By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Palestine's UN bid is tomorrow!

Just give them their state already... and then when the world sees that they cannot function like normal human beings without blaming all of their problems on their neighbor, they're gonna have alot less sympathy.

But then again, the world has and always will be full of Jew haters, so some things will never change.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
If it succeeds, however, then Israel could justify many of its action as clear responses to acts of war, as opposed to the legally marginal state of affairs that predominates currently

In practice it's just the other way around:

As israeli newspapers reported, Israel's government is scared, because their international law attorneys pointed out that according to current UN laws, jewish settlements are rather clear cases of war crimes. Once Palestine is a member state, they could file charges against Israel in The Hague, which would be both embarrassing for Israel and practically mean an end to the religious fanatics dream of a great Israel.

Anyway, what I find quite interesting is the fact how many VGchartz users from the USA seem to adopt their country's official position on this matter, while most other users from other countries have a different opinion. Seeing how they're using israel's spin doctor's official lines I can only assume that many american media are indeed influenced by zionists.

Well, in the end this will only drive Israel and USA more into isolation. Even though it currently seems that the USA will not even have to use their veto (behind the curtains, there were plans to delay the security council's vote for weeks or months - the fact that they are planning to vote today already probably means that USA and Israel pressed enough security council members to vote in their favor so they don't even have to use it), people will remember the role the USA was playing: Being Bibi Netanyahu's sidekick.



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.



hatmoza said:
I won't be recognized

Wait, nobody giving a shit about Palestinians


there you go.

i don't either, no offense , but most of the palestinians i've met are total douchebags that think everyone should shut up and listen to them when they speak, thats including my neighbor who is also a douchebag.



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.



Around the Network
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...



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

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.

Except it does have already established borders and did before the 1967 peacetreaty, due to original agreement with the UN plan coupled with their decleration of independence.

There borders have expanded since then in disrupted territory, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to UN member rules.

Their problem was with the rejection of the UN partitian plan by Palestine. 



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.