Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

    The Palestinian Authority, the western backed governement in the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas, has filed a statehood bid ( for recognition by the international community) at the UN earlier this year. With the General Assembly gathering to vote the Palestinians look set to be granted non-member country status by the UN ( similar to the Vatican, Switzerland before 2002, or the two Germanys before 1973). A full UN membership bid is certain to be shot down by an already announced US veto. But even as a recognized non-member state the Palestinians could participate in UN agencies and appeal to international courts against disputed israeli policies like land confiscation or punitive measures targetting the palestinian population. The move is according to the Palestinians not meant as bypassing negotiations, but to break the deadlock by making further israeli attempts to sidestep or bloc negotiations impossible. The palestinian side even commits itself to reopen all unsolved chapters directly after the UN vote.
    So far the israeli side has refused to stop or suspend the annexation of land in the West Bank as a precondition of coming to the table, and has announced tough "retaliatory" measures should the Palestinians win recognition in New York. Suggestions passed around rank from freezing palestinian tax money that Israel collects as occupation power (a move that would bancrupt the PA fast) till a military invasion of the parts of the West Bank with palestinian limited self rule, the dismantling of all palestinian institutions and a new occupation. Obama and european key allies have signalled Netanyahu though that punitive actions would not be condoned, and then there is also election campaigning going on in Israel. The israeli political spectre is also split though, former PM Ehud Olmert ( no dove, as he ordered the brief Gaza war 2008/009) and a number of other leaders are supporting the palestinian UN bid, as it also forces Israel to confront the key questions about the countrys own future.
    US officials are currently making last minute attempts at convincing Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw the palestinian statehood bid, Abbas can hardly afford to back down though in light of the political boost that his rival Hamas got from Israels recent Gaza offensive. While there is no doubt how the US will vote, the Europeans are split. Most of the union, including heavyweights France and Britain have announced a "yes", Germany abstains ( in spite of supporting a palestinian state in principle. Merkel considers the palestinian UN move "unwise" at the current stage), and the Czech republic says "no", at least currently :

    Palestinians set to win statehood recognition in UN vote | World news | guardian.co.uk




    Palestinians set to win statehood recognition in UN vote | World news | guardian.co.uk
    Last edited by Voland; 11-29-2012, 03:18 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

    Dumbest thing they can possibly do, IMHO.

    If Palestine is a state, then the rockets raining into Israel are an act of war. My prediction: within 24 hours of being recognized as a state, Palestine will be at war with Israel. Not a tit for tat exchange of missiles / airstrikes, but a genuine shooting war.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

      Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
      Dumbest thing they can possibly do, IMHO.

      If Palestine is a state, then the rockets raining into Israel are an act of war. My prediction: within 24 hours of being recognized as a state, Palestine will be at war with Israel. Not a tit for tat exchange of missiles / airstrikes, but a genuine shooting war.


      Well, for Gaza there would be hardly much of a difference. But also the israeli settlers in the West Bank would suddenly become occupiers stealing a foreign nations soil, officially, according to all international standards. And the Gaza blocade wouldnt be an act of war itself ?
      Anyway, you are aware that the statehood bid was filed by Fatah, that is Hamas OPPONENT ? And that also israeli leaders are supporting it, and NOT just of the peacenik camp ? Both sides policies have contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict. If the statehood bid finally forces both sides to talk about the REAL issues ( settlements, one state/two states, and not crappy rockets) there is no plausible reason to deny the Palestinians basic freedoms that others consider "self-evident". " Wether they use that freedom sensibly is like always, another question though.
      Last edited by Voland; 11-29-2012, 04:06 AM.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

        Originally posted by Voland View Post
        Well, for Gaza there would be hardly much of a difference. But also the israeli settlers in the West Bank would suddenly become occupiers stealing a foreign nations soil, officially, according to all international standards. And the Gaza blocade wouldnt be an act of war itself ?
        Anyway, you are aware that the statehood bid was filed by Fatah, that is Hamas OPPONENT ? And that also israeli leaders are supporting it, and NOT just of the peacenik camp ? Both sides policies have contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict. If the statehood bid finally forces both sides to talk about the REAL issues ( settlements, one state/two states, and not crappy rockets) there is no plausible reason to deny the Palestinians basic freedoms that others consider "self-evident". " Wether they use that freedom sensibly is like always, another question though.
        My point exactly - this is a Fatah initiative. Hamas will do whatever they can to fuck it up.

        After so many generations of pointless, mindless violence, I don't see this fixing anything. I guess I am just cynical.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

          Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
          My point exactly - this is a Fatah initiative. Hamas will do whatever they can to fuck it up.

          After so many generations of pointless, mindless violence, I don't see this fixing anything. I guess I am just cynical.

          That is with certainty NOT a fix. It COULD be a start ( to break the deadlock hanging over both peoples). The REASONABLE policy options arent that many after all, and have been on the table for decades. Israel can either have a state with or without the Palestinians, but it is incapable to make the Palestinians dissappear.

          1. A one-state concept would allow Israel to keep the land, but change its "jewish" character for good. Since either they make the Palestinians equal citizens of a joint jewish/arab state or they dont. But states that discriminate parts of their population based on ethnicity are commonly reffered to as Apartheid. And that an israeli apartheid state would end the conflict is nothing that anyone with half a brain can claim. At the same time the idea is out of the question even for most centrist and left-wing Israelis, and therefore dead before conception.

          2. A two-state concept requires inevitably to give up parts of the land to achieve a separation. Israeli policies of recent years have been aimed at improving Israels position ahead of future negotiations by kicking the can down the road ( for example by setting impossible pre-conditions that are step by step withdrawn to be replaced by new ones) and use the delay to "create facts" on the ground. Like to continue land annexations and settlement expansions that would be cut off from a future palestinian state. And to take steps that force Jerusalem Arabs to move to the West Bank. The price for that is to continously strenghten the palestinian Radicals while humilating the palestinian peace camp (Abbas, who has in spite of all his dovish diplomacy nothing to show to his people) and the resulting deadlock. The statehood bid is a quite clever effort to break out of that circle, but also one to save Fatah itself ( whose rule is based on a two states "solution"). Israel on the other side only has the later option as well, at least if it wants to remain "jewish and democratic". The architects of the settlement policy are ironically making the separation of a VIABLE palestinian state through continued land grab increasingly impossible while at the same time ruling out option one.
          For Hamas that is actually good news , since continued conflict is obviously part of its power base. On the other hand they are supporting the UN bid, since even its own supporters would not tolerate to gamble away this opportunity. But if Abbas fails, it is a question of time till he falls, and if that is what Americans and Israelis should hope for is HIGHLY questionable.
          Last edited by Voland; 11-29-2012, 05:15 AM.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

            I'm with Matt on this one, Palestinians getting a UN statehood bid will end with yet more violence, conflict, and "war." And no one should be shocked by it.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

              Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
              I'm with Matt on this one, Palestinians getting a UN statehood bid will end with yet more violence, conflict, and "war." And no one should be shocked by it.

              And what is denying the Palestinians statehood supposed to accomplish, except more "violence, conflict and war" ?

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

                Originally posted by Voland View Post
                And what is denying the Palestinians statehood supposed to accomplish, except more "violence, conflict and war" ?
                Exactly, now you are getting it. At this stage of the game it does not matter what happens. UN recognized statehood or not Palestinians will not have all that far back in history to find an excuse to lob rockets into Israel. Israel acting on that, or some other event, will respond. The term "statehood" does not matter nor will it change all that much as both sides have a historical condition and a likely future of continued conflict. About the only thing that changes is now Israel will have a "statehood" to declare war against. Perhaps it really is time for the UN (and the US) to get out of the way and let whoever the victor is stand, I sure am tired of our involvement in that fiasco over there.

                I mean seriously, you think the Palestinians getting a UN statehood bit is going to change all that much? I understand some wanting to be be optimistic here but I just do not see it.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

                  Originally posted by Voland View Post
                  And what is denying the Palestinians statehood supposed to accomplish, except more "violence, conflict and war" ?
                  Palestinians win statehood bid -> violence and war.
                  Palestinians fail statehood bid -> violence and war.

                  The common theme being violence and war. At this point, the violence is beng perpetuated for it's own sake.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

                    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                    Exactly, now you are getting it. At this stage of the game it does not matter what happens. UN recognized statehood or not Palestinians will not have all that far back in history to find an excuse to lob rockets into Israel. Israel acting on that, or some other event, will respond. The term "statehood" does not matter nor will it change all that much as both sides have a historical condition and a likely future of continued conflict. About the only thing that changes is now Israel will have a "statehood" to declare war against. Perhaps it really is time for the UN (and the US) to get out of the way and let whoever the victor is stand, I sure am tired of our involvement in that fiasco over there.

                    I mean seriously, you think the Palestinians getting a UN statehood bit is going to change all that much? I understand some wanting to be be optimistic here but I just do not see it.
                    You nailed it. Now Israel has a "state" to retaliate against, thus making any such retaliation nice and legal. Not that the hypocritical UN will likely give a shit about silly legal concepts.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

                      Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                      Exactly, now you are getting it. At this stage of the game it does not matter what happens. UN recognized statehood or not Palestinians will not have all that far back in history to find an excuse to lob rockets into Israel. Israel acting on that, or some other event, will respond. The term "statehood" does not matter nor will it change all that much as both sides have a historical condition and a likely future of continued conflict. About the only thing that changes is now Israel will have a "statehood" to declare war against. Perhaps it really is time for the UN (and the US) to get out of the way and let whoever the victor is stand, I sure am tired of our involvement in that fiasco over there.

                      I mean seriously, you think the Palestinians getting a UN statehood bit is going to change all that much? I understand some wanting to be be optimistic here but I just do not see it.

                      Actually I think it would be good if ALL foreign powers, that includes the US, but of course also Saudis, Turks, Iranians and plenty of others ( the Europeans are rather irrelevant nor do they seek deeper involvement) would cease meddling in a conflict between two peoples over the same piece of land to fight their proxy wars. But that is not going to happen.
                      I wasnt so much talking about past experience ( that indeed points towards pessimism) but about political options ( since the status quo clearly only benefits the extremists on both sides). The palestinian UN bid may very well be the last chance to secure a "two-states" solution, since the Israelis continuing to expand settlements on West Bank land as massively as they do is close to making the establishment of a VIABLE palestinian state impossible. And Hamas getting a boost from the Gaza offensive and israeli concessions over the blocade while the land grab and evictions over in the West Bank continue is making Abbas ( palestinian peace camp) more and more of a lame duck in the eyes of his people. Which is also why a number of israeli leaders ( like ex-PM Olmert or ex foreign minister Livni and two former Mossad heads, hardly naive peaceniks) have come out in support of Abbas move. Not out of kindness of the heart, but because the alternative to having two states is to be having to encorporate the Palestinians into Israel, which would permanently change its character. Since according to demography alone it would be impossible to deny them democratic participation permanently. That means the Greater Israel and Settlement advocates might very well achieve the opposite of their goals, the end of Israel as a jewish state. At least if this chance is missed once again. It is not just the Palestinians who have something to loose here.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

                        Originally posted by Voland View Post
                        Actually I think it would be good if ALL foreign powers, that includes the US, but of course also Saudis, Turks, Iranians and plenty of others ( the Europeans are rather irrelevant nor do they seek deeper involvement) would cease meddling in a conflict between two peoples over the same piece of land to fight their proxy wars. But that is not going to happen.
                        I wasnt so much talking about past experience ( that indeed points towards pessimism) but about political options ( since the status quo clearly only benefits the extremists on both sides). The palestinian UN bid may very well be the last chance to secure a "two-states" solution, since the Israelis continuing to expand settlements on West Bank land as massively as they do is close to making the establishment of a VIABLE palestinian state impossible. And Hamas getting a boost from the Gaza offensive and israeli concessions over the blocade while the land grab and evictions over in the West Bank continue is making Abbas ( palestinian peace camp) more and more of a lame duck in the eyes of his people. Which is also why a number of israeli leaders ( like ex-PM Olmert or ex foreign minister Livni and two former Mossad heads, hardly naive peaceniks) have come out in support of Abbas move. Not out of kindness of the heart, but because the alternative to having two states is to be having to encorporate the Palestinians into Israel, which would permanently change its character. Since according to demography alone it would be impossible to deny them democratic participation permanently. That means the Greater Israel and Settlement advocates might very well achieve the opposite of their goals, the end of Israel as a jewish state. At least if this chance is missed once again. It is not just the Palestinians who have something to loose here.
                        Which is what we are saying, all a "two-state" solution provides is a mechanism for one to declare war against the other or one of the states to try to use UN courts (and other political avenue nonsense) against the other. Both the Palestinians and Israelis consider themselves in the right, and wanting area each claims the other should not have. It has been this way for a very long time yet at the same time one does not have to go that far back in history to find something the other can use. What the UN effectively did here with this little vote was inject themselves right into the middle of this, opening up all of typical UN politics into the Palestinian and Israel conflict. And to your point, UN recognition of Palestinian statehood or not, both side still have something to loose here regardless of what happens going forward. That did not change. You are helping me prove my case here that UN involvement in this way is truly effectively meaningless to this conflict. "That is just paperwork" is about all that changed.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

                          another example of Obama's foreign policy credibility... he has none !

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

                            Originally posted by Voland View Post
                            Well, for Gaza there would be hardly much of a difference. But also the israeli settlers in the West Bank would suddenly become occupiers stealing a foreign nations soil, officially, according to all international standards. And the Gaza blocade wouldnt be an act of war itself ?
                            Anyway, you are aware that the statehood bid was filed by Fatah, that is Hamas OPPONENT ? And that also israeli leaders are supporting it, and NOT just of the peacenik camp ? Both sides policies have contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict. If the statehood bid finally forces both sides to talk about the REAL issues ( settlements, one state/two states, and not crappy rockets) there is no plausible reason to deny the Palestinians basic freedoms that others consider "self-evident". " Wether they use that freedom sensibly is like always, another question though.
                            I love your use of the phrase "Israeli leaders" as though that is supposed to be an all inclusive statement.
                            I guess that as an American I can state that "American leaders" support increasing taxes on income over 250K.
                            Last edited by USCitizen; 11-30-2012, 10:37 AM.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Palestinians set to win UN statehood bid

                              Originally posted by Voland View Post
                              Anyway, you are aware that the statehood bid was filed by Fatah, that is Hamas OPPONENT ? And that also israeli leaders are supporting it, and NOT just of the peacenik camp ? Both sides policies have contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict. If the statehood bid finally forces both sides to talk about the REAL issues ( settlements, one state/two states, and not crappy rockets) there is no plausible reason to deny the Palestinians basic freedoms that others consider "self-evident". " Wether they use that freedom sensibly is like always, another question though.
                              I don't see what point you're trying to make here. I don't really see Fatah as really being any better than Hamas but worse than say...the Muslim Brotherhood (and look at where that is getting Egypt).

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X