Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DonLever

UN To Vote On Change of Palestine Status to Non-Member Observer On Thursday

148 posts in this topic

The change is one step closer for Palestine Statehood. For Palestine Statehood, it must pass the Security Council, which is impossible due to the US Veto.

The change in status to Non-member Observer makes Palestine on par with the Vatican.

Only a simple majority is needed for the change and there are more than enough countries on side with to vote yes. Most countries are in favour, with the US and a few other countries oppose. Canada is one that will vote no.

In Europe, countries that will vote yes include France, Austria, Swizerland, Denmark, and Portugal. Germany will vote no. Britain and Spain has yet to announce.

http://www.independe...er-8363325.html

Q & A from BBC to help understand the situation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13701636

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this .. baby steps I believe .. I do not see where it hurts anyone except perhaps Hamas ..

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada and the US sleeping together in bed. I'm surprised that Canada doesn't bend over more.

Disappointing that politics comes in the way of free-thinking and righteous action.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a shame that Canada would vote no.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada and the US sleeping together in bed. I'm surprised that Canada doesn't bend over more.

Disappointing that politics comes in the way of free-thinking and righteous action.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islamic states are some of the best places in the world. I think we should create another.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada and the US sleeping together in bed. I'm surprised that Canada doesn't bend over more.

Disappointing that politics comes in the way of free-thinking and righteous action.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called being 'Allies' and its been that way for some time. Personally I'm happy with everyone we are in bed with considering other options. China... Russia... Or maybe a new peacefully Islamic Palestinian state. I never voted for Harper but I'm glad we booted out the Iranian embassy. Strengthened our ties with Israel. And now voted against Hamas who don't deserve their own state.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually the Palestinian authority that is pushing for this. Hamas is quite angry about it as it further deligitimizes them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...piss off the Yankees and cut off trade relations with them. Who's next...China?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...piss off the Yankees and cut off trade relations with them. Who's next...China?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually the Palestinian authority that is pushing for this. Hamas is quite angry about it as it further deligitimizes them.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia to abstain from Palestinian vote

By Alexandra Kirk and staff

Updated Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:45pm AEDT

4042316-3x2-340x227.jpg Photo: Bob Carr says Australia's decision will not affect its relationship with the US. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

Australia will abstain from a vote later this week on whether the Palestinian territories should be granted observer status at the United Nations.

The issue has prompted heated debate among Labor MPs, with some in the Left suggesting a vote in favour of the Palestinian territories would promote peace.

The ABC understands Julia Gillard wanted to vote against the plan but was under pressure from her party to vote yes.

Backbencher Andrew Leigh planned to put a motion to today's caucus meeting calling for Australia to back Palestinian membership, but withdrew it once Ms Gillard proposed Australia abstain from the UN vote.

Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr says the Prime Minister has shown strong leadership over the issue and that voting no would have indicated Australia did not support Palestinian statehood in any context.

He says Ms Gillard made the right decision in deciding Australia would abstain.

"I saw a Prime Minister engaging with party opinion, listening to what people had to say from all over the nation, and from every corner of Labor opinion and doing what good leaders do, and that is speak for the whole party," he said.

"This vote had become a referendum on the idea of a Palestinian state, and if we'd voted no it would be widely interpreted that we don't support Palestinian statehood."

A clear majority of countries is expected to support the resolution, however abstaining puts Australia in a different position to Israel, which opposes granting the territories observer status.

'Cause of peace'

I genuinely believed (voting no) would be a foreign policy catastrophe and one of the worst decisions we could possibly make if we were to go down this particular path.

Former foreign minister Gareth Evans

Former foreign minister Gareth Evans has been briefing MPs, and former prime minister Bob Hawke made his views known.

Both are strong supporters of Israel, but they are in favour of Palestinian observer status.

Mr Evans says he thinks Israel has misread the situation by not recognising that the best way to shore up the Palestinian National Authority is to support the resolution.

He told Alexandra Kirk from PM that if they did not, the wind would be in Hamas's sails.

"My very strong view was that to vote no on this resolution would be not to help the cause of peace, not to help Israel, and to be putting Australia absolutely on the wrong side of history in terms of our region and in terms of our capacity to be a credible and effective performer on the Security Council over the next two years," he said.

"I genuinely believed that this would be a foreign policy catastrophe and one of the worst decisions we could possibly make if we were to go down this particular path."

Professor Evans said he was happy to recommend to MPs that Australia abstain, calling it an "entirely defensible fallback" to a yes vote.

"A yes vote or an abstention vote were equally acceptable and would be equally understood internationally," he said.

"It's a no vote that would have created huge problems for us."

'Honourable position'

Audio: Listen to Alexandra Kirk's report(PM)

The United States is expected to side with Israel and also oppose observer status.

Senator Carr says the decision to abstain will not damage Australia's relationship with the US.

He says Australia is entitled to make foreign policy decisions which are different from America's.

"We're a Labor Government, and from time to time we'll have a difference with the United States," he said.

"I think it's very easy to work with the Obama administration, but from time to time there'll be differences of emphasis.

"This is in the tradition of Labor governments running independent foreign policies."

Senator Carr says the decision to abstain is one both he and the Prime Minister believe in.

"The Palestinian resolution is going to get carried anyway," he said.

"Australia can say we're not opposing it, and that's excellent. That's a very good position for us to be in.

"I've been through all of these arguments in my time seeking the Security Council seat. This is an honourable position for Australia."

Disappointed

Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop says she is disappointed by the Government's decision.

"The Coalition believes Australia should vote against this bid as we do not believe that this is the path to peace and reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples," she said.

"Our concern is that the drive for greater recognition at the United Nations is an attempt by Palestinian leaders to enable them to bring action against Israel through the international courts.

"It also risks conferring increased international status on the militant group Hamas which governs Gaza.

"This action is likely to escalate and prolong the conflict, rather than lead to a resolution of disputes."

I am glad that our prime minister listened to her party , i would prefer a yes vote , but i can live with our governments decision .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like to be happy about this for the sake of a step towards justice, this move is a complete joke anyways because the UN is a complete joke. The UN has always been a complete joke from the day it was created until now.

It is nothing more than a phony platform for certain nations to legitimize criminal actions and injustices as well as shoot down any notions or hopes of justice through veto-power (which in reality is an affront and abuse of justice).

This was clearly seen during the creation of Israel in 1947 where numerous Latin American and Caribbean states were economically threatened if they voted no, which is why the majority of votes for came from Latin America and the Caribbean (13).

Furthermore, Israel's existence is, by international law, questionable at best, because it was only a UN General Assembly 'recommendation' that passed to create Israel, which is non-binding.

On the other hand, UN Security Council resolutions are binding and Israel has the most UN Security Council resolutions against it in UN history - but how nice that they all get vetoed by the USA and swept under the rug of the real terrorists in this world.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islamic states are some of the best places in the world. I think we should create another.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Ed, this comment again reflects complete lack of knowledge of the history and reality; both historic and current. You are simply commenting based on emotion from what is fed to you by the riling up of the mainstream media narrative as well as staunch pro-zionists like Pat Condell (do you not find it odd that a devout atheist would incessantly support a nation based on so-called 'religious ideology' in such vile and inflammatory manner?).

Canada is not 'strengthening' their ties with Israel. They are bending over to their zionist masters so that they do not destroy them politically and publicly. This is how North American politics work. Political survival, not justice and rights.

I remember a couple of years back when zionists themselves were posting on the CJPAC website about how Harper is a slave and how CJPAC has control of the Canadian government like AIPAC does in the USA.

Forget about supporting Palestine, Canada needs to liberate itself from zionist occupation.

And Canada merely follows suit like a desperate poodle.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as my recollection goes, under an Islamic state was really the only time when Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together and co-existed peacefully in that land.

But you do realize that you are throwing your weight behind a nation that uses a satanic/occult/freemason/hermetic/thelemic/astrological symbol as their flag that has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism? It is of course, of no surprise that the zionists have selected the symbol as their representation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.