Obama addresses UN as Palestinian bid prompts rallies

Obama addresses UN as Palestinian bid prompts rallies

world.myjoyonline.com

Barack Obama has told the UN General Assembly the Palestinians deserve their own state, but that this would only be achieved through talks with Israel.

The US president's speech came as diplomatic efforts for Palestinian UN membership intensified, while thousands rallied in the West Bank.

"Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN," he said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It does seem like a bad idea all around for them to make this bid, US will veto because of the elections, and Israel will ignore it, the saber rattling from Israel, well this could end badly.

Palestine even if the UN approves it will end up with less than they have now.

Aid will stop from some countries, All it will do is upset everyone and prove how worthless the US is.

world.myjoyonline.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It seems that there is a significant and international, conflict-of-interest regarding this Palestinian bid...

reply to post by Gwampo


Yes, I fear it will be the straw that breaks the camels back, rejection may cause all those arab spring countries to rise against Israel.

And we would defend them, so you know where that all heads.

So Friday is the big day huh. I don't see the big deal really. Let them have the state. They wont be any more or less hostile. Why should they be denied? We (US) need to leave the veto alone. They have been talking , talking, talking, for years and nothing has happened. Let them join and judge them from that point on not from what you think might happen or what they have done up till now. If they slip up then that's on them and I assume the hammer will get dropped on them regardless. How much longer can we play the role of hypocrites?

Double face talk. On one side he says he supports statehood for palestine but on the other he says the UN isn't the way to do it? Where the hell is the logic in that? You either support them or don't! Don't waste abbas time with peace talks that go f****** nowhere and are only there to prevent palestine for getting a state in the first place.

reply to post by MrStyx


If they become a state nothing changes for them except now Israel will take the gloves off, if they think its bad now just wait.

Israel openly says it needs to be the mad dog that you don't want to let off the leash to survive, look up the Samson Option.

Its pre-mature. If the Palestinians have a state on Friday then where are its borders? Is Palestine 2 territories-Gaza and the West Bank? Who runs the government-Hamas or the P.A.? Has there been a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians? Would the Palestinians cease to fire rockest if they have their own state? WAY TOO MANY DETAILS.

reply to post by benrl


They can't. They cant take the gloves of until Palestine takes a hostile action as a state. Statehood shouldn't hinge on whether or not Israel is comfortable with the idea. First Palestine would be no immediate threat to Israel. I think Israel has proven it time and time again in military skirmishes. If they launch rockets they would suffer a similar fate to Lebanon. Doesn't matter who is running the government cause Israel would make the whole region pay.

In reality the only effect statehood has on Israel is it seems to force Israel to do a lot of paperwork and opens them up to international scrutiny. They would most likely have to do something about the borders, so lets force the issue time to decided no more break downs in talks. If politicians everywhere had to work like the common man they wouldn't be able to break down in talks. Its simple. You don't want to do your job, ok. Your Fired.

Everybody refers to the Samson Option like it's unheard of... there's not a country out there that would do any different if facing annihilation. That being said it should be expected of everybody surrounding Israel as well.....maybe they don't have the nuclear arsenal but the amount of conventional weapons is enough to do the job. The Israeli submarines are probably the only thing keeping Israel from being a pockmark on the Earth if the Muslim world was to unify and attack.

If Palestine gets statehood and Israel attacks then aren't we bound by contract to protect Palestine from Israel and vice versa??

I heard Israel has 200 Nukes and maybe up to 1000.. well considering the yield would be around 100sq miles of death per warheard 1000x100=100,000sq miles. Iran is roughly 7,890,000sq miles and Israel is about 8,000sq miles I don't think Israel can effectively Annihilate any surrounding country as efficiently/quickly as they can be Annihilated.

I know I'm not taking into account fallout an etc etc I'm just talking instant Death range because that is what will stop retalitory strikes. Israel is a formidable opponent to say the least but in terms of destruction Israel can be Erased compared to them just damaging country's

No. UN states are not under obilgation from protecting against attack from other UN states.

As for the nukes, Israel could effectively cripple the entire mid-east with about 20-30 of them. Think: You nuke Tehran, Damascus, Amman, Riyahd, Cairo, Ankara, Baghdad etc then you have already cut the heads off of say 10 countries. Then you take say another 20 nukes and use 2 for each country and hit the next two largest population centers (after the capitals have been already been destroyed) in each country. Not much is going to happen after that. Israel doesnt need 200 nukes.

Originally posted by NewsWorthy
Everybody refers to the Samson Option like it's unheard of... there's not a country out there that would do any different if facing annihilation. That being said it should be expected of everybody surrounding Israel as well.....maybe they don't have the nuclear arsenal but the amount of conventional weapons is enough to do the job. The Israeli submarines are probably the only thing keeping Israel from being a pockmark on the Earth if the Muslim world was to unify and attack.

If Palestine gets statehood and Israel attacks then aren't we bound by contract to protect Palestine from Israel and vice versa??

I heard Israel has 200 Nukes and maybe up to 1000.. well considering the yield would be around 100sq miles of death per warheard 1000x100=100,000sq miles. Iran is roughly 7,890,000sq miles and Israel is about 8,000sq miles I don't think Israel can effectively Annihilate any surrounding country as efficiently/quickly as they can be Annihilated.

I know I'm not taking into account fallout an etc etc I'm just talking instant Death range because that is what will stop retalitory strikes. Israel is a formidable opponent to say the least but in terms of destruction Israel can be Erased compared to them just damaging country's

reply to post by princeofpeace


We wouldn't let Israel use the Samson Option. We would intervene if Israel looked like it would be overwhelmed.

We have enough firepower, to knock every Middle Eastern nations air force and navy out.

In the aftermath of US intervention the aggressors would be begging for a ceasefire.

People also need to bear in mind we maintain air defense bases in Israel. Any attack on Israel that hit US troops at those air defense sites, would be an act of war against the US. Its part of the reason they are there to deter other nations from attacking Israel.

Israel is also reported to have upwards of 100 baseball sized neutron bombs (theyve had these for decades-the number may be higher) that will basically let them destroy every living thinkg in a 2 mile radius yet leave infrastructure intact. The perfect battle field weapon when you may be having to fight large numbers of troops on your own territory.