Recognising a Palestinian State?

[saxitoxin]

Palestinians are as Arab as any other tribe, even the best known of all Arab tribes - the Jews.

You really have no idea what you are talking about here. There were Arab Jewish tribes, indeed, but not all Jews are of the Arab origin. As far as Palestinians are concerned, technically they became Arabs around 7th century when they switched the language from Aramaic to Arabic...

The fact that not all Jews are of Arab or even Aramaic origin is one reason why claiming a direct tie to Jerusalem, outside of the Bible is ridiculous.

And that is what presents the huge problem. Most countries, today, like to maintain the fiction of being secular or at least treating other nations with respect, not like African or Native American tribes ready for exploitation. If they DO that, then the "respectable" reason is to do so for profit/gain. Religion is "not supposed" to be a part of it.

Yet, when it comes to Israel, it is. Add in that while the Jewish presence (and therefore power) in the US is stronge (thanks to the holocaust stronger here than anywhere outside of Israel), the Christian influence and presence is far stronger. Christians have always been somewhat conflicted about Israel and Judaism.

Finally, I am not obsessed with the Nazis - I think that is a Jewish obsession. I do however think that a nation so violated by the evil of the Nazis, would be mindful of others suffering a similar fate.

Off course, you are. Why would you mention them otherwise as they bear no relevance to the Palestine-Israel conflict?

Nazis absolutely DO have bearing on the Israel-Palestinien conflict. It is the Nazis, more than any other group, that allowed the formation of Israel. YET... here is the irony, all of the anger of the Jews is put onto the Palestiniens, not Germany, not the rest of Europe, not even the US who turned away boatloads of Jews even while knowing the death camps existed.

No, their anger is turned at people who had the "audacity" to have lived for hundreds, even thousands of years on the land the Jews wanted... and to think that that occupation might give them a claim to that land.

That's another good point, Player.

The Zionist wants to abuse Palestinians because they want to cover the tracks of their own collaboration. Abbas' doctoral thesis at Moscow State University was "the Conspiracy between Nazism and Zionism" and documented this little discussed aspect of history.

Also, all the talk of Israel being an economic success is utter silliness. They get billions every year from the U.S. and, every few years when they need some extra spending cash, threaten to sue Germany which promptly settles out of court for billions, even though Israel agreed reparations had been paid in full as of 1971.

[saxitoxin]

As an aside, the DDR never paid a schilling of the reparations agreement. The DDR position was that only indivdual victims could be compensated, reparations could not be made by giving Israel a tank. The Zionists wanted none of that. The FRG, however, has been a gross enabler of Zionist militarism.

[Army of GOD]

saxi, did you know it's nietzsche's birthday today?

[saxitoxin]

saxi, did you know it's nietzsche's birthday today?

Of course I did, you fool. I sent him a Spongebob Squarepants sombrero, a half-rack of Tecate and a sack of maize he can use to press tortillas.

[daddy1gringo]

Interesting link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 033AAIktxm

Excellent link, Player.

The name "Palestine" was the Roman Empire's name for the entire area. The area that is now Israel included the regions of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, going from south to north. Judea, (which included all of Jerusalem and west to the Jordan River btw) was primarily populated by Jews, and such limited autonomous government as Rome allowed in occupied states was Jewish (That is where the words "Jew" and "Jewish" came from: Greek "Judaioi", "Judeans".) Samaria and Galilee were mostly populated by the mixed race that resulted when the Assyrian Empire conquered the area, shipped out a large portion of the population, and shipped in exiles from other conquered lands in order to destroy national identity that could result in insurrection. The Herod family who were the puppet rulers in those and much of the surrounding areas were Idumeans, part of that semi-Israelite population. Galilee, however maintained a significant population of more-or-less pure Isaelite people (I can think of one or two famous Jewish people who were born there ) The remaining mixed population largely considered themselves descendants of Jacob (Israel) and heirs to the promises.

Back to the link, I had heard that this was true but didn't have the facts before. By the admission of the Arab leaders, there never was a Palestinian state. It is a ruse adopted by the surrounding Arabs specifically for the purpose of compromising defensible borders for Israel and thereby committing genocide against them, as proven by the quotes from Arab leaders in Players' link.

The Palestinian people are Syrians, so I agree that they should have a home of their own. Syria should carve one out of its land, preferably on the border with Jordan so that Jordan can add some adjoining land.

I appreciate the compassion that the people and governments of Israel's Arab neighbors have for their Palestinian Arab brothers, and their concern that they have their own state. This will give them the opportunity to do something constructive toward that end. Problem solved.

[PLAYER57832]

Back to the link, I had heard that this was true but didn't have the facts before. By the admission of the Arab leaders, there never was a Palestinian state. It is a ruse adopted by the surrounding Arabs specifically for the purpose of compromising defensible borders for Israel and thereby committing genocide against them, as proven by the quotes from Arab leaders in Players' link.

Number one, one link doesn't prove anything, particularly without verification.

However, to go on about the "Arab ruse" without ALSO acknowledging the fallacy of any claim European Jews had to that land means you are seeing things only from the Israeli perspective.

The Palestinian people are Syrians, so I agree that they should have a home of their own. Syria should carve one out of its land, preferably on the border with Jordan so that Jordan can add some adjoining land.

I see, so why is it that European, Russian, American, etc Jews have full right to this land and those who can trace their occupation back for hudnreds of years continuously (often held by the same family!) have no right? Why is it that some outsiders get to just decide that "hey, these guys are really just Syrians" and therefore they don't get to decide their own land?

You could as easily say that Switzerland or Belgium are really just part of Germany!

I appreciate the compassion that the people and governments of Israel's Arab neighbors have for their Palestinian Arab brothers, and their concern that they have their own state. This will give them the opportunity to do something constructive toward that end. Problem solved.

And therefore, you are willing to give up your house and land to the Native Americans who owned it just a couple hundred years ago? After all, you seem to think that the Arabs who lived in Israel for hundreds of years are supposed to simply pass back their land for religious reasons, why shouldn't the Native Americans have that same right? Their religion declares their land theirs as well!

[Qwert]

interesting case.
Kosovo in all history,never been albanian country, been Serbian province. Now its proclaimed independent,suported and protected by US and western countries, and they have right to do that.
Interesting situation its that US recognise Kosovo Independent, but refuse to recognise Palestine, from other Side Israel not recognise Kosovo independed, afraid that these could give even bigger reasons for Palestine to take same way like Kosovo for independed.
Resolution 1244 are recognise Kosovo like Serbian province, but these days UN realy losing any walue,because any resolution its read diferent in west,and diferent in east.

[PLAYER57832]

interesting case.
Kosovo in all history,never been albanian country, been Serbian province. Now its proclaimed independent,suported and protected by US and western countries, and they have right to do that.
Interesting situation its that US recognise Kosovo Independent, but refuse to recognise Palestine, from other Side Israel not recognise Kosovo independed, afraid that these could give even bigger reasons for Palestine to take same way like Kosovo for independed.
Resolution 1244 are recognise Kosovo like Serbian province, but these days UN realy losing any walue,because any resolution its read diferent in west,and diferent in east.

My late Grandmother used to tell me that the Balkans were even more tangled than the Middle East.

[saxitoxin]

interesting case.
Kosovo in all history,never been albanian country, been Serbian province. Now its proclaimed independent,suported and protected by US and western countries, and they have right to do that.
Interesting situation its that US recognise Kosovo Independent, but refuse to recognise Palestine, from other Side Israel not recognise Kosovo independed, afraid that these could give even bigger reasons for Palestine to take same way like Kosovo for independed.
Resolution 1244 are recognise Kosovo like Serbian province, but these days UN realy losing any walue,because any resolution its read diferent in west,and diferent in east.

That's another good point, qwert. And at the same time the U.S. and their puppet states try to stop efforts of Srpska to leave Bosnia and reunite with Serbia.

The U.S. wants to turn Kosovo into the Guantanamo Bay of Europe. The U.S. is treaty prohibited from placing troops east of the Oder-Neisse line so needs Kosovo from which to threaten Russia and engage in other shenanigans.

[KernowWarrior]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15085308

Isreal taking the piss now!

[Ray Rider]

If you want to use the criteria of "national unity, economic viability, and security," then Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more should have their UN-recognition revoked.

When was the last time the UN recognition of a country was revoked? We're not talking about nations which have always existed and collapsed in on themselves (Somalia) or been temporarily invaded (Iraq). We're talking about a completely new nation wanting to be recognized as independent when a different nation which is actually in control of that territory is saying "no, it's not time yet. Later, yes; but only after you're willing to make peace." Western Sahara would be a better similarity, if you could imagine the Polisario not only calling for independence, but also declaring the nation of Morocco doesn't exist and continually shooting rockets and sending suicide bombers over there.

Some people here seem quite willing to condemn the Israelis for moving to Palestine and creating a nation there. What about all the Arabs who were immigrating to Palestine around the same time the Jews were? Have you taken them into account? There's still over a million Arabs in Israel. Maybe you should find the descendants of those immagrants, weed them out and kick them out along with the Jews simply because both groups were immigrating there?
"...So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish Population."
--Winston Churchill, 1939

"in the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese [Syrians] had entered Palestine and settled there."
--Tewfik Bey El-Hurani, Governor of the Hauran, 1934, in the Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commision of the League of Nations

More Arabs illegally entered and remained in Palestine than the total number of Jews for twice that length of time in 1934 who were "approved" to immigrate into their designated "Jewish National Home."
--Report for the Year of 1934, Colonial #104 P35

"This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoing states could not be kept from going in to share that misery."
--C.S. Jarvis, United Empire, vol.28 p. 633

The fact is, the region was in turmoil at the time (as it almost always has been for the last 2000 years), and in the years prior to Israel declaring independence, thousands of Jews immigrated to the region as well as thousands of Arabs (although the flow of Arabs was generally less restricted and unrecorded). During--and following--the war of 1948, roughly 900,000 Jews fled neighboring Arab countries to the newly created state of Israel while roughly 700,000 Palestinians fled from their homes to land which was at that time part of Syria, Jordan, or Egypt. The Jews were welcomed into the new country, while the Palestinians were definitely not welcomed into neighboring countries.

and just to re-interate the point - Being anti-zionist does not equate to being anti-semetic - I am definately the former and most definately not the latter -

You can include a fair number of Jews in that anti-zionist bit.

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."
--Martin Luther King

[The Krel]

Are we not losing touch with the question?

Believe me, I have lots to say about Kosovo - and how many shades of wrong that is. And equally, the arguement over who was where 2000 years ago is surely part of the root problem.

But the question is set today - and isn't about Isreal. It is about Palestine. And whether we should recognise it as a state.

The real issue is to do with respect and tolerance.

Already (in the above quote by Winston Churchill) we have established there is long-standing political bigotry set against Arabs in general. But surely by now we are better than that. Apartheid, black segrigation in the US - we used to think that was OK. Now we have moved on. It is time to move on with Palestine too.

The POP Poll at the head of this discussion, shows that more than 50% of those polled would NEVER accept a Palestinian state. And that is the problem, those entrenced bigots who can NEVER see a solution.

How you educate people to see beyond such bigotry is the issue. Personally, such people just make me sick!

[Pope Joan]

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."
--Martin Luther King

RR, you are actually making sense but why do you finish with a well-known forgery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_ ... ist_Friend or
http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/MLK01.htm?

Just to clarify my position completely, I am an independent observer. I would love to sympathize Palestinians but I don't know any personally while I know a lot of Jews, although most of them are left-wing secular kind (like Borat:-)... Historically, I would support the Christian claim to Jerusalem but politically it is dead in the water.

[Pope Joan]

And whether we should recognise it as a state. ...

The POP Poll at the head of this discussion, shows that more than 50% of those polled would NEVER accept a Palestinian state. And that is the problem, those entrenced bigots who can NEVER see a solution.

How you educate people to see beyond such bigotry is the issue. Personally, such people just make me sick!

Who are "we"? May I propose that CC recognises Palestine ! I see you are Brit or just based there. IMHO, Britain should either vote for the recognition or abstain. It clearly should not use the veto. Let USA be a big bad boy... And USA cannot afford not to veto it because it will costs Obama next elections...

My problem with your passionate argument is that you seem to think that the recognition is going to solve something. Exactly what, may I ask? I am failing to see...

[The Krel]

The "we" I mention is merely humankind. The generic people of the World.

Beyond that - sadly you may be right. Recognition by the UN will not change life on the ground for Palestinians. It would merely be one small step in the right direction.

However, the question only implies recognition by the UN, because of world events. It could mean recognition by Isreal - and that would change everything!

Then again, assuming we are talking about UN recognition. It would therefore follow that the US did not veto the motion. And that in itself would be a ceismic political shift.

One which for now at least - I cannot see happening.

For my part - thinking long and hard about this debate - which I might add has been brilliant from every perpsective. I find myself with a soliatry question - what is the Palestinan equivalent to anti-semitism? Because that issue alone seems to be the impediment to progress.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure about this issue. I think recognition as a state would give Palestine some rights (for lack of a better term) with respect to Israel.

Frankly, I think the United States support of Israel is related to what I think is an out-dated thought that a non-Muslim state in the Muslim world is a necessary ally. Unfortunately, the Democrats are war-mongering and linked to Jewish-Americans and cannot be seen to abandoned Israel and the Republicans are war-mongering and generally think most Arab Muslims are terrorists and won't abandon Israel. Thus, you have the United States leading the anti-Palestine work, when they should just stay out of it.

[PLAYER57832]

If you want to use the criteria of "national unity, economic viability, and security," then Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more should have their UN-recognition revoked.

When was the last time the UN recognition of a country was revoked? We're not talking about nations which have always existed and collapsed in on themselves (Somalia) or been temporarily invaded (Iraq). We're talking about a completely new nation wanting to be recognized as independent when a different nation which is actually in control of that territory is saying "no, it's not time yet. Later, yes; but only after you're willing to make peace." Western Sahara would be a better similarity, if you could imagine the Polisario not only calling for independence, but also declaring the nation of Morocco doesn't exist and continually shooting rockets and sending suicide bombers over there.

Some people here seem quite willing to condemn the Israelis for moving to Palestine and creating a nation there. What about all the Arabs who were immigrating to Palestine around the same time the Jews were? Have you taken them into account? There's still over a million Arabs in Israel. Maybe you should find the descendants of those immagrants, weed them out and kick them out along with the Jews simply because both groups were immigrating there?

Claiming that everyone there are just recent migrants is the most stupid thing anyone has said in this thread.

Most of the people being displaced by Israelis belong to families that have lived in the region continuously for hundreds or thousands of years. Some married, made minor migrations for a variety of reasons, but some of the orchards and houses Israel claimed are just occupied by "transients" were in fact held continously by the same family for 700 and more years.

"...So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish Population."
--Winston Churchill, 1939

Nice try. Did you actually READ it? It says that ARabs are having children and therefore outstripping the Jewish population. Well.. of course!
And the same for the rest. This was NOT land OWNED BY THE JEWS. Why on Earth shouldn't Arabs move there! What its really saying is "oh gee"... Arabs are taking over OUR Palestine! we have to save that for Jews!

Note the time line. Winston Churchill was looking for a way to get rid of his "Jewish problem". Europe seemed to think that because the people who lived there had not built western-style cities, were not then militarily powerful, they could simply be discounted.

Care to dig up the real population statistics from then? No reliable statistics exist.

Among other issues, both the Ottomans and the British did not even count migratory Bedouin tribes! How they classified people had far more to do with imperialistic ideas than anything else.

and just to re-interate the point - Being anti-zionist does not equate to being anti-semetic - I am definately the former and most definately not the latter -

You can include a fair number of Jews in that anti-zionist bit.

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."
--Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King was a wonderful man, but not perfect. In this case, he was just wrong. He was NOT wrong about civil rights, but that doesn't make him an expert in world politics.

EDIT -- should have checked more. This "quote" is apparently fraudulant.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you want to use the criteria of "national unity, economic viability, and security," then Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more should have their UN-recognition revoked.

When was the last time the UN recognition of a country was revoked? We're not talking about nations which have always existed and collapsed in on themselves (Somalia) or been temporarily invaded (Iraq). We're talking about a completely new nation wanting to be recognized as independent when a different nation which is actually in control of that territory is saying "no, it's not time yet. Later, yes; but only after you're willing to make peace." Western Sahara would be a better similarity, if you could imagine the Polisario not only calling for independence, but also declaring the nation of Morocco doesn't exist and continually shooting rockets and sending suicide bombers over there.

Some people here seem quite willing to condemn the Israelis for moving to Palestine and creating a nation there. What about all the Arabs who were immigrating to Palestine around the same time the Jews were? Have you taken them into account? There's still over a million Arabs in Israel. Maybe you should find the descendants of those immagrants, weed them out and kick them out along with the Jews simply because both groups were immigrating there?
"...So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish Population."
--Winston Churchill, 1939

"in the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese [Syrians] had entered Palestine and settled there."
--Tewfik Bey El-Hurani, Governor of the Hauran, 1934, in the Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commision of the League of Nations

More Arabs illegally entered and remained in Palestine than the total number of Jews for twice that length of time in 1934 who were "approved" to immigrate into their designated "Jewish National Home."
--Report for the Year of 1934, Colonial #104 P35

"This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoing states could not be kept from going in to share that misery."
--C.S. Jarvis, United Empire, vol.28 p. 633

The fact is, the region was in turmoil at the time (as it almost always has been for the last 2000 years), and in the years prior to Israel declaring independence, thousands of Jews immigrated to the region as well as thousands of Arabs (although the flow of Arabs was generally less restricted and unrecorded). During--and following--the war of 1948, roughly 900,000 Jews fled neighboring Arab countries to the newly created state of Israel while roughly 700,000 Palestinians fled from their homes to land which was at that time part of Syria, Jordan, or Egypt. The Jews were welcomed into the new country, while the Palestinians were definitely not welcomed into neighboring countries.

The criteria are arbitrary. That's all I'm saying.

It's like posting a sign outside your bar that says, "Customers who wear loose-fitting clothes aren't allowed to enter."

That rule is then used to indirectly discriminate against local black people--most of whom wear "loose-fitting" clothes, which is a term that can be loosely defined.

[Dukasaur]

The future belongs to secular Pan-Arabism.

You might almost have a point, if only the Islamists didn't have such a near-perfect record of assassinating any secular Arab leader of note.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke or not?

Not even remotely close to a joke. Twenty years ago you might have been able to hope for a secular Arab world. Today, you can't. Not one truly secular state exists in the Arab world. Every single one is either under Jihadist control, or has had to make concessions to the Jihadists in a doomed effort to remain free.

[saxitoxin]

The future belongs to secular Pan-Arabism.

You might almost have a point, if only the Islamists didn't have such a near-perfect record of assassinating any secular Arab leader of note.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke or not?

Not even remotely close to a joke. Twenty years ago you might have been able to hope for a secular Arab world. Today, you can't. Not one truly secular state exists in the Arab world. Every single one is either under Jihadist control, or has had to make concessions to the Jihadists in a doomed effort to remain free.

Huh. I wonder whose fault that is?

List of Secular Arab States, 2001-2011
Syria - US-led economic sanctions, calls for overthrow of government
Iraq - US-led invasion and overthrow of government
Libya - US tactical air support for overthrow of government by Islamist-linked rebels
Palestine (Fatah) - US refuses to give diplomatic recognition; threatens vetoes of UN membership bid, thereby empowering Hamas
Tunisia
Egypt
Yemen
Lebanon

List of Arab Monarchies and Theocracies, 2001-2011
Saudi Arabia - U.S. ally
Bahrain - U.S. ally
Qatar - U.S. ally
Kuwait - U.S. ally
UAE - U.S. ally
Morocco - U.S. ally
Jordan - U.S. ally

[Dukasaur]

Might be time for a reset:

1) The Palestinian state exists, and is recognised by most of the world.

The Palestinian state exists for one reason, and one reason only: to be the spearhead of a war of extermination against the Jews. To that end Jihadists created it, to that end Jihadists continue to support it, and no other end will it serve.

If you are a closet Nazi and you want to see the Jews exterminated, then by all means continue to agitate for Palestine. But if you don't then take off your blinders and face reality.

5) I'd like to hear from someone who voted "never". The two state solution is kind of the holy grail for most serious minded folk. The "Never" option would suggest that that peace is off the table.

The two-state solution is not a solution. It would be only a stepping stone toward the Jihadist goal of a final war against Isreal. That is the reason anyone willing to face facts instead of dabbling in wishful thinking must oppose it.

Now, I did post in another thread a possible solution of weaving together a confederation of ALL the various nations in the area, with guaranteed enclaves for the various religious communities and secular control of the ports and cities. That might work, no promises. But two states is just guaranteed war.

[Dukasaur]

The future belongs to secular Pan-Arabism.

You might almost have a point, if only the Islamists didn't have such a near-perfect record of assassinating any secular Arab leader of note.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke or not?

Not even remotely close to a joke. Twenty years ago you might have been able to hope for a secular Arab world. Today, you can't. Not one truly secular state exists in the Arab world. Every single one is either under Jihadist control, or has had to make concessions to the Jihadists in a doomed effort to remain free.

Huh. I wonder whose fault that is?

List of Secular Arab States, 2001-2011
Syria - US-led economic sanctions, calls for overthrow of government
Iraq - US-led invasion and overthrow of government
Libya - US tactical air support for overthrow of government by Islamist-linked rebels
Palestine (Fatah) - US refuses to give diplomatic recognition; threatens vetoes of UN membership bid, thereby empowering Hamas
Tunisia
Egypt
Yemen
Lebanon

List of Arab Monarchies and Theocracies, 2001-2011
Saudi Arabia - U.S. ally
Bahrain - U.S. ally
Qatar - U.S. ally
Kuwait - U.S. ally
UAE - U.S. ally
Morocco - U.S. ally
Jordan - U.S. ally

I don't disagree. American meddling has been a huge part of the problem.

[Symmetry]

Might be time for a reset:

1) The Palestinian state exists, and is recognised by most of the world.

The Palestinian state exists for one reason, and one reason only: to be the spearhead of a war of extermination against the Jews. To that end Jihadists created it, to that end Jihadists continue to support it, and no other end will it serve.

If you are a closet Nazi and you want to see the Jews exterminated, then by all means continue to agitate for Palestine. But if you don't then take off your blinders and face reality.

5) I'd like to hear from someone who voted "never". The two state solution is kind of the holy grail for most serious minded folk. The "Never" option would suggest that that peace is off the table.

The two-state solution is not a solution. It would be only a stepping stone toward the Jihadist goal of a final war against Isreal. That is the reason anyone willing to face facts instead of dabbling in wishful thinking must oppose it.

Now, I did post in another thread a possible solution of weaving together a confederation of ALL the various nations in the area, with guaranteed enclaves for the various religious communities and secular control of the ports and cities. That might work, no promises. But two states is just guaranteed war.

I disagree with both the substance of your arguments, and the way you put them. Maybe dial it down a notch from the closet-Nazi stuff, eh?

The two state solution is, as I said, pretty much the only option on the table as an overarching plan. The other options- destruction of Israel replaced by a Palestinian state, or vice-versa destruction of the Palestian state replaced by Israel are fringe groups, but they wield a lot of power in their extremism, and can perform extremely provocative acts.

I'm not sure what your solution is, but feel free to provide a link to it. I suspect that, however good it is, it is not an option being seriously discussed.

U.N. recognition is more about legitimacy, specifically legal standing. The primary benefit of it would be that Palestinians would have legal standing in courts of International law and be able to pursue claims against the government of Israel. So really the question is, what do you see as wrong with that?

Also, EVERYBODY SHOULD STOP USING THE PHRASE "THE QUESTION IS" AND ALL ITS DERIVATIVES.

[PLAYER57832]

The future belongs to secular Pan-Arabism.

You might almost have a point, if only the Islamists didn't have such a near-perfect record of assassinating any secular Arab leader of note.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke or not?

Not even remotely close to a joke. Twenty years ago you might have been able to hope for a secular Arab world. Today, you can't. Not one truly secular state exists in the Arab world. Every single one is either under Jihadist control, or has had to make concessions to the Jihadists in a doomed effort to remain free.

Not at all like Christianity in the west...

[BigBallinStalin]

Might be time for a reset:

1) The Palestinian state exists, and is recognised by most of the world.

The Palestinian state exists for one reason, and one reason only: to be the spearhead of a war of extermination against the Jews.

So Palestinian self-determination and individual liberty have nothing to do with it?