Palestine accepted into UNESCO, US pulls funding - Page 63

On December 02 2012 08:21 Op wrote:


Just curious, what nationality do Palestinians have since they don't have a state ? Can they travel at all or is everybody closing their borders and keeping them stuck in their country ?

On December 02 2012 08:21 Op wrote:


Just curious, what nationality do Palestinians have since they don't have a state ? Can they travel at all or is everybody closing their borders and keeping them stuck in their country ?

On December 02 2012 08:22 Art.FeeL wrote:


There is the PA passport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_passport

Don't know about Gaza.

On December 02 2012 08:22 Goozen wrote:

Its not so easy as to say "water under the bridge" out of 50 people in my high school grade, 3 lost a parent to suicide bombings in the city. You cant expect people to just say for things like this "let bygones be bygones".

On December 02 2012 08:22 Goozen wrote:

Its not so easy as to say "water under the bridge" out of 50 people in my high school grade, 3 lost a parent to suicide bombings in the city. You cant expect people to just say for things like this "let bygones be bygones".

On December 02 2012 08:24 Art.FeeL wrote:


Aha. I completely agree. Neither Palestinians who have lost far more can say it. They have suffered much more than Israelis. What should we do now?

Some have claimed that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority (PA) had pre-planned the Intifada.[16] They often quote a speech made in December 2000 by Imad Falouji, the PA Communications Minister at the time, where he explains that the violence had been planned since Arafat's return from the Camp David Summit in July, far in advance of Sharon's visit.[17] He stated that the Intifada "was carefully planned since the return of (Palestinian President) Yasser Arafat from Camp David negotiations rejecting the U.S. conditions."[18] David Samuels quotes Mamduh Nofal, former military commander of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who supplies more evidence of pre-September 28 military preparations. Nofal recounts that Arafat "told us, Now we are going to the fight, so we must be ready".[19] Barak as early as May had drawn up contingency plans to halt any intifada in its tracks by the extensive use of IDF snipers, a tactic that resulted in the high number of casualties among Palestinians during the first days of rioting.[20]
Support for the idea that Arafat planned the Intifadah comes from Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar, who said in September 2010 that when Arafat realized that the Camp David Summit in July 2000 would not result in the meeting of all of his demands, he ordered Hamas as well as Fatah and the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, to launch "military operations" against Israel.[21]

On December 02 2012 08:31 Goozen wrote:

Thats why im saying negotiations need to be held. There are 3 sticking points as of the Olmert offer:
1. 3% pf the contested land (this includes east Jerusalem and a few towns, all the rest was agreed on
2. The Refugees, the PA want to allow several hundred thousand the right to return in to Israel, effectively ending it as a Jewish state in several years.
3. The jordan valley and demilitarization. Israel want to keep the valley to prevent weapon smuggling and not allow the PA to have more then light arms.
4. Recognizing Israel as a jewish state. (the irony here is that they said their future state must be free of jews).
The thing is while 30 years ago only the Israeli left wanted a 2 sate solution now its pretty much a consensus. And 30 years ago the PA wanted Hebron as the Capital, now they want Jerusalem. The PA, due to the massive international support act as if they have the upper hand and have shown no flexibility over the past years. Most Israelis hope that the PA lower their expectations if peace is to be met,

On December 02 2012 08:39 Art.FeeL wrote:



That's irrelevant, because we have bibi now and as far as i know he doesnt accept a 2 state solution, very few people dont believe in it at this point. By the way it's always Palestinians who have to lower their standards and submit to the Israeli will. That's pretty unfair you know. And again you are pointing fingers as if it was all Palestinian fault. The same mentality among all of pro-israeli posters: ''It's them!'' It's always them. No progress will be made like that.

On December 02 2012 08:44 Goozen wrote:

He publicly said he accepts the 2 state solution. His plan is peace through economy that as the situation in the west bank continues to improve they will be more willing to negotiate.
The reason i said the PA need to lower their demands is because Israel have, what Olmert offered Abbas was unprecedented, yes he was turned down. I have given you examples that Israel has, indeed lowers their demands i fail to see examples that the palestinians have. Also Israel is the stronger side, its supports the Palestinians and employs a huge number of them. The territory was won in wars at the cost of many Israeli lives before there were any calls against Egypt or Jordan for Palestinian independence.

On June 14, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar Ilan University endorsing the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, a first in his career. He proposed that the state have limited to no control of its own borders, military, airspace, or foreign relations, and that no Palestinians be allowed right of return to property in Israeli territory. Netanyahu also repeatedly called on the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.[21]
In response to American and British criticism of a plan to demolish the Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem, Netanyahu publicly stated that "United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel," and "Israeli sovereignty in the city is indisputable." Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat countered that "[Netanyahu] knows very much that there will never be peace between Palestinians and Israelis without East Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian state."[22]

On December 02 2012 08:53 Art.FeeL wrote:


Same old rhetoric.

+ Show Spoiler +

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

This doesn't seem to me like he wants a 2 state solution and his insisting on a Jewish state and not State of Israel and remarks about Jerusalem really shed light on what he wants.

You are basically saying that Israel is the stronger and Palestine should accept the little good will it receives from Israel. Tyranny at its best. The fact that Israel employ Palestinians doesn't show anything else that their need for work force and you consistently say how Israeli lives are lost, but you disregard the other side completely. That certainly does reinforce my opinion of Jews considering themselves a superior race. Do you consider yourself better or superior to a Palestinian, be honest?

On December 02 2012 06:51 Art.FeeL wrote:


Expanding or not, there are more houses being built whether in West Bank or East Jerusalem. Those shouldn't be there. It is also not fair that Israel can choose where to build their houses and then give Palestinians other regions in return. Let's not forget that the water is very important in that area. And as I said it's not only the settlements its also about the 67 borders

On December 02 2012 09:02 Goozen wrote:

I see your still evading the question i put forward on what concessions the Palestinians have made, and the 4 points of contention i have listed previous. Also, whats wrong with him saying he wants a Jewish state? In Israel there is a 20% Arab minority who have full equal rights so i don't see the problem. As far as Jerusalem, the majority of Israel are against splitting it, i have posted previously (with sources) that the Israeli Arabs who live in East Jerusalem want to stay under Israeli rule and that until the 90's the palestinians wanted Hebron, not Jerusalem as their capital, so clearly it doesn't have to be Jerusalem. I dont consider myself superior, i am saying we have made alot of concessions, all the previous treaties led to violence and same for gestures of goodwill (such as withdrawal from gaza led to rockets fired on Israel). Most people are tired of it as every time we make a offer its not met in kind.
im off to sleep. will try and reply to you tomorrow.

On December 02 2012 09:02 Goozen wrote:

I see your still evading the question i put forward on what concessions the Palestinians have made, and the 4 points of contention i have listed previous. Also, whats wrong with him saying he wants a Jewish state? In Israel there is a 20% Arab minority who have full equal rights so i don't see the problem. As far as Jerusalem, the majority of Israel are against splitting it, i have posted previously (with sources) that the Israeli Arabs who live in East Jerusalem want to stay under Israeli rule and that until the 90's the palestinians wanted Hebron, not Jerusalem as their capital, so clearly it doesn't have to be Jerusalem. I dont consider myself superior, i am saying we have made alot of concessions, all the previous treaties led to violence and same for gestures of goodwill (such as withdrawal from gaza led to rockets fired on Israel). Most people are tired of it as every time we make a offer its not met in kind.
im off to sleep. will try and reply to you tomorrow.

On December 02 2012 11:45 Ghostcom wrote:

I think it is about time we cut the crap:
Please explain why it is such a bad thing that Palestine is granted the status of non-member observers? Obviously if Israel and Netanyahu wanted a reasonable 2-state solution this would be a step they should be applauding - this directly supports Abbas who will become more popular amongst the Palestinians and at the same time discredits the Hamas. A stronger Abbas should be something - provided you truly want a 2-state solution - Israel would strive for as it makes future treaties much more probable to be kept.

On November 02 2011 01:11 RageBot wrote:


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.jpg

And if you want to read more about Israel's history, you can do so here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Now, 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.

On December 02 2012 08:26 Op wrote:


That's horrible, and in Palestine there are probably a lot of people who have lost relatives and friends as well. Unfortunately these horrible things seem to continue until some politicians start to be brave, sit together and come to a solution.

Can definitely understand the pain and maybe even hatred on both sides :-(

On December 02 2012 12:53 Ranizin wrote:


Not to speak for Goozen, but the general line of thought is that the 2-state solution should come from both sides coming to an understanding together, and Abbas going to the UN and acting towards a state by it's own is working against that. Basically every uncoordinated step between the sides related to this issue is considered bad and is seen as another obstacle in the way of an agreed solution, and causes distrust between the sides.

Also you assume that Abbas is considered a legit leader in the palestinian public, and in israel - both of those assumptions are highly controversial.

On December 02 2012 13:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
why does anyone think dividing a city between 2 states (that are not friendly) is a good idea?

the Palestinian Arabs are being ridiculous if they ever expect that to happen.

On December 02 2012 13:24 Ghostcom wrote:


I fail to see where I made that assumption - I made a statement regarding the current situation in which Abbas is leading AND is the most Israel friendly leader of the major Palestinian organizations. Whatever else you read into it will have to be on your own behalf.

And here I thought that the progression towards a 2-state solution would require 2 states to be present, but apparently not? All recent trends have pointed towards an unwillingness in Israel to recognize Palestine until major concessions, concessions which it is unrealistic to expect to ever be fulfilled (like the acceptance of the current occupation of East Jerusalem which is internationally seen as illegal). The newly acquired status of Palestine will hopefully not only strengthen the pro-2-state part of the Palestinians but also make negotiations more equal, meaning a higher chance of an actual solution with which both sides can be happy with an accept.

On December 02 2012 13:52 Ranizin wrote:


You said that israel should strive to strengthen Abbas since it will make future treaties more probable to be kept. If he isn't seen as a legit leader then it doesn't matter what treaties he signs, they will not be kept.

Your talk about "isreali unwillingness", "unrealistic concessions" asked from the palestinian side and the demand from israel to let go a major part of it's capital city are completely biased.

Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.

...but in the end what's most likely to happen is that israel will do nothing and the new palestinian title in the UN will be just that - a new title.