|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On November 02 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 01:11 RageBot wrote:On November 02 2011 00:57 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pEfVJ93Cwa8/TDjQIyH5mGI/AAAAAAAAGmk/EA9TbmokMRE/s1600/israel-palestine-map.jpg) Make sense? holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades? Because... up until 1967, although the land was previously called Palestine (by the othmanians and the British), there were no real Palestinians, or a Palestinian state. The green territory that you see on the second from the left picture, is the territory that was given to the arabs by the UN, and the white to the jews, the jews were happy with what they got, however, the arabs did not, and a day after Israel declared independance, Egypt, Syria, Lebannon and Jordan attacked Israel. And lost. And so, Israel conquered territory from all of them and got to the second from right picture, now, up to this point, there was still no Palestinian pepole or a Palestinian state. In 1967, once again, the arab states planned to attack Israel, however, this time Israel launched a preemptive counterattack, and conquered territory from all of these countries (the lands now known as the gaza strip and the west bank were owned by Egypt and Jordan, respectively), not only that, but Israel also conquered the Sinai peninsula (a territory twice as big as today's Israel), only to give it back to Egypt for a peace agreement. It is pretty much at this point that the "Palestinians" were created as a distinct group, up until than they were just arabs who lived on the territory known as Palestine. Now, this is the size of Israel: http://www.mapsofworld.com/israel/maps/israel-location-map.jpgAnd if you want to read more about Israel's history, you can do so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_WarNow, I don't think that the governmant should keep most of the territory conquered, however, we just can't risk having terrorists getting even closer to our cities. this is really interesting, thanks for the detailed explanation. still have no idea how i missed all these info :/
I suggest that you don't believe everything told in the forum.
I have no idea why anyone would make such an obviously bias in their history interpretation. Saying "up until [...] 1967 there were no real Palestinians" is obviously a controversial statement.
In my world, there is no such things as 'faults of the ancestors' giving rights to this and that.
In the end there is always an explanation of everything. Even though it may not seem rational in our heads.. its still rational. Because it happened. One thing leads to another. Terrorism didn't appear because some arabs are 'evil'.
Wish both sides would start to be more forgiving. But it seem like stubbornness and the stupid history just makes this a neverending war. pff homo sapiens.
|
The previous Palestine Statehood Application thread was closed, and the news seems to be of merit. So I'm posting this here. Unless another thread on the topic should be made, of course. In which case this should be ignored.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/world/middleeast/Palestinian-Authority-United-Nations-Israel.html?hp
More than 130 countries voted on Thursday to grant Palestine the upgraded status of nonmember observer state in the United Nations, a stinging defeat for Israel and the United States and a boost for President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, who was weakened by the recent eight days of fighting in Gaza.
From Wikipedia, the nine dissenting votes are:
Canada
Czech Republic
Israel
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
Palau
Panama
United States
|
I'd really love to know why the Czech Republic dissented on that vote.
Otherwise, I'm happy, the UN should recognize statehood when it is clearly a state.
|
Yeah, that's the one country I can't seem to find a motivation for. It's not like the US would put pressure on such an obscure nation* to vote that way, so there must be a self-interest or historical/cultural reason...
*Czech Republic isn't exactly known for its international influence.
|
From what I heard, this doesn't change a thing in the current situation, however it was a symbolic achievement, for the Palestine. Only a direct talk between Palestine and Israel will they resolve the issue.
|
So the US, Canada (which has a very US friendly and conservative PM ATM), the Czech Republic (surprised), Israel (obviously) and a bunch of former US colonies/countries where the US had a lot of influence are the only one to discent from making Palestine an observer at the UN? I expected more to oppose it (especially surprised to not see the UK on that list, or even Russia TBH).
Either way, this is a pretty big PR loss for the US and Israel.
On November 30 2012 08:21 furymonkey wrote:
From what I heard, this doesn't change a thing in the current situation, however it was a symbolic achievement, for the Palestine. Only a direct talk between Palestine and Israel will they resolve the issue.
Ya, it frankly doesn't do much to change the situation.
|
Okay, I found some stuff on Czech Republic.
Israel and it are close military allies, and the CR has been very outspoken against the flotillas.
Hmmm, I probably should have visited the museums of Prague when I was there a few years ago instead of drinking beer and climbing up towers.
|
On November 02 2011 00:57 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades?
They did. Media blocks out what they don't want you to hear. Media influenced by US. US likes Israel's side better than Palestine. Palestine loses more land. By this act of cutting funding, the US clearly marks their position. US doesn't show both sides arguments as they should.
|
"A stinging defeat for Israel and the United States"
really?
The only reason we don't want to give Palestinians a spot in the (completely useless) United Nations is because it will motivate them to fight that much harder. If the leaders of that region would just accept a certain amount of land as a state, and stop denying that Israel is here to stay, they would get a full membership in the UN.
Basically, "you can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat"...
|
On November 30 2012 08:33 SEA KarMa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:57 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades? They did. Media blocks out what they don't want you to hear. Media influenced by US. US likes Israel's side better than Palestine. Palestine loses more land. By this act of cutting funding, the US clearly marks their position. US doesn't show both sides arguments as they should.
Lol. When you tell the world that your going to commite mass genocide on a people twice (literaly "we will throw them into the sea"). You should lose the right to complain about the lost land that results from this war.
Israel has time and time again offered to give back all the land they've taken time and time again for peace. Palestine refuse's time and time again. so they lose more and more land because of it.
|
Australia8532 Posts
The biggest reason this is important to the Palestinians is that it gives the PLO the ability to ratify international treaties. This includes the Rome Statute which grants the ICC it's power - meaning Palestine can now pursue actions against Israel in the ICC.
I don't know - Palestine pretty much satisfies the Montevideo criteria for statehood, but the ultimate goal has to be peace and i don't see how this helps anything
|
On November 30 2012 08:37 Abraxas514 wrote:
"A stinging defeat for Israel and the United States"
really?
The only reason we don't want to give Palestinians a spot in the (completely useless) United Nations is because it will motivate them to fight that much harder. If the leaders of that region would just accept a certain amount of land as a state, and stop denying that Israel is here to stay, they would get a full membership in the UN.
Basically, "you can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat"...
Uh, yeah, this is a defeat for the United States, Israel, and Canada.
Those three countries were the primary opponents of this measure, and they just got destroyed when it came down to a vote. Now they have to find a way to rationalize why they are right and why the rest of the world is wrong, as well as find a way to punish* Palestinians for seeking this measure.
Well, "right" is probably the wrong word; "self-interest" is probably closer to the right word.
*Or discourage Palestinians from seeking future measures. There's technically a difference.
|
On November 30 2012 08:50 bkrow wrote:
The biggest reason this is important to the Palestinians is that it gives the PLO the ability to ratify international treaties. This includes the Rome Statute which grants the ICC it's power - meaning Palestine can now pursue actions against Israel in the ICC.
I don't know - Palestine pretty much satisfies the Montevideo criteria for statehood, but the ultimate goal has to be peace and i don't see how this helps anything
It doesn't do anything but hurt the peace process. America will never allow PLO statehood to go though the UNSC so all this work is purely symbolic. Its not like anybodies motives are hidden in this or anything.
On November 30 2012 09:02 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 08:37 Abraxas514 wrote:
"A stinging defeat for Israel and the United States"
really?
The only reason we don't want to give Palestinians a spot in the (completely useless) United Nations is because it will motivate them to fight that much harder. If the leaders of that region would just accept a certain amount of land as a state, and stop denying that Israel is here to stay, they would get a full membership in the UN.
Basically, "you can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat"... Uh, yeah, this is a defeat for the United States, Israel, and Canada. Those three countries were the primary opponents of this measure, and they just got destroyed when it came down to a vote. Now they have to find a way to rationalize why they are right and why the rest of the world is wrong, as well as find a way to punish* Palestinians for seeking this measure. Well, "right" is probably the wrong word; "self-interest" is probably closer to the right word. *Or discourage Palestinians from seeking future measures. There's technically a difference.
No one is really against palestinian statehood. The people who voted against it don't want another war to start up because the measure going though. There isn't really a reason to vote for palastinian statehood unless you're just doing it for idealistic reasons.
|
On November 30 2012 09:04 Sermokala wrote:
It doesn't do anything but hurt the peace process. America will never allow PLO statehood to go though the UNSC so all this work is purely symbolic. Its not like anybodies motives are hidden in this or anything.
I'm not at all clear on how the UN works, but I'm pretty sure that the ability to ratify international treaties is important in of itself. Which would be something, not nothing.
On November 30 2012 09:04 Sermokala wrote:
No one is really against palestinian statehood. The people who voted against it don't want another war to start up because the measure going though. There isn't really a reason to vote for palastinian statehood unless you're just doing it for idealistic reasons.
Case in point: rationalization.
I said nothing about statehood in my post. I said that since the US, Canada, and Israel voted against this and it passed, those three countries were defeated and must find new methods to achieve their objectives*. Whether this defeat is temporary or permanent or offset in the future is debatable.
*Whatever you may think these objectives to be.
|
On November 30 2012 09:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 09:02 acker wrote:On November 30 2012 08:37 Abraxas514 wrote:
"A stinging defeat for Israel and the United States"
really?
The only reason we don't want to give Palestinians a spot in the (completely useless) United Nations is because it will motivate them to fight that much harder. If the leaders of that region would just accept a certain amount of land as a state, and stop denying that Israel is here to stay, they would get a full membership in the UN.
Basically, "you can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat"... Uh, yeah, this is a defeat for the United States, Israel, and Canada. Those three countries were the primary opponents of this measure, and they just got destroyed when it came down to a vote. Now they have to find a way to rationalize why they are right and why the rest of the world is wrong, as well as find a way to punish* Palestinians for seeking this measure. Well, "right" is probably the wrong word; "self-interest" is probably closer to the right word. *Or discourage Palestinians from seeking future measures. There's technically a difference. No one is really against palestinian statehood. The people who voted against it don't want another war to start up because the measure going though. There isn't really a reason to vote for palastinian statehood unless you're just doing it for idealistic reasons.
Considering most of that essentially the entire first world (3 exceptions) either abstained or supported the motion you could say that there is a lot of opposition to the US/Israel position. Heck, even the UK didn't vote against it. Israel is getting more and more isolated, and it won't get any easier for them to get a peace deal done. This is mostly bad for Israel because it shows just how little support they have even within first world nations.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On November 30 2012 09:06 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 09:04 Sermokala wrote:
It doesn't do anything but hurt the peace process. America will never allow PLO statehood to go though the UNSC so all this work is purely symbolic. Its not like anybodies motives are hidden in this or anything. I'm not at all clear on how the UN works, but I'm pretty sure that the ability to ratify international treaties is important in of itself. Which would be something, not nothing.
That just provides another obscurity to the peace process as it allows an avenue for the Palestinian authority to bypass any negotiations if they are unhappy with how things are going. It's a distraction to confronting the core issues that need to be addressed. What's even more ridiculous is the key organisation behind the instability in the region is Hamas which rules in the Gaza strip and traditionally does not get along with the PLO despite news reports that they are supporting the UN bid. Hamas is NOT represented in the UN but it is almost entirely the contemporary root cause of the barriers to negotiations (on the Palestinian side)
On November 30 2012 09:14 Fischbacher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 09:04 Sermokala wrote:On November 30 2012 09:02 acker wrote:On November 30 2012 08:37 Abraxas514 wrote:
"A stinging defeat for Israel and the United States"
really?
The only reason we don't want to give Palestinians a spot in the (completely useless) United Nations is because it will motivate them to fight that much harder. If the leaders of that region would just accept a certain amount of land as a state, and stop denying that Israel is here to stay, they would get a full membership in the UN.
Basically, "you can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat"... Uh, yeah, this is a defeat for the United States, Israel, and Canada. Those three countries were the primary opponents of this measure, and they just got destroyed when it came down to a vote. Now they have to find a way to rationalize why they are right and why the rest of the world is wrong, as well as find a way to punish* Palestinians for seeking this measure. Well, "right" is probably the wrong word; "self-interest" is probably closer to the right word. *Or discourage Palestinians from seeking future measures. There's technically a difference. No one is really against palestinian statehood. The people who voted against it don't want another war to start up because the measure going though. There isn't really a reason to vote for palastinian statehood unless you're just doing it for idealistic reasons. Considering most of that essentially the entire first world (3 exceptions) either abstained or supported the motion you could say that there is a lot of opposition to the US/Israel position. Heck, even the UK didn't vote against it. Israel is getting more and more isolated, and it won't get any easier for them to get a peace deal done. This is mostly bad for Israel because it shows just how little support they have even within first world nations.
Not true really. Israel has a long and deep history of being singled out in the UN (whether warranted or not, i don't really care for the argument). You are talking like this sort of action in the UN is unique and is representing a shift - but it's not. It is the usual course of action for the UN member states. Of the 192 member states how many of those are democracies? How many of those countries represent values that you hold as important such as freedom of speech, education, association, religion etc? I wouldn't place much stock by the UN or the institution of international law.
|
On November 30 2012 09:14 Fischbacher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 09:04 Sermokala wrote:On November 30 2012 09:02 acker wrote:On November 30 2012 08:37 Abraxas514 wrote:
"A stinging defeat for Israel and the United States"
really?
The only reason we don't want to give Palestinians a spot in the (completely useless) United Nations is because it will motivate them to fight that much harder. If the leaders of that region would just accept a certain amount of land as a state, and stop denying that Israel is here to stay, they would get a full membership in the UN.
Basically, "you can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat"... Uh, yeah, this is a defeat for the United States, Israel, and Canada. Those three countries were the primary opponents of this measure, and they just got destroyed when it came down to a vote. Now they have to find a way to rationalize why they are right and why the rest of the world is wrong, as well as find a way to punish* Palestinians for seeking this measure. Well, "right" is probably the wrong word; "self-interest" is probably closer to the right word. *Or discourage Palestinians from seeking future measures. There's technically a difference. No one is really against palestinian statehood. The people who voted against it don't want another war to start up because the measure going though. There isn't really a reason to vote for palastinian statehood unless you're just doing it for idealistic reasons. Considering most of that essentially the entire first world (3 exceptions) either abstained or supported the motion you could say that there is a lot of opposition to the US/Israel position. Heck, even the UK didn't vote against it. Israel is getting more and more isolated, and it won't get any easier for them to get a peace deal done. This is mostly bad for Israel because it shows just how little support they have even within first world nations.
How little support they have? They have someone on their side that wipes the whole issue away from the table. they have someone on their side that overwhelmingly supports them (80% by cnns last poll) and just happens to be the last world in global military matters.
They're a modern day sparta and there isn't that much on their priority list that america doesn't fulfill. Its the PLO thats weak right now and getting weaker every day.
|
On November 30 2012 09:19 bkrow wrote:
That just provides another obscurity to the peace process as it allows an avenue for the Palestinian authority to bypass any negotiations if they are unhappy with how things are going. It's a distraction to confronting the core issues that need to be addressed.
The peace process with Israel is not the only concern Palestine has, or should have. The ability to sign international treaties would seem to go beyond the peace process and extend into matters such as trade and foreign policy with non-Israel states.
For some reason, I doubt that you would support cutting Israel off of such crucial matters, even assuming it would accelerate the peace process. The ability to make international treaties with other foreign nations is crucial for the well being of any nation.
|
On November 30 2012 08:32 Praetorial wrote:
Okay, I found some stuff on Czech Republic.
Israel and it are close military allies, and the CR has been very outspoken against the flotillas.
Hmmm, I probably should have visited the museums of Prague when I was there a few years ago instead of drinking beer and climbing up towers. I'm little proud to be czech now :D. Nah, not really.
Anyway, I don't follow domestic politics, but we have pretty good relations with Israel, and trying to get even better with US. Also the importatnt thing is that it doesn't hurt us to stand on this side. Generaly public opinions are pro-US and pro-Izrael compared to other european countries. Also we like to speak against regimes like Kuba, China. This case may be little similar.
|
On November 30 2012 08:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 08:33 SEA KarMa wrote:On November 02 2011 00:57 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades? They did. Media blocks out what they don't want you to hear. Media influenced by US. US likes Israel's side better than Palestine. Palestine loses more land. By this act of cutting funding, the US clearly marks their position. US doesn't show both sides arguments as they should. Lol. When you tell the world that your going to commite mass genocide on a people twice (literaly "we will throw them into the sea"). You should lose the right to complain about the lost land that results from this war. Israel has time and time again offered to give back all the land they've taken time and time again for peace. Palestine refuse's time and time again. so they lose more and more land because of it.
i seriously suggest that you chill out a little and do some more research. It has been a long time since there was a serious opportunity for peace in Israel/Palestine. Both sides governments are heavily supported and influenced by radicals who will never settle for peace, regardless of whether or not one side says they'll just leave borders where they are. Both sides argue that everything is theirs, and regardless of how far back you go there will always be a vast majority of the population who feel their ancestral land has been stolen. There is not right or wrong side here. There is only violence and hatred from both Israel (and their allies) and Palestine (and their allies). The only solution is to stop killing each other and claiming more territory. Both sides need to work towards a system that involves them tolerating and working together with each other. Some people have proposed that a single-state system will not work, and any government will simply be too divided to get anything done, so they feel a 2-state system is what's necessary. This is up for debate, but whether one country or another "deserves" the land is a ridiculous and pointlessly inflammatory assumption.
In regards to the new news - I'm honestly ashamed of the Harper government here so much. It's obvious that they would follow the US, and I really hope we can have another election here soon so we can get the freaking conservatives out. Sure, our right may not be as radical as the current US right, but that's not to say they're taking a step in the right direction - only that they're taking slower steps in the wrong direction.
I'm not sure about the real impact of this UN position for Palestine, but hopefully more international recognition will bring pressure for a resolution to the conflict, rather than making either side more radical. If anybody has some insight into China or Russia's positions on the issue I would be really interested. I'm thinking the tensions between them and the US can't be good, and I wonder how much they really care about these kinds of votes (and the US and Canada's decisions seemed predetermined, but it really is interesting to see so many other nations not simply going with the US for political favour).
On November 30 2012 09:26 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 08:32 Praetorial wrote:
Okay, I found some stuff on Czech Republic.
Israel and it are close military allies, and the CR has been very outspoken against the flotillas.
Hmmm, I probably should have visited the museums of Prague when I was there a few years ago instead of drinking beer and climbing up towers. I'm little proud to be czech now :D. Nah, not really. Anyway, I don't follow domestic politics, but we have pretty good relations with Israel, and trying to get even better with US. Also the importatnt thing is that it doesn't hurt us to stand on this side. Generaly public opinions are pro-US and pro-Izrael compared to other european countries. Also we like to speak against regimes like Kuba, China. This case may be little similar.
I see where you're coming from, but this is a much more complex issue than that. Israel and Palestine are far more muddled than most "good guy/bad guy nation" politics. That's not to say this kind of thing is ever that obvious, but this case in particular has even less distinction. Many people don;t realize it, but the Israeli radicals cause many in the area to view all "westerners" in a bad light. This means that many European and North American people are immediately looked at in a very bad light, despite perhaps not even having very much at all to do with Israel or Palestine. I hope I can encourage you to read more on the issue, as it really is very difficult for me to word properly in a single discussion (and honestly I want more information as well. I think it's really difficult to be an 'expert' on the issue, so I make no claims of it myself and am humbly open to a new perspective on it as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
