Israel's Netanyahu says Palestinian statehood bid at UN will fail

[Jiu-Jitsu]

Did you mention terrorism? Seems that we gave in to the terrorists back then.

What's your point? Are you one of those radicals who thinks that Israel doesn't deserve the right to exist now because of some messy stuff in their history? If so, I guess we can dismantle the USA and Australia as well, and don't get me started about the evils of the British empire.

I'm saying that you are happy to attempt to demonise others, whilst failing to acknowledge that the modern state was born out of terrorism....and they celebrate it. It really was not that long ago.....and they continue to this day.

Thanks for clarifying your point of view.

The reality on the ground today is that Israel is an established national state. The Palestinians don't have that yet. How do they get there? Will they accept two states or will they never give up controlling ALL of the land there?

An 'established national state' borne out of terrorism. You are just an apologist for a different kind of terrorist. We know the Palestinians don't have an 'established national state', but it's not for the want of trying, now is it?

[cdnvic]

Ok, some posts that ignored my above warning about being more civil were removed. Two posters lost their posting rights for taking personal shots at each other rather than discussing the issues.

[Wallaby]

The USA says Palestine can only become a 'state' by direct negotiations with Israel.

Well that makes it very simple for Israel doesn't it. The world tells Israel to stop the illegal settlements, Israel continues. Palestinians tell Israel to stop the illegal settlements and the peace talks can continue. Israel continues.

If Israel were really wanting dialogue they would stop the illegal acts. But they don't, they don't want Palestine to be a state. Works out very well for them to keep the Palestinians in no mans land so they can continue their expansionism.

[Ulysses G.]

Israel wants the Palestinian Arabs to have a state (they certainly do not want them in Israel) but they don't trust them because they gave them Gaza to make peace and they elected a radical terrorist group - that shoots rockets at them regularly - to run it.

The Palestinian Arabs have rejected every peace deal and shot themselves in the foot over and over again. What other country would trust them with their record and the fact that they are violating yet another treaty?

They need to stop the violence and negotiate with Israel as they have committed to.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

All Israel has to do is stop building illegal settlements, as the world has asked, and negotiations can re commence.

Can't be much easier for Israel, but they still refuse to do it. Israel doesn't want peace until its expandsion objectives have been satisfied. It suits Israel very well for the Palestinians to be denied statehood .

[Ulysses G.]

Netanyahu tried a moratorium on building settlements and Hamas just kept shooting rockets at civilians. The Israelis are willing to trade land for peace, but the Palestinian Arabs have to live up to their end of the bargain for a change.

[maidu]

An 'established national state' borne out of terrorism. You are just an apologist for a different kind of terrorist (referring to . We know the Palestinians don't have an 'established national state', but it's not for the want of trying, now is it?

Referring to acts committed decades ago (relatively minor terrorist activity of a small group of Israelis in the 1950's) is weak argument in this topic. It's like comparing a swizzle stick with a hand grenade. In the big picture, nearly every square Km in the world has suffered armed conflicts at one time or another - yet the people who survive the conflict generally dust themselves off, and go on. For most people, irregardless of what color flag they're waving, life is a struggle. Palestinians should have as much right as anyone to improve their lives. However, a significant % of their population are tossing bombs at their neighbors. That, among other things, bodes ill for other Palestinians who are trying to eke out a living by moderate means and efforts.

Interesting that yesterday, the 'other' English newspaper reported about a court case in East Jerusalem (I can't recall the exact wording). It sounded like a some Israelis were able to prove ownership of some houses there, via documents and court proceedings, and successfully gained ownership of some small properties citing something like; they owned the properties decades earlier (50+ years?), but the properties were forcefully taken away from them by Arabs and/or Palestinians due to armed conflict. So happens that Palestinians in other suburbs of Jerusalem, may be able to use the same legal argument to take back possession of properties from Israelis.

Personally, I don't see a peaceful resolution to all the internecine conflicts until Israelis and (particularly) Palestinians and Arabs can see beyond the ends of their pointy noses - and be able to accept each other as people. Genetically, they're identical. Their ancestors are from the same mix, no different than Czechs and Slovaks are from each other.

[Wallaby]

Yes Maidu, an interesting issue. Israelis thinking it is a good thing to get the court to order the return of their home/land. But in reality, it opens a pandoras box for displaced Palestinians to now do the same thing.

[Ulysses G.]

Referring to acts committed decades ago (relatively minor terrorist activity of a small group of Israelis in the 1950's) is weak argument in this topic. It's like comparing a swizzle stick with a hand grenade.

Good point. The Israeli "terrorists" usually made a phone call to warn inhabitants to get out in the few cases that they blew something up. At the King David Hotel - which was military head-quarters - the person who answered the phone, told them that, "We do not take orders from Jews", so it was not vacated when the bomb went off.

Trying to claim that the founding fathers of Israel were "terrorists" is just plain silly.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

What I can't get my head around is how a majority of UN member states plus sundry Thai Visa posters who claim to have no dog in this fight seem far keener on the Palestinians having a state than the Palestinians of the West bank do, judging by the 30% support Al-Jazeera quoted, I guess there's democracy for you. Perhaps should they get a state and be short of Palestinian flags to wave some can be sent from overseas.

It is a mystery though, anyone would have thought some people are more interested in seeing a shotgun wedding between the Israelis and the bride from hell rather than follow the wishes of the Palestinian people - it certainly can't be on grounds of fairness or human rights judging by the carnage and oppression occurring everywhere else in the middle east which the usual suspects seem totally blind to. I think we should be told.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Steely Dan

[up-country_sinclair]

The USA says Palestine can only become a 'state' by direct negotiations with Israel.

Well that makes it very simple for Israel doesn't it. The world tells Israel to stop the illegal settlements, Israel continues. Palestinians tell Israel to stop the illegal settlements and the peace talks can continue. Israel continues.

If Israel were really wanting dialogue they would stop the illegal acts. But they don't, they don't want Palestine to be a state. Works out very well for them to keep the Palestinians in no mans land so they can continue their expansionism.

Exactly.

And Israel doesn't want Palestine to be a full member of the UN because that would level the playing field. And when the overwhelming majority of the world's nations soon vote in favor of Palestine, it will be a deafening rebuke of Israeli policy.

[Scott]

One off-topic, inflammatory post removed.

[up-country_sinclair]

What I can't get my head around is how a majority of UN member states plus sundry Thai Visa posters who claim to have no dog in this fight seem far keener on the Palestinians having a state than the Palestinians of the West bank do, judging by the 30% support Al-Jazeera quoted,

I've seen this 30% figure posted here by the usual suspects, but not the actual source itself. I've just gone back a few pages on this thread but again, no link.

I did a google search, and couldn't find it. However, a different ThaiVisa thread came up with the 30% claim, but no link.

I'm not saying the link doesn't exist (I certainly could have missed it), but I think some verification should be required for something that is being repeated so frequently. And then once the link is provided, the polling questions themselves can be examined. I think there's more than meets the eye here, and some are trying obfuscate the truth to further their agenda.

Edited September 22, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[geriatrickid]

An 'established national state' borne out of terrorism. You are just an apologist for a different kind of terrorist. We know the Palestinians don't have an 'established national state', but it's not for the want of trying, now is it?

The Haganah was set up to defend against attacks on the non arab residents. If you are indicating that the continued attacks by the arabs was the the basis of setting up the state, you would only be partially correct. Keep in mind that the British mandate over the region only came into place after the British defeated the former colonial rulers, the Turks. The mandate for the region was supposed to have ended, but the British kept dragging out the process. I believe the real trigger was when Transjordan, said, sorry boys, your mandate is over, now go away. The British agreed, and the people left in the other part of the region said <deleted>. Why does Transjordan get to be a country and we cannot despite the multiple agreements to that effect. In this case, the British kept reneging on deals as they desperately tried to hold onto their ME colonial possessions. To a certain extent, the existence of Israel owes something to the arabs that had pushed the British out.

The Turks who ruled over the place left it in a mess and then the British and French who showed up after WWI made an even bigger mess of it. Had the arabs not risen up against their Turkish opressors, there might have been a different outcome. The USA has been trying to clean up the mess ever since. Many of the current border issues are leftovers from idiotic decisions made by the Turks and the British. Really, if Turkey and the UK were responsible countries they would step up and accept responsibility for the situation. Two former colonial powers that left a legacy of war. It reminds me of what the Europeans did with the creation of their imposed national boundaries in Africa. Maybe, one day the Arabs and Israelis will wake up and realize that the people they should be going after are named Erdogan and Cameron.

[Steely Dan]

Good post Geriatrickid,

Actually The UK and Turkey especially are still compounding the mess they created. I read recently that Abbas was wavering a few days ago whether or not to go through with the bid, but it was Erdogan who was instrumental in convincing him by promising to make up the funding shortfall if the U.S cancelled aid to the P.A. This has put the U.S in the difficult position of probably having to use the veto, which will lead to violence for certain, with friends like these who needs enemies? Cameron and Sarkozy on the other hand may just take the moral cowards way out and abstain to placate the mini gaza stips in their inner cities. Though they may go the whole hog and vote for a racist genocidal entity and trample over the Oslo accords and international law covering themselves in shame and disgrace.

[Pakboong]

Referring to acts committed decades ago (relatively minor terrorist activity of a small group of Israelis in the 1950's) is weak argument in this topic. It's like comparing a swizzle stick with a hand grenade.

Good point. The Israeli "terrorists" usually made a phone call to warn inhabitants to get out in the few cases that they blew something up. At the King David Hotel - which was military head-quarters - the person who answered the phone, told them that, "We do not take orders from Jews", so it was not vacated when the bomb went off.

Trying to claim that the founding fathers of Israel were "terrorists" is just plain silly.

I understand it a bit differently:

In 1948, a libel action was taken out by Shaw against a Jewish, London newspaper which repeated the allegations made by Begin and the Irgun pamphlet.[4] The newspaper did not mount a defence and made an unreserved apology to Shaw.[4] About the allegation that he had said that he did not take orders from Jews, Shaw said: "I would never have made a statement like that and I don't think that anyone who knows me would regard it as in character. I would never have referred to the Jews in that way".[4]

In 1948, William Ziff, an American author, wrote a book called The Rape of Palestine which contained an embellished version of Galili's story similar to the one given in the Black Paper pamphlet.[3] It said that Shaw had escaped from the hotel minutes before the main explosion, abandoning its other occupants to their fate.[3] Shaw took out another libel action. After lawyers in Israel failed to find evidence supporting Ziff's version of events, the book's publishers withdrew it from circulation and apologised to Shaw.[3]

Bethell says that all of the British witnesses who were in the vicinity of the hotel at the time of the explosion confirmed what Shaw said. None of them had any knowledge of a warning having been sent in time to make evacuation of the hotel possible. They said that, like themselves, Shaw had not known about the bomb beforehand and that he bore no responsibility for putting colleagues' lives at risk immediately before the explosion. The only criticism made was that Shaw should have closed the Régence restaurant and put guards on the service entrance weeks before. Shaw agreed that not having done this was a mistake. The decision not to do it had been made because, "everyone was under orders to preserve the semblance of normality in Palestine", "social life had to be allowed to continue" and because nobody had believed that the Irgun would put the whole of the Secretariat, which had many Jewish employees, in danger.[4]

Two months after the bombing, Shaw was appointed High Commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago. The Irgun immediately sent a letter bomb to him there, but it was intercepted and successfully disarmed.[3]

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe this fellow phone. The point is that the hotel was warned and ignored the warning.

Irgun, whose activities were considered to be terrorism by Mi5[6], planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. Warnings were sent by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which the hotel staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.[4] A possible reason why the warning was ignored was that hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time.[4] From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day .[3] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but, for whatever reason, no evacuation was ordered.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

The IRA used to warn people as well. Didn't make then any less terrorists.

[Steely Dan]

Maybe this fellow phone. The point is that the hotel was warned and ignored the warning.

Irgun, whose activities were considered to be terrorism by Mi5[6], planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. Warnings were sent by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which the hotel staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.[4] A possible reason why the warning was ignored was that hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time.[4] From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day .[3] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but, for whatever reason, no evacuation was ordered.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Tell you what; If I was an alien arriving on Earth and using the Thaivisa forum as my source of information I'd probably conclude that the King David Hotel incident was a bigger event than 9/11 and the U.S.S Liberty bigger than Pearl Harbor.

[Pakboong]

Maybe this fellow phone. The point is that the hotel was warned and ignored the warning.

Irgun, whose activities were considered to be terrorism by Mi5[6], planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. Warnings were sent by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which the hotel staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.[4] A possible reason why the warning was ignored was that hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time.[4] From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day .[3] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but, for whatever reason, no evacuation was ordered.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

As I understand it, one junior Irgun member was charged with calling the hotel; I believe 3 times, only he knows whether he actually accomplished that and to whom he spoke. Pretty much taking the word of a known terrorist. If I tried to sell you the same story but substitute HAMAS for Irgun, I don't believe you would buy it. And I would understand why.

[Pakboong]

Maybe this fellow phone. The point is that the hotel was warned and ignored the warning.

Irgun, whose activities were considered to be terrorism by Mi5[6], planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. Warnings were sent by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which the hotel staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.[4] A possible reason why the warning was ignored was that hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time.[4] From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day .[3] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but, for whatever reason, no evacuation was ordered.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Tell you what; If I was an alien arriving on Earth and using the Thaivisa forum as my source of information I'd probably conclude that the King David Hotel incident was a bigger event than 9/11 and the U.S.S Liberty bigger than Pearl Harbor.

I guess that you could make the "defaming the dead" argument no matter how many were killed.

[Scott]

One post deleted. Please stay on topic.

(And a post quoting the deleted post).

Edited September 22, 2011 by Scott

[Steely Dan]

Looks like the Palestinians didn't like Obama's speech, so intifada III it is, not that there was ever going to be any other outcome and the whole UN charade was merely a pretext for the violence which has already started.

Barack Obama triggered fury among Palestinians tonight just hours after he pushed them to withdraw their United Nations independence bid.

Nabeel Shaath, a senior adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said after Mr Obama’s speech to the General Assembly in New York that going to the U.N. is the ‘only alternative to violence’.

During the President's speech, a Palestinian representative was caught on television shaking his head when Mr Obama said the Palestinians and Israelis must learn to 'see the world through the other's eyes'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040087/Obama-calls-Palestine-drop-UN-independence-bid-claims-tide-war-turning.html#ixzz1YfdpVksv

P.S @Pakboong touché, but I think moral equivalence arguments are not exactly Terra firma for the Palestinians.

[Pakboong]

Looks like the Palestinians didn't like Obama's speech, so intifada III it is, not that there was ever going to be any other outcome and the whole UN charade was merely a pretext for the violence which has already started.

Barack Obama triggered fury among Palestinians tonight just hours after he pushed them to withdraw their United Nations independence bid.

Nabeel Shaath, a senior adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said after Mr Obama’s speech to the General Assembly in New York that going to the U.N. is the ‘only alternative to violence’.

During the President's speech, a Palestinian representative was caught on television shaking his head when Mr Obama said the Palestinians and Israelis must learn to 'see the world through the other's eyes'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040087/Obama-calls-Palestine-drop-UN-independence-bid-claims-tide-war-turning.html#ixzz1YfdpVksv

P.S @Pakboong touché, but I think moral equivalence arguments are not exactly Terra firma for the Palestinians.

Agreed.

[up-country_sinclair]

Looks like the Palestinians didn't like Obama's speech, so intifada III it is, not that there was ever going to be any other outcome and the whole UN charade was merely a pretext for the violence which has already started.

You can try to spin this all day long, but this historic moment is anything but a charade, and the entire world (including Israel) knows it.

The overwhelming majority of the world's nations are going to vote in favor of Palestine, which will give them non-member status and therefore the ability to bring Israel before the International Criminal Court. This is the beginning of the end to the injustice and oppression that the Palestinians have endured at the hands of the Israelis for far too long.

And by the way, still waiting for a link to the oft repeated talking point that only 30% of Palestinians support statehood. I, for one, would like to see the polling questions.

Edited September 22, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

As long as the terrorists of Hamas have anything to do with the government of the Palestinian Arabs, asking for a state is indeed a farce.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg

[Steely Dan]

Looks like the Palestinians didn't like Obama's speech, so intifada III it is, not that there was ever going to be any other outcome and the whole UN charade was merely a pretext for the violence which has already started.

You can try to spin this all day long, but this historic moment is anything but a charade, and the entire world (including Israel) knows it.

The overwhelming majority of the world's nations are going to vote in favor of Palestine, which will give them non-member status and therefore the ability to bring Israel before the International Criminal Court. This is the beginning of the end to the injustice and oppression that the Palestinians have endured at the hands of the Israelis for far too long.

And by the way, still waiting for a link to the oft repeated talking point that only 30% of Palestinians support statehood. I, for one, would like to see the polling questions.

The application may be submitted Friday, but I doubt very much there will be an immediate vote or even debate. In the interim I expect all hell to break loose leaving the whole issue moot.

[up-country_sinclair]

There are 15 members on the UN Security Council, and as of this moment, Palestine has the support of eight: Nigeria, Brazil, Russia, China, India, Lebanon, South Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Gabon.

Remaining members include France, UK, USA, Portugal, S. Africa, Colombia, and Germany.

Everyone knows the US is going to veto, but one more vote would make 9, which would be enough for full membership. I can't even imagine the pressure being applied to Portugal, S. Africa and Columbia by Israel and the US.

But as I already stated, full membership will have to be put on a temporary hold, and non member status will still be a historic victory because it protect Palestinians from future acts of Israeli aggression.

[up-country_sinclair]

^^ SteelyDan, This will be my third request on this thread asking for you to provide a link to the 30% poll. If you're unwilling or unable, please let me know, because to be quite frank, I'm growing tired of asking.

IMHO, this oft repeated talking point demands further examination if we are to fully debate this topic.

[Ulysses G.]

I could be wrong, but, I do not think that Steely Dan posted the 30% figure and the member that (I think) did has gone off on an exotic vacation to Pattaya and can not respond right now.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.