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
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Again you misunderstood their role. They did not accept the Palestine as a country, they accepted that Palestinians as people, have right to participate in cultural preservation of historical artifacts and knowledge. It has nothing to do with recognizing statehood on the official level. It still has to pass through Security Council, where U.S can veto it as much as they want. I hope now you see my point.....
So a sub organization's vote for PA statehood has nothing to do with
real
PA statehood, and is just a big coinkidink that there has been recent political battles in the general assembly to push for a PA statehood vote? Sounds naive.
If you'd like to join me, here in reality, you'll see that this vote had nothing to do with "historical artifacts" and everything to do with showing how a vote would go if the US didn't have a veto.
Honestly. Is that not clear?
Post by
MyTie
which 107 countries voted that way
essentially all of Europe and Africa.
Europe? It's one of the ones that
has a lot of grey
. Eastern Europe, former soviet union countries, islamic countries, third world nations, and communist nations... ya know... all the places to go on vacation.essentially all of EuropeDo you have a source for that, or are you sitting on your only source?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
http://humanprovince.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/unesco-palestine/
Here is the vote tally.
No: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden, United States of America, Vanuatu.
Yes: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sant Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Abstentions: Albania, Andorra, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Thailand, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Zambia.
Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Madagascar, Maldives, Marshall Islands, ConFederated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Niue, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan
It really is the majority of the world that's in favor of this, MyTie. Were you really looking at a vote of 14 to 107, and saying it was only the traditional "trouble making" countries that were voting against us? And of those abstentions, how many do you think would have been yeses, if they weren't worried about the US reaction?
Post by
MyTie
Black sea Eastern Europe is a nice place for vacation, honestly. As is Turkey. And Latin America, and India....I'd love to go to Saint Petersburg.As for your reality, I propose you pull your head out of it, as it is probably uncomfortable to sit on it and be in it at the same time.What part of my reality are you contesting exactly? The part where I point to the political motive of the vote? I don't get it.Maybe that is what we need to stabilize the region? To separate the two nations in to two different countries, like we did in Korea. It worked fine for most of the time.Heh. Yeah. Using Korea as your example isn't going to help your position much. That situation is like a powder keg.Besides source of your link please? URL is not convincing.
Wikipedia
dude.
Here is an article explaining how the
US veto might be maneuvered around
.
Post by
MyTie
It really is the majority of the world that's in favor of this, MyTie. Were you really looking at a vote of 14 to 107, and saying it was only the traditional "trouble making" countries that were voting against us? And of those abstentions, how many do you think would have been yeses, if they weren't worried about the US reaction?No doubt. You make a great point. It isn't just the trouble makers that are siding for Palestinian Statehood. And, honestly, I'd like to see the Palestinians get their own nation, internationally recognized. I just think it is a mistake to recognizes them right now. Their government is splintered. Their culture is violent. Their economy is negligent. Their intentions are historically unsound. I'd much rather see them become stable as they become a state. I'm not seeing that.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It really is the majority of the world that's in favor of this, MyTie. Were you really looking at a vote of 14 to 107, and saying it was only the traditional "trouble making" countries that were voting against us? And of those abstentions, how many do you think would have been yeses, if they weren't worried about the US reaction?No doubt. You make a great point. It isn't just the trouble makers that are siding for Palestinian Statehood. And, honestly, I'd like to see the Palestinians get their own nation, internationally recognized. I just think it is a mistake to recognizes them right now. Their government is splintered. Their culture is violent. Their economy is negligent. Their intentions are historically unsound. I'd much rather see them become stable as they become a state. I'm not seeing that.
I do understand that, but it seems to me that the longer it takes for the Palestinians to have a country of their own, the more volatile the situation gets. I agree that their current government is not ideal, and I worry about the direction that they'll take. The thing is, that they'll take that direction whether they're recognized or not. And the longer the rest of their people are kept in limbo, the more desperate and angry they get, and the more support the extremist leaders have to keep doing extreme things.
I can't see that delaying this for another 5 or 10 years will do anything but make the violence and friction in the region worse. However, the average man or woman is less likely to resort to extreme measures (or vote for those who do) when their own situation is not so extreme. Isn't a man whose family is living in a tent, surviving on donated food to survive, going to be more desperate than a man who has returned to his family's traditional home and has begun to rebuild his life? Doesn't the second man have a lot more to lose, if his government goes crazy and incites further war? Wouldn't that make him more likely to support a more middle of the road regime, if only to protect his family and his interests?
Why do you think that, if we delay the process, things will get better instead of worse?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Why do you think that, if we delay the process, things will get better instead of worse?
There is really no way of knowing. Currently there are two governments in the Palestinian leadership, which has been attained through blood and violence. Giving them their own land will almost certainly result in civil war, or wars, within that land as differing factions try to gain control. I would think Iran or someone would side with one of the factions, help them win, and use them as a proxy state. Having an Iranian proxy spooning with Israel is... well... not good. I can see many different possibilities for ending the Israeli occupation. None of them end non violently, except for the one that both Israel and Palestine agree on.The pinnacle of democracy refuses to accept the clearly democratic decision.The US is a republic, not a true democracy. Is the president's veto power against congress undemocratic? As for popularity, well, one thing you'll learn about me, I don't automatically support something because that's what everyone else is doing.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
But president is elected by people? And Americans are the people, who scream loudest about spreading democracy and freedom across the globe. And I don't tell them to accept it, I am talking about the action, they took in response. Instead of rallying allies and gathering more by providing solid reasons for keeping Palestine like it is at the moment, they cut money aid to the humanitarian organisation, which is hardly going to persuade someone else to join their cause.
So, the US should abide by democracy?
Here is a poll
that indicates most Americans want to cut funding to the UN. So, in the end, the US is doing the popular thing by cutting the funding. Besides, it is the US's money. They can do with it as they please. Why should the US fund an organization that works against it?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
43% of those polled indicate that funding should be cut. 39% of those polled indicate that funding should not be cut. There was no "majority" of the voters.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Oh, article was confusing. Pick better one next time. But, on second reading, I realized that they only asked 1100 voters. Not enough sample pool to say that majority wants.
Edit: I also don't trust this source, because it looks sketchy. With motto: "Unfair. Imbalanced." I don't believe that this is an accountable source of information.
And check this:
http://www.cjr.org/the_news_frontier_database/2011/06/fitsnews.php
That was just the website that presented the article. The poll was conducted by "
Poll Position
". And, usually a poll sample of over 1000 participants is enough to get a good sample of the majority. I have presented some less than reputable articles before, but normally when I present something it isn't completely bogus. This is the second time in 2 pages that you said the website was 'suspect', and the first time was over a map from wikipedia. Now, the way we normally do things around here, and your welcome to do as you choose, is that we normally are pretty accepting of things presented. Of course we do a cursory look at the material, and the website, and the author, but we don't have time to completely vet everything presented.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Actually, a lot of us do research for forum debates. An informed opinion is worth a lot more than a shot in the dark. Sometimes, we even learn from each other :)
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I...can't really tell if you're telling me to take a break and being sarcastic, or legitimately saying that you just wanted to debate off-the-cuff opinions. Either way, I think that most of us who debate here like being informed about current events.
You can't have a discussion about a movie with someone who's never seen it but wants to give their opinion anyway, because it won't make any sense. If someone wrote a book report about a book they never read, they'd have no idea what was going on in it and their opinion wouldn't be based on anything. IMO, if someone has an opinion about an event, they should know what actually happened. Otherwise, what are you debating?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.