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


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????

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



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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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




IMAGE







IMAGE