Congratulations Palestine

That is what the Palestinians are that is why it is very difficult to come up with a real peace plan. Because the Palestinians just can't understand the facts.

As I have pointed out, what 1967 border, that border require to give Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem back to Jordan because those territories were part of Jordan not the present Palestinian Authority or Hamas but Jordan has already gave it to Israel.

Plus the fact that The PA have refuse to ask for UN assistance in defeating Hamas that is probably what the USA and Israel is waiting for the PA to do so that the UN can authorize the use of military force to help the PA defeat Hamas that would eventually led to a peace talk between the PA and Israel.

Instead the PA wants the UN to recognize their nation making the UN an accomplice to terrorism because Hamas is part of Palestine.

Libyans and Egyptians have openly requested UN assistance and the UN responded, the UN will do the same if Palestinians will do the same ask the UN to help them defeat Hamas.

All the UN mandate are very clear calling for a ceasefire, calling for Israel to withdraw back to the 1967 border but in 1995 Israel sign a peace treaty with Jordan that include Jordan's giving up all claims to Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem thus making that 1967 border none applicable.

For the ceasefire, Israel have respected ceasefire but Hamas kept on attacking Israel and the de facto government of Palestine which is the PLO or Palestinian Authority have not able to stop Hamas attack against Israel so what ceasefire are we talking about.

The PA wants Israel to stop settlement expansion on lands that were once part of Jordan that Jordan gave it to Israel, Jordan did not mention anything about giving those lands to the Palestinians, the only solution to stop those settlement from expanding is for the PA to seek UN assistance in defeating Hamas first because Hamas dose not recognize the authority of the PA and has continue to wage war against Israel.

Pres. Abbas know very well that Hamas is the thorn and stumbling block to a fully independent Palestine Nation not Israel and yet he has done nothing to defeat Hamas.

 

The Zionists dare not agree to having UN peacekeepers anywhere near Palestine because the UN acknowledges and maintains that the Zionist occupation is illegal and that it follows that any occupiers should be removed.

 

It was bound to happen sooner or later. At some point, both the president and Congress would be faced with a clear choice between U.S. national interests and the demands made by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his powerful Washington lobby.

In the larger sense, it happens all the time. U.S. policy toward the Palestinians endangers our interests throughout the Muslim world, including — first and foremost — our civilian and military personnel in the Middle East, as well as our strategic and economic interests.

But usually, as is the case with some Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights like the Gaza blockade, the situation is not completely clear-cut. The Palestinians charge illegality under international law; the Israelis cite a different law.

And the U.S. can (and invariably does) say nothing, or it takes the side of the Israelis. The entire world expects that from the United States by now and understands precisely why we operate that way. It understands that Israel is an important friend whose security we would never jeopardize.

It understands quite clearly that it is our absurd system of campaign funding that dictates that we follow Israel's lead on defending the occupation and preventing Palestinians from achieving any kind of recognition or sovereignty. The U.S. always chooses Netanyahu's interests over the rights of the Palestinians.

However, today's United Nations vote to admit Palestine into the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) presents U.S. policymakers with a watershed choice. U.S. interests and the Israeli government's desires are directly pitted against each other.

To put it simply, Israel expects the United States to quit UNESCO and any other international agency that admits Palestine to membership. Hard U.S. interests dictate that we not even consider such a move.

This is not a question of U.S. interests vs. Israeli interests, which is why I refer to the Israeli government's desires. Israel opposes UNESCO membership for Palestine as part and parcel of its policy to deny recognition of Palestine in any forum until Israel grants permission. It's pure symbolism.

But for the United States, the implication of the policy of withdrawing from an important U.N. agency because its members recognize Palestine affects our national security in very direct ways.

So why is this happening?

It is happening because, under pressure from Israel and its lobby, the United States Congress in the 1990s passed legislation requiring the United States to not contribute to any U.N. entity that admits Palestine as a member.

According to former Sen. Tim Wirth (D-CO):

At issue are two laws from the early 1990s that prohibit the United States from providing financial contributions to any United Nations entity that admits Palestine as a member. The laws are strict: if Palestine is admitted to a UN agency, the United States must stop paying its membership dues. The restrictions provide no authority for the president to waive these prohibitions even if it is in the national interest to do so.

With a clear majority of countries around the world prepared to back Palestinian ambitions at the United Nations, the United States is poised to lose its leverage over several UN bodies that advance American interests and promote our ideal.

As Wirth explains, UNESCO "leads global efforts to bring clean water to the poor, promotes educational and curriculum building in the developing world, and manages a tsunami early warning system in the Pacific, among other important tasks. This critical work would be jeopardized if UNESCO's top funder stops paying its bills."

But it goes farther than that.

According to Politico's Jonathan Allen, the funding cut would have a damaging effect on "American tech companies — such as Apple, Google and Microsoft — and movie studios that use UNESCO to open markets in the developing world and rely upon an associated entity, the World Intellectual Property Organization, to police international disputes over music, movies and software."

Potentially, the damage can be much, much worse if Palestine seeks and gains recognition from such other critical U.N. entities as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The IAEA is the agency that the U.S. government has relied on to restrain nuclear weapon development (and proliferation) by Iran, North Korea, and others. The WHO works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta to protect us from potential pandemics like the Avian flu.

No matter. Pursuant to the congressional ban, if the Palestinians join any of these entities, the U.S. stops its funding and is, essentially, out.

Thanks to a powerful lobby, the United States would not have a seat at the table when critical matters of life and death are discussed.

Unfortunately, at this point, it appears that both the White House and Congress will put Israel's demands above U.S. interests of the most fundamental kind.

In fact, within hours of the vote today, the Obama administration announced that it is cutting off funding to UNESCO — cutoffs that, no doubt, will be followed if other U.N. agencies follow suit.

Truth be told, the Obama administration has no choice. The law gives the president no discretion about withdrawing aid if a U.N. agency recognizes Palestine. In fact, AIPAC made sure that the traditional "national security" waiver was not included in the law.

That means that President Obama is in a box, although Congress could, if it chooses, vote to waive the provisions of the law.

But that would mean putting U.S. national interests above pleasing campaign donors. When was the last time that happened?

 

You keep saying this, but it is simpily not true. Jordan relinquished all claims of the West Bank, into the hands of the PLO.

 

The ordinary Palestinians have more common sense in their little fingers than Israel (or the USA) has in every Zionist brain.

As Khalil said.the land was given back to the representatives at the time, of the Palestinian people...the PLO.

After all, Jordan only took the land in the first place to stop Israel taking it.

That was why very little of the 1948 so called "War of Independence" was fought on the land allocated to Israel..and most of it on the land allocated to Palestine.

The Six Day War was no more a War of Independence than I am a goldfish, because Israel had their Independence. It was just another land grab and attempt at ethnic cleansing as had been happening from the date of Partition.

Do you have the ability to think things through , WanRen, or do you swallow Zionist manure whole while licking your lips?

That is why there is less insistence on Israel withdrawing to the Partition lines.....which are technically the only legal ones....because land taken by force before the UN decided in the modern age that was not acceptable did not exist until after Israel joined the UN in 1949.

Now, you'd have expected that any entity who was handed something belonging to somebody else on a plate would have been happy with what they were given......but that does not appear to be the way the Zionists work.

In fact, I have noticed, even in the UK, that people who acquire "special consideration/status" that "specialness" seems to encourage them to take the p1ss and demand more and more..though not so many start wars to get what they want.

How long has the UK been trying to rid ourselves of Irish terrorists.....and how long has the US been trying to get rid of Pakistani, Iraqi and Afghani ones (I am using terrorists because that is the preferred description by the US and Israel)..and how successful has any of that been.and the UK has been trying since the 1930s at least.......and that is with an army.....and access to the "terrorists" without having to get visas, go through checkpoints and barriers etc!

Get real!

 

Read the treaty Israel- Jordan peace treaty,

The Mandate mention and the peace treaty mention no turning over those lands to the PLO that is why Jordan has been very quite in supporting the PLO or the PA in fact it was the PLO who are insisting that those lands should be turn over to them and not to Israel that is why the PLO and eventually Hamas are so hard headed and determine not to recognize or enter into any peace with Israel because they know that Jordan basically turn over those lands to Israel. It is up to Israel if they will support an independent Palestine State or not and so far the Palestinians have demonstrated that they are not ready for a nation of their own because they can not and haver no control over their own security.

The issue in that treaty was about resolving the refugee issue how many refugees will be accepted back into Israel control territories and how many Jordan and Egypt will absorb, the priority will be to all Arabs of Jewish decent.

Israel could have establish an autonomous Palestine I think that was the original plan but because of too much extremism within the Palestinian and their supporters it was impossible to make it happen.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15587250

Instead of asking the UN to help them unite Palestine against Hamas, the PA is asking the UN to become an accomplice to terrorism to join Hamas war and destruction of Israel.

 

Jesus wept, WanRen.please stop talking complete and utter sh1te!

 

Britain and France support Palestinian statehood in principle.

But they have expressed concern that a Palestinian bid to become a UN member state right now could harm chances of reviving the peace process.

So basically they are saying that Israel calls their tune!

The non-aligned would be considering that, given that Palestine wanted, for the first time ever, to start from a position of equality with Israel, as opposed to being in the supplicant position Israel has tried to force on them......where would the harm in that be if Israel wanted to do fair and equitable negotiations.

 

Every nation including the USA, Canada and Israel support Palestine in principle, but as you mention it, they need to resolve the peace process first, right now the Palestinians have done very little to do that which require them to garantee the safety and security of their own borders and Israel's. The Palsetinians have not been able to do that, that is why we see the Egyptians and Israelis securying it for them.

All the Palestinians needs to do just like what the Libyans have done and that is to publicly and officially ask the UN to help them defeat Hamas. That is why Hamas is very quite lately, because of what they have witness happen in Egypt and Libya where NATO forces successfully help liberate Libyans and Egyptians.

Palestinians should do it now while the spirit of the Arab Spring is still fresh.

 

Takes two to tango, WanRen........convince we disbelievers that Israel wants peace and not land!

Go on.......I challenge you!

 

Well Israel has given land back in the past in exchange for security, but that security never materialized and so Israel has had to continue to expand in efforts to improve security for the major population areas.

 

World support for a Palestinian State is overwhelming- as evidenced by the UNESCO vote. The 14 countries which voted against Palestinian UNESCO membership are as guilty of supporting the fascist program of Zionism as the US of AIPAC was when it vetoed a United Nations resolution to denounce ( again ) the squats as illegal. They are still illegal, of course, and America's reputation further down the sewer.

 

Initially I was shocked that Sweden was one of those who voted against, but then the issue of both Assange and their treatment of muslims came to mind. They also practiced eugenics as recently as the mid 1970s. The traditional Swedish liberal/progressive fascade has finally been exposed as a crock.

 

I assume you are talking about Gaza? Given it was a unilateral decision without discussion with any Palestinian....how come there was an "exchange" of anything...exchange implies two entities each agreeing to give something to each other.

Where is the point of giving back land if you don't allow the people on that land to have a life?

Impose "security, as Israel defines "security" from the first day (ie occupation-lite as in Israel retained control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, coastline, infrastructure, power, import-exports, etc.), and what you do get is Israel occupying from outside the borders.

Sharon's chief of staff, declared: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process... When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians"

And the really thick Governments actually thought it meant something else.....a positive step towards the road map for peace.