Can anyone explain to me this Palestine UN recognition thing?

This is what I read on a random Intifada website:

SECRET CABLES SHOW ISRAEL’S BATTLE PLAN OVER PALESTINIAN UN BID

Israel has started mobilizing its embassies for the battle against UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September, ordering its diplomats to convey that this would delegitimize Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks.

It is clear that Israëli government is heavily opposed to the recognition of the Palestinian state by the UN. But what exactly is the reason for this?
Is it because of legal issues and giving the palestinians rights?
Is it because the proposal itself is biased?


Sorry for no subs with this vid, they are on the web somewhere I guess...

If anyone can clear this up for me I will be very grateful.
Thanks already!

its just stubborn Israel telling evryone that they are a spoilt child and that they demand everything to be their way. And US is just acting like their parents telling everyone to oppose the Palestinians bid so that their spoilt child will stop crying.

Cheers

Israel has started mobilizing its online agents for the battle against UN recognition of a Palestinian state by the looks of some recent ATS threads.

...no. Israel have mobilised their military and police to prepare for the possibility of violence and/or attacks over the next few days.

As for the general rundown of the history of the conflict... here.

ugh...Israel can kick rocks... nobody stopped them from bulldozing neighborhoods and "becoming a state"...

Thanks for all the comments so far. The video was very informative!
However, I still feel like the specific question has not been fully answered yet.
Why is it bad for Israel if Palestine is recognized?

P.S. Thanks so far and for future contributions. I think this is relatively a civil and unbiased discussion so far and I really like that!

There are several reasons that i can think of why Israel is against this unilateral step.
1) Recognition of Palestine without any agreement on 1967 borders,refugees or status of Jerusalem can lead to armed conflict.
2) Independent Palestine without declaration of end of conflict can be used as just another platform from which
attempts to "remove" Israel will continue.
3) Palestinians refuse to declare that Israel is Jewish homeland while forbidding by law (death punishment, no less) to sell land to Jews/Israelis in Palestine. Of course it is Israel who is genocidal and apartheid and ctr, but in Israel Palestinian marrying Israeli becomes Israeli citizen and naturally can buy land. So demographic implications are clear.
4) Legal/political aspects are there too. Palestine as an independent state will have much more options vs what is now.
But you know what - the more time passes, the more it seems to me that it is some kind of orchestrated event.
Right wing Israeli government is saying boo and showing how it acts against Palestinian bid , Fatah leaders show how they valiantly act against Israeli/American/EU pressure.
No mention of refugees. No mention of Jerusalem. No mention of Jewish homeland. And yet public in Israel and Palestine support their own leaders.
I mean, if in those boring talks we are so used to Likud leader and Fatah leader will finally shake hands and decide that there will be no return of refugees, Jerusalem status will be unclear and there will be no recognition of Israel as Jewish state ,there will be no government both in Israel and in Ramallah the very next day.
This way it is much more interesting, isn't it?

reply to post by martiendejong


Because States require confirmed borders but Israel likes to take more and more Palestinian land..

As a state that would be considered an invasion..

reply to post by Awen24


That 12 minute propaganda piece again?

First of all, there is no historical proof that any “Israeli” kingdom ever existed anywhere. There is no proof, despite decades of “faith based” archeology, phony science, phony history and phony propaganda that Moses or Noah or Abraham ever existed.

www.veteranstoday.com...

A good read..

reply to post by backinblack

First of all, there is no historical proof that any “Israeli” kingdom ever existed anywhere.

Propaganda - you say? Nah ,probably simple ignorance. Veterans today are not what they used to be yesterday.
Educate yourself a bit:
Merneptah Stele
en.wikipedia.org...

Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent; Israel is wasted, bare of seed.

I know how sweet it sounds to some. And - it is history. From approximately 1200BC.
Mesha Stele
en.wikipedia.org...

Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, and he had to deliver to the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. 5But when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6So King Jehoram marched out of Samaria at that time and mustered all Israel. 7And he went and sent word to Jehoshaphat king of Judah, "The king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you go with me to battle against Moab?" And he said, "I will go. I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses." 8Then he said, "By which way shall we march?" Jehoram answered, "By the way of the wilderness of Edom." 9So the king of Israel went with the king of Judah and the king of Edom…26When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him 700 swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. 27Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.

This is later source. Both speak about first Israeli kingdom. There are few archeological remains ,true. But yet there are.Much better then Troy archeological "footprint" by the way.
Of second Israeli kingdom there is so much archeological evidence - from Temple mount to Messada , that veterans who supposedly wrote this should really visit Israel and not play in armchair historian.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Very nice post! Thank you very much!

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by martiendejong

 

Because States require confirmed borders but Israel likes to take more and more Palestinian land..

As a state that would be considered an invasion..

Can you supply some sources that confirm this?
Thanks for your contribution.



I believe I understand things a bit better now, particularly thanks to Awen24 and ZeroKnowledge's posts.
I can see how recognition of a Palestinian state may undermine Israeli security for a bit but I suspect the UN to also have rules about harboring and supporting terrorists, so I think it is quite possible that security will be a lot more strict in Palestine after this will come to pass.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Awen24

 

That 12 minute propaganda piece again?

First of all, there is no historical proof that any “Israeli” kingdom ever existed anywhere. There is no proof, despite decades of “faith based” archeology, phony science, phony history and phony propaganda that Moses or Noah or Abraham ever existed.

edit on 24-9-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

Well, you're right about one thing (and yes, I did read the article). Neither Moses, Noah nor Abraham have anything to do with an Israeli Kingdom. Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldeans", which later became Babylonia. He may have travelled to what is now Israel, but back then, it was Caanan. God may have promised him the land there, but no nation was established at that time. A lineage was.

Noah has nothing whatsoever to do with an Israeli Kingdom... he preceeds the promise of God to create a great nation entirely, and is unrelated.

Moses also has nothing to do with an Israeli Kingdom... mostly given that he wasn't Israeli, he was Hebrew. The Nation of Israel did not exist until later. Moses preceeds the conquest of Caanan (which occurred under the leadership of Joshua, not Moses), and is therefore also unrelated to Israel.

Now that we have those facts straight... to state that there is 'no evidence' for the existence of these three is intellectually dishonest. There are three types of evidence. Documentary evidence, scientific evidence and testimonial evidence. It is generally agreed that there is no, or tenuous, evidence for the existence of these three figures in terms of science (including archaeology), though this is not surprising given the length of time and the nature of each of the three. After all, Abraham was a Shepherd who lived in a tent, Noah built a boat made out of wood, and Moses... well, Moses cruised through the desert with a ragtag bunch of exiles. Not exactly the kind of thing that would leave significant archaeological evidence (and even if you DID stumble across it, how would you identify it?). With that said, however, the Bible presents significant documentary evidence in support of all three; not only in terms of the names and locations of ancient sites, but also in terms of the specific nature of ancient empires and cultures, and so on. These are strong indicators of the reliability of the Torah, as are the thousands of prophecies, many of which have been fulfilled exactly as stated; though some yet remain, and are future.

For more info on the reliability of the Torah, you can refer to:
www.simpletoremember.com...

this is the first in a series of lectures on the historical reliability of the Torah.

Now, if you want to talk about the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, perhaps you should talk about a system where Israel as a Kingdom actually existed. To do that, you need to refer to the period where Israel actually had Kings (seems logical, really). Then you're talking about Saul, David and Solomon (as the first three Kings of Israel); and this is a period for which you DO have significant amounts of scientific, documenary and testimonial (e.g non-biblical) evidence. All you have to do is look.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Hmm, some etches on a stone that were written 400 years after the events and is disputed by some scholars today..

Yep, sounds like all the proof I need..

reply to post by Awen24


Sorry but I just find it hard to accept that men lived for hundreds of years, turned staffs into snakes or parted seas..

Why has no one done these things since?

Oh and a pic or it didn't happen.

because then israel would actually physically be seen as holding a country hostage in a prison and then they wouldn't be able to do the atrocities that they have gotten away with hence...

They way I see it is, that if they join the UN they will have rights just like the other nations that are in the UN and Israel will not be able to do what it has been doing with Palestine. The abuse and land grabbing would have to end. Obama was supporting this, until Palestine decided to go ahead with it. All over the web there have been posts talking about the poor people of Israel and how bad they need more land to build houses and that they are suffering because of this and they are protesting the government because of the high prices of the houses

That's how I see it.