Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Palestine recognised by the UN General Assembly

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....its blatantly obvious what shift it signals.

    Now - you answer a question - what would you rather the Palestinians do, instead of getting increased status on the international stage?


    Thats started back in the 70's at least. Not one vote ago

    As long as Israel remains ally with the U.S it calls the shots. Increased status for Palestine on the world stage does not supercede this fact


  • Options
    #33
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    cunnifferous wrote: »
    Yes you could. I guess my point was that outside of the US and Canada (and maybe the czechs) no other nations of note voted against the resolution.


    Several nations of note didnt support it either.

    Germany and the U.K chief among them. They've at least 2 permanent members of the security council members that havent supported it outright


  • Options
    #34
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    Why does Palestine need to be a part of the United Nations for ground invasions against it by Israel to be recognised as a war crime?
    Not a war crime necessarily, but the UN, ICJ and international law generally only comes into play when you have a problem between two states.
    As long as Palestine was not recognised as independent, Israel was largely free to bulldoze (literally) over their land without much resistance.

    Will this mean a change overnight? Of course not. But it's an important step in the liberation and protection of Palestine.


  • Options
    #35
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    "U.N actually does have some guts" shocker. Good for the UN, they had to do somthing right eventually.


  • Options
    #36
    vicwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 28,403 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    cunnifferous wrote: »
    Just in case anyone's interested (or too lazy to look it up) here are the 41 abstentions

    Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Korea, Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, UK, Vanuatu

    Cheers, was hoping someone would post this.

    A few heavyweights in there. Why sit on the fence I wonder? Bah !

    I suppose Germany and GB can't really be seen to be voting either way considering the history there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    seamus wrote: »
    Not a war crime necessarily, but the UN, ICJ and international law generally only comes into play when you have a problem between two states.
    As long as Palestine was not recognised as independent, Israel was largely free to bulldoze (literally) over their land without much resistance.

    Will this mean a change overnight? Of course not. But it's an important step in the liberation and protection of Palestine.

    Perhaps I'm naive but I fail to see why anyone needs U.N intervention or membership to prevent having their land bulldozed by a neighbouring nation


  • Options
    #38
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    vicwatson wrote: »
    Cheers, was hoping someone would post this.

    A few heavyweights in there. Why sit on the fence I wonder? Bah !

    I suppose Germany and GB can't really be seen to be voting either way considering the history there.

    France voted, so did Spain, Portugal, amongst others


  • Options
    #39
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    seamus wrote: »
    Not a war crime necessarily, but the UN, ICJ and international law generally only comes into play when you have a problem between two states.
    As long as Palestine was not recognised as independent, Israel was largely free to bulldoze (literally) over their land without much resistance.

    Will this mean a change overnight? Of course not. But it's an important step in the liberation and protection of Palestine.


    Perhaps not a war crime but not exactly legal either


  • Options
    #40
    statesaver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭statesaver


    Kinda shocked that a lot of the central and eastern european countries voted no, Czech Rep, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania ........


  • Options
    #41
    cunnifferous
    Registered Users Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭cunnifferous


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    Several nations of note didnt support it either.

    Germany and the U.K chief among them. They've at least 2 permanent of thesecurity council members that havent supported it outright

    Well Germany has a certain guilt complex that prevents it from voting against Israel. The U.K was by all accounts wavering between abstaining and voting yes. They had stated they would have voted 'yes' but couldn't get assurances that the PA wouldn't go straight to the ICC. Either way it's hard to portray the vote as anything other than showing strong international support for the PA's position.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    kraggy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭kraggy


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

    Perhaps I'm naive but I fail to see why anyone needs U.N intervention or membership to prevent having their land bulldozed by a neighbouring nation

    By being recognized as an actual country, the UN cannot stand by and let them be terrorized by Israel and have their land stolen.

    More crucially, if Palestine is not recognized as a country, then Israel is not a "neighboring nation". Palestine remains in Israel and thus, Israel will feel it can do what it likes.


  • Options
    #43
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,066 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    statesaver wrote: »
    Kinda shocked that a lot of the central and eastern european countries voted no, Czech Rep, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania ........

    A few dignitaries from each place voted no. It's not really indicative of the population as a whole. I'd hazard a guess and say they were playing it safe knowing that it was sure to pass without them.


  • Options
    #44
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    ......
    As long as Israel remains ally with the U.S it calls the shots. Increased status for Palestine on the world stage does not supercede this fact


    ...that doesn't address what I asked you.


  • Options
    #45
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

    Perhaps I'm naive but I fail to see why anyone needs U.N intervention or membership to prevent having their land bulldozed by a neighbouring nation
    Important word there being "nation".

    Without recognition as a state, an invasion of Palestine is no more serious than the Irish Army invading Cork.


  • Options
    #46
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    kraggy wrote: »
    By being recognized as an actual country, the UN cannot stand by and let them be terrorized by Israel and have their land stolen.


    This is where it begins to get confusing. How can palestine be an "actual country" when its land was stolen?

    Isn't this, at least in part, what the whole conflict is about?

    By extension how does U.N recognition begin to rectify this whole situation given that a) several resolutions by the very same organisation have been ignored in the past and b) their "opposition", for want of a better term, are backed by one of the u.n' most powerful members?


  • Options
    #47
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    A largely symbolic victory that does have some tangible benefits. Its show how morally bankrupt the US and Israeli position really is, and imho a vote against this was approval for the illegal settlement project that has been going on for years.


  • Options
    #48
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    seamus wrote: »
    Important word there being "nation".

    Without recognition as a state, an invasion of Palestine is no more serious than the Irish Army invading Cork.


    As I've said above how can Palestine be a "nation"? Its land has been taken over and occupied by Israel. It isnt, cant be and wont be a "nation" until it get what it wants from Israel. This isnt their fault. This wont happen as long as Israel has the U.S in its corner.


  • Options
    #49
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Fair play.


  • Options
    #50
    Rhys Essien
    Registered Users Posts: 3,029 ✭✭✭Rhys Essien


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    As I've said above how can Palestine be a "nation"? Its land has been taken over and occupied by Israel. It isnt, cant be and wont be a "nation" until it get what it wants from Israel. This isnt their fault. This wont happen as long as Israel has the U.S in its corner.

    I imagine what is now being recognised by the UN is the 1967 borders of Palestine i.e ALL of the West Bank and Gaza Strip = Palestine.


  • Options
    #51
    Rhys Essien
    Registered Users Posts: 3,029 ✭✭✭Rhys Essien


    Could not believe the aggressive response from the US after the vote results.They should be ashamed of themselves and should not be allowed in any future peace talks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    uch
    Registered Users Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭uch


    I'm Happy for Palestinians all over the world, at least they can now go Home

    as in, have a home to go to

    21/25



  • Options
    #53
    Rhys Essien
    Registered Users Posts: 3,029 ✭✭✭Rhys Essien


    uch wrote: »
    I'm Happy for Palestinians all over the world, at least they can now go Home

    as in, have a home to go to

    The problem is,they cant.Are you aware of all of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon,Jordan and Syria.Should they want to go to the West Bank or Gaza they would not be left by Israel.


  • Options
    #54
    kraggy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭kraggy


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    This is where it begins to get confusing. How can palestine be an "actual country" when its land was stolen?

    Isn't this, at least in part, what the whole conflict is about?

    By extension how does U.N recognition begin to rectify this whole situation given that a) several resolutions by the very same organisation have been ignored in the past and b) their "opposition", for want of a better term, are backed by one of the u.n' most powerful members?

    It's simple. Give them ownership and full country-status for the territory they occupy right now, and in the near future, give them back the land on which the Israelis built illegal settlements.


  • Options
    #55
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    I think Israel will have the last laugh.


  • Options
    #56
    Bobo78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Bobo78


    Rhys Essien wrote: »
    Could not believe the aggressive response from the US after the vote results.They should be ashamed of themselves and should not be allowed in any future peace talks.

    Don't think US is ever in any peace talks just for the peace, they are in more because of the interest that they have than anything else.


  • Options
    #57
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    seamus wrote: »
    Important word there being "nation".

    Without recognition as a state, an invasion of Palestine is no more serious than the Irish Army invading Cork.

    This.

    Israel claim that Palestine isn't a state and that the 1967 boarders aren't boarders but armistice lines, and so there was no actual boarder for them to have to respect.


    This vote means that the international community has agreed with Palestine that it is a state and exists along 1967 boarders with East Jerusalem as it's capital.


  • Options
    #58
    montreal2011
    Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭montreal2011


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...suprised at the Canadians.

    An explanation from the Montréal Gazette. It seems that the Canadian government were very strongly opposed to the move.
    ...
    Why has Canada taken this position?

    Those who favoured the move hope it creates a more level playing field for the Palestinians and puts more pressure on Israel following decades of unsuccessful peace negotiations to create a Palestinian state.

    Palestinians have refused to meet with Israel as long as the Jewish state continues building on land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it captured during the 1967 war and which most of the world considers Palestinian property.

    They also hoped supporting the motion would bolster the position of moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in the face of increased prominence from the more radical Hamas, which is flying high following this month’s conflict with Israel in Gaza.

    But the Harper government believes the initiative will do nothing to advance peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority for the creation of a new Palestinian state.

    It worries the move unfairly undermines Israel’s negotiating position by pre-supposing — in the Palestinians’ favour — the results of several important aspects of what are supposed to be direct negotiations between the two sides.

    Rather than facilitate future negotiations, the Harper government believes the initiative will harden Israeli and Palestinian resolve to keep pushing their respective positions without compromise.

    “The path to peace has historically rested in direct negotiations between the two parties to resolve the outstanding issues and it remains the same today,” Baird told UN members before the vote. “Solutions can only come through the two sides working together.”

    ...


  • Options
    #59
    brimal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭brimal


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...suprised at the Canadians.

    Actually Canada has a history of being very pro-Israel, this current government included.

    I would have been surprised if they didn't vote against.


  • Options
    #60
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    dsmythy wrote: »
    ... UK abstained, at least they were planning to anyway.
    They could hardly vote and destroy the last vestige of credibility in their foreign policy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    I think Israel will have the last laugh.


    I don't this is the start of a very long process and finally the Palestinians are on the right tracks. Abbas has said that he wants to fight the Isreali settlers in a court of law and it's steps like this that will help him. Hopefully Palestinian terrorists will abondon their efforts,show restraint and the Isreali's will then show themselves up as the real bullies they are.


Advertisement