UN rejects Palestinian resolution to end Israel's occupation

[Keesters]

The state of Israel should never have been formed in the first place. I know I'll probably be flamed for saying that but I'm not interested and no one will change my mind.

P.S. I'm not Muslim or anti-jew. Just a regular guy.

Just look at who 'Likes' you and you will know who you are.

I know who I am thank you. I don't know who the 'Likes' are anymore than you probably do. The Likers probably know little about me either. Hence the Likes are based upon the individual comment not the person so your comment is completely nonsensical.

[Jingthing]

Whether the state of Israel should have existed in the first place and whether the state should have been in Israel, Uganda, or Alaska are both ACADEMIC questions.

The state of Israel DOES exist where it is now, south of Lebanon, and that's the reality of today.

[dexterm]

Whether the state of Israel should have existed in the first place and whether the state should have been in Israel, Uganda, or Alaska are both ACADEMIC questions.

The state of Israel DOES exist where it is now, south of Lebanon, and that's the reality of today.

I recognize the secular state of Israel's existence, so does the Palestinian Authority. That's a reality.There is no turning the clock back to pre 1948 or even 1896 with the founding of Zionism.

What we are debating or what we would like the UN to debate is where exactly Israel's borders are? They have never been defined and keep expanding.

I for one would be delighted if this UN resolution never gets off the ground, and Israel eventually annexes the whole of the West Bank inheriting 4 million Palestinians in the process.What are you going to do with them? They live there...have done for centuries.

There might follow some very ugly apartheid laws for differentiating full citizens from mere residents, and/or attempts by extreme right wing Israeli governments at further ethnic cleansing with a disgusted global social media in overdrive, an EU parliament imposing sanctions...and ultimately the demise of a state of Israel with any Jewish character at all.

And in 2 or 3 generations' time Jewish, Muslim, Christian and atheist students of history in the State of Israelistine will pore over this archived tvf thread with amusement, wondering what all the fuss was about.

Alternatively Israel and US could get serious about the proposed UN resolution for essentially a 2 state solution while Israel still has time...something the Palestinians have plenty of.

Edited December 31, 2014 by dexterm

[hawker9000]

Moses was an Egyptian, now most Egyptians are Muslim, compromise done, look at your histories folks.

He was actually born Jewish. (Don't you just love half-truths?) Your post is pointless anyway.

Palestinians could have their own state and resolve many of the outstanding issues in a minute, if only they would agree to recognize Israeli statehood in perpetuity, and disavow terrorist violence against Israel, including organizations committed to Israel's destruction, like Hamas and Hezbollah. But of course their jew-hating puppeteers can't ever except that. So the problems and the standoff will just continue.

[mrfill]

Security resolution 242 has never been enforced and that is over 45 years old. About time the UN enforced ALL its resolutions.

1. Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed. Please re-read the OP if necessary, this thread is about the UN rejects Palestinian resolution.

Gratuitous bashing will result in warnings and suspensions.

[MobileContent]

Its time for the SC to change the voting process. Their are only five members of the SC which are the US, UK, France, China and Russia.

If the US rejected it, France, China and Russia voted for it and the UK up-stained it should be a vote 3 = yes/1 no and 1= up-stained.

The bill should have been passed.

In regards of Australia, who really gives a shit about them. They are irrelevant.

All this veto <snap> is pure BS. All UN members should vote on a new draft to run the UN or otherwise just close the UN.

Edited December 31, 2014 by MobileContent

[dexterm]

Moses was an Egyptian, now most Egyptians are Muslim, compromise done, look at your histories folks.

Palestinians could have their own state and resolve many of the outstanding issues in a minute, if only they would agree to recognize Israeli statehood in perpetuity, and disavow terrorist violence against Israel, including organizations committed to Israel's destruction, like Hamas and Hezbollah. But of course their jew-hating puppeteers can't ever except that. So the problems and the standoff will just continue.

Hezbollah is a Lebanese based Shia group. That's a separate dispute Israel has with Lebanon. Nothing to do with Palestinians and this UN resolution.

Way back in 1993 during the Oslo Accords Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel.

The whole Arab world and Iran have agreed to recognize Israel in secure borders in perpetuity, exchange of ambassadors, trade .. the works in return for a just peace agreement based on the 67 borders (incl land swaps), a deal over Jerusalem as joint capital, and compensation for displaced refugees, at Arab Peace Summits in 2002 and 2007.

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

Hamas has repeatedly agreed to an indefinite truce and to accept, not recognize, Israel within its 1967 borders, if Israel will do the same for a Palestinian state. This link 2008.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

The problem is that so far Israel has been unwilling to accept or recognize a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders.

Apparently a 3 year timetable for a resolution of the conflict is too short to contemplate even after almost 100 years of conflict. Hence Israel and US heavy lobbying of Nigeria to abstain from the present UN resolution. I wonder what they promised Nigerian Pres. Goodluck, who it seems changed his mind after some phone calls.

.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/us-israel-un-reject-palestinian-resolution-nigeria-security-council

The ball is in Israel's court.

Apparently the composition of non permanent members of the Security Council is changing shortly, with perhaps states more favorably disposed to Palestine. So maybe next time the US will be forced to use its veto to protect Israel yet again.

Edited December 31, 2014 by dexterm

[spidermike007]

Lots of countries occupy land formerly belonging to others, why should Israel be singled out by the whining losers?

Name some of the "lots of countries" since the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 who as signatories have legally annexed land formerly belonging to others.

Show me where Israel signed and then ratified the third article of the 4th Geneva Convention.

I believe that was more or less the point. They avoided signing it for a reason. Not a reasonable one.

[sirineou]

Whether the state of Israel should have existed in the first place and whether the state should have been in Israel, Uganda, or Alaska are both ACADEMIC questions.

The state of Israel DOES exist where it is now, south of Lebanon, and that's the reality of today.

That's an astute observation, but don't know how it is relevant to this Thread.

Nobody denies that Israel exists, or it's current geographic location, what people argue is whether it should exist, in it's current condition, a different condition, or not exist at all.

[Ulysses G.]

Jingthing is pointing out how stupid that argument is, since Israel not only exists, but has one of the best armies in the world, nukes (presumably) and it's economy is getting better and better. It is not going anywhere.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[sirineou]

Jingthing is pointing out how stupid that argument is, since Israel not only exists, but has one of the best armies in the world, nukes (presumably) and it's economy is getting better and better. It is not going anywhere.

Do you remember the Roman empire, or the Ottoman empire,etc, they had pretty good armies and healthy economies.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[Morch]

The Palestinian proposal was not meant to be passed.

With the initial presentation of the proposal's draft, the Palestinians (through Jordan) let it be known that they would not be seeking a quick vote. The apparent reason for delaying was a more favorable composition of the UNSC beginning 2015 (most obvious are Malaysia and Venezuela) spelling higher chances for the proposal to be accepted. About a week or so prior to the vote, the Palestinian representatives took up a different tone, pushing forward a more aggressive line, and amending the proposal draft to incorporate it. The vote itself was called rather hastily, sort of a last minute affair.

The first and foremost aim of this political maneuver seems to be the political survival of Abbas (and by proxy, the Fatah). As is the case with Israel, Palestinian foreign policy is often a mere extension of domestic affairs. The Fatah is fast losing ground with the Palestinian public in favor of Hamas. Taking up the diplomatic effort a notch or two up does its bit to improve their domestic standing. At the very least, it keeps them relevant. In terms of Fatah in-house power struggles this move may somewhat strengthen elements closer to Abbas, while attempting to sideline hardliners.

The vote going through, though, that's a whole different ball game. The PA is ill equipped to deal with some of the possible consequences (unilateral actions by Israel, cutting of foreign aid, control of its own populace) of such a proposal being accepted. In real life terms the Palestinians are still way off from being actually able set up a state or, for that matter, even act in unison.

The bottom line of the way things went down is actually quite positive from the Palestinian point of view (well, Abbas's and the Fatah's, anyway). The current leadership got a certain boost in terms of domestic support - sure, the proposal did not pass, but it almost did (enter faux disappointment by Abbas here), and it certainly gave the feeling things were in motion. We'll do better next time, boys. Mean time can take the chance to hit the iron while its hot, and sign up with a few international treaties (will probably expand later on the appropriate topic), and milk it for all its got.

The USA might not happy with the proposal, but on the other hand did not have to use its veto right. Abbas definitely pushed, but not too far. The USA could express its public displeasure all it likes, but betting that off camera some were rather relieved at this "solution".

A "successful" vote could have had a decisive effect on the upcoming Israeli elections, possibly working in favor of right wing parties. As it is, more of a reminder that issues need to be resolved, which could make some reflect on realities. Either way, still well within what Kerry warned against in this regard.

Had the proposal been accepted, actual steps should have been taken by the Palestinians - many of which Abaas simply does not have the power or the authority to pull through. Much better all around to leave things at the PR level, at least for now.

Overall, very nicely played.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Scott

[Morch]

" U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said: "We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because ... peace must come from hard compromises that occur at the negotiating table."".

A complete wishywashy disingenuous cop-out. Samantha Power and the entire US administration know full well that Israel will not come to the table, and thus the status quo will remain because of her no vote.

And had the USA voted for the proposal, or abstained - would that fundamentally have changed the position of the current Israeli government on the issue?

The status quo is not sustained by the USA vote alone.

And looking at things from another angle - had the proposal been accepted, would the Palestinians come to the negotiating table? (may want to take a minute and reflect on current Palestinians domestic affairs before the resonating "yes!").

[Morch]

The defeated resolution would have affirmed the urgent need to achieve "a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution"

to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within 12 months and set a Dec. 31, 2017 deadline for Israel's occupation to end.

You know it is a shame that something like this is defeated because I would hope everyone

wants that 1st underlined section above. It sounds like something to hope for.

Yet I think it was the 2nd underlined above that killed it.

As that will never happen as long as the US uses its influence

At the end of the day that is what we see here.... influence .....but it is called "abstentions" for fear of

various types of vocal backlash

Australia must have some important US shiny beads it really wants in the near future to be the only other "No"

rather than the safer "abstention"

Yes. The Aussie delegate would have been invited for coffee by Samantha Powers, and offered something. Nigeria too. Actually all the abstentions would have had either Israel or the US making deals for them.

It's a travesty.

This is how international affairs are being conducted on a multitude of issues and by any country. Does someone doubt that supporters of the Palestinian proposal did not engage in similar efforts?

It is only called a travesty when it works out for the competition, otherwise it is known as diplomacy.

[Morch]

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is abiding with the Oslo Accords which the Palestinians have signed and Israel has "come to the table" over and over again. The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals.

The USA vote is more to do with its Negroponte doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine) than with the Oslo Accords.

Both Israel and the Palestinians "came to the table" often enough (or rather, not often enough), but due to failures on the part of both sides, nothing much came out of it.

I do not believe that there were "numerous" peace deals offered to and rejected by the Palestinians. Most of the peace deals were variations of the same basic plans. There were a few instances where an actual offer was made. Of these occasions, at least two often quoted ones were made under domestic political conditions which made the offers quite hollow.

On the other hand there weren't that many peace deals offered by the Palestinians, as well....(including the current one).

[Morch]

Yes. The Aussie delegate would have been invited for coffee by Samantha Powers, and offered something. Nigeria too. Actually all the abstentions would have had either Israel or the US making deals for them.

It's a travesty.

True & the real pity is this was not in anyway a threatening deadline....For goodness sake it had a target deadline one to two years in the future...They actually need one much sooner...But even this silly 2 years in the future...Can we have peace? Heck no....Not as long as you keep asking for occupation to end

To say such silly things as Australia is fed up with Islamic extremism while talking about Palestine is silly.

Because the truth is Militant Islam is spreading throughout the worldfinanced by Middle East oil wealth You feel strong about ending it? Go boycott those 1st...That is the sponsor not Palestine. But they wont will they?

The deadline was bogus.

Suppose the proposal would have been accepted and the clock starts ticking on the negotiation table - Israel is facing an upcoming elections (new government perhaps sorted out by April), Palestinians were supposed to have their elections by now (but nothing came out of it, despite setting a deadline). So during these 12 months, both sides could see leadership changes which may reflect on possible negotiations.

Considering the Palestinians are not having much success with sorting their own domestic issues according to their own schedules and deadlines, how well does this bode for the more complex dealings between Israel and the Palestinians?

As far as I understand, the proposal does not refer to what happens if the deadline is not met, nor does it detail how are things to proceed if conditions agreed upon in negotiations do not materialize prior to the second deadline.

[Morch]

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is abiding with the Oslo Accords which the Palestinians have signed and Israel has "come to the table" over and over again. The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals.

The 22 year old Oslo Accords are dead in the water.

Nope. The terms are still in place and the Palestinians have already agreed to them. There is nothing concrete in the Oslo Accords about issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders and no promise of Palestinian statehood. They all need to be negotiated.

That is exactly is why U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is rejecting the resolution. These things can only be settled at the negotiating table as promised, not forced on anyone by the UN.

22 years is a very long time to be negotiating and getting absolutely nowhere...even backward for the Palestinians. They have less land for a negotiated viable state than ever before. Some commentators say it has passed the point of no return anyway, with a one state solution inevitable, with Israel formally annexing the whole of Palestine, thus inheriting 4 million Palestinians.

Time is running out.There needs to be a new impetus to get negotiations moving, and this UN resolution was one of them.. a pity the current makeup of the Security Council didn't allow that this time. Early days. Something has to give. Israelis and Palestinians can't go on living like this after almost 100 years of conflict.

The world and young American voters especially are becoming more aware of the injustice sponsored by their parents. All conflicts eventually come to an end. I just hope it doesn't get worse before it gets better.

Backwards? What did the Palestinians have prior to the signing the Oslo Accords? Despite agreements failing to fully materialize, the Palestinians actually control more area than they ever had. No, this does not mean that all is well, but neither is the saying that the Palestinians are worse off since the Oslo Accords.

If Abbas wanted to pass this proposal he could simply have waited a couple of days, thus getting a more favorable makeup of the Security Council.

[Morch]

why should Israel give up any more land, they gave up Sinai and Gazza but no stop to being attacked. What land has any Muslim country ever given up that was occupied after winning a defensive war?

Handing the Sinai peninsula back to Egypt was part of the peace agreement with that country. Nothing to do with the Palestinians. Israel was not attacked by Egypt since.

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip unilaterally, hence no agreements where involved. There was no Palestinian obligation to stop attacks, although it obviously would have been better if they did.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Scott

[Morch]

Lots of countries occupy land formerly belonging to others, why should Israel be singled out by the whining losers? Do you really imagine that if things were reversed and Israel had lost land to Muslim Invaders 40+ years ago that they would give any up?

Occupying a territory is bad enough. Annexing a territory is worse. Indefinitely denying civil (or indeed, human) rights to inhabitants of said territory complicates things further.

Things did not go the other way around, though. Then again, all depends on which standard a country is measured against.

[Morch]

Moses was an Egyptian, now most Egyptians are Muslim, compromise done, look at your histories folks.

Palestinians could have their own state and resolve many of the outstanding issues in a minute, if only they would agree to recognize Israeli statehood in perpetuity, and disavow terrorist violence against Israel, including organizations committed to Israel's destruction, like Hamas and Hezbollah. But of course their jew-hating puppeteers can't ever except that. So the problems and the standoff will just continue.

Hezbollah is a Lebanese based Shia group. That's a separate dispute Israel has with Lebanon. Nothing to do with Palestinians and this UN resolution.

Way back in 1993 during the Oslo Accords Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel.

The whole Arab world and Iran have agreed to recognize Israel in secure borders in perpetuity, exchange of ambassadors, trade .. the works in return for a just peace agreement based on the 67 borders (incl land swaps), a deal over Jerusalem as joint capital, and compensation for displaced refugees, at Arab Peace Summits in 2002 and 2007.

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

Hamas has repeatedly agreed to an indefinite truce and to accept, not recognize, Israel within its 1967 borders, if Israel will do the same for a Palestinian state. This link 2008.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

The problem is that so far Israel has been unwilling to accept or recognize a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders.

Apparently a 3 year timetable for a resolution of the conflict is too short to contemplate even after almost 100 years of conflict. Hence Israel and US heavy lobbying of Nigeria to abstain from the present UN resolution. I wonder what they promised Nigerian Pres. Goodluck, who it seems changed his mind after some phone calls.

.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/us-israel-un-reject-palestinian-resolution-nigeria-security-council

The ball is in Israel's court.

Apparently the composition of non permanent members of the Security Council is changing shortly, with perhaps states more favorably disposed to Palestine. So maybe next time the US will be forced to use its veto to protect Israel yet again.

The usual re-hash...

Way back in 1993 Arafat sent a letter to that effect and a promise that the Palestinian Covenant will be amended accordingly. Took some time for the relevant parts being officially voted out, with a committee charged with introducing all the necessary amendments. To date, this is still a work in progress, so to speak. So while it can be said that the PA recognizes Israel, it is not quite as straightforward a matter as it seems.

This, by the way, is an issue with other charters, constitutions and whatnots...Hamas got issues changing its own, the Likud party in Israel having trouble as well. Both instances been covered in depth on this forum.

In the link provided regarding the Arab Peace Initiative, Iran is not mentioned (unless it is to the effect that the initiative could be seen as part of Saudi Arabia's strategy in countering Iran's influence). I believe Libya did not attend the 2007 summit, due to its objections to the initiative. Lebanon, one of Israel's immediate neighbors, was not then and is not now, able to commit to anything much.

Hamas leadership says a lot of things. Somehow the same old quotes being pulled out of storage again and again. For starters, how about somewhat fresher statements? Or checking which statements are made for which ears? http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/haniyeh-in-iran-hamas-will-never-recognize-israel-1.412310 And that's not even getting into the last couple of years' worth of same old....

As for long term truce, see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna. Even short term ceasefires with Hamas are less than trustworthy, as seen during the last round of fighting.

The Palestinians could have waited a few days for the changes in UNSC composition to take effect. They chose not to.

[Morch]

Moses was an Egyptian, now most Egyptians are Muslim, compromise done, look at your histories folks.

He was actually born Jewish. (Don't you just love half-truths?) Your post is pointless anyway.

Palestinians could have their own state and resolve many of the outstanding issues in a minute, if only they would agree to recognize Israeli statehood in perpetuity, and disavow terrorist violence against Israel, including organizations committed to Israel's destruction, like Hamas and Hezbollah. But of course their jew-hating puppeteers can't ever except that. So the problems and the standoff will just continue.

Even if the Palestinian did all these things, it would not result in a state and many outstanding issues gone "in a minute". There is no denying that the current Israeli government got very little interest in cutting anything that could resemble a decent and fair peace deal. There is no denying, as well, that large parts of the Israelis are not on-board with such peace notions. The illegal settlements and settlers will take more than a minute to be sorted, even if there was a will to do so.

And the same goes for the Palestinian side itself - being divided, what good would it do if Abbas & Co. "disavow terrorist violence" while Hamas keeps at it? How does a leader which does not actually rule all of his own people can commit to a path of action in their name?

As mentioned, Hezbollah is a different issue, albeit with certain similarities (replace Lebanon with the PA and it will work out fine).

[sirineou]

Lots of countries occupy land formerly belonging to others, why should Israel be singled out by the whining losers? Do you really imagine that if things were reversed and Israel had lost land to Muslim Invaders 40+ years ago that they would give any up?

It seems to me that you are arguing both sides of the argument.On the one hand it sounds to me that you are saying that the looses should not be"whining looser" and on the other hand you are saying that if things were reversed and Israel had lost land to Muslim invaders they should not give up and be whining looser

I am very confused.

[Munsterman]

Pity that Palestine even bothered to seek a "a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution". Israel has never wanted peace. It just wants land. And the international community is so bereft of humanity it prefers to side with these colonists. But the other Palestinian action on the international stage last week is perhaps more interesting - their joining of the ICC. Fortunately, the USA could not block this. And of course, Israel refuses to sign up to the ICC because it knows it will be held to account for war crimes committed over the years. Another major moral victory to Palestine.