Palestine UN Bid

BladeGunner14 wrote:Yes, the majority does determine who the country belongs to, is this an unfamiliar concept to you? And you realize that there are still more Palestinians scattered around than there are Israelis so the unified landmass should theoretically be Palestinian land.

polska. wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:Yes, the majority does determine who the country belongs to, is this an unfamiliar concept to you? And you realize that there are still more Palestinians scattered around than there are Israelis so the unified landmass should theoretically be Palestinian land.

No, there are more Israeli's.

We've reached a verdict, It's ISRAEL's LAND!!!

ahlycotc wrote:Israel's Population: 7.7 million
Jews: 5.8 million (68% were born in Israel)
Arabs: 2 million

Palestinian Territories' Population:
Jews: < 1 million
Arabs: 4 million

Currently the populations of both Jews and Arabs are equal over the whole area. When Israel was created, the Arabs outnumbered them. You also have to take into consideration the millions of Palestinians who are refugees. The Palestinian population is also increasing at a faster rate. Besides the fact that Arabs outnumber them, there should still be two separate states. I believe there should be just one state where Jews and Arabs live together, but Israeli's don't want that because they know they will be outnumbered and for some reason want a separate "Jewish" state.

The only viable solution is to have two separate, independent nations. The borders can easily be negotiated and I think they should leave Jerusalem as a neutral city or have it split in East and West.

polska. wrote:Unrelated, but how would you feel is Israel allowed Gaza strip to be annexed by Egypt?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:So am I, then we know what to nuke.

ahlycotc wrote:

polska. wrote:Unrelated, but how would you feel is Israel allowed Gaza strip to be annexed by Egypt?

I don't understand your question. Why would Israel allow the Gaza Strip to be annexed by Egypt? As an Egyptian, I'm more interested in full control of the Sinai Peninsula than the Gaza Strip. We don't need to annex Gaza.

Personally, I agree with the general concept of Pan-Arabism (much like the EU).

polska. wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

I don't understand your question. Why would Israel allow the Gaza Strip to be annexed by Egypt? As an Egyptian, I'm more interested in full control of the Sinai Peninsula than the Gaza Strip. We don't need to annex Gaza.

Personally, I agree with the general concept of Pan-Arabism (much like the EU).

Let's say Israel just doesn't give a shit about Gaza anymore and want's it out of their hands, and realize it would be in their self interest to allow Egypt to annex Gaza rather than have an independent Gaza that could bomb them at any time.

Do you think Egypt would annex Gaza and how would you (and other egyptians) feel about such an action?

-----

Personally I think if we eliminate Gaza from the equation, Israel can annex West Bank and declare itself an Arabic-Israeli state, announce no official religion and give Arabs and Israeli's equal rights, make arabic an official language etc.

polska. wrote:Hopefully the rest of the world has a brain.

Failure to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Israel's 40-year occupation, in the words of UN former Secretary General Kofi Annan, would “continue to hurt the reputation of the United Nations and raise questions about its impartiality”.

No cause has consumed as much UN paper work as the plight of the displaced and occupied Palestinians. But hundreds of its resolutions on Palestine have not been respected let alone applied for over half a century.

Nowhere has the UN ideals and mechanisms been more mired in power politics than in Palestine. The efforts to neutralise UN intervention have been championed mainly by the United States. This week’s efforts by the Obama administration working on behalf of Israel took advocacy into a whole new level.

Washington has vetoed more than 40 UN Security Council resolutions critical of its policies some of which were drafted by its European allies. A quick look at today’s Middle East makes it clear that such obstructions worked for the interest of neither party, nor for peace and security in the region.

Cold-War rivalries have also contributed to UN paralysis in the Israeli Palestinian-Arab conflict, which explains why more than half of the 690 resolutions adopted by the General Assembly from 1947-1990 have been ignored.

But what justifies sidelining the UN ever since, while keeping it at an arm’s length from a two decades of Peace Process?

The short answer is a double standard.

All major post-Cold War conflicts have seen direct UN involvement including, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and of late, Lebanon, South Sudan. Not the Palestine problem. It was deferred to the US sponsored diplomatic process even though Washington’s close relations with Israel rendered it anything but an impartial broker.

Not only was Palestinian Israeli conflict snatched out of the world body, most relevant US resolutions critical of Israel were ignored by the US sponsors.

Only after the peace process failed to yield a solution a decade later, did the Bush administration allow the United Nations to join, and even then, only as a junior partner in a newly formed International Quartet that includes the European Union and Russia, all of whom are members of the UN!

Meanwhile, Israel has disregarded tens of resolutions, “censuring”, “calling”, “urging”, “recommending”, or “condemning” its attacks, settlement, deportations, occupation, etc.

Likewise, all pleas and demands for humanitarian and political interventions fell on deaf ears. The only time the UN was allowed to act, was in 1997 when it sent few international unarmed observers to the occupied city of Hebron. Alas, they weren’t mandated to speak publicly about the ongoing violations.

For the past four decades, Israel has violated all relevant UNSC council resolutions such as the resolution 465 of 1980 that strongly deplored all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure of status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

It also rejected Resolution 476, which reaffirmed the necessity to end the Israeli occupation of Arab territories ongoing since the 1967 war. The only UN Security Council Resolution that was accepted by the US and Israel as the basis of the diplomatic process, i.e. 242 of 1967, was also systematically violated. Israel has been expanding its settlement activity when the resolution notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force".

Paradoxically, Israel was created by a UN recommendation for Partitioning Palestine in 1947, and was accepted as a new UN member on the basis of its commitment to respect its resolution, and specifically UNGA 194 regarding the return of the Palestinian refugees.

Now that all other venues have been tried and failed, including 18 years of bilateral negotiations, the UN Security Council must carry its responsibilities by demanding that Israel carry its obligations under UN charter and by recognising the Palestinian right for self-determination in a state of their own. Period.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I have written a letter to David Cameron asking him to ensure we veto this resolution.

polska. wrote:So first he is a muslim communist and now he is a jew?

polska. wrote:So first he is a muslim communist and now he is a jew?

SBSP wrote:

polska. wrote:So first he is a muslim communist and now he is a jew?

Yet he swore in on the Bible.

polska. wrote:

SBSP wrote:Yet he swore in on the Bible.

Ten bucks says he is agnostic/atheist.

ahlycotc wrote:

polska. wrote:Ten bucks says he is agnostic/atheist.

I don't doubt you. When he is talking about an issue that involves Muslims, it's as if he wants to scream "I'm Muslim". When people call him a Muslim, he talks about his Christian faith. He plays with people's emotions to get votes and support.