Thailand Welcomes Palestine Status In United Nations

[webfact]

Thailand Welcomes Palestine Status In United Nations

By Jamaluddin Muhammad

BANGKOK, Nov 30 (Bernama) -- Thailand has welcomed the adoption of the United Nations (UN) resolution according Palestine the status of a Non-Member Observer State of the world body.

"Thailand's support of the resolution was based on our longstanding position to support the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people of self-determination and to have an independent, democratic, viable and peaceful state living side by side with the state of Israel in peace and security," said a press release.

Issued by the foreign affairs ministry's information department, it said Thailand was pleased to have joined the international community in supporting the resolution which was adopted by 138 member states voting in favour, nine member states voting against, and 41 abstentions, out of 193 member states of the UN.

Thailand emphasised urgent need for the resumption of negotiations between Israel and Palestine which was essential for the realisation of sustainable peace and stability in the Middle East.

According to the release, Thailand urged all parties concerned to re-double their efforts to create an environment that was conducive to the successful comprehensive peace process which the peoples of Israel and Palestine desired.

To this end, the country welcomed efforts to ensure that the recent ceasefire agreement in relation to the Gaza Strip continued to be fully observed by all sides, it said.

Source: http://www.bernama.c...l.php?id=713043

-- BERNAMA 2012-12-01

[CBR250]

So, on the day the UN grants observer status to Palestine, Israel announces it will build a further 3,000 homes in occupied Palestine. And Netanyahu keeps up the Orwellian double speak of "wanting peace". Stealing the land of your enemy is not known to be a successful strategy for settling conflicts. It would be helpful if the US and the diminishing number of Israeli allies would point this out to the intransigent Israeli government, who seem unable to even maintain a pretense that they want a sincere dialogue leading to peace. It does appear that the Palestinians are correct - Israel does not want peace, only land.

[johna]

Congratulations to Palestine, also on this day Stevie Wonder cancelled his performance for the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF)

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/section.php?id=422

[JurgenG]

And in the future historians will try to understand the rise of antisemitism in the 21 st century. I feel really sorry for my jewish friends, they are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Morch]

So, on the day the UN grants observer status to Palestine, Israel announces it will build a further 3,000 homes in occupied Palestine. And Netanyahu keeps up the Orwellian double speak of "wanting peace". Stealing the land of your enemy is not known to be a successful strategy for settling conflicts. It would be helpful if the US and the diminishing number of Israeli allies would point this out to the intransigent Israeli government, who seem unable to even maintain a pretense that they want a sincere dialogue leading to peace. It does appear that the Palestinians are correct - Israel does not want peace, only land.

The Israeli government's move is singularly stupid and irresponsible, I think few outside staunch supporters of the ruling coalition do not realize that.

That said, a few things to bear in mind:

- Israel got general elections coming up soon. The way the recent hostilities in Gaza ended did not go down well with most of their potential voters, especially seeing the tough talk and stance taken previously. Criticism regarding handling the Gaza operation stacked with criticism over what seemed a diplomatic rout in the UN (previous unrealistic decelerations on that front as well) made them desperate for something, anything really, that would restore tough-guys image.

- Related to the above: Israel's ultra-right wing foreign minister said, defending the ceasefire with the Hamas, that it was inconceivable (guess he never heard of The Great Vizzini) to order a ground invasion such a short time prior to elections. Well, that sounds even more bogus now than before.

- In practice, this isn't an action, but still words. 3000 houses will not appear out of nowhere prior to the elections (less than two months away), and given the shifting currents of Israeli and Mid East politics - hard to be sure they will materialize even after that.

- The Palestinian UN bid, justified as it is, still constitutes a unilateral move. Avoiding such actions was specifically addressed in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. The way these agreements refer to Israeli settlements and further building in the West Bank is more complicated. Not to say that Israel fulfilled all its obligations under the agreements, of course, just pointing out that both sides aren't that big on keeping their word.

Saying "Israel does not want peace" is a tad misleading. Israel is a split nation on this issue, and the Palestinian leadership stance isn't much different than Israel's - mostly talk about wanting peace, less actions to promote it or conducting serious negotiations with goodwill.

[Jingthing]

So, on the day the UN grants observer status to Palestine, Israel announces it will build a further 3,000 homes in occupied Palestine. And Netanyahu keeps up the Orwellian double speak of "wanting peace". Stealing the land of your enemy is not known to be a successful strategy for settling conflicts. It would be helpful if the US and the diminishing number of Israeli allies would point this out to the intransigent Israeli government, who seem unable to even maintain a pretense that they want a sincere dialogue leading to peace. It does appear that the Palestinians are correct - Israel does not want peace, only land.

The U.S. HAS spoken out against the new west bank settlements:

"We believe these actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve of a two state solution," Vietor said. "Direct negotiations remain our goal and we encourage all parties to take steps to make that easier to achieve."

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/30/15573067-us-slams-israels-decision-to-expand-settlements?lite

[Pimay1]

There must be a paragraph left out of the OP. I see nothing from TAT stating due to Thailand's support this will increase tourism by X% in 2013.

[Jingthing]

And in the future historians will try to understand the rise of antisemitism in the 21 st century. I feel really sorry for my jewish friends, they are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Perhaps, but opposition to a nation's political policies is never a valid excuse for racism.

[LuckyLew]

I am sure the Palestinian people are so happy Thailand is behind them

No country can survive without Thailands backing and support

IMO Netanyahu is the number hinderance to peace in the region

[swifty5x5]

Isn't that what Thailand did? Redoubled it's efforts to come to a peaceful resolution in the south.

[EarthAlien]

I read in a German newspaper online that initially Israel was dead against Palestine becoming sanctioned as a recognized UN state and that they lobbied hard against it which included the issuing of veiled threats and innuendos to UN member nations that voted for it.

Later, after the vote was made in favor of the new Palestinian state Israel said that it didn't really matter as it was only "symbolic" anyway!

From this I conclude that conflicts will continue and we're in for more trouble as the dust settles (if it ever will).

[Morch]

IMO Netanyahu is the number hinderance to peace in the region

Well, the peace process wasn't going anywhere much also under previous Israeli governments.

Sure that Netanyahu isn't promoting peace (quite the opposite), but he's hardly of a caliber making him "number 1" at something. Most of what he does is dictated by short term gains, local public opinion considerations, and keeping both his coalition and his position.

Then again, that doesn't mean the Palestinian leadership went out of its way to make negotiations succeed. Both sides are entrenched in their positions, demands and per-conditions and do not show an over-willingness to go the extra mile.

[antpet]

Well that's clear then.

After Pattaya launched its 5 metre high posters of Hitler along its Sukhumvit Road advertising the leader being on display at Ripleys its nice to see them appeasing Palestine.

After all, the Israelis must have loved the Ripleys show.

Are any Thais ever racist???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Morch]

Are you for real mate? It was Israel who initiated the conflict by killing the Hamas commander and do u expect residents in Gaza to stand still in their homes while Israel carry out airstrikes against them killing their children while they are sleeping more than thousands of airstrikes were conducted by israel killing hundreds of gazans and for sure Israel was scared because of the fact that they accepted the cease fire and did not launch ground invasion

What's unreal is pinning the conflict, or conflagrations within the conflict on particular incidents.

I'm pretty sure that there were rockets fired on Israel well before that specific attack.

Back to the real world - the number of casualties did not reach "hundreds", and even Hamas acknowledges that a fair share of them weren't "civilians".

I think the point made was that the UN, in general, is quick to condemn Israeli actions, while sounding more hesitant on condemning Palestinian acts of aggression (this relates mostly to the rocket attacks from Gaza).

[khunken]

The UN & it's weasel SEcretary-General always criticise both sides. The Hamas-Israel conflict is chicken & egg: we fire rockets when you assassinate Palestinians or vice-versa.

As for the US criticising Israeli settlements - sick joke. Slap on the wrist & that's it.

I applaud the UN General Assembly vote (& Thailand's vote too). I feel sorry for many Brits & Aussies for their cowardly governments.

[geriatrickid]

Thailand has made a mistake. It is another miscalculation that fails to take into account the impact upon the southern insurgency. It should have abstained like many western governments. The southern seperatists can offer many of the same arguments as the Palestinians with one major argument that the Palestinians cannot not make: The disputed south was at one time an autonomous region and fully separate and distinct from Thailand. The Palestinians have no characteristics of a state: There is no representative goverment or body that speaks for the combined regions of the former Egyptian territory of Gaza, nor for the former Jordanian territory of the "west bank". Hamas and the PA are at odds and loathe each other. There is no government infrastructure etc. Despite years having passed, and billions of euros/$$$ given, the palestinian arabs really do not have much to show for their "natiion" building. Neither the PA nor Hamas are legitimate governing bodies as their "elected" mandates expired. Hamas was elected in 2006 and refuses to allow a return to the polls. The PA President Abbas refuses to allow a presidential election.

Thailand's decision was predicated on its need to retain the favour of its energy suppliers and to ensure the Gulf State big wigs are kept happy. Many countries that abstained or voted in favour did so because of their perceived need to give Abbas a lifeline, to keep his political faction alive as the loss of Fatah would only leave groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc. Some countries voted in favour because they are aligned with the arab voting bloc. Fair enough as that is international politics. However, at the end of the day, nothing will have changed. The palestinian arabs are still in the same position as before, have refused the last statehood offer that saw them reject a state at that had been ageed to at the Camp David meetings, seen them reject the Oslo peace accords they signed, and seen them reject a deal offered by former PM Olmert that gave them close to 100% of the land they wanted.

Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Israeli population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for Olmert proposed the transfer of Israeli territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence. Basically, Israel would have given part of its own land to the arabs to compensate them. Think about it. The arabs rejected an agreement because of a dispute over 6.3% of the land in the proposal. Had the arabs accepted, they would have had a nation a few years ago and a starting point to negotiate the small bits and pieces of lands still disputed.

[gamini]

Thailand has made a mistake. It is another miscalculation that fails to take into account the impact upon the southern insurgency. It should have abstained like many western governments. The southern seperatists can offer many of the same arguments as the Palestinians with one major argument that the Palestinians cannot not make: The disputed south was at one time an autonomous region and fully separate and distinct from Thailand. The Palestinians have no characteristics of a state: There is no representative goverment or body that speaks for the combined regions of the former Egyptian territory of Gaza, nor for the former Jordanian territory of the "west bank". Hamas and the PA are at odds and loathe each other. There is no government infrastructure etc. Despite years having passed, and billions of euros/$$$ given, the palestinian arabs really do not have much to show for their "natiion" building. Neither the PA nor Hamas are legitimate governing bodies as their "elected" mandates expired. Hamas was elected in 2006 and refuses to allow a return to the polls. The PA President Abbas refuses to allow a presidential election.

Thailand's decision was predicated on its need to retain the favour of its energy suppliers and to ensure the Gulf State big wigs are kept happy. Many countries that abstained or voted in favour did so because of their perceived need to give Abbas a lifeline, to keep his political faction alive as the loss of Fatah would only leave groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc. Some countries voted in favour because they are aligned with the arab voting bloc. Fair enough as that is international politics. However, at the end of the day, nothing will have changed. The palestinian arabs are still in the same position as before, have refused the last statehood offer that saw them reject a state at that had been ageed to at the Camp David meetings, seen them reject the Oslo peace accords they signed, and seen them reject a deal offered by former PM Olmert that gave them close to 100% of the land they wanted.

Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Israeli population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for Olmert proposed the transfer of Israeli territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence. Basically, Israel would have given part of its own land to the arabs to compensate them. Think about it. The arabs rejected an agreement because of a dispute over 6.3% of the land in the proposal. Had the arabs accepted, they would have had a nation a few years ago and a starting point to negotiate the small bits and pieces of lands still disputed.

do you work for the israelis? Arafat rejected the peace deal because it vitually conceded east jerusalem to Israel

[geriatrickid]

do you work for the israelis? Arafat rejected the peace deal because it vitually conceded east jerusalem to Israel

mmkay. And the Olmert deal from a few years ago?

In any case, the fact remains that Thailand has bolstered the position of its southern separtists. They have a far greater legitimacy in their claims than many groups demanding autonomy nand a state today. It also means that Thailand will have to maintain a similar position with Kurdish and Tamil claims for statehood. Thailand does not have a consistent foreign policy on the issue of groups demanding their own states.

[fasteddie]

"Thailand's support of the resolution was based on our longstanding position to support the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people of self-determination and to have an independent, democratic, viable and peaceful state living side by side with the state of Israel in peace and security," said a press release.

Double speak BS ...."peaceful state". We just saw the Palestinian government tossing missiles into Israel for a few weeks. An act of governmental condoned war or terrorism (as missiles were targetting civilian populations). The UN has again screwed the pooch ... instead of condeming the acts of violence they instead improve the countries status .... freeking unbelievable but not surprising.

To start with, it wasn't the Palestinian ''government'', and secondly it was in response to israel once again breaking a ceasefire by assassinating a Palestinian government official and numerous other incursions. A ceasefire to the zionist fascists means, you ceasefire and we'll do whatever we want. Perhaps at last, the U.N. is going someway to atone for one of the most unjust actions in history when they surrendered to zionist terrorism and formed the state of israel on other peoples land against the wishes of all the states in the region.

[chooka]

The UN & it's weasel SEcretary-General always criticise both sides. The Hamas-Israel conflict is chicken & egg: we fire rockets when you assassinate Palestinians or vice-versa.

As for the US criticising Israeli settlements - sick joke. Slap on the wrist & that's it.

I applaud the UN General Assembly vote (& Thailand's vote too). I feel sorry for many Brits & Aussies for their cowardly governments.

Australia merely adheres to the directions of the U.S and also there is an election next year and the government will be relying on the jewish votes as they only managed to get power with the help of 3 independents who were bought off after the counting was done. Yes the Australian government is weak, gutless and afraid to stand on thier own.

Is it considered aussie bashing if your are one of them? My appologies if it appears this way.

[bunnydrops]

Islamic Jihad's military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, said it fired rockets towards the city of Ashkelon.

Israel uses it for excuse to takes out a hated Hamas.

“I would say this operation is the Israeli equivalent, Netanyahu’s equivalent, of America’s strike on Osama bin Laden,” said Avi Benayahu, a former army spokesman.

An election coming up?

Don't get me wrong--- I think factions on both sides are just plain evil.

[yoshiwara]

And in the future historians will try to understand the rise of antisemitism in the 21 st century. I feel really sorry for my jewish friends, they are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The old fascist crap that it their own fault. Some on the left try hard to distinguish between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism but every so often they muddy the waters and the mask slips.

[johnnywishbone]

Seems that, in the south,like Pattani,Thailand has it's own issues with the Muslim Radicals.

The situation there is completely out of control.

Blood will flow.

[yoshiwara]

Isn't that what Thailand did? Redoubled it's efforts to come to a peaceful resolution in the south.

The Thailand government will be hoping that the quid pro quo of supporting Palestinian statehood will be the exact opposite from Islamic states re the Thai Southern regions. Also the fear of other states actively supporting the rebellion may have concentrated their minds. They would rather the rebellion confines itself to blowing up girls' schools and teachers (a favoured Islamist tactic) and isolated executions which may be considered 'containing' the conflict. The importation of rockets from other states would take it to another level.

[Morch]

Thailand has made a mistake. It is another miscalculation that fails to take into account the impact upon the southern insurgency. It should have abstained like many western governments. The southern seperatists can offer many of the same arguments as the Palestinians with one major argument that the Palestinians cannot not make: The disputed south was at one time an autonomous region and fully separate and distinct from Thailand. The Palestinians have no characteristics of a state: There is no representative goverment or body that speaks for the combined regions of the former Egyptian territory of Gaza, nor for the former Jordanian territory of the "west bank". Hamas and the PA are at odds and loathe each other. There is no government infrastructure etc. Despite years having passed, and billions of euros/$$$ given, the palestinian arabs really do not have much to show for their "natiion" building. Neither the PA nor Hamas are legitimate governing bodies as their "elected" mandates expired. Hamas was elected in 2006 and refuses to allow a return to the polls. The PA President Abbas refuses to allow a presidential election.

Thailand's decision was predicated on its need to retain the favour of its energy suppliers and to ensure the Gulf State big wigs are kept happy. Many countries that abstained or voted in favour did so because of their perceived need to give Abbas a lifeline, to keep his political faction alive as the loss of Fatah would only leave groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc. Some countries voted in favour because they are aligned with the arab voting bloc. Fair enough as that is international politics. However, at the end of the day, nothing will have changed. The palestinian arabs are still in the same position as before, have refused the last statehood offer that saw them reject a state at that had been ageed to at the Camp David meetings, seen them reject the Oslo peace accords they signed, and seen them reject a deal offered by former PM Olmert that gave them close to 100% of the land they wanted.

Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Israeli population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for Olmert proposed the transfer of Israeli territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence. Basically, Israel would have given part of its own land to the arabs to compensate them. Think about it. The arabs rejected an agreement because of a dispute over 6.3% of the land in the proposal. Had the arabs accepted, they would have had a nation a few years ago and a starting point to negotiate the small bits and pieces of lands still disputed.

I wouldn't say that the Palestinians do not have "characteristics of a state", "government infrastructure" and the like - might not correspond to Western democratic notions, but you could say that in regard to many other nations (especially in the Middle East). Most countries went through some turbulent times in their early history, as far as ruling and governance go, not sure that having a top notch working democratic system is a feasible precondition for forming a state. Rather, these sort of things evolve, a process which is influenced by many factors.

Not intended as a praise for the Palestinian leadership, just as a longer term view.

While it is true that the Palestinian side had its share of nay saying etc., that does not mean Israel was always upfront and willing. One major problem with peace initiatives and brokered deals was (and is) that leadership on both side cannot really deliver. There was no overwhelming public support (on both sides) for any of these diplomatic moves. On both sides of the border, most people want peace, but still not up for making painful adjustments.

[maidu]

Remember that buffoon Yasar Arafat? Decades ago, at a meeting in Scandinavia with then-prez Carter and the Israeli head, Arafat turned down a perfectly decent deal which would have brought peace for Palestinians and Israelis. Right after that, both Gaza and West Bank erupted in weeks of sustained riots. The recent UN resolution will, I'm sorry to say, not resolve anything of value.

Best scenario, in my view, is Gaza get absorbed by Egypt, and Palestinian areas of W.Bank get absorbed by Jordan (without leaving any disconnected 'islands'). That option isn't even being considered, because neither Jordananians nor Egyptians want to rub shoulders with Palestinians, as neither want a resourceless contentious territory added to theirs, which will need copious hand-outs for the forseeable future. Arabs can 'talk-the-talk' about Palestinians, but they won't 'walk-the-walk' with any real assistance.

Meanwhile, Iran (and possibly Egypt) keep clandestinely shipping them offensive weapons - which can only serve to exacerbate the tensions and misery.

[JurgenG]

And in the future historians will try to understand the rise of antisemitism in the 21 st century. I feel really sorry for my jewish friends, they are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The old fascist crap that it their own fault. Some on the left try hard to distinguish between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism but every so often they muddy the waters and the mask slips.

Agree it's a big problem. It's bit like accusing the people who fought against the apartheid to be against white people.

One of my friend complains that they fought to have a normal life, to be considered like normal people, it's not to be dragged in this conflict. But as he refused to be involved, he said he is considered as a traitor by members of his community. As I said, stuck between a rock and hard place.

[Morch]

Islamic Jihad's military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, said it fired rockets towards the city of Ashkelon.

Israel uses it for excuse to takes out a hated Hamas.

“I would say this operation is the Israeli equivalent, Netanyahu’s equivalent, of America’s strike on Osama bin Laden,” said Avi Benayahu, a former army spokesman.

An election coming up?

Don't get me wrong--- I think factions on both sides are just plain evil.

Not quite the same.

Hamas claims to be the ruler in Gaza. In reality, the other, more radical Islamic organizations follow Hamas's lead when it suits them.

Most of the previous so-called ceasefire agreements included Hamas's commitment to curtail such rouge actions from these parties.

Sometimes Hamas followed these agreements, sometimes not - this has to do both with ability and a need to preserve their anti-Israel image among their people.

Seems like they missed Batman: "With great power comes great responsibility".

[geriatrickid]

To start with, it wasn't the Palestinian ''government'', and secondly it was in response to israel once again breaking a ceasefire by assassinating a Palestinian government official and numerous other incursions. A ceasefire to the zionist fascists means, you ceasefire and we'll do whatever we want. Perhaps at last, the U.N. is going someway to atone for one of the most unjust actions in history when they surrendered to zionist terrorism and formed the state of israel on other peoples land against the wishes of all the states in the region.

Hamas is the group that runs Gaza. True, it no longer is a legitimate government in the conventional sense, since it refuses to allow an election, but it is the ruling entity nonetheless. It is considered a government by some of the most vociferous proponents of the UN proposal such as Syria, Sudan and Iran. (Now there is a trio of freedom loving states.) Do you really think that the UN, the entity that failed to act in the Sri Lanka civil war, Rwanda & Burundi, Bosnia, and now Syria, was considering the threat of zionist facists as you put it? The UN doesn't care one bit about the plight of these arabs. Instead it has marched to the orders of political bloc, the groups that refuse to accept such lofty notions as human rights, free elections etc.

Thailand's support of the proposal sets the ball rolling for a recognition of the muslim homeland in the south. The Thai insurgents claim that they have been robbed of their lands and "oppressed" by Thailand. Thailand has opened Pandora's box and soon the UN must respond to their desire to be free of the "tyranny of Thailand".

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Galatians 6 (KJV)

[geriatrickid]

Seems that, in the south,like Pattani,Thailand has it's own issues with the Muslim Radicals.

The situation there is completely out of control.

Blood will flow.

It is flowing now with health workers, teachers and civil servants slaughtered on a regular basis.

Thailand now is politically obligated to negotiate with the insurgents on a nation to nation basis.

These are the rules Thailand has now agreed to.