Palestine

D

Dan Sarandrea (Phila)

Waitin' On Parts...
Not sure why the US policy is to oppose a UN resolution to finally set up a Palestinian State (PS).

[Not wanting to continue meddling in other people's business I would prefer the US to be either a back-bencher or quit the UN altogether, but seeing as how that's not gonna happen anytime soon, the next best thing would be to either vote for a PS or abstain from voting.]

I think setting up a PS would be a positive action in that the Palestinians would have a place to call their own and from which they can build. Getting some skin in the game to coin a phrase.
 
It's my understanding that the Palestinian territories are all part of what was conquered by Israel in various wars so it is up to Israel, not the UN, whether or not there will be a Palestinian state. I agree that the US should not oppose it in the UN but should simply abstain. The UN is largely irrelevant and often counterproductive when it comes to issues of war and peace anyway.
 
Yeah, I agree...

and on the grounds you stated and would add that as a matter of historical record the US as well as the UN has largely been irrelevant except as an enabler in prolonging this inevitable juncture. It's time the Israelis and the Palestinians do this without any other parties around to shift the blame or responsibility to.
I wish both sides well in all of this, but the time has come for the horse trading to get done.
 
That is not an 'opposing' view....

but a tangential one. It is also mostly, once again, just an opportunity to attack Obama.

What, I believe, the three posts prior to yours, are saying is that it isn't really our business-at least that is the blunt assertion of mine.
Your first point asserts that it is our business because of our alliance with Israel in the Middle East. Some devotees of Realpolitik would claim that this a mistake we should remedy. Israel offers us less and less each year as an ally as our dependence on the middle east for oil is reduced as a % of our total consumption (it is at about 10% right now-not negligible but not life threatening) I suppose it goes without saying that our alliance with Israel is as likely to deprive us of that oil as to assure us of it.
In any event it should be crystal clear that after decades of attempts by every conveivable stripe of American administration to find a permanent path to peace there, the results have been mostly negative. Thus my opinion that the two parties should come to whatever agreement they are able to, sans participation by any other parties and we can decide in the aftermath what, if any, support is due to one or both of whatever is left standing.
 
I Agree, not exactly an opposing view. The fact is that there is no evidence that the Palestinian leadership will ever except Israel so there will likely never be peace there until they either change their mind or are destroyed by Israel. None of this is really any of our business. Let them sort it out.
 
i have

arab friends some are palestinian and israeli friends, my palestinian friends tell me that they dont know why the other arab nations are getting involved in having a palestinian state . the answer is that they do not want israel to be there
 
vircar said:
arab friends some are palestinian and israeli friends, my palestinian friends tell me that they dont know why the other arab nations are getting involved in having a palestinian state . the answer is that they do not want israel to be there
Click to expand...

And the other Arab countries don't want the Palestinians. Also the entire concept of a "Palestinian" was created to oppose Isreal. There really isn't even any such thing as a Palestinian. The most famous Palastinian that ever lived was Egyptian.:hmm:
 
As there could be a...

State of Palestine tomorrow if the UN so decided to make one. It would be a great hairsplitter who could somehow claim the one legit and the other not seeing as both would share the honor of being created out legal thin air and both by the same International Organization. Granted the long slog from the first years of the 20th century through the British Mandate of Palestine and all the waves of Jewish immigration into the area lend a lot of backstory to the Israeli reality but the fact that the 'Palestinians' are and have been there the whole while seems just as compelling to me. Not more so, but just as.
 
I would argue that a UN Palestinian state would not be legitimate because it is not theirs to create. When Israel was created the British occupied the area and they approved the creation of it. The Israelis currently occupy or control the area and are not even members of the UN and if they were they would not support it. Also, the UN already created a Palestinian state back in 1948 and the Arabs decided to go to war and they lost it. Oops:(
 
the other reason

which is the youngest and fastest growing religion and why ? the answer is Islam and why the goal of the Koran is to make everyone Muslim . If you were to ask 10 priests to explain the bible you will get the same story ,if you were to ask 10 rabbis to explain the torah you get the same story ,but if you ask 10 imams to explain the koran you get 10 different stories i ask the question why. the oldest religion is Judisum and then the Christine faith.
 
I think what you are refering to in the first part of your post has to do with the Right of Return.

The way I understand it, the Palestinian State (if and when actually established on the ground) would be for all Palestinians who do not trace their recent past residence back to the land on top of which Israel was established.

The Palestinians (and descendants) who were displaced from land that became the country of Israel, who make up the bulk of what are called Palestinian Refugees, according to the Right of Return, will go back to their land and property.

There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding the Right of Return, most of which is the usual wrangling over defintions and interpretations of course biased in accordance with who's on what side.


The second part of your post is the part that I disagree with. My take on the topic is that the US's support of Israel is on balance a big loser. It's cost a lot of money in aid ove the years, it caused the first oil crisis back in the early '70s, and it has created a lot of bad blood between the US and Arab nations in general. And I really couldn't tell you what positives the US has received from Israel....I am not aware of any critical commodity or product that they export to the US.

Over the years I think a much more neutral stance would have served our interests better, and who knows, maybe with less overt US backing, Israel might have had to take a less hard-line approach (and in turn the Arab players would have been able to tone it down, too) resulting in Peace deals being made sooner and less overall death and suffering could have taken place.

I don't see any need for the US to be the leader of anything much less "the free world" whatever that means.

As to this, "There is no moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians," what is that supposed to mean?
 
And not establishing...

the state will avoid this armed conflict? No. So the choice is armed conflict between a legitimated state and Israel or armed conflict between an unlegitimated state and Israel. Hard to see the material difference or advantage in such mere legalities.
In either case it is not our problem. Never really has been our problem, not to solve anyhow, just to meddle in and partially pay for-a few billion a year to Israel to help its defence and few billion a year to Egypt to keep them pacified. Who else do we pay off over in that area?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top