TwitterFacebook

Breaking: UN General Assembly Recognizes Palestine as ‘Non-Member State’

Middle East • Views: 20,575

NPR has details: U.N. Votes to Give Palestinians ‘Non-Member Observer State’ Status.

Exactly 65 years after the General Assembly, convened at Lake Success, New York, voted to divide Palestine between a Jewish state and an Arab one, the same body voted 138 to 9 in favor of recognizing the State of Palestine.

The United States and Israel voted against the measure, while France and Spain voted in favor. Great Britain and Germany, both major powers and important U.S. allies, abstained from the vote.

As Mark reported earlier, this vote gives Palestinians the same status as the Vatican, but perhaps more importantly, it gives Palestinians access to other U.N. bodies like the International Criminal Court, where Palestinians could launch complaints against Israel.

The United States has repeatedly said that this was not the right way toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“This resolution is not going to take [Palestinian’s] closer to statehood,” Victoria Nuland, a spokeswoman for the State Department, said in a briefing yesterday. “It does nothing to get them closer to statehood, and it may actually make the environment more difficult.”

The resolution reaffirms the “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine,” and also declares the Palestine Liberation Organization the “representative of the Palestinian people.”

Jump to bottom

102 comments

1 Kragar  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:12:44pm

Obviously this is Obama's fault. I'm sure Fox News, Limbaugh and Beck will be providing the details.

2 erik_t  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:15:41pm

This is interesting to me mostly because of the seeming finality. The UN is never going to un-recognize a state. Wherever we're going, we're not coming back.

3 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:15:58pm
it gives Palestinians access to other U.N. bodies like the International Criminal Court, where Palestinians could launch complaints against Israel.

Oh joy
/

and also declares the Palestine Liberation Organization the “representative of the Palestinian people.”

Hamas isn't going to be happy about that

4 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:16:21pm

Like I commented in the previous thread the PLO has also just gotten themselves additional responsibilities as well. If they want to be a country they will need to start acting like one. And that includes taking responsibility for the actions of their citizens regarding their neighbors. So now they need to reign in Hamas and their own radicals to a sufficient degree that it is believed they are sincere in their efforts to keep control.

5 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:17:35pm

re: #1 Kragar

Obviously this is Obama's fault. I'm sure Fox News, Limbaugh and Beck will be providing the details.

I squarely place blame on the UN, where such belongs. And as we see, it takes no issue with the Hamas chaerter.

6 Kragar  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:21:37pm

Drudge is so funny sometimes:

BUYER'S REMORSE: OBAMA APPROVE DROPS TO 49%...

7 researchok  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:21:53pm

When all is said and done, we will soon see how badly the Palestinians want a state.

If the leadership behaves like a responsible state both within and without it's borders, in deed and in rhetoric, today's events will have been worthwhile.

If not they will once again have betrayed their people.

And another generation of Palestinians will be lost.

8 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:22:06pm

re: #1 Kragar

Obviously this is Obama's fault. I'm sure Fox News, Limbaugh and Beck will be providing the details.

Can't be, not with "The United States and Israel voted against the measure,"

But we CAN blame the Fwench!!
/

9 funky chicken  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:22:53pm

re: #4 Feline Fearless Leader

Like I commented in the previous thread the PLO has also just gotten themselves additional responsibilities as well. If they want to be a country they will need to start acting like one. And that includes taking responsibility for the actions of their citizens regarding their neighbors. So now they need to reign in Hamas and their own radicals to a sufficient degree that it is believed they are sincere in their efforts to keep control.

yeah....I'm not gonna hold my breath

10 Obdicut  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:24:34pm

I actually don't like this. Why? Because what our state department rep said is true-- this doesn't actually bring us any closer to a real two state solution. Not that there are that many paths in that direction, but this almost entirely symbolic act, done right after a very large rocket attack by Hamas, is almost like a reward for that behavior.

I don't have any problem with a state of Palestine being created-- as the old saw goes, in terms of 1967 borders with mutually-agreed land-swaps-- but this doesn't really create a state of Palestine. That work still needs to happen.

11 Jolo5309  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:28:06pm

I find this frustrating, we all expect certain standards from countries, or in this case "non member states", yet no one seems to think that the PLO will do these things, is this cynicism, anger towards Palestinians or just a statement in their mistrust of the PLO?

I lean towards mistrust of the PLO, but that may be my cynicism showing.

12 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:30:03pm

re: #10 Obdicut

And as was mentioned earlier, who has the Palestinian voice in those UN bodies? Hamas, via Gaza,,, the PLO via the West Bank?

13 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:30:53pm

re: #12 sattv4u2

And as was mentioned earlier, who has the Palestinian voice in those UN bodies? Hamas, via Gaza,,, the PLO via the West Bank?

I know what the resolution stated, but do you think Hamas will have a say (internally, that is)

14 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:32:34pm

OR

Could this be a way that the UN is forcing the Hamas/ PLO issue onto the Palestinian people

"yes, we'll recognize you as long as it's the PLO and not HAMAS"

Sorry, but I don't see this as being well thought out by the UN

15 recusancy  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:36:59pm

I like Goldberg's idea:

It’s a very simple idea. When Abbas goes before the UN, he shouldn’t ask for recognition of an independent state. Instead, he should say the following: “Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza 45 years ago, and shows no interest in letting go of the West Bank, in particular. We, the Palestinian people, recognize two things: The first is that we are not strong enough to push the Israelis out. Armed resistance is a path to nowhere. The second is that the occupation is permanent. The Israelis are here to stay. So we are giving up our demand for independence. Instead, we are simply asking for the vote. Israel rules our lives. We should be allowed to help pick Israel’s rulers.”

Reaction would be seismic and instantaneous. The demand for voting rights would resonate with people around the world, in particular with American Jews, who pride themselves on support for both Israel and for civil rights at home. Such a demand would also force Israel into an untenable position; if it accedes to such a demand, it would very quickly cease to be the world’s only Jewish-majority state, and instead become the world’s 23rd Arab-majority state. If it were to refuse this demand, Israel would very quickly be painted by former friends as an apartheid state.

Israel’s response, then, can be reasonably predicted: Israeli leaders eager to prevent their country from becoming a pariah would move to negotiate the independence, with security caveats, of a Palestinian state on the West Bank, and later in Gaza, as well. Israel would simply have no choice.
This won’t happen, of course. Israeli intransigence has always had a friend in Palestinian shortsightedness.

16 Kragar  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:37:27pm

James Inhofe: Benghazi Will 'Go Down As The Biggest Coverup In History' (VIDEO)

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Wednesday made a strong claim about the Obama administration's handling of the Sept. 11 anniversary terrorist attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, declaring that it was a conspiracy of historic proportions.

"This is gonna go down as the biggest coverup in history," Inhofe predicted during an appearance on Fox News. "The administration deliberately covered this up and misrepresented what happened in Benghazi."

He later stood by his claim when pressed by Fox News' Bill Hemmer.

17 Locker  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:37:51pm

I see this as a great opportunity for the Palestinians. Unlike lots of Muslim haters I don't believe that all, or even most of their residents are terrorists. The cessation of all hostility between these two "sides" isn't the starting point of progress but the ending point. Demanding otherwise may get a lot of support but it's not a practical path forward.

18 Jolo5309  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:38:46pm

Wait, is the vote for non member status because the White House wants to cover up Benghazi?

19 RadicalModerate  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:39:14pm

Israel has already stated that they are going to, for the most part, ignore the United Nations vote, at least from a standpoint of their building additional settlements in East Jerusalem.

U.N. approves Palestinian "observer state" bid

But Palestinian leaders have said they had the right to go to the U.N. because Israel failed to comply with agreements signed more than two decades ago.

"It's about a contract. Our contract is that in five years, we should have concluded the treaty of peace and all core issues. This did not happen, and we're talking about 20 years later. And going to the U.N. is not a unilateral step," Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erakat said in September.

The last round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was in 2010.

Erakat said the new status would eliminate Israeli justifications for building settlements in the disputed areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

But Israeli officials disagreed.

"No decision by the U.N. can break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel," Netanyahu said.

20 erik_t  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:40:21pm

re: #18 Jolo5309

Wait, is the vote for non member status because the White House wants to cover up Benghazi?

INHOFE WAS RIGHT! GLOBAL SEISMIC GEOPOLITICAL SHIFTS!

21 HappyWarrior  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:41:33pm

re: #16 Kragar

James Inhofe: Benghazi Will 'Go Down As The Biggest Coverup In History' (VIDEO)

Coming from someone who wasn't a political hack, I'd take that statement seriously but Jim Inholfe who has pretty much wanted the administration to fail from day one, nope. Roll the dice and try again, Jimmy.

22 erik_t  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:43:12pm

re: #21 HappyWarrior

Coming from someone who wasn't a political hack, I'd take that statement seriously

I wouldn't, because it remains comical on its face. Three or four months (?) later, and nobody is able to articulate exactly the who, what, when, or why of this alleged profound cover-up.

23 RadicalModerate  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:43:14pm

re: #18 Jolo5309

Wait, is the vote for non member status because the White House wants to cover up Benghazi?

Never mind the small detail that the United States was one of only nine nations who voted against today's UN Assembly measure recognizing Palestine.

24 kristina37  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:43:16pm

re: #3 Killgore Trout

Hamas isn't going to be happy about that

While I could be wrong, this news may be less significant than what we may think. I think that there definitely must be an independent Palestinian state, and I think that eventually it will happen. But IMO this event will not in any way make it closer to actually happening.

Its even probable that Abbas knows that.

So why did he push for this? In the constant power struggle between Abbas & his allies, and Hamas, Hamas is gaining more popularity . So, my guess is that the real reason that Abbas did this is probably because he needed a "victory" over Hamas-- it was done in a attempt to improve his relative standing in the eyes of the Palestinians (and in the rest of the Arab world as well). He needs to "prove" that he is doing as much (or more) for the Palestinians than Hamas is doing.

So I believe that this is mainly "politics"-- unlike Hamas, Abbas actually does sincerely want an independent state, but he pushed for this for other reasons.

25 Kragar  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:44:13pm

re: #22 erik_t

I wouldn't, because it remains comical on its face. Three or four months (?) later, and nobody is able to articulate exactly the who, what, when, or why of this alleged profound cover-up.

THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT SO BIG A COVER UP! NO ONE KNOWS!

26 Locker  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:44:51pm

re: #21 HappyWarrior

Coming from someone who wasn't a political hack, I'd take that statement seriously but Jim Inholfe who has pretty much wanted the administration to fail from day one, nope. Roll the dice and try again, Jimmy.

Who's going to win American Idol is a bigger cover-up than B3ngh4z1!!

27 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:45:08pm

re: #24 kristina37

From the article

the credibility of Abbas and his Palestinian Authority has suffered, especially after the recent eight-day Israeli assault on Gaza.

"That shift in sentiment is one reason that some Western countries give for backing the United Nations resolution, to strengthen Mr. Abbas and his more moderate colleagues in their contest with Hamas," the Times explained.

28 engineer cat  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:47:23pm

re: #27 sattv4u2

From the article

the credibility of Abbas and his Palestinian Authority has suffered, especially after the recent eight-day Israeli assault on Gaza.

"That shift in sentiment is one reason that some Western countries give for backing the United Nations resolution, to strengthen Mr. Abbas and his more moderate colleagues in their contest with Hamas," the Times explained.

so, in the grand scheme of things, it's a conservative move

29 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:47:28pm

re: #17 Locker

I see this as a great opportunity for the Palestinians. Unlike lots of Muslim haters I don't believe that all, or even most of their residents are terrorists. The cessation of all hostility between these two "sides" isn't the starting point of progress but the ending point. Demanding otherwise may get a lot of support but it's not a practical path forward.

I agree that this could be a great opportunity for the Palestinians but I don't have a lot of hope they'll take advantage of this opportunity. Hopefully it will set the stage for peace further down the road. The last big opportunity the Palestinians had was the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

30 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:48:11pm

Does this fall under the same category as putting the worst dictatorships on the International Peace, Love, and Hugs committees in the hopes that they'll learn to suck less? And yes, why is this coming right after an outbreak of war?

I'm not sure what this changes, or what good it will do in the real world. I guess somebody will be able to explain it in the next couple of days.

31 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:48:27pm

re: #13 sattv4u2

I know what the resolution stated, but do you think Hamas will have a say (internally, that is)

They weren't part of the application, so probably not. Hamas is mostly limited to Gaza now anyway, so if anything this will push towards a three state solution.

32 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:51:16pm

re: #28 engineer cat

so, in the grand scheme of things, it's a conservative move

In light of the hostilities that just concluded and that the UN resolution designates the PLO rather than HAMAS or a joint committee of both as the designated voice for the Palestinians I'm starting to lean more towards the UN forcing the Palestinians to decide. Do you want Hamas and a constant confrontational climate with Israel or do you want the PLO and work to a solution

33 RadicalModerate  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:51:30pm

re: #16 Kragar

James Inhofe: Benghazi Will 'Go Down As The Biggest Coverup In History' (VIDEO)

Benghazi: A bigger coverup than Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Pentagon Papers - COMBINED!!!

34 kristina37  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:51:59pm

re: #14 sattv4u2

Sorry, but I don't see this as being well thought out by the UN

When have you ever seen anything well thought out by the UN?

35 Obdicut  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:52:21pm

re: #31 goddamnedfrank

They weren't part of the application, so probably not. Hamas is mostly limited to Gaza now anyway, so if anything this will push towards a three state solution.

It's still a problem, because Abbas particularly asked for Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem all together.

A three state solution is actually probably a good idea. However, Israel's government is swinging more and more and more to the right, with some serious ultra-nationalists on the rise. Until that's reversed I don't see any actual deal with the West Bank, given how committed the ultra-nationalists are to the settlers and Bibi's portentous language above.

36 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:53:13pm

re: #31 goddamnedfrank

They weren't part of the application, so probably not. Hamas is mostly limited to Gaza now anyway, so if anything this will push towards a three state solution.

So does the PLO get to bring up issues to the UN bodies if those issues affect Gaza instead of the West Bank

37 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:53:33pm

re: #34 kristina37

When have you ever seen anything well thought out by the UN?

Lunch reservations at Tavern On The Green!

38 Buck  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:55:51pm

re: #17 Locker

I don't believe that all, or even most of their residents are terrorists.

I don't think I know anyone who thinks that way.

However 'residents' under a dictatorship, or fascist regime have no power. It doesn't matter what "all, or even most of their residents" think when they are not the ones that make the decisions.

They can't vote for an opposition party. They have no representation anywhere.

Do you believe that all, or even most of their leaders are terrorists or terror supporters?

39 Locker  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:57:00pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

I agree that this could be a great opportunity for the Palestinians but I don't have a lot of hope they'll take advantage of this opportunity. Hopefully it will set the stage for peace further down the road. The last big opportunity the Palestinians had was the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

I try hard not to project expectations so I'll just remain hopeful. I think the entire situation is done a great deal of harm by gross generalizations (not by you). Palestinians want the death of Israel, Israelis hate all Palestinians and want to take their land, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Both of these "sides" are comprised of individuals with a wide range of views just as it is here from moderate to extreme.. liberal to conservative, etc. No one individual can control or speak for the entire group. Fictional example but it's not hard to imagine that there could be a large percentage of Palestinians and Jews who's only desire is a to live in peace and safety while a very, very small percentage are rocket lobbers or extreme war hawks.

Still, it's the lobbers and hawks who fuck things up for everyone else. Continuing to provide chances, hope and opportunity may allow influences to change and positions to shift. Anything is possible so.. I live in hope.

40 Etaoin Shrdlu  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:57:53pm
perhaps more importantly, it gives Palestinians access to other U.N. bodies like the International Criminal Court, where Palestinians could launch complaints against Israel.

And vice versa?

41 Mattand  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 2:58:37pm

re: #16 Kragar

James Inhofe: Benghazi Will 'Go Down As The Biggest Coverup In History' (VIDEO)

I'm sure that will be a surprise to the 9/11 truthers and the Roswell/Area 51 nutjobs.

42 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:00:03pm

re: #41 Mattand

I'm sure that will be a surprise to the 9/11 truthers and the Roswell/Area 51 nutjobs.

And don't forget Jim Garrison

[Link: mcadams.posc.mu.edu...]

43 Etaoin Shrdlu  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:01:28pm
The United States and Israel voted against the measure

As did (in alphabetical order) Canada, Czech Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Panama.

44 HappyWarrior  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:01:28pm

re: #42 sattv4u2

And don't forget Jim Garrison

[Link: mcadams.posc.mu.edu...]

Heh after seeing JFK I joked that it should be called "Jim Garrison thinks everyone but Oswald killed Kennedy."

45 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:02:45pm

re: #36 sattv4u2

So does the PLO get to bring up issues to the UN bodies if those issues affect Gaza instead of the West Bank

Probably, yes.

46 Locker  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:02:59pm

re: #42 sattv4u2

And don't forget Jim Garrison

[Link: mcadams.posc.mu.edu...]

I think his first name is Herbert.

47 RadicalModerate  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:03:23pm

re: #35 Obdicut

It's still a problem, because Abbas particularly asked for Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem all together.

A three state solution is actually probably a good idea. However, Israel's government is swinging more and more and more to the right, with some serious ultra-nationalists on the rise. Until that's reversed I don't see any actual deal with the West Bank, given how committed the ultra-nationalists are the settlers and Bibi's portentous language above.

What worries me the most is that individuals like Gilad Sharon's calling for genocide in Gaza is not only not being universally condemned, but his views are being echoed by others.

48 ProGunLiberal  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:04:08pm

re: #35 Obdicut

At this point, the only government I like in this region even mildly is Jordan and Oman (Region in question is Arabian Peninsula to Turkey. Mediterranean to Iran.

And the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to bring down Jordan. Aside from document release of negative things from diplomatic wires and CIA Intel that has been redacted to protect various intelligence assets, what do we have to cripple the Muslim Brotherhood.

Helping Jordan economically is much easier. Try and get them a direct supply of NG and take the aid we give Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan and use it to stabilize Jordan.

49 kristina37  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:06:39pm

re: #27 sattv4u2

From the article

the credibility of Abbas and his Palestinian Authority has suffered, especially after the recent eight-day Israeli assault on Gaza.

"That shift in sentiment is one reason that some Western countries give for backing the United Nations resolution, to strengthen Mr. Abbas and his more moderate colleagues in their contest with Hamas," the Times explained.

Yes.

I think that western backers of this may actually have one or more motives:
1.Some want to back Abbas merely because they see it in their own self interest to have him have the real power ( & not Hamas).
2. Others may want Abbas to control the reins because he is seen as a "moderate" and Hamas is basically, a group of violent jihadi thugs. When an independent Palestine finally emerges-- they don't want it to be another radical Islamist gov't, and particularly not a puppet of Iran.
3. I believe some are just sick and tired of all the fighting, and would like to see this finally settled, and settled in a just manner (the two state solution). They feel that recognizing a Palestinian state now (and similar actions) might hasten a final resolution of the conflict.
4. Some may be supporting this for more than one of these reasons.

50 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:06:56pm

re: #45 goddamnedfrank

Probably, yes.

That won't go over well with HAMAS, then. They consider themselves the voice of Gaza

So ,, as I stated, this could be a ploy by the UN (and "the west") to force Palestinians to choose one path or the other

51 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:07:13pm

re: #46 Locker

I think his first name is Herbert.

Or Sam

52 kristina37  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:07:25pm

re: #37 sattv4u2

Lunch reservations at Tavern On The Green!

LOL.

53 ProGunLiberal  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:10:56pm

Obdicut here?

54 Locker  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:11:00pm

re: #51 sattv4u2

Or Sam

I think Sam Garrison, Mr. "Herbert" Garrison and Mr Hat could have a fun party together.

55 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:12:43pm

re: #54 Locker

I think Sam Garrison, Mr. "Herbert" Garrison and Mr Hat could have a fun party together.

Oh ,, when you said "Herbert", I thought you meant Hoover,, as in, who ordered the Kennedy assisination
Thats why I said Sam, for Giancana

56 ProGunLiberal  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:17:24pm

re: #49 kristina37

You forgot reason 4.5, which I think 2, maybe European 3 nations are using.

They have a gripe with Israel over something. A very legitimate something too.

57 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:20:33pm

re: #56 ProGunLiberal

You forgot reason 4.5, which I think 2, maybe European 3 nations are using.

They have a gripe with Israel over something. A very legitimate something too.

Which nations are those?
France, Spain, Germany and Great Britain all voted FOR the resolution

58 kristina37  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:23:01pm

re: #16 Kragar

James Inhofe: Benghazi Will 'Go Down As The Biggest Coverup In History' (VIDEO)

I'm not sure I see how that relates to what we are discussing here?

59 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:24:19pm

re: #56 ProGunLiberal

re: #57 sattv4u2

Which nations are those?
France, Spain, Germany and Great Britain all voted FOR the resolution

There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions.
[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

60 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:25:48pm

re: #58 kristina37

I'm not sure I see how that relates to what we are discussing here?

Doesn't matter

"Back in the day" "we" used to wait till there were 100 posts before going off topic (unless, of course, something earth shattering happened or the thread was going nowehere)

These days, not so much

61 ProGunLiberal  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:26:39pm

re: #57 sattv4u2

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

Norway had the Lillehammer Affair, and Sweden had the assassination of Coun Folke Bernadotte. And why Denmark did what it did I don't know.

62 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:26:57pm

re: #56 ProGunLiberal

You forgot reason 4.5, which I think 2, maybe European 3 nations are using.

They have a gripe with Israel over something. A very legitimate something too.

Shows only ONE European NAY vote

The Czech Republic was unique in Europe, joining the United States, Israel, Canada, Panama and tiny Pacific Island states likes Nauru, Palau and Micronesia in voting against the move.

63 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:27:59pm

re: #61 ProGunLiberal

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

Norway had the Lillehammer Affair, and Sweden had the assassination of Coun Folke Bernadotte. And why Denmark did what it did I don't know.

Wanna check that??

At least 17 European nations voted in favor of the Palestinian resolution, including Austria, France, Italy, Norway and Spain.

64 ProGunLiberal  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:30:35pm

re: #63 sattv4u2

That's what I am saying. That, in the cases of Norway and Sweden, there was likely a subtle, but definite influence in the reason why they decided to vote for Palestine. She was outlining the 4 reasons a state may have voted for Palestine. I added there was another influence.

65 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:31:07pm

re: #15 recusancy

I like Goldberg's idea:

Not going to happen. That would require Palestinians accepting Jews as fellow citizens, at least in principal, which they will never do.

66 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:34:06pm

re: #64 ProGunLiberal

That's what I am saying. That, in the cases of Norway and Sweden, there was likely a subtle, but definite influence in the reason why they decided to vote for Palestine. She was outlining the 4 reasons a state may have voted for Palestinian. I added there was another influence.

You said they have a "gripe with Israel over something. A very legitimate something too."

Someone has a "gripe" with someone else, they usually don;t vote FOR something that second someone wants

67 ProGunLiberal  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:35:53pm

re: #66 sattv4u2

They have a gripe with Israel, they voted for Palestine.

That is my thought process.

re: #65 Dark_Falcon

It can happen, we will have to give it a little while. The Germans and the French used to hate each other, now look at them.

68 sattv4u2  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:36:14pm

re: #67 ProGunLiberal

They have a gripe with Israel, they voted for Palestine.

That is my thought process.

re: #65 Dark_Falcon

It can happen, we will ave to give it a little while. The Germans and the French used to hate each other, now look at them.

K,, got it

69 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:51:25pm

re: #67 ProGunLiberal

They have a gripe with Israel, they voted for Palestine.

That is my thought process.

re: #65 Dark_Falcon

It can happen, we will have to give it a little while. The Germans and the French used to hate each other, now look at them.

They came to be on decent terms, but that was after Germany had been pulverized by France's allies during WWII. That profound national humiliation broke Germany's will to dominate other nations. The Palestinians have not yet given up their dream of exterminating Israel, and peace cannot come until they do.

70 Obdicut  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 3:56:29pm

re: #69 Dark_Falcon

Jesus christ, the way you talk sometimes is fucking ridiculous. Germany didn't have a 'will to dominate other nations'. It's a country. It doesn't have an identity.

The Nazis got stomped, a lot of Germans had always fucking hated them, and everyone, everywhere was goddamn sick of war.

What you sound like you're saying is that conditions in Palestine have to resemble those in Germany at the end of WWII in order for the Palestinians to give up their 'dream'.

71 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:07:44pm

re: #70 Obdicut

Jesus christ, the way you talk sometimes is fucking ridiculous. Germany didn't have a 'will to dominate other nations'. It's a country. It doesn't have an identity.

The Nazis got stomped, a lot of Germans had always fucking hated them, and everyone, everywhere was goddamn sick of war.

What you sound like you're saying is that conditions in Palestine have to resemble those in Germany at the end of WWII in order for the Palestinians to give up their 'dream'.

Countries have identities, Obdi, and the way nations identify themselves heavily influences how they act.

As for the latter part of your statement, I wasn't trying to say that. I knew it might be read in that way, but I was trying to say that the Palestinians won't make peace until they accept that they are not going to be able to destroy Israel. I'd rather they come to the realization without violence, and I would not support violating the laws of war.

72 Obdicut  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:11:12pm

re: #71 Dark_Falcon

Countries have identities, Obdi, and the way nations identify themselves heavily influences how they act.
.

No clue what this means. None.

As for the latter part of your statement, I wasn't trying to say that. I knew it might be read in that way, but I was trying to say that the Palestinians won't make peace until they accept that they are not going to be able to destroy Israel. I'd rather they come to the realization without violence, and I would not support violating the laws of war

The juxtaposition is pretty strange, then. As is the claim that the will of Germany to dominate other nations was broken. I mean, shit, everyone lost their will to dominate other nations after that. The US, Britain, France, all pulled out of the various places they dominated after WWII. Was their will broken too?

73 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:13:13pm

re: #72 Obdicut

Don't worry about it. Just accept that I was was trying to be literary and wasn't advocating malice towards anyone.

Going upstairs...

74 kristina37  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:24:03pm

re: #5 Eclectic Infidel

I squarely place blame on the UN, where such belongs. And as we see, it takes no issue with the Hamas chaerter.

I noticed that as well. But I think its OK if they think Abba's group is the true representative of Palestine. If, however, they consider Palestine to be represented jointly by his group and Hamas, then there might be a problem. Would it be acceptable to recognize a group who's guiding principle is the destruction of another UN member state?

75 biorabbi  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:29:00pm

Actions which dehumanize or delegitimatize one side or the other go nowhere. BDS against Israeli/Jewish institutions, the university, culture are in this group. So would be a religious justification for exclusive control of real estate as the sole, deciding factor. Today's PLO status upgrade at the UN is not such a move, and I do not see the harm to Israel here. Indeed, Ehud Olmert today voiced support/understanding for this very UN vote today. From my point of view as a strong supporter of Israel, anything than strengthens the PA and Abbas at the expense of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is a good thing, and while I agree with the Obama position that both parties need to work it out between themselves, steps which force or coax both parties to begin talks make sense. It makes me smile when I see something that strengthens the moderate Palestinians, or when Israel treats Hamas family members(including leadership)while in a state of constant low-grade war. The worse possible scenario for Israel(and it is what I fear most)it for Abbas to unravel completely and for Hamas to take over the West Bank.

76 kristina37  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:31:28pm

re: #70 Obdicut

Jesus christ, the way you talk sometimes is fucking ridiculous. Germany didn't have a 'will to dominate other nations'. It's a country. It doesn't have an identity.

If you feel that Germany doesn't have an identity, do you feel, then, that Palestine, when it becomes a country, (like Germany after the end of their occupation) also won't have an identity?

77 Obdicut  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:36:32pm

re: #76 kristina37

If you feel that Germany doesn't have an identity, do you feel, then, that Palestine, when it becomes a country, (like Germany after the end of their occupation) also won't have an identity?

I'm not sure what occupation you're talking about with Germany, since the occupation of East Germany didn't end for quite awhile after the occupation of West Germany ended.

I don't think nations have identities. That means I don't think that Palestine won't have an identity because i don't think nations have identities. I'm not sure how that could be any clearer.

Nations are nations. They're not sentient entities. They don't have a will. Germany surrendered, Hitler was dead, Nazism's claim was that the weak Democracies of the worlds and the Bolsheviks couldn't stand against them. They were proved wrong.

It's just not in the least bit a comparable situation.

78 Petero1818  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:37:28pm

re: #15 recusancy

I like Goldberg's idea:

This has been Yossi Beilin's position for 20 years. Israel faces 2 choices. A palestinian state along side it, or the end of the Jewish state of Israel. I hav long believed that Israel's most levered position passed years ago. I am in favor of this resolution (and I am a strong supporter of the Jewish state of Israel) because I believe it will bring some within the Jewish community and Israel in particular to realize that time is not on their side.
Moreover, I do not believe the US is all that upset about this result. This win at the UN will give the PA credibility at a time when Hamas' stock is rising.

79 Petero1818  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 4:47:49pm

re: #70 Obdicut

Jesus christ, the way you talk sometimes is fucking ridiculous. Germany didn't have a 'will to dominate other nations'. It's a country. It doesn't have an identity.

The Nazis got stomped, a lot of Germans had always fucking hated them, and everyone, everywhere was goddamn sick of war.

What you sound like you're saying is that conditions in Palestine have to resemble those in Germany at the end of WWII in order for the Palestinians to give up their 'dream'.

I don't always agree with DF, but on this point, I believe he is correct for at least a portion of the Palestinian population. Peace follows surrender. Rarely have countries made peace in midst of war that was undecided. It has happened, but more common is that there is a victor and a loser. Once one admits defeat, the path to peace becomes more clear. It is difficult for Palestinians to get consensus on a path to peace because many are unwilling to acknowledge that they have had their ass handed to them time and time again. They are simultaneously the most oppressed people in the world yet somehow are victorious every time they fight. When the military option is considered no longer an option, a negotiated peace becomes immediately attractive. Historically this has not been as big an issue for some as most countries have not hesitated to wipe out the opposition when they had the chance. For a variety of reasons Israel has never done so. It could, in days if it wanted to.

80 Obdicut  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 5:01:52pm

re: #79 Petero1818

Rarely have countries made peace in midst of war that was undecided.

This is just totally untrue. I can give you hundreds of examples of countries that made peace in the midst of war that was undecided.

Once one admits defeat, the path to peace becomes more clear.

What the hell are you basing this on? In ye bad old days, prior to the UN, when you invaded a place you just took it the fuck over. There wasn't any 'peace' to be talked about because you just grabbed it. You might later then give it back by treaty to somewhere or another, or it might get inherited by succession to somewhere else. Otherwise, you just fought until the point where one side said "I give" and they arranged tribute or whatever, but that wasn't after fighting to exhaustion.

There aren't any Palestinians, I don't think, who think they on their own can militarily defeat Israel. No serious person with an ounce of military knowledge could think that. They might think that a coalition of Arab states and themselves could defeat Israel, and they might be isolated enough to believe this was a real possibility without touching off a huge conflict, if not WWIII.

People keep talking about this as Israel vs. Palestine. It's not, either in the mind of Palestinians or in the mind of the rest of the Middle Eastern Muslim world. There are many ways the Arab states are working to prolong the conflict, and they are obviously a key part of resolving it.

81 wrenchwench  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 5:11:07pm

re: #75 biorabbi

Welcome, hatchling.

82 Petero1818  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 5:25:42pm

re: #80 Obdicut

Again, I did not say it has not happened. Actually I explicitly said it has happened. We can argue about which has happened more. To be honest I don't have the time to research it.

As for your comment about ye old days before the UN you are correct. You took over a country and dominated and defeated and subjugated their population. Later a negotiated peace would come. We don't disagree on that.

Lastly while you and any objective observer know the Palestinians and even all the arabs together can't win against Israel it does not change the fact that none of them have ever acknowledged losing a war to Israel. They have never surrendered in a war, rather they were saved by Israel's retreat at the behest of the Western world's begging.

Of course the Arabs are part of the problem and part of the solution I am not sure what relevance that has to my point. Palestinans and Arabs all have to accept that they, and they alone rejected partition. They waged war. They lost war. They should make peace. Instead they opted for a prolonged state of war and even where they did not (Egypt and Jordan) they allowed the Palestinians to continue to do so to their mutual benefit.

83 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 6:00:11pm

It isn't just the PLO who is going to have to act like a nation now. Israel is going to have to treat the West Bank as a nation. Which it doesn't want to. Before this the West Bank was an outlaw and Israel was only limited only by outrage in what it could do.

Now both sides are under international law, and I suspect neither side is going to like it very much. To suddenly be limited in what they can do to each other after decades of absolute freedom won't be a pleasant experience for either of them.

84 War On Music  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 6:02:09pm

re: #38 Buck

Palestinians did vote for an Opposition party, called Hamas, which was opposed to the constant corruption of Fatah. Of course, voting for the "wrong" people leads to economic blockade - guess they didn't learn from what happens when you exercise your democratic rights from Allende.

85 ProGunLiberal  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 6:08:20pm

re: #77 Obdicut

They have identified but, not in the same manner as individuals. A nation is made of people with shared experiences. Some are young (Palestine), some are old (Persians).

Nations change all the time too. Again, they have identities, but in a different form from individuals.

86 Etaoin Shrdlu  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 7:17:39pm

My speculation: Israel and the PA (or Abbas' faction thereof) have already cut a peace deal. In order for the Arab world to accept it, and Abbas not to go the way of Sadat before sunrise, Israel must be seen to be dragged into it kicking and screaming.

87 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 8:11:05pm

re: #7 researchok

When all is said and done, we will soon see how badly the Palestinians want a state.

If the leadership behaves like a responsible state both within and without it's borders, in deed and in rhetoric, today's events will have been worthwhile.

If not they will once again have betrayed their people.

And another generation of Palestinians will be lost.

If the Palestinian leadership behaved like a responsible state, there would already be a real state of Palestine.

88 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 8:16:15pm

re: #10 Obdicut

The bigger problem, unfortunately, is that the UNGA's action will only embolden the Palestinian hardliners who continue to cling to the dream of eliminating Israel in the long-term, by convincing them that they are "winning", and will reinforce the sense among many Israelis that they cannot rely upon world bodies such as the UN to act fairly to prevent that from happening.

As a result, the UN General Assembly's action not only fails to advance efforts to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict, of which the creation of a real state of Palestine would be a part, it actually undermines efforts to do so.

89 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 8:27:22pm

re: #32 sattv4u2

In light of the hostilities that just concluded and that the UN resolution designates the PLO rather than HAMAS or a joint committee of both as the designated voice for the Palestinians I'm starting to lean more towards the UN forcing the Palestinians to decide. Do you want Hamas and a constant confrontational climate with Israel or do you want the PLO and work to a solution

The problem with that theory is that it assumes the UN General Assembly, and the largely dictatorial states that have a controlling vote in that body, have a history that suggests an intention on its part to force the Palestinian leadership and body politic to make such a choice, rather than a history of reflexive anti-Israel posturing and activity. That the UN General Assembly was going to pass this resolution was a foregone conclusion as soon as Abbas decided to place the matter before that body rather than actually negotiate with Israel.

90 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 8:30:11pm

re: #40 Etaoin Shrdlu

And vice versa?

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

91 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 8:41:40pm

re: #74 kristina37

I noticed that as well. But I think its OK if they think Abba's group is the true representative of Palestine.

The real question is whether the Palestinians think Abbas and his ministers are their true representatives, not whether the UN General Assembly declares that to be the case.

Would it be acceptable to recognize a group who's guiding principle is the destruction of another UN member state?

Sadly, in the case of Israel, the answer at the UN to that question is generally "yes". The only body at the UN that has not generally supported that view has been the UN Security Council and, then, only because the United States (including, most recently, under President Obama's leadership), has stood by its ally.

92 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 9:24:15pm

re: #83 Romantic Heretic

It isn't just the PLO who is going to have to act like a nation now. Israel is going to have to treat the West Bank as a nation. Which it doesn't want to. Before this the West Bank was an outlaw and Israel was only limited only by outrage in what it could do.

Now both sides are under international law, and I suspect neither side is going to like it very much. To suddenly be limited in what they can do to each other after decades of absolute freedom won't be a pleasant experience for either of them.

That is factually and legally incorrect. Israel and its military have, from its inception, been limited by their own sense of morality, developed through thousands of years of Jewish jurisprudence. Contrary to the defamatory accusations of its detractors, Israel has never advocated or attempted genocide against the Palestinians and has, as a matter of national policy, been relatively restrained in how it pursued its fight for survival. When extremists such as Meir Kahane attempted to create political movements that advocated ethnic cleansing, Israel did not name public squares and schools in his honor, they outlawed the movement. At the end of the day, Israel is a representative democracy, and it is that, not the reflexively anti-Israel proclamations of the UN, which limit what the Israeli government does.

Likewise, the notion that Israel has somehow not been "under international law" until now is ridiculous. Under international law, the legally binding framework for Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip are UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338, which (1) do not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territory in captured; and (2) require Israel to withdraw only in the context of agreement among the belligerents upon secure and recognized borders. When the other side of the fight is r

Similarly, under international law, the West Bank is, regardless of how often Israel's opponents declare the contrary to be the case, "disputed" not "occupied" territory. In the post-Ottoman period, all of the territory west of the Jordan River, including the area commonly referred to as the "West Bank", was subject to the mandate from the League of Nations to Britain to establish upon that land a Jewish State. That mandate, along with the other mandates of the League of Nations, was reaffirmed post-World War II by the San Remo Convention. Following the Arab rejection of the General Assembly's vote to partition this territory, and the Arab invasion of the nascent State of Israel, the "West Bank" remained in the hands of Jordan, which (a) refused to agree to the existence of any border with Israel and (b) purported to annex the West Bank, in a move that was recognized only by Britain. Consequently, the legal status of the West Bank, post Israel's war of independence, remained in dispute.

That status under international law did not change when Israel, following Jordan's military attack in June 1967, captured the territory from June. To the contrary, as a legal matter, the status of the West Bank remained disputed after the Six Day War. Indeed, the disputed status of the territory was enshrined in UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338, which require the belligerents to reach agreement on the final status of the area and of borders. That status remains unchanged to this day, no matter how often those who support the Palestinians claim that it is "occupied" territory and that Israel's actions violate the laws governing what an "occupier" may do.

Despite all this, Israel -- by which I mean the majority of its population, which has the power to direct its government's acts -- has been and remains ready and willing to hand virtually all of the West Bank to the Palestinians. When the Palestinian leadership is ready to give up on its dreams of destroying Israel and to create a Palestinian state, they will find a willing partner in Israel. Until then...

93 sliv_the_eli  Thu, Nov 29, 2012 10:02:28pm

re: #86 Etaoin Shrdlu

My speculation: Israel and the PA (or Abbas' faction thereof) have already cut a peace deal. In order for the Arab world to accept it, and Abbas not to go the way of Sadat before sunrise, Israel must be seen to be dragged into it kicking and screaming.

The last point is certainly true, but is insufficient to explain why Abbas went to the UN. Consider that the U.S. has always been willing to play the role of the party that drags the Israeli government kicking and screaming to the peace parley - think the post Gulf War I Madrid Conference or any of the summits held during the Clinton Administration. Consider also that the UN General Assembly -- which infamously declared the millenia-long yearning of the Jewish people to exercise self-determination in their historical homeland to be racist -- has never had the ability to do that. If Abbas really was just looking for "cover" of this sort, he need only have signalled to the Americans that he was prepared to make the painful compromises necessary to reach a peace agreement, and Israel would have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table to negotiate that deal. Abbas has not done so. To the contrary, he has repeatedly poked the US administration in the eye, by, for example: refusing to come to the table when President Obama convinced Prime Minister Netanyahu to impose a months-long moratorium on new construction in the settlements, insisting on going to the UN Security Council last year and insisting now on going to the General Assembly and forcing the US to be seen as actively lobbying against creation of a Palestinian "state".
The road to a Palestinian state runs through Washington, D.C., not through the UN, which has by decades of reflexive and institutionalized anti-Israel bias completely discredited itself in the eyes of all but the most soft-headed of Israelis. The UN cannot bring Israel to the table, whether kicking, screaming or otherwise. Only the US has the ability to do that, and if that is what Abbas was really looking for, he would be lobbying the US to do so, not going to the UN.

94 Buck  Fri, Nov 30, 2012 9:14:27am

Do you realize that the UN vote for the establishment of the State of Israel was in November 1947?

To vote for Palestinian statehood on that anniversary shows how far the body has strayed from it's original reason for being. The UN can no longer pretend to fight racism, and now clearly is the top international organization to exhibit racism, antisemitism and bias.

The vote for Palestinian statehood will go down in infamy as the day the world officially caved in to terrorism and the falsification of history.

Dror Eydar

[Link: www.israelhayom.com...]

I am sorry if people can't understand what this means. That people want to make fun and jokes.

This is antisemitism straight up, and the whole world (as represented by the United Nations) rises up and is against us.

The U.N. once passed a resolution defining the most moral movement of the 20th century, Zionism, as racism. Since Israel’s establishment, no other country has been subjected to as high a number of negative resolutions and votes as Israel has. Among the U.N.’s member states, there is an enormous majority for a vote to erase Israel from among the countries of the world.

95 Buck  Fri, Nov 30, 2012 9:31:37am

re: #84 War On Music

Palestinians did vote for an Opposition party, called Hamas, which was opposed to the constant corruption of Fatah. Of course, voting for the "wrong" people leads to economic blockade - guess they didn't learn from what happens when you exercise your democratic rights from Allende.

It is a sick and twisted way of seeing what happened. To even suggest that the vote lead to the blockade of weapons, and not the armed hostilities against Jews is so effed up, I don't know where to start.

Number one, there is no way that a vote like that can today be consider legal. It can only truly be considered opposition and democratic if there is some opportunity to show support or opposition in a peaceful way on a regular basis. Hamas "won" and then purged Gaza of any opposition, and have not had any election since. That should make them less legal, not more.

Secondly, the blockade is the most humane way of self defense. Hamas is engaged in an armed struggle against Israel. The blockade is to try and stop weapons from entering Gaza. It isn't economic, and never has been.

96 macaw  Fri, Nov 30, 2012 10:21:50am

Speaking as a Norwegian, our UNIFIL veterans seems to have been more important in changing our views about Israel, than the Lillehammer assassination. There is a list of nations who participated:

[Link: www.un.org...]

97 kmg  Fri, Nov 30, 2012 11:05:48am

re: #96 macaw

Changing your views about Israel how? Negatively or positively and why? Elaborate please.

98 Flavia  Fri, Nov 30, 2012 4:10:32pm

re: #15 recusancy

I like Goldberg's idea:

Except for the whole "recognizing Israel as a state" thing, & the whole "agreeing to live under Israeli rule" thing. Which has ALWAYS been the problem SINCE 1948.

I agree with those who do not see this going well: it is a reward for terrorism, and anyone who really thinks that Hamas or the PLO or any of those groups will suddenly start acting like responsible political leaders because of this have not been paying attention. For decades.

FTR: I would love to be proven wrong on this.

99 benf_dc  Fri, Nov 30, 2012 4:49:58pm

The PA initiative is all about waging lawfare, and the Israeli government, by authorizing new housing in East Jerusalem and elsewhere beyond the Green Line, is saying "bring it on."

100 so.cal.swede  Fri, Nov 30, 2012 4:53:59pm

this just in. palestinians to vote to accept Israel as a state. .... yeah right.

101 macaw  Fri, Nov 30, 2012 5:07:37pm

@kmg:
The UNIFIL members usually changed their view of Israel for the worse.

Even while the UNIFIL forces went through some lethal combat with the militias in Lebanon, this did not mean relations with the IDF were any good or productive. If the IDF did something then the UNIFIL forces would often have a view of it, or the two sides could even clash together.

102 kmg  Sat, Dec 1, 2012 12:50:01pm

re: #101 macaw

Thanks for explaining.

I have read that over the past few decades UNIFIL has been quite useless in doing their job. I wonder if this has affected the IDF's and Israeli's views of the participating nations.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
Take advantage of our end-of-the-year subscription special, and save 25% off the normal subscription price! For a limited time, one-year ad-free subscriptions are just $59.95. Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing now and save!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-12-15 2:06 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Randall Gross
Hackers Demand Sony Remove All Signs the Interview Existed or More Data Will Be Released
The cyber terrorists move from terror threats to extortion in short order after Sony's CEO caved. By demanding that Sony throw "The Interview" down the memory hole, they've guaranteed that it will become the most sought after digital property of ...

16 minutes ago
Views: 51 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
wheat-dogghazi-bola-trality
China Tightens Grip on Macau as Dissent Rises in Gambling Hub - Yahoo News
Like Hong Kong, the nearby former Portuguese colony of Macau is a Special Autonomous Region (SAR) within the People's Republic of China. That means, on paper anyway, that Hong Kong and Macau operate autonomously from the national government in ...

2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Views: 110 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0
FemNaziBitch
WHAT RAPE CULTURE? Why Is Rape at the Origin of Most Religion?
The impregnation process may be a "ravishing" or seduction or some kind of titillating but nonsexual procreative penetration. The story may come from an Eastern or Western religious tradition, pagan or Christian. But these encounters between beautiful young women ...

2 hours, 9 minutes ago
Views: 93 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Rightwingconspirator
Blackmores Night-Christmas Music Olde And New At The Same Time
Spotify Youtube

2 days, 22 hours ago
Views: 182 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Lumberhead
A History of Thugs
Civilization is imperiled. Demonic dark-skinned criminals exult in seizing property and security. Only a vanguard of brave uniformed officers can take them off the streets and restore order. It is 1835, and whites are finally confronting what Mark Twain ...

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 599 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1
Romantic Heretic
It’s Beginning To Feel A Lot Like Christmas
As always, Fairytale of New York makes me realize what time of the year it is.

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 389 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Dark_Falcon
The College Rape Overcorrection
This is the article I promised to post this morning. The quoted passage is from the second section, "2. An Overcorrection". We are told that one of the most dangerous places for a young woman in America today is a ...

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 699 • Comments: 11
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
cinesimon
Charles Barkley and the Plague of ‘Unintelligent’ Blacks
theatlantic.com

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 728 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
 Frank says:

THE VERY BIG STUPID is a thing which breeds by eating The Future. Have you seen it? It sometimes disguises itself as a good-looking quarterly bottom line, derived by closing the R&D Department. -- from The Real Frank Zappa book.