Q+A-What's all the fuss about a Palestinian U.N. upgrade?

1. 70

   crazyhorsesghostposted 11 years ago

   
   
   The Palestinian Authority is expected to win an upgrade of its observer status at the United Nations on Thursday from "entity" to "non-member state," which would amount to implicit U.N. recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine.
   
   WHAT IS NON-MEMBER STATE STATUS?
   
   The Palestinian Authority is currently considered an "entity," not a state at the United Nations. If the resolution is approved by the U.N. General Assembly as expected, that status will change to "non-member state," like the Vatican.
   
   Switzerland also had non-member state status until it joined the United Nations as a full voting member 10 years ago.
   
   Recognition as a non-member state will have a certain symbolic value, giving the Palestinians a higher profile in terms of speaking order during U.N. meetings. But they will still be unable to vote during General Assembly sessions.
   
   The change will also have important legal implications.
   
   The Palestinians will be able to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) and some specialized U.N. bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency.
   
   CAN THE U.N. RECOGNIZE PALESTINE AS A SOVEREIGN STATE?
   
   The United Nations cannot grant countries recognition. That is something that is done on a bilateral basis. However, the granting of non-member state status to the Palestinian Authority does acknowledge that the majority of U.N. member states do recognize Palestine as an independent state.
   
   Traditionally, universal recognition of state sovereignty is accompanied by full membership in the United Nations. That is something the Palestinians sought last year with much fanfare but failed to achieve because the United States used the threat of a veto in the Security Council to block the Palestinian U.N. membership application.
   
   HOW MANY VOTES DO THE PALESTINIANS NEED?
   
   The Palestinian Authority needs a simple majority for the resolution to pass. Assuming all U.N. member states are present and none is barred from voting for non-payment of dues, the Palestinians will need the support of 97 of the 193 members.
   
   The Palestinians say that 132 countries recognize an independent state of Palestine. They are hoping for over 130 'yes' votes from the assembly and a strong show of support from Europe. U.N. diplomats say it may achieve that.
   
   I wonder if this was part of a deal to get them to stop launching rockets into Israel.
   
   It is being reported in the news that Germany and the UK will abstain on this vote while the USA, Israel and some other nations will likely vote no.
   
   Do you think this will change anything?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It has the potential to bring about much change. The Israeli Government have been bitterly opposed to this update, which has been passed by the way, because if I'm understanding the implications correctly, means that Palestine can now approach the ICC should they chose to, and bring a case against Israel, not as a nation but individuals from Israel.

      replyreport
2. 57

   Dame Scribeposted 11 years ago

   I don't think it's so much recognizing them as a 'state' that's the problem but they have a 'major' acting body considered 'terrorists' that makes consideration, a risk. Least, that'd be my thinking if I was required to vote. Get rid of that particular group then maybe, I'd consider them over all as fit to join the 'round table'

   replyreport
3. 66

   safiq ali patelposted 11 years ago

   This is an interesting forum update. There would be celebrations around the world if the Palestinian territories were recognized as a full state. In 2000 there was some speculation of a lasting ceasefire and a nation for the Palestinians. In some of my writing I have said that Israel and Palestine should respect their joint heriatage and unify as one state. But it take a lot of love and vision to do that.
   Whatever the future brings the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza know only too well that the current situation leaves them with a pile of human rubble and pile of concrete rubble from the shelling and the bombing. Over fifty years have passed since the foundation of Israel. And that's fifty years that the Palestinians have know no land or peace of their own.
   Overall this is a difficult issue. The Israelis suffered during the world wars and the Palestinians have paid a heavy price when Israelis from all over the world founded their homeland. The war rumbles on. And we pay for peace, dignity and nation for all sides.

   replyreport
4. 61

   Hollie Thomasposted 11 years ago

   Well, it's been granted, by a majority of 2/3 rds!

   replyreport
5. 48

   wavegirl22posted 11 years ago

   UN General Assembly votes 138-9, with 41 abstentions, in favor of nonmember status for ‘Palestine’
   
   Long after the votes have been cast, long after the speeches have been forgotten, it is the Palestinians and Israelis who must … find a way to live side by side in the land they share.
   
   Interesting how similar this flag is to the Palestinian flag.
   
   
   
   its the flag of Jordan

   replyreport
   1. 70

      crazyhorsesghostposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_flag
      
      Not according to wikipedia

      replyreport
   2. 83

      psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      They are similar for the same reason, for example, that the Australia and New Zealand flags are similar.  They have a common history in the rise of the Arab states during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         ReuVeraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The comparison is wrong and the wavegirl explained it to you. If you look at the book of world flags you will see a lot of flags of different countries that look very much alike. The point is that in the case of "Palestinian's" and Jordan flags it was not a similarity, or coincidence. "Palestine" just took a Jordan lag, took off the star and made it its flag.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            So what? Both new Zealand and Australia kept the British flag and added some stars does that make them any less nations? Don't be ridiculous. As the UN affirmed the Palestinian people are a separate people with their own land and culture and as such are a state. There isn't anything to discuss here, there is a massive group of people in their own lands who call themselves Palestinian, to deny them their right to self determination is nothing less than oppression and is unjustifiable, the world is quickly realizing this and took a big step that way today.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               ReuVeraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               The UN recognition of "Palestine" as a non-member observer country does not mean a thing. It means NOTHING, how can't you understand it? It's merely symbolical. It is NOT recognition of it as a country with their own land and culture, as you say. Just get it.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  It means that some Israels might, I said might, be brought before the ICC. It means a lot more than nothing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 48

                     wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     and visa versa. For all the blustering and worrying about a new form of “lawfare” being brought upon Israel, lets not conveniently forgotten that the Palestinians could then be brought forth before the court. As a non-member state, they too could be subjected to tribunals for their decades-long supplying and support of terrorist activities against non-combatant civilians in Israel.
                     If this path is taken it would subject the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to a new kind of conflict, one fought in the courtroom without any end in sight, while Hamas and extremist elements continue to gain strength on the ground, where the real future of the region counts. It would be a costly and unproductive maneuver, one completely detached from Abbas’ eventual goal of statehood.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Nothing costly about it, there will be lawyers lining up around the block to defend both nations and particularly Palestine for pro-bono, it's a massive publicity opportunity for the lawyer.

                        replyreport
                        1. 48

                           wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           and really great for peace. When the Palestinians truly want peace for their people and the region instead of wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth more, maybe then there can be a real  state of Palestine.

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Interesting.....so the fact that Palestinians applied for more recognition from the UN is proof that they don't want peace.  If they do choose to bring some of Israel's actions to the ICC, that would be a warlike act? 
                              
                              One could equally say that when Israel truly wants peace for their people they will stop expanding settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank, eating up the space for the Palestinian part of the two state solution, maybe then there can be a real end to the conflict.

                              replyreport
                              1. 48

                                 wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yesterday the State of Palestine could have been 65 years old today if the UN partition plan of 1947 had been accepted by the Arab world. It wasnt and from 1948 until 1967, the West Bank was ruled by Jordan, and Gaza was ruled by Egypt. The Arab states did not lift a finger to create a Palestinian state. Instead they sought Israel’s destruction, and were joined by newly formed Palestinian terrorist organizations.
                                 Fatah, Hamas they are terror organizations and instead of wanting for their people all they really want is the destruction of Israel.
                                 
                                 Israel expanding their borders? Start reading about the Six Day war then come back and have a conversation about this topic. Or better yet, take a look at this map and then talk to me about borders and land.
                                 
                                 

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 84

                                    aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well, in 1947 Irgun was considered a terrorist organisation, so I guess going by your logic the Arab states didn't accept conceding territory to terrorists.
                                    
                                    Not sure what point you are trying to make with your map? Yes there are many Arab countries, although incidentally Iran, Pakistan, Turkey etc. are not Arab?  What does that have to do with the Palestinians in the West Bank? 
                                    
                                    Or is your vision of "peace" ethnic cleansing?  Removing all the Palestinians from the Palestinian territories to another country? Nice!

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 48

                                       wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Ah another brilliant scholar we have here.
                                       
                                       What territory do Arabs inhabit? The Arab conquests of the seventh century spread the Arabic language and civilization from North Africa to central Asia. Under the Islamic caliphate, Arabic became the language of scripture, government, law, literature, and science. Majority Arabic-speaking countries remain in southwest Asia, Egypt, and North Africa. The Arab League includes Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
                                       Note the absent country: Iran. Alone among the Middle Eastern peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Iranians did not lose their language or their identity. Ethnic Persians make up 60 percent of modern Iran, and modern Persian is the official language. (Persian also has official status in Afghanistan, where Dari, or Afghan Persian, is one of two official languages.) In addition, the majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. So Iran fails most of the four-part test of language, ancestry, religion, and culture.
                                       
                                       Now tell me about Hamas and Iran.

                                       report
                                    2. 84

                                       aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Sorry I can't reply to your reply to my reply............
                                       
                                       I am sure this is because of my lack of scholarship, but what does your lengthy lecture about Arab conquests of 7th century, and Iran not being an Arab country have to do with anything? 
                                       
                                       There are about 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank, another 1 million in the Gaza strip.  A two state solution, with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, is universally seen as the only rational solution to the situation.  This solution is becoming less and less possible as Israel expands Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories.
                                       
                                       I'm sure you've heard of the analogy of 2 people discussing how to share a pizza, but one person is busily eating the pizza away while the 'negotiations' continue.  If Israel truly wanted peace it wouldn't be expanding the settlements.
                                       
                                       Short of a 2 state solution, how do you see the problem resolved? Palestinians are not going to destroy Israel (even with Iran's help).  Israel is not going to kill off all the Palestinians.  I don't think an ethnic cleansing solution in which all Palestinians are removed from the West Bank to another country is gonna happen either.  So how do you think this problem is going to be resolved? And what does the language spoken in Iran have to do with anything.

                                       report
                                       1. 48

                                          wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          I am sympathetic to your understanding of maps, history and the current conflict, but as you say it must stem from your 'lack of scholarship'.

                                          report
                     2. 61

                        Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, they might, but first Israel would have to become a member state, I believe that they have previously withdrawn their signature.

                        replyreport
                        1. 48

                           wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Israel would have to become a member state of what?

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              The ICC. As far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong, their signatures had not been ratified and they had informed the UN that they had no interest in becoming state parties.

                              replyreport
                              1. 48

                                 wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 you stated it, only fair you back this up.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Fine, I'll find some sources for you.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       "Moreover, although the ICC potentially has the authority to investigate crimes which fall into its subject-matter jurisdiction, regardless of where they were committed, it will have to assess its jurisdiction over a non-member state, in this case Israel. Despite having signed the Rome Statute that founded the Court and having expressed “deep sympathy” for the Court’s goals, the State of Israel withdrew its signature in 2002, in accordance with Article 127 of the Statute."  (Israel, Palestine and the ICC, Academia.edu.)
                                       
                                       http://www.academia.edu/383227/Israel_P … nd_the_ICC
                                       
                                       I'm aware of your aversion to all things Wikipedia, therefore, I thought that perhaps a .edu site might be preferable.

                                       report
                                       1. 48

                                          wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Hollie I have no aversion to all things Wikipedia. I often refer to it. But before I do anything I like to see at least 3 sources in regard to the question. I admire your research skills and am often impressed at your sources. This link you posted I am sure is valid and has its merits but it is quite long and entailed. So if there is a place in it that you want to point me to, that would be great and then I can see what you are saying.
                                          
                                          
                                          http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference … index.html
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … inal_Court

                                          report
                                 2. 84

                                    aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Not very difficult to find this:
                                    
                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio … inal_Court
                                    
                                    "Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties"

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       @Wavegirl, Page 3, second paragraph. It is a long document you're right, and much has happened since it was written. But I think it gives some reasonable analysis of the whole ICC matter, albeit, prior to yesterdays vote and the recent conflict between Israel/Gaza.

                                       report
                                       1. 48

                                          wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          to me it sounds more like when someone goes through a divorce. You can either mediate where both parties come to the table and divide up the assets or you can hire attorneys and give them a good chunk of whatever is there to divide. Usually makes the problems into a bigger war.
                                          
                                          It would be so nice if peace could ever come to this region.

                                          report
               2. 60

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Good luck convincing yourself of that
                  
                  #1 It means that the UN recognizes Palestine as "a free sovereign state entitled to all appeals and defenses of a full member state" (not being able to vote on resolutions is the only real difference) which in turn means Palestine can now take Israeli individuals to the international court for crimes against humanity etc. many cases of which they would undoubtedly win.
                  
                  #2 It means the vast vast vast majority of the international community supports Palestine as a free country.
                  
                  #3 It means Palestinians will know their nation is an internationally recognized body and will struggle all the harder to be free from oppression.

                  replyreport
                  1. 48

                     wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Call it what you want. All it really is, is now Palestine is a nonmember observer state at the UN General Assembly. Real independence, however, remains an elusive dream until the Palestinians negotiate a peace deal with the Israelis.
                     
                     Bottom line the Palestinians won a public relations victory.

                     replyreport
6. 48

   wavegirl22posted 11 years ago

   The Palestinians sure do have a selection of flags.
   
   Palestinians wave Fatah flags behind a poster of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during a rally in support of the Palestinian UN bid for observer state status, in Gaza City, Thursday, Nov. 29 (photo credit: AP/Adel Hana)

   replyreport
   1. 83

      psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Fatah is a political party, not the country.

      replyreport
      1. 48

         wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Brilliant comparison using Australia and New Zealand.
         Both of these nations adhere to secular common law legal systems acknowledging the rule of law; and the separation of powers. Like the United States and Canada, however, Australia is a federal nation with a written constitution. New Zealand, like the United Kingdom, is a unitary state with parliamentary sovereignty. No terrorist organizations here. . Evidentially you dont get that, for you making your point was more important that the substance that you presented.
         
         As for the conversation at hand. Its actually sad for all involved as today the State of Palestine could have been 65 years old today if the UN partition plan of 1947 had been accepted by the Arab world. It wasnt and from 1948 until 1967, the West Bank was ruled by Jordan, and Gaza was ruled by Egypt. The Arab states did not lift a finger to create a Palestinian state. Instead they sought Israel’s destruction, and were joined by newly formed Palestinian terrorist organizations.
         Fatah, Hamas they are terror organizations and instead of wanting for their people all they really want is the destruction of Israel.

         replyreport
7. 82

   ReuVeraposted 11 years ago

   A lot of fuss about nottin.....
   
   Excerpts from article by Gary Fitleberg - February 2, 2004
   
   "Palestine and Jordan are one..." said King Abdullah in 1948.
   
   "The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan," said King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.
   
   "Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate," Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.
   
   "There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people," according to Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, who gave this statement to Newsweek on March 14, 1977.
   
   Distinguished Arab-American Princeton University historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee, "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history."
   
   According to Arab-American columnist Joseph Farah,
   "Palestine has never existed - before or since - as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire, and briefly by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. There was no language known as Palestinian. There was no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a Palestine governed by the Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc."
   
   Then Gary Fitleberg spoon feeds us with some historical facts:
   
   * Jews, not Arabs, have lived continuously in the ancient Biblical Promised Land of Israel, especially Judea and Samaria, for 3,700 years. This land was given as a gift by G-d to the Children of Israel (Hebrews, Israelites, Jews) and is so stated in all of the three monotheistic religions' holy books - Old Testament, New Testament and Quran. Faithful followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in the same one G-d and therefore must believe the word of their G-d. G-d does not make and break his promises. There is a very valuable lesson to be learned by all his children and faithful followers.
   * Approximately half of Jordan's prime ministers since 1950 have been Arab 'Palestinians'.
   * More than 2/3 of the Jordanian people are Arab 'Palestinians'.
   * Jordan occupies 77% of the original Palestine Mandate (originally promised to the Jewish people). The population density of Jordan is less than 61 people per square mile leaving lots of room to absorb many more of their brethren and cousins.
   *Britain created an entirely new province by severing 77% of historic Palestine (and an additional 3% was also allocated to Syria), on the eastern bank of the Jordan River (some 35,000 square miles), and establishing the state of Transjordan.
   *Abdullah, a brother of Faisal (King of Syria), was installed as the new nation of Transjordan's ruler on April 1, 1921 thereby completing the appeasement of Arab rulers.
   *On April 24, 1950, Abdullah formally merged all of Arab-held Palestine with Transjordan and granted citizenship to all Arab residents and settlers (the vast majority of whom arrived in the 1920s for economic reasons).
   *The Hashemite Kingdom was no longer only across the river so the prefix "Trans" (meaning "across") was dropped, and henceforth, the land became known as Jordan; i.e., Arab Palestine.
   
   Remember, Jordan is Palestine. Arab Palestine.
   
   source: http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport … ordan.html

   replyreport
8. 82

   ReuVeraposted 11 years ago

   From 1948 to 1967 Egypt possessed Gaza
   and Jordan possessed The West Bank.
   
   Why did they not offer that land to their fellow “Palestinians” as their state,
   the SAME land they now want Israel to give them?
   
   Because of all the facts stated in my previous post!
   
   That's why all this UN business is a shameful farce.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      crazyhorsesghostposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I've wondered this myself. Israel is a really small country compared with the Arab countries that surround it. Why could all these Arab countries not just carved out land and created the country of Palestine. But no the goal of the Muslim Extremists is to destroy Israel. They have tried many times to throw Israel into the sea but have been unsuccessful haven't they.
      
      May God always protect Israel and may they and the Palestinians one day have peace.
      
      As a Native American I can feel for both of these groups of people.
      
      The white man took most of the Native Americans land and not one treaty was ever kept. Today in America you have scattered reservations and the white man still wants to take from the Native Americans but I have come full circle and made peace with myself about this issue but I will remember it always.
      
      I do believe in a two state solution for Israel and Palestine but I'm not sure if it will ever work.

      replyreport
      1. 48

         wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It has been said. . If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
         
         I concur with your thoughts...May God always protect Israel and may they and the Palestinians one day have peace.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting that you say "May God always protect Israel", what about the Palestinians?  You reckon God has no interest in them, and that he discriminates according to nationality?
            
            Personally, I don't believe in God, but if I did I guess I would say something like "May God protect humans from themselves, their obsessive hatred of each other and their need to constantly go to wars and murder each other". 
            
            At the moment many more Palestinians are being killed by Israelis than the other way round, and it is Palestinian land that is constantly being stolen for the expansion of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under International law.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

               replyreport
            2. 82

               ReuVeraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               Be realistic. Check all the pictures of Arab children who are taught hatered since kindergarted, who are sitting with their teacher, clapping hands and singing "Death to Jews, death to Americans", who have math problems in the school books "if you kill 2 Jews and your neighbor kills 3 Jews, how many Jews did you kill together?"..... Children who are dressed as suicide bombers by their mothers? Children who are taken to the front lines during military conflicts by their fathers....
               
               Do you concider that The God can protect THIS kind of nation??????

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Or we can talk about the nation that according to recent polls supports full segregation and apartheid in Israel between ethnic Jews and Arabs, a nation of racism and hatred, or the nation that has used phosphorous weapons against civilians (ever seen what phosphorous does to human flesh?) nope no moral God could support it.

                  replyreport
               2. 84

                  aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  @ReuVera.  Where are all these pictures?  Do you have any statistics, are 100% of Arab children taught this, 70%, 50%?  Can you be absolutely sure that all children are taught that, and therefore deserve to be killed?  Even if a 5 year old is taught that, do you think he or she deserves no protection?
                  
                  Check out this picture: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11 … 35095.html do you think this was fine?  You think that Baby didn't deserve the love of God (if he exists, which I don't think he does).
                  
                  I am sure there are Arab kids who are taught hatred of Jews, I am also sure there are Israeli kids who grow up hating Palestinians.  There are American kids who grow up completely ignorant of the outside world, and American adults who are brainwashed to believe that Arabs, and "others" are not human in the way that they are, and therefore it is ok if lots of them are killed. 
                  
                  Recently Sharon's son opined that Israel should ""Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too,".  I'm sure you would consider him a fine peace loving, ethical example of humanity.

                  replyreport
               3. 83

                  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes.  If not, God kind of sucks.

                  replyreport
            3. 70

               crazyhorsesghostposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I pray for both people every day. As I do for most people. I however fear what Muslim Extremists will do. And believe me they are not done.
               
               All of these people are not suddenly going to hold hands and sing camp fire songs.
               
               I doubt that even the two state solution is going to bring peace.
               
               I myself do believe in God but not in the white man's God. I was raised a Roman Catholic but I have returned to the Great Spirit of my Grandmothers people and I have found peace. A peace like I never felt before.
               
               I hope and pray that all people one day find peace. It is sad what religion has done to human beings of this world. My own Grandmother was seized from her sick and dying parents and taken to a missionary school where her hair was cut and she was beaten if she spoke Sioux. All of this to teach of Jesus. I am sure that Jesus would not approve of what was done to the Native American people in the name of religion.
               
               Religion is what has caused all the problems in the middle east. I don't think any God would approve.

               replyreport
               1. 48

                  wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Like you CRAZYHORSESGHOST , I pray for peace for all. I can only hope and pray that we all learn to really appreciate the blessings in our lives not just for one day, but every day. Spending more time with the intention of being thankful and saying thanks for all the incredible miracles that grace our lives every day. I feel that some of the madness in the world comes from places inside people where hope and faith are found lacking,
                  I cannot pray that we will all be perfect. I can, though, pray that we all wrestle daily with what it means to be faithful,appreciative and say grace. Just turning our intention to faith will change the way in which we see the world, and thus will change the world.

                  replyreport
9. 64

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   Finally their home back. It only shows that the world disagrees deeply with former Palestine's policy.

   replyreport
10. 61

    Hollie Thomasposted 11 years ago

    @Wavegirl, no problem, I'll find where it's stated exactly.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Page 3, second paragraph.

       replyreport
       1. 48

          wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          got it and thanks. Its always interesting to dig deeper. And though you and I may not agree on everything at least we are both open to conversing, instead of attacking. Always a good thing to learn something new without a clenched fist.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Agreed.

             replyreport
11. 81

    Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago

    Here's the countries that voted against...
    
    Voted against the resolution: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, and the United States.
    
    Hmmm.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Petra Vlahposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Out of the 9 countries you mentions, it seems that 7 are super-powers and at least 3 of them are well know and prosperous.... US and Canada keeps really good company in this issue

       replyreport
       1. 82

          ReuVeraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Absolutely, Petra! And thanks to your home country for abstaining!

          replyreport
12. 82

    ReuVeraposted 11 years ago

    Thank you for your support!
    
    

    replyreport
13. 82

    ReuVeraposted 11 years ago

    A List of Nations Which Voted For, Against, or Abstained on Granting Palestine a Non-member State Status in the UN
    
    November 29, 2012
    
    
    Lists of the three groups of nations, according to their voting, on November 29, 2012:
    
    1. The 9 nations opposing the Palestinian request for a non-member state status in the UN:
    
    Israel, US, Canada, Czech Republic, Panama, and four small islands in the Pacific Ocean (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau).
    
    2. The 41 nations abstaining (not voting) on the Palestinian request for a non-member state status in the UN:
    
    Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Latvia, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Holland, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, South Korea, Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, UK, North Ireland, and Fatwatu.
    
    3. The 138 nations voting for the Palestinian request for a non-member state status in the UN:
    
    Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chili, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Ivory Caust, Cuba, Cyprus, North Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia,
    Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kirghizstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Lichtenstein, Luxemburg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zeeland, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Serra Leon, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Surinam, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Eastern Timor, Trinidad Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
    
    
    If you look closely to this list you will see the tendency..... From 138 nations voting for the Palestinian request for a non-member state status in the UN, the majority are either Muslim (Islamic) countries, or Socialistic/Communistic countries..... some of them are really not prosperous at all....

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       So, it couldn't just be about whether they believe it is right thing or not, but whether they are "socialistic" to quote you, or Muslim.

       replyreport
       1. 82

          ReuVeraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          "right thing or not",  it's all from their perspective....  It is a clear tendency, that Muslim countries will not vote against a Muslim country. Progressive country will not vote for terrorism or Sharia law... etc.  That simple....

          replyreport
          1. 84

             aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             So Austria, Denmark, France, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Norway etc. etc. are not progressive countries according to you?  I also wasn't aware that Mexico, the Philippines, Peru, Russia, Myanmar, Nepal etc. etc. were either Muslim or "Socialistic".  As to the countries not being really prosperous, you really think that a rich country's opinions matters more than a poor country's?
             
             Also if the yes vote was truly for "terrorism or Sharia law" how come Great Britain, Holland, Australia etc. only abstained rather than vote against?  As far as I can tell a lot of these countries are opposed to terrorism.

             replyreport
             1. 48

                wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                You speak as if you know what Sharia law is. Please enlighten us with your knowledge.

                replyreport
             2. 82

                ReuVeraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I said "majority are either Muslim or Communistic" and in majority they are. From your list.... Do you call a bankrupt country a progressive country?
                Also, good luck to you proving to me that Russia is not a communist country. Or that Burma is not a corrupt nation.

                replyreport