Norway, Spain and Ireland recognize Palestinian state

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question--how is 100+ nations officially recognizing Palestine as a state different than the UN doing the same for Israel in 1948? I see so much disdain for latter, with people saying that UN had no right to make that declaration, but the same people seem to be praising the former. In both cases you have a population living in these places saying they should have the right for self-determination and self-governance, and that the land belongs to them and they want to the world to recognize that. Plus, in both cases, that recognition of soverignity leaves another group pushed out or with less, and with no say about it. So why is the announcement from earlier this week a positive but the 1948 decision unacceptable?

Bingo.

The Palestinian advocates accuse Israel of hypocrisy (justifiably in certain cases), but are equally hypocritical when it comes to the UN resolutions.

Ridiculous.

The West Bank and Gaza holdings were always considered illegally occupied. You cannot say it leaves Israel with less. Israel never officially had them. East Jerusalem is illegally annexed.

So even if you take that part of it away, even if you say that Israel doesn't end up with less, it still doesn't change the fundamental question. Why is it a positive for the nations of the world to recognize Palestine as a state now but a negative to recognize Israel in 1948? Why is it different?

DP

Who’s saying that? It’s pro-Israel folks who are opposing recognition of Palestine as a state. I’ve only heard others challenge the recognition of Israel in the context of arguing that Palestine should be recognized, too.

And yeah, I’m tuning out the minuscule voices that oppose Israeli statehood altogether. They are very few, no matter how much we’re told otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question--how is 100+ nations officially recognizing Palestine as a state different than the UN doing the same for Israel in 1948? I see so much disdain for latter, with people saying that UN had no right to make that declaration, but the same people seem to be praising the former. In both cases you have a population living in these places saying they should have the right for self-determination and self-governance, and that the land belongs to them and they want to the world to recognize that. Plus, in both cases, that recognition of soverignity leaves another group pushed out or with less, and with no say about it. So why is the announcement from earlier this week a positive but the 1948 decision unacceptable?

Bingo.

The Palestinian advocates accuse Israel of hypocrisy (justifiably in certain cases), but are equally hypocritical when it comes to the UN resolutions.

Ridiculous.

The West Bank and Gaza holdings were always considered illegally occupied. You cannot say it leaves Israel with less. Israel never officially had them. East Jerusalem is illegally annexed.

So even if you take that part of it away, even if you say that Israel doesn't end up with less, it still doesn't change the fundamental question. Why is it a positive for the nations of the world to recognize Palestine as a state now but a negative to recognize Israel in 1948? Why is it different?

DP

Who’s saying that? It’s pro-Israel folks who are opposing recognition of Palestine as a state. I’ve only heard others challenge the recognition of Israel in the context of arguing that Palestine should be recognized, too.

And yeah, I’m tuning out the minuscule voices that oppose Israeli statehood altogether. They are very few, no matter how much we’re told otherwise.

DP.

I totally disagree with your assessment.

The vast majority of pro Palestine posters oppose the very existence of Israel.

Whereas the vast majority of pro Israel posters support a 2 state solution.

Also worth noting that the same held true at a national level pre-Netanyahu: most Palestinians sought the elimination of Israel whereas most Israelis supported a 2 state solution.

Sadly, with Israel’s move right, the latter is no longer true.

[Anonymous]

not in Israel they dont-

the majority of Israelis do not want a Palestinian state, they hold their nose and vote for Likud/Netenyahu b/c they know that he is adamantly opposed to it and Likud were even involved in the assassination of Rabin.

The foreign minister just tweeted "from the river to the sea there shall only be Israel".

Even Hamas has accepted a 2 state solution in their 2017 charter. the PLO has accepted a 2 state solution with contigious land, not Palestinian bantustans which is what was proposed in Oslo.

At the end of the day, the jewish diaspora communities' opinion is irrelevant, what matters is what Israelis think b.c these are at least 2 separate communities with some overlapping aims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question--how is 100+ nations officially recognizing Palestine as a state different than the UN doing the same for Israel in 1948? I see so much disdain for latter, with people saying that UN had no right to make that declaration, but the same people seem to be praising the former. In both cases you have a population living in these places saying they should have the right for self-determination and self-governance, and that the land belongs to them and they want to the world to recognize that. Plus, in both cases, that recognition of soverignity leaves another group pushed out or with less, and with no say about it. So why is the announcement from earlier this week a positive but the 1948 decision unacceptable?

Bingo.

The Palestinian advocates accuse Israel of hypocrisy (justifiably in certain cases), but are equally hypocritical when it comes to the UN resolutions.

Ridiculous.

The West Bank and Gaza holdings were always considered illegally occupied. You cannot say it leaves Israel with less. Israel never officially had them. East Jerusalem is illegally annexed.

So even if you take that part of it away, even if you say that Israel doesn't end up with less, it still doesn't change the fundamental question. Why is it a positive for the nations of the world to recognize Palestine as a state now but a negative to recognize Israel in 1948? Why is it different?

DP

Who’s saying that? It’s pro-Israel folks who are opposing recognition of Palestine as a state. I’ve only heard others challenge the recognition of Israel in the context of arguing that Palestine should be recognized, too.

And yeah, I’m tuning out the minuscule voices that oppose Israeli statehood altogether. They are very few, no matter how much we’re told otherwise.

DP.

I totally disagree with your assessment.

The vast majority of pro Palestine posters oppose the very existence of Israel.

Whereas the vast majority of pro Israel posters support a 2 state solution.

Also worth noting that the same held true at a national level pre-Netanyahu: most Palestinians sought the elimination of Israel whereas most Israelis supported a 2 state solution.

Sadly, with Israel’s move right, the latter is no longer true.

Israel’s official government position is there will never be a Palestinian state. Israel opposes the very existence of a Palestinian state and Palestinians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question--how is 100+ nations officially recognizing Palestine as a state different than the UN doing the same for Israel in 1948? I see so much disdain for latter, with people saying that UN had no right to make that declaration, but the same people seem to be praising the former. In both cases you have a population living in these places saying they should have the right for self-determination and self-governance, and that the land belongs to them and they want to the world to recognize that. Plus, in both cases, that recognition of soverignity leaves another group pushed out or with less, and with no say about it. So why is the announcement from earlier this week a positive but the 1948 decision unacceptable?

Bingo.

The Palestinian advocates accuse Israel of hypocrisy (justifiably in certain cases), but are equally hypocritical when it comes to the UN resolutions.

Ridiculous.

The West Bank and Gaza holdings were always considered illegally occupied. You cannot say it leaves Israel with less. Israel never officially had them. East Jerusalem is illegally annexed.

So even if you take that part of it away, even if you say that Israel doesn't end up with less, it still doesn't change the fundamental question. Why is it a positive for the nations of the world to recognize Palestine as a state now but a negative to recognize Israel in 1948? Why is it different?

DP

Who’s saying that? It’s pro-Israel folks who are opposing recognition of Palestine as a state. I’ve only heard others challenge the recognition of Israel in the context of arguing that Palestine should be recognized, too.

And yeah, I’m tuning out the minuscule voices that oppose Israeli statehood altogether. They are very few, no matter how much we’re told otherwise.

DP.

I totally disagree with your assessment.

The vast majority of pro Palestine posters oppose the very existence of Israel.

Whereas the vast majority of pro Israel posters support a 2 state solution.

Also worth noting that the same held true at a national level pre-Netanyahu: most Palestinians sought the elimination of Israel whereas most Israelis supported a 2 state solution.

Sadly, with Israel’s move right, the latter is no longer true.

That’s bizarre - you think the majority of pro-Palestinian posters are themselves Palestinians???