Hudson Jones

You mean this has nothing to do with "security"? That Israel's unwillingness to come to the negotiation table with real offers is because they know no one would accept their offers and so they could continue to use that as an excuse to buy more time to expand and annex Palestinian land?

Good point. Why has Israel never defined its borders?

No need to debate with people like this. Can you believe that there are some people who question the abolishing of apartheid south african regime and system and giving equal rights to all the people? People like that cannot be reasoned with.

Palestine statehood passes 138-9, with 41 abstaining The "no" votes: US, Israel, Panama, Palau, Canada, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Czech Republic, Micronesia --- The world has spoken. It's too bad my government put Canada on the wrong side.

Foxnewsiers are infiltrating our people!

Here is a stream of the event at UN: http://webtv.un.org/

Here is an interview where Meshal tell us where Hamas stands on a number of issues, including the two states. It sounds like you don't really know what Hamas' stance is:

Finkelstein:

Finkelstein:

Q&A: Implications of the recognition of Palestinian statehood 1. How is the current initiative different from the previous one? In September 2011, the Palestinian Authority requested the UN Security Council to admit Palestine to the UN as a state. Turning from an entity into a “state” is not a result of a UN membership nor is it conditioned upon it. However, being admitted to the UN means gaining wide international acknowledgement of the existence of a Palestinian state. According to Article 4(2) of the UN Charter, in order to be admitted as a UN Member State, the request must be supported by the Security Council, where each of the permanent members has veto rights, as well as to win a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly vote. As noted above, this request was not yet discussed by the Council and is not likely to pass the veto obstacle. Therefore, the Palestinian Authority decided to turn to the alternative channel of upgrading its status in the General Assembly. A Security Council decision is not required in order to receive the status of a “non-member observer state” – only the support of the UN General Assembly. This move does not grant UN membership status, but it does serve the purpose of gaining wide international recognition. 2. What is the meaning of being upgraded in the UN to the status of an “observer state”? The “observer state” status is not anchored in the UN Charter; rather, it is based on previous UN decisions. Currently, only the Vatican enjoys this status. In the past, states were allowed to become a party to international conventions, including conventions on human rights. An observer state is also permitted to become a party to international organizations and to hold hearings before the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ), and its status with the International Criminal Court (ICC) might also change. 3. Would the current UN initiative change Israel’s status in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip? How about an Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state in temporary borders (Areas A and ? Following the Oslo Accords, many Israelis share the view that Israel is no longer responsible for the West Bank and Gaza. However, de facto Israel today still has control over the West Bank as well as over certain aspects of life in Gaza. In the framework of the Oslo Accords, Israel transferred specific authorities to the Palestinian Authority, but it still holds all governing powers in the West Bank, including full control over Area C (62% of the West Bank), Jerusalem, water sources, civil and military control over the airspace, civil and military control over all border crossings, entry to and exit from the West Bank, and more. The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN, or an Israeli recognition of Areas A and B as a state, will have no bearing on Israel’s standing as an occupying power according to international law. “Occupation” is a legal definition that applies to territories in which a foreign military force is able to exercise complete or partial military control and civil-administrative control over the infrastructure and daily lives of the local residents. The laws of occupation oblige the occupying power with regards to responsibility to the civilians in the territory under its control. Occupation is not a function of a permanent military presence, but of the ability to effectively control the territory. This legal definition does not differentiate between the occupation of a territory recognized as a state and a territory that is not recognized as such, and therefore the legal status of the territory is irrelevant and as long as Israel has effective control over these territories it will continue to be considered an occupying power. As for the Gaza Strip, the official Israeli position is that since this disengagement, the Israeli occupation of Gaza has ended. However, many in the international community reject this stance and maintain that the laws of occupation still apply and obligate Israel in matters that are still under its control. It is possible that that the recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state could lead to a re-examination of the international position regarding the status of the Gaza Strip. 4. Would this initiative have an effect on the validity of the Oslo Accords? A Palestinian initiative to achieve recognition as an observer state is a unilateral measure that contravenes these accords and opens the door to a declaration of their non-validity or revocation. However, the absolute revocation of the Oslo Accords is not a necessary outcome. In the past, despite repeated violations of the Interim Agreement, neither party to it has announced their revocation. The question of the validity of the agreements and maintaining their frameworks is now, as before, subject to the decisions and the de facto actions of both sides. 5. What are the implications of this move on the Palestinian state’s responsibility for human rights violations? Recognition of a Palestinian state could open the door for it to become a party to international conventions, including conventions on human rights. Should the Palestinian state become a party to these conventions, it would be obligated to uphold standards of international law and respect for human rights. These obligations would apply first and foremost to the citizens under its rule, but there are also implications for its obligations toward Israelis, including settlers. Furthermore, the Palestinian state would be subject to international mechanisms that monitor the implementation of these human rights conventions. Claims regarding violations of human rights by the Palestinian state could be adjudicated in various international forums – for example suspicions of torture conducted by Palestinian governmental bodies or on their behalf (see more on this below). 6. Would this move lead to the involvement of new international enforcement mechanisms? Should Palestine be recognized as a state, it could become a party to international courts of law (the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court). This could create new mechanisms to enforce Israel’s obligations to respect the human rights of Palestinians, and at the same time to enable the enforcement of the Palestinian state’s obligations. International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) – The ICJ addresses the responsibility of states, not of individuals. It is the leading and most important international judicial body. Both sides must agree that a dispute be brought before it. International Criminal Court (ICC) – The International Criminal Court deals with individual responsibility for acts defined as international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide). Should the Palestinian state become a party to the ICC, this court would have jurisdiction over actions carried out in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: first, on Palestinians suspected of committing international crimes; and, second, on Israelis suspected of offenses within the territory of the Palestinian state. This jurisdiction would be applied directly and continuously, as opposed to the current situation, but only on crimes or suspected crimes that were committed after the Palestinian state becomes a party to it, should it be recognized as such according to the Statute of the Court. 7. What are the implications of this initiative on Israeli settlements? If the Palestinian state would become a party to the International Criminal Court, the issue of Israeli settlements could become an issue of international criminal law. This, under the article in the Statute of the Court stating that the transfer, whether direct or indirect, of the population of the occupying power into occupied territory constitutes a war crime. This could potentially open the door to the prosecution of Israelis responsible for establishing or expanding settlements. 8. What are the implications of this move on the Palestinian state’s responsibility to prevent terrorism and threats? Should the Palestinian state be recognized, this would enhance its responsibility to prevent terror and threats coming from its territory. This depends, of course, on the extent of control it has and the means available to it, since there is no responsibility without authority – but there similarly cannot be authority without responsibility. The Palestinian state would be obligated to take the necessary steps to prevent human rights violations by government authorities and official bodies. Thus, arbitrary killing of civilians and the launching of rockets on a civilian population in Israel could be submitted for deliberation both by the relevant UN committees and by the International Criminal Court. Established in 1972, ACRI is Israel’s oldest and largest human rights organization and the only one dealing with the entire spectrum of rights and civil liberties issues in Israel and the Occupied Territories. This Q&A was originally published on ACRI’s site. Read more about ACRI here and follow ACRI on Twitter and Facebook.

If they continue to abandon terrorism, then they should be removed from terrorist lists.

Ron Paul on friends and alliances: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54Xkuf0E444

There is also the fact that Begin and Shamir, former Israeli prime ministers, were the heads of terrorist groups before Israel became a state. Yasser Arafat was also part of a terrorist organization before he and his organization were recognized.

Israel became a state by being accepted through the U.N. Can you believe that there are still some people who don't recognize that?

Bill O'reilly watcher is moved.

Couldn't agree more. The benefits to the Palestinians is a given, but as pointed out above, it's a benefit for Israelis as well.

Most Israelis are supportive of a Palestinian state being formed. The government of Israel is being run by ultra right wing conservatives who want nothing but the status quo to continue so that they could annex more Palestinian land and so that their dreams of Greater Israel is met. This is why the number of government sponsored Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have gone from 100,000 to 600,000 since the Oslo Accord. These people do not want to negotiate just like Apartheid South African government didn't want to negotiate.

Then those people are as hopeless as people who don't accept Israel as a state. People who hold such views should be sidelined and we should move forward in what is inevitable. The right of the Palestinians to self determination and state, living along side Israel.

It's not a choice between Israel or Palestine. It's a step towards accepting that Palestinians also deserve a state.

Does your rule apply to the Palestinians who were driven out of what is now Israel?

Harper's vote does not represent my stance. I am curious why others agree with Harper.

Despite Canada and a handful of other countries' stance, the vote will go through because an overwhelming majority of the world will vote yes. It's mostly a symbolic vote but it's also quite a historic vote. France will be voting "yes" on Palestine statehood. Other European countries who will vote "yes" are Spain, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. The U.K. had said they'd vote yes on the condition that Palestine does not file anti-Israeli cases at the International Criminal Court. Palestinians have said: "We will not give up any rights which the status gives us. We are equal people to those others who have this status, including the right to go to the ICC,". So it looks like the U.K. will abstain. The pro-Israeli prime minister of Australia was set to vote "no", but her party pressured her not to. Looks like they will be abstaining. More on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/palestine-date-un-vote-abbas-analysis

Here is a wonderful analysis of the situation by Norman Finkelstein. He goes over pretty much everything from, the reason why Israel attacked, Hamas' part, Egypt, Obama, Netanyahu, Iron Dome and Israel's limited options in a new environment. Here is an excerpt: If Israel’s latest rampage proved less lethal by comparison, it was because of unprecedented political constraints imposed on it: - Turkey and Egypt made abundantly clear that they would not sit idly by if Israel launched a repeat performance of OCL. From early on, both drew a red line at an Israeli ground assault. Although now officially denied, it was reliably reported at the time that Obama, no doubt prodded by these key regional actors, counselled Israel not to invade. - Israel had hanging over its head the Goldstone Report. It managed to elude, the first time around, prosecution at the International Criminal Court and the exercise by several countries of universal jurisdiction for its war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the second time it might not be so fortunate. - Gaza was swarming with foreign reporters. Before OCL, Israel had sealed Gaza shut from the outside world with the cooperation of Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt. In the initial phase of the onslaught, Israel enjoyed a near-total monopoly on media coverage. But now, journalists could freely enter Gaza and credibly report Israeli atrocities in real-time. Link

Did you ever ask yourself why Morsi did what he did? Did you ever listen to his explanation before jumping at his throat? The old-guard judiciary was poised to dissolve the Constitutional Committee and destroy all hope for carrying the revolution forward. This is the reason he issued a decree putting his decrees above judicial review. At least that's his explanation. Shouldn't we give him the time he's requested, which is a couple of a months, before coming to the conclusion that he's worse than Mubarak?

Read an interesting piece on 972mag.com about the implications in regards to tomorrow's Palestinian acceptance as a member state and Israel's conduct on Palestinian territory and the ICC. this does not mean that we will be seeing Israeli generals and politicians hauled off to The Hague on November 30. The ICC gains jurisdiction only prospectively, so alleged crimes committed before the new member joined are not subject to ICC investigation. Second, the ICC would only have jurisdiction over crimes committed on Palestinian sovereign territory, but where that territory starts and ends is entirely unclear and will doubtlessly be subject to prolonged legal wrangling. Third, even if alleged crimes have been committed (and this needs to be investigated on a case by case basis), because of the ICC complementarity regime, the Prosecutor will only investigate cases that Israel has itself neglected to investigate. Finally, the Prosecutor will only apply his or her very limited resources to those cases considered to be the most grievous violations of international law. A positive step forward.