Will Obama now VETO the upcoming Palestinian resolution?...

With or without U.S. support, the Palestinians are planning to take the matter to the United Nations General Assembly next September. The Palestinians are expected, by some rough estimates, to win 140 votes, whereas all they will need at the UN is 128 in order to declare the State of Palestine.

Obama can either sit back and watch it happen, veto it as the Israelis are asking or live up to his “Yes We Can” policy and put his full weight behind the Palestinians.

globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com...

May 19th 2011:
President Obama says peace between Israelis and Palestinians will involve "two states for two peoples."
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states," Obama said.

With Obama's public statement, outlined above, do you believe the time is now for "Mideast peace"?...

I believe, at this time, if the UN votes this as a resolution that Obama will not veto. He can't back out on much more, if he plans to win in 2012.

Zechariah 12:1-3 All the nations of the world will come together against Israel over the issue of the control of Jerusalem.

^ Appears to be holding true. Question is, how will the UN enforce such a resolution?... NATO force?

Opinions?

reply to post by CanadianDream420

I believe, at this time, if the UN votes this as a resolution that Obama will not veto. He can't back out on much more, if he plans to win in 2012.

Well if he plans to win going against the wishes of Israel is not the method to use. I don't think he will veto as this situation has spawned unrest in the entire region and it's on fire right now, and the fact is, setting up a 2 state solution, within the 1967 border, WITH mutually agreed swaps, is the only fair and just solution at this point.

This is what the Palestinians have been striving for, this is what Jimmy Carter has suggested, and is mutually beneficial to BOTH sides. if both sides honestly want peace, this is the first step, but I think we all know not everyone on either side wants peace, and those are the loud ones who make the news constantly.

Maybe He'll veto it in favor of more long drawn out, go no where talks, and this statement is merely a ploy to get votes. Who knows.

I was quite surprised by this speech
====
As for enforcing it, good question, Israel is already ignoring plenty of UN sanctions... I'd suspect that to enforce this, against the will of ISrael, first, all aid would immediately cease, then possibly trade embargoes.

Nato will NOT treat Israel like it treats other countries not falling into line, so a show of force is wholly unexpected.

The REAL question is how will Israel react to this? Who will they take the anger out on? Who will bear the brunt of this? I have my guesses.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
Well if he plans to win going against the wishes of Israel is not the method to use.

Good point.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
As for enforcing it, good question, Israel is already ignoring plenty of UN sanctions... I'd suspect that to enforce this, against the will of ISrael, first, all aid would immediately cease, then possibly trade embargoes.

That's a start...

However, I cannot see aid to Israel diminishing anytime soon regardless of outcome.

Originally posted by phishyblankwatersThe REAL question is how will Israel react to this? Who will they take the anger out on? Who will bear the brunt of this? I have my guesses.

Guess they cannot give land back to Palestinians if they are all wiped out.

reply to post by CanadianDream420

1The [a]burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD who (A)stretches out the heavens, (B)lays the foundation of the earth, and (C)forms the spirit of man within him, 2"Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a (D)cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against (E)Judah. 3"It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy (F)stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be (G)severely injured And all the (H)nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

Not a bad thing tho since Judah was never true to god and its already suppose to have happened...

The major theme of the Bible's history is the loyalty of Judah, and especially its kings, to Yahweh, the god of Israel. According to the Bible all the kings of Israel, and almost all the kings of Judah, were "bad", which in terms of the Biblical history means that they failed to enforce worship of Yahweh alone. Of the "good" kings, Hezekiah (727-698 BC) is noted for his efforts at stamping out idolatry (in this case, the worship of Ba'alim and Asherah, among other traditional Near Eastern divinities);[5] but his successor Manasseh of Judah (698-642 BC) and Amon (642-640 BC) revived idolatry, drawing down on the kingdom the anger of Yahweh. King Josiah (640-609 BC) returned to the worship of Yahweh alone, but his efforts were too late, and Israel's unfaithfulness caused God to permit the kingdom's destruction by the Babylonians in c.587/586 BCE.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just saying if your looking for a biblical signs of the end times then wait for Egypt and Syria to invade Isreal and drive them out to Jordan

No he will not as the reality is that a Palestinian state is needed and will end alot of the problems because these people now live in a Concentration camp like contraption. This is all they are asking for, is to be recognized and to finally have somewhere that they can call home.

No member can veto a vote in the General Assembly. The General Assembly is where the vote on admitting Palestine as a full member of the UN will take place.

Nations can only veto in the Security Council, where they must be either a pemanent or guest member of the Security Council to do so.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
No member can veto a vote in the General Assembly. The General Assembly is where the vote on admitting Palestine as a full member of the UN will take place.

Nations can only veto in the Security Council, where they must be either a pemanent or guest member of the Security Council to do so.

edit on 19-5-2011 by Peruvianmonk because: rephrasing

Only permanent members (America, Russia, China, Britain and France) can Veto resolutions. Anything passed in the General Assembly is a recomendation and is not legally binding. Resolutions in the Security Concil are.