Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
astronelson

Palestine upgraded to 'non-member state' status in the UN

38 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

The General Assembly of the United Nations voted overwhelmingly in favour of the move, 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions.

The only other current non-member observer state is the Holy See. Previous non-member states that have since been promoted to member-states include Austria, Switzerland, Japan, and Finland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it means the rest of the world acknowledges the Palestinian territories as an official country, while before that they were something else. And of course, Israel doesnt like that and if Israel doesnt like it, then America probably doesnt like it either.

Israel however, had several decades to come to a satisfying solution, and the only time they ever came close their prime minister got assassinated before he could sign. Israel had their chance and they blew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About time. The question is: Does this now officially freeze the borders of Palestine, and what are they? As a world state, even if not quite in the UN, this gives their complaints a lot of clout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that they've probably forgotten is that members don't lob explosives at each other. Hamas had better cool it now, or they could be in big trouble.

I would welcome Palestine to the ICC if they refrained from frivolous suits. I can think of no way they can make anything stick against Israel while they still house known international terrorist organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a great news for Palestine, congratulations to the people of that nation. But, as Nonny ask, and the borders? Or could be just the start to put order in Israel and the middle east.

That is very good news. I do not understand why our politicians are against.

--Ocram

Easy! They don't like it just because Israel don't want it. US is diplomatic puppy of Israel. Mexico voted in favor of Palestine :} .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • Borders were not part of this General Assembly resolution, and will, if my understanding is correct, need to be sorted out between Israel and Palestine.

    While not official borders, the Green Line may be considered the current Israel-Palestine border.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    um . . . recognizing a state (member or not) without recognizing borders . . . what exactly is being recognized?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • That a state called Palestine exists, in some form, and that there is land that is Palestinian.

    There's some precedent in the fact that both North and South Korea are part of the UN, and the border between them is de facto in the same manner as the border between Israel and Palestine.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    um . . . recognizing a state (member or not) without recognizing borders . . . what exactly is being recognized?

    The people. As far as I know, the people makes the nation, not only the borders.

    Aw, how cute. The UN thinks it's still relevant in global politics.

    Obviously it is. The voice of the UN must be more important than the opinion of United States or another single nation or politician in the globe, because the UN supposed to be the voice of the world.

    19805850166619985464296.jpg

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Aw, how cute. The UN thinks it's still relevant in global politics.

    More than you can possibly imagine. This draws a line in the sand because it gives Palestine access to all the UN agencies and operations like the ICC. Don't be surprised if their next move is to bring actions before the ICC on genocide. The Israelis have been trying to wipe them out for 70 years. The shoe is now on the other foot.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Aw, how cute. The UN thinks it's still relevant in global politics.

    More than you can possibly imagine. This draws a line in the sand because it gives Palestine access to all the UN agencies and operations like the ICC. Don't be surprised if their next move is to bring actions before the ICC on genocide. The Israelis have been trying to wipe them out for 70 years. The shoe is now on the other foot.

    Meh, its really easy to ignore the ICC. Let them do what they want, if Israel simply never deports citizens that are accused the ICC cant do nothing. And whatever the UN says or wants, you have to remember that unless its the Security Council that says something, non of it is binding. And in the Security Council, the US, Russia and China are permanent members with veto powers, so generally nothing gets done there. Especially not when it comes to Israel, where America will automatically veto almost anything if Israel asks them to do so.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    The people. As far as I know, the people makes the nation, not only the borders.

    But a nation isn't the same as a state, at least not according to common definition.

    Nation: A group of people

    State: A piece of land

    Nation-State: A group of people with a piece of land.

    So I have the same question as Meg: If you're recognizing a state, but you aren't defining the land that makes up that state, what exactly are you recognizing.

    Obviously it is. The voice of the UN must be more important than the opinion of United States or another single nation or politician in the globe, because the UN supposed to be the voice of the world.

    Ideologically speaking, that may be so, but practically speaking, it is not. The UN enjoys whatever relevance it has because the world's major powers choose to operate through the UN as opposed to doing what they want without regard to what the UN thinks. The League of Nations failed because the world's dominate powers would not support it. The UN can easily go the same way.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    The League of Nations failed because the world's dominate powers would not support it. The UN can easily go the same way.

    The League of Nations failed due to the efforts of one man in the United States, Henry Cabot Lodge. Leading the Republican party over the cliff he prevented Woodrow Wilson's attempt to have the United States join this international body.

    Currently, the US and the other permanent members of the UN security council are acting and have acted like a bunch of school-yard bullies. People can suffer and die because of the political expediency displayed by this uncaring, self-centred foolishness.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Aw, how cute. The UN thinks it's still relevant in global politics.

    Obviously it is. The voice of the UN must be more important than the opinion of United States or another single nation or politician in the globe, because the UN supposed to be the voice of the world.

    The UN is the voice of a bunch of spineless squabbling diplomats in an ivory tower, not the voice of "the world". And even then, all it is is a voice - no teeth, no guns, no anything else. The UN can pass as many resolutions about Palestine as it wants, but it has no way of making Israel acknowledge or listen to any of them. And Israel of course is not going to, because ignoring the UN has no consequences. You might as well send a little girl in bunny slippers to ask Isreal and Palestine to "stop fighting pwetty pwease". Hence why I say this is "cute".

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Aw, how cute. The UN thinks it's still relevant in global politics.

    Obviously it is. The voice of the UN must be more important than the opinion of United States or another single nation or politician in the globe, because the UN supposed to be the voice of the world.

    The UN is the voice of a bunch of spineless squabbling diplomats in an ivory tower, not the voice of "the world". And even then, all it is is a voice - no teeth, no guns, no anything else. The UN can pass as many resolutions about Palestine as it wants, but it has no way of making Israel acknowledge or listen to any of them. And Israel of course is not going to, because ignoring the UN has no consequences. You might as well send a little girl in bunny slippers to ask Isreal and Palestine to "stop fighting pwetty pwease". Hence why I say this is "cute".

    I see your point there. That is the problem that faces the UN. And all the US is doing is standing in the way of any peace because they support Israel. They let people suffer as long as their allies are happy.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    The time has come to realize that the blood that stains the streets of Ramallah is the same colour as the blood that stains the streets of Tel Aviv.

    Civilian deaths haven't bothered nations much since WW II because that war gave license to slaughtering populations. We should be listening to John Donne: "Every man's death diminishes me for I am involved in mankind". The blood and guts crowd should all be brought before the people and made to explain their attitude.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    In the not-so-distant past (I'm talking about the Clinton administration), American news media did not use the word "Palestinian". They were referred to as "Arabs". But recently "Palestinian" has made it into the vocabulary. It may seem like a semantic point but I believe it reflects a change in mindset.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Not all Palestinians are Arabs. An Arab is a Semite who claims descent from Abram of Ur. on the wrong side of the blanket. The population of Palestine is a mixture of several races from that end of the Mediterranean and other locations. You see how the news media can easily slant the printed word to suit the editorial needs.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    The UN is the voice of a bunch of spineless squabbling diplomats in an ivory tower, not the voice of "the world". And even then, all it is is a voice - no teeth, no guns, no anything else. The UN can pass as many resolutions about Palestine as it wants, but it has no way of making Israel acknowledge or listen to any of them. And Israel of course is not going to, because ignoring the UN has no consequences. You might as well send a little girl in bunny slippers to ask Isreal and Palestine to "stop fighting pwetty pwease". Hence why I say this is "cute".

    Thats not entirely accurate either. Technically, if the UN security council passes a resolution, that resolution is binding and may be enforced, with military action if the situation demands it. A recent example of the UN actually getting something done was Libya, where the UN security council resolution permitted the use of military aircraft to enforce a no fly zone over Libya, which some countries understood as 'drop bombs on Gadaffi's army'. Without that resolution, the war in Libya might still be going on. As for the 'spineless diplomats', some of the most respected and esteemed diplomats are send to the UN, especially at the top levels. Also, while ignoring the UN may not have any direct consequences, it certainly has indirect consequences. The most important of them being the loss of political goodwill from other states, and Israel certainly has lost a whole lot of goodwill over the past few years. In fact, most of the world pretty much despises Israel, as this vote shows. Israel has placed all their money on the US, but what happens when the US cant help them for whatever reason? Well, I guess we will see what happens to a nation that no one likes.

    The fact however is simply that America supports Israel almost unconditionally and it does not fit in America's foreign policy to oppose Israel. And Russia and China are on the security council and they really dont like interventions in other countries because that sets a dangerous precedent for themselves and their own policies concerning some of their neighbors and other territories falling under their influence. So they tend to veto interventions, especially after Libya where both countries felt that Western powers took the UN resolution way to far when they started bombing Gadaffi's army.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Technically, if the UN security council passes a resolution, that resolution is binding and may be enforced, with military action if the situation demands it.

    But only if the countries with the military forces go along with it. The UN does not have its own army to deploy.

    And a UN blessing is meaningless since intervention can still happen without one. See: Iraq.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Civilian deaths haven't bothered nations much since WW II because that war gave license to slaughtering populations.

    I beg to differ. Civilian deaths in warfare has gone down a lot since WWII. Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin and several other cities were bombed to cinders. Th Civilian Casualty Ratio has gone down in wars during recent years. The wars with great civilian casualties and systematic massacres are usually fought between governments and rebels in African or Asian countries. If Israel really wanted, they could have transformed Gaza into a parking lot and wiped out Hamas completely without much effort. In Medieval times, it was common for armies to kill whoever they could find in cities they conquered, and burn the place to the ground. Not so much anymore. Even the highest death toll estimates in the recent Gaza campaign arrives on less than one dead per bomb dropped. As far as "slaughtering populations" go, that's a really inefficient use of bombs.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Technically, if the UN security council passes a resolution, that resolution is binding and may be enforced, with military action if the situation demands it.

    But only if the countries with the military forces go along with it. The UN does not have its own army to deploy.

    And a UN blessing is meaningless since intervention can still happen without one. See: Iraq.

    Yes, and look at how that worked out for the Americans. They got so much international criticism for that. And while it might not directly affect the intervention, it certainly had consequences for the US in other areas, where suddenly long time allies got a lot more reluctant to help out the Americans when they needed it. There are definitely consequences to not heeding international opinion.

    And while the UN has no standing army, if the UN security council agrees on intervening, it likely means that one or more of the big five countries with veto powers sponsors the whole thing and the others dont care enough to object. And all of the five permanent members do have an army capable of interventions.

    And generally if the UN assembles a peace keeping operation, there are always countries willing to attach troops to such a force. It only enhances their international prestige, which can be useful in other negotiations.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    The argument over the UN's powers comes down to this: No one supports are real world government with sovereign powers, including the power to tax and raise its own forces. The world is not ready to give up any individual powers in any way. Look at the mess in Europe as they try to form what could eventually be called a United States of Europe. The monetary union is suffering from rot, and there are several bad boys on that block.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Some interesting developments.

    Israel has decided to approve the construction of 3000 new homes in the West Bank and east Jerusalem after the UN approved Palestine's upgrade to non-member observer state. It seems as if Israel wants to set a clear message that Palestine's status upgrade will not affect their decision to build on disputed territory.

    In response to this France and Britain have summoned Israeli ambassadors in protest of Israel's decision citing that "it threatens the viability of a two-state solution."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20579248

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an Account  

    Sign up to join our friendly community. It's easy!  

    Register a New Account

    Sign In  

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    Sign in to follow this  

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×

    Help Keep Simtropolis Online, Open & Free!

    stexcollection-header.png

    Would you be able to help us catch up after a bit of a shortfall?

    We had a small shortfall last month. Your donation today would help us catch up for this month.

    Make a Donation, Get a Gift!

    We need to continue to raise enough money each month to pay for expenses which includes hardware, bandwidth, software licenses, support licenses and other necessary 3rd party costs.

    By way of a "Thank You" gift, we'd like to send you our STEX Collector's DVD. It's some of the best buildings, lots, maps and mods collected for you over the years. Check out the STEX Collections for more info.

    Each donation helps keep Simtropolis online, open and free!

    Thank you for reading and enjoy the site!

    More About STEX Collections