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

[Ulysses G.]

it protect Palestinians from future acts of Israeli aggression.

Not if they start the "aggression" as is usually the case.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

I could be wrong, but, I do not think that Steely Dan posted the 30% figure

He cited it at least once.

[midas]

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.

I couldn't believe my ears when the newscaster cited the main reason for Israel's objection

was that they are worried that Palestine would take them to court and charge them with

injustices! You have to be joking that it is virtually an admission on Israel's

part that everything that has been doing against the Palestinians so far has been illegal

[Ulysses G.]

I couldn't believe my ears when the newscaster cited the main reason for Israel's objection

was that they are worried that Palestine would take them to court and charge them with

injustices!

I wonder why they do not trust the UN to be just.

[maidu]

.......non member status will still be a historic victory because it protect Palestinians from future acts of Israeli aggression.

How will it protect Palestians from anything? If some Palestinians hot heads continue to do what they've been doing for months/years - namely: tossing bombs at or otherwise trying to blow up Israelis - then neither the UN nor any other entity can stop the Israelis from retaliating. ....regardless of what sort of status the Palestinians may have at the UN building in NYC.

Even if there's a vote condemning retaliatory action, it's almost a big 'so what.' Indeed, your argument would swing the other way. With an elevated status for the Palestinians, how will the General Assembly or the Security Council look upon aggressive action perpetrated on the Palestinian side of the fence?

The Palestinian bosses might simply say, "oh well, those are just some angry young men, and furthermore, they're justified in lobbing bombs." Others may look to Palestinians and insist they try to police their own people. If some residents of Andorra were lobbing bombs and missiles over to French villages, we would expect the French security forces to respond in some dynamic manner. However, using that analogy, the majority of the world community would side with the Andorrans and say the bombing was justified, as France had no right to exist. The Iranians would take it a step further and campaign for the eradication of all the French people.

[Scott]

Off topic posts have been removed. If you want to have a personal conversation (or sniping match), do it by PM--Thaivisa rules still apply.

[Steely Dan]

^^ 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.

I took it on faith and the impeccable credentials of one of our fellow forum members so I'll leave him to supply the link if there is one. If it doesn't my comments relating to 30% obviously don't apply. Anyway I'm sure regardless of what's best for the Palestinians the OIC will have their say as well as assorted tinpot commie banana republics so no need to get so worked up about it. Still the thought gave me a laugh today regardless of whether it turns out to be true. Mindyou so did my caption on the photo of the Palestinian authority UN chair, but alas that was removed.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Jiu-Jitsu]

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.

You took rather a large mis-step here. We are not speaking of the Haganah, but the Irgun. If you really knew your subject, I don't think that you would have made such a blunder.

David Ben-Gurion deemed Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the attack. Hatsofeh, a Jewish newspaper in Palestine, went as far as to label the Irgun perpetrators "fascists".

The Haganah were not in agreement with the actions of the Irgun.

[cdnvic]

We can't keep up with the deletions as people seem incapable of posting in these topics without getting personal.