The Palestinian UN bid for recognition of state

[Meengla]

@Nirreich,
Camp David 2000 was joke. However, yes, Taba 2001 was realistic; too bad Bill Clinton and E. Barak left shortly after Taba 2001 and you know what/who followed them in their respective countries. They are the Israeli counterparts of Hamas.

But, yes, Olmert's offer as per his Op-ed in NY Times is very reasonable. The operative word is 'mutually agreed landswap'. Which means no barren Negev 1000 sq. km for 1000 sq. km of fertile land.

And, yes, Bantustans can be created by just holding on to 10% of other's territory. Look up the Settlment Maps and ponder that.

As I said, some one can take one-mile wide country from the Arctic/North Sea to the Med. Sea in the middle of Europe to ensure a fragmented national existence; that's just a crude example. 10% is a LOT of land to do a Bantustan on such a small area.

 

[Bratva]

How could large number of Palestinians could live in such a small state? If israel didn't leave those occupied settlements of Palestine? Tell me, Doesn't Israel told Palestininans that they have to accept Palestine without West bank settlements? Then how could Palestince accept this kind of Peace deal?

Then what would you expect, A country not giving back there occupied lands, they will shower flowes on you instead of cursing you and making death wishes for you? Then you complain Palestine as a whole threatens the existence of Israel so they should not go to UN before they accept the Israeli version of peace. That's so lame dude.

 

[nirreich]

How could large number of Palestinians could live in such a small state? If israel didn't leave those occupied settlements of Palestine? Tell me, Doesn't Israel told Palestininans that they have to accept Palestine without West bank settlements? Then how could Palestince accept this kind of Peace deal?

The PA will have around 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, so it is for their own consideration how many refugees they are willing to accept. The Palestinian could have a state on that territory which is adequate and integrated.

Israel cannot accept the 'right of return' because there is no such right and more importantly because it will destroy it as a state of the Jewish people.

 

[Bratva]

The PA will have around 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, so it is for their own consideration how many refugees they are willing to accept. The Palestinian could have a state on that territory which is adequate and integrated.

Israel cannot accept the 'right of return' because there is no such right and more importantly because it will destroy it as a state of the Jewish people.

beating the same bush again and again? A jewish nuclear armed state fears the return of unarmed civilians?

Or is that they fear they will lose large chunk of Israeli land which is occupied?. Tell me why not 100 percent of west bank you can give back to Israel? Why after proposing 90- percent west bank you are still making settlements on west bank? why is that so contradictory things happenings on one you offers them and from the other hand you are making efforts to snatch that thing you offer to them?

 

[nirreich]

@Nirreich,
Camp David 2000 was joke. However, yes, Taba 2001 was realistic; too bad Bill Clinton and E. Barak left shortly after Taba 2001 and you know what/who followed them in their respective countries. They are the Israeli counterparts of Hamas.

But, yes, Olmert's offer as per his Op-ed in NY Times is very reasonable. The operative word is 'mutually agreed landswap'. Which means no barren Negev 1000 sq. km for 1000 sq. km of fertile land.

And, yes, Bantustans can be created by just holding on to 10% of other's territory. Look up the Settlment Maps and ponder that.

As I said, some one can take one-mile wide country from the Arctic/North Sea to the Med. Sea in the middle of Europe to ensure a fragmented national existence; that's just a crude example. 10% is a LOT of land to do a Bantustan on such a small area.

Well, sorry but Israel was the winning side in 1967 War, so usually the winner gets the land he conquer. However, we are willing to give up 90% of it, so a simple thank you will be enough. And the 1967 border was only a cease fire line that the Arabs refused until 1967 to accept as the permanent border with Israel as part of a peace treaty. So, tough luck, you had your chance to establish a Palestinian state in the 1967 border and you missed it. Israel will not ignore the conditions that brought the 1967 War in the first place.

Israel will dismantle most of the settlements which take much more than 10% territory of the West Bank. And yes, some of the settlements will remain, see the previous paragraph.

 

[nirreich]

beating the same bush again and again? A jewish nuclear armed state fears the return of unarmed civilians?

Or is that they fear they will lose large chunk of Israeli land which is occupied?. Tell me why not 100 percent of west bank you can give back to Israel? Why after proposing 0- percent west bank you are still making settlements on west bank? why is that so contradictory things happenings on one you offers them and from the other hand you are making efforts to snatch that thing you offer to them?

If 500 million Indians would want to live in Pakistan and change it to an Hindu state would you still pretend not to understand what is the problem with what you called 'unarmed civilians'?

You had your chance to establish a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders before 1967, but the Arabs did not did it, why is that? Now you demand Israel to do it, to be more generous to the Palestinians than their own "brothers"? So we are: we are ready to give them 90% of the territory, and Israel was the winning side of the 1967 War, not the Arabs! Usually the winner conquer the territory and keep it. So just appreciate Israel's generosity.

 

[Meengla]

Well, sorry but Israel was the winning side in 1967 War, so usually the winner gets the land he conquer. However, we are willing to give up 90% of it, so a simple thank you will be enough. And the 1967 border was only a cease fire line that the Arabs refused until 1967 to accept as the permanent border with Israel as part of a peace treaty. So, tough luck, you had your chance to establish a Palestinian state in the 1967 border and you missed it. Israel will not ignore the conditions that brought the 1967 War in the first place.

Israel will dismantle most of the settlements which take much more than 10% territory of the West Bank. And yes, some of the settlements will remain, see the previous paragraph.

Firstly, you are more of a hawk than E. Olmert who is willing to swap land based on 1967 borders upon 'mutually exclusive' agreement. And this 'mutually' is the operative word here. No 10% land grab, according to Olmert. No 1000 sq. km Negev for 1000 sq. km fertile, strategic land.

Secondly, the land Israel claims because of 1967 war is officially 'occupied' land. This is not the 19th century where you invade and grab the land and claim it forever. I am PRETTY SURE the European Settlers in North America also used 'logic' like 'Terrorists'; 'God Given Land'; 'We bought it'; etc to justify what they did to the native Americans.

Thirdly, your fmr. PM Olmert is appearing 'generous' now after being out of power. IF he really made the offer like he did in above article then Pals would be stupid to reject it. But, hey, what is stopping Netanyahu from making the same offer? Kadima was not a 'liberal' like Labor is. Likud would be closer to Kadima, right? But, no, Israeli PMs become generous only when they are out of power. I hope I am wrong on this last point.

Fourthly, Israelis leeching America for decades has directly contributing to American loss of prestige and economy. Had there been no Israeli oppression of Pals, there would be the drain on America. And all it boils down to a few hundred Congressmen/Senators too insecure/greedy because of the Lobby. Just read today's NY Times Comments about this to understand where the liberal America stands.

Why did I bring up the last point (the 4th one)? Because the curtain is downing on the American power in the Middle East. That because the Zionists have drained America as much as they could have. And that Americans are waking up. Thanks to the internet. Game is being over. Very rapidly. 'You can't fool all the people, all the time' kind of narrative is being taken up. And hence Israel is trying to appear 'generous'. Oh, add the might of the Turks and the loss of the Egypt, reality dawns down upon the colonialists pretty fast.

And so... What do you say about the Olmert proposal? Reasonable? I think he is. As he says, 'Now or never'.

Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

 

[nirreich]

Firstly, you are more of a hawk than E. Olmert who is willing to swap land based on 1967 borders upon 'mutually exclusive' agreement. And this 'mutually' is the operative word here. No 10% land grab, according to Olmert. No 1000 sq. km Negev for 1000 sq. km fertile, strategic land.

Secondly, the land Israel claims because of 1967 war is officially 'occupied' land. This is not the 19th century where you invade and grab the land and claim it forever. I am PRETTY SURE the European Settlers in North America also used 'logic' like 'Terrorists'; 'God Given Land'; 'We bought it'; etc to justify what they did to the native Americans.

Thirdly, your fmr. PM Olmert is appearing 'generous' now after being out of power. IF he really made the offer like he did in above article then Pals would be stupid to reject it. But, hey, what is stopping Netanyahu from making the same offer? Kadima was not a 'liberal' like Labor is. Likud would be closer to Kadima, right? But, no, Israeli PMs become generous only when they are out of power. I hope I am wrong on this last point.

Fourthly, Israelis leeching America for decades has directly contributing to American loss of prestige and economy. Had there been no Israeli oppression of Pals, there would be the drain on America. And all it boils down to a few hundred Congressmen/Senators too insecure/greedy because of the Lobby. Just read today's NY Times Comments about this to understand where the liberal America stands.

Why did I bring up the last point (the 4th one)? Because the curtain is downing on the American power in the Middle East. That because the Zionists have drained America as much as they could have. And that Americans are waking up. Thanks to the internet. Game is being over. Very rapidly. 'You can't fool all the people, all the time' kind of narrative is being taken up. And hence Israel is trying to appear 'generous'. Oh, add the might of the Turks and the loss of the Egypt, reality dawns down upon the colonialists pretty fast.

And so... What do you say about the Olmert proposal? Reasonable? I think he is. As he says, 'Now or never'.

Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

As I said Olmert made his offer while he was in office and not on the NYTimes, but in the negotiation table. Olmert also suggested 90% of the territory with a land swap.

Borders were determined in the 20th century following wars and not only in a distance past. Russia and Poland and France even today control territories which were once were part of Germany, the border between India and Pakistan is a result of military conflicts and so on.

Israel conquered the West Bank due to the hostility of its Arab neighbours who threatened Israel with a full-scale war.

If Olmert's proposals seems reasonable to you, then why the Palestinians did not accept them? I think the answer is clear: Their prime objective is not to establish a state next to Israel but a state that will replace Israel by insisting on the so-called 'right of return'.

I assure you that Israel, both its people and its leadership, will never accept this demand which is preposterous. The Arabs should pressurise the Palestinians to abandon it and help their refugees to settle in their home countries.

 

[T-Rex]

As I said Olmert made his offer while he was in office and not on the NYTimes, but in the negotiation table. Olmert also suggested 90% of the territory with a land swap.

Borders were determined in the 20th century following wars and not only in a distance past. Russia and Poland and France even today control territories which were once were part of Germany, the border between India and Pakistan is a result of military conflicts and so on.

Israel conquered the West Bank due to the hostility of its Arab neighbours who threatened Israel with a full-scale war.

If Olmert's proposals seems reasonable to you, then why the Palestinians did not accept them? I think the answer is clear: Their prime objective is not to establish a state next to Israel but a state that will replace Israel by insisting on the so-called 'right of return'.

I assure you that Israel, both its people and its leadership, will never accept this demand which is preposterous. The Arabs should pressurise the Palestinians to abandon it and help their refugees to settle in their home countries.

Israelis like you are waiting for a disaster. As for your zionist advice, I believe a world free from the american hegemony will help the Palestinians to settle in their own homeland which is being occupied by a terrorist entity at the moment.

 

[nirreich]

Israelis like you are waiting for a disaster. As for your zionist advice, I believe a world free from the american hegemony will help the Palestinians to settle in their own homeland which is being occupied by a terrorist entity at the moment.

If Israel wants to have a disaster, all it needs to do is listen to people like you, then its destruction is guaranteed, which is exactly what you want. So, it is a waste of time discussing this issue with you.

 

[T-Rex]

If Israel wants to have a disaster, all it needs to do is listen to people like you, then its destruction is guaranteed, which is exactly what you want. So, it is a waste of time discussing this issue with you.

Time will tell who is that harbinger of disaster!

 

[RockyX]

I always support Israel. I think GoI decision is wrong. May be their decision to keep good relation with Both Israel and Palestine which can impact relation with Middle-East countries also. But this was the time, to choose Israel or maximum abstain. The decision is against majority of Indians sentiments. 2/3rd Indian supports Israel.

Now most of countries do support Palestine bid. Still, even 99% countries can vote for palestine and usa can still veto it. Palestine will get nothing concrete, it would be more like symbolic.

 

[RockyX]

Palestine don't deserve state. Their are many reasons

1) 40% off the Palestinian workforce work in Israel another 20% work for Israeli settlers.
2) 40 off electricity, 90% off water and 100% off fuel enter thru Israel.
3) Palestine budget is 50% donations (mainly US and EU ) and 50% taxes collected by Israeli government.
4) Palestinians don't have a national bank or currency
5) half of the proposed state is under the thumb off a known terrorist organization that happens to be the legal government because they won the election
6) last but not least 600000 Jewish civilians and 80000 soldiers in that proposed state and they have no intention off leaving.

All Un thing is joke.

 

[Al Bhatti]

Few days back, the number of countries who were supporting the bid has exceeded the quota set by the UN for the recognition of a state in the UN.

But as everyone knows that in many places the power in a way or other is in the hands of the tyrants and hypocrites.

Same applies to the state which will Veto this bid whether it be Muslims or non-Muslims, Arabs or non Arabs.

 

[Zabaniyah]

you havent understod why those idiots still gave obambam the peace prize?

No I haven't understood