| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Palestinians to seek UN membership if no peace |
| 2011-04-20 |
| [Arab News] The Paleostinians say that if a peace treaty with Israel isn't reached by September, their first choice is to go to the UN Security Council with such strong support and arguments that it would recommend admission of Paleostine as a new member of the United Nations. ...aka the Oyster Bay Chowder and Marching Society... That would require convincing the US, Israel's ally, not to veto a resolution supporting membership for an independent Paleostinian state, which won't be easy. But Riyad Mansour, the top Paleostinian diplomat at the UN, said in an interview with The News Agency that Dare Not be Named that there are other options to achieve the goal through the UN. He said September looms large for the Paleostinians because "there are so many things that will converge." First, Israel and the Paleostinians agreed on President Barack B.O.Obama's target of September 2011 for a peace agreement, a date endorsed by the European Union and much of the world. Second, the two-year program to build the infrastructure of a Paleostinian state will be complete, and third, the Paleostinians hope two-thirds of the 192 UN member states will have recognized Paleostine as an independent state, Mansour said. Obama announced in September 2010, as US-brokered direct Israeli-Paleostinian negotiations resumed, that a peace treaty should be signed in a year, but those talks collapsed weeks later after Israel ended its freeze on building settlements. The Paleostinians insist they will not resume peace talks until Israel stops building settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem -- lands it captured in the 1967 Middle East war and which the Paleostinians want for their future state. Israel maintains that the Paleostinians should not be setting conditions for talks and that settlements didn't stop them negotiating in the past. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 tw, the obvious solution to the problem of West Bank vs Gaza is to admit BOTH of them as states - so each can wield a vote. And when Gaza splits between the "moderate" Hamas and the Salafist snuffies, give the new state a seat as well. If this means that there are too many countries in the UN, just kick Israel out. /sarcasm (in case any of you were wondering.) My hope would be that the US would have the sense to veto any application from the Palestinians. Unfortunately, with the current administration, I don't think we'll see that. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2011-04-20 20:15 |
| #3 I wonder if they mean only the West Bank/Palestinian Authority to be the new Palestinian state, leaving Gaza/Hamas twisting in the wind with no official status? Because the two parts of the Territories are at very different places in terms of developing the infrastructure to manage a normal country, compared to a terror organization grafted onto a community. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-04-20 11:16 |
| #2 a corrupt violent welfare state that destabilizes everything it touches? A perfect fit |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-04-20 08:52 |
| #1 Sorry, nobody without a tie can get in. |
| Posted by: mojo 2011-04-20 01:59 |