This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Palestine's UNESCO Membership & U.S. cuts UNESCO funds
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
91604
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
All I can say for UNESCO is that it's about bloody time that a part of the UN fully recognised Palestine, and that I hope that this sets the tone for Palestine's bid for full statehood with other sections of the UN following suit. As for the US, it's an over reaction, but not an unexpected one.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
I don't really know if Israel and the US have a realistic and clearly defined end game, in all honesty. It seems like they're shutting their eyes and ears over and waiting for the problem to go away of its own accord, really. I'd say that in 1948, the aim was simply to disperse the Palestinians and integrate them into countries such as Jordan... but isn't that exactly what happened to the Jews when the Romans kicked them out of Israel?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It's sad- we'll shoot ourselves in the foot to save face. I think that the overwhelming majority of the international community, as evidenced by the vote, believe that Palestine should be a state. I find it funny that the US is committed to democratic procedure only when it's in our best interests, but when the vote doesn't go our way we throw a tantrum and try to bully our fellow countries by withholding funding.
Making Palestine a state doesn't threaten the peace talks- it puts both parties on equal footing for them. If our agenda is to back Israel unconditionally, then this would be contrary to our interests because it is contrary to theirs. If our agenda is to have a lasting and fair peace, then this is the first step towards that.
I understand that there are a lot of people who, in the general American public, don't fully know the history of the Palestine-Israel conflict, and I think that's what fuels our public policy. They see a Muslim population, which is a group there is already a lot of animosity towards, who have been linked to terrorist activities. Many people have no idea about how recently Israel became a country, how that came to be, or how many times they've broken peace treaties by settling land that wasn't theirs. I'm not going to condone the terrorist responses, because that kind of murder is inexcusable, always. What I will say, though, is that because some people got angry enough to something terrible, doesn't mean that the initial situation wasn't wrong.
To put it in perspective, lets say that some terrible crime took place against...I don't know...Pastafarians (just to keep this example from being sidetracked by people's personal allegiances) in Europe, and millions were murdered. The UN, feeling that they needed some kind of reparations, decided to give them Texas to call their own, even though the US was not the perpetrator of the crime, because there are sites important to their religion there. The US is given no vote in the matter, and those Texans who are living there find themselves being now ruled by Pastafarians from Europe.
Since not everyone is happy about this sudden change in citizenship, they rebel. People in the neighboring states, who sympathize with the Texans desire to live as Americans and not be put under a foreign rule, give them aid and military support. However, the Pastafarians have found an ally that will give them nearly unlimited weaponry and funding, so the resistance is crushed. Texas signs a peace treaty and, for good measure, decides that they're going to keep Louisiana since they'd sent troops there during the war. Now, you have new Americans who are suddenly under the rule of the Pastafarian State of Texas, and they are moving people into that area and bulldozing the homes of people who had lived their for generations, to make room.
Then a few years later, people from Pastafarian Texas start moving over the border into Oklahoma, without permission and without buying land. They're just building houses in abandoned lots, baseball fields, etc. The powers that be, in Oklahoma, decided not to let this stand and they send police to forcibly remove these people from this land. Pastafarian Texas sees this as an attack on them as a country, and so they go to war. They fight, with their ally's resources, and take over all of the places in Oklahoma that they had people living illegally. Then, they sign another peace treaty, and promise not to take any more of Oklahoma. But a few months later, people start moving over the border again, and as soon as the residents try to remove them from the land they're not supposed to be on, Pastafarian Texas goes to war again.
This is what has been happening in the Middle East. Only, because we hear Israel and Palestine, and not Texas and Oklahoma, our prejudices color our perceptions of the events. Also, our media caters to our prejudices in the search for ratings. So every news story we hear is about poor settlers forced off their lands, and not the houses they originally bulldozed to make it their land illegally.
In desperate situations, unfortunately, people do terrible things and evil things. They hurt civilians who have not done anything to them, they create hate and animosity between ethnic groups, and they destroy the credibility of their own cause when they do have a legitimate complaint. In the above situation, no reasonable American would support native Texans who were blowing up schools, and cafes, and train stations to fight the Pastafarians- those are horrible, terrorist actions that should be punished. But they wouldn't let extremist bastards make them discount the fact that the Texans have the right to not have had their country sold out from under them, and that the world has the right to expect Pastafarian Texas to honor it's treaties and international law, and not just annex the land around itself whenever it feels like it has a plausible excuse.
Post by
pezz
It might be that the US simply refuses to see the distinction between individuals who want a Palestinian state, and those individuals who constantly call for a holy war to drive Israel into the sea (there are still those who refuse to recognize Israeli statehood, as well).
If you fail to make that decision, then the actions of the Palestinians will seem monstrously hypocritical.
Post by
Patty
It might be that the US simply refuses to see the distinction between individuals who want a Palestinian state, and those individuals who constantly call for a holy war to drive Israel into the sea (there are still those who refuse to recognize Israeli statehood, as well).
If you fail to make that decision, then the actions of the Palestinians will seem monstrously hypocritical.
But that's a completely asinine assumption that one would expect better than from one of the most influential and powerful countries in the world. If Abbas' bid for statehood fails, it will only undermine him more and give more power to Hamas, the culprits of most of the terrorist attacks on Israel and a group that firmly believes in the crusade against Israel. It makes no sense not to strengthen the PLO's position for the US, Israel or Palestine, if peace
is
indeed what America is after.
Post by
MyTie
Israel has offered Palestine statehood how many times? And how many of those times were on Palestinian terms? Palestine doesn't want statehood by peaceful measures. It doesn't want statehood given to it by Israel. It wants everyone to force Israel to do it, or to take it by force from Israel. This is just Palestine being antagonistic toward Israel.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Israel has offered Palestine statehood how many times? And how many of those times were on Palestinian terms? Palestine doesn't want statehood by peaceful measures. It doesn't want statehood given to it by Israel. It wants everyone to force Israel to do it, or to take it by force from Israel. This is just Palestine being antagonistic toward Israel.
I'd be interested in seeing the sources where Palestine refused statehood offered by Israel. It would be interesting to see what terms they were being offered. Do you have links?
Post by
Patty
Israel has offered Palestine statehood how many times? And how many of those times were on Palestinian terms? Palestine doesn't want statehood by peaceful measures. It doesn't want statehood given to it by Israel. It wants everyone to force Israel to do it, or to take it by force from Israel. This is just Palestine being antagonistic toward Israel.
And Israel have continued its illegal expansion in the West Bank how many times? One of the main terms for peace talks is for Israel to respect the UN's
internationally recognised
1967 borders, which Israel refuses to do. This is evident in the fact that no country at all has their Israeli embassy in Jerusalem, because it's legally not all a part of Israel.
Post by
MyTie
Israel has offered Palestine statehood how many times? And how many of those times were on Palestinian terms? Palestine doesn't want statehood by peaceful measures. It doesn't want statehood given to it by Israel. It wants everyone to force Israel to do it, or to take it by force from Israel. This is just Palestine being antagonistic toward Israel.
I'd be interested in seeing the sources where Palestine refused statehood offered by Israel. It would be interesting to see what terms they were being offered. Do you have links?
Heres one that google handed me.
I believe it was an Israeli president that said "Palestine never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity", after Palestine refused an offer for statehood without comment.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Israel has offered Palestine statehood how many times? And how many of those times were on Palestinian terms? Palestine doesn't want statehood by peaceful measures. It doesn't want statehood given to it by Israel. It wants everyone to force Israel to do it, or to take it by force from Israel. This is just Palestine being antagonistic toward Israel.
And Israel have continued its illegal expansion in the West Bank how many times? One of the main terms for peace talks is for Israel to respect the UN's
internationally recognised
1967 borders, which Israel refuses to do. This is evident in the fact that no country at all has their Israeli embassy in Jerusalem, because it's legally not all a part of Israel.
This is what I was getting at, looking for links. It's one thing to say that they offered them statehood, without going into the details. If the details are such that Israel refuses to give up illegally obtained land, I can understand them holding out for a treaty that is fairer. In the US, us offering the Native Americans reservations, which they could have until we broke the peace treaties and took them back, was nowhere near what they wanted, or deserved. To look at the history of what we did there, and say it was proof that we offered to let them keep their land and have independence, and that they just kept fighting because they didn't like us, is completely misleading.
Post by
Jubilee
Israel has offered Palestine statehood how many times? And how many of those times were on Palestinian terms? Palestine doesn't want statehood by peaceful measures. It doesn't want statehood given to it by Israel. It wants everyone to force Israel to do it, or to take it by force from Israel. This is just Palestine being antagonistic toward Israel.
I'd be interested in seeing the sources where Palestine refused statehood offered by Israel. It would be interesting to see what terms they were being offered. Do you have links?
Heres one that google handed me.
I believe it was an Israeli president that said "Palestine never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity", after Palestine refused an offer for statehood without comment.
I don't think she was asking for you to link an obviously biased blog that just repeats what you said.
Post by
Patty
That has a nice and balanced tone to it, doesn't it?
Post by
MyTie
Elhonna - Here an article mentions that quote I had.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Israel has offered Palestine statehood how many times? And how many of those times were on Palestinian terms? Palestine doesn't want statehood by peaceful measures. It doesn't want statehood given to it by Israel. It wants everyone to force Israel to do it, or to take it by force from Israel. This is just Palestine being antagonistic toward Israel.
I'd be interested in seeing the sources where Palestine refused statehood offered by Israel. It would be interesting to see what terms they were being offered. Do you have links?
Heres one that google handed me.
I believe it was an Israeli president that said "Palestine never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity", after Palestine refused an offer for statehood without comment.
I meant more like a news article, or documents outlining the details of the offer of statehood. This is a very vague overview, blog style, of the event. I'd like to see what the specifics of what they were offered were. It's one thing to say "Joe said Bob could have his money back, but Bob wouldn't take it. Bob's just being a prick." It's another when you find out that Joe borrowed 10 grand, and has a court order to pay that back, but he wants Bob to sign off that he's been paid in full in exchange for just 1 grand.
Post by
MyTie
Israel has offered Palestine statehood how many times? And how many of those times were on Palestinian terms? Palestine doesn't want statehood by peaceful measures. It doesn't want statehood given to it by Israel. It wants everyone to force Israel to do it, or to take it by force from Israel. This is just Palestine being antagonistic toward Israel.
And Israel have continued its illegal expansion in the West Bank how many times? One of the main terms for peace talks is for Israel to respect the UN's
internationally recognised
1967 borders, which Israel refuses to do. This is evident in the fact that no country at all has their Israeli embassy in Jerusalem, because it's legally not all a part of Israel.
Here's an article for ya
. I didn't read the whole thing, cause I'm gonna go eat lunch instead. You tell me if it says what we already know: The 1967 borders would be dangerous.
Post by
MyTie
I'd like to see what the specifics of what they were offered were.My apologies. I believe this one was better:
Elhonna - Here an article mentions that quote I had.
I like the part where Arafat turns down a President Clinton mediated negotiation for no other reason than "it wouldn't end conflict".
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Well, if you're referring to the first of the three plans shown, you'd have to agree that the map is kind of a mess. What country is going to accept borders like those? Especially with the country divided with a single road in-between the two areas which runs through their traditional enemy's territory. It may work for the US and Canada, because all we have fought over in the last 100 years is whether or not we'll take each others funny coins, but I can't see that working for Palestine.
The other two, which I agree I have not seen many details of, seem more reasonable from this article. I'd have liked to see a more complete discussion of them- maybe when I get home from work I'll do some more in depth research. I have no doubt that there is a lot of anger on the side of the Palestinians, and that they might not be willing to compromise as much as will be necessary to find some kind of resolution, so I wouldn't find it as unbelievable that there were a lot of reasonable concessions in these plans. However, it most likely came down to the borders again.
Despite the name of the website, I have a hard time seeing it as a truly balanced representation since it does little or nothing to discuss the violations that Israel has made to UN witnessed agreements, only the Palestine ones. It's hard for me to fully take an evaluation that seems to only be evaluating one party.
Post by
MyTie
Despite the name of the website, I have a hard time seeing it as a truly balanced representation since it does little or nothing to discuss the violations that Israel has made to UN witnessed agreements, only the Palestine ones. It's hard for me to fully take an evaluation that seems to only be evaluating one party.
I agree. Find, if you can, a balanced and reputable source on the debate. It is really difficult to find unbiased non opinionated fact, on this topic in particular.
I'll never accept the other side of the fence, either. The one that says that Palestine is just the victim of Israeli expansion. Where they have independence, they have Palestinian on Palestinian violence and a terrorist run state. Where they don't have independence, they terrorist to get it. When offered independence it is on their terms or no terms, and if it is on their terms, it isn't on their terms. They are the neighbor that is unreasonable. Not saying that everyone out there is fair to them, but they have made it very hard to concede anything to them.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.