Palestinian Statehood.

[Heliosphan]

Surprised to find that there isn't a thread about this already. I've checked the last half a dozen pages, apologies if I missed it.

Is a Palestinian state a bit premature in terms of the many unresolved issues - security, settlements, borders, etc.

Or is the USA, with it's veto power, becoming a stumbling block to peace and failing it's preference for a two state solution?

Personally, I wouldn't vote for the creation of yet another unstable Arab state until the issues of both parties have been satisfied. Then again, a "yes" vote doesn't end negotiation.

What do people think?

[Melvin Udall]

Without a state, I think it will just carry on. Autonomy will be an important factor. Everything else will, as you say, continue to be negotiated. You have to start somewhere, and that seems like the sensible place to start.

[drivin_me_nuts]

It was interesting to listen to Netanyahu speak at the UN just a couple of days ago...

The endless issue; Iran, Arabs and the right for Israel to exist. Will a Palestinian state help or hinder the big picture in the Middle East? The big picture here seems to cause the nation of Israel great worry. Frustrating from both sides. I would be surprised if a state of Palestine is created without some form of big and dramatic defining event.

Here was his Netanyahu's speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imJFnqi5rEs&fea...

[0a]

This may sound ignorant, but I'm not sure what they 'get' if they are awarded statehood. As well as being highly symbolic, I assume they get a seat in the General Assembly. What else?

[Hackney]

Heliosphan said:

Surprised to find that there isn't a thread about this already. I've checked the last half a dozen pages, apologies if I missed it.

Is a Palestinian state a bit premature in terms of the many unresolved issues - security, settlements, borders, etc.

Or is the USA, with it's veto power, becoming a stumbling block to peace and failing it's preference for a two state solution?

Personally, I wouldn't vote for the creation of yet another unstable Arab state until the issues of both parties have been satisfied. Then again, a "yes" vote doesn't end negotiation.

What do people think?

The US has always been a stumbling block. They have regularly used their veto to prevent peace and settlement of the dispute long after the supposed provocative states proposed compromise.

[JagLover]

Hackney said:

The US has always been a stumbling block. They have regularly used their veto to prevent peace and settlement of the dispute long after the supposed provocative states proposed compromise.

Rather unfair as the US was heavily involved in the Camp David talks that so nearly resulted in a permanant settlement, and it was the Palestinians who walked away on that occassion not the Israelis.

The degree of US interest in the middle eastern peace process has varied depending on the president in power , but they do want to see peace if it can be done.

In terms of Vetos I assume you are talking of various UN resolutions that have little to do with achieving a lasting settlement.

[Countdown]

0a said:

This may sound ignorant, but I'm not sure what they 'get' if they are awarded statehood. As well as being highly symbolic, I assume they get a seat in the General Assembly. What else?

I'm not sure either but there must be something, otherwise it wouldn't worry the Israelis or the US so much.

[Countdown]

JagLover said:

Hackney said:

The US has always been a stumbling block. They have regularly used their veto to prevent peace and settlement of the dispute long after the supposed provocative states proposed compromise.

Rather unfair as the US was heavily involved in the Camp David talks that so nearly resulted in a permanant settlement, and it was the Palestinians who walked away on that occassion not the Israelis.

I also think the problem is the jewish vote in the USA. Whilst it may not be huge its sufficient to make a difference at a State level. The thing is, sooner or later the US is not going to be able to afford the $3/4bn it pumps into Israel.

[hesnotthemessiah]

JagLover said:

Rather unfair as the US was heavily involved in the Camp David talks that so nearly resulted in a permanant settlement, and it was the Palestinians who walked away on that occassion not the Israelis.

True, the Palestinian leadership always walk away (from any peaceful solution offer) and have done so for decades. The main sticking point is the Palestinian leadership refusal to drop the 'right' to demographically destroy the Jewish State.

Really not sure if the Palestinian leadership want to keep this 'right' that there will ever be peace in that part of the middle east. IMHO obviously.

[Ozzie Osmond]

hesnotthemessiah said:

The main sticking point is the Palestinian leadership refusal to drop the 'right' to demographically destroy the Jewish State.

So you feel a Jewish minority should be permanently in charge?

How does that differ from a white minority in charge of South Africa a few decade ago?

[Melvin Udall]

Ozzie Osmond said:

So you feel a Jewish minority should be permanently in charge?

How does that differ from a white minority in charge of South Africa a few decade ago?

Because to think otherwise means you're an anti-Semite!

[JagLover]

Ozzie Osmond said:

So you feel a Jewish minority should be permanently in charge?

How does that differ from a white minority in charge of South Africa a few decade ago?

Within the borders of 1967 Israel jews are a majority, the issue is whether the descendants of the arab refugees of 1948 should be allowed to return and make them a minority.

[Welshbeef]

I for one cannot understand why Israel breaches all international laws and direct instruction from key world leaders and the um not to build settlements on land which they have stolen. Yet they do and they are building thousands of them...

[hesnotthemessiah]

Ozzie Osmond said:

So you feel a Jewish minority should be permanently in charge?

How does that differ from a white minority in charge of South Africa a few decade ago?

Your point makes no sense?

Permanently in charge of what?

Each group has the right to exist. And the fact that one party wants to have the right to wipe the other one from existence is a major sticking point for a peaceful solution. That was my point. I didn't say I feel anything. I have no axe to grind one way or another.

And what the hell has South Africa got to do with this? There is no correlation between the two situations?

[Melvin Udall]

Where is this "right to wipe the others off the map" idea come from?

[Victor McDade]

Sell them both state of the art weaponry. Sit back and watch both parties bomb each other back to the stone age. Problem solved.

Both neighbours deserve each other - ironic that this is the so called 'holy land' - you could have fooled me....the Israelis and Palestinians have turned it into the cursed land.

The Palestinians need to recognise that the Israelis are not going anywhere and the Israelis need to recognise you can't just start kicking out people from their homes and then squatting there in the name of 'security'.

[Heliosphan]

Welshbeef said:

I for one cannot understand why Israel breaches all international laws and direct instruction from key world leaders and the um not to build settlements on land which they have stolen. Yet they do and they are building thousands of them...

Because Israel disputes the law.

If the Arabs had accepted the UN resolution for land partition in 1948, they wouldn't be back at the UN with the begging bowl 63 years later. West Bank, therefore, isn't soveriegn territory. It was rejected outright, by force. Seeing as Jews have lived there in varying numbers throughout history they have a right to settle there. Furthermore, the original mandate for Palestine gave right of settlement for anyone anywhere in Palestine regardless of race or religion, that includes the West Bank.

The settlements are a real issue, certainly Israel needs to find some compromise in this respect if peace is to be realised.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Victor McDade said:

ironic that this is the so called 'holy land' - you could have fooled me....the Israelis and Palestinians have turned it into the cursed land.

+1

[Gold]

Victor McDade said:

Both neighbours deserve each other - ironic that this is the so called 'holy land' - you could have fooled me....the Israelis and Palestinians have turned it into the cursed land.

Turned it?

It's been that way for thousands of years.

[MX7]

What's the point in creating a failed state? Their biggest income, I believe, is foreign aid. They seem to have abandoned democracy by postponing elections, and they have pledged to destroy another UN member.

It hardly seems like an ideal situation to create a new country.