Britain ready to back Palestinian statehood at UN

[Poll_Blind]

Source: The Guardian

Britain is prepared to back a key vote recognising Palestinian statehood at the United Nations if Mahmoud Abbas pledges not to pursue Israel for war crimes and to resume peace talks.

Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has called for Britain's backing in part because of its historic responsibility for Palestine. The government has previously refused, citing strong US and Israeli objections and fears of long-term damage to prospects for negotiations.

On Monday night, the government signalled it would change tack and vote yes if the Palestinians modified their application, which is to be debated by the UN general assembly in New York later this week. As a "non-member state", Palestine would have the same status as the Vatican.

Whitehall officials said the Palestinians were now being asked to refrain from applying for membership of the international criminal court or the international court of justice, which could both be used to pursue war crimes charges or other legal claims against Israel.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/27/uk-ready-to-back-palestine-statehood

---

My word.

PB

[SleeplessinSoCal]

1. good.

[jaysunb]

2. War crimes....

I wonder would those include charges against any accomplice ??

[rudycantfail]

3. The truth shouldn't be buried with bargains.

[rudycantfail]

4. The world is about to hear that Arafat was murdered.

[Mosby]

17. probably not.

He died from Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, the issue is what caused it.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/absolutely-no-way-arafat-was-poisoned-says-top-doctor-who-teaches-at-paris-hospital-where-palestinian-leader-died/

[rudycantfail]

18. Isn't that what Alexander Litvinenko died from when the Russians poisoned him

with polonium? The issue is, will the truth be allowed to come out.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/12/the-ghost-of-yasser-arafat.html

What we do know for sure, however, is that Swiss scientists found unexplained elevated levels of Po-210 in biological stains on Arafat’s belongings that were not naturally occurring. An unavoidable question is outstanding: How did it get there?

[Mosby]

19. you didn't read the link I provided did you?

Because if you did you would know that if arafat was poisoned with polonium EVERYONE who came into contact would be radioactive (just like the russian guy). Clearly that didn't happen, the french hospital could not possibly hide that.

[rudycantfail]

20. I'm not claiming the French hospital did anything.

The French hospital isn't allowed to comment on this case. Your article is based solely on the opinion of a radiopathology teacher who wasn't at the hospital when Arafat was there.

"Because if you did [read the link] you would know that if arafat was poisoned with polonium EVERYONE who came into contact would be radioactive (just like the russian guy)" - LOL. That is not what Masse said, because it is ridiculous.

If polonium poisoning must be ruled out as you suggest, why is every international news agency speculating that Arafat may have been poisoned by polonium? Why are Swiss, French and Russian investigators in the West Bank exhuming Arafat's body for testing of polonium?

The answer is because there is good reason to believe he was poisoned by polonium. Swiss scientist found abnormally high levels of polonium on Arafat's toothbrush and bodily fluids.

[Mosby]

21. I'm hardly an expert with radioactive substances

But look at what he said:

This would have been impossible to miss for any doctor at the time, Masse said, not to mention dangerous for other people surrounding Arafat. “Remember the Litvinenko case,” Masse continued. “We discovered after his death that hundreds of people had been subjected to various levels of contamination, in the UK and other countries.”

All the people in that hospital that came in contact with arafat would have picked up radiation (what he is referring to as contamination), maybe needing some treatment. We know that didn't happen.

[rudycantfail]

22. I did look at what he said.

He didn't say anything about people needing treatment in the Litvinenko case. You just threw it out there and then speculated that in Arafat's case people would need treatment. And that's your case - very weak.

And what about the abnormally high levels of polonium, radiation that decomposes fairly quickly, found on Arafat's toothbrush and bodily fluids eight years after his death? Not compelling enough evidence to be suspicious, evidently.

Do you find yourself looking at issues in a biased way?

[Ken Burch]

5. Good. It's the only sensible and positive choice.

Doing anything else just encourages Bibi to dig in his heels. Palestine SHOULD be allowed to join the ICC, though. It's not as if Israel has never committed war crimes.

[Scootaloo]

6. What a ridiculous demand on Britain's part

THough one wonders how much of it is CYOA - since Great britain caused the problem in the first fucking place.

[lunatica]

7. I was going to bring up the fact that Britain arbitrarily created the Middle Eastern countries

Now they act like they can fix the situation. Yeah. Sure.

[DetlefK]

8. What happens if "Palestine" starts a war with Israel?

Imagine the nation of "Palestine".

What happens if some extremists in the Gaza-strip, deliberately or undeliberately beyond the control of Hamas, launch rockets at Israel?
-> Hamas will be fully responsible for the actions of those terrorists hiding in "Palestine".

Option 1:
"Palestine" will have to accept the scrutiny and help of the international community to bring those people to justice. This will result in a backlash from the voters (most of whom are anti-Israel), destabilizing "Palestine" politically.

Option 2:
"Palestine" will refuse to hunt those people. Accordingly, "Palestine" harbors terrorists and Israel has the perfect excuse to start a preemptive war and reconquer the Gaza-strip.




The core question is:
If the nation of "Palestine" is founded, can Hamas and Fatah guarantee that there won't be any more aggressions from their side?

[Scootaloo]

9. Can the Republican or Democratic parties make such promises?

'Cause that's more or less what you're asking there. Can a political party guarantee that people outside their control will never do anything bad.

[DetlefK]

11. A government should be able to keep WMDs out of unauthorized hands.

Name a country, except the Gaza-strip, where ordinary people like you and me have access to long-range-missiles.

[Scootaloo]

14. ...Do you even know what a "WMD" is?

Just figured I ought to check before we hop any further along this merry path.

[Aristus]

16. Yes. Long-range missiles are considered conventional weapons, not WMDs.

WMDs include chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Not easily accessible to even the most determined individual.

This fudging of the definition of WMD is one of the things that led us into war in Iraq.

[DetlefK]

23. I would like to repeat my question:

I considered the proper terms irrelevant for the political problem at hand.

"Please name a country, other than the Gaza-strip, where ordinary citizens like you and me can acquire the parts and explosives necessary to build a rocket that can blow up a house several miles away."

[Nihil]

24. USA, UK, Eire, France, Germany, Italy, ...

... and practically every other African, European, ex-USSR, Latin American,
Middle Eastern or Asian country ...

Or are you one of those people who only believes that terrorism happens
in one tiny little part of the world and everything else simply doesn't count?

There is nothing miraculous about putting together the means of exploding
a device further away than one can throw it. People have been doing that
for centuries.

Your "question" - repeated or not - is far more "irrelevant for the political
problem at hand" than the use of the correct terms to avoid the ridicule that
follows the "WMD" hyperbole.

[DetlefK]

27. Negligence, not hyperbole.

1. No, I'm not one of that kind of people.

2. So, people have been building rockets for centuries. In our civilized times, with actual law-enforcement, I hope it should be more difficult to build such a device than it used to be.

3. My "question" - repeated or not - boils down to this:
"Does the government of "Palestine" have the competence or the will to stop people who would force their country into a war with Israel?"
Competence? No.
The palestinians in the Gaza-strip have several work-shops where they build rockets and I have never heard news that the Hamas moved against them. Likewise, those lone-wolves have fired their rockets at Israel regardless of the political circumstances at those times. And I have never heard any news that Hamas disapproved of their attacks or tried to discipline them.
Will? No.
Hamas wants war with Israel. Their followers/constituents have antipathy towards Israel and have been whipped into a frenzy by Hamas. Condemning any attack on Israel would run counter to their very ideals and would be a betrayal on their constituents and therefore political suicide.



I say, that the foundation of Palestinian nation would be a mistake right now. Another war with Israel would just be a matter of time. Unless Israel, Fatah and Hamas agree to some sort of peace-treaty, and give the moods on both sides some time to calm down, the foundation of a palestinian state would be premature.
My advice to Hamas would be to get their house in order: Try to look more like sensible politicians and less like smuggling warlords and build diplomatic pressure on Israel. Violence won't work, Israel has bigger guns, more guns and more modern guns. You are the winners, because Israel was forced to stop kicking your ass! Yeah! Guess what? Your house is still rubbles.
Man up and admit that the viscious cycle of violence works to Israel's advantage.
Your country in ruins, your population becoming more and more addicted to drugs...
Maybe it's time for a dramatic twist and a new narrative: Making Israel look bad by staying peaceful and not giving in to their provocations.

[Aristus]

28. Any country that has Internet access.

We could do it easily over here. The reason we don't is because we're not a subjugated people like those in Gaza, with the well-equipped, well-trained, trigger-happy IDF breathing down their necks 24/7/365.

[Ken Burch]

10. If a real Palestinian state isn't founded now...

Can Likud, Labor, or any of the other major Israeli parties guarantee that the settlements won't be further illegally expanded, that more Arabs WON'T be driven illegally out of the places where they've always lived in East Jerusalem, that more olive trees WON'T be stolen from Palestinian farms and given to the illegal settlers, that the settlements WON'T keep
hoarding the water and forcing Palestinians to ration the pitiful amount they're given(as if dehydrating a civilian population could ever be a morally acceptable tactic), that Palestinian children WON'T ever be aimed at again by IDF soldiers?
Can any of those parties guarantee, in short, that the immiseration of the occupied(in one area)and besieged(in another)people won't continue to be perpetually immiserated?

There's plenty of such questions to be asked on both sides.

It serves no purpose for anybody to keep saying "we're better! we're better! we're better!" to keep shouting that is simply to keep demanding preferential treatment and special dispensation to do wrong. Neither side is any nobler than the other in this. It's just that one side has more troops, guns, tanks, missiles, and planes.

[loli phabay]

26. if it happens then the voters in a Palestinian state hopefully will vote in modern

Democratic leaning pols. If not and missiles start landing in Israel then the Israelis will be justified in declaring war between the states and will probuably not have to keep the gloves on. I hope the pals get their state and work to build it to a modern state but I have my doubts that the idiots will be in charge and make things worse.

[dipsydoodle]

12. France to back Palestinian bid for UN status

France has confirmed it intends to vote for Palestinian non-member status at the United Nations later this week.

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has just set out the French position in parliament, the BBC's Christian Fraser reports from Paris.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20514194

Not much point in starting another post. I guess chances are that only Israel , the US and its lackies like Guam will vote against and as far as I'm aware its veto proof so probably a done deal now for Thursday when the vote takes place.

[joanbarnes]

13. Deal breaker. War crimes should absolutely be pursued.

[Scurrilous]

15. Australia to abstain from vote on UN status for Palestine

<snip>

"Julia Gillard has compromised on her opposition to Palestinian membership in the United Nations – deciding Australia will abstain when the contentious vote is put in the General Assembly.

Ms Gillard told Labor caucus this morning she did not believe the resolution proposing Palestine be given a similar standing in the UN to the Vatican would advance peace talks with Israel.

But after strong lobbying by both Left and Right factions, Ms Gillard said Australia would not oppose the bid.

Former foreign minister Gareth Evans has also been heavily involved, briefing MPs on the issue and warning Australia would stand on the ''wrong side of history'' by opposing the bid."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australia-to-abstain-from-vote-on-un-status-for-palestine-20121127-2a4ld.html#ixzz2DSJ6fo5i

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. William Hague says UK set to abstain in Palestinian UN vote

Foreign Secretary William Hague says the UK is set to abstain in a key vote on whether the Palestinians should get upgraded diplomatic status at the UN.

The UN General Assembly will decide whether to recognise the Palestinians as a "non-member observer state".

Mr Hague said the UK would not vote against but needed assurances that the Palestinians would seek negotiations with Israel "without pre-conditions" in order to be able to back the move.

Without these, the UK would abstain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20524115