Palestinians Decide to Try Again for UN Status

Middle East • September 2012 • Views: 2,003

• Abbas vows again to try for higher UN status

• Says it is useless to deal with Israelis

• Numbers now on the side of Palestinians

Acting Palestinian Authority Chief Mahmoud Abbas has announced he will seek non-member observer state for the Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly on September 27th.

Mr Abbas has referred to talks with Israel on peace talks and acceptance of Palestinian claims on Jerusalem as “useless.”

He has said he would renew the bid to upgrade the current observer status to a non-member observer state at the world body.

Arab nations have already decided to back the move.

More…

Recent Pages by Bobibutu (Bob Dillon):
Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146% Court Says Egypt Legislature Illegally Elected MERS Spreads to Italy, Kills 3 More in Saudi Arabia Thousands Take to Streets in Turkey, Clash With Police China Blasts RP Gov't for Using Grounded Ship as Spratlys Outpost

Jump to bottom

44 comments

SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Sep 9, 2012 7:27:04pm

Sounds like they probably have the votes.

Winguts will go into a frenzy when/if this happens on Obama's watch. He tells the UN what to do, you know.

Buck Sun, Sep 9, 2012 7:39:11pm

In 2010 Barack Obama pushed for an independent Palestinian state during his speech at the United Nations.

Last year, I pledged my best efforts to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors. We have travelled a winding road over the last 12 months, with few peaks and many valleys. But this month, I am pleased that we have pursued direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington, Sharm el Sheikh and Jerusalem…

…Now, peace must be made by Israelis and Palestinians, but each of us has a responsibility to do our part as well. Those of us who are friends of Israel must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine — one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity. And those of us who are friends of the Palestinians must understand that the rights of the Palestinian people will be won only through peaceful means — including genuine reconciliation with a secure Israel.

Only some people are surprised now that the Arab Palestinian leadership are going to try and get one side of the equation and forget about the second side.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 9, 2012 7:54:34pm

re: #1 SanFranciscoZionist

Sounds like they probably have the votes.

Winguts will go into a frenzy when/if this happens on Obama's watch. He tells the UN what to do, you know.

/

What Congress should do is cut aid monies to the the Palestinians by 10%, to make them pay a price for their intransigence.

Destro Mon, Sep 10, 2012 8:50:17am

I would like to congratulate Palestine on it's next step into joining the family of nations.

ckkatz Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:20:23am

Lets see...

Abbas hasn't held an election since his term ended in 2009. His ruling party lost the last Parliamentary elections in 2006.

He can't guarantee or enforce a peace treaty since his government doesn't control the Palestinian population that is in Gaza and his hold on the rest is uncertain.

The massive corruption in his regime was the subject of a congressional report this past July titled "Chronic Kleptocracy - Corruption Within The Palestinian Political Establishment". The Palestinian population in the territories is not unaware of this issue.

His regime has been documented in numerous human rights violations.

He is compromised as beholden to foreign powers for much of his funding and other support.

I guess that he thinks that this will to do something to justify his existence.

War On Music Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:37:22am

I once heard this Israeli advocate argue: "Palestinians cannot negotiate for peace without a state, but they also cannot get a state without negotiating". He used it to justify the continuing (and expanding) occupation of Palestinian land. This is the step in the right direction and solidarity goes to those struggling for freedom in Palestine.

ckkatz Mon, Sep 10, 2012 11:04:24am

re: #6 War On Music

It seems to me that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. And that just because somebody I disagree with is against something doesn't mean I should be for it.

On its merits the last go-around on this proved counterproductive in that it undermined foreign support while showing failure and weakness to the Palestinian domestic audience. I have no reason to believe that this go-around will be any different.

Of course, it sounds like we are going to find out.

And, as always, ymmv.

dallasdoc Mon, Sep 10, 2012 11:25:45am

re: #6 War On Music

nice straw man argument there War-on-Music. you disagree with what you claim ONE Israeli said so therefore you turn around and support what he opposes. Do support everything every Palestinians says about the conflict? If not, by your logic you must support Israel's position. If we could hook up your subsequent spinning to the electrical grip, imagine the savings in oil imports

alinuxguru Mon, Sep 10, 2012 11:53:13am

re: #4 Destro

I would like to congratulate Palestine on it's next step into joining the family of nations.

Well, they missed a few key steps. The PA is not a viable state. Send your congratulations to South Sudan who is on it's next steps into joining the family of nations.

Destro Mon, Sep 10, 2012 11:58:46am

Under your view East Timor should still be under Indonesian rule?

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 10, 2012 12:18:39pm

re: #5 ckkatz

The Palestinian population in the territories is not unaware of this issue.

That's putting it mildly.

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 10, 2012 12:24:41pm

re: #5 ckkatz

Lets see...

Abbas hasn't held an election since his term ended in 2009. His ruling party lost the last Parliamentary elections in 2006.

He can't guarantee or enforce a peace treaty since his government doesn't control the Palestinian population that is in Gaza and his hold on the rest is uncertain.

The massive corruption in his regime was the subject of a congressional report this past July titled "Chronic Kleptocracy - Corruption Within The Palestinian Political Establishment". The Palestinian population in the territories is not unaware of this issue.

His regime has been documented in numerous human rights violations.

He is compromised as beholden to foreign powers for much of his funding and other support.

I guess that he thinks that this will to do something to justify his existence.

To be entirely fair, there are full members of the UN, some of them sitting on things such as the Human Rights Council, who are better off only in the sense that their economies are slightly more shored up.

ckkatz Mon, Sep 10, 2012 1:36:14pm

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

I agree with you that there are a number of full members of UN who are significantly disfunctional.

I also understand that you got my two original points.

- That the Abbas UN move is heavily grounded in internal Palestinian politics.

- That a significant number of freedom and human rights issues faced by Palestinians are the due to PA (and Hamas) behavior, and PA attempts at full UN membership are highly unlikely to correct them.

Eclectic Infidel Mon, Sep 10, 2012 1:59:34pm

re: #4 Destro

I would like to congratulate Palestine on it's next step into joining the family of nations.

How will that work though? Palestine was a region, never a nation.

Buck Mon, Sep 10, 2012 2:08:04pm

re: #10 Destro

Under your view East Timor should still be under Indonesian rule?

You love to compare apples with bananas. East Timor was invaded and occupied by Indonesia.

The land that is currently in dispute was part of Israel long before it was invaded and colonized by arab nations (1948). The land was part of the land mandated to England to transfer from the Ottoman Empire and return to the Jews (1920).

The Arabs in that area immigrated to the area AFTER it had already been returned to the Jews.

War On Music Mon, Sep 10, 2012 4:45:54pm

re: #15 Buck

apparently, prior to 1948 there was never any arabs in the holy land. :eyeroll:

War On Music Mon, Sep 10, 2012 4:49:24pm

re: #7 ckkatz

Yeah, I'm not saying all Israelis believe that. But I do now it is a line pulled out by the campus crusaders, and talk about how the PA isn't a "viable state" is on the same level (although I agree the PA isn't a viable state and as such should be disbanded).

As a North American, it's not my job to tell Palestinians how to achieve there freedom. It's my job to stand in solidarity where I can and help build an international movement to put pressure on my nation and the oppressor nation to move towards change.

Buck Mon, Sep 10, 2012 5:36:47pm

re: #16 War On Music

apparently, prior to 1948 there was never any arabs in the holy land. :eyeroll:

There were. Many sold their land to Jews and Jewish agencies. Many stayed and became Israeli citizens. What is the problem? There was no country. There was no invasion. There was no occupation. The same international bodies gave over land from the Ottoman Empire to create Lebanon. Did the people who lived there at the time become occupied?

There were Jews there, in the Holy Land prior to 1948.

What is your point? The land was returned, transferred legally to the Jews. Not stolen, not invaded.

Buck Mon, Sep 10, 2012 5:45:15pm

Arabs immigrated en masse to the desolate region to take advantage of the economic development created by the Zionists. Arabs constituted 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel.

Buck Mon, Sep 10, 2012 5:47:00pm

It is the Jews who are the indigenous people of the region.

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 10, 2012 5:52:54pm

re: #16 War On Music

apparently, prior to 1948 there was never any arabs in the holy land. :eyeroll:

There were. Just rather fewer than you might think if you read bad history, and more recently in the area.

War On Music Mon, Sep 10, 2012 6:27:50pm

re: #18 Buck

and those who didn't sell there land and didn't become Israeli citizens? Those who where forced out by Jewish paramilitaries at the end of a gun?

And can you give me a reason why the British had authority to hand over land, if not for imperialism and colonialism of conquering Africa?

re: #21 SanFranciscoZionist

Still more then enough to be the majority, correct? Isn't this what it is all about, demographics control?

Dark_Falcon Mon, Sep 10, 2012 6:55:41pm

re: #22 War On Music

and those who didn't sell there land and didn't become Israeli citizens? Those who where forced out by Jewish paramilitaries at the end of a gun?

And can you give me a reason why the British had authority to hand over land, if not for imperialism and colonialism of conquering Africa?

re: #21 SanFranciscoZionist

Still more then enough to be the majority, correct? Isn't this what it is all about, demographics control?

Those who were forced out were a small minority (In Tel Aviv and Jaffa the Jewish forces made every effort to convince the Arabs of those cities to stay, but the Arabs were afraid of being seen as traitors if they did). For them, all i can say is "Woe to the vanquished!" Nasty, i know, but sometimes that is simply the reality of what happens when you lose a war.

The British gained authority over the Levant by defeating the Ottoman Turks, who were the previous conquerors. The British held the territory under a mandate from the League of Nations to prepare the region for self-government.

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 10, 2012 7:30:51pm

re: #22 War On Music

and those who didn't sell there land and didn't become Israeli citizens? Those who where forced out by Jewish paramilitaries at the end of a gun?

And can you give me a reason why the British had authority to hand over land, if not for imperialism and colonialism of conquering Africa?

re: #21 SanFranciscoZionist

Still more then enough to be the majority, correct? Isn't this what it is all about, demographics control?

Sure, Arabs are a majority in the region, albeit far from the only ethnic group.

I have no idea what you consider to be 'it', that is all about demographics control. The partition plan, ill-advised as its boundaries were (and we're all still living with them) reflected the demographic situation in the 40s, yes.

As for the Brits, if you're really interested, you can find out how they came into control in the area. Yes, imperialism had quite a bit to do with it, as it did for the Ottomans before them, and the Mamluks before them, and the Crusader kingdoms before them, and several different Caliphates before them, and the Byzantines before that.

What you're probably coming in with, however, and if I am wrong, please do forgive me, is the notion that as all these empires handed this scrap of land back and forth between them, there still existed some sort of fundamental claim to eventual independence which you consider to legitimately belong to Arabs in the region, and not to other ethnic groups.

In other words, you're accepting the 'indigenous majority Palestinian culture from time immemorial' concept, which does not really reflect the demographic realities of nineteenth and twentieth century Palestine. There was a lot of immigration, especially during the first half of the twentieth century, of both Jews and Arabs from elsewhere in the region, not to mention Jews coming in from Europe from long before Zionism declared itself as political movement. Both groups were considered to have, when the carving up finally took place, a legitimate right to stake out a claim on the land of former mandate Palestine. (The issue of Jordan is another, even more complicated, factor.)

Then, of course, a whole lot of khara hit the proverbial fan, and sixty-plus years worth of hell proceeded to break loose. Now what? My own stance is that if there is some way to create a functioning Palestinian state, it's the best way out of this mess that I can see. But you have to get there with real history, not highfalutin talk about 'solidarity' and 'oppressor nations'.

Destro Mon, Sep 10, 2012 8:40:22pm

re: #15 Buck

The West Bank was also invaded and occupied by Israel.

Destro Mon, Sep 10, 2012 8:43:59pm

re: #20 Buck

It is the Jews who are the indigenous people of the region.

Jewish is a religious designation not an ethnic one so you must mean Hebrews. Genetically there is little difference between Arabs and Hebrews outside of what living in Europe for over 2,000 years added and of course the languages are related.

Destro Mon, Sep 10, 2012 8:46:50pm

re: #22 War On Music

and those who didn't sell there land and didn't become Israeli citizens? Those who where forced out by Jewish paramilitaries at the end of a gun?

And can you give me a reason why the British had authority to hand over land, if not for imperialism and colonialism of conquering Africa?

re: #21 SanFranciscoZionist

Still more then enough to be the majority, correct? Isn't this what it is all about, demographics control?

This notion that selling property transfers national borders is absurd. If an Israeli buys land in America does it make it Israeli territory? Private property does not denote or transfer national sovereignty of the owner onto the land.

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:18:12pm

re: #27 Destro

This notion that selling property transfers national borders is absurd. If an Israeli buys land in America does it make it Israeli territory? Private property does not denote or transfer national sovereignty of the owner onto the land.

Selling property doesn't transfer national borders, it transfers the property. Sometimes. There are spots that have changed hands and nationalities over and over. In the Israeli side of things, you get places like Gush Etzion, Kfar Darom...places built on legally purchased land, lost to riots, repurchased, abandoned or sacked in 1948, rebuilt after 1967, in Kfar Darom's case, evacuated again when the disengagement came around in 2005. Complicated stuff.

The problem, of course, is that the national borders have been disputed and shifting the whole time, and while people have often attempted to maintain or restore claims to pieces of land, it's often a hopeless tangle, or overridden by facts on the ground. Not always.

Then again, no one said that national borders were transferred by the sale of property, if I interpret Buck correctly. But you need to be clear about what national borders you are envisioning.

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:33:34pm

re: #26 Destro

Jewish is a religious designation not an ethnic one so you must mean Hebrews. Genetically there is little difference between Arabs and Hebrews outside of what living in Europe for over 2,000 years added and of course the languages are related.

It would take a doctoral dissertation to unpack the issues lurking what you just said there, so I'm going to settle for a facepalm and gentle backing away.

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:36:05pm

re: #25 Destro

The West Bank was also invaded and occupied by Israel.

Do you happen to recall what led to that?

Destro Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:08:50am

re: #29 SanFranciscoZionist

It would take a doctoral dissertation to unpack the issues lurking what you just said there, so I'm going to settle for a facepalm and gentle backing away.

How about Judaism 101?

[Link: www.jewfaq.org...]

But setting aside the emotional issues, Jews are clearly not a race.

Because of the inaccurate connotations that have attached themselves to the term "nation," the term can no longer be used to accurately describe the Jewish people.

It is clear from the discussion above that there is a certain amount of truth in the claims that it is a religion, a race, or an ethnic group, none of these descriptions is entirely adequate to describe what connects Jews to other Jews. And yet, almost all Jews feel a sense of connectedness to each other that many find hard to explain, define, or even understand. Traditionally, this interconnectedness was understood as "nationhood" or "peoplehood," but those terms have become so distorted over time that they are no longer accurate.

Yea, I know it's complicated but Arabs and Jews are genetically identical. The only other people that share as many DNA markers with Jews are Greeks and Italians. So clearly, Jews are native or originated in that region but so did the Arabs and all Semitic speaking peoples.

Destro Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:11:28am

re: #30 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you happen to recall what led to that?

It does not matter who started it, civilians are not to be disenfranchised from their rights due to invasions or wars and that included property rights.

The notion that losing a war means the victor gets the spoils ended after WW2.

Might no longer makes right.

Dark_Falcon Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:11:30am

re: #25 Destro

The West Bank was also invaded and occupied by Israel.

After Jordanian artillery based there fired on Israeli positions during the 6-Day War of 1967. Jordan followed that up with an unprovoked airstrike on Israel by its Hawker Hunter strike aircraft. Jordan attacked Israel, in spite of Israel's pleas to Jordan to stay out of the war. Israel counter attacked and defeated the Jordanian forces in the West Bank. Jordan has since signed a peace treaty with Israel, but when it did so it renounced all claims to the West Bank.

Destro Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:13:25am

re: #33 Dark_Falcon

It does not matter who started it, civilians are not to be disenfranchised from their rights due to invasions or wars and that included property rights.

The notion that losing a war means the victor gets the spoils ended after WW2.

Might no longer makes right.

Dark_Falcon Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:28:58am

re: #34 Destro

It does not matter who started it, civilians are not to be disenfranchised from their rights due to invasions or wars and that included property rights.

The notion that losing a war means the victor gets the spoils ended after WW2.

Might no longer makes right.

They never had an effective franchise before 1967. Israel has tried to offer them a state, but they have refused, preferring violent intransigence. Civilians can be punished or controlled if they join the "war against the occupying power". Now such punishments are regulated now*, especially by Israeli law, but the fact remains that the West Bank Palestinian population has refused all Israeli attempts at a negotiated solution and peace.

Destro Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:44:39am

hey never had an effective franchise? Human rights are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. You right wingers think rights are collective? Or are at a national level?

and your statement " Civilians can be punished or controlled if they join the "war against the occupying power"

Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime. Fascist pig.

Dark_Falcon Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:57:10am

re: #36 Destro

hey never had an effective franchise? Human rights are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. You right wingers think rights are collective? Or are at a national level?

You used the word "disenfranchised". One cannot be disenfranchised if one was never enfranchised in the first place.

and your statement " Civilians can be punished or controlled if they join the "war against the occupying power"

Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime. Fascist pig.

Collective punishment is a requirement when dealing with a tribal society. You have to punish the tribe or bring its leaders around to a cooperative stance, its the only way to restrain its members. Otherwise you will not be taking effective action and the elders will simply keep ordering their young men to attack.

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:59:59am

re: #31 Destro

How about Judaism 101?

Yea, I know it's complicated but Arabs and Jews are genetically identical. The only other people that share as many DNA markers with Jews are Greeks and Italians. So clearly, Jews are native or originated in that region but so did the Arabs and all Semitic speaking peoples.

Oh boy, deep sigh.

I wonder how the hell WWI ever happened. Germans and Englishmen share such a strong genetic bond.

Destro Tue, Sep 11, 2012 8:00:26am

re: #37 Dark_Falcon

Fascist pig statement I have read in a long time. Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime. Human rights are not dependent on national borders of any sort of franchise.

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 11, 2012 8:01:15am

re: #36 Destro

hey never had an effective franchise? Human rights are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. You right wingers think rights are collective? Or are at a national level?

and your statement " Civilians can be punished or controlled if they join the "war against the occupying power"

Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime. Fascist pig.

Platitudes! So much better than actually discussing what the hell happened.

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Sep 11, 2012 8:03:10am

re: #34 Destro

It does not matter who started it, civilians are not to be disenfranchised from their rights due to invasions or wars and that included property rights.

True. I assume that means the heirs of the people who bought the land that Gush Etzion stands on still own it, despite the argument that Gush is an 'illegal settlement block'?

Bangs head on wall, gently.

Destro Tue, Sep 11, 2012 8:06:00am

re: #38 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh boy, deep sigh.

I wonder how the hell WWI ever happened. Germans and Englishmen share such a strong genetic bond.

I am not arguing genetic bonds means there should be peace. I am arguing that to claim Arabs are not native to the region of modern Israel and Palestine is just as wrong as to claim Jews did not originate from that region. Yes, I approve of Zionism and I stated it before many times. Germans have a form of Zionism (Germans born abroad can migrate to Germany and become citizens) as do Russians (Russians born in the former USSR can return to Russia with full citizen rights, etc), Greeks (Greeks most recently fled Georgia for Greece), etc.

So with all that said, just stop the mother effing settlements already into the West Bank. Stop using religion to justify settlements and invasion of land for towns of settlers. Stop.

Destro Tue, Sep 11, 2012 8:07:26am

re: #41 SanFranciscoZionist

True. I assume that means the heirs of the people who bought the land that Gush Etzion stands on still own it, despite the argument that Gush is an 'illegal settlement block'?

Bangs head on wall, gently.

Jews can and should own land in the West Bank - but under a Palestinian flag with no Israeli military there without any threat that that land will transfer to Israel one day because Israeli settlers moved there.

Dark_Falcon Tue, Sep 11, 2012 8:25:09am

re: #43 Destro

Jews can and should own land in the West Bank - but under a Palestinian flag with no Israeli military there without any threat that that land will transfer to Israel one day because Israeli settlers moved there.

The problem is that the Palestinians have since 1929 refused to accept Jews within the West Bank, even though there had been Jews there for thousands of years. They Palestinian position as always been that the West Bank must be judenrein*.

*: The use of the Nazi term is deliberate, as I feel the words and deeds of far too many Palestinians merit the comparison.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis 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: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!