Netanyahu: Palestinian Statehood Bid 'Doomed'

reply to post by Pervius

The Decolonization Committee wanted those 16 countries set free....they never were. And their next step is the UN Security Council....soon.

Here's the 2007 list. I can see where Guam might have some problems, since the US considers it a 'stationary aircraft carrier".

There are currently 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories left on the United Nations decolonization list: Western Sahara, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Tokelau, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, Montserrat, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands.
www.un.org...

Why did the United States spray paint blue lines around their military bases on one of the countries on that UN Decolonization List? Odd thing to do.....

I couldn't find a reference for that. Is that blue as a UN color, or blue as in Israel flag color? Israel flag has blue lines.

It's all tied in with Palestine and unfinished business from WWII.

What could that be?

reply to post by pthena

What could that be?

The Jews declared war on Germany because Hitler kicked out the Jew run banking system and set up a non debt money system where there was no charging of interest. This is why the US went to war against Germany and why the US still fights wars.

I don't even understand why there should be a Palestine. The Gaza Strip is a little piece of land. One side of it is about 6 miles in length. The longest line between any two sides is about 27 miles. Even the West Bank is not very big. Imagine something 20 miles by 30 miles and that's not far away from its size. Israel is small, for that matter. While Lebanon is half the size of Israel, Jordan is 4.18x bigger. And Syria is bigger than Jordan. Israel and Lebanon and Jordan would only consume 48.98% of the state of Oregon. It's crazy how small countries can be.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The Jews declared war on Germany because Hitler kicked out the Jew run banking system and set up a non debt money system where there was no charging of interest.

I don't think I've ever read or heard that before. That's why US and NATO had to do their "protection of civilians" take over of Libya. I don't think I've read anything about German banks.

reply to post by jonnywhite

I don't even understand why there should be a Palestine.

It's a long story. Goes back to WWI and the obsolete notions of land grabs as "spoils of war."

The Ottoman Empire had been allied with the German Kaiser. After Germany lost, the French and British, since they were great empires, took it upon themselves to carve the Ottoman Empire up into separate countries; Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq. Turkey managed to gain independence rather quickly. The rest, not so quickly.

In all reality, Palestine really isn't big enough for two countries. Western Imperialist meddling can be blamed for this crazy situation. A large proportion of the Jews occupying the land were European colonial imports, or exports depending on point of view..

reply to post by pthena

That's why you need to listen to Diana Spingola on Republic Broadcasting because that is the only show where they talk about real history. No, there was a formal declaration of war by the Jews and published in major newspapers.
You can subscribe to the archives to download the pod-casts for $1.33/mo.
A good recent episode is from September 13 with the guest, Veronica Clark, talking about strategy of war, and what are we doing now, what Israel will do, and what the US learned from the Germans.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
I don't even understand why there should be a Palestine. The Gaza Strip is a little piece of land. One side of it is about 6 miles in length. The longest line between any two sides is about 27 miles. Even the West Bank is not very big. Imagine something 20 miles by 30 miles and that's not far away from its size. Israel is small, for that matter. While Lebanon is half the size of Israel, Jordan is 4.18x bigger. And Syria is bigger than Jordan. Israel and Lebanon and Jordan would only consume 48.98% of the state of Oregon. It's crazy how small countries can be.

edit on 20-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Worth probably in the billions if they cleared the inhabitants and developed and subdivided that little bit of land.

reply to post by pthena

I didn't mention it, but about 40% of the West Bank is already taken up by Israeli settlements or other Israeli infrastructure. Basically, the amount of area Palestinians are on is very very small already. That's why i made that post. We're talking about very small land areas here.

For size comparison, I just found that the West Bank is roughly 2270 sq mi. My county is roughly half of that. There're 36 counties in my state and it seems most are bigger than mine. Wasco County is a little bit bigger than the West Bank and many other counties are bigger than Wasco. The whole nation of Israel is about the same size as Lake County, Oregon. Population is much much bigger though. In fact, Israel has double the population of the entire state of Oregon.

Gaza Strip may as well be microscopic. It's 139 sq mi. Roughly 1/6 my county (discounting water).

What gets me is Palestinians want statehood, but continue to support Hamas which is violently opposed to Israel. Hamas has even attacked its own people to get attention. So long as the Palestinians support Hamas I see NO two-state solution and a recognition of Palestine as a country. Even if it were recognized, it's so small that it makes me shake my head.

With satillite technology where it's at, I don't know how we can look at these little pieces of land and not know EVERYTHING about them. I mean... well. They look so small on google earth.

reply to post by jonnywhite

What gets me is Palestinians want statehood, but continue to support Hamas which is violently opposed to Israel. Hamas has even attacked its own people to get attention. So long as the Palestinians support Hamas I see NO two-state solution and a recognition of Palestine as a country.

The land area of Palestine wasn't larger when Jews immigrated. Maybe they should have considered that there really was no need to go there, seeing how there were already enough people there.

So the two-state solution should have been done before 1987, when Hamas was founded. Why didn't Palestine become a state in 1986 ?

Here's something interesting:

Hamas Covenant - Wikipedia
Relevance of the Charter in the 21st century
British diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006 as part of their political program".[8] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, “It’s a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision.”[14] Pastor states that those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[6]

Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (the senior political leader of Hamas) has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.He further states that "the Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions. The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to Israels crimes against humanity which contravene international law".[13]

[6].^ a b Mazin Qumsiyeh on the History and Practice Of Nonviolent Palestinian Resistance Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May–June 2010, pp. 40-42
[8].^ a b "BBC Today Programme interview with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, January 12, 2009". BBC News. January 12, 2009. news.bbc.co.uk... Retrieved May 27, 2010.
[13].^ a b Hamas Charter: Vision, Fact and FictionPalestine Chronicle (23/1/2011)Retrieved 27th may 2011

So Israel is responsible for the proliferation of the Hamas Charter in many language translations.
And you can't see a Palestinian State.
Do you propose then, that:

1) Israel annex all the land, drop the "Jewish" from State of Israel, keep the 'Democratic" part and become the 'Majority Arab Democratic State of Israel'.

or

2) Annex all Palestine. Genocide all non-Jews, and become the 'Purified Final Solution Jewish State of Israel'

I wouldn't have much problem with 1). How about you?

reply to post by pthena


Well, while Hilary was pushing the Israeli agenda, hubby Bill had this to say..

But former US president Bill Clinton told CNN: "There is a widespread feeling in the world that the current Israeli government may have abandoned the intention of working with the Palestinians to create a state on the West Bank in Gaza and just doesn't want to say it."

news.ninemsn.com.au...

What an odd couple.

reply to post by pthena

If the palestinians stop their support of Hamas and cut off the rocket attacks and smoke out those who oppose Israel violently, then yes, I think it would be fine to see them achieve statehood. But I do not believe statehood is their goal. I think that conquering all of Israel is their goal. They believe Israel does not rightfully exist. This is the same belief held in places like Lebanon, Syria and Iran. The palestinians have a LOT of backing. Intelligence indicates weapons and materials have been smuggled into the palestinian territories. Until this hatred for Israel is exhausted and the people of former 'palestine' put down their weapons in favor of peace, I see no end of this war until all of the palestinians are either killed or put in jails.

And remember, the total land area of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is about 2400 square miles. Do you know how small that is? Technically, that's about half the size of Connecticut. The only other states in the US that're comparable are Rhode Island and Delaware. So this DOES have a precedent. But still, the amount of land involved is very small and there's a lot of mountain/arid terrain by what I can tell. I actually pity them.

The size of Israel to the US is microscopic. America has incredible amounts of resources. There're some 6 or 7 million people in Israel. That's doubble the population of Oregon even though the land area is equal to a single county in Oregon (not even the biggest). If we're giving them billions of dollars, that's actually a lot of money for that many people.

Just imagine if the US was as densely populated as some of these other places.

reply to post by backinblack

It's pretty much a truism that former politicians are more honest in what they say than are current politicians and officials.

That observation made by Bill is probably believed by the majority of the world's heads of state and diplomatic corps, but many might be persuaded by hard or soft extortion to go along with Israel regardless.

reply to post by jonnywhite

The size of Israel to the US is microscopic.

You need to consider how wealthy a place it was in old times where this was it, because of its location at the crossroads to three continents and the central hub of trade. This is amazingly valuable but has been made to look like it is not so that people who don't know any better will believe it to be insignificant.

reply to post by backinblack


The quote is out of context. I watched the interview and he was stating that was how some people at the UN felt.

When Wolf Blitzer asked him if he personally felt that way, he responded that he didn't know if it was the actual case or not since he doesn't have access to information that would confirm or deny the position.

He clearly said in the interview, the current attempt by the PA was not the right way and blamed Arafat for the whole mess for not taking the offer from Ehud Barak when Clinton was still President. They could have had a state back in the 1990s, had they taken Barak's offer which met over 90% of their demands.

He also didn't seem to care or worry about Arab reaction in the streets to a US veto, saying the governments in the region understand why it would be done and the reaction in the streets didn't matter. I thought that was kind of naive on his part, especially after Egypt and Tunisia.

reply to post by jonnywhite

If the palestinians stop their support of Hamas and cut off the rocket attacks and smoke out those who oppose Israel violently, then yes, I think it would be fine to see them achieve statehood. But I do not believe statehood is their goal. I think that conquering all of Israel is their goal. They believe Israel does not rightfully exist.
. . .
Until this hatred for Israel is exhausted and the people of former 'palestine' put down their weapons in favor of peace, I see no end of this war until all of the palestinians are either killed or put in jails.

There are two streams of history (actually there are more) that don't always coincide; the stream of evolution of human capacity for justice, and the stream of actual performance (facts on the ground).

At the time of the establishment of the UN and signing of the charter,which came into force on 24 October 1945, it was already decided that 'right of conquest' was not the way forward for civilized nations and people. Yet, that's how the State of Israel came into existence, through violence and conquest. Some people hold the opinion that the second stream of history (facts on the ground) do not invalidate the first stream (human capacity for justice).

The Derailing of Balfour Declaration

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

What is suggested in Balfour is really quite reasonable: "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". Yet, the actual facts on the ground indicate that the aims of Balfour were completely derailed.

1) The Nakba of 1948 was an extreme prejudice against the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, including the forced eviction of 800,000 Palestinians.

2) The Current Israel Right of Return which states that any Jew anywhere in the world can be regarded as a citizen of Israel, completely jeopardizes the clause: "or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". In the same way that Jews anywhere have the potential of being citizens of Israel, so also any Jew has the potential of being a citizen of a hostile nation within another nation, acting as a fifth column, if you will. This can cause great prejudice against Jews.

The case of number 2) above, is quite evident in the United States, wherein perfectly decent American Jews are pressured into supporting the Zionist regime of Israel even at the cost of not supporting the best national interest of their native United States in which they were born.

So the World stands at the crossroads. Should we strive to live up to the highest justice that humans can achieve, or shall we be dictated to by facts on the ground.

State of Israel or Jewish State of Israel
Believe it or not, Palestinians by and large, recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state. By and large the Palestinians do not recognize the right of Jewish state of Israel to exist. Wouldn't a good beginning point for negotiations be the dropping of Jewish from the name? Because that is the real issue.

Suggested further reading: International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia

reply to post by jmdewey60

A good recent episode is from September 13 with the guest, Veronica Clark, talking about strategy of war, and what are we doing now, what Israel will do, and what the US learned from the Germans.

I downloaded that day's broadcast here:
mp3 Hour 1
mp3 Hour 2
Bankers were briefly mentioned halfway through hour 2 and again right at the end of hour 2. Not enough there to make specific claims about bankers except that the main banker was kicked out of Germany in 1937. No mention in that interview, at least, of a Jewish declaration of war. Maybe in other places in Clark's works or interviews.

Veronica Clark online articles has an interesting way of looking at History, from an Organizational Psychology perspective. I'll have to look into getting maybe: Warwolves of the Iron Cross series