The objective here is not so much to get a state, although certainly a Palestinian state would serve as a useful base for their continuing jihad against Israel. (It would also be an international welfare state existing off jizya from the West.) The objective is to gain another resolution from the OIC-dominated UN that would portray Israel as an outlaw state, in violation of international law and consensus.
"Palestinians to ask UN to recognise state," by Nasser Abu Bakr for AFP, November 16 (thanks to Sr. Soph):
The Palestinians said Sunday they plan to ask for UN recognition of their independence, amid mounting frustration over the stalled peace process as Israel warned against any unilateral moves."We have reached a decision... to go to the UN Security Council to ask for recognition of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital and with June 1967 borders," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told AFP.
He was referring to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and mostly Arab east Jerusalem that Israel captured during the 1967 Six Day War.
"We're going to seek support from EU countries and Russia and other countries" for the measure, he said.
Erakat's comments came amid growing frustration among the Palestinians with so-far ineffective US efforts to relaunch peace negotiations with Israel that were suspended during the Gaza Strip war at the turn of the year....
A state with the June, 1967 borders and the May, 1967 attitudes.
Lets call it JIZIYASTAN!
Don't they already? They recognize the PA, which is about as 'state'ish as you can get - Israeli jurisprudence isn't applicable in places like Hebron, Jericho, Nablus and Bethlehem - all places about as Islamic as Cairo, Damascus, Beirut and Aden. What's left - the right of such an entity to sign military alliances with the likes of Syria and Iran?
They already have a state, Jordan.
All it would take to squelch this is for any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) to veto such a resolution were it to come to a vote. The question is, then, which of these has the backbone to do it? Obama has already committed the U.S. to a two-state "solution" so it's possible we could even be co-sponsor of the resolution. Unless Brown, still chafing at being publicly snubbed by Obama, were to decide this were a good opportunity for payback (which dubiously assumes he has a backbone), I don't think we could count on a U.K. veto. Beside, Brown is susceptible to the Arab street that has been allowed to develop inside the U.K. Medvedev/Putin? Don't count on it. China is a possibility, but it will worry about setting a precedent that has implications for its own minorities. It might therefore abstain, thereby effectively voting yes because, after all, they have economic interests in the ME and in Africa and would not want to offend the Arabs. This leaves France, but it has a spotted history in regard to Israel, and in any case Sarkozy acts so erratically it's not clear which way he would swing. Any bets?
If political correctness, deeply imbedded and apparently ineradicable hostility to Jews, historical amnesia, and ignorance weren't so widespread, it would be more than obvious that a Palestinian Arab/Muslim sovereign state - one more than four times the size of Israel, and large enough to accommodate all the Palestinian Arabs resident in Gaza and in the so-called West Bank who might wish to live there - already exists. That state is Jordan. There is, simply, no justification for another such entity.
In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak went to Camp David and offered Yasser Arafat 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and part of the Old City of Jerusalem, along with $30 billion in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Arafat’s response was the launching of the bloody Intifada which targeted innocent civilians in restaurants, malls, schools, and religious services with suicide terror attacks. Had Arafat accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David there would have long been a Palestinian State alongside Israel. So it's all the usual sour grapes from the ingrates. And it was a blessing in disguise that Arafat did not accept that insane offer.
Yup. What Sounder and Commonsense said. Too bad the rest of the world doesn't realize how desperately we need Israel, intact and in place. WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY passed time for us to bring our muzzel-em "overlords" down a few pegs by EXPANDING Israel. They've been small enough for long enough. Oh, and we all need to do everything we can to remove oil from the category of being a "strategic resource". The tutorials of the lovely and brilliant Anne Korin each bears revisting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MVwL2PcCG8&feature=related
but, see them all.
Wonderin1
they want to be recognized as a state fine it leaves the STATE of Israel in the position of now fighting a war with a state instead of just a terrorist group like hamas and the Arab record against Israel is not very good when at active war also it would mean the state of the islamic republic of Palestinian would have to put its hamas and hezballha and plo terrorists in uniform or risk there being shot as spies under the rules of war . as it would make the Palestinian
terrorist more easily identified as they would have to be in uniform and could not hide among the people the way they have done . i wounder if the Palestinians had thought of this
Israel needs to get a backbone and just annex the West Bank, toss out any cry baby arab over to jordan or any other arab states. Also was not Israel's borders larger with the British Mandate, and later ratified by the UN in '48?
“stalled peace process” That’s rich. Both sides have to want peace for there to be a process. Until Hamas changes their charter, what’s there to talk about.
Sounder,
You’re absolutely correct. Most people don’t know the history, or the fact that Jordan wouldn’t allow the nomadic residents who didn’t want to live in a Jewish state entry. Or that Jordan unilaterally expropriated the West Bank in the 50’s, or that Gaza belonged to the Egyptians before the ‘67 war.
Is there any economy to support an independant state? A water supply? Any manufactured goods?
I would like to know.
Can anyplace become a state or country with the situation there? Wouldn't any LEGITIMATE place in the situation that exists there be merged into the neighboring countries?
HUH, maybe the Kurds should ask for their state as well?
States are suppose to be responsible entities, not world wide panhandlers.
Using the 1967 borders, eh? One problem with that, amongst many others, of course. Israel is not obligated to give back under any circumstances all of the territory taken in the 6-day War. Consider the following about UN Resolution 242:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/WarofAttrition.html#g4
Very clearly, the Resolution states that Israel is allowed to create and maintain defensible borders. It is also noted that the 1967 borders were not defensible. Lord Caradon (the author of the Resolution) said: “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”
Obviously, as things stand, the Palestinians have no foundation to have a state recognized. But not only that, they could have had a state back in 1948, but that was rejected by the Arab nations surrounding the area, hence the 1948 war.
"HUH, maybe the Kurds should ask for their state as well?" -- ethoman
Actually, they should, or perhaps this was what you were really suggesting in seriousness (couldn't tell form your wording). The Kurds have an infinitely more justifiable claim to independent statehood than the "Palestinians." They are the major ethic group within eastern Turkey, northern Iraq and in Iran in the region adjacent to Iraq. See the maps at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kurdistan-maps.htm . If the region where Kurds are more than 50% of the population were combined into a single country it would be larger than Syria, and certainly much larger than Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. The Kurds were promised a state at the Treaty of Sevres after WWI following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, but when Ataturk forced a renegotiation in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Kurds were thrown under the bus. The dream of a separate country hasn't died, though, which is why there is such an active separatist movement.
Oh yeah I was being serious, but this stuff has way more to do with politics than anything else. Turkey is in NATO (Personally I'd rather Israel were in NATO, and Turkey was out ... solves a lot of problems) so the Kurds are basically S.O.L. Look at Kosovo, and Repulika Srpska, bias abounds. Kosovo was basically all about western energy policy. According to what I read recently the Croatians want guarantees from the Bosnian Muslims in regards to minority rights. The Serbs of course want nothing to do with the Bosnian Muslims and are going to request independence, or unification with Serbia. I'm guessing the Croatians, and Serbians might have issues with Islamic norms being installed in the future.
"Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 63:8}."
The power brokers want Bosnia unified, because an Islamic majority Bosnia is a hard sell for the E.U. The next meeting will be interesting, which is coming up soon.
Anyways I digress, Palestinians already have their state it is known as Jordan, or Egypt depending upon where you are at. This is perhaps too logical, or we know the "Palestinians" and Arab Muslims are driven by other agendas.
I think it is time for the UN to appeal to Jordan to take these Palestinians in and let Israel have their way.
There is cnstantly going to be war regardless but at least they would have a true place to call home.
I blame all of this on the British mandate of calling the inhabitants "Palestinians" when they were really nothing more than stray Arabs.
Was not "The West Bank" once known as Judea and Sumaria? If that isn't proof of who was there first, and long before Mohammed dreamed up his evil religion, I'll hush.
The "West Bank" is the name the Jordanians gave after 1949 to the parts of Judea and Samaria -- toponyms in constant use in the Western world at least for the past 2000 years, and certainly the names to be found in the Bible and used by, among others, Jesus.
But, like other absurd transformations or fictions -- the "Palestinian people" is a phrase that no Arabs or Muslims ever used before the Six-Day War, and Zuhair Mohsen (whom google) explained the propagandistic impulse behind that particular fiction.
It never stops. And unless such sinister creations are noted, and rebutted, repeatedly -- something the Israelis failed to do -- it will take root in the collective brains of those who are easily misled, because they know so little to start with.
The Slow Jihad of Fatah just won't do for the Fast Jihadists of Hamas:
Hamas: Declare Palestinian state from sea to river
November 16, 2009
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Hamas rejected the Palestinian Authority's decision to unilaterally declare a state in the West Bank and Gaza, saying it should take over all of Israel.
"(W)hy not declare a Palestinian state from the sea [Mediterranean] to the river [Jordan]" rather than in the West Bank and Gaza only?" Hamas spokesman Salah Bardweel said Monday, Ha'aretz reported.
His remarks followed declarations over the weekend by chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that the Palestinian Authority would ask the United Nations Security Council to recognize an independent state along the 1967 border lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
"This move is not a meaningful declaration. It simply aims at escaping the benefits of resistance against the occupation," Bardweel said. "Instead of threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state to be established in the air, we should work on liberating the occupied territories and end the current internal [Palestinian] division."
Even odds that Red Hussein put them up to this.
I always thought that Jordan was a "Palestinian" state.
Hugh,
"and certainly the names to be found in the Bible"
You mean like these?
"The Philistines and Philistia are mentioned over 250 times in the Hebrew Bible."
Gee, I wonder who those Phillistines were?
And Syria Palesina? When was that name change made?
Peace
Abdullah
The Philistines were related to the ancient Greeks. They were also known as 'sea people', because they invaded Canaan from the sea, and settled on the coast; among other things, they worshipped a fish god, Dagon.
Any claim that the Arabised Islam-steeped peoples found in and around Israel today, are all direct genetic descendants of the Philistine invaders, should be met with derisive laughter by anyone who knows anything about archaeology, history and language.
When will someone tell those "Palestinians" they already have a state? It is called Jordan. There ya go problem solved.