Conquer Club

President Abbas submitted his request for the UN to formally recognise Palestinian statehood today, a move widely criticised by the US, Israel, and much of the West, but with general support worldwide. The move will require support of the UN Security Council, and the US has promised to veto it, but an alternative route of Observer Status is also open, and would likely pass, opening up certain legal avenues to Palestinian Authority in International Courts.


Countries representing 80% of the world's population already recognise Palestinian statehood, but those who don't control 75% of the world's money.
Source

I suggest that all the American Jews who feel anyone Jewish has a right to Palestine cede all their US property to Native Americans.. After all, the claim of he Native Americans is far more recent and valid.

Quick qeustion. Someone at work today said that Palestine has never existed in history. Is this true? And if it did exist, when?

Nope, there has never been a nation called Palestine. There have been a lot of empires and kingdoms that ruled that land, but usually they ruled a lot more land too (see Ottoman Empire, UK, Romans).

I don't see why the history of Palestine is relevant.

It should be considered a state today.

Phatscotty wrote:Quick qeustion. Someone at work today said that Palestine has never existed in history. Is this true? And if it did exist, when?

Wrong. A nation of Israel and one of Palestine were both supposed to be established, but then war broke out and Israel has occupied Palestine ever since.

Beyond that, it was a region or an area that did not rule itself. However, whether a group gets to be an independent nation is generally not based on historical designation, except, of course, for Israel.

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

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Quick qeustion. Someone at work today said that Palestine has never existed in history. Is this true? And if it did exist, when?

Wrong. A nation of Israel and one of Palestine were both supposed to be established, but then war broke out and Israel has occupied Palestine ever since.

Beyond that, it was a region or an area that did not rule itself. However, whether a group gets to be an independent nation is generally not based on historical designation, except, of course, for Israel.

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

Wrong!

So......it didn't exist? It was supposed to exist? It was supposed to be established? But it was or it wasn't?

And also as per Israel occupying Palestine? Didn't the Arabs invade Israel? Since when does the loser of a war not lose?

Army of GOD wrote:I don't see why the history of Palestine is relevant.

It should be considered a state today.

I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!!!!!

The Balfor Declaration ceded the Ottomon region of Palestine for establishment of a Jewish state.

So, ironically, in a way, Israel IS Palestine.

however, in other ways, the answer is essentially no.
A later European agreement was to divide the lands into Palestine and Israel. The Jews who became Israel used that agreement to claim the right to estalbish a state. The Palestiniens rejected any European right to divide the land, (particularly the bit about giving Israelis all areas with a bare majority of Jews -- just over 50% whereas the Palestinien areas were 99% Arab) and have fought Israel's rihgt to exist.

PLAYER57832 wrote: So, ironically, in a way, Israel IS Palestine.

Good point, Player. This is why I support disestablishment of Israel in addition to Palestinian statehood.

Obama could single-handedly neuter terrorism tomorrow by not vetoing the Palestinian statehood resolution. He could even vote against it if he wanted, but to actually veto it will legitimize every claim made by Al-Qaeda and passion a new generation of radicals. How many American lives do U.S. politicians want to sacrifice all so that the gravy train of bribes from AIPAC keeps rolling in? The U.S. has learned nothing since 9/11.

PICTURE: AIPAC's fortified compound in Washington DC looms over the U.S. Capitol building.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The Balfor Declaration ceded the Ottomon region of Palestine for establishment of a Jewish state.

So, ironically, in a way, Israel IS Palestine.

however, in other ways, the answer is essentially no.
A later European agreement was to divide the lands into Palestine and Israel. The Jews who became Israel used that agreement to claim the right to estalbish a state. The Palestiniens rejected any European right to divide the land, (particularly the bit about giving Israelis all areas with a bare majority of Jews -- just over 50% whereas the Palestinien areas were 99% Arab) and have fought Israel's rihgt to exist.

Thanks for clearing that up.

PLO Chairman / PNA President Dr. Mahmoud Abbas was greeted with a 5-minute long standing ovation when he delivered his eloquent oratory, pleading for the freedom of the Palestinian people today at the UN. However, many delegates left and the rest remained silent, when Israeli regime ruler Ben Netanyahu - a high school graduate- slithered up to the stage afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I379HHdy7ak&t=1m8s

84% of Germans want Palestinian state, 72% of Britons want Palestinian state, 82% of French want Palestinian state:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.384015
(IOW, when the U.S. frees itself from the Zionist hypnosis, Israel's days are numbered.)

saxitoxin wrote:PLO Chairman / PNA President Dr. Mahmoud Abbas was greeted with a 5-minute long standing ovation when he delivered his eloquent oratory, pleading for the freedom of the Palestinian people today at the UN. However, many delegates left and the rest remained silent, when Israeli regime ruler Ben Netanyahu - a high school graduate- slithered up to the stage afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I379HHdy7ak&t=1m8s

84% of Germans want Palestinian state, 72% of Britons want Palestinian state, 82% of French want Palestinian state:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.384015
(IOW, when the U.S. frees itself from the Zionist hypnosis, Israel's days are numbered.)

You say "high school graduate" with the obvious implication that he never studied in college. I was surprised, so I looked it up. You're wrong. From his wiki article:

After his army service Netanyahu returned to the United States, studied and earned a B.S. degree in architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[12] in 1975, an M.S. degree from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1977, and studied political science at Harvard University. At that time he changed his name to Benjamin Ben Nitai (Nitai, a reference to both Mount Nitai and to the eponymous Jewish sage Nittai of Arbela, was a pen name often used by his father for articles).[10] Years later, in an interview with the media, Netanyahu clarified that he decided to do so to make it easier for Americans to pronounce his name. This fact has been used by his political rivals to accuse him indirectly of a lack of Israeli national identity and loyalty.[13]

InkL0sed wrote:You're wrong.

So he didn't graduate from high school?

PLAYER57832 wrote:The Balfor Declaration ceded the Ottomon region of Palestine for establishment of a Jewish state.

The Balfour Declaration was the British way of appeasing both sides by providing a vague enough declaration that could be interpreted favorably from either side's point of view. So to the Israel's, it looked like the British were supporting an Israeli state, and to the Palestinians, it looked like the British were supporting a Palestinian state.

But, really, the British dropped it like it was hot and sent the matter to the UN.

...a letter from the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild...

Here's an infographic from the National Post comparing their speeches.

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: So, ironically, in a way, Israel IS Palestine.

Good point, Player. This is why I support disestablishment of Israel in addition to Palestinian statehood.

Good plan: disband the one functioning and stable democracy in the entire region and replace it with yet another bloodthirsty Islamic dictatorship.

saxitoxin wrote: Obama could single-handedly neuter terrorism tomorrow by not vetoing the Palestinian statehood resolution. He could even vote against it if he wanted, but to actually veto it will legitimize every claim made by Al-Qaeda and passion a new generation of radicals. How many American lives do U.S. politicians want to sacrifice all so that the gravy train of bribes from AIPAC keeps rolling in? The U.S. has learned nothing since 9/11.

Through which mechanism will it stop terrorism? One thing it will surely stop is to get Obama reelected ...

IMHO, it is a smart move by Abbas. It will not bring statehood or peace but it will strengthen the palestinian hand in any future negotiations...

IMHO-2, I am not really sure what Israel is trying to achieve at the moment. They will never get a more pro-Israel palestinian leader than Abbas. A smart move for them would be to get some quick concessions from Palestine on some points of principle while the bid is stuck in the committee before the vote. It could be easily stuck for more than a year, which is more than enough time to get at least something out... because as soon as Obama is re-elected, he is likely not to veto it

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The Balfor Declaration ceded the Ottomon region of Palestine for establishment of a Jewish state.

The Balfour Declaration was the British way of appeasing both sides by providing a vague enough declaration that could be interpreted favorably from either side's point of view. So to the Israel's, it looked like the British were supporting an Israeli state, and to the Palestinians, it looked like the British were supporting a Palestinian state.

But, really, the British dropped it like it was hot and sent the matter to the UN.

Interesting interpretation..

There was no "two sides" to that, sorry... at least not the Palestinien/Israel 2 sides. It was a means of appeasing zionists.

Pope Joan wrote:One thing it will surely stop is to get Obama reelected

Everyone who elected Obama the first time supports Palestine. Only neo-cons oppose it. They didn't vote for him the first time and, regardless of what he does, they won't vote for him now. Taking a hard line against Israel could only benefit him. The fact he doesn't, in the face of all political logic, shows who is pulling his levers from the shadows. In the past Israeli power in the U.S. were guaranteed: the Democrats support Israel because AIPAC pays them off, the Republicans support Israel because they hate Muslims. Once the wealthy Zionists switch, and they are, Israel's days are numbered.

• 
  I've never been to a Republican victory party (or any event in Howard Beach!) where black velvet yarmulkes were as plentiful as they were at Bob Turner's [the Republican who captured Anthony Weiner's House seat] event last night, and there are few elections in which the Jewish politics I've always covered with interest are going to get spun quite this hard.
  
  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: So, ironically, in a way, Israel IS Palestine.

Good point, Player. This is why I support disestablishment of Israel in addition to Palestinian statehood.

Good plan: disband the one functioning and stable democracy in the entire region and replace it with yet another bloodthirsty Islamic dictatorship.

I think the same rationale was used to argue against ending apartheid in South Africa - It will lead to just another dysfunctional, debt-laden, black nation.

There's no place for Israel in the future, it belongs to the past. The future belongs to secular Pan-Arabism. It will be easier to resettle 5 million Israelis to North America and Europe tomorrow than 10 million next week.

It is possible that all this "opposition" from the Obama Administration is just posturing to look more reasonable to the Jewish American community. In addition, given the nature of the recent special election, he is ready to give up this posturing, as the Jewish vote is likely lost already. Any takers?

Consider me taken.

GreecePwns wrote:It is possible that all this "opposition" from the Obama Administration is just posturing to look more reasonable to the Jewish American community. In addition, given the nature of the recent special election, he is ready to give up this posturing, as the Jewish vote is likely lost already. Any takers?

I don't know, there's a fairly significant proportion of the Jewish population worldwide who disagree with the way that the Netanyahu administration has been behaving, especially regarding the US and Obama. Obama's been one of the most pro-Israel Presidents in recent years. Recent revelations show that he gave bunker busters to Israel for potential use against Iran, a move that even Dubya wouldn't do as it kind of tacitly suggests support for an attack on Iran, for example.

It's tempting to read a lot into the loss of Weiner's seat, but it seems to have more to do with the more obvious factors of opposition to gay marriage, disgust at Weiner, and the general poor economic performance. I'm sure that a misconception of Obama as anti-Israel might well have been a factor too, but I think the letter sent by the Orthodox rabbis to their congregations insisting they vote against the Dems because of their stance on homosexuality was kind of a big factor.

Dukasaur wrote:Good plan: disband the one functioning and stable democracy in the entire region and replace it with yet another bloodthirsty Islamic dictatorship.

It's called "symmetrical diversity".

Don't be a racist.