This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Palestine's UNESCO Membership & U.S. cuts UNESCO funds
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm not saying that either side is a saint here- far from it. It just seems to me that most people make a hard case for one side or the other, without looking at the full history and seeing where blame lay on both sides. Since the attitude in the US seems to be very Pro-Israel, I was attempting to show a little more of the other side of the fence. In an argument where people were "Well they should all just be shipped out of there and Israel shouldn't exist," I'd be arguing that we need to make the situation that exists now work, not let the violence continue with the idea that something completely unrealistic needs to happen to stop it.
And, as a side note, I do think that it's a childish move to pull out of an international organization when you lose a vote. It costs you the respect of the other member nations, and it costs you the opportunity to have a voice in future decisions.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not saying that either side is a saint here- far from it. It just seems to me that most people make a hard case for one side or the other, without looking at the full history and seeing where blame lay on both sides. Since the attitude in the US seems to be very Pro-Israel, I was attempting to show a little more of the other side of the fence. In an argument where people were "Well they should all just be shipped out of there and Israel shouldn't exist," I'd be arguing that we need to make the situation that exists now work, not let the violence continue with the idea that something completely unrealistic needs to happen to stop it.
I agree with you completely. However, no one is arguing that Palestinians should be "shipped out" (at least, I haven't seen that). I think that the best approach is a balanced approach, not a "balancing" approach, if that makes sense.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It does. I agree that we need to be balanced. I just fail to see the problem, if the eventual goal is for Palestine to become a state, of the UN taking steps to recognize it. The main bone of contention in their discussions with Israel is not whether or not they should exist as a state, but where the borders should be drawn. Just because they have not reached an agreement about the borders, does that mean that we cannot allow them to make any other steps towards statehood?
Post by
MyTie
It does. I agree that we need to be balanced. I just fail to see the problem, if the eventual goal is for Palestine to become a state, of the UN taking steps to recognize it. The main bone of contention in their discussions with Israel is not whether or not they should exist as a state, but where the borders should be drawn. Just because they have not reached an agreement about the borders, does that mean that we cannot allow them to make any other steps towards statehood?
I believe that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement... and I can't remember the wording, but it was something to the effect of "other countries cannot settle our negotiations for us". I'll try and look for it, but if Palestine pushes for the UN to grant it statehood, it would be a violation of its agreement with Israel.
Post by
gamerunknown
United Nations resolution 3314: a state shall not gain land through conquest. Israeli has continuously broken international law and it is the Palestinians that are the unreasonable neighbour? The Palestinians elect a government democratically and the US inevitably labels them terrorists. Why? Because Hamas doesn't recognise the state of Israel? Hmm...
Because Hamas believes citizens are legitimate targets? Luckily, the US and Israel have reneged the concept of legitimate reprisals. O wate.
I'm going to see
Norm Finkelstein
on the 10th of November, should be good. I've emailed him voicing my opposition to the concept that attacking civilians can ever be justified, but he referred to the non-opposition to the principle by the US and Israel preventing it from becoming an internationally recognised standard (as the US and its satellite state so often oppose international consensus). I've also pointed out that the justification for
real
anti-Semitism can be found in the Quran, not just opposing Israeli foreign policy - such an indoctrinated belief probably fuels a lot of resentment in the region. He gave a kind of evasive answer to that. I'm going to ask him about the right of the Israeli people to self-determination if I get a chance during the Q&A.
Post by
MyTie
United Nations resolution 3314: a state shall not gain land through conquest. Israeli has continuously broken international law and it is the Palestinians that are the unreasonable neighbour?Yes, they are. The war that began that was caused by actions of the Palestinians. You could blame the Soviet Union, though, for feeding them false information to flare up the situation.The Palestinians elect a government democratically and the US inevitably labels them terrorists. Why? Because Hamas doesn't recognise the state of Israel? Hmm... They are labeled as terrorists because they kill people.Because Hamas believes citizens are legitimate targets? Luckily, the US and Israel have reneged the concept of legitimate reprisals. O wate. Hamas not only kills Israeli citizens (the concept of reprisals you are talking of), but also its own citizens, to keep a hold on the government. You should really study up on the government of Gaza before painting Hamas as a bunch of victims.I'm going to see
Norm Finkelstein
on the 10th of November, should be good. I've emailed him voicing my opposition to the concept that attacking civilians can ever be justified, but he referred to the non-opposition to the principle by the US and Israel preventing it from becoming an internationally recognised standard (as the US and its satellite state so often oppose international consensus). I've also pointed out that the justification for
real
anti-Semitism can be found in the Quran, not just opposing Israeli foreign policy - such an indoctrinated belief probably fuels a lot of resentment in the region. He gave a kind of evasive answer to that. I'm going to ask him about the right of the Israeli people to self-determination if I get a chance during the Q&A.
Good for you. Have fun.
Post by
MyTie
I'm going to change the way I articulate my position here a bit to make it clearer:
The Palestinians are victims. They are victims of their own governing authorities, and the brutal authoritarian control exercised. They are victims of the rockets that are sent into Israel, which is what causes the blockades, which in turn, makes their situation desperate. They are victims of direct Israeli retaliation for the rockets. They are victims of ignorance, of hatred, their own ignorance and hatred. They are victims of themselves. They are such convincing victims, that everyone is looking for someone to blame.
You give them 1967 borders... you remove the blockades... you give them statehood... and there will be death, suffering, and war. The people who will suffer the most will be the Palestinians.
Post by
gamerunknown
Yes, they are. The war that began that was caused by actions of the Palestinians. You could blame the Soviet Union, though, for feeding them false information to flare up the situation.
Israel initiated the war. Of course, there's always the argument that accumulating military strongholds in strategic locations is a symbol of aggression. In fact, that's exactly what Osama bin-Laden said.
They are labeled as terrorists because they kill people.
That's never been a good enough criterion to be labelled a terrorist organisation. What, specifically, about their killing is illegitimate? If I recall correctly in the past decade something like 21 Israeli civilians were killed by rocket fire, making Palestinian rocket attacks probably less of a threat than toasters. But Israel doesn't get billions of dollars in foreign aid in order to construct better toasters or provide toaster safety workshops.
Hamas not only kills Israeli citizens (the concept of reprisals you are talking of), but also its own citizens, to keep a hold on the government. You should really study up on the government of Gaza before painting Hamas as a bunch of victims.
Plenty of governments sanction the killing of their own citizens, historically with US funding and with soldiers trained at the School of the Americas. What makes Hamas a terrorist organisation and the Saudi leadership not?
I'm in no way in favour of Islam in any of its forms, nor of Hamas' attacks on citizens. I think there's a disingenuous campaign to portray Hamas as some sort of left-wing haven when they're in fact more akin to fascists. That in no way excuses Israel's actions in the country though.
Saying that Palestinian self-determination will cause Palestinian suffering is just a centuries old tradition of Orientalist orthodoxy.
Post by
91604
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
They are labeled as terrorists because they kill people.
/facepalm
That's not even close to how the United States government recognizes Terrorists... Terrorism, as defined by official U.S documents is
"the calculated use of violence, or treat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in state."
That's much more specific. Thanks.Plenty of governments sanction the killing of their own citizensI guess that makes everything ok.
I don't see how someone could approve of Hamas, and not be either completely oblivious to Gaza's recent history, or be painfully callous to human life.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Honestly, this is childish act on behalf of U.S. It is like not cleaning up the room, because you did not get your favorite toy for birthday. As a proper solution, in my opinion, divide the country in half between them in North and South parts. Thus both get the access to sea and other things. But, Israel's policy of accepting any other Jewish person to live will require more land, so expansion of Israel, by military or other means, is inevitable, so, something must be done with that, too.
It's more like you tell your kid you won't get him his favorite toy for Christmas if he doesn't keep his room clean. Instead, he lights the carpet on fire, and you don't get him the toy.
The US has no obligation to fund an organization that assists in the destabilization of the most volatile place on earth. You call that childish?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91604
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
meaning U.S. lost all credibility and power in the world. lol.... lol... they didn't give money to a branch of the UN, and they lose ALL credibility and power? lol... when I say "lol", I am sitting at my desk, looking at my computer, laughing at you. I'm literally laughing out loud at this. Why do I even bother to read this garbage?Plus, there is nothing much to destabilize, and it won't destabilize it that much. UNESCO is a organization to preserve stuff, worth preserving , for future generation. It is like the innocence of criminal is supported by local museum. Curios fact, but rather unimportant in the big picture. (I don't imply that Palestinians are criminals, I just have no better analogy at the moment.)They are a preservation agency? That is why they are kicking around a political football?
Post by
MyTie
I wonder if this will effect the relations of the U.S and any of the 107 countries that voted in favour of Palestine.Good question. I'd be interested in seeing which 107 countries voted that way. It seems that there would be the usual suspects, Iran, N Korea, Venezuela, etc...
Post by
gamerunknown
Good question. I'd be interested in seeing which 107 countries voted that way. It seems that there would be the usual suspects, Iran, N Korea, Venezuela, etc...
and essentially all of Europe and Africa. When we're discussing the majority of the countries in the world, there's really no way to launch a "popular" attack on them. US barely has any credibility at the UN. Substantial power and money, but they usually vote almost unilaterally (in concord with their satellite states and sometimes their sycophantic ally the UK). A US abstention is usually bad for a bill, a US vote against usually means the bill goes unreported in the US. Which countries do you think the US voted with on the landmine repeal bill? Which world leader obstinately refused to endorse the Kyoto protocol with such ingenuity that the people that voted him into office assumed he support it?
Here's more info.
Post by
MyTie
Good question. I'd be interested in seeing which 107 countries voted that way. It seems that there would be the usual suspects, Iran, N Korea, Venezuela, etc...
and essentially all of Europe and Africa. When we're discussing the majority of the countries in the world, there's really no way to launch a "popular" attack on them. US barely has any credibility at the UN. Substantial power and money, but they usually vote almost unilaterally (in concord with their satellite states and sometimes their sycophantic ally the UK). A US abstention is usually bad for a bill, a US vote against usually means the bill goes unreported in the US. Which countries do you think the US voted with on the landmine repeal bill? Which world leader obstinately refused to endorse the Kyoto protocol with such ingenuity that the people that voted him into office assumed he support it?
Here's more info.
Sorry bud, not going to look into this much more. I don't care much for the UN, or for popular worldwide government body opinions. Kyoto? Wasn't that a failure and economic disaster? Some sort of environmental turd smeared on the economy like a moral Picasso? Meh. Don't care about the UN. It is a waste of money and time, IMO. They pull crap like this PA thing, and prove they are politically driven and don't have the world's best interests in mind.US barely has any credibility at the UN.What about vice versa?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Laugh as much as you want, but 107 countries is a lot and some part of them could be allies of U.S in some sense. I would like to see who voted for it and who against it, honestly. But, I digress, U.S. is acting like loan shark: "You do what I say or no money", that is not what countries with power or credibility to do.Think what you want. A funding cut isn't a sign of no power and no credibility.As for role of UNESCO:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002136/213660M.pdf
. There is English bit at the bottom. But, this is not political field. Really, can you imagine Palestinians yell; "WE got recognized by UNESCO, now we are legit country!" nope, there is still more branches to go and if U.S keeps cutting money of them, well... They will solve economical issues for sure....An organization's stated intent isn't always their true intent. You can't show me that the people in that room were not acting in political interests. Why is a cultural organization voting on the statehood of Palestine, but not acting politically? I can't figure that one out. And, don't point to their website.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.