Australian Politics Forum - Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #60 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:11am

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

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.

Grin

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).

Back to top

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #61 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:23am

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #62 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 11:07am

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Deborahmac09 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1619	Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid Reply #63 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 11:13am 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid Reply #64 - 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.
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #65 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 12:28pm

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

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

doesnt it all depend on the MONEY they have?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #66 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 5:52pm

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

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

____ 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/abstra...

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-dea...

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???

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #67 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 5:56pm

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

____ 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...

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #68 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 5:58pm

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #69 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:00pm

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?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18817
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #70 - Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:41pm

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

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

____ 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/abstra...

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-dea...

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.

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #71 - Sep 19^th, 2011 at 3:01pm

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

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?

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.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #72 - Sep 19^th, 2011 at 3:09pm

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

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

____ 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...

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.

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #73 - Sep 19^th, 2011 at 5:18pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Australia's Position On Palestine UN Bid
Reply #74 - Sep 20^th, 2011 at 10:53pm

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

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 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.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged