How Not to Play Peacemaker

10 reasons why Europe should reject the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations.

BY AMOS YADLIN, ROBERT SATLOFF | SEPTEMBER 21, 2011

1. A yes vote does not protect the two-state solution. Ahtisaari and Solana assert that the two-state solution is "under attack" by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Although Netanyahu may have made errors in his diplomacy, their account is an inversion of the facts of the past two-and-a-half years, during which Netanyahu has repeatedly endorsed the two-state solution and invited the Palestinians to join in negotiations -- from his Bar-Ilan speech in June 2009 to his speech before U.S. Congress this May.

The authors' accusation that Israel has undermined the potential for negotiations because of the "steady expansion of Israeli settlements" is also wrong. The Netanyahu government has not approved the construction of a single new West Bank settlement; moreover, according to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the actual number of West Bank housing units approved under Netanyahu (2,830) is half the number approved under the previous government of Kadima Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (5,126).

2. The statehood bid will not protect Europe's investment in a Palestinian state. Yes, the Europeans have invested more than $6.6 billion in the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo era. But a Palestinian "victory" at the United Nations would imperil, rather than validate, the European investment. If, as a result of the U.N. resolution, the Palestinian Authority chooses to go it alone, without economic and security cooperation with Israel, the chances it'll collapse are far more likely than the chances it'll survive, let alone thrive. Should that happen, Europe's considerable investment in Palestinian institutions will disappear.

3. President Abbas's state-building achievements will not be helped by his U.N. bid. As April's International Monetary Fund report on Palestinian state-building makes clear, not only was virtually every aspect of the impressive progress achieved by the Palestinian Authority made possible by Israel, but future progress will require even more Israeli cooperation. "To maintain the growth momentum, rebalance the composition of output, reduce regional disparities [i.e., Gaza compared with the West Bank], and accelerate the state-building process, it is essential for [Israel] to phase out all restrictions as soon as possible," the report noted. Prospects for such cooperation are likely to vanish if the Palestinians opt instead to go it alone.

The Palestinians deserve support and encouragement for their efforts, but it is self-defeating to support a poison-pill plan for U.N. recognition that could destroy their practical partnership with Israel. The entire state-building enterprise may collapse with the hardening of positions -- and the potential violence -- the U.N. initiative will produce. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is chiefly responsible for the practical achievements of recent years, has restrained his enthusiasm for Abbas's U.N. effort. As Fayyad himself told an Israeli interviewer, "We want a state of Palestine, not a unilateral declaration of statehood."

4. Voting yes at the U.N. won't protect European countries from charges of hypocrisy. Ahtisaari and Solana say they are afraid that rejecting the Palestinian statehood bid "would expose Europeans to charges of double standards" from Arab governments keen to respond to public opinion in the frenzied, post-Tahrir Square political environment. But the notion that Europe should undermine chances for a negotiated solution in order to avoid accusations of double standards from Arab regimes that either have opposed peacemaking at every turn (Algeria, Iraq, Syria) or excel at making promises that they never deliver (Saudi Arabia) is a sad but revealing sign of the direction of European foreign policy.

In fact, endorsing the Palestinian U.N. resolution will only feed a virus in Arab politics that this year's revolutions sought to remedy -- the virus of distracting domestic populations from the real problems facing their countries by demagoguery over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Already, as the recent mob attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo attests, Egypt's would-be inheritors of the revolution -- Islamist, nationalist, and liberal alike -- have settled on crude anti-Zionism as an easy alternative to debating the deep and systemic problems that country faces. If this virus is allowed to survive, another casualty will be the brave but imperiled freedom fighters in Syria, who are increasingly calling for international intervention to protect them from Bashar al-Assad's crackdown. They must be beating their chests in frustration, wondering what they need to do to attract just a fraction of the international attention that the Palestinians have received.

5. Supporting the Palestinian U.N. bid is not the price for maintaining close relations with Saudi Arabia. Europe's foreign-policy luminaries suggest that supporting the Palestinians' statehood initiative will advance European interests, such as "preventing jihadist terrorism, containing Iran, security [of] energy supplies and retaining markets for our exports." In other words, Ahtisaari and Solana are fretting that Saudi Arabia will take its business elsewhere if Europe rebuffs the Palestinians.

This fear was stoked by another New York Times op-ed by former Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince Turki al-Faisal, who warned the United States of "profound negative consequences" should the Obama administration oppose the Palestinian statehood bid. But neither America nor Europe should fall for the Saudis' bluff. Riyadh's greatest fear is the Iranian nuclear bomb, against which transatlantic cooperation on sanctions is a vital tool. The idea that the House of Saud would respond to sensible European efforts to promote a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace by punishing Europe, and even risking global efforts to stop Iran's nuclear progress, runs against both history and logic. From oil policy to counterproliferation, Riyadh usually acts on a cold calculation of national interest, not emotion or pique, and a disputed U.N. vote on the Palestinians is unlikely to change that pattern of behavior.

Mufeed Abu Hasnah/PPO via Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli defense intelligence, is the Kay fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Robert Satloff is the institute's executive director.

COMETLINEAR

8:56 PM ET

September 21, 2011

At what point does the "Zionist Conspiracy" argument

...become absurd?

Many of the Israel critics on this site would be right at home with Michelle Bachmann and her supporters.

Refusing to accept reality, they create their own.

 

JOHNBOY4546

9:07 PM ET

September 21, 2011

On this page COMERLINEAR lauches a pre-emptive strike....

.... against an argument that has not been made on this page.

How very IDF of him.....

 

TARQUINIS

9:29 AM ET

September 22, 2011

Sarkozy's UN comment is telling

“Sixty years without moving one inch forward — doesn’t it seem like time to do something new?” said Sarkozy, who devoted his entire address to the issue.

Of course he is right, provided positive results in this dispute are wanted.

Of course he is wrong, if stalemate, impasse, and unending war are wanted.

Read the Zionist posters hereto for more on the subject.

 

KUNINO

4:58 PM ET

September 23, 2011

So Yadlin is an Israeli spy, and Satloff is not described*

This article's argument is that Palestine has no business trying to become an internationally recognised state until after Israel allows it. The suggestion is that going to the United Nations to get what the Palestinians want would be bypassing the "peace process" -- a lengthy process internationally famed for never producing peace.

The authors suggest that the Palestinians should wait as long as Israel cares to take in its leisurely medications before handing over some grace-and-favor gift or present from whichever government happens to be in office in 2011 or, perhaps, 2073.

Yadlin and Satloff describe and applaud a bottleneck. Going round bottlenecks is what all sensible people do. The palestinians aren't sinister or mistaken in trying to do the same thing.
____________________
* As my headline states, Yadlin is an Israeli spy. Dr Satloff is even more mysterious. A visit to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy website suggests that the first word of this title is a bogus attempt to wrap the Stars and Stripes around a foreign-owned body designed to protect Israel. Also bogus, the institute biography of Dr Satloss, the executive director. This suggests he was born in 2011, we are not told where. That's the bio's starting date. We also are not told where this precocious ten-year-old was educated to college level. It's claimed he has postgraduate degrees from American and British colleges. The bio also suggests he lives in north Africa -- not a bad trick for the executive director of a Washington institute.

 

JOHNBOY4546

9:10 PM ET

September 21, 2011

"it is a bit presumptuous for Europe to suggest that...

...Israel doesn't know what it's doing"

OK, hands up those why think that Netanyahu knows what he is doing, as opposed to simply flying by the seat of his pants.

Anyone?

 

BING520

9:53 PM ET

September 21, 2011

Why to oppose such a vote?

1. A yes vote neither protect nor destroy two-state solution. Why will veto accomplish?

2. Palestine is coerced and dictated to cooperate with Israel. A yes vote will not change that coercion. European investments in Palestine are at mercy of Israel. Palestine has no jurisdiction over the investments.

3. Abbas has no state-building achievements to speak of. A yes vote does not hurt his effort.

4. Voting no does not eliminate the charge of hypocrisy from European countries.

5. Saudi oil is not the reason for either a yes or no vote. It is irrelevant.

6. No US Administration has ever delivered anything to Palestine statehood. No American President has ever been under the pressure of Europe to press on Israel. American politician are under the influence of Jewish lobbying groups in America.

7. Israel knows what it is doing regardless of what UN thinks. UN neither reinforces nor weakens Israel’s legitimacy.

8. International Criminal Court does what it should do. UN has nothing to do with.

9. Violence in that region is likely to continue regardless of the voting result. A no-vote can’t make the violence less likely either.

10. A UN statehood of Palestine has no real-world meaning. Why oppose it? We don’t buy useless, meaningless things. Nor do we spend money to stop people from buying useless, meaningless things.

Everyone who opposes the idea of Palestine statehood at UN says it is a meaningless thing to do and of no consequence. I do agree.

Why are we spending so much of our resources, political capital and prestige on preventing an inconsequential thing from happening?

 

COMETLINEAR

10:36 PM ET

September 21, 2011

No problem!

But first let the Palestinians first recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and renounce their claims to Judea.

These people have been lobbing missiles, blowing up buses, and killing Jewish babies for the last sixty years. Is it really that hard to understand why Israel would not want them to have autonomy and a military?

Israelis are moderate, open minded people. Note that they elected the centrist Sharon even after the Palestinians elected Hamas in Gaza. If the Palestinians demonstrate that they can be a trustworthy partner for a sufficient length of time, Israel will accept them. I know this because, unlike most people on this board, I've actually spent time in the MidEast.

The fact is, the Palestinian liberation movement is a thinly veiled global movement against Jewish self rule. Any sober person can see this.

Finally, I want to thank you for posting a comment free of the usual venom we have unfortunately come to expect from these boards.

 

JOHNBOY4546

11:24 PM ET

September 21, 2011

"Note that they elected the centrist Sharon "

Let me stop you right there and point out that if Israel is a country where the political views of an unindicted war criminal like Sharon defines "the centre" then that ain't an open-minded country.

 

COMETLINEAR

11:51 PM ET

September 21, 2011

Sharon bolted from Likud to form a centrist party

He was indeed a moderate, despite your attempts to mischaracterize him with tired, loaded platitudes.

As you have seen, I am not above engaging those with a differing viewpoint, as long as they as they hold to civilized discussion. I have concluded that you are no better than McMillan. I will be spending no more of my valuable time on you.

I expect that you will not be able to resist the urge to get in the last word. So fire away. I'm sure you find all this attention very titillating.

 

MCMLXVII

6:13 AM ET

September 22, 2011

Exactly!

Those who oppose Palestinian statehood have produced all sorts of flimsy excuses about what it *won't* do: "It won't advance peace talks", "It won't stop settlements", "It won't cure cancer", "It won't do my laundry", etc. But it doesn't present any obstacles to accomplishing these goals either (unless you live in Israel and your washing machine is in Palestine, in which case the U.N. can address that issue at a later date).

If the Palestinians want a state, let them have it, fer cryin' out loud! The status quo is pretty crappy, statehood can hardly make it any worse, and by now we should have learned that opposing democratic initiatives in the Middle East is a losing battle that only makes us look like hypocritical nitwits.

The message to the Obama administration should be the same message that was delivered to the Bush administration: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".

 

SEADOG1946

7:59 AM ET

September 22, 2011

cometlinear and no problem...

I just don't understand why Israel keeps shuffling it's feet and not "doing" it.

Instead of wasting time trying to create a belligerent/untrustworthy Palestinian/Arab state, Israel should just annex all this territory that it "liberated" from Jordan, all the way to the current Jordanian border, and publish a map clearly defining the permanent borders of "Israel the Sovereign and Democratic Nation State of the Jewish People" (catchy, huh?).

Just do it, why wait, you want to do it, why wait... it is all part of the "Historic Homeland" of the Jews, isn't it?

 

BING520

12:01 PM ET

September 22, 2011

SEADOG1946

@ SEADOG1946

Were Israel to officially annex the land it occupies after the war and to expel Palestinians en mass to Jordan, it might remind the world of Hitler who grabbed Sudetenland after the operation of Fall Grun and claimed it was historically and rightfully German's living space. Israel could do the same, and the US would just acquiesce if our history of dealing with Israel is any prescience. It would no doubt hurt our international standing. You can imagine how Arabs question about our legitimacy of first Iraq war under the pretext of Iraq's annexation of Kuwait. American people at large, resplendent with dislike for Arabs and Muslims, couldn't care less.

The argument for sending all Palestinians to Jordan has been mentioned with alacrity and high than random degree of frequency since I started to pay attention the conflict since 1980. Many Israelis oppose such an idea on a basis of morality.

The Palestine we know today has been sundered. It could not be a cohesive nation. Under long-held Israeli practices of pecking away land from Palestinians to build new settlements, the homeland of Palestine would be continuously shattered into pieces until the idea of Palestine statehood is no longer recognizable. Then, Israelis could ask Palestinians to leave under a justification that Israel is a Jewish-faith-based-only state.

I began to feel Israeli gradual annexation of West Bank and Gaza since Israel spared no effort to make Palestinian life miserable and Israel's continuing building of new settlement as if there were absolutely nothing else it could approach to ending this conflict. Now this is only my speculation. I have absolutely no concrete evidence.

Opposing with great vehemence a Palestinian statehood within UN, which everyone says is meaningless, seems to me to be overkill. Unless a statehood makes an eventual but gradual annexation more difficult.

Of course, Israel openly talks about Palestine statehood, but could it be a diversion from Israel's long-term goal? Imagine that after Israel successfully annexes the West Bank & Gaza and banishes all Palestinians, it can proclaim it really tried hard to embrace the two-state idea but Palestinians refused to cooperate. Therefore, Israel has to abandon the idea for the benefit of all involved. Embracing a two-state solution does not go well with expanding new settlements into West Bank. This is where I suspect there may be a diversion.

Until the denouement of this conflict is presented, it is hard to know exactly what Israelis want from Palestinians.

 

CHUCKAMOK

3:15 PM ET

September 22, 2011

Palestinian state

Yeah, let the Pals have their "country".

Let 'em join the joke that is the United Nations. Why we're at it, move the whole Turtle Bay operation over there and free up valuable NYC real estate, for something useful, like a landfill.

 

ETIENNE MARAIS

4:41 PM ET

September 22, 2011

Sure, no problem, but...

But first let the Zionists first recognize Palestine's right to exist as an independant state, and renounce their claims to the occupied territories.

These people have been lobbing missiles, blowing up buses, and killing Palestinian babies for the last sixty years. Is it really that hard to understand why Palestinians would not want them (Israel) to provide "security" for them ?

Palestinians are moderate, open minded people. Note that they elected the centrist Abbas even after the Israelis elected Sharon. If the Israelis demonstrate that they can be a trustworthy partner for a sufficient length of time, Palestinians will accept them. I know this because, unlike most people on this board, I've actually spent time in the MidEast.

The fact is, the Zionist movement is a thinly veiled global movement against Palestinian self rule. Any sober person can see this.

Finally, I want to thank you for posting a comment free of the usual venom we have unfortunately come to expect from these boards.

 

JOHNBOY4546

5:11 PM ET

September 22, 2011

Last word coming up.....

"He was indeed a moderate, despite your attempts to mischaracterize him with tired, loaded platitudes."

In uppsie-down town the sky is in the sea,
The sea is where the sky should be,
The rain is falling up, instead of falling down
Where?
In uppsie-down town.

You live there, I take it?

 

COMETLINEAR

10:58 PM ET

September 22, 2011

Wow, you copied me almost verbatim

That's really impressive. Hard to believe you work in a grocery store.

 

BING520

1:30 PM ET

September 23, 2011

THEAZCOWBOY

@ THEAZCOWBOY

If you have ever lived in a foreign country for a while, you might have noticed that few labs, research facilities or hospitals in a foreign country are staffed by many non-native scientists and researchers and doctors. This is the greatest strength of the UNITED STATE of AMERICA. It welcomes everyone, born here or in any other part of the world, to come and prosper. A foreigner can do well here without even having to agree with all of American values. You can say "I love my old country better" and will still not be denied an important promotion.

How do I know that for sure? Because I was one of those foreigner.s Many Americans still see me as a froreigner, but I am certain that I would not be mistreated, even though I can occassionally run into some folks who shout "Go back to your own country!" Those things happen. No big deal, given that my wife does not like me all the time.

You should be VERY proud of the fact that USA gives everyone a chance.

 

BARBARAAR

10:28 PM ET

September 21, 2011

Europe to suggest that

hands up those why think that Netanyahu knows what he is doing, as opposed to simply flying by the seat of his pants.
Ar Condicionado Imoveis Acompanhantes Casas de Massagem

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

10:59 PM ET

September 21, 2011

Why?

Why shouldn't Palestine be a country? Why do they need permission?

 

JOHNBOY4546

11:31 PM ET

September 21, 2011

That's not the point of this article, Randy Nicholson.

The real message of this article is something quite different i.e. how dare the EU think about inserting themselves into this peace process.

After all, Israel has invested a huge amount of time and effort grabbing the American body politic by the balls, so it ain't about to let someone else come in and play a constructive role.

Hell No!

The USA "owns" this "peace process"
Likud "owns" USA domestic politics.
Likud therefore "owns" this "peace process".

All nice and cozy, and nobody else need apply.

That's what this article is really all about.

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

2:05 AM ET

September 22, 2011

Yes that is clear

But Palestine is only subservient if they go begging for recognition. The country Palestine, if they were to begin acting as a country, need not be validated by anyone. Least of all their neighbor who has a proven inability to get along with anybody. The last people I listen to in this argument are those arguing against self determination. I would like to see Palestine step up to the plate, declare themselves a country and begin to be a productive member of the world community. The Israelis are playing a bluff hand in a game that ended after the first gulf war. Palestine needs to stop playing the victim card, declare themselves a country and perform on the world stage. They have friends but only after they stop acting like the child who had their ball taken will they be able to gain allies. This country will form diplomatic ties with them just like we do with everyone but they need to stop lobbing missiles at their neighbors. Hell we even began to reset our relationship with Quaddafi when he made overtures of willingness, I can't see that Palestine would be any different. Israel is a violent country borne from violence. They don't get along with anyone and I don't expect they ever will but that doesn't mean Palestine needs to continue to act the part of their whipping boy.

 

JOHNBOY4546

5:29 PM ET

September 22, 2011

Think a bit more about this, Randy

"But Palestine is only subservient if they go begging for recognition."

They aren't "begging for recognition".

Their pitch to the UN is something quite different:
1) We declared our state in 1988
2) We ARE a state
3) States join the United Nations
Therefore
4) We want to join the United Nations.

It is a cogent argument, and one that 192 states have made before them.

Here's an interesting question: how many of those 192 previous applications were ever black-balled by the USA? Indeed, has the USA **ever** blackballed an application to join the UN?

"The country Palestine, if they were to begin acting as a country, need not be validated by anyone."

A state, actually, not a country.
They are not quite the same thing.

But there is a fact that you are missing: State or non-state, they are under a b.e.l.l.i.g.e.r.e.n.t. o.c.c.u.p.a.t.i.o.n., and that fact alone acts as a constraint on "how they can act".

They need other states to recognize them as a state that is under a belligerent occupation, and then they can demand that this constraint be removed from around their neck because (think about it....) "being occupied" is not a natural condition for a state to be in.

Again, that is a cogent argument, but it requires that other states agree that "yeah, OK, you are indeed a state".

After all, occupation is supposed to be a temporary state of affairs. But 44+ years with no end in sight is rather stretching the concept of "temporary" a wee bit.

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

11:55 PM ET

September 23, 2011

Yeah I can see your point but.....

When will the Palestinians start acting as citizens of a country choosing peace with their neighbors? To support the formation of a state cannot mean to immediately and automatically take sides in a war. I think most countries would find those to be unacceptable conditions. I don't blame the PA for not telling Israel they have a right to exist but don't you think it's necesary to tell other countries that the Israelis have a right to exist? How can you expect someone to invest in your country if there is a good chance their investment will be destroyed by war? This is the reason why peace is essential. If there is no peace markets can't develop, capital can't be sanely invested, people can't work, homes and food can't be produced and consumed. While I sympathize with the IDEA of resisting occupation I can't condone the irresponsible nature of indiscriminately firing missiles or firing machine guns at your neighbor. While a lack of war is not necesarily peace it is stability and that is what you need more than anything. I really want to see the state of Palestine come into being but tell me; Who will be served by the Palestinians leading with their chin? For Palestine to come into being under occupation will bring support and pressure from many countries, but that support will quickly fade if they do not maintain domestic order and stop their people from attacking the neighbor. If an American started lobbing missiles at anyone from our shores we would stop them primarily to show we maintain domestic order. This lack of order will keep Palestine from continuing the journey away from the hole their neighbor has placed them in and into the realm of civilized societies. I sympathize with people who have been taught to hate and lash out for past wrongs but it is not constructive and will only serve to isolate Palestine and limit the possibilities for the next generation to be prosperous. The road toward peace is always the difficult one but it is the high road and is recognized as such by others.

 

SOF217

4:16 AM ET

September 22, 2011

What no one is willing to talk about

What no one who believes in this vote is willing to address is the fact that Hamas is against it.

I wish I could say that this vote would lead to Palestinian statehood, and I would concede that Netanyahu has not made best efforts to resume negotiations, although his unwillingness seems to be greatly exaggerated, but this does not throw out a fundamental problem- the PA under Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad does not currently represent the entire Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

We can talk about how bad Israel is and how she does not get along with her neighbors and all the other ills that she does on a regular basis, but there has been a slow move toward normalization, this cannot continue when you have a large portion of the Palestinian population under a regime which does not itself support the UN vote.

Hamas has reportedly said that they will not allow public displays of joy if the General Assembly vote passes. This should say something to you about democracy in Gaza, but also the way the regime feels.

Until we get a united Palestinian front, I think it is very hard to blame Israel for the current situation- And before we go into the "Gaza under Siege" argument, let us remember that Israel (under Sharon the hardliner's) initiative unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, the closure did not start until 2007, but the first rockets from Gaza started in February 2001

Just some food for the argument.

 

SELL.A.DOOR

5:24 AM ET

September 22, 2011

homeland

not state. jewish homeland.

 

POLANO

8:54 AM ET

September 22, 2011

7.

Why on earth SHOULD it reinforce israel's legitimacy? Utterly irrelevant, and it has been reinforced enough over the years anyway

 

MBING

10:27 AM ET

September 22, 2011

this bloke is a crazy

this bloke is a crazy alarmist. He counters Ahtisaari and Solana's slippery slope arguments with his own terribly crafted slippery slope arguments.

 

TORTORTOR

4:11 PM ET

September 22, 2011

unconvincing

Just like everything else I read (I am seriously looking for a good reason why the Obama is gonna veto, because I like the guy) none of the arguments in the article is convincing. They may cast doubt on Ahtisaari and Solana's arguments but who cares?

I can think of two reasons against a recognition:

1) A recognition would hurt the peace process (instead of "not help" which would not be an argument against recognition). This would as far as I can see only happen if Israel was going to overreact to the meaningless formal matter at hand. I doubt they would, I actually consider them to be reasonable people.

2) Obama fears he won't be reelected if he does not veto. Possibly because of some apparently super powerful lobby. This sounds like an argument to me. If I have to choose between a world without a recognized Palestinian state and one with one of those republicans (Romney being the least evil) as US president I would choose the former. The problem is only that I cannot predict the Arab reaction to a veto, I fear it will be much more consequential than the Israeli's to recognition.

If you see something wrong here, I came here to learn, please teach me.

 

JOHNBOY4546

5:43 PM ET

September 22, 2011

No, you pretty much got it right

The argument that UN membership will hurt the peace process is nothing but tub-thumping UNLESS its advocate explains how that peace process will be hurt.

UN member states aren't allowed to negotiate?
The UN won't let member states negotiate?

It is all a nonsense: this bid is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

The goal of the Palestinians is to End This Occupation, and they have no illusions that they can do that unilaterally, or that the UN will do it for them. They know they have to negotiate, but they want to negotiate state-to-state, not warlord-to-serf.

 

NORMAN

7:39 AM ET

September 23, 2011

Palestine

I think that the Palestine people should be granted their right to have a country. Actually that is the same with all the people in the world speaking the same language but living under occupation. I think every ethnic group which speak it's own individual language should have the right to form a country. asigurari locuinte

 

GARFI

10:42 AM ET

September 23, 2011

No problems..

These people have been lobbing missiles, blowing up buses, and killing Palestinian babies for the last sixty years. Is it really that hard to understand why Palestinians would not want them (Israel) to provide "security" for them ?

Palestinians are moderate, open minded people. Note that they elected the centrist Abbas even after the Israelis elected Sharon. If the Israelis demonstrate that they can be a trustworthy partner for a sufficient length of time, Palestinians will accept them. I know this because, unlike most people on this board, porno day I've actually spent time in the MidEast.

The fact is, the Zionist movement is a thinly veiled global movement against Palestinian self rule. Any sober person can see this.

Finally, I want to thank you for posting a comment free of the usual venom we have unfortunately come to expect from these boards.

 

ACRO

12:18 PM ET

September 23, 2011

Never Happen

There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians recognized State or not.

Acro

 

DIVINEADVENTURE

2:01 AM ET

September 26, 2011

Not at all biased (sarcastic)

The author clearly has an agenda, which is not rooted in justice or equity. As a Franco-American living in Palestine, I am witness to what can only be labeled as large-scale goverment sponsored colonialism by Israel of Palestine's people and resources in violation of International Law. To think that Israel has any interest in negotiations to change this situation is absurd. Making a claim that limiting Palestine's access to judicial process through the ICC is a good thing is also absurd. The UN bid helps highlight the hypocracy of Israel's "security" policy as a simple colonial agenda, and makes the UN accountable to its own laws and agreements.

 

APRA

9:29 PM ET

October 2, 2011

Europe should not support the Palestinian cause

If Europe lends its support to Palestine, the ensuing geographical redefining might harm the vested interests of Europe. Europe and its allies should fight back the formation of Palestine at U.N in the way antiinflammatory foods fight back the inflammation in your body. Peace should be restored in the Palestinian region with diplomacy; the struggle to look good in the Arab world will cost Europe dearly, especially, in the existing scenario it will be an irreversible faux-pas that might nullify such other existing accords between other warring nations in the world. They shouldn’t set a bad example for others.

 

DEBTDUE

12:22 AM ET

October 14, 2011

This will never end

This has been going on since the end of WWII, and it will most likely go on until global warming takes out all life on earth minus the mitochondria. The issue is really like pissing in the wind, directly into the wind. When you base your argument around faith, there can be no middle ground, regardless of who is in charge or anything else. Lets be honest with ourselves here and end this discussion for good. Enough with the news coverage and enough with the pointless articles about this same old story. The Arabs hate the Israelis and you would too if someone gave your land to them with no say. The Israelis wanted the land and now they have it. They also have all of the issues and baggage that come with it...this is a pressure cleaning boca, and will not improve...mark my words. No new taxes and no change in this issue for the foreseeable future.

 

CORTES

5:22 PM ET

October 15, 2011

The Palestinians are entitled

The Palestinians are entitled to support and reassurance for their endeavors, but it is self-defeating to approve a poison-pill plan for U.N. recognition that might eradicate their little friendship with Israel. The whole state-building enterprise may give in with the stifling of viewpoints.

 

YARINSIZ

6:09 PM ET

October 18, 2011

They have friends but only

They have friends but only after they stop acting like the child who had their ball taken will they be able to gain allies. seslichat This country will form diplomatic ties with them just like we do with everyone but they need to stop lobbing missiles at their neighbors. Hell we even began to reset our relationship with Quaddafi when he made overtures of willingness, I can't see that Palestine would be any different. Israel is a violent country borne from violence. They don't get along with anyone and I don't expect they ever will but that doesn't mean Palestine needs to continue to act the part of their whipping boy.