UN vote recognizes state of Palestine; US objects

[JustMe5]

Good for the Palestinians. This is a step in the right direction.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...11-29-18-23-24

Nov 29, 6:23 PM EST

UN vote recognizes state of Palestine; US objects

By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United Nations voted overwhelmingly Thursday to recognize a Palestinian state, a long-sought victory for the Palestinians and an embarrassing diplomatic defeat for the United States.

[Quote truncated by moderator] ©2012 The Associated Press.
All rights reserved.

[Stardreamer]

So when the next rocket comes flying out of Gaza, Israel can now declare war in response on an attacking sovereign state?

[xbuzzerx]

So when the next rocket comes flying out of Gaza, Israel can now declare war in response on an attacking sovereign state?

Why would that be any different from before?

[Laufey]

Great news.

[Stardreamer]

Why would that be any different from before?

It would give Israel a little more legitimacy in their actions, but aside from that the results would not be much different. It could pretty much be used as a basis to throw the whole 67 border lines argument out the window since a whole new war would have occurred, the Palestinian territories are defeated and occupied again and the whole stupid mess starts over again from scratch.

[maxpowr9]

The only real trouble will begin when Palestine becomes a member state and therefore, access to the international court system. This voting is tantamount to a cease and desist letter to Israel saying: "play nice".

[GiancarloC]

This is not much of a step in any direction. Israel will continue its actions, and I doubt that Palestine will be given full statehood status in the UN any time soon. In fact this could backfire on the Palestinians.

[Kulindahr]

Why would that be any different from before?

With an act of war, a country essentially authorizes the aggressed nation to take whatever action they deem necessary to their security. In that situation, Israel could decide to push everyone out of Gaza and into Egypt, on the basis that the strip is being used as a staging ground for attacks -- which is quite true.

[xbuzzerx]

With an act of war, a country essentially authorizes the aggressed nation to take whatever action they deem necessary to their security. In that situation, Israel could decide to push everyone out of Gaza and into Egypt, on the basis that the strip is being used as a staging ground for attacks -- which is quite true.

It would also mean when Palestine fights back Israel can't play the terrorist victim card anymore.

Besides this all sounds like armchair political analysis to me. I see extremely little reason to believe Israel hasn't always done pretty much whatever it wanted to provided it wouldn't result in EXTREME reactions from the west. If what we've seen is them as the good guys I can't imagine who but the most devout Zionist would defend the "no holds barred" things they'd do in this scenario you're describing.

[frankfrank]

I'm confused about this vote...I'm sure that I remembered some votes in the past failed because - USUALLY THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL AND NOBODY ELSE - voted against something. So I thought that consensus was needed at the U. N.?

What is their voting procedure?

[maxpowr9]

I'm confused about this vote...I'm sure that I remembered some votes in the past failed because - USUALLY THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL AND NOBODY ELSE - voted against something. So I thought that consensus was needed at the U. N.?

What is their voting procedure?

If it was for full member status then yes, all "permanent members of the UN" [China, France, Russia, UK, US] would have to agree on top of a 2/3rd majority. The top 5 have veto power on "substantive" resolutions so if any of them vote 'no', the resolution is stopped. What constitutes substantive resolutions I don't remember. It's been a while since I took IR back in high school.

[RazorzEdge88]

I thought those 5 weren't just permanent members but permanent members of the Security Council?

Canada with a no vote disappoints me. Stephen Harper can go to hell.

[maxpowr9]

I thought those 5 weren't just permanent members but permanent members of the Security Council?

Canada with a no vote disappoints me. Stephen Harper can go to hell.

They were the founding five aka the main victors of WWII which is why Germany and Japan are not there. Norway likes to make a big stink about not being a founding member either but frankly, they can shove their peace prize up their ass.

[JockBoy87]

Statehood is a step forward for the Palestinian nation, but at the same time, reduces Israel's obligation to provide current levels of humanitarian assistance.

[bankside]

I don't think Israel can ever be forthright in negotiations supporting Palestinian statehood for domestic political reasons. The theocrats are too strong in Israel and I think the UN has done Israel a favour by putting this question beyond their reach. It will allow Israel to focus on its legitimate security interests instead of having theocratic existential questions about Greater Israel intruding on every foreign policy decision taken by the government. Israel is a real country with real borders, legitimate security interests, and it's not going away. Establishing Palestine on the same basis will make that clearer for both sides.

[Kulindahr]

It would also mean when Palestine fights back Israel can't play the terrorist victim card anymore.

Besides this all sounds like armchair political analysis to me. I see extremely little reason to believe Israel hasn't always done pretty much whatever it wanted to provided it wouldn't result in EXTREME reactions from the west. If what we've seen is them as the good guys I can't imagine who but the most devout Zionist would defend the "no holds barred" things they'd do in this scenario you're describing.

I can't, either, but given some of the talk in some Israeli circles I can't fathom how the Palestinians would even risk it.

[JustMe5]

I'm confused about this vote...I'm sure that I remembered some votes in the past failed because - USUALLY THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL AND NOBODY ELSE - voted against something. So I thought that consensus was needed at the U. N.?

What is their voting procedure?

This was voted on by the UN's "General Assembly" in which there are no vetoes. The UN's "Security Council" is more powerful, and that's where vetoes take place. In this case, the only thing that was needed to approve Palestine as a "nonmember observer state" was a majority vote by the General Assembly.

[Kulindahr]

They were the founding five aka the main victors of WWII which is why Germany and Japan are not there. Norway likes to make a big stink about not being a founding member either but frankly, they can shove their peace prize up their ass.

And the reasoning was that since they were the "great powers", having the UN go ahead on something one of them opposed could risk war. We call it a "veto", but it's actually a requirement for unanimity in order to avoid another world war. We have to keep in mind that the UN wasn't founded to get anything done so much as to avoid war between the great powers.