peace for a change. Now that would be novel, wouldn't it?

Palestinians could have had statehood in the past, most recently in 2000 or 2008, offered by Barak and Olmert.

They could have had a neighbouring Palestinian state in the equivalent of the territory taken by Israel in the 1967 War, with Jerusalem as a shared capital.

Why did they reject these (not to mention earlier) offers of statehood and yet now that's the very thing they're asking of the UN?

They UN had a resolution, so what?

Again, you are incorrect. Egypt's actions were acts of war. They started it, not Israel. This is true in the 50's and 60's. It was not Egypt's right as to who it could allow pass through according to the UN. By the way, Iran has always had the right to pass through. They just have been avoiding trouble by not doing so. Ever consider learning about the subject first? Also, by the way, there were lots of Christians in southern Lebanon that were very happy to have Israel there helping them. They even crossed the border to work in Israel. Yes, if you attack Israel, expect to be attacked back. If you threaten Israel, expect to be threaten/attacked back. This is not arrogance, it is reality.

How about Israeli's accept the borders according to Abbas's or Yasser Arafat's condition? Or does this seems crazy

Doesn't this mean the Palestinians would actually have to stay at the table long enough to negotation and not get up and walk away? You know, not like how they walked away before?

Can I ask? Why is it you write so much incorrect information? It would take a year to correct it point by point.

Palestinians are asking for official recognition. Yet they have consistently failed to recognize the State of Israel. There appears to be no pressure from those who support the Palestinian bid to try and persuade the Palestinians to recognize Israel. Why not?

vladrin,

Please reread my previous post to you. I not only corrected your errors, I also explained the actions on the part of Egypt and Syria that led to the wars you incorrectly sought to blame on Israel. This discussion is not a history lesson for you. If you need more help, may I suggest you do some reading.

Palestinians have certainly not been sitting at the negotation table for 20 years. Arafat could not even manage more than a couple of days in 2000. He walked out. Barak and Clinton wanted to keep talking. You cannot get around that. Israel occupies less land than it did 20 years ago, not more.

I don't believe I wrote that you think like Hamas. If I gave you that impression, I apologize. I believe I meant that Hamas' actions mirror the actions of the PLO of years ago and of Egypt et al.

You have made mistakes, which I have been pretty accurate in correcting. You did not even acknowledge them. Please review my posts to you and my corrections.

It is one thing to have an opinion. It is another to be mistaken about facts. I have been commenting on your mistakes about facts, not your opinions. It is obvious you do not like Israel. That is fine. I have no comment about that has it is an opinion. However, when you are discussing history, it would be better to be correct. Thus, I corrected you, a couple of times now.

And this is what I call jumping between discussion layers, which is a good practice for persuasive dialog, but unhealthy for studying facts and reasoning.

You claimed Israel was taking more land. I was correcting you. They occupy less now, not more. I have merely been responding to what you have written. If the subjects discussed have changed (and they certainly have), it is because you keep changing them. One example of your mistakes was your claim that Iran was not allowed to pass through the Suez. I corrected you and you ignored my correction.

While the settlements are an issue, I was responding to what you wrote that I found incorrect. I don't disagree that the settlements are an issue, so I did not correct you. You did not write anything incorrect specifically regarding settlements. However, I believe that nothing will be accomplished if the Palestinian side does not stick with negotiations. Making the settlement issue a block to their negotations is, I believe, counterproductive to the goal of an independent Palestinian state.

To be clear, I corrected your mistakes. However, that does not mean I think Israel does not have to compromise or that they have not been wrong. It merely means I found what you wrote incorrect and corrected it.

Anyway, hopefully within the next 1,000 years cooler and smarter heads will prevail there and they will learn they have to get along.

Good luck to you, too.

I guess they cant wait to embarrass the usa, it kind of like an official seal now to their Israeli bias, us politics and lobbying, and blind eye to bullying ( oh whats that the bullied person punches back, well i never),warcrimes,etc,etc,etc that is standing in the way or peace.

But like the US/Israel will care anyway and spin it into another story to justify it to themselves and the rest of the world will pretend to believe the USA to keep the ah meh "peace".

Is the UN a democratic institution and if it is and the majority of its members would welcome Palastines membership then why should the few be allowed to overcome the many?

It really amazes me how much people read things that don't exist into this story. The US has never said they oppose an independent Palestinian state. Quite the opposite. How many of you are aware that the elected Palestinian government of Hamas is against this move? Would you say they oppose an independent Palestinian state?

Sarkozy supported an observer state status for Palestine but not full U.N. membership for now. That idea would head off a Security Council vote and veto that he said would risk “engendering a cycle of violence in the Middle East.”

Sweet. If France isn't agreeable then they can use their veto. Same with the UK.

After the 1948 war, the West Bank became part of Jordan and Egypt took control of Gaza. Why was there no thought then in Egypt or Jordan (or anywhere else in the wider Arab world) of creating a Palestinian state?

Obama's reasons must be purely political, made in consideration of how this plays domestically.

The Middle East war is not now and never was a conflict between Israelis/Jews on the one hand and Palestinians on the other. In fact, the Arab-"Palestinians", while currently the perpetrators of most of the anti-Jewish atrocities, were never a very important part of the conflict. In fact, before about 1970, virtually no one in the world considered the Middle East conflict to be one between Israelis and Palestinians.

The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. That is because Palestinian nationalism did not and DOES NOT exist. The Palestinians were a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs!.

The bulk of what are called "Palestinian Arabs" are members of families who migrated into the Land of Israel beginning in the late 19th century. Palestinian nationalism is a mislabeling of Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism exists, although it is closely bound up with Islamic nationalism and even Islamism. Palestinian nationalism, however, is a phantom. It is nothing more than genocidal hatred of Jews!

The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I

I really, really don't like Israel. Why do Americans think Jews should get away with anything, and that Arabs are deserving of nothing but death?

@Ben_Jackinoff

Prior to 56 Egypt had restricted Israel's access to the Suez. A UN resolution called on them to stop doing this.

They UN had a resolution, so what? Does this gives Israel the right to attack member of the international community. And it's Egyptian's right to decide who can pass the channel and who not, provided that the channel is artificial and was built through Egyptian labor. Peaceful solution or not, in the end it should have been solved through international community. Another example is Iran. Iran's navy was denied to have access to Suiz channel for the past few decades, unlike Israel which can roam free now. So what now? Should the Iranians resort to aggression against Egypt, like the responsible state of Israel did in 1956? And the fact that you say Egyptians brought this onto themselves is a quite arrogant way of looking at this. Here is a contrary view, though has much arrogance as your statement, Israel's actions today are bringing its own destruction. Are you happy with this logic? If not, then you should be able to understand how the other side feels when you say something like Egyptians brought this onto themselves.

And the fact that Israel had issues with the PLO on the Lebanese borders doesn't mean that Israel has the right to occupy southern Lebanon for almost 20 years.

Funny you talk about a single UN resolution in 1956, and you ignore more than 30 resolutions that were vetoed by the US during the past thirty years, and tens of resolutions that passed, but had no reaction or whatsoever from Israel.

vladrin is mostly posting propaganda. He wants revenge, not peace.

@labelle

Palestinians could have had statehood in the past, most recently in 2000 or 2008, offered by Barak and Olmert.

Nice, do you mean that Palestinians lost an opportunity to get a state that Barack and Olmert offered? How about Israeli's accept the borders according to Abbas's or Yasser Arafat's condition? Or does this seems crazy, but not the other way around. Yes, talking about arrogance.

As for the UN resolution, there is already one that still to be executed from Israel since 1967: Israel should withdrawn from Westbank and Joulan, and Israeli's can live happy ever after as much as they want. On another occasion back in 2000, the Saudi king Abdullah has offered Israel natural relations, both political and economic, with 22 Arab States, and all he asked Israeli's for was to adhere to 1967's UN resolution. But then this logic of Israeli Politicians creeps in, why give if we don't have to?

@Ben_Jackinoff

Egypt's actions were acts of war. They started it, not Israel. This is true in the 50's and 60's.

You mention the abstract word actions and don't get into details, I went through the details, and all your response Egypt's actions. Not sure how you can argue this way.

Doesn't this mean the Palestinians would actually have to stay at the table long enough to negotation and not get up and walk away?

They did sit on the table for almost twenty years, and during that period Israel has only increased its settlements on the west bank, and still doing so. They can't keep negotiating while Israeli are occupying more land every week. Only in the past month Israel had plans to expand settlements with more than 6700 housing units.

Can I ask? Why is it you write so much incorrect information?

I talked about vetos numbers in previous posts and settlement numbers now, these were statistics. I reiterated over your arguments, and you answered in an abstract and fogy way (using the word actions instead of going into reasons). First, you accused me of posting false facts, later in a deleted post for you accused me of thinking like Hamas (although I'm not even a Muslim), now you say that I write much incorrect information. My friend, don't you think that you need to be a little more respectful to people who disagree with your opinion (call them facts if you want).

@Ben_Jackinoff

I've read your posts carefully, and previously I responded to the facts you mentioned and your reasoning, and why I think it has errors. What makes a discussion with you difficult is that you jump through discussion layers and switch between general-specific modes, and when I go talking about them we move to a more general topic (like conflict over twenty years). I talk about numbers like saying that past month the Israeli government has approved plans for constructing additional 6700 housing units in settlements in the west bank (the settlements which are condemned by not only the international community and Israeli's closest ally the US, but also by some major political process in Israel), and you respond with a general phrase like Israel occupies/controls foreign land today less than in the past. And this is what I call jumping between discussion layers, which is a good practice for persuasive dialog, but unhealthy for studying facts and reasoning. I don't believe that you know more than me about the conflict for good reasons, neither I believe that I know more than you for the same reasons. I know for sure that if we have been talking for hours I wouldn't be able to reach a conclusion with you, mind you on a forum. Still, each one has his/her own beliefs, but looking forward to see what the international community decide in the upcoming hours and days. Good luck.

The whole think about Palestinian "statehood" is nothing but shell game. Muslim countries don´t give a shat about statehood for anybody, least of all Arabs in Palestine. It is all about the destruction of Israel and nothing else.