Palestinian officials are preparing to ask the United Nations to endorse their quest for an independent state after years of failed peace talks, Palestinian authorities have said.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said officials plan to ask the UN Security Council to back a set of guidelines for a Palestinian state.

But he said there is no timeframe for the initiative, which would include the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem - areas captured by Israel in the 1967 six-day war.

"Now is our defining moment. We went into this peace process in order to achieve a two-state solution," the Associated Press news agency quoted him as saying.

"The endgame is to tell the Israelis that now the international community has recognised the two-state solution on the '67 borders."

http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2009/11/20091115160482732.html


It will be interesting to see Obama's vote on this issue. Will the US do the same thing for Palestine that we did for Israel?

If there is an international recognition of the '67 borders I don't know what the Israeli move will be. It would definitely put more pressure on them to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory.

I question this move. I doubt Russia and China will support the move. Also, who will determine the boundaries? What enforcement? I highly doubt UN peacekeepers could be agreed by either party to be sent in. I also doubt the U.S. will fully support the measure, and will probably abstain.

The Palestinians want a different avenue, fine, but the UN is the wrong approach. It would be better to reform the PA structure and get to the heart of the issues then try and get a resolution that will not have any impact on Israel.

The rules on the ground have changed. 67 borders are no longer realistic.

majorspark wrote: The rules on the ground have changed. 67 borders are no longer realistic.

What rules have changed? And who changed them? Maybe if Israel hadn't promoted expansionism through military might, they wouldn't be the world leader in UN violations.

I really don't understand you're thinking on this topic...at all.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
The Palestinians want a different avenue, fine, but the UN is the wrong approach. It would be better to reform the PA structure and get to the heart of the issues then try and get a resolution that will not have any impact on Israel.

So it was alright in '48 but not alright now for the Palestinians to ask the UN for statehood. If they continue to wait on Israel to wade through all the excuses it will never happen.

The state should be established along the 1967 borders which are internationally recognized.


Not surprisingly, Israel objects to this move because they don't want a strong state that could stop their expansionism emerging on their borders.

Israel actually threatened to illegally annex a large part of the West Bank settlements in response to this move.

www.csmonitor.com/2009/1116/p99s01-duts.html

This isn't 1948 and the enforcement mechanisms are simply not there. Let's say the UNSC does pass a resolution with the U.S. and China abstaining setting the Palestinian state as the 1967 borders, but Israel refuses to accept it, who enforces it? Do we send in peacekeepers? The U.S. and China would veto that.

Also, what about East Jerusalem, would a resolution tackle that problem? Or leave it to further talks?

It sounds like a good idea, but once you really get into the nitty-gritty details, it is not the best option. The best option is bilateral agreements on where the border is. But, the problem is no one wants to seriously give up anything. A UNSC resolution will not solve anything, only add to the problems and further split both sides.

Footwedge wrote:

majorspark wrote: The rules on the ground have changed. 67 borders are no longer realistic.

What rules have changed? And who changed them? Maybe if Israel hadn't promoted expansionism through military might, they wouldn't be the world leader in UN violations.

I really don't understand you're thinking on this topic...at all.

Like it or not this world is often governed by the aggressive use of force. Lands and populations have changed hands many times through out history. Isreali settlements (some now nearly 40yrs old) like it or not are a reality. Many were born and raised in the occupied land. They are now raising their children there. Like it or not it is now their land. They will fight to keep it. Nearly 300,000 West Bank settlers are not going to leave without the use of force.

In fact you are posting on occupied land. We promoted expansion by military force. We took lands from Native Americans hearded them onto reservations. As time passes and gererations raise their families on the occupied land it becomes theirs. You and I would no sooner be remove from our land without violence than they will theirs.

majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

majorspark wrote: The rules on the ground have changed. 67 borders are no longer realistic.

What rules have changed? And who changed them? Maybe if Israel hadn't promoted expansionism through military might, they wouldn't be the world leader in UN violations.

I really don't understand you're thinking on this topic...at all.

Like it or not this world is often governed by the aggressive use of force. Lands and populations have changed hands many times through out history. Isreali settlements (some now nearly 40yrs old) like it or not are a reality. Many were born and raised in the occupied land. They are now raising their children there. Like it or not it is now their land. They will fight to keep it. Nearly 300,000 West Bank settlers are not going to leave without the use of force.

In fact you are posting on occupied land. We promoted expansion by military force. We took lands from Native Americans hearded them onto reservations. As time passes and gererations raise their families on the occupied land it becomes theirs. You and I would no sooner be remove from our land without violence than they will theirs.

The "like it or not" argument, I see. The fact is...the number 1 reason for Islamic radicals in attacking US citizens, is the tacit "nod" of approval the US has given in Israel's aggressive expansion and their terrorist attacks in places like Qana, Lebanon (twice) and the Gaza strip.

Bush lied to you and me when he stated they "hate our freedoms".and that is why they kill They flew airplanes into our buildings killing our citizens because people like you and our government are OK with Israel's terrorism.

If you want, I'll post the entire interview with bin Ladin himself, circa 1997...for the real reasons they wage jihad on our citizens.

Oh and here's the link on bin Ladin's interview with Peter Arnett. I decided to be proactive in linking this....just so Eaglesdude doesn't get pissy with me in breaking his micromanagement rules here.

For the record...he NEVER claims nor hints at that jihad is a result of "our freedoms."

http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm

Wanna stop terrorism? Put your foot down on being pro Israel. Secondly, quit placing corrupt leaders in Muslim countries. And third, quit occupying their lands. It is remarkably simple...if you ask me.

Footwedge wrote: Oh and here's the link on bin Ladin's interview with Peter Arnett. I decided to be proactive in linking this....just so Eaglesdude doesn't get pissy with me in breaking his micromanagement rules here.

For the record...he NEVER claims nor hints at that jihad is a result of "our freedoms."

http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm

Wanna stop terrorism? Put your foot down on being pro Israel. Secondly, quit placing corrupt leaders in Muslim countries. And third, quit occupying their lands. It is remarkably simple...if you ask me.

Or this could be your final warning for a personal attack. Next one is a ban.

And I am sorry that you think civil, ADULT, factual discussions are "micromanaged".

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: This isn't 1948 and the enforcement mechanisms are simply not there. Let's say the UNSC does pass a resolution with the U.S. and China abstaining setting the Palestinian state as the 1967 borders, but Israel refuses to accept it, who enforces it? Do we send in peacekeepers? The U.S. and China would veto that.

Also, what about East Jerusalem, would a resolution tackle that problem? Or leave it to further talks?

It sounds like a good idea, but once you really get into the nitty-gritty details, it is not the best option. The best option is bilateral agreements on where the border is. But, the problem is no one wants to seriously give up anything. A UNSC resolution will not solve anything, only add to the problems and further split both sides.

The enforcement mechanisms weren't in place in 1948 either. The Isrealis had to use war and terrorism to drive a good number of Palestinians from their land.


Who enforces it is a good question though. The 1967 borders are already universally recognized, but we continue to allow them to steal more land in the West Bank.

Jerusalem should remain as it is divided.

The details can be worked out later. The most important thing is to stop Israel from annexing more Palestinian land while the world waits on them to quit coming up with excuses. At this rate, there won't be a Palestine much longer.

I will be interested to see what Obama does with this.

Israel has given the go ahead for the construction of 900 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem, rebuffing a reported US request that it block construction at the Gilo settlement, officials have said.


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/20091117153418461311.html


And you wonder why Palestinians are so eager to get their own state. 900 more illegal settlements going up with promised room for "natural growth."

US needs to make a stronger stance with Israel, to say the least.

Should the US take a stronger stance?
Or should we stay out of it?
Do we pick and choose what we stay out of?
Or is it a blanket rule?

I don't know, but me thinks we can't have it both ways, if you know what I mean.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Should the US take a stronger stance?
Or should we stay out of it?
Do we pick and choose what we stay out of?
Or is it a blanket rule?

I don't know, but me thinks we can't have it both ways, if you know what I mean.

I understand.

We need to stop just "looking the other way" in regards to Israel and stop continuing to support them blindly.

cbus4life wrote: I understand.
We need to stop just "looking the other way" in regards to Israel and stop continuing to support them blindly.

Do you mean that we should stay out of everything, except when it comes to Israel?

cbus4life wrote: US needs to make a stronger stance with Israel, to say the least.

Is that even possible?

CenterBHSFan wrote: Should the US take a stronger stance?
Or should we stay out of it?
Do we pick and choose what we stay out of?
Or is it a blanket rule?

I don't know, but me thinks we can't have it both ways, if you know what I mean.

If we are going to stay out then we need to quit propping up Israel with billions in foreign aid. If we are going to support Israel, then we need to adopt a fair stance towards both countries.

eers,

I saw this, and thought of you. Enjoy!

Eeers, meant to say they need to take a stronger position and reverse their position in regards to outright support for Israel, and turning the other way when the engage in human rights abuses.

Sorry, was unclear.