Congratulations! Palestine is now a UN non-member state

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I know that the vote isn't over, but considering they had already done that in 1988, I can still use the title.

Anyway, I do believe that the vote will follow through and make them into a UN non-member state (in a few hours?), which is an upgrade in their status from being a permanent observer a-la Vatican City. Here's a BBC link - Here.
More links here.

Alright, the rundown-
This declaration is mostly symbolic, however it will increase their chances of entering UN organizations. They're already in UNESCO, the ICC isn't that far away.

I can start a discussion here, but most of you already have your opinions. I've had fruitless debates with people here who view me in a negative light because of who I am (Me being an Israeli), but I also had other discussions with people who were interested in what was happening right now.

I will try and put out a few talking points for you to address, and later we will see how this thread goes on-
1.The '49 armistice lines that were formed after the violent conflict which gave birth to the state of Israel are now being used as 'border lines'. The fact of the matter is that the 'borders' themselves had military, not diplomatic significance to Israel's neighbors. They were simply the lines where both parties decided to stop the fighting at. It's silly to me that now they are used as a starting point for border negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. They're called the "'67 borders" because they were the same armistice lines that existed before the '67 war.

2.The '49 borders include Gaza. Gaza is governed by Hamas and has major military presence from Islamic Jihad (in Palestine) (biggest other organization there), which is funded and supported by Iran. Does that mean that these territories, governed by a terrorist organization also make this new Palestinian state? Approx. a half of the west bank territories is not controlled by the PA, according to the Oslo Accords the PLO signed with Israel to establish a Palestinian autonomy there in a step towards negotiating a peace treaty with Israel. Are the Israeli controlled areas are also included in this new state?

3. This looks more and more like a leader who is clinging to power in his attempts to sway the public opinion towards his party. I think that Abbas hopes to stop the spread of Hamas support within the West Bank with this action which will bring hope to the Palestinians for their own state. Problems will arise when nothing happens (I'm assuming that nothing noteworthy will happen, or even worse) even after the declaration, which will most likely lead to armed revolt (again).

Right, this is it for me now. You're more than welcomed to offer your own talking points.

I suppose it's something. The current situation is intolerable and something has to give away.

Although this is going to be largely only symbolic. This has been going on for decades. The British washed their hands of this and I think so will the Americans in the end.

Hopefully, these negotiations may go somewhere.

The first link for the BBC site is broken. Can you please fix it? Or is it just me?

Thanks, for the regular updates.

Frission:
I suppose it's something. The current situation is intolerable and something has to give away.

Although this is going to be largely only symbolic. This has been going on for decades. The British washed their hands of this and I think so will the Americans in the end.

Hopefully, these negotiations may go somewhere.

The first link for the BBC site is broken. Can you please fix it? Or is it just me?

Thanks, for the regular updates.

.
Alright, I've fixed the first BBC link. Sorry for the inconvenience. Question - How is the current state intolerable (in your view)? Is it because the Palestinians don't have a nation, because of Israel's presence in the west bank or the suffering caused by the ongoing conflict? Maybe it's all put together.

I don't think this will go anywhere soon. I see it as contributing to the conflict in two ways - 1.Isolating Israel, 2. Being the fuel for the next violent Uprising. These are just my speculations.

TheIronRuler:

Frission:
I suppose it's something. The current situation is intolerable and something has to give away.

Although this is going to be largely only symbolic. This has been going on for decades. The British washed their hands of this and I think so will the Americans in the end.

Hopefully, these negotiations may go somewhere.

The first link for the BBC site is broken. Can you please fix it? Or is it just me?

Thanks, for the regular updates.

.
Alright, I've fixed the first BBC link. Sorry for the inconvenience. Question - How is the current state intolerable (in your view)? Is it because the Palestinians don't have a nation, because of Israel's presence in the west bank or the suffering caused by the ongoing conflict? Maybe it's all put together.

I don't think this will go anywhere soon. I see it as contributing to the conflict in two ways - 1.Isolating Israel, 2. Being the fuel for the next violent Uprising. These are just my speculations.

You should put those questions in the OP. I guarantee I won't be the only one with that opinion.

The situation has been going up for decades. I doubt that Israel will really "fall", but it's going to have find a way to get along with it's neighbors. The area is quickly becoming the Balkans.

Simply put too many are dying.

Hopefully there will a solution to the conflict. Maybe the Arab Springs will encourage people to come up with a better solution. Or the opposite could happen and the status quo will be kept in view of the current instability.

Then again, what do I know?

Regarding the talking points

1) I don't think the UN recognition based on 1949 borders means much. It won't change the day to day situation. For instance Israel will still will taxation for all of the palestinian 'state' regardless of which borders are used. The state issue is a moral and symbolic platform. the 1949 borders being chosen means squat in and of itself.

2) You seem to be trying to draw some correlation to a group existing with are terrorist within the new Palestinaian state to the nature of the Palestinian state itself. They make up a tiny proportion of the population and I'm not sure where you're getting that they're the second biggest organisation. The JDL existed in the USA. Does that mean the USA is an inherently Jewsish supremesist nation? Terrorist has been so overused that simply labelling an opposition organisation terrorist means nothing. The ANC in South Africa is a good example of this, but even Yahtzee's most recent video points this out.

3) I think anti-hamas influence will have played an effect on Abbas, but to label that as the reason is far far to simplistic. There are dozens of influences effecting this decision and Palestian statehood recognition has been popular with palestinians for years. To highlight this as the main issue is reductionist and unrealistic.

Frission:

TheIronRuler:

Frission:
I suppose it's something. The current situation is intolerable and something has to give away.

Although this is going to be largely only symbolic. This has been going on for decades. The British washed their hands of this and I think so will the Americans in the end.

Hopefully, these negotiations may go somewhere.

The first link for the BBC site is broken. Can you please fix it? Or is it just me?

Thanks, for the regular updates.

.
Alright, I've fixed the first BBC link. Sorry for the inconvenience. Question - How is the current state intolerable (in your view)? Is it because the Palestinians don't have a nation, because of Israel's presence in the west bank or the suffering caused by the ongoing conflict? Maybe it's all put together.

I don't think this will go anywhere soon. I see it as contributing to the conflict in two ways - 1.Isolating Israel, 2. Being the fuel for the next violent Uprising. These are just my speculations.

You should put those questions in the OP. I guarantee I won't be the only one with that opinion.

The situation has been going up for decades. I doubt that Israel will really "fall", but it's going to have find a way to get along with it's neighbors. The area is quickly becoming the Balkans.

Simply put too many are dying.

Hopefully there will a solution to the conflict. Maybe the Arab Springs will encourage people to come up with a better solution. Or the opposite could happen and the status quo will be kept in view of the current instability.

Then again, what do I know?

.
I don't think that you can compare the Balkans in the 80s-90s to the situation with Israel and its neighbors.... unless you turn it around, and make some adjustments, and ignore some- oh, now you've made me try and compare the two in the head. Darn it.

Too many are dying? Current UN lists Palestinian authority with 3.7 deaths per 1000, Israel is 5.5 (source). If you're talking about the amount of people dying in this conflict, the Iran-Iraq war ('80-'88) had more than one million deaths. You should put it in proportion. Hell, nobody is opening a thread about these guys.

TheIronRuler:
I've had fruitless debates with people here who view me in a negative light because of who I am,

This is going to be a wonderful discussion.

In his first post, the OP already insults everybody who even slightly disagrees with him as being anti-Semitic.

Overhead:
Regarding the talking points

1) I don't think the UN recognition based on 1949 borders means much. It won't change the day to day situation. For instance Israel will still will taxation for all of the palestinian 'state' regardless of which borders are used. The state issue is a moral and symbolic platform. the 1949 borders being chosen means squat in and of itself.

2) You seem to be trying to draw some correlation to a group existing with are terrorist within the new Palestinaian state to the nature of the Palestinian state itself. They make up a tiny proportion of the population and I'm not sure where you're getting that they're the second biggest organisation. The JDL existed in the USA. Does that mean the USA is an inherently Jewsish supremesist nation? Terrorist has been so overused that simply labelling an opposition organisation terrorist means nothing. The ANC in South Africa is a good example of this, but even Yahtzee's most recent video points this out.

3) I think anti-hamas influence will have played an effect on Abbas, but to label that as the reason is far far to simplistic. There are dozens of influences effecting this decision and Palestian statehood recognition has been popular with palestinians for years. To highlight this as the main issue is reductionist and unrealistic.

.
1) Ah, at least they gave them the PA to try and ease tensions.

2) I'm saying that these borders include the entity of Hamas controlled Gaza. This is ridiculous - how is it supposed to be a part of a Palestinian state if the two parties have been fighting each other not too long ago. The issue I raised was that the PA doesn't control the territory it wants to claim as its own in their bid of statehood. A third of its future citizens is controlled*administered by an enemy of Israel - does that make them the enemy of Israel?

3) Please read what I had written, which is that this is a talking point I want to address. It looks more and more like Abbas trying to save himself and his reputation. His attempts at diplomatically reaching an agreement with Israel had failed, so he is continuing to diplomatically strengthen the position of the PA. However this appears like Abbas is failing to achieve his goal through peace, and it might just open a gateway to Hamas winning public opinion and continuing violent struggle against Israel. THIS is what I meant, if you couldn't gather that from the OP.

TheBelgianGuy:

TheIronRuler:
I've had fruitless debates with people here who view me in a negative light because of who I am,

This is going to be a wonderful discussion.

In his first post, the OP already insults everybody who even slightly disagrees with him as being anti-Semitic.

.
Err, where did I say that? I've been called biased many, many times because I live in Israel and I'm an Israeli citizen. This is what I meant.

TheIronRuler:

2) I'm saying that these borders include the entity of Hamas controlled Gaza. This is ridiculous - how is it supposed to be a part of a Palestinian state if the two parties have been fighting each other not too long ago. The issue I raised was that the PA doesn't control the territory it wants to claim as its own in their bid of statehood. A third of its future citizens is controlled*administered by an enemy of Israel - does that make them the enemy of Israel?

Ridiculous? The Palestianian state was just as split a week ago as it is today. This confers no greater or lesser power upon either governing body except in very subjective terms. this is simply giving the tiniest bit of legitimacy for a state of affairs that has been going on in various incarnations for decades.

3) Please read what I had written, which is that this is a talking point I want to address. It looks more and more like Abbas trying to save himself and his reputation. His attempts at diplomatically reaching an agreement with Israel had failed, so he is continuing to diplomatically strengthen the position of the PA. However this appears like Abbas is failing to achieve his goal through peace, and it might just open a gateway to Hamas winning public opinion and continuing violent struggle against Israel. THIS is what I meant, if you couldn't gather that from the OP.

I think my same analysis still applies to this slightly different take on it. If you've a negative assessment of Abbas, you'll think badly of him for this. Vice versa with a positive assessment.

There are so many reasons for this to be pushed forward, that assuming that an inherently negative reason takes precedence (to save himself and his reputation) will only happen if you already have a very negative view of him. It does not provide in and of itself a reason to think worse of Abbas.

Overhead:

TheIronRuler:

2) I'm saying that these borders include the entity of Hamas controlled Gaza. This is ridiculous - how is it supposed to be a part of a Palestinian state if the two parties have been fighting each other not too long ago. The issue I raised was that the PA doesn't control the territory it wants to claim as its own in their bid of statehood. A third of its future citizens is controlled*administered by an enemy of Israel - does that make them the enemy of Israel?

Ridiculous? The Palestianian state was just as split a week ago as it is today. This confers no greater or lesser power upon either governing body except in very subjective terms. this is simply giving the tiniest bit of legitimacy for a state of affairs that has been going on in various incarnations for decades.

3) Please read what I had written, which is that this is a talking point I want to address. It looks more and more like Abbas trying to save himself and his reputation. His attempts at diplomatically reaching an agreement with Israel had failed, so he is continuing to diplomatically strengthen the position of the PA. However this appears like Abbas is failing to achieve his goal through peace, and it might just open a gateway to Hamas winning public opinion and continuing violent struggle against Israel. THIS is what I meant, if you couldn't gather that from the OP.

I think my same analysis still applies to this slightly different take on it. If you've a negative assessment of Abbas, you'll think badly of him for this. Vice versa with a positive assessment.

There are so many reasons for this to be pushed forward, that assuming that an inherently negative reason takes precedence (to save himself and his reputation) will only happen if you already have a very negative view of him. It does not provide in and of itself a reason to think worse of Abbas.

.
2) Hm... You're right at the end of things. The issue I'm raising here is that Palestine is being admitted to the UN within the '49 armistice lines - including the territories the PA doesn't control. I... I don't know. Maybe the vote is really that insignificant.

3) Oh no, no, no, I don't think Abbas in a negative light. He's a person Israel can speak with - hell, we've been doing that for a long time now. I don't know how things go down in the negotiations themselves (I wish I could have been a fly in the room), but I know that with him Israel has a 'partner for peace'. I'm saying that the political status of Fatah and Hamas threatening the PLO - claiming it is the real organization to represent all Palestinians is a driving force behind his decision to go to the UN. When I read people talking about how the war in Gaza is a political move by Netanyahu, I didn't see you counter that argument with the same one here. Internal politics matter. I do have to note that this isn't the only drive behind this decision.

TheIronRuler:
3) Oh no, no, no, I don't think Abbas in a negative light. He's a person Israel can speak with - hell, we've been doing that for a long time now. I don't know how things go down in the negotiations themselves (I wish I could have been a fly in the room), but I know that with him Israel has a 'partner for peace'. I'm saying that the political status of Fatah and Hamas threatening the PLO - claiming it is the real organization to represent all Palestinians is a driving force behind his decision to go to the UN. When I read people talking about how the war in Gaza is a political move by Netanyahu, I didn't see you counter that argument with the same one here. Internal politics matter. I do have to note that this isn't the only drive behind this decision.

I don't think the fact that this benefits him in internal matters is up for dispute. It gives him an advantage over Hamas by pro-actively furthering Palestine's representation in a very populist manner. If this advantage was actually a factor is disputable.

The thing is we don't have any real evidence to come to decision on this matter on and we almost certainly never will. People critical of Abbas will assume that he used this as political one-upmanship. People favourable of him will hold this as representing the people of the PA. There is no way for us to tell.

The thing is, what is presented will just be interpretations of his actions. Promoting Palestinian UN legitimacy does not in itself lend itself to one cause or another. If you can find a position which suggest otherwise then feel free to put it forward, but as far as I'm concerned the question you raised of (essentially) "Is Abbas doing this to promote himself internally" is a non-starter. The event itself doesn't add anything so we have nothing to go on but our preconceptions of of Abbas based on past events, so it is more just a generic poll of what people think of him than anything relevant to Palestine's new status.

If we're taking a show of hands, I'll go with a "He's not great but he's alright and there could be worse".

If it actually goes through, that'll be great. This is at least an attempt at a peaceful solution.

.......And I am ashamed that Canada, my country plans to vote against. Stupid Harper...

Overhead:

TheIronRuler:
3) Oh no, no, no, I don't think Abbas in a negative light. He's a person Israel can speak with - hell, we've been doing that for a long time now. I don't know how things go down in the negotiations themselves (I wish I could have been a fly in the room), but I know that with him Israel has a 'partner for peace'. I'm saying that the political status of Fatah and Hamas threatening the PLO - claiming it is the real organization to represent all Palestinians is a driving force behind his decision to go to the UN. When I read people talking about how the war in Gaza is a political move by Netanyahu, I didn't see you counter that argument with the same one here. Internal politics matter. I do have to note that this isn't the only drive behind this decision.

I don't think the fact that this benefits him in internal matters is up for dispute. It gives him an advantage over Hamas by pro-actively furthering Palestine's representation in a very populist manner. If this advantage was actually a factor is disputable.

The thing is we don't have any real evidence to come to decision on this matter on and we almost certainly never will. People critical of Abbas will assume that he used this as political one-upmanship. People favourable of him will hold this as representing the people of the PA. There is no way for us to tell.

The thing is, what is presented will just be interpretations of his actions. Promoting Palestinian UN legitimacy does not in itself lend itself to one cause or another. If you can find a position which suggest otherwise then feel free to put it forward, but as far as I'm concerned the question you raised of (essentially) "Is Abbas doing this to promote himself internally" is a non-starter. The event itself doesn't add anything so we have nothing to go on but our preconceptions of of Abbas based on past events, so it is more just a generic poll of what people think of him than anything relevant to Palestine's new status.

If we're taking a show of hands, I'll go with a "He's not great but he's alright and there could be worse".

.
Hmm.... I was trying to bring Hamas creeping into the West bank here, but I can't argue with your point.

Do you have any points or issues you want to raise regarding this event? I'm curious to hear it.

This seems like good news. Anything that gives the PA more legitimacy and Hamas less legitimacy can only be good, right? And I know the PA doesn't control Gaza, but back when they signed the Oslo Accords, weren't they exiled to Libya or something? So it wouldn't be the first time they signed a treaty over land they don't really own.

aegix drakan:
If it actually goes through, that'll be great. This is at least an attempt at a peaceful solution.

.......And I am ashamed that Canada, my country plans to vote against. Stupid Harper...

Heh, my country was going to vote against, but then changed it's mind to abstaining because the PM is busy arguing she wasn't involved in the moon landing hoax.

It's a peaceful and diplomatic approach, it's a step in the direction of a sovereign two state solution, it might actually accomplish something. Let's hope it'll work out.

Skeleon:
It's a peaceful and diplomatic approach, it's a step in the direction of a sovereign two state solution, it might actually accomplish something. Let's hope it'll work out.

Actually it's not a diplomatic approach, the good thing in this bid is that it nullifies the Oslo accords, and the Wye River agreement, and will make it quite clear that the PA is not viable to form a state in any borders, they control half the so called state, and have very little support even in the territories they do control.

This bid is technically a downgrade from their current status, as the GA had already accepted the PA statehood declaration in 1988. But the GA is not mandated to recognize states, the Security Council is the sole body of the UN which can do so, and in there there is a guaranteed veto from the US and Germany for any Palestinian unilateral statehood bid.

dyre:
This seems like good news. Anything that gives the PA more legitimacy and Hamas less legitimacy can only be good, right? And I know the PA doesn't control Gaza, but back when they signed the Oslo Accords, weren't they exiled to Libya or something? So it wouldn't be the first time they signed a treaty over land they don't really own.

Eh? Jordan and Lebanon exiled PLO, PLF, PLFP and AMAL members to Libya not Israel... It's also had nothing to do with the Oslo accords, wrong decade(well decades to be exact, 1970's and 80's).

Also as stated this bid nullifies any standing agreements with Israel which means Israel is free to extended settlements, prevent any Palestinians from entering Israeli controlled territory, cease all transfer of funds, duties, power and water, and unilaterally define it's borders.
So except from some PR the Palestinians don't really gain any thing.

dyre:
This seems like good news. Anything that gives the PA more legitimacy and Hamas less legitimacy can only be good, right? And I know the PA doesn't control Gaza, but back when they signed the Oslo Accords, weren't they exiled to Libya or something? So it wouldn't be the first time they signed a treaty over land they don't really own.

.
The PA -Palestinian Authority, didn't exist before the signing of the Oslo Accords.
.

thaluikhain:

aegix drakan:
If it actually goes through, that'll be great. This is at least an attempt at a peaceful solution.

.......And I am ashamed that Canada, my country plans to vote against. Stupid Harper...

Heh, my country was going to vote against, but then changed it's mind to abstaining because the PM is busy arguing she wasn't involved in the moon landing hoax.

.
Wait, what did I just read?

TheIronRuler:

Overhead:

TheIronRuler:
3) Oh no, no, no, I don't think Abbas in a negative light. He's a person Israel can speak with - hell, we've been doing that for a long time now. I don't know how things go down in the negotiations themselves (I wish I could have been a fly in the room), but I know that with him Israel has a 'partner for peace'. I'm saying that the political status of Fatah and Hamas threatening the PLO - claiming it is the real organization to represent all Palestinians is a driving force behind his decision to go to the UN. When I read people talking about how the war in Gaza is a political move by Netanyahu, I didn't see you counter that argument with the same one here. Internal politics matter. I do have to note that this isn't the only drive behind this decision.

I don't think the fact that this benefits him in internal matters is up for dispute. It gives him an advantage over Hamas by pro-actively furthering Palestine's representation in a very populist manner. If this advantage was actually a factor is disputable.

The thing is we don't have any real evidence to come to decision on this matter on and we almost certainly never will. People critical of Abbas will assume that he used this as political one-upmanship. People favourable of him will hold this as representing the people of the PA. There is no way for us to tell.

The thing is, what is presented will just be interpretations of his actions. Promoting Palestinian UN legitimacy does not in itself lend itself to one cause or another. If you can find a position which suggest otherwise then feel free to put it forward, but as far as I'm concerned the question you raised of (essentially) "Is Abbas doing this to promote himself internally" is a non-starter. The event itself doesn't add anything so we have nothing to go on but our preconceptions of of Abbas based on past events, so it is more just a generic poll of what people think of him than anything relevant to Palestine's new status.

If we're taking a show of hands, I'll go with a "He's not great but he's alright and there could be worse".

.
Hmm.... I was trying to bring Hamas creeping into the West bank here, but I can't argue with your point.

Do you have any points or issues you want to raise regarding this event? I'm curious to hear it.

I don't think this changes much. It's a tiny step forward for Palestine in gaining legitimacy and probably a slightly larger step backward in relations with the Israeli government who have been dead set against this. Probably the biggest point is the use of the ICC that this could lead to. Even if nothing came of any cases that Palestine tried to have prosecuted, as I doubt any Israeli citizen would actually end up in The Hague what with Israel not being a member state and even if they were that doesn't necessarily mean there will found guilty; the mere circumstances of the ICC wanting an Israeli politician or military officer to stand trial for crimes against humanity or some such would be a fairly major propaganda blow against Israel.

TheIronRuler:
Snip

Has Israel government made any comment, objection to, or otherwise talked about this and do you think the recent "conflict" had anything to with the UN's inclusion of Palestine as puesdo-member (say, as a way to ease tensions)?

Overhead:

TheIronRuler:

Overhead:

I don't think the fact that this benefits him in internal matters is up for dispute. It gives him an advantage over Hamas by pro-actively furthering Palestine's representation in a very populist manner. If this advantage was actually a factor is disputable.

The thing is we don't have any real evidence to come to decision on this matter on and we almost certainly never will. People critical of Abbas will assume that he used this as political one-upmanship. People favourable of him will hold this as representing the people of the PA. There is no way for us to tell.

The thing is, what is presented will just be interpretations of his actions. Promoting Palestinian UN legitimacy does not in itself lend itself to one cause or another. If you can find a position which suggest otherwise then feel free to put it forward, but as far as I'm concerned the question you raised of (essentially) "Is Abbas doing this to promote himself internally" is a non-starter. The event itself doesn't add anything so we have nothing to go on but our preconceptions of of Abbas based on past events, so it is more just a generic poll of what people think of him than anything relevant to Palestine's new status.

If we're taking a show of hands, I'll go with a "He's not great but he's alright and there could be worse".

.
Hmm.... I was trying to bring Hamas creeping into the West bank here, but I can't argue with your point.

Do you have any points or issues you want to raise regarding this event? I'm curious to hear it.

I don't think this changes much. It's a tiny step forward for Palestine in gaining legitimacy and probably a slightly larger step backward in relations with the Israeli government who have been dead set against this. Probably the biggest point is the use of the ICC that this could lead to. Even if nothing came of any cases that Palestine tried to have prosecuted, as I doubt any Israeli citizen would actually end up in The Hague what with Israel not being a member state and even if they were that doesn't necessarily mean there will found guilty; the mere circumstances of the ICC wanting an Israeli politician or military officer to stand trial for crimes against humanity or some such would be a fairly major propaganda blow against Israel.

.
That's... surprisingly reasonable. I agree.
.

Not G. Ivingname:

TheIronRuler:
Snip

Has Israel government made any comment, objection to, or otherwise talked about this and do you think the recent "conflict" had anything to with the UN's inclusion of Palestine as puesdo-member (say, as a way to ease tensions)?

.
Do you want the 'official' response or the response coming from the plethora of Parliament members? I heard people say that this nullifies the Oslo Accords, and Israel threatened before to impose financial sanctions on the PA and restrict the movement of its officials in response to this. Besides that I've heard some extreme voices like calling to annex Area C and let them have their state on their own (Not all of area C, naturally, just the ones with majority Jewish population). That voice comes from a nationalist religious right-wing party and it's not as powerful or influential as it wants to pretend. Other than that lots of people saying it'll either do nothing at all or be another block in future negotiations.

Do you want to hear my opinion? I think that in earlier negotiations they've been talking from a stance of weakness - this step could allow them to demand more in future negotiations and use the new toys the PA will get against Israel as deterrence.

To be honest I'm still not sure what steps Israel would take in response to this, but I will keep you updated when further details come out.

TheIronRuler:

.

Not G. Ivingname:

TheIronRuler:
Snip

Has Israel government made any comment, objection to, or otherwise talked about this and do you think the recent "conflict" had anything to with the UN's inclusion of Palestine as puesdo-member (say, as a way to ease tensions)?

.
Do you want the 'official' response or the response coming from the plethora of Parliament members? I heard people say that this nullifies the Oslo Accords, and Israel threatened before to impose financial sanctions on the PA and restrict the movement of its officials in response to this. Besides that I've heard some extreme voices like calling to annex Area C and let them have their state on their own (Not all of area C, naturally, just the ones with majority Jewish population). That voice comes from a nationalist religious right-wing party and it's not as powerful or influential as it wants to pretend. Other than that lots of people saying it'll either do nothing at all or be another block in future negotiations.

Do you want to hear my opinion? I think that in earlier negotiations they've been talking from a stance of weakness - this step could allow them to demand more in future negotiations and use the new toys the PA will get against Israel as deterrence.

To be honest I'm still not sure what steps Israel would take in response to this, but I will keep you updated when further details come out.

True, we will just have to lean back and see what happens, good or ill. :/

Overhead:
I don't think this changes much. It's a tiny step forward for Palestine in gaining legitimacy and probably a slightly larger step backward in relations with the Israeli government who have been dead set against this. Probably the biggest point is the use of the ICC that this could lead to. Even if nothing came of any cases that Palestine tried to have prosecuted, as I doubt any Israeli citizen would actually end up in The Hague what with Israel not being a member state and even if they were that doesn't necessarily mean there will found guilty; the mere circumstances of the ICC wanting an Israeli politician or military officer to stand trial for crimes against humanity or some such would be a fairly major propaganda blow against Israel.

I doubt the PA would actually attempt to get involved with the ICC, since they can be also sued by parties and non-parties.
Israel has no reason to be a party in the ICC or any other UN body in their current formation, Israel can not join any regional group(it's some what a member of the EU group now), and since most UN bodies split the representatives between the regional group Israel will always be at a political disadvantage since the regional groups give Arab states a guaranteed ability to pass any thing they want trough any UN body.
The ICC also has on paper too much power, can be hijacked easily for political gain instead of actually investigating issue, and does not deal with the biggest issues in the world today such as terrorism, and international crime(human trafficking, weapon smuggling, drug trade etc).

If any thing it would interesting to see if the PA would actually use the ICC against Jordan not Israel, since Jordan has also a Palestinian problem and they dealing with it in their way which results in no-less discrimination and could be used by the Palestinian groups in Jordan that want to topple the Hashemite regime.

In any case the ICC is a nice idealistic dream, but in the real world not worth the money or effort, since at the end of the day the only time it actually is doing something is when NATO drags some one into court by force...

TheIronRuler:

Do you want the 'official' response or the response coming from the plethora of Parliament members? I heard people say that this nullifies the Oslo Accords, and Israel threatened before to impose financial sanctions on the PA and restrict the movement of its officials in response to this.

Israel has kind of weakened it's stance. Kinda.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/israel-palestinian-statehood-un-vote

See before they were saying that the Oslo accords could be nullified, the PA could be toppled, etc. Now they're saying "When we choose to respond, we will carefully weigh our options. We will do everything we can that's within Israeli law and within the framework of the agreements we signed with the Palestinians."

The reason this is only kind of a weakening of their stance is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. The former more extreme statements were always qualified as being appropriate and within Israel's rights because Palestinian UN recognition without Israel's approval was meant to breach the Oslo accords which would then allow Israel to ignore the Oslo Accords; which are the cornerstone for the PA's authority and existence. They're not cancelling the agreements because it's Palestine that's already voided them, was the argument.

Basically Israel always maintained toppling the PA and nullifying the Oslo accord were within their rights according to national and international law and they never stated that's what they'd definitely do. So saying they have a number of options they're considering which they are allowed to follow through with according to international and national law does not discount that they will still go with these original options.

The only difference is they're no longer being so crude and forthright about these possible huge and game-changing steps. They're still there, lurking as a possibility to be used if needed, but they're not being overtly mentioned as they were a week or so ago.

I'm interpreting their lack of forthrightness as speaking to an Israeli recognition that these actions would be too extreme to be recognised by the international community. Personally this minor signal that they won't follow through with early threats is positive. Whatever the problems between Israel and Palestine at the moment (Take the fighting going on just a week or two ago) I think the nullification of the Oslo Accords and the PA would be a terrible retroactive step that would do nothing but degrade Israeli-Palestinian relations even further and push back any hope of a lasting solution.

Overhead:

TheIronRuler:

Do you want the 'official' response or the response coming from the plethora of Parliament members? I heard people say that this nullifies the Oslo Accords, and Israel threatened before to impose financial sanctions on the PA and restrict the movement of its officials in response to this.

Israel has kind of weakened it's stance. Kinda.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/israel-palestinian-statehood-un-vote

See before they were saying that the Oslo accords could be nullified, the PA could be toppled, etc. Now they're saying "When we choose to respond, we will carefully weigh our options. We will do everything we can that's within Israeli law and within the framework of the agreements we signed with the Palestinians."

The reason this is only kind of a weakening of their stance is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. The former more extreme statements were always qualified as being appropriate and within Israel's rights because Palestinian UN recognition without Israel's approval was meant to breach the Oslo accords which would then allow Israel to ignore the Oslo Accords; which are the cornerstone for the PA's authority and existence. They're not cancelling the agreements because it's Palestine that's already voided them, was the argument.

Basically Israel always maintained toppling the PA and nullifying the Oslo accord were within their rights according to national and international law and they never stated that's what they'd definitely do. So saying they have a number of options they're considering which they are allowed to follow through with according to international and national law does not discount that they will still go with these original options.

The only difference is they're no longer being so crude and forthright about these possible huge and game-changing steps. They're still there, lurking as a possibility to be used if needed, but they're not being overtly mentioned as they were a week or so ago.

I'm interpreting their lack of forthrightness as speaking to an Israeli recognition that these actions would be too extreme to be recognised by the international community. Personally this minor signal that they won't follow through with early threats is positive. Whatever the problems between Israel and Palestine at the moment (Take the fighting going on just a week or two ago) I think the nullification of the Oslo Accords and the PA would be a terrible retroactive step that would do nothing but degrade Israeli-Palestinian relations even further and push back any hope of a lasting solution.

.
Well, the whole 'topple Abbas' thing was from a leaked internal affairs ministry document, and one should wonder what was its significance.

There are other ways of 'punishing' the PA, for example Israel controls the funds the PA needs to sustain itself (this would halt salaries for those employed in the public sector)... there are many options, but toppling the PA now will only bring in a strong diplomatic and military backlash... It's not worth it.

TheIronRuler:

Too many are dying? Current UN lists Palestinian authority with 3.7 deaths per 1000, Israel is 5.5 (source).

As a quick note, this probably reflects age demographics; the Palestinians are hugely youth-heavy compared to Israel due to a high birth rate. Thus a much smaller proportion of Palestinians are dying from the main causes of death: old age and age-related illness. Conflict casualties are a tragic but ultimately tiny proportion of total deaths for both.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

Too many are dying? Current UN lists Palestinian authority with 3.7 deaths per 1000, Israel is 5.5 (source).

As a quick note, this probably reflects age demographics; the Palestinians are hugely youth-heavy compared to Israel due to a high birth rate. Thus a much smaller proportion of Palestinians are dying from the main causes of death: old age and age-related illness. Conflict casualties are a tragic but ultimately tiny proportion of total deaths for both.

.
Aye, developing countries usually go get into this demographic trend - a very big portion of its population are under 25 compared to developed countries, for example. People saying they don't want more suffering are sometimes misguided- more people die in car accidents in the USA than in the conflict over here.

TheIronRuler:

dyre:
This seems like good news. Anything that gives the PA more legitimacy and Hamas less legitimacy can only be good, right? And I know the PA doesn't control Gaza, but back when they signed the Oslo Accords, weren't they exiled to Libya or something? So it wouldn't be the first time they signed a treaty over land they don't really own.

.
The PA -Palestinian Authority, didn't exist before the signing of the Oslo Accords.
.

I thought Oslo = PLO -> PA?

dyre:

TheIronRuler:

dyre:
This seems like good news. Anything that gives the PA more legitimacy and Hamas less legitimacy can only be good, right? And I know the PA doesn't control Gaza, but back when they signed the Oslo Accords, weren't they exiled to Libya or something? So it wouldn't be the first time they signed a treaty over land they don't really own.

.
The PA -Palestinian Authority, didn't exist before the signing of the Oslo Accords.
.

I thought Oslo = PLO -> PA?

.
...Nope. The PA is a local autonomy that would be a transitional phase and will eventually end up in a Palestinian state (in 5 years. Didn't happen.). The PLO controlled the PA at the time - it's an umbrella organization containing various Palestinian groups, with Fatah being the biggest of them. They are the recognized representative of the Palestinian people. However that does not make the PA=PLO or the PLO=Fatah.

Verbatim:
I doubt the PA would actually attempt to get involved with the ICC, since they can be also sued by parties and non-parties.
Israel has no reason to be a party in the ICC or any other UN body in their current formation, Israel can not join any regional group(it's some what a member of the EU group now), and since most UN bodies split the representatives between the regional group Israel will always be at a political disadvantage since the regional groups give Arab states a guaranteed ability to pass any thing they want trough any UN body.
The ICC also has on paper too much power, can be hijacked easily for political gain instead of actually investigating issue, and does not deal with the biggest issues in the world today such as terrorism, and international crime(human trafficking, weapon smuggling, drug trade etc).

If any thing it would interesting to see if the PA would actually use the ICC against Jordan not Israel, since Jordan has also a Palestinian problem and they dealing with it in their way which results in no-less discrimination and could be used by the Palestinian groups in Jordan that want to topple the Hashemite regime.

In any case the ICC is a nice idealistic dream, but in the real world not worth the money or effort, since at the end of the day the only time it actually is doing something is when NATO drags some one into court by force...

I don't believe Israel has to be party to the ICC for Palestine to pursue a case against Israelis, it just means that there is basically no realistic chance of a trial actually taking place. Simply getting an Israeli figure wanted for questioning by the Hague regarding crimes against humanity will count as a win for Palestine, even if the Israeli never then goes to trial and carries on their day to day life in Israel.

Overhead:

Verbatim:
I doubt the PA would actually attempt to get involved with the ICC, since they can be also sued by parties and non-parties.
Israel has no reason to be a party in the ICC or any other UN body in their current formation, Israel can not join any regional group(it's some what a member of the EU group now), and since most UN bodies split the representatives between the regional group Israel will always be at a political disadvantage since the regional groups give Arab states a guaranteed ability to pass any thing they want trough any UN body.
The ICC also has on paper too much power, can be hijacked easily for political gain instead of actually investigating issue, and does not deal with the biggest issues in the world today such as terrorism, and international crime(human trafficking, weapon smuggling, drug trade etc).

If any thing it would interesting to see if the PA would actually use the ICC against Jordan not Israel, since Jordan has also a Palestinian problem and they dealing with it in their way which results in no-less discrimination and could be used by the Palestinian groups in Jordan that want to topple the Hashemite regime.

In any case the ICC is a nice idealistic dream, but in the real world not worth the money or effort, since at the end of the day the only time it actually is doing something is when NATO drags some one into court by force...

I don't believe Israel has to be party to the ICC for Palestine to pursue a case against Israelis, it just means that there is basically no realistic chance of a trial actually taking place. Simply getting an Israeli figure wanted for questioning by the Hague regarding crimes against humanity will count as a win for Palestine, even if the Israeli never then goes to trial and carries on their day to day life in Israel.

You don't need to be a party in the ICC(Don't confuse it with the ICJ which is mandated to judge violation of international law, and resolve disputes between nation, and which unlike the ICC is a UN body) to do any thing, but you cant file a claim against a non-state member, only the security council can do so.
As it stands Israel can drag many more Palestinian figureheads to court for much more substantiated reasons than the PA ever could, so if they do decide to sign the Rome stature they will open quite a big can of worms on them selves.
People like to yap about Israel and international law, the fact is that Israel actually does not violates it, any remarks about it come from bodies which are not mandated to judge such things, and UN resolution are not international law..
On the other hand there are plenty of people in the PA, not to mention the Hamas and other parties which are members of the Palestinian government with blood on their hands, and not even 2nd hand blood, most of their leadership were directly involved in terrorist attacks against Israeli, Jordanian, Lebanese, and even American targets.
They can inflate and spin what ever they want, but the Hague will never accept such charges, the UK on the other hand did and some "human rights" organizations actually managed to issue arrest warrants against Israeli politicians.
Heck an arrest warrant was issued against Tzipi Livini(form. Prime Minister, and Secretary of State) at the time for participating in the Gaza War, and the Lebanese war. The arrest warrant was quickly revoked, and the law has been amended to prevent such incidents from reoccurring.

...and the very next day Israel reacts in a very provocative way, announcing that it will construct thousands of new homes in the West Bank. I didn't really have an opinion or that much understanding of the history of the whole area until I did some reading last night, and was still mostly apathetic until I read the news this evening. Are the new settlements just political rhetoric? Because it looks like this has been done just to spite the Palestinians and possibly provoke them.

Esotera:
...and the very next day Israel reacts in a very provocative way, announcing that it will construct thousands of new homes in the West Bank. I didn't really have an opinion or that much understanding of the history of the whole area until I did some reading last night, and was still mostly apathetic until I read the news this evening. Are the new settlements just political rhetoric? Because it looks like this has been done just to spite the Palestinians and possibly provoke them.

.
What did you expect? There's an automatic majority of nations against Israel in the UN (Arab, Muslim, ex-soviet, non-aligned) so there was not much it could have done to thwart this move.

The area where they will be constructing these new buildings is right outside of Jerusalem on the west bank side, in the E1 area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E1_(Jerusalem)
This had been in the works since 2009, and it would effectively make the inclusion of east Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine very difficult if not impossible. To be honest, the declaration of Palestine as a state in the UN is one giant middle finger to Israel - all of the major issues in the negotiations between Israel and the PA, which were mostly the border-line, status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and settlements in the west bank were already decided upon in the declaration. THIS is what nobody is talking about - the declaration states that palestine would be built on the '49 armistice lines, with east Jerusalem as its capital, and with the Palestinian refugees coming back to their homes in Israel all the while Israeli settlements will be demolished or placed under local rule.

Instead of dealing with it in negotiations which haven't budged because of these issues, Palestine is effectively making its status stronger and increasing its chances of getting what it declared it would get in the UN declaration. What does Israel do? Give a middle finger right back at them, and announces it would build in that area to further cement Israel presence around Jerusalem.

TheIronRuler:
What did you expect? There's an automatic majority of nations against Israel in the UN (Arab, Muslim, ex-soviet, non-aligned) so there was not much it could have done to thwart this move.

Hey?

Why are non-aligned nations automatically against Israel? That seems like a contradiction in terms.

Also, not too clear on why ex-soviet nations should be automatically in agreement against Israel.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked