Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
World | Wed Dec 31, 2014
Palestinian statehood resolution fails at U.N council, U.S. votes against
Excepts
The resolution called for negotiations to be based on territorial lines that existed before Israel captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war. It also called for a peace deal within 12 months.
Even if the draft had received the minimum nine votes in favor, it would have been defeated by Washington's vote against it. The United States is one of the five veto-wielding permanent members.
There were eight votes in favor, including France, Russia and China, two against and five abstentions, among them Britain. Australia joined the United States in voting against the measure.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power defended Washington's position against the draft in a speech to the 15-nation council by saying it was not a vote against peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
"The United States every day searches for new ways to take constructive steps to support the parties in making progress toward achieving a negotiated settlement," she said. "The Security Council resolution put before us today is not one of those constructive steps."
She said the text was "deeply imbalanced" and contained "unconstructive deadlines that take no account of Israel’s legitimate security concerns." To make matters worse, Power said, it "was put to a vote without a discussion or due consideration among council members."
She did not spare Israel either. "Today's vote should not be interpreted as a victory for an unsustainable status quo," Power said, adding that Washington would oppose actions by either side that undermined peace efforts, whether "in the form of settlement activity or imbalanced draft resolutions."
Jordanian Ambassador Dina Kawar, the sole Arab representative on the council, expressed regret that the resolution was voted down, while noting that she thought council members should have had more time to discuss the proposal.
PALESTINIAN FRUSTRATION
The Palestinians, frustrated by the lack of progress in peace talks, have sought to internationalize the issue by seeking U.N. membership and recognition of statehood via membership in international organizations.
Palestinian observer Riyad Mansour thanked delegations that voted for the resolution, noting that lawmakers in a number of European countries have called for recognition of Palestine. He said it was time to end the "abhorrent Israeli occupation and impunity that has brought our people so much suffering."
"It is thus most regrettable that the Security Council remains paralyzed," he said.
Mansour added that the Palestinian leadership "must now consider its next steps." The Palestinians have threatened to join the International Criminal Court, which they could then use as a forum to push for war crimes proceedings against Israel.
In a brief statement, Israeli delegate Israel Nitzan said the Palestinians have found every possible opportunity to avoid direct negotiations and brought the council "a preposterous unilateral proposal."
"I have news for the Palestinians - you cannot agitate and provoke your way to a state," he said.
French Ambassador Francois Delattre said Paris would continue its efforts to get a resolution through the council that would help move peace efforts forward.
"France regrets that it isn't possible to reach a consensus today," he said, noting that he voted for the resolution despite having reservations about its contents. "Our efforts must not stop here. It is our responsibility to try again."
An earlier Palestinian draft called for Jerusalem to be the shared capital of Israel and a Palestinian state. The draft that was voted on reverted to a harder line, saying only that East Jerusalem would be Palestine's capital and calling for an end to Israeli settlement building.
The Israeli government had said that a Security Council vote, following the collapse in April of U.S.-brokered talks on Palestinian statehood, would only deepen the conflict.
Israel, which pulled troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, has said its eastern border would be indefensible if it withdrew completely from the West Bank.
Of course we all see more recently that France is serious about her commitment toward a resolution, but also of course Israel remains serious as ever not to even let negotiations resume.
Also of course, we will all judge as we will according to our bias or objectivity in these regards. I lean toward France's bias and/or objectivity as she makes what progress she can...
Your article has nothing to do with the question I asked you. You gave me an article about Palestine going to the United Nations for statehood. I asked you why Palestine rejected statehood through U.S Proctored peace accords? Actually, I think you have no clue what I am talking about..
Your article has nothing to do with the question I asked you. You gave me an article about Palestine going to the United Nations for statehood. I asked you why Palestine rejected statehood through U.S Proctored peace accords? Actually, I think you have no clue what I am talking about..
Palestine rejected statehood twice with East Jerusalem as its capital. Why?
I gave you what I did, because my focus is on what needs to be done NOW regardless all the sad history of the past (that I do know better than I need prove to you or anyone else). If you could just get a clue about why I am doing what I am doing, you might see past what your closed mind can't seem to allow. At least think about it!
I am not trying to do anything of the sort, as anyone who reads what I wrote should well understand...
I INVITE you to provide what information you feel worthy of consideration, and I simply ask you do so straight-forwardly rather than gaming with your battery of questions approach. Try it. You may not find it so difficult, and I guarantee we will both waste less time as well.
If you don't cherry-pick questions you're willing to answer, then why did I have to badger you into answering mine??
Example: In any given peace agreement, what does Israel get? You finally did answer and I appreciate that.
New example of a question you're avoiding: The Palestinians have consistently rejected every two-state solution offered to them. Why is that? Will they continue to do so?
It's not an imaginary problem. It's actually one of the biggest obstacles to establishing a two-state solution and peace. Unsolved, this leaves the Palestinians in their miserable circumstances forever, and obviously nobody wants that.
The truth is, there is growing support for a two-state solution among the Palestinians ... finally after all these years. But after fighting against it for 60 years, they're not going to get 1947 borders. That ship has sailed. They're also not likely to get 1967 borders either. That ship has also sailed. The Palestinians 60 years (and counting) delay in getting around to accepting a two state solution has consequences. So does do their unending attacks on Israel from the very start. And even now, we are not entirely certain whether the majority of the Palestinians actually want peace and a two-state solution. There's good reason to presume that it's just the first step in actually escalating the conflict in an attempt to eliminate the nation of Israel entirely.
The Israelis have no reason to trust the Palestinians. What have the Palestinians done to earn their trust? And as we all know, the feeling is mutual -- but at least the Israelis have consistently accepted two-state solution proposals. The biggest obstacle to peace is the Palestinians themselves, like I said.
I gave you what I did, because my focus is on what needs to be done NOW regardless all the sad history of the past (that I do know better than I need prove to you or anyone else). If you could just get a clue about why I am doing what I am doing, you might see past what your closed mind can't seem to allow. At least think about it!
You gave me trash that had nothing to do with anything. The fact remains is that you take the Palestinian stance but you have no clue why, no facts why.
The facts are this. Palestine had a chance to become a state multiple times. On two recent proposals, they would of had a state based on their terms. But they do not want to become a state because they cannot accept Israel as an infidel country on Islamic land. The Palestinian leadership wants to continue to an armed and political struggle to destroy Israel and replace it with Islamic law. So, Israel removing settlements or your dumb theories that Israel needs to give up more land for peace will do nothing but increase the chance of Israel being destroyed.
P.S Your refusal to answer simple questions was dually noted by members on this forum. I asked the same question 10-13 times and all I from you was, "Who cares about then." So now you know why you are considered an enemy to the state of Israel, because you support intellectually the destruction of Israel through failed policies. Now you know.
If you don't cherry-pick questions you're willing to answer, then why did I have to badger you into answering mine??
Example: In any given peace agreement, what does Israel get? You finally did answer and I appreciate that.
I am not cherry-picking anything. As you note, I can and do answer your questions as it seems to me the time and effort is worthwhile, and I can easily do so as you note above -- you're welcome. I can do so without being badgered. So please think again and please stop being so demanding of your ways, since that is a big part of the problem when it comes to the NEW thinking and cooperation necessary to make progress between the Israelis and Palestinians, to make progress in general I think...
Again, please refer to my comment #253.
As for what trash that follows (not necessarily yours mind you), I am even less inclined to bother...
I gave you what I did, because my focus is on what needs to be done NOW regardless all the sad history of the past (that I do know better than I need prove to you or anyone else). If you could just get a clue about why I am doing what I am doing, you might see past what your closed mind can't seem to allow. At least think about it!
Bruh... I been proving to you why for 10 pages why there is nothing we can do today to change anything. The Palestinians do not want peace nor do they want a state.
Agree to Disagree and hopefully you have learned your lesson on delegitimizing on a group of people before you accuse them of crap.
Bruh... I been proving to you why for 10 pages why there is nothing we can do today to change anything. The Palestinians do not want peace nor do they want a state.
Agree to Disagree and hopefully you have learned your lesson on delegitimizing on a group of people before you accuse them of crap.
Juice,
"LearnMe" comes from a combination of ignorance of the history of the conflict, lack of understanding of its nature, and far-leftism (not necessarily anti-Semitism as some others do). But that's a lethal combination and, as you can see, all the explanations, all the reasoning, all the history, all the facts won't make a bit of difference to a person who is saddled with such characteristics. You and the others could go on for 26 more pages and it won't change this person's outlook even one iota.
You might as well be talking to a wall. That's why I haven't wanted any part of it. It would take me days just to wade through the myriad of misconceptions, misunderstandings, and outright falsities that he (or she) has put forth and exhibited in this long thread. But I do commend you for trying, for your stamina, and for your knowledgeable contributions to this thread and others on the same subject.
I am not cherry-picking anything. As you note, I can and do answer your questions as it seems to me the time and effort is worthwhile, and I can easily do so as you note above -- you're welcome. I can do so without being badgered. So please think again and please stop being so demanding of your ways, since that is a big part of the problem when it comes to the NEW thinking and cooperation necessary to make progress between the Israelis and Palestinians, to make progress in general I think...
Again, please refer to my comment #253.
As for what trash that follows (not necessarily yours mind you), I am even less inclined to bother...
Yet one of the greatest obstacles to peace and to an eventual two-state solution (which is the best possible eventual outcome), is that far too many Palestinians reject any and all two-state solutions that are proposed. It's another one of those big items that cannot be ignored. And as long as there is no solution to it, then peace remains impossible.
The underlying problem with creating two separate nations: Both Israelis and Palestinians kinda want the whole thing. At this point, one would hope they both realize that this just isn't going to happen, but the Palestinians in particular don't seem to get it.
Effectively, the Palestinians are saying, "Give us our own independent nation so we can more efficiently and effectively gather our forces, attack and kill you later." Not surprisingly, the Israelis are less than inclined to agree to such a thing.
Both sides must have the support of their own people in order to negotiate. How do you make it work if the greater majority of Palestinians are only interested in an eventual single Muslim-controlled state? How do you sell a two-state solution to Israel with that ugly little fact lurking in the background?
You don't have to answer the question, "Why have the Palestinians rejected every two-state solution to date?" if you don't want to, but it's hard to take you seriously if you haven't at least thought about it.
Ironic this statement coming from someone forever self-proclaiming to be so all-knowing above me and pretty much everyone else, and of course the further claims and accusations by others also doesn't fool anyone, certainly not me. This is not my first exposure to this sort of attempt to bury the truth of these matters with first-and-foremost accusations of anti-Semiticism, then all the rest of the belittling nonsense that always comes from those so heavily slanted in terms of their personal bias in these regards. You and anyone else who can't accept the justified criticisms of Israel's actions have far more to learn than the history you love to suggest is so hard to understand, a history that of course no one knows unless you are all pro-Zionist. What a crock!
As I read more and more of the same old crappola and witness the ongoing love to rehash the same old reasons why Israel has no choice but to insist on HER conditions before any peace can be negotiated, I am perfectly satisfied to let those here believe as they wish, as they surely will of course, while the rest of the world that is not so tied to the Zionist agenda attempts to bring reason where up until now there has been only the ongoing same nonsense that beggets violence that beggets more nonsense and still more violence.
If I am going to rehash anything it will be my comments #250 and #253 written plain and simple as to my position, my logic, and my reasons. You want to throw all manner of insults toward those efforts, I might only add once again, shame on you!
Yet one of the greatest obstacles to peace and to an eventual two-state solution (which is the best possible eventual outcome), is that far too many Palestinians reject any and all two-state solutions that are proposed.
One of the last comments I posted was the framework proposed by Palestinian leadership as to what they consider acceptable, not passed in the U.N. for all the reasons also included in that comment. Again, that comment about the Palestinian demands was deemed not admissible here by those who can't think in terms of where all this challenging history has brought us TODAY!
Given your reason and logic, one could simply argue in the same way that there are far too many Israelis who reject any and all two-state solutions that are proposed by the Palestinians. All true, which is exactly why negotiations are necessary, regardless the bias and perspective of the other!
Again, I'm not the lone errant voice of reason in this regard! This is how pretty much all of the rest of the modern-day world feels as we witness this intractable problem drag on between the Israelis and Palestinians (emphasis on modern-day). What history I have highlighted to balance the scales here as to which side has done right or wrong, to help point out that neither is at all innocent of wrong doing, has not yet been refuted or even addressed here by those who claim to be all-knowing of this history. I think we're all-knowing as to why...
Put another way, back to my tree house analogy..., say my position is to only remove the first level of my tree house in your tree, but I will keep all the other four higher levels that I will access by lift on my side of the property rather than ladder.
Now why might you reject all my "two-state" tree house solutions? Might it be that all those additional levels of tree house are still not close to acceptable if they remain?
What's so hard to understand here? (For non-Zionists I mean)?
Last edited by LearnMe; 02-22-2016 at 11:29 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's get a clue, shall we?
