Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Palestine
Topic Started: Nov 29 2012, 05:28 PM (339 Views)
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

I saw this on my MSN homepage: "BREAKING NEWS:
UN Gen. Assembly votes to recognize the state of Palestine 138-9. Developing …"

There was no link so I presume they did not have an article written yet since it is breaking news. Two thoughts:
1) Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
2) A lot of countries didn't vote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

Palestinian 'state' wins U.N. Recognition.

I'm not sure why they put "state" in quotes, as now Palestine is both a de facto and de jure state.. Sounds like they'll never get full member status, as that has to get past a US veto in the UNSC, but it also sounds like they could file a formal suit against Israel in the ICJ now. Orrin Hatch is attempting to withdraw funding from the UN if Palestine's status is officially changed. Gotta love Utah.

The main complaint from Israel seems to be that they're disappointed the majority of the world is attempting to force them to deal with Palestine on slightly less uneven footing as a state. I'm not really sure how that's a valid concern, but then again, basically all the rhetoric that has come out of Israel since 1967 has smacked heavily of either hypocrisy, a willful disregard for reality, or both.. That could be because their entire argument is based upon a mythology, which, even if you subscribe to, reinforces the idea that the Israelis have no claim on any part of the Levant. That would be the Canaanites...

Edit:
I strongly dislike USA Today. I'll see if BBC has a story. I'd prefer the New York Times, but I'm not going to pay for information I can get for free a hundred other places in the same amount of time.

Edit:
Better Story via BBC News
Edited by Al Araam, Nov 29 2012, 10:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

I guess putting "state" in quotes is a way of indicating that USG does not approve. After all, whose world is this - everybody's, or America's? Also, I would not be too hard on Utah - most of the United States Congress thinks the same thing, and if it had not been Hatch, it would have been someone else. And if no one had started such a bill, the political pressure to do so would be immense. That's just the reality of our country.

I don't blame the Israelis for opposing this. It's irrational to willingly give up negotiating advantages and I don't think that the Israelis honestly believe that they would earn any compensating goodwill. I'm not sure they are wrong. That said, I also don't blame the Abbas and his people for thinking that the path to a Two State Solution involves actually having Two States and attempting to weaken an asymmetry that disadvantages them. The way I see it, Abbas has two major concerns:
1) The Israeli settlements are a clock that puts a limit on any serious possibility of the Two State solution. Abbas recognizes Israel, as the Israelis insist, but the settlements de facto undermine even the possibility of a Palestinian state. Abbas needed some measure of recognition to counteract that.
2) Hamas emasculates Fatah every time they start a fight with Israel. Even suffering heavy losses makes them look the ones who are taking it on the chin for the Palestinian cause. Abbas needed some measure of recognition to counteract that.

Another thought - the situation in Egypt is constantly evolving, and is obviously of critical importance to what happens in the neighboring countries.

By the way, I don't think I agree that the Israeli argument is based upon mythology. I don't think that most Zionists were concerned with the narratives of conquest, but rather with the fact that that is where the previous Jewish state had been based. The existence of a Jewish state in Palestine is not purely Biblical, but is documented by both Greeks and Romans - who dismantled said state. I think though that the original 19th Century Zionist idea was much more optimistic - IIRC it imagined the local Arabs and the returning Jews integrated in one somewhat utopian polity. *Sighs*
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Nov 30 2012, 08:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

France and the United Kingdom have threatened to recall their ambassadors if their 3000 settlement plan isn't recalled, as it "would end any possibilities of peace in the region" (www.france24.com). Despite all the threats, I do not believe anything will ever happen, as stated above, it's not the world, it's america in the end that runs this world. Israel and the United States are pissed off that Palestine is pursuing the same path Israel took in getting their state recognized. Yet again, proving my belief that The U.S. are a buncha hypocritical war mongering assholes. :). (I'm referring to the governments, not the people). And to the person above who said he was gonna get his information from BBC, good luck getting the truth. :). Israel is also with-holding tax money from the Palestinians for pursuing recognition of an independent nation. In 2017, Israel is in for a big smack in the face. In 2017 Wars of Aggression will be considered a war crime by the International Criminal Court. Israel is "surrounded by a sea of enemies" which they created by being war mongerers. And the USG is patting their back saying it's "All gonna be alright", and giving the billions to burn on needless investments such as the wall they're building. Free Palestine :)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
There are people who believe an ancient Jewish state did not exist? Fascinating.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Semitistan
Member Avatar
Sergeant
 *  *  *  *
Hmm, I have to disagree with you RD on how the view of Israel by Zionists was "optimistic" in the beginning. Theodore Herzl who wrote "Der Judenstat" (The Jewish State) and who is considered the brainchild of Zionism in the 1800s, wrote about how Israel will be an "outpost of civilisation in the sea of Arab barbarism".

As a Palestinian who has met Israelis and of course debated with them, I get a feeling that they are still stuck with this 19th century Eurocentric view of superiority at times. Of course, some Israelis are optimistic and of very good intent, but as usual the minorities have the louder voices. The settler movement for example, loves to think of this conflict of "nation versus nation", an Old Testament Biblical concept. For them, it does not matter if the Palestinians suffer, for it is the will of God.

I recall an interview with an Israeli pilot who once said that Gaza must be burned and flattened for that is what the Jews (according to the Bible), did to other competing civilisations when they came to the promised land a few thousand years ago.

But anyway, I am not very optimistic on the recognition of Palestine by the UNGA. Granted, my friends can stop making jokes of how I don't even have a "country" haha, but still the illegal settlements are called facts on the ground for a reason. No matter what happens, the settlements, their security and their inhabitants (some who are religious extremists) will be there. And it is an ever growing project.
Truly and honestly, I believe a one state solution is the way to go. Although, I am not naive to think it should be immediately implemented and that it will come without difficulty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
I am currently reading a book entitled "The Empire of the Word" which, for the first time I believe, takes a look at geopolitical history through the lense of linguistics. Very, very interesting. Hebrew, you know, was a dead language for 2500 years after it was replaced by Aramaic around 600bc. It has only been resurected since the rebirth of Israel as a nation state, so, imagine if, instead of adopting Hebrew as their official language, they had adopted some other equally interesting language more compatible with the older Palistinian tongues?

Anyway this book is delightful. It asks such questions as "Why did Pheonecian disappear when it was used from Spain to India and everywhere in between? Why was Latin the root for all romance languages when it was Germatic speaking people that wiped out Rome? What happened to Akkadian, the original "lingua franca" of the world? The discussion of Semetic languages is particularly interesting (oh, and actually, they should be called Hametic languages!!).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Semitistan: Thank you for the correction; I was thinking more of "The Old New Land" where Herzl seems to foresee Arabs and Jews living in harmony in Palestine, or at least that is how it was described to me. On another point, I would argue that the facts on the ground can change. It is not likely, but if the mass of Americans were ever to change their minds, and USG changed course, any facts on the ground would be completely mutable. A lot of people don't think about it this way, but the most effective strategy Palestinians could take would be to start retaining American P.R. firms and developing lobbying groups.

Harumf: That sounds like a fascinating book! Personally, I would love to have seen a revival of Aramaic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
That book fits my interests like a glove; I'll have to pick it up and any similar ones too!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I support a one state solution if it is a strict dictatorship, preferably run by me with the supreme power over life and death. The One state solution will quickly collapse into terror under any democratic conditions, since it basically will devolve into a competition between ethnic groups to see which side, the Jews or Arabs, can breed like rats and use their numbers to exploit the other under the democratic spoils system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Ultimately, I support a no-state solution. Each individual a sovereign "state" unto herself. Government by the unanimous consent of the governed. However, somewhat paradoxically, in the mean time I also tentatively support the idea of "more" states as compared to "fewer," as a potential path towards decentralization.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

East Anarx
Dec 9 2012, 11:51 AM
Ultimately, I support a no-state solution. Each individual a sovereign "state" unto herself. Government by the unanimous consent of the governed. However, somewhat paradoxically, in the mean time I also tentatively support the idea of "more" states as compared to "fewer," as a potential path towards decentralization.
I don't think that is paradoxical at all. If the ultimate goal is for every individual to be a state, then increasing the number of states is moving linearly toward that goal.
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Dec 9 2012, 12:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Rhadamanthus
Dec 9 2012, 12:27 PM
East Anarx
Dec 9 2012, 11:51 AM
Ultimately, I support a no-state solution. Each individual a sovereign "state" unto herself. Government by the unanimous consent of the governed. However, somewhat paradoxically, in the mean time I also tentatively support the idea of "more" states as compared to "fewer," as a potential path towards decentralization.
I don't think that is paradoxical at all. If the ultimate goal is for every individual to be a state, then increasing the number of states is moving linearly toward that goal.
I've liked the concept of more states. I'd like to see ethnic groups be allowed to carve out their own states, like the Basque people, as leaving them a minority in another ethnic group is poor representation. This would probably cut up the Yugoslavia area even more than it already is, though, making the map even harder to read.

Humans will naturally gravitate towards similar humans and ethnicity seems to be the best way to divide them, given the shared cultures and traditions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Semitistan
Member Avatar
Sergeant
 *  *  *  *
Ah I need to check out this "Old-New Land" concept you speak of, I personally never heard of it, although I do know that someone called Haad Acham (something like that), did advocate similar views to the concept. Will need to check that out RD, thanks! :D

I think carving up the area into ethnicities can be a big problem. Firstly, Palestine as a whole, from Bethlehem, to Tiberias, to Hebron, to Nablus/Shechem and especially Jerusalem are all important. I have a fear that should an ethnicity control any important religious sites then it will be hard to guarantee the rest of the ethnicities free access.

The Russian Jews in Israel are known to be extremely xenophobic (in general), while Ashkenazi Jews as a whole tend to be the ones in power. Ethiopian Jews and Mizrachi (Eastern/Arab) tend to be hated by some Ashkenazim and there is sometimes discrimination found there. This is just an example of notable differences in Israeli society that I am aware of.

Palestinians are not as ethnically divided, but they are politically divided to be sure. Do we divide them too? There are communists, Islamists, centre-rightists among us...

It is a tough situation. But I still think that a one state solution with decentralized power (maybe a social democracy), would be the most moral solution in the end. But the road there is of course not straight forward.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Semitistan, this is to what I was referring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_New_Land

I think that in English, the title "The Old New Land" sounds somewhat clunky, but the original German "Altneuland" sounds a lot smoother to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Rhadamanthus
Dec 9 2012, 06:01 PM
Semitistan, this is to what I was referring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_New_Land

I think that in English, the title "The Old New Land" sounds somewhat clunky, but the original German "Altneuland" sounds a lot smoother to me.
Taking advise from Germans about Jews may NOT be the best idea! :D

The more I read the more I am convinced that as long as there is a language difference supported by religion there will never be a resolution. Everyone should start speaking Akkadian - or Copt!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

How about Aramaic?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Rhadamanthus
Dec 10 2012, 04:36 PM
How about Aramaic?
Close enough. In reality, Pheonecian has the most text available, thanks to the old cuniform on clay tablets and library fires baking them hard :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply