1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Palestinian Bid For Statehood

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Fred Sherman, Sep 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member

    Why is this even an issue? No petition for statehood can be granted to any group without clearly defined borders and reciprocal recognition of those borders by that nations that share them. Nor can statehood be granted to any group that claims a capital that is part of another recognized nation. No group that actively sponsors and supports terrorism can receive statehood. No group that allows terrorist to operate within their area of control unchallenged (defacto support) can be granted statehood (Hamas). No group that claims to control an area, yet in reality shares control (Palestinian Authority/Hamas: http://asianconservatives.com/war/israel-crisis-hamas-palestinian-authority-sign-power-sharing-deal/) can be granted state hood.

    There is no Palestine. There are no borders. Jerusalem resides within Israel.

    This is not a workable model for statehood. Case closed.

    fattony69 and Digital Doctor like this.
  2. Brogan

    Brogan XenForo Moderator Staff Member

    I can't see this thread ending well...
    whynot, Alien, Sadik B and 6 others like this.
  3. Digital Doctor

    Digital Doctor Well-Known Member

    I guess that would be similar to the fate of this bid for statehood.
  4. Phil Conway

    Phil Conway Active Member

    It's cause and effect though isn't it. The Palestinians are oppressed and ignored by their occupying neighbours, and so the only option available to them is to resort to violence, which results in further resentment and a hardening of opinions and treatment on the Israeli side, which then feeds into creating increased violence by the Palestinian side. Groups like Hamas and the terrorists you refer to would not exist if Israelis did not actively oppress the Palestinians in an attempt to pre-empt any conflict, and if the Arabs had been listened to and treated equally by the colonial powers that previously occupied/administered the area after the British War against the Ottoman Empire. The British couldn't manage to mediate a solution between the different factions and eventually gave it up to the UN. The history after that is a massive bloody mess.

    The simple truth is that this land has been repeatedly conquered by so many different factions over the last 1300 years (The Greeks, the Persians, The Babylonians, The Arabs, the British) that it ceased to be either Israel or Palestine, and the original drawing up of the borders should never have happened in the form that it did.

    Both nations can exist side by side, but this will not happen while people blow/shoot each other up and while people are forced out of their homes and barriers are drawn up round boundaries on a map. Whether or not there are people on either side capable of taking the steps necessary to solve this 60-year old problem remain to be seen, at the moment it just seems to be getting worse.

    If this latest development forces both groups to the negotiating table to talk to each other it can only be a good thing as the current approach by either side isn't working. Both groups need to lay down their arms and negotiate, which is especially hard to do given the decades of hate and prejuidice in both camps towards each other (a la Northern Ireland). There are many groups, people and countries at fault for this situation, but pointing the finger of blame at all/any of them won't solve this complicated problem.
  5. kkm323

    kkm323 Well-Known Member

    RastaLulz likes this.
  6. Ranger375

    Ranger375 Well-Known Member

    Can't we all just get along? :D
  7. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member

    I think you missed my point entirely. The history is irrelevant. Its not the Israel of the Bible/Torah/Koran. It is modern-day Israel, recognized by the international community with borders, a capitol and embassies throughout the world. it is a member nation of the UN.

    We can argue whether or not Palestinians are oppressed. Ignored? That isn't even debatable. They are the most recognized and talked about people without a nation on the planet.

    You say both nations can exist side-by-side. Thats theoretical. For that to happen, the PA must reject Hamas, a terrorist organization, first and foremost. Secondly, they PA must not be a safe harbor of terrorism. These are requirements for the world governments before they can do anything more to help. Meet them, and more things can happen.

    Next, we have to address the unique situation of Israel's existence. It is surrounded by enemies that want nothing less than its total destruction. No one can expect Israel to give up land that will out it at a strategic disadvantage. Its not different than the US not allowing Soviet missiles on Cuba during the 60s. Some things are just too much of a strategic weakness to be acceptable.

    Israel and The PA are not going to be able to negotiate this by themselves. Each is too entrenched in their position to see the potential for compromise. The US isn't in a position to assist anymore. Obama has damaged US-Israeli relations to the point where he isn't trusted.

    So who brokers the solution? The EU? Not likely. The problem with the EU is it is an economic alliance, not a political one. When the EU nations speak about Israel & Palestinians, it is with a discordant voice. Russia? With their relationship with Iran, that might not be a bad idea, at least as one member to the party. China also has influence. Maybe a middle east summit jointly brokered by the US, China and Russia?

    I like that idea, but I don't see any US president buying into it. They all want to be the rock star.

    At the end of the day, Israel still holds all of the cards. Should their patience ever wear thin, they could eliminate the PA quickly and decisively. They have the military capability to eliminate all of their enemies and the public will to do it. But that would be a nuclear option (at least figuratively) because world opinion would turn quickly against them unless they were provoked.

    And why should Palestine come exclusively from Israel? How about some land from Israel, some from Jordan, some from Lebanon and Syria? Or is Palestine simply the excuse for Arab anti-semitism?

    It doesn't matter how you look at this, there is no good solution. The not thing that is certain - granting Palestinian statehood before finding that resolution will be disastrous. It will destabilize the region and I'm nearly certain set in motion the events that lead to the next world war.
    Syndol likes this.
  8. John

    John Well-Known Member

    What's "interesting" to me in this debate is the fact that the UN offered the Palestinians their own state at the same time Israel was created but the Arabs (Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon) refused that offer at the time. Now that Israel has done for the land in 100 years what the Arabs couldn't or wouldn't for 1,000 years, they want it all and are using the Palestinians as pawns.

    I agree with Fred, the next and I believe final world war will come about because of this issue. Iran is the key antagonist in all of this and need to be stopped at all costs from going nuclear.
    Syndol likes this.
  9. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member

    Thats all true and not disputed. However, what you show as Palestine in 1946 was, in fact, the British Mandate for Palestine under High Commissioner Sir Alan Cunningham. At one point, the Mandate for Palestine encompassed portions of what is today Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

    Jordan was granted independence from the Mandate for Palestine by the Crown in 1946 and Israel in 1948.


    So, with respect, I ask why the land to create a modern Palestine must come exclusively from Israel? Why not from Jordan as well? Why does every argument for Palestinian borders stop at post-Jordanian Independence in 1946? Why not as far back is 1920?

    Or better yet, how about 1917 when Britain created Palestine from the Ottoman Empire? One of the biggest complaints I hear is that Britain just created Israel from Palestine. Okay, but they did the same thing with Palestine 31 years earlier.

    The region has been in upheaval for 63 years over a country that only existed for 31 years and never, for a single day, existed as a true country, but only as a "administrative area" under the British crown.

    I infer from your avatar that this is personal for you. I would very much like to hear your ideas for how this can be resolved in such a way that both Israel and Palestine can peacefully co-exist. My beliefs are based only on what I real or see in the news. You have real life experience that none of us have.

    I truly have no idea how to solve this. There are days when I think the world is eventually going to have to pick sides and either through aggressive diplomacy or outright war solve it once and for all. How sad would that be and how much of an indictment is that of us as a species?
  10. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member

    As long as people have the decency to respect each other and understand that we all have different life experiences based on what part of the world we come from, then we should be okay. If we can't discuss the topic here among people that generally seem to like each other, then how the devil can we expect an antagonistic UN to tackle the problem?
    Phil Conway likes this.
  11. kkm323

    kkm323 Well-Known Member

    so you don't think that the Palestinian granted any right to live in peace in their own homeland and you're suggesting that they should move out of the country "Palestine" to live with their neighbor so the jewsh can live in peace. I don't think building barreies and walls would create any solution to the problem.

    there is not such thing called "Israel" Palestine was recognize by the british in those days. look at the map you provided do you see any "Israel". Anyway i am not denying the fact that there were jews who lived there and have all equal right.
  12. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member

    Thats not what I am saying at all.

    I am saying there has never been a Palestinian state or nation. That much is fact. Here is your history for the region:

    1948 - ??? - Israel
    1920–1948 - The British Mandate for Palestine
    1516–1918 - The Ottoman Empire
    1250–1517 - Mamluk Sultanate
    1171–1341 - Ayyubid dynasty
    909–1171 - Fatimid Islamic Caliphate
    750–909 - Abbasid Caliphate
    661–750 - Umayyad Caliphate
    395–661 - Byzantine Empire
    27 BC–395 - Roman Empire
    63 BC–27 BC Roman Republic
    163 BC - 63 BC - Hasmonean dynasty
    198 BC - 163 BC - Seleucid Empire
    322 BC - 198 BC - Egyptian Empire
    332 BC - 322 BC - Macedon (Alexander the Great)
    539 BC -332 BC Persian Empire

    Now, with that said, I have no objection to a Palestinian state. I object to the belief that is must come exclusively from the territory of Israel. There is no legitimacy to that claim over the last 2600 years. The only legitimacy to a claim for a Palestinian state derives from the ritish Mandate for Palestine, which would then include Jordan as well. Yet this is never something that Palestinians ask for that I have ever heard. Am I wrong about that?

    I agree. Barriers and walls will not help, but neither will terrorism. Do you denounce terrorism and Hamas? Do you have the same view of Hamas that I have? If not, why? Believe me, I am looking to understand and I want you to have the opportunity to help others see your point of view. If this thread degrades into a bash Israel/bash Palestine - I'm right/you're wrong thread, it should be closed.

    What I want to see is a middle east where Palestine and Israel coexist, but also where one does not exist and the expense of the other. Lets face it, there is a greater historical claim to the area under Palestinian Authority as Judea and Sumaria than there is for Palestine.

    Maybe thats my point. The whole historical argument is disingenuous. The basis for statehood should be a people with a unique cultural identity that the basic respect for the dignity of the human person demands a homeland. Thats a good starting point.
  13. Robert F Schmitz

    Robert F Schmitz Well-Known Member

    In part though, Western influence in the Middle East and Asia has created more problems than it has solved. We now left to deal with these former actions. All that I know is that a peaceful solution has to be found because the oppression happening now is not good for the West, Israel or the Middle East. There are innocent people on both sides getting hurt.
  14. Robert F Schmitz

    Robert F Schmitz Well-Known Member

    Why do you define the UN as antagonistic?
  15. Brogan

    Brogan XenForo Moderator Staff Member

    It may happen sooner than previously thought, if Turkey follows through on its stated intention to send a warship to accompany the next aid shipment to Palestine.

    Israel certainly hasn't done itself any favours, pissing off its only 2 friends in the "muslim" world: Turkey and Egypt.

    The US may finally be forced to pick sides between Israel or its bases in the middle east.
  16. jmurrayhead

    jmurrayhead Well-Known Member

    I prefer option c - stay the hell out of it.
    RastaLulz, Sadik B, Kim and 1 other person like this.
  17. kkm323

    kkm323 Well-Known Member

    the list of many empire who conquered that land doesn't reflect the name of the region... read this (its been called this name since the 5th century BC)

    just to point something, killing without a trail by legitimate court is consider murder (Terror Act). Therefor both Hamas and the Mossad are terrorist organization and they both should be banned. I see them both as the main problem and we would live better without them. :)
    EQnoble and ragtek like this.
  18. kkm323

    kkm323 Well-Known Member

    Brogan, the US have no choice but to choose Isreal. It's been this way and it would be... Trust Me ;)
  19. Digital Doctor

    Digital Doctor Well-Known Member

    Option C - Can't afford it.
  20. fattony69

    fattony69 Well-Known Member

    A good way to figure out the situation.

    Netanyahu meets up with Obama who can change this.

    Problem is that Jewish people are starting to realize Obama's stance after the 1967 remark.

    Democrats are worried because of this:

    Now what does this all have to do with Obama and the Statehood.

    If the jewish people realize that Obama (might not or will not) support Israel and let this pass in the UN, he causes a huge issue.

    Why? "Not since Jimmy Carter in 1980 has a Democrat running for president failed to win a lopsided majority of the Jewish vote. This has been true during times of peace or war, and even when there has been deep acrimony between the White House and the Israeli government." - NYT article. If this happens, he loses a TON of funding and support for campaigning for the 2012.

    We already know that Obama is having a lot of issues with the people as it is - aka Healthcare, Economy, Foreign Affairs.

    The country is in a huge split.

    If he goes anti-Israel, Netanyahu won't give up without a fight. I must say, the Israel Army are perhaps one of the toughest in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_involving_Israel

    Israel also gives us a Military boost as they are already in the Middle East and benefits us. It would behoove Obama to keep them happy for the rest of his term(s).

    Also, from actual soldiers from the Israeli army (as well as news reports), Hamas fights dirty constantly. They will shot at the soldiers from a school with children in it to have the Israel army retaliate and make them seem evil for shooting at a school. Horrendous if you ask me.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page