Should Australia support or oppose Palestine's bid to join the UN?


Mid-East shuttle dipomacy ahead of Palestinian UN bid

Senior US and international envoys have begun a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy to try to head off a Palestinian bid for UN membership.

US diplomats Dennis Ross and David Hale, as well as EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Middle-East envoy Tony Blair are in the region to try to revive stalled peace talks.

Palestinians are preparing a bid for UN membership later this month.

Israel has warned of "harsh and grave consequences" if the move goes ahead.

Mr Ross and Mr Hale arrived in Israel on Wednesday and held talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, the US State Department said.

They were due to travel to the West Bank on Thursday for talks with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Baroness Ashton also held talks with Mr Netanyahu on Wednesday morning, and announced she was extending her visit for further talks in the evening.

"I hope that in the coming days what we will be able to achieve together will be something that enables the negotiations to start," she said.

Analysts say the 27-member EU could split over the issue of Palestinian statehood if it comes to a vote at the UN, with some states backing the effort and others likely to oppose it.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday spoke to Mr Blair - who represents the Quartet of international Middle East negotiators - and to Baroness Ashton, state department spokesman Mark Toner said.

"This is part of our intensive effort here to find a way forward," he added.

The last round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians broke down a year ago.

Since then, the Palestinians have launched a campaign to join the UN as a full member state with international recognition based on their 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as a capital.

The UN begins its annual General Assembly general debate in New York on 21 September.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead.

"From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said.

"I hope that we shall not come to those harsh and grave consequences, and that common sense will prevail in all decisions taken," he added.

Some hardline Israeli politicians have called for Israel to annex sections of the West Bank if the Palestinians go ahead.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14924778

No one with an opinion?

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 6:25pm:

Should Australia support or oppose Palestine's bid to join the UN? Since then, the Palestinians have launched a campaign to join the UN as a full member state with international recognition based on their 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as a capital.

Will Palestine follow human rights for all as outlined by the UN documents if allowed in?

Why do we have to get involved with a religious conflict that has been going on for over 1400 years we are not going to solve it while muslims believe Allah hates the jews and they have a religious duty to "itbach el yahud" ( slaughter the jews).

1967 borders-
Egypt controlled Gaza who won it by conquest in an earlier war,they lost it to Israel in 1967.
They say they want to go back to 1967 borders when Gaza was controlled by Egypt?
Gaza was not a part of Palestine in 1967 you dim wits!

The West Bank-
Like Gaza it was not Palestine territory in 1967,Jordan occupied it since they won it by conquest.
The 1967 war saw Israel take the West bank from Jordan so how was that a part of Palestine in 1967 you dim wits?

When the Greens boycott Israel does this mean we cannot buy spare parts  for our FA-18 fighters that use Israeli technology for precision weapons?

Quote:

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead. "From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said.

This makes me so angry I don't want to discuss it.

Hamas, which dominates the Palestinian leadership, is classified as a terrorist organisation by some countries, i.e., USA, UK, Canada and others. I can't see the UN putting out the welcome mat for a terrorist organisation.

How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation?

this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership?

I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!!

salad in wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:02pm:

Hamas, which dominates the Palestinian leadership, is classified as a terrorist organisation by some countries, i.e., USA, UK, Canada and others. I can't see the UN putting out the welcome mat for a terrorist organisation.

the UN has welcomed terrorists and dictators with open arms in the past. nothing new there

Quote:

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead. "From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said

This is nothing but blatant sabre rattling. What are Israel going to do? Chuck a tantrem and withdraw from the UN? Lets see them try. If they aren't a member state of the UN, they do not abide by any UN sanctions. Lets see the U.S defend that.

As far as Australia is concerned, I would hope we would stay well out of it and instead focus on gaining our seat on the Security Council.

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:06pm:

Quote: Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead. "From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said This is nothing but blatant sabre rattling. What are Israel going to do? Chuck a tantrem and withdraw from the UN? Lets see them try. If they aren't a member state of the UN, they do not abide by any UN sanctions. Lets see the U.S defend that. As far as Australia is concerned, I would hope we would stay well out of it and instead focus on gaining our seat on the Security Council.

to achieve what exactly? so we have the same voting power of Yemen?? Which by teh way is NIL since the veto power is used more often than not. and if by some miracle the security council actually passes a motion it is usually ignored anyhow - often by its own members. and if the UN wants their decisions enforced, who do they ask for help? the same countries they spend the rest of the time criticising.

I cant think of a more expensive, less effective role for an australian diplomat anywhere. beyond pointless!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!!

Is the Vatican a nation?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:19pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:06pm: Quote: Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead. "From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said This is nothing but blatant sabre rattling. What are Israel going to do? Chuck a tantrem and withdraw from the UN? Lets see them try. If they aren't a member state of the UN, they do not abide by any UN sanctions. Lets see the U.S defend that. As far as Australia is concerned, I would hope we would stay well out of it and instead focus on gaining our seat on the Security Council. to achieve what exactly? so we have the same voting power of Yemen?? Which by teh way is NIL since the veto power is used more often than not. and if by some miracle the security council actually passes a motion it is usually ignored anyhow - often by its own members. and if the UN wants their decisions enforced, who do they ask for help? the same countries they spend the rest of the time criticising. I cant think of a more expensive, less effective role for an australian diplomat anywhere. beyond pointless!

Regardless of your personal opinion of the UN, as long as they exist, any voice of authority is better then none at all.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

salad in wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:02pm: Hamas, which dominates the Palestinian leadership, is classified as a terrorist organisation by some countries, i.e., USA, UK, Canada and others. I can't see the UN putting out the welcome mat for a terrorist organisation. the UN has welcomed terrorists and dictators with open arms in the past. nothing new there

So a democratically elected government is a terrorist organisation.

meanwhile the Afghanistan government was elected fraudulently ... and is in power sharing talks with the Taliban. A group Australia perceives to be linked with Al Qaeda, a supposed terrorist organisation. Yet Australia backs with troops.

So who are terrorists again?

Lets give the Palestinians our place and we can withdraw from the whole ridiculous circus.

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:06pm:

Quote: Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead. "From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said This is nothing but blatant sabre rattling. What are Israel going to do? Chuck a tantrem and withdraw from the UN? Lets see them try. If they aren't a member state of the UN, they do not abide by any UN sanctions. Lets see the U.S defend that. As far as Australia is concerned, I would hope we would stay well out of it and instead focus on gaining our seat on the Security Council.

if a seat is your aim then what is the advantage of going against the Arab Nations and either abstain or oppose UN membership for Palestine?

By opposing, wave good bye to any chance of that non permanent seat.

Belgarion wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Lets give the Palestinians our place and we can withdraw from the whole ridiculous circus.

Don't say that, otherwise the hard right will see this as a way out of the 1951 UN convention on refugees.

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:23pm:

So a democratically elected government is a terrorist organisation.

There are no guarantees in life. The Palestinians are free to elect the party of their choice and by doing so the rest of the world will classify that leadership accordingly.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt may have a baby but that doesn't guarantee that the baby will be beautiful. It may be one ugly SOB. There are no guarantees.

why did brad pitt and angelina jolie decide to have their baby in an unhygenic third world hospitaliii

so then they'd have an airtight excuse for when the baby inevitably turns out to be retarded

salad in wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:32pm:

____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:23pm: So a democratically elected government is a terrorist organisation. There are no guarantees in life. The Palestinians are free to elect the party of their choice and by doing so the rest of the world will classify that leadership accordingly. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt may have a baby but that doesn't guarantee that the baby will be beautiful. It may be one ugly SOB. There are no guarantees.

Yet the rest of the world do not class the democratically elected Palestine government as a terror organisation.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!!

You can demand a UN place for Emperor Penguins and their slice of Antarctica. but if you want to discuss the position of Palestinian's and their claims I suggest you keep on topic. As you well know all these herrings have completely different issues to Palestinians.

For instance, if at some point Aboriginal Australia DID want to make a claim for a UN seat and DID want autonomy or to secede from Australia altogether, they may find very powerful backers. A discussion would have to take place. But one thing that is glaringly different is that Australian Aboriginals are not denied the rights and access to live in their own country.

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:06pm: Quote: Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead. "From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said This is nothing but blatant sabre rattling. What are Israel going to do? Chuck a tantrem and withdraw from the UN? Lets see them try. If they aren't a member state of the UN, they do not abide by any UN sanctions. Lets see the U.S defend that. As far as Australia is concerned, I would hope we would stay well out of it and instead focus on gaining our seat on the Security Council. if a seat is your aim then what is the advantage of going against the Arab Nations and either abstain or oppose UN membership for Palestine? By opposing, wave good bye to any chance of that non permanent seat.

How could you possibly come to that conclusion? The U.S are against Palestine being inducted because they're sucking a bit of Jewish Electorate d!ck and they have a PERMANANT seat on the Council.

How is going against them going to be better then not?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-and-gillard-set-to-clash-over-palestinian-vote-20110807-1ihq3.html

THE Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, wants Australia to abstain in a potentially explosive United Nations vote to recognise a Palestinian state, pitting him against the Prime Minister's declared strong support for Israel.

Mr Rudd has written to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, recommending Australia neither vote for nor against a resolution set to dominate a UN summit next month in New York.

The letter - sent before Mr Rudd had heart surgery on August 1 - would see Australia duck the controversy surrounding efforts to allow Palestine into the UN as a sovereign state.

Mr Rudd's suggested tactic is being interpreted as an attempt to not antagonise Arab nations and to protect Australia's campaign for a temporary seat on the Security Council, due to go a vote next year.

But abstaining from any vote on Palestinian statehood will annoy Israel - which has mounted a worldwide diplomatic offensive against the resolution - and likely leave Australia out of step with its US ally. Ms Gillard has made a point of singling out support for Israel as one of her top foreign policy priorities.

Australia supports a two-state solution but has not backed unilateral moves towards Palestinian statehood, calling for a negotiated settlement to the long-running conflict.

Three prominent Jewish groups held talks in Canberra with Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard in early June to express opposition to the UN vote, expected in late September around the opening of the annual General Assembly.

The meetings - led by the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Dr Danny Lamm, Philip Chester of the Zionist Federation of Australia, and Jeremy Jones of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council - were described as a presentation rather than lobbying.

''We went to present and asked to be listened to about where we stood on particular issues,'' Mr Jones said yesterday.

A Palestinian Authority spokesman, Ghassan Khatib, was in Canberra last month to put the Palestinian case in favour of the resolution and met Chris Evans, who was acting as Foreign Minister while Mr Rudd was in hospital.

Moammar Mashni from Australians for Palestine said his organisation had met several government members in June urging Australia to back the UN resolution in line with Labor's support for a two-state settlement.

Diplomatic wrangling means the final shape of the resolution - and whether it will make a decisive call to recognise a Palestinian state or a watered down claim - is yet to become clear.

It is also unclear whether it will be put to the General Assembly - where it is likely to win majority support but have less power - or to the Security Council, raising the chances of a US veto.

Labor switched Australia's vote on other key UN resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict in 2007, returning Australia to vote with the majority of the world in calling on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in the occupied territories.



Seems like Labor will lose any chance of the non permanent seat by either going against it's boss, Israel, or going against those that support Palestine.


Take the UN seat out of the equation and backing of the Palestine UN seat is the logical path towards peace in that region.  

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation?

Actually yes it is....The Vatican City has been a sovereign city-state since 1929...

http://liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/08/08/PM-must-clarify-intentions-regarding-UN-vote-on-Palestinian-statehood.aspx


The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
Please try again later.


Liberals, the gutless wimps !!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 10:13pm:

____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? Actually yes it is....The Vatican City has been a sovereign city-state since 1929...

A state, not a nation.

Lib's Little Bitch's website :


Search Results
Sorry, no results were found for palestine

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 10:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:13pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? Actually yes it is....The Vatican City has been a sovereign city-state since 1929... A state, not a nation.

And???
Every member of the UN is a 'state'....

PM must clarify intentions regarding UN vote on Palestinian statehood



The Prime Minister must clarify the government’s voting intentions regarding next month’s United Nations vote on recognising Palestinian statehood.
It has been made public today that Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has written to the Prime Minister advising that Australia should abstain from that vote.
To avoid perceptions of a damaging public split between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister on a significant foreign policy issue, the matter must be clarified.
The decision about Australia’s vote on this critical matter should not be influenced by the government’s campaign for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council.
One of the reported goals of the UN vote on Palestinian statehood is to demonstrate the extent of Israel’s international isolation.
It is therefore critical for those nations that support Israel to take a strong stand on this issue.
Australia has long been a strong and consistent supporter of Israel.
There has been long-standing bipartisan support for the two-state solution, recognising the right of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people to live peacefully within internationally recognised borders.

http://liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/08/08/PM-must-clarify-intentions-regarding-UN-vote-on-Palestinian-statehood.aspx



So the Liberal Party is fence sitting once again.

Gutless wimps.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 10:32pm:

____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:13pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? Actually yes it is....The Vatican City has been a sovereign city-state since 1929... A state, not a nation. And??? Every member of the UN is a 'state'....

Why are you trying to create an argument with me,

Take it up with longweekend.

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:32pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:13pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? Actually yes it is....The Vatican City has been a sovereign city-state since 1929... A state, not a nation. And??? Every member of the UN is a 'state'.... Why are you trying to create an argument with me, Take it up with longweekend.

I'm not, I'm trying correct your misconception....
The Vatican is recognised as an independant nation (or state) just like Australia, the US, England etc....

Belgarion wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Lets give the Palestinians our place and we can withdraw from the whole ridiculous circus.

Belgarion,

Yours is the best post, the best suggestion, that i have seen in this thread!!

Well done.


But i'm not holding my breath.     :-/








We [mankind] can't escape the consequences of our choices....

Google;
all nations will turn against israel

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 10:39pm:

____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:32pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:13pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? Actually yes it is....The Vatican City has been a sovereign city-state since 1929... A state, not a nation. And??? Every member of the UN is a 'state'.... Why are you trying to create an argument with me, Take it up with longweekend. I'm not, I'm trying correct your misconception.... The Vatican is recognised as an independant nation (or state) just like Australia, the US, England etc....

No misconception on my part.

i.e Vatican city has no birth rate.



Meanwhile, why are you trying to sidetrack this thread?

it is on Palestine ... and you have made no comment on the topic.

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 10:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:39pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:35pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:32pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:13pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? Actually yes it is....The Vatican City has been a sovereign city-state since 1929... A state, not a nation. And??? Every member of the UN is a 'state'.... Why are you trying to create an argument with me, Take it up with longweekend. I'm not, I'm trying correct your misconception.... The Vatican is recognised as an independant nation (or state) just like Australia, the US, England etc.... No misconception on my part. i.e Vatican city has no birth rate. Meanwhile, why are you trying to sidetrack this thread? it is on Palestine ... and you have made no comment on the topic.

I was actually going to, but I got distracted...

It's not really appropriate, to me anyway, to consider supporting a UN membership bid, for a nation that doesn't currently exist....

'Palestine' as a nation simply isn't....There are three seperate (and disparate) groups, all claiming to BE Palestine and at least two of them don't recognise each other...
So how can they join the UN, which group would select representatives????

The majority of people in the UK, France and Germany require their governments to vote in favour of recognising a Palestinian state if a resolution is brought before the United Nations in the next few weeks, according to an opinion poll.

The three European countries are seen as crucial votes in the battle over the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the UN, which meets next week. All three are pressing for a return to peace negotiations as an alternative to pursuing the statehood strategy, but they have not declared their intentions if it comes to a UN vote.

In the UK, 59% of those polled said the government should vote in favour of a UN resolution recognising a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In France and Germany, the figures were 69% and 71% respectively. Support for the Palestinians' right to have their own state, without reference to the UN vote, was even higher: 71% in the UK, 82% in France and 86% in Germany.

The poll was conducted by YouGov on behalf of Avaaz, a global campaigning organisation that is conducting an online petition in support of a Palestinian state. It is planning to deliver more than 913,000 signatories backing what it describes as "this new opportunity for freedom" to the European parliament .

David Cameron must listen to the views of the public, said Ricken Patel of Avaaz. "The prime minister has a clear choice: stand with the British public and 120 other nations to support a Palestinian state and a new path to peace, or side with the US government, which continues to push for a failed status quo."

The Palestinians appear to be assured of a majority if a resolution is put before the UN general assembly, whose annual session begins in New York next week. However, full membership of the UN requires security council approval, which the US confirmed last week it would veto.

The Palestinians may then seek "observer state" status at the general assembly, which is less than full membership but an advance on their current "observer entity" status.

The US, which is anxious to avoid wielding its veto and potentially incurring the wrath of Arab countries, is pushing for a return to negotiations – a move also supported by the EU, which is keen to avoid a damaging split among its 27 countries.

European foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels on Monday to discuss a common position on Palestinian statehood. Britain and France have said they would prefer to see meaningful negotiations on the basis of the pre-1967 borders with agreed land swaps, but have hinted they may vote for enhanced status for the Palestinians without such a prospect.

Germany is thought to be opposed the Palestinian plan, but on Friday the chancellor, Angela Merkel, said: "I am not going to disclose today our voting intentions, whatever they may be." She added that Germany was wary of unilateral moves. "We are going to use the days that remain to perhaps achieve a few millimetres of movement," she said.

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, backed the idea of a Palestinian state last week. "I support … the statehood of Palestinians, an independent, sovereign state of Palestine. It has been long overdue," he said in Canberra.

Israel acknowledges that it has almost certainly lost the battle for votes at the general assembly. Ron Prosor, its ambassador to the UN, said last week: "This is a diplomatic endeavour against all odds ... It is clear to me that we can't win the vote." Instead, Israel was concentrating on securing a "moral minority" of powerful countries, which it hopes will include the EU bloc.

• The Avaaz poll, carried out by YouGov in the UK and Germany, and Ifop in France, was conducted online, with 2,552 respondents in the UK, 1,017 in Germany and 1,011 in France.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/12/recognising-palestinian-state-public-approval

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 11:01pm:

'Palestine' as a nation simply isn't.... There are three seperate (and disparate) groups, all claiming to BE Palestine and at least two of them don't recognise each other... So how can they join the UN, which group would select representatives????

giz,

Typically, each one of the three groups, would claim to be the true representative, of ALL 'Palestinian' people....
....and each single group, would wage an internecine conflict against the other two 'Palestinians' groups, to assert their 'unquestionable' right to represent the 'Palestinian' people.

And would fight a 500-800 year war to destroy their opponents, the 'oppressors' and 'imposters'.




That is my take on 'Palestinian' politics, anyway.

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 11:10pm:

The majority of people in the UK, France and Germany require their governments to vote in favour of recognising a Palestinian state if a resolution is brought before the United Nations in the next few weeks, according to an opinion poll. The three European countries are seen as crucial votes in the battle over the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the UN, which meets next week. All three are pressing for a return to peace negotiations as an alternative to pursuing the statehood strategy, but they have not declared their intentions if it comes to a UN vote. In the UK, 59% of those polled said the government should vote in favour of a UN resolution recognising a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In France and Germany, the figures were 69% and 71% respectively. Support for the Palestinians' right to have their own state, without reference to the UN vote, was even higher: 71% in the UK, 82% in France and 86% in Germany. The poll was conducted by YouGov on behalf of Avaaz, a global campaigning organisation that is conducting an online petition in support of a Palestinian state. It is planning to deliver more than 913,000 signatories backing what it describes as "this new opportunity for freedom" to the European parliament . David Cameron must listen to the views of the public, said Ricken Patel of Avaaz. "The prime minister has a clear choice: stand with the British public and 120 other nations to support a Palestinian state and a new path to peace, or side with the US government, which continues to push for a failed status quo." The Palestinians appear to be assured of a majority if a resolution is put before the UN general assembly, whose annual session begins in New York next week. However, full membership of the UN requires security council approval, which the US confirmed last week it would veto. The Palestinians may then seek "observer state" status at the general assembly, which is less than full membership but an advance on their current "observer entity" status. The US, which is anxious to avoid wielding its veto and potentially incurring the wrath of Arab countries, is pushing for a return to negotiations – a move also supported by the EU, which is keen to avoid a damaging split among its 27 countries. European foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels on Monday to discuss a common position on Palestinian statehood. Britain and France have said they would prefer to see meaningful negotiations on the basis of the pre-1967 borders with agreed land swaps, but have hinted they may vote for enhanced status for the Palestinians without such a prospect. Germany is thought to be opposed the Palestinian plan, but on Friday the chancellor, Angela Merkel, said: "I am not going to disclose today our voting intentions, whatever they may be." She added that Germany was wary of unilateral moves. "We are going to use the days that remain to perhaps achieve a few millimetres of movement," she said. The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, backed the idea of a Palestinian state last week. "I support … the statehood of Palestinians, an independent, sovereign state of Palestine. It has been long overdue," he said in Canberra. Israel acknowledges that it has almost certainly lost the battle for votes at the general assembly. Ron Prosor, its ambassador to the UN, said last week: "This is a diplomatic endeavour against all odds ... It is clear to me that we can't win the vote." Instead, Israel was concentrating on securing a "moral minority" of powerful countries, which it hopes will include the EU bloc. • The Avaaz poll, carried out by YouGov in the UK and Germany, and Ifop in France, was conducted online, with 2,552 respondents in the UK, 1,017 in Germany and 1,011 in France. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/12/recognising-palestinian-state-public-approval

Well I don't really see the relevance of that post.....
I mean the idea of having a Palestinian state is fine, if it brings peace to the area......but admitting it to the UN before it's been created seems a bit pointless....

What of Australia's neighbour to the north, the world's most populated muslim nation. One day maybe, our main trading partner.




US veto of Palestine’s UN bid may backfire: Envoy

Andi Haswidi, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Thu, 09/15/2011 8:00 AM


Recent statements made by US officials indicate that Palestine’s bid for full UN membership will meet a dead end, as the nation intends to block the move in the UN Security Council.

The undercurrents of global politics, however, show that a veto would destroy the nation’s credibility as a mediator between Israel and Palestine, a responsibility that the US has shouldered for decades, according to a top Palestinian diplomat.

Fariz Mehdawi, the Palestine Authority’s ambassador to Indonesia, said the US’ role as a broker would be jeopardized if it reneged on its previous pledges and countered the wishes of a majority of UN member states.

“The United States as a country doesn’t want to lose its status as a mediator. They have undertaken this process for the last 20 years, even longer,” Mehdawi said at a discussion hosted by the Indonesian Council on World Affairs in Jakarta on Wednesday.

Mehdawi highlighted US President Barack Obama’s statement to the UN General Assembly last year that said the body should devise an agreement to add a new member nation to the UN: “an independent, sovereign state of Palestine living in peace with Israel”.

It would be embarrassing for the US if Obama followed that statement with a veto, Mehdawi said.

Another factor affecting US decision making is the changing political situation in the Middle East following the Arab Spring, which led to more governments representing the will of their people, Mehdawi said.

Any country with an interest in the Middle East should look five to 10 years ahead and have a more cautious policy outlook, he said. “This is why it is difficult for the US. That is why they are not happy with our move.”

Other speakers at the discussion acknowledged that the situation in the Middle East might exert increased political pressure on the US in favor of the Palestinian bid.

ASEAN Foundation executive director Makarim Wibisono said democratization in the Middle East and Palestine’s quest for freedom made the relevance of a US veto questionable.

Makarim said that US foreign policy would also be influenced by the run-up to the next presidential election in 2012.

“The voting in the UN General Assembly and the Security Council in September on Palestine’s independence has put Barack Obama at risk” Makarim said.

Excluding a potential US veto, Makarim said that “on paper” the Palestinian bid had strong support, including the backing of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of Islamic Conference, among others.

“Currently there are 192 members of the UN. At least 128 votes are secured,” Makarim said.

After the UN General Assembly reconvenes on Tuesday, Palestine’s bid will be considered by the Security Council, which has no clear time frame for completing deliberations and forwarding the initiative to the assembly.

The president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to address the assembly on Sept. 23.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/09/15/us-veto-palestine%E2%80%99s-un-bid-may-backfire-envoy.html

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 11:18pm:

What of Australia's neighbour to the north, the world's most populated muslim nation. One day maybe, our main trading partner. US veto of Palestine’s UN bid may backfire: Envoy Andi Haswidi, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Thu, 09/15/2011 8:00 AM Recent statements made by US officials indicate that Palestine’s bid for full UN membership will meet a dead end, as the nation intends to block the move in the UN Security Council. The undercurrents of global politics, however, show that a veto would destroy the nation’s credibility as a mediator between Israel and Palestine, a responsibility that the US has shouldered for decades, according to a top Palestinian diplomat. Fariz Mehdawi, the Palestine Authority’s ambassador to Indonesia, said the US’ role as a broker would be jeopardized if it reneged on its previous pledges and countered the wishes of a majority of UN member states. “The United States as a country doesn’t want to lose its status as a mediator. They have undertaken this process for the last 20 years, even longer,” Mehdawi said at a discussion hosted by the Indonesian Council on World Affairs in Jakarta on Wednesday. Mehdawi highlighted US President Barack Obama’s statement to the UN General Assembly last year that said the body should devise an agreement to add a new member nation to the UN: “an independent, sovereign state of Palestine living in peace with Israel”. It would be embarrassing for the US if Obama followed that statement with a veto, Mehdawi said. Another factor affecting US decision making is the changing political situation in the Middle East following the Arab Spring, which led to more governments representing the will of their people, Mehdawi said. Any country with an interest in the Middle East should look five to 10 years ahead and have a more cautious policy outlook, he said. “This is why it is difficult for the US. That is why they are not happy with our move.” Other speakers at the discussion acknowledged that the situation in the Middle East might exert increased political pressure on the US in favor of the Palestinian bid. ASEAN Foundation executive director Makarim Wibisono said democratization in the Middle East and Palestine’s quest for freedom made the relevance of a US veto questionable. Makarim said that US foreign policy would also be influenced by the run-up to the next presidential election in 2012. “The voting in the UN General Assembly and the Security Council in September on Palestine’s independence has put Barack Obama at risk” Makarim said. Excluding a potential US veto, Makarim said that “on paper” the Palestinian bid had strong support, including the backing of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of Islamic Conference, among others. “Currently there are 192 members of the UN. At least 128 votes are secured,” Makarim said. After the UN General Assembly reconvenes on Tuesday, Palestine’s bid will be considered by the Security Council, which has no clear time frame for completing deliberations and forwarding the initiative to the assembly. The president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to address the assembly on Sept. 23. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/09/15/us-veto-palestine%E2%80%99s-un-bid-may-backfire-envoy.html

I think Rudd has the best idea......abstain from the vote...

One plus zero does not equal two. Australia has always advocated bi-partisan support for a two-state solution.

Logically, this means that our vote for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly on September 20 should indeed be a no-brainer. With Spain and Belgium now supporting the bid, Palestine is already recognised as a state by 124 countries, so it requires another five votes, or two-thirds majority, to be admitted as the 194th member of the UN.

So why so much frantic lobbying and gnashing of teeth over this simple arithmetic?

Sadly, the vote will have less to do with Palestinian rights and more to do with our domestic politics. In 1948, Australian foreign minister H V Evatt became president of the UN and earned Israel's 'undying gratitude'. In 1949, he 'steered to a vote' resolution 181 which formally recognised Israel into the 'family of nations'. Australia was among the first to vote 'Yes' to a two-state solution.

If our commitment has integrity, we will soon be able to 'steer' another 'Yes' vote. But it will more likely be 'No' for all the wrong reasons.

First, the incumbent Gillard Government dares not bite the loaded hand that feeds it. Our Prime Minister could not face her friends after all the hospitality they have shown during her Rambam Israel Fellowship in 2005 and her Australia Israel Leadership Forum in 2009. The well-oiled machine of the pro-Israel anti-Palestine lobby has supported her political ascendancy and expect a return on their investment. It is expected these dollar numbers weigh more than the poll numbers, especially in electorates with significant Arab populations.

A Fairfax poll on August 8 showed that 70 per cent of Australians believed that Australia should vote 'Yes' for a Palestinian state, so a 'No' vote would show a real disconnect with Australians whom she ostensibly represents. Moreover, growing sections of the Australian Jewish community have become vocal in supporting this bid.

Second, the Gillard Government hopes that the US exercises its right of veto at the UNSC to block the bid, and thereby relinquish Australia from this quandary. But despite any veto, the bid may still be taken to the General Assembly for a vote, and we cannot sit on the 'apartheid' fence.

Third, the Gillard Government is anxious to prevent isolating or de-legitimising Israel. This is ironic as Israel has succeeded to isolate itself all on its own. By its litany of flagrant breaches of UN resolutions that are all on the public record, Israeli governments have shown contempt for the UN and international laws with impunity. Any other UN member would be deemed rogue, threatened with sanctions or have its UN membership rescinded. By bringing Israel back to the family of nations, and ensuring that laws and agreements are honoured, the family would be re-legitimising Israel as a member under the same laws, not above the law.

Fourth, the Gillard Government does not wish to be associated with 'extremists'. This is richly ironic as Australia has positioned itself on the fringe of world opinion when it came to voting on Israel. As deputy prime minister, Ms Gillard defended Israel's 'right to defend itself' during Operation Cast Lead, earning Israeli accolades for being 'alone in sticking by us'. Again, her view was not only out on a limb with international condemnations, but also with the majority of her own population who saw Israel's hundred-fold overkill in Gaza as 'not justified', according to a Ray Morgan national poll in June 2009.

Our extremism was reinforced when we were one of seven countries to vote against a motion at the UN General Assembly on November 30, 2010 which:

Reaffirmed the commitment to the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine… [and] the need for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

Apart from four Pacific Island micro-states, the only other countries to vote against this near global consensus was the US and Israel.

Fifth, the Gillard Government prefers negotiations than any UN motion that may lead to anti-Israel sanctions. This view turns a blind eye to the misery that decades of suit-and-tie negotiations have brought to Palestinians.

Since signing the 1993 Oslo accords, settler numbers have doubled. How does one negotiate with a government that has the Bible as a tenancy agreement for a God-given promised land? Despite many brokered agreements, road maps and accords, the plight of Palestinians continues to deteriorate with Gaza under siege while daily territorial expansion grows while we sleep. This swallowing of Palestine is why we rarely see maps in public discourse about the occupation. This despair is also why disillusioned citizens of the world - Palestinians and Jews alike – have resorted to the same non-violent and non-government strategy that has worked to dismantle apartheid in South Africa and British colonised India.

The global boycotts, sanctions and divestments movement hold Israel to account for its broken promises to the United Nations, including the rights of its Palestinian citizens and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

Sixth, the Gillard Government never wishes to support a state that sponsors terrorism. Yet the collective punishment of Gazans that is wreaking untold civilian deaths is beyond terrorism. While both Hamas and Israel would prefer to see each other vanquished, only one is backed by the world's sole superpower and can execute this.

Given that Palestinian territories have been reduced to 22 per cent of the historic homeland, and given Israel's track record of breaching UN resolutions, it would be naïve to believe that Palestinian statehood would suddenly coerce compliance. Palestinians may be cornered into a position of gratitude for statehood, as if they should be content with the title as a trade-off for sacrificing their 'inalienable rights'. Exiled Palestinians may be constitutionally cornered to forfeit the PLO's observer status at the General Assembly, which has represented Palestinian refugees in the Diaspora and their right of return since 1975.

Australia too may be cornered as the time to demonstrate a serious commitment to a two-state solution is now.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2862826.html

Yes, but what's YOUR opinion..
Not Joseph Wakim's, but yours...

Yes all well and good....
But WHERE is the Palestinian state going to be???

The pre-1967 borders idea is never going to be acceptable, because it actually involves lands that were originally intended to be part of Israel.

And after all this time, even the old UN Partition Plan wouldn't be acceptable to either side....

70 percent of Australians support Palestine's UN representation.
5 votes more required for 2/3rds majority.

And Rudd wants to abstain
Gillard wants to vote no
Liberals have no guts

And some people still wonder why we achieved a hung parliament. The old parties refuse to represent the will of Australians, and so Australians reciprocated in kind.

Greens Endorse September 15 Rally at UN Demanding Self-Determination for Palestinians


WASHINGTON, DC – The Green Party of the United States has endorsed the Thursday, September 15 Palestine Rally at the United Nations, in support of the right of self-determination for Palestinians.

The march and rally, scheduled to take place in advance of a UN vote on recognition of Palestinian statehood, are sponsored by the Palestine UN Solidarity Coalition.

Participants will call for the US to cut off aid for Israel, for Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories, and for national and international boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel until it complies with numerous resolutions promising Palestinians their basic rights.  The Green Party has consistently supported these goals and spoken out publicly for sovereignty, equality, and the right of return for Palestinians, including an end to apartheid inside Israel.

“For too many decades, Palestinian rights have been delayed.  The protests that are taking place in various cities this week will communicate an important message: delaying rights is effectively denying rights.  The time to recognize and implement rights is now,” said Muhammed Malik, member of the Green Party’s International Committee and co-chair of Miami-Dade Green Party.  Mr. Malik will be speaking at the South Florida Palestinian Self-Determination Rally on September 15.

Marchers in New York City will gather at Times Square at 4:30 pm and march to Grand Central and then continue on to the UN at 5:30 pm.  Greens plan to participate and march under the party’s banner.  For events in Washington, DC and other cities, visit “September 15: Real Democracy, Not Hypocrisy“.

“The UN vote alone won’t solve the Middle East conflict and ensure Palestinians their human rights,” said Justine McCabe, co-chair of the International Committee.  ”That’s why the demands of the September 15 rally remain important.  We must place pressure on Israel and push the US to reverse its policy of unquestioning support for Israel’s criminal actions, such as the 2009 invasion of Gaza, occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and internal apartheid.”

The Green Party has called for a negotiated, peaceful resolution to the conflict that establishes full rights and security for all Israelis and Palestinians, with an immediate end to all violence directed at unarmed civilians.

Green Party leaders view the two-state solution as a half-measure, intended at best to end Israel’s military occupation in some parts of the West Bank, while not addressing the heart of the conflict – the dispossession since 1948 of the majority native population of historic Palestine and Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return home.  Greens have advocated the one-state solution, in which all citizens enjoy full citizenship and rights regardless of ethnicity or religion, and have warned that the two-state solution will result in ongoing conflict and violence, while the formation of a single democratic state would bring greater possibility for sustainable peace.

Greens supported the Gaza-bound flotillas that faced blockades and assaults by the Israeli Navy when they carried food and humanitarian aid to besieged Palestinians.

http://my.firedoglake.com/gpus/2011/09/14/greens-endorse-september-15-rally-at-un-demanding-self-determination-for-palestinians/

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 11:38pm:

Yes all well and good.... But WHERE is the Palestinian state going to be??? The pre-1967 borders idea is never going to be acceptable, because it actually involves lands that were originally intended to be part of Israel. And after all this time, even the old UN Partition Plan wouldn't be acceptable to either side....

IMAGE
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/images/pal-e.jpg






IMAGE
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_22.gif

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation?

It is a sovereign city-state created within Rome ruled by the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope). It is sovereign territory, with its own security forces and was established in 1929.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 5:54am:

____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? It is a sovereign city-state created within Rome ruled by the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope). It is sovereign territory, with its own security forces and was established in 1929.

Also it has observer state at the UN. Not a member nation.
The Vatican is not a nation.


meanwhile those that recognise the state of Palestine.

---

What they should do is carpet bomb from west Africa, across the top, into the mid east.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 10:02am:

What they should do is carpet bomb from west Africa, across the top, into the mid east.

What, the 1 million civilians dead, from your last two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) are not enough?

____ wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 10:40am:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 10:02am: What they should do is carpet bomb from west Africa, across the top, into the mid east. What, the 1 million civilians dead, from your last two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) are not enough?

Moron

____ wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 10:40am:

What, the 1 million civilians dead, from your last two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) are not enough?

Did you pluck that 1 million number from your ass or do you have a cite for your source?

The Lancet have been keeping track of the Iraq bodycount.

From 2003-2010
225,789 civilian casualties of which 42,928 or 19% were caused by suicide bombers.
108,624 civilian deaths of which 12,284 or 12% were caused by suicide bombers.

There were 1003 documented suicide bomb events of which only 79 were against coalition forces with 200 coalition soldiers killed.

12,284 Iraqis killed by suicide bombers and only 200 coalition troops killed by suicide bombers.

The numbers show these muslim sucide bombers kill far more Iraqi's than foreign troops.

Source The Lancet - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61023-4/abstract

There are only 108,624 documented civilian deaths in Iraq for 2003-2010 how many do you think have been killed in Afghanistan?

____ wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 6:25pm:

Should Australia support or oppose Palestine's bid to join the UN? Mid-East shuttle dipomacy ahead of Palestinian UN bid Senior US and international envoys have begun a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy to try to head off a Palestinian bid for UN membership. US diplomats Dennis Ross and David Hale, as well as EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Middle-East envoy Tony Blair are in the region to try to revive stalled peace talks. Palestinians are preparing a bid for UN membership later this month. Israel has warned of "harsh and grave consequences" if the move goes ahead. Mr Ross and Mr Hale arrived in Israel on Wednesday and held talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, the US State Department said. They were due to travel to the West Bank on Thursday for talks with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Baroness Ashton also held talks with Mr Netanyahu on Wednesday morning, and announced she was extending her visit for further talks in the evening. "I hope that in the coming days what we will be able to achieve together will be something that enables the negotiations to start," she said. Analysts say the 27-member EU could split over the issue of Palestinian statehood if it comes to a vote at the UN, with some states backing the effort and others likely to oppose it. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday spoke to Mr Blair - who represents the Quartet of international Middle East negotiators - and to Baroness Ashton, state department spokesman Mark Toner said. "This is part of our intensive effort here to find a way forward," he added. The last round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians broke down a year ago. Since then, the Palestinians have launched a campaign to join the UN as a full member state with international recognition based on their 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as a capital. The UN begins its annual General Assembly general debate in New York on 21 September. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead. "From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said. "I hope that we shall not come to those harsh and grave consequences, and that common sense will prevail in all decisions taken," he added. Some hardline Israeli politicians have called for Israel to annex sections of the West Bank if the Palestinians go ahead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14924778

The Palestinians already have a country.
It's called Jordan.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 12:03pm:

____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 10:40am: What, the 1 million civilians dead, from your last two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) are not enough? Did you pluck that 1 million number from your ass or do you have a cite for your source? The Lancet have been keeping track of the Iraq bodycount. From 2003-2010 225,789 civilian casualties of which 42,928 or 19% were caused by suicide bombers. 108,624 civilian deaths of which 12,284 or 12% were caused by suicide bombers. There were 1003 documented suicide bomb events of which only 79 were against coalition forces with 200 coalition soldiers killed. 12,284 Iraqis killed by suicide bombers and only 200 coalition troops killed by suicide bombers. The numbers show these muslim sucide bombers kill far more Iraqi's than foreign troops. Source The Lancet - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61023-4/abstract There are only 108,624 documented civilian deaths in Iraq for 2003-2010 how many do you think have been killed in Afghanistan?

You're either a liar or an idiot. Which one is it?


Quote:

Background Suicide bombs in Iraq are a major public health problem. We aimed to describe documented casualties from suicide bombs in Iraq during 2003—10 in Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers.

That study does not claim to document all civilian casualties, rather those INFLICTED BY SUICIDE BOMBS.

So, what is it 'idiot who can't read a study' or 'liar wilfully misrepresenting said study'? Your choice.

I feel sorry for thoe poor devils in the refugee camps....

They're never going to go 'home' and the other arabic nations won't give them citizenship..

They're destined to by used as political 'footballs' forever....

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 10:08pm:

The Palestinians already have a country. It's called Jordan.

But moslems want whatever the Jews have.

Always have.

Their stance is based on pure human envy.



What do the Jews have, which strident moslems NEVER will have ???

Gods blessing.





Genesis 12:3
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 21:12
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.





+++

Moslems are among those who are unrepentant before God, and spitefully envious of the Jewish people.





Our God is clever, and just.

Because God knows, that men who are very wicked, are also very dumb.

And God knows how to separate the 'goats' from the 'sheep'.

And that, is what God is doing.

By our own choices, he lets us [mankind] choose our own fate,
...for ourselves.






Look at what is happening in this world, today.

Nothing can stop God's plan.

It is man's own nature which is driving God's plan forward.


God is clever.

And wicked men are dumb.

;D      ;D     ;D




Google;
all nations will turn against israel



All of mankind are rushing headlong into what will be a momentous conflict with their creator God.

And today, Israel, truly is 'a line in the sand' issue for all of mankind.

What side of that line in the sand are you on ?



Psalms 9:17
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

astro_surf wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 10:40am: What, the 1 million civilians dead, from your last two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) are not enough? Did you pluck that 1 million number from your ass or do you have a cite for your source? The Lancet have been keeping track of the Iraq bodycount. From 2003-2010 225,789 civilian casualties of which 42,928 or 19% were caused by suicide bombers. 108,624 civilian deaths of which 12,284 or 12% were caused by suicide bombers. There were 1003 documented suicide bomb events of which only 79 were against coalition forces with 200 coalition soldiers killed. 12,284 Iraqis killed by suicide bombers and only 200 coalition troops killed by suicide bombers. The numbers show these muslim sucide bombers kill far more Iraqi's than foreign troops. Source The Lancet - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61023-4/abstract There are only 108,624 documented civilian deaths in Iraq for 2003-2010 how many do you think have been killed in Afghanistan? You're either a liar or an idiot. Which one is it? Quote: Background Suicide bombs in Iraq are a major public health problem. We aimed to describe documented casualties from suicide bombs in Iraq during 2003—10 in Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers. That study does not claim to document all civilian casualties, rather those INFLICTED BY SUICIDE BOMBS. So, what is it 'idiot who can't read a study' or 'liar wilfully misrepresenting said study'? Your choice.

You should read it again and take note of this part-


Quote:

Methods In this descriptive study,we analysed and compared suicide bomb casualties in Iraq that were documented in two datasets covering march 20 2003 to dec 31 2010 - one reporting coalition soldier deaths from suicide bombs,the other reporting deaths and injuries of Iraqi civilians from armed violence

Did they use a dataset that documented deaths and injuries of Iraqi civilians from armed violence to get the figure of 108,624 Iraqi civilian deaths?

1003 documented suicide events between 2003-2010 of which only 79 had coalition soldiers as the target.

You are a leftarded idiot!

____ wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 6:38am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 5:54am: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? It is a sovereign city-state created within Rome ruled by the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope). It is sovereign territory, with its own security forces and was established in 1929. Also it has observer state at the UN. Not a member nation. The Vatican is not a nation. meanwhile those that recognise the state of Palestine.

actually the Vatican IS a nation by all the definitions that exist.

try and keep up.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 10:08pm:

The Palestinians already have a country. It's called Jordan.

Indeed.

ANd anyway, what's all this nationalist fervour by all the bearded, grizzled jihadis who wanted an ummah a minute ago? Now they want a nation state next to Israel? Why? Everywhere else it's kalifah this and kalifah that. Next to Israel - it's suddenly 'gissa a nation state (so we can shell them better)'.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 1:12pm:

____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 6:38am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 5:54am: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? It is a sovereign city-state created within Rome ruled by the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope). It is sovereign territory, with its own security forces and was established in 1929. Also it has observer state at the UN. Not a member nation. The Vatican is not a nation. meanwhile those that recognise the state of Palestine. actually the Vatican IS a nation by all the definitions that exist. try and keep up.

The Vatican has about the same reason to exist as Israel.

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 17th, 2011 at 1:12pm: ____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 6:38am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 5:54am: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? It is a sovereign city-state created within Rome ruled by the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope). It is sovereign territory, with its own security forces and was established in 1929. Also it has observer state at the UN. Not a member nation. The Vatican is not a nation. meanwhile those that recognise the state of Palestine. actually the Vatican IS a nation by all the definitions that exist. try and keep up. The Vatican has about the same reason to exist as Israel.

Well if you are saying countries that are created by the UN or the League of Nations have no right to exist......Be sure to include Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey....

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 12:03pm:

____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 10:40am: What, the 1 million civilians dead, from your last two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) are not enough? Did you pluck that 1 million number from your ass or do you have a cite for your source? The Lancet have been keeping track of the Iraq bodycount. From 2003-2010 225,789 civilian casualties of which 42,928 or 19% were caused by suicide bombers. 108,624 civilian deaths of which 12,284 or 12% were caused by suicide bombers. There were 1003 documented suicide bomb events of which only 79 were against coalition forces with 200 coalition soldiers killed. 12,284 Iraqis killed by suicide bombers and only 200 coalition troops killed by suicide bombers. The numbers show these muslim sucide bombers kill far more Iraqi's than foreign troops. Source The Lancet - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61023-4/abstract There are only 108,624 documented civilian deaths in Iraq for 2003-2010 how many do you think have been killed in Afghanistan?

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.
ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.
Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.

Even with the lower confirmed figures, by the end of 2006, an average of 5,000 Iraqis had been killed every month by US forces since the beginning of the occupation. However, the rate of fatalities in 2006 was twice as high as the overall average, meaning that the American average in 2006 was well over 10,000 per month, or over 300 Iraqis every day. With the surge that began in 2007, the current figure is likely even higher.
Schwartz points out that the logic to this carnage lies in a statistic released by the US military and reported by the Brookings Institute: for the first four years of the occupation the American military sent over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill “insurgents” and “terrorists.” (Since February 2007, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.) Each patrol invades an average of thirty Iraqi homes a day, with the mission to interrogate, arrest, or kill suspects. In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances (see Story #9).
According to US military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of one hundred per day (not counting the additional twenty-five or so involving our Iraqi allies). Thousands of patrols result in thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and unconscionably brutal detentions.
Iraqis’ attempts to escape the violence have resulted in a refugee crisis of mammoth proportion. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration, in 2007 almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, and Gulf States. Iraq’s refugees, increasing by an average of almost 100,000 every month, have no legal work options in most host states and provinces and are increasingly desperate.1

more @
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/


And this is Iraq, without Afghan Civilians.

Yadda wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 11:24pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 10:08pm: The Palestinians already have a country. It's called Jordan. But moslems want whatever the Jews have. Always have. Their stance is based on pure human envy. What do the Jews have, which strident moslems NEVER will have ??? Gods blessing. Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. +++ Moslems are among those who are unrepentant before God, and spitefully envious of the Jewish people. Our God is clever, and just. Because God knows, that men who are very wicked, are also very dumb. And God knows how to separate the 'goats' from the 'sheep'. And that, is what God is doing. By our own choices, he lets us [mankind] choose our own fate, ...for ourselves. Look at what is happening in this world, today. Nothing can stop God's plan. It is man's own nature which is driving God's plan forward. God is clever. And wicked men are dumb. ;D      ;D     ;D Google; all nations will turn against israel All of mankind are rushing headlong into what will be a momentous conflict with their creator God. And today, Israel, truly is 'a line in the sand' issue for all of mankind. What side of that line in the sand are you on ? Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

And this is why the Bible should be rated R18

It incites hatred (along with other things).

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 1:12pm:

____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 6:38am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 5:54am: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? It is a sovereign city-state created within Rome ruled by the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope). It is sovereign territory, with its own security forces and was established in 1929. Also it has observer state at the UN. Not a member nation. The Vatican is not a nation. meanwhile those that recognise the state of Palestine. actually the Vatican IS a nation by all the definitions that exist. try and keep up.

Then why observer status, not member status?
Surely if it was a country, with a birth rate, then it would have full representation and also get an opportunity to sit at a non perm UN Seat.

Any hoo, this is obviously a topic (Vatican) that we should agree to disagree on since we will just go around in circles.

Your original point was non nations should not be allowed into the UN (or something along the lines of.)

"In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members, and currently all UN members are sovereign states (although a few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN)."

So Palestine could join the UN ... the original issue before the Vatican discussion derailed it.

____ wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 17th, 2011 at 1:12pm: ____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 6:38am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 5:54am: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? It is a sovereign city-state created within Rome ruled by the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope). It is sovereign territory, with its own security forces and was established in 1929. Also it has observer state at the UN. Not a member nation. The Vatican is not a nation. meanwhile those that recognise the state of Palestine. actually the Vatican IS a nation by all the definitions that exist. try and keep up. Then why observer status, not member status? Surely if it was a country, with a birth rate, then it would have full representation and also get an opportunity to sit at a non perm UN Seat. Any hoo, this is obviously a topic (Vatican) that we should agree to disagree on since we will just go around in circles. Your original point was non nations should not be allowed into the UN (or something along the lines of.) "In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members, and currently all UN members are sovereign states (although a few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN)." So Palestine could join the UN ... the original issue before the Vatican discussion derailed it.

No Palestine can't.....because it doesn't exist yet....

Back to basics.....What's the capital city of Palestine???

Quote:

Greens_win wrote And this is why the Bible should be rated R18 It incites hatred (along with other things).

What do you expect?
I was written by many people, and then has been translated by many more.

If the founding fathers (and mothers) of the state of Israel weren't the most crap thinking, ultraright bunch of racists, we wouldn't have this problem. It's easy to see that the Zionist support base hasn't changed much, Soren, Yadda et al.

If the foundations are ill the building WILL fall.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

salad in wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:02pm: Hamas, which dominates the Palestinian leadership, is classified as a terrorist organisation by some countries, i.e., USA, UK, Canada and others. I can't see the UN putting out the welcome mat for a terrorist organisation. the UN has welcomed terrorists and dictators with open arms in the past. nothing new there

doesnt it all depend on the MONEY they have?

____ wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:05am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 10:40am: What, the 1 million civilians dead, from your last two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) are not enough? Did you pluck that 1 million number from your ass or do you have a cite for your source? The Lancet have been keeping track of the Iraq bodycount. From 2003-2010 225,789 civilian casualties of which 42,928 or 19% were caused by suicide bombers. 108,624 civilian deaths of which 12,284 or 12% were caused by suicide bombers. There were 1003 documented suicide bomb events of which only 79 were against coalition forces with 200 coalition soldiers killed. 12,284 Iraqis killed by suicide bombers and only 200 coalition troops killed by suicide bombers. The numbers show these muslim sucide bombers kill far more Iraqi's than foreign troops. Source The Lancet - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61023-4/abstract There are only 108,624 documented civilian deaths in Iraq for 2003-2010 how many do you think have been killed in Afghanistan? Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s. ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause. Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated. Even with the lower confirmed figures, by the end of 2006, an average of 5,000 Iraqis had been killed every month by US forces since the beginning of the occupation. However, the rate of fatalities in 2006 was twice as high as the overall average, meaning that the American average in 2006 was well over 10,000 per month, or over 300 Iraqis every day. With the surge that began in 2007, the current figure is likely even higher. Schwartz points out that the logic to this carnage lies in a statistic released by the US military and reported by the Brookings Institute: for the first four years of the occupation the American military sent over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill “insurgents” and “terrorists.” (Since February 2007, the number has According to US military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of one hundred per day (not counting the additional twenty-five or so involving our Iraqi allies). Thousands of patrols result in thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and unconscionably brutal detentions. Iraqis’ attempts to escape the violence have resulted in a refugee crisis of mammoth proportion. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration, in 2007 almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, and Gulf States. Iraq’s refugees, increasing by an average of almost 100,000 every month, have no legal work options in most host states and provinces and are increasingly desperate.1 more @ http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/ And this is Iraq, without Afghan Civilians.

1million??? really???

WW1 20million dead
1930s Russia 30million dead
WW2 60 million dead
China 1960s - 30 million dead
Vietnam 3 million dead

etc etc

iraq doesnt even begin to come close to other events.

the 1million figure is also grossly inaaccurate and inflated. And how convenient that it ignores the 1-2million dead in the iran-iraq war???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 11:16pm:

____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 11:10pm: The majority of people in the UK, France and Germany require their governments to vote in favour of recognising a Palestinian state if a resolution is brought before the United Nations in the next few weeks, according to an opinion poll. The three European countries are seen as crucial votes in the battle over the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the UN, which meets next week. All three are pressing for a return to peace negotiations as an alternative to pursuing the statehood strategy, but they have not declared their intentions if it comes to a UN vote. In the UK, 59% of those polled said the government should vote in favour of a UN resolution recognising a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In France and Germany, the figures were 69% and 71% respectively. Support for the Palestinians' right to have their own state, without reference to the UN vote, was even higher: 71% in the UK, 82% in France and 86% in Germany. The poll was conducted by YouGov on behalf of Avaaz, a global campaigning organisation that is conducting an online petition in support of a Palestinian state. It is planning to deliver more than 913,000 signatories backing what it describes as "this new opportunity for freedom" to the European parliament . David Cameron must listen to the views of the public, said Ricken Patel of Avaaz. "The prime minister has a clear choice: stand with the British public and 120 other nations to support a Palestinian state and a new path to peace, or side with the US government, which continues to push for a failed status quo." The Palestinians appear to be assured of a majority if a resolution is put before the UN general assembly, whose annual session begins in New York next week. However, full membership of the UN requires security council approval, which the US confirmed last week it would veto. The Palestinians may then seek "observer state" status at the general assembly, which is less than full membership but an advance on their current "observer entity" status. The US, which is anxious to avoid wielding its veto and potentially incurring the wrath of Arab countries, is pushing for a return to negotiations – a move also supported by the EU, which is keen to avoid a damaging split among its 27 countries. European foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels on Monday to discuss a common position on Palestinian statehood. Britain and France have said they would prefer to see meaningful negotiations on the basis of the pre-1967 borders with agreed land swaps, but have hinted they may vote for enhanced status for the Palestinians without such a prospect. Germany is thought to be opposed the Palestinian plan, but on Friday the chancellor, Angela Merkel, said: "I am not going to disclose today our voting intentions, whatever they may be." She added that Germany was wary of unilateral moves. "We are going to use the days that remain to perhaps achieve a few millimetres of movement," she said. The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, backed the idea of a Palestinian state last week. "I support … the statehood of Palestinians, an independent, sovereign state of Palestine. It has been long overdue," he said in Canberra. Israel acknowledges that it has almost certainly lost the battle for votes at the general assembly. Ron Prosor, its ambassador to the UN, said last week: "This is a diplomatic endeavour against all odds ... It is clear to me that we can't win the vote." Instead, Israel was concentrating on securing a "moral minority" of powerful countries, which it hopes will include the EU bloc. • The Avaaz poll, carried out by YouGov in the UK and Germany, and Ifop in France, was conducted online, with 2,552 respondents in the UK, 1,017 in Germany and 1,011 in France. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/12/recognising-palestinian-state-public-approval Well I don't really see the relevance of that post..... I mean the idea of having a Palestinian state is fine, if it brings peace to the area......but admitting it to the UN before it's been created seems a bit pointless....

and that really IS the point. the nation of Palestine simply doesnt exist. it WAS offered a while back but they refused for reasons that only arrafat could explain. but you might as well admit Absurdistan to the UN. they dont exist. At least the Principality of Hutt River exists! THEY shoudl be in the UN.

____ wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 17th, 2011 at 1:12pm: ____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 6:38am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 5:54am: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:04pm: How can be a member of the United NATIONS if you arent and actual nation? Are the Kurds going to get UN membership, what about the Gypsy Nation? what about UN Membership for the aboriginal nation? this is ridiculous and further demeans the value of the UN. The UNITED part long ago evaporated and now we want to remove nationhood as a requirement for membership? I DEMAND UN MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE!! Is the Vatican a nation? It is a sovereign city-state created within Rome ruled by the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope). It is sovereign territory, with its own security forces and was established in 1929. Also it has observer state at the UN. Not a member nation. The Vatican is not a nation. meanwhile those that recognise the state of Palestine. actually the Vatican IS a nation by all the definitions that exist. try and keep up. Then why observer status, not member status? Surely if it was a country, with a birth rate, then it would have full representation and also get an opportunity to sit at a non perm UN Seat. Any hoo, this is obviously a topic (Vatican) that we should agree to disagree on since we will just go around in circles. Your original point was non nations should not be allowed into the UN (or something along the lines of.) "In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members, and currently all UN members are sovereign states (although a few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN)." So Palestine could join the UN ... the original issue before the Vatican discussion derailed it.

a birthrate is not one of the defining characteristics of a soverign nation. After all if there was a 1005 Gay nation it wouldnt have a birthrate either.

The vatican only has observer status but is still considered a soverign nation. How on earth do you grant full UN representation to a nation that doesnt exists and has no government or representatives?

Grey wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 11:33am:

If the founding fathers (and mothers) of the state of Israel weren't the most crap thinking, ultraright bunch of racists, we wouldn't have this problem. It's easy to see that the Zionist support base hasn't changed much, Soren, Yadda et al. If the foundations are ill the building WILL fall.

by every possible measuring stick, Israel has thrived. kinda makes your argument look more than a little stupid, doesnt it?

____ wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:05am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ____ wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 10:40am: What, the 1 million civilians dead, from your last two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) are not enough? Did you pluck that 1 million number from your ass or do you have a cite for your source? The Lancet have been keeping track of the Iraq bodycount. From 2003-2010 225,789 civilian casualties of which 42,928 or 19% were caused by suicide bombers. 108,624 civilian deaths of which 12,284 or 12% were caused by suicide bombers. There were 1003 documented suicide bomb events of which only 79 were against coalition forces with 200 coalition soldiers killed. 12,284 Iraqis killed by suicide bombers and only 200 coalition troops killed by suicide bombers. The numbers show these muslim sucide bombers kill far more Iraqi's than foreign troops. Source The Lancet - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61023-4/abstract There are only 108,624 documented civilian deaths in Iraq for 2003-2010 how many do you think have been killed in Afghanistan? Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. more @ http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/

From your link-
update by Michael Schwartz

Quote:

The original article published in Lancet in 2006,received some dissmissive coverage when it was released,and then disappeared from view. By early 2008,the best estimate based on extrapolations and replications of the lancet study was that 1.2 million Iraqis had died

The Lancet did remove their earlier figures when flaws in their method were pointed out,your study is using those flawed figures to extrapolate the deaths to over a million.


The lancet are keeping a bodycount  they revised it to 108,624 civilian deaths.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:00pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 18th, 2011 at 11:33am: If the founding fathers (and mothers) of the state of Israel weren't the most crap thinking, ultraright bunch of racists, we wouldn't have this problem. It's easy to see that the Zionist support base hasn't changed much, Soren, Yadda et al. If the foundations are ill the building WILL fall. by every possible measuring stick, Israel has thrived. kinda makes your argument look more than a little stupid, doesnt it?

BUT YOU ARE WRONG! Security is a measure. Personally I think that the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are decent, ordinary people. I would not like to see anybody driven into the sea. I think Zionists and Hamasists are arseholes, if people got rid of them and their gods there's be a chance for peace.

Of course Israelis are more prosperous than Palestinians. If Palestinians build a road, a house, plant an olive tree, it gets bulldozed. Israel has to be the peace buyer because only the strong can afford generosity.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 5:56pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 11:16pm: ____ wrote on Sep 15th, 2011 at 11:10pm: The majority of people in the UK, France and Germany require their governments to vote in favour of recognising a Palestinian state if a resolution is brought before the United Nations in the next few weeks, according to an opinion poll. The three European countries are seen as crucial votes in the battle over the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the UN, which meets next week. All three are pressing for a return to peace negotiations as an alternative to pursuing the statehood strategy, but they have not declared their intentions if it comes to a UN vote. In the UK, 59% of those polled said the government should vote in favour of a UN resolution recognising a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In France and Germany, the figures were 69% and 71% respectively. Support for the Palestinians' right to have their own state, without reference to the UN vote, was even higher: 71% in the UK, 82% in France and 86% in Germany. The poll was conducted by YouGov on behalf of Avaaz, a global campaigning organisation that is conducting an online petition in support of a Palestinian state. It is planning to deliver more than 913,000 signatories backing what it describes as "this new opportunity for freedom" to the European parliament . David Cameron must listen to the views of the public, said Ricken Patel of Avaaz. "The prime minister has a clear choice: stand with the British public and 120 other nations to support a Palestinian state and a new path to peace, or side with the US government, which continues to push for a failed status quo." The Palestinians appear to be assured of a majority if a resolution is put before the UN general assembly, whose annual session begins in New York next week. However, full membership of the UN requires security council approval, which the US confirmed last week it would veto. The Palestinians may then seek "observer state" status at the general assembly, which is less than full membership but an advance on their current "observer entity" status. The US, which is anxious to avoid wielding its veto and potentially incurring the wrath of Arab countries, is pushing for a return to negotiations – a move also supported by the EU, which is keen to avoid a damaging split among its 27 countries. European foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels on Monday to discuss a common position on Palestinian statehood. Britain and France have said they would prefer to see meaningful negotiations on the basis of the pre-1967 borders with agreed land swaps, but have hinted they may vote for enhanced status for the Palestinians without such a prospect. Germany is thought to be opposed the Palestinian plan, but on Friday the chancellor, Angela Merkel, said: "I am not going to disclose today our voting intentions, whatever they may be." She added that Germany was wary of unilateral moves. "We are going to use the days that remain to perhaps achieve a few millimetres of movement," she said. The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, backed the idea of a Palestinian state last week. "I support … the statehood of Palestinians, an independent, sovereign state of Palestine. It has been long overdue," he said in Canberra. Israel acknowledges that it has almost certainly lost the battle for votes at the general assembly. Ron Prosor, its ambassador to the UN, said last week: "This is a diplomatic endeavour against all odds ... It is clear to me that we can't win the vote." Instead, Israel was concentrating on securing a "moral minority" of powerful countries, which it hopes will include the EU bloc. • The Avaaz poll, carried out by YouGov in the UK and Germany, and Ifop in France, was conducted online, with 2,552 respondents in the UK, 1,017 in Germany and 1,011 in France. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/12/recognising-palestinian-state-public-approval Well I don't really see the relevance of that post..... I mean the idea of having a Palestinian state is fine, if it brings peace to the area......but admitting it to the UN before it's been created seems a bit pointless.... and that really IS the point. the nation of Palestine simply doesnt exist. it WAS offered a while back but they refused for reasons that only arrafat could explain. but you might as well admit Absurdistan to the UN. they dont exist. At least the Principality of Hutt River exists! THEY shoudl be in the UN.

The entire Arab League also gave their opinion of the two state solution in 1948 when they sent their armour and troops across the newly created Israeli border with the objective of destroying the jewish state.
They lost that war too.

Grey wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 11:33am:

If the founding fathers (and mothers) of the state of Israel weren't the most crap thinking, ultraright bunch of racists, we wouldn't have this problem. It's easy to see that the Zionist support base hasn't changed much, Soren, Yadda et al.

It's good to know that you think most countries are ultra right and racist, as most countries recognise Israel.

The Palaetinian Arabs' misery stems from the fact that they don't.
If they had a bit of brain they would welcome such an economic, scientific and cultural powerhouse in their midst. Israel could be their lifeline to the modern world.

Soren wrote on Sep 19^th, 2011 at 5:18pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 18th, 2011 at 11:33am: If the founding fathers (and mothers) of the state of Israel weren't the most crap thinking, ultraright bunch of racists, we wouldn't have this problem. It's easy to see that the Zionist support base hasn't changed much, Soren, Yadda et al. It's good to know that you think most countries are ultra right and racist, as most countries recognise Israel. The Palaetinian Arabs' misery stems from the fact that they don't. If...   ... they would welcome such an economic, scientific and cultural powerhouse in their midst. Israel could be their lifeline to the modern world.

Soren, soren, sometimes the things that you say leave me gobsmacked. You see I couldn't agree more, (leaving out the unnecessary and insulting) The return of the other people of the region, the Jewish diaspora, should indeed have been a joyous event. The children of the diaspora brought with them new knowledges, friends, contacts, energy and money. Handled well it could indeed have been a win/win arrangement.

But the Zionist leadership, Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion and their ilk, unfortunately did not want that. You know as well as I, for I'm sure you have read the writings, that what the Zionists were hell bent on, was to take the land and drive the Palestinians away. That's why Adolf Eichmann exclaimed, "If I was a Jew I'd be a zionist" . That's what I meant by saying the foundations were ill made. That's why Avigdor Lieberman is the foreign minister (and still deputy PM no?). The knowledges that built Israels foundations are still supporting the rotten structure.

Can bad foundations be made good? It's possible, but it's not easy.

Grey wrote on Sep 20^th, 2011 at 10:53pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 19th, 2011 at 5:18pm: Grey wrote on Sep 18th, 2011 at 11:33am: If the founding fathers (and mothers) of the state of Israel weren't the most crap thinking, ultraright bunch of racists, we wouldn't have this problem. It's easy to see that the Zionist support base hasn't changed much, Soren, Yadda et al. It's good to know that you think most countries are ultra right and racist, as most countries recognise Israel. The Palaetinian Arabs' misery stems from the fact that they don't. If...   ... they would welcome such an economic, scientific and cultural powerhouse in their midst. Israel could be their lifeline to the modern world. Soren, soren, sometimes the things that you say leave me gobsmacked. You see I couldn't agree more, (leaving out the unnecessary and insulting) The return of the other people of the region, the Jewish diaspora, should indeed have been a joyous event. The children of the diaspora brought with them new knowledges, friends, contacts, energy and money. Handled well it could indeed have been a win/win arrangement. But the Zionist leadership, Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion and their ilk, unfortunately did not want that. You know as well as I, for I'm sure you have read the writings, that what the Zionists were hell bent on, was to take the land and drive the Palestinians away. That's why Adolf Eichmann exclaimed, "If I was a Jew I'd be a zionist" . That's what I meant by saying the foundations were ill made. That's why Avigdor Lieberman is the foreign minister (and still deputy PM no?). The knowledges that built Israels foundations are still supporting the rotten structure. Can bad foundations be made good? It's possible, but it's not easy.

And yet, strangely, it was the other Arab nations that started the problems ( not the Arab population of Palestine/Israel, but Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,Iraq and Lebanon)........The Arab population of the Mandate would have received everything that they are NOW campaigning for, in 1948...

The jews accepted a diminished offer of what was in the original mandate, declared independence - and were  promply attacked.

Yet they remain at fault. Why? For declaring independence? For being invaded the next day? It's hard to be magnanimous towards your neighbours if their opening gambit is to wage war against you. But somehow, once again, it' the jews'fault that they were attacked. And despite being under siege in every day of its history, Israel has managed to be a successful economy, society, culture and international citizen.

The issue is - Muslims will not accept Israel's right to exist in any shape or form. Which means, in effect, that  the Muslims do not accept the decision of the League of Nation/United Nations. And somehow that's the jews' fault.

Soren wrote on Sep 20^th, 2011 at 11:32pm:

The jews accepted a diminished offer of what was in the original mandate, declared independence - and were  promply attacked. Yet they remain at fault. Why? For declaring independence? For being invaded the next day? It's hard to be magnanimous towards your neighbours if their opening gambit is to wage war against you. But somehow, once again, it' the jews'fault that they were attacked. And despite being under siege in every day of its history, Israel has managed to be a successful economy, society, culture and international citizen. The issue is - Muslims will not accept Israel's right to exist in any shape or form. Which means, in effect, that  the Muslims do not accept the decision of the League of Nation/United Nations. And somehow that's the jews' fault.

The Zionists were never going to accept and never will accept, anything other than 'Greater Israel'. If they take the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon they still wouldn't be satisified. Any success will be taken as a sign of 'manifest destiny'. Their 'modus operandi' has been plain from the begining. It is to destabalise neighbouring countries as much as possible until they have the means to annex them completely. It is the blueprint of the US in South America.

Hamas and Hezboullah are their 'useful idiots' and it would not surprise me if funding for those orgs. came from Israel itself.

Another thing. There has never been a 'spontaneous revolution' in all human history. Such things require planning and funding. The 'Arab spring' shows all the hall marks of the 'spontaneous revolutions' that took place a decade earlier in the old Soviet satellites. They were ultimately exposed to have been aided and abetted by US 'think tanks' active throughout that region. All those orange flags, balloons, mass demonstrations equipped with food drink and huge screens took a power of organising. PNAC is alive and well in the Middle East.

Of course the Empire over extended itself and this is causing problems, and will cause a lot more for its most cherished satellite Israel.  

Grey wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 11:28am:

Soren wrote on Sep 20th, 2011 at 11:32pm: The jews accepted a diminished offer of what was in the original mandate, declared independence - and were  promply attacked. Yet they remain at fault. Why? For declaring independence? For being invaded the next day? It's hard to be magnanimous towards your neighbours if their opening gambit is to wage war against you. But somehow, once again, it' the jews'fault that they were attacked. And despite being under siege in every day of its history, Israel has managed to be a successful economy, society, culture and international citizen. The issue is - Muslims will not accept Israel's right to exist in any shape or form. Which means, in effect, that  the Muslims do not accept the decision of the League of Nation/United Nations. And somehow that's the jews' fault. The Zionists were never going to accept and never will accept, anything other than 'Greater Israel'. If they take the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon they still wouldn't be satisified. Any success will be taken as a sign of 'manifest destiny'. Their 'modus operandi' has been plain from the begining. It is to destabalise neighbouring countries as much as possible until they have the means to annex them completely. It is the blueprint of the US in South America. Hamas and Hezboullah are their 'useful idiots' and it would not surprise me if funding for those orgs. came from Israel itself. Another thing. There has never been a 'spontaneous revolution' in all human history. Such things require planning and funding. The 'Arab spring' shows all the hall marks of the 'spontaneous revolutions' that took place a decade earlier in the old Soviet satellites. They were ultimately exposed to have been aided and abetted by US 'think tanks' active throughout that region. All those orange flags, balloons, mass demonstrations equipped with food drink and huge screens took a power of organising. PNAC is alive and well in the Middle East. Of course the Empire over extended itself and this is causing problems, and will cause a lot more for its most cherished satellite Israel.

Some modus operandi which was plain from the beginning.
Israel was invaded the day after it's formation in 1948.
Their modus operandi was to defend themselves which they have done again and again and again.
And yet they have never invaded these countries, just responded to acts of aggression perpetrated by those very two same countries you mentioned and many others.
Israel wants peace, but not peace at any price.

Grey wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 11:28am:

Soren wrote on Sep 20th, 2011 at 11:32pm: The jews accepted a diminished offer of what was in the original mandate, declared independence - and were  promply attacked. Yet they remain at fault. Why? For declaring independence? For being invaded the next day? It's hard to be magnanimous towards your neighbours if their opening gambit is to wage war against you. But somehow, once again, it' the jews'fault that they were attacked. And despite being under siege in every day of its history, Israel has managed to be a successful economy, society, culture and international citizen. The issue is - Muslims will not accept Israel's right to exist in any shape or form. Which means, in effect, that  the Muslims do not accept the decision of the League of Nation/United Nations. And somehow that's the jews' fault. The Zionists were never going to accept and never will accept, anything other than 'Greater Israel'. If they take the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon they still wouldn't be satisified. Any success will be taken as a sign of 'manifest destiny'. Their 'modus operandi' has been plain from the begining. It is to destabalise neighbouring countries as much as possible until they have the means to annex them completely. It is the blueprint of the US in South America. Hamas and Hezboullah are their 'useful idiots' and it would not surprise me if funding for those orgs. came from Israel itself. Another thing. There has never been a 'spontaneous revolution' in all human history. Such things require planning and funding. The 'Arab spring' shows all the hall marks of the 'spontaneous revolutions' that took place a decade earlier in the old Soviet satellites. They were ultimately exposed to have been aided and abetted by US 'think tanks' active throughout that region. All those orange flags, balloons, mass demonstrations equipped with food drink and huge screens took a power of organising. PNAC is alive and well in the Middle East. Of course the Empire over extended itself and this is causing problems, and will cause a lot more for its most cherished satellite Israel.

I was hoping that you would not show yourself to be a complete looney. My hopes are dashed.

Greater Israel? What? 20 km wide, rather than 15? The Occupied Territories would not now be occupied if Israel had not been attacked. Or rather, they would remain occupied by Jordan and Egypt.
Has Israel ever make any territorial claims against any of its sovereign neighbours? No. ANy disputes are due to the shifting of the boundaries of the Mandate from the 1917 declaration until Israel's independence AND all the subsequent wars, none of them started by Israel.

The jews effectively said in 1948: "we'll have what we have now and we can talk about the difference later" The Arabs said "you can't have any of it" and started shooting.

Grey wrote on Sep 19^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18th, 2011 at 6:00pm: Grey wrote on Sep 18th, 2011 at 11:33am: If the founding fathers (and mothers) of the state of Israel weren't the most crap thinking, ultraright bunch of racists, we wouldn't have this problem. It's easy to see that the Zionist support base hasn't changed much, Soren, Yadda et al. If the foundations are ill the building WILL fall. by every possible measuring stick, Israel has thrived. kinda makes your argument look more than a little stupid, doesnt it? BUT YOU ARE WRONG! Security is a measure. Personally I think that the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are decent, ordinary people. I would not like to see anybody driven into the sea. I think Zionists and Hamasists are arseholes, if people got rid of them and their gods there's be a chance for peace. Of course Israelis are more prosperous than Palestinians. If Palestinians build a road, a house, plant an olive tree, it gets bulldozed. Israel has to be the peace buyer because only the strong can afford generosity.

that simply isnt true. The palestinians have this problem with not accepting who owns the land - Israel. you cant complain if you have 3 separate wars and lose every time - including more land.

Yeah right, the trouble started in 1948. Israel had a perfect right to expel Palestinians and steal their homes. After all the Palestinians were offered a really great deal. And Avigdor Lieberman is much misunderstood. When he talked of driving Israels remaining Palestinians into the Dead sea, he meant for a picnic lunch.

Reality: The Jews of Israel launched a bloody attack on Palestinians in 1920 to force the hand of the Western Powers then meeting to discuss the Zionist question and others. Jabotinsky was appointed to lead this 'Jewish Defence force' the Haganah, later to become Irgun and finally Likud.

Jabotinsky, 'Iron Wall' 1923

"Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our “Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network."

;D Some smacking dove.

Grey wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 6:22pm:

Yeah right, the trouble started in 1948. Israel had a perfect right to expel Palestinians and steal their homes. After all the Palestinians were offered a really great deal. And Avigdor Lieberman is much misunderstood. When he talked of driving Israels remaining Palestinians into the Dead sea, he meant for a picnic lunch. Reality: The Jews of Israel launched a bloody attack on Palestinians in 1920 to force the hand of the Western Powers then meeting to discuss the Zionist question and others. Jabotinsky was appointed to lead this 'Jewish Defence force' the Haganah, later to become Irgun and finally Likud. Jabotinsky, 'Iron Wall' 1923 "Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our “Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network." ;D Some smacking dove.

get over yourself. there is one democracy in the ME - ISrael. there is ONE modern economy in the M - ISRAEL. there is one country in the ME that doesnt preemptively attack others - ISRAEL. perhaps if you understood that the arabs and palestinians worst enemy is themselves and their utterly hopeless soceity and economy.  Jordans Science minister himself bemoaned the fact that the arabs hadnt done anything scientific for 1000 years.

maybe they should stop shooting, hating and fighting and start learning, working and learning to get along. but no - they fight and the result is a whol string of crap-hole countries surrounding the one country that has a 21st century economy - ISRAEL.

Yeah a modern Democracy that creates a bantustan for Palestinians and treats its prisoners of conscience worse than Burma or Cuba.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1096744.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

After his 18 years of imprisonment including 11 in solitary Mordechai Vanunu has been under house arrest, been arrested and interrogated countless times and has been reimprisoned on two occasions. Once for six months once for three.

Civilised societies don't treat whistleblowers this harshly. That Israel has a thriving economy is hardly to its credit; considering the enormous amount of aid paid to it by the US and the enormous injections of funds coughed up by a large proportion of the rest of the Jewish diaspora.

"Get over yourself" For what? Knowing what I'm talking about? Keh!

Grey wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 7:27pm:

Yeah a modern Democracy that creates a bantustan for Palestinians and treats its prisoners of conscience worse than Burma or Cuba. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1096744.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu After his 18 years of imprisonment including 11 in solitary Mordechai Vanunu has been under house arrest, been arrested and interrogated countless times and has been reimprisoned on two occasions. Once for six months once for three. Civilised societies don't treat whistleblowers this harshly. That Israel has a thriving economy is hardly to its credit; considering the enormous amount of aid paid to it by the US and the enormous injections of funds coughed up by a large proportion of the rest of the Jewish diaspora. "Get over yourself" For what? Knowing what I'm talking about? Keh!

I'll ask you to do the same as Greens-lose. Why dont you try complaining about the constant attacks on Israel by its neighbours, the bombing of school buses, the kidnap and murder of civilians?  When I see equal air-time from you about those things then I will consider your opinion to have some credibiity. but until then, you are just like green: telling one side of the story and pretending it is the truth.

dead bombed children in israel. not accidents or collateral damage; not human shields or killed because the army put missle launchers in a kindergarten. DELIBERATELY TARGETTED.

over to you...

Run out of argument have you Longie? Well i'll pass on the invitation to run both sides of the issue. Suffice to say I do not support terrorism and I have pretty much equal contempt for Hamas Hezboullah and Likud. My people are the ordinary men and women on both sides of the fence.

Moshe and Munir are worth listening too.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2008/s2167985.htm

Grey wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 8:43pm:

Run out of argument have you Longie? Well i'll pass on the invitation to run both sides of the issue. Suffice to say I do not support terrorism and I have pretty much equal contempt for Hamas Hezboullah and Likud. My people are the ordinary men and women on both sides of the fence. Moshe and Munir are worth listening too. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2008/s2167985.htm

thats all you had to say although i did mention 'equal air time'. one sentence about hamas and multiple lengthy posts about Israel. do u see my point? your 'supposed' equal contempt doesnt appear that equal.

Grey wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 7:27pm:

Yeah a modern Democracy that creates a bantustan for Palestinians and treats its prisoners of conscience worse than Burma or Cuba. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1096744.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu After his 18 years of imprisonment including 11 in solitary Mordechai Vanunu has been under house arrest, been arrested and interrogated countless times and has been reimprisoned on two occasions. Once for six months once for three. Civilised societies don't treat whistleblowers this harshly. That Israel has a thriving economy is hardly to its credit; considering the enormous amount of aid paid to it by the US and the enormous injections of funds coughed up by a large proportion of the rest of the Jewish diaspora.

What you call a 'whistleblower', is what others would call a traitor.
And being a traitor in a country that has been attacked so many times, and been on a constant war footing for over 60 years surrounded by enemies, is not being in an enviable position.
Perhaps this traitor has never heard of the Official Secrets Act.
He should be content in the knowledge he would have been put up against a wall years ago and shot in most of the countries that surround Israel, if he had done the same to them.
But it's all a question of semantics really.
With a little bit of research, you will find Israel's foreign financial aid packages are quite minor whan compared to the GDP that Israel generates nowadays though it's exports.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 8:41am:

Grey wrote on Sep 21st, 2011 at 7:27pm: Yeah a modern Democracy that creates a bantustan for Palestinians and treats its prisoners of conscience worse than Burma or Cuba. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1096744.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu After his 18 years of imprisonment including 11 in solitary Mordechai Vanunu has been under house arrest, been arrested and interrogated countless times and has been reimprisoned on two occasions. Once for six months once for three. Civilised societies don't treat whistleblowers this harshly. That Israel has a thriving economy is hardly to its credit; considering the enormous amount of aid paid to it by the US and the enormous injections of funds coughed up by a large proportion of the rest of the Jewish diaspora. What you call a 'whistleblower', is what others would call a traitor. And being a traitor in a country that has been attacked so many times, and been on a constant war footing for over 60 years surrounded by enemies, is not being in an enviable position. Perhaps this traitor has never heard of the Official Secrets Act. He should be content in the knowledge he would have been put up against a wall years ago and shot in most of the countries that surround Israel, if he had done the same to them. But it's all a question of semantics really. With a little bit of research, you will find Israel's foreign financial aid packages are quite minor whan compared to the GDP that Israel generates nowadays though it's exports.

even if you accept that Israel's treatment of this whistleblower was harsh it hardly amounts to a blanket condemnation fo the state. You could hardly call what we did to Lindy Chamberlain or that indian doctor even close to reasonable. every country has its appalling incidents but we dont call an entire bad as a result. yet where is the condemnatino of Libya, Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc with all its blatatn abuse of human rights?

nowhere!

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 8:06pm:

Quote: Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead. "From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said This is nothing but blatant sabre rattling. What are Israel going to do? Chuck a tantrem and withdraw from the UN? Lets see them try. If they aren't a member state of the UN, they do not abide by any UN sanctions. Lets see the U.S defend that. As far as Australia is concerned, I would hope we would stay well out of it and instead focus on gaining our seat on the Security Council.

Australia will do whatever the USA asks it  to do, because so far Australia has always done as asked, first by Britain and now by the USA.

If we allow the Palestinian territories a place on the UN, we go down a rocky road with that one.

We cannot give in to terror and we cannot abandon our Israeli friends.

They remain a little democracy fighting for their freedom in a region surrounded by enemies.
They need our (Britain, France, US) help and support.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 8:13pm:

If we allow the Palestinian territories a place on the UN, we go down a rocky road with that one. We cannot give in to terror and we cannot abandon our Israeli friends. They remain a little democracy fighting for their freedom in a region surrounded by enemies. They need our (Britain, France, US) help and support.

How true, we have no choice but to support the sole democracy in the Middle East.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 7:06am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 22nd, 2011 at 8:13pm: If we allow the Palestinian territories a place on the UN, we go down a rocky road with that one. We cannot give in to terror and we cannot abandon our Israeli friends. They remain a little democracy fighting for their freedom in a region surrounded by enemies. They need our (Britain, France, US) help and support. How true, we have no choice but to support the sole democracy in the Middle East.

agreed. Israel is far from prefect, but in the crowd it stands among they are certainly better behaved by a considerable margin.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 7:20pm:

even if you accept that Israel's treatment of this whistleblower was harsh it hardly amounts to a blanket condemnation fo the state. You could hardly call what we did to Lindy Chamberlain or that indian doctor even close to reasonable. every country has its appalling incidents but we dont call an entire bad as a result.

Because what we do when we screw up is to compensate the luckless and try to make sure we don't do it again, as in the cases you cite.


Quote:

yet where is the condemnatino of Libya, Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc with all its blatatn abuse of human rights?nowhere!

You haven't seen any? That is surprising.