Mr Khan said:
PullusPardus said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
Kasz216 said:
Either way, it shouldn't be passed because palestine doesn't fit all the criteria for a member state. One of the main criteria is having set borders... which Palestine doesn't have. Some are trying to use the 1967 borders, however those borders weren't established in a peace treaty, but instead in a cease fire, that has been broken a couple times since then and a cease fire isn't a legally binding agreement of permanent borders, but just a temporary set of battlelines until the establishment of a peace treaty.
|
The same logic would imply that Israel shouldn't be member state, as all of palestine's borders that aren't definitely set are borders to israel.
|
(this is a reply to Kasz and you)
Actually borders don't make countries
Country (as in land)
State (Power to control it's own)
Nation (People who share the same culture)
borders aren't a main criteria.
|
"criteria for UN Membership" =/= "what it takes to be an independent country"
More troubling is Palestine's continual inability to have a single functioning government, but then again Belgium also lacks that...
|
Exactly on sentence one...
and I sentence two i'd say the same solution would work for both. Cut them in half.
Instead of a two state solution, they should be looking at a three state solution right now. Or rather, a two state solution, then another two state solution whenever Hamas wises up... with the two palestinian states being free to merge whenever they can come to an agreement.
