PDA

View Full Version : Shocking US UN proposal for Palestinian State


NewsGuy
03-12-2002, 07:27 PM
This shocking reward for Palestinian slaughter of hundreds of innocent Israelis, was actually gift-wrapped and presented at the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic UN today.

My understanding is that the arrangement is to be based on the Mitchell plan, which requires a complete cease-fire and end to Palestinian terrorism before a "cooling-off period," and then "confidence-building measures" would be implemented.

In reality, I'll bet that while Israel will be forced to hand over even more land rewards to the Palestinians, there will be no mechanism to prevent the Palestinians from reconstructing their missile factories and smuggling thousands of tons of Iranian weapons into its territories, like we've seen them do in the past. There is also no requirement that the Palestinian state be a democracy.

Once again, as happened in every war waged by the Arabs on Israel, as soon as Israel starts making headway in the war, the world, often led by the US, pulls Israel back like a dog on a short leash, causing the Arab threat to Israel to persist.

Here's the sad story:

U.N. Panel Affirms 'Vision' of Palestinian State

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council late Tuesday approved a surprise U.S.-drafted resolution "affirming a vision" of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel within secure and recognized borders.

It was the first resolution on the Middle East to be approved by the council since October 2000 and the first in recent memory concerning the troubled region to be penned by Washington.

The United States, Israel's closest ally, has in the past more typically used the threat of its veto power to block resolutions put forward by Arab nations. It argues a solution should come from the parties to the conflict and be acceptable to both sides.

The resolution was approved by a 14-0 vote, with Syria abstaining, nearly 18 months after the start of a Palestinian uprising the United Nations says has claimed some 1,550 lives.

It states that the council was "affirming a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders." A U.S. official said the phrase had been plucked from a speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Flame
03-12-2002, 08:26 PM
The way I feel... as if it matters... is that they are entitled to prisons, not any state at all... but, given that so much effort is going into giving the thugs a state that they don't deserve... but only with to use as a way to shrink Isreal... the West Bank should be the ONLY area offered. WIth the patchwork of land they wan't, this allows them to move freely thoughout Israel. If made to have this state in just one area... there would be no reason to step foot i Israel unless they actually work there... and I just can't think of what this palestinian state can do to support itself as a state. They should not be allowed to use Israel as a throughfare, to get to from one state to another... absurd! Just an excuse to roam about and do what they feel is their right to do.

Their state should be westbank and part of jordan too... in my dreams... but the world wants to reward terrorists for taking over what hitler started.

ibrodsky
03-14-2002, 01:00 PM
Well, even Ariel Sharon has said he envisions a Palestinian state somewhere down the line.

I think this is really calling the terrorists' bluff.

They never demanded their own state when they were ruled by Jordan and Egypt.

They turned down Barak's offer.

Arafat has shown repeatedly that he supports terrorism and only pretends to clamp down when international pressure is temporarily too much to ignore. The entire negotiations process is just a game to him -- his goal is to destroy Israel.

The Palestinians' leaders don't want their own state, they want Israel. Ultimately, their refusal to negotiate for a state will expose their real intentions.

So I don't think this call for two states with secure borders is necessarily a bad thing. It only becomes bad if Israel is forced to withdraw to indefensible borders.

I think most of us know that if the Palestinians got their own state the terrorist attacks won't stop... but that may be what it is going to take to prove to Israel's few allies that Israel has no choice but to militarily defeat her enemies.

NewsGuy
03-14-2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Flame
and I just can't think of what this palestinian state can do to support itself as a state.

They won't have to.

They will get so much free money from the Europeans that Arafat will be able to pocket billions for his own Swiss bank accounts and still have plenty left over to pay for food, municipal infratsructure and nuclear weapons -- basically all the bare essentials of the Palestinian state.

NewsGuy
03-14-2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
Well, even Ariel Sharon has said he envisions a Palestinian state somewhere down the line.

True.

But his vision of a Palestinian state is after terrorism stops completely for a long period of time and the Palestinians prove that they are able to exist as civilized people who are not actively manufacturing weapons and smuggling tons of other weapons.

Sharon never visualized the current bloodbath where hundreds of Israelis are mass murdered by Palestinian terrorists and then the Palestinians are rewarded with a state without preconditions and with no mechanism to ensure that Israel will be secure.

cerulean
03-14-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy


Sharon never visualized the current bloodbath where hundreds of Israelis are mass murdered by Palestinian terrorists and then the Palestinians are rewarded with a state without preconditions and with no mechanism to ensure that Israel will be secure.

But why didn't Sharon visualize this? Did he have overly romantic notions of "Palestinians?" It's hard to believe that would be the case with his background.

NewsGuy
03-14-2002, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by cerulean


But why didn't Sharon visualize this? Did he have overly romantic notions of "Palestinians?" It's hard to believe that would be the case with his background.

No, he simply would not allow for a Palestinian state to exist without fulfilling those preconditions.

L@mplighterM
03-14-2002, 04:15 PM
The Palestinians haven't gotten a state yet. I wouldn't worry too much about a state being carved out and handing over to the Palestinians.

Here's a few resolutions:

Res 518 (Aug 12, 82): Demanded Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Res 520 (Sep 17, 82): Condemned Israel's attack into West Beirut.
Res 573 (Oct 4, 85): Condemned Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO Headquarters.
Res 587 (Sep 23, 86): Took note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urged all parties to withdraw.
Res 592 (Dec 8, 86): Strongly deplored the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Res 605 (Dec 22, 87): Strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices denying human rights of Palestinians.
Res 607 (Jan 5, 88): Called on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requested it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 608 (Jan 14, 88): Deeply regreted that Israel had defied the UN and deported Palestinian civilians.
Res 636 (July 6, 89): Deeply regreted the Israeli deportation of Palestinians.
Res 641 (Aug 30, 89): Deplored Israel's continuous deportation of Palestinians.
Res 672 (Oct 12, 90): Condemned Israel for violence against Palestinians at Jerusalem's Haram Al-Sharif.
Res 673 (Oct 24, 90): Deplored Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN.
Res 681 (Dec 20, 90): Deplored Israel's resumption of deportation of Palestinians.
Res 694 (May 24, 91): Deplored Israel's deportation of Palestinians and called on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Res 726 (Jan 1, 92): 'Strongly condemned' Israel's decision to resume deportation of Palestinians from 'Palestinian territories... including Jerusalem.'
Res 799 (Dec 19, 92): Deplored Israel's mass deportation of some 400 Palestinians and called for their immediate return.

The point is that Israel should continue their mission and never mind the US or the Secretary General of the UN. The latest resolution might just disapear into history.

NewsGuy
03-14-2002, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
The point is that Israel should continue their mission and never mind the US or the Secretary General of the UN. The latest resolution might just disapear into history.

Very interesting point.