What if Abbas succeeds and UN recognizes Palestine within pre1967 borders?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1) I think Obama takes a HUGE hit with Jewish voters since the Obama administration used the "pre-1967" tag in the flareup just a few months back.

2) And I think there would be a high chance of war before the Nov 2012 election.

[minionofmidas]

You don't seem to know the first thing about the UN.

[2952-0-0]

Alien Space Bats will teleport each and every Jew around the world to new settlements which will magically appear across the West Bank. Then an earthquake will strike Jerusalem and conveniently a fault line will open up and swallow the Dome of the Rock. Bachmann and Perry win the 2012 election and immediately work begins on the Third Temple which is built in a record six weeks, which will be personally opened on December 21, 2012 by the Messiah (first time for Jews, second time for Real Christians). Then He will cause an earthquake, tsunami, nuclear blast at Dimona, and massive forest fires to leave all but 144,000 Jews dead. Once Bachmann and Perry are inaugurated they will triumphantly declare the Final Victory of Christ over the Earth.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You don't seem to know the first thing about the UN.

how so?  you think even a US veto is going to stop the recognition of Palestine?  and would the US even veto such a resolution?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

please explain how the US could veto recognition of a Palestinian state in the middle of the Arab Spring without having many US embassies attacked throughout the ME?

this is why I think Abbas has used Obama's Apology and Obama and placed the US in a lose-lose situation.

[minionofmidas]

You don't seem to know the first thing about the UN.

how so?  you think even a US veto is going to stop the recognition of Palestine?  and would the US even veto such a resolution?

Known and confirmed fact, and known and confirmed fact.

Oh wait. That's for membership. Technically you asked "recognition of a Palestinian state" - that is then not admitted as a member even though it has a nonvoting delegation at the UN, a status it would share with the Vatican. Yeah, it's kind of complex.
That's a meaningless compromise but one that America may very well have to swallow (and is working hard to prevent as we speak), as that would not be subject to a veto.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

@Lewis

Abbas just went on national TV today in the West Bank and declared he is going to ask for UN membership.

And who exactly loses if the US vetoes it?  Certainly not Abbas.  So, for Abbas, it is a logical step...else, even Abbas gets overthrown by the Arab Spring.

...so you need to wake up and smell the coffee - the Arab Spring has unleashed the power of the Muslim Street and forced the hands of all the Muslim governments in the ME, and the leaders of those countries are trying to protect their own jobs by either cracking down or trying to lead the parade.

What Abbas is doing is perfectly logical from his POV, especially with Jordan on the edge of a cliff.

[MaxQue]

So, in short, you are saying than US is in trouble because Arab countries decide to listen to their population instead of listening the US?

And we should see a problem in that?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, in short, you are saying than US is in trouble because Arab countries decide to listen to their population instead of listening the US?

And we should see a problem in that?

in that the Muslim population wants war

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, in short, you are saying than US is in trouble because Arab countries decide to listen to their population instead of listening the US?

And we should see a problem in that?

in that the Muslim population wants war

Uh, you know that there are 1.6 billion of them, right? They're not a hive mind. They're humans, not ant swarms.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Uh, you know that there are 1.6 billion of them, right? They're not a hive mind. They're humans, not ant swarms.

80% of 1.6 billion is still a lot considering that in Texas it only takes a one or two ants to justify frying the whole dang bed.

[MaxQue]

So, in short, you are saying than US is in trouble because Arab countries decide to listen to their population instead of listening the US?

And we should see a problem in that?

in that the Muslim population wants war

Uh, you know that there are 1.6 billion of them, right? They're not a hive mind. They're humans, not ant swarms.

And, in any case, does there is a solution not involving war?
Status quo isn't being an option, since it is tilted towards Israel.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You don't seem to know the first thing about the UN.

how so?  you think even a US veto is going to stop the recognition of Palestine?  and would the US even veto such a resolution?

because I can see how such a veto might, in light of Obama's Apology Tour and the Arab Spring, spur Muslim riots throughout the ME and cause a huge swing towards Islamist governments, with several US and Israeli embassies stormed and maybe even the toppling of the Jordanian government. 

I think it has the potential to be very bad, and the Obama admin seems to agree for they are attempting to pull out all the stops to prevent such a vote from taking place

[Iosif]

It's good to see that your perfect record of being wrong on everything ever in regards to the Middle East hasn't deterred you from making more prophecies.

Keep it up Jm! You'll get one right eventually.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, in short, you are saying than US is in trouble because Arab countries decide to listen to their population instead of listening the US?

And we should see a problem in that?

in that the Muslim population wants war

Uh, you know that there are 1.6 billion of them, right? They're not a hive mind. They're humans, not ant swarms.

And, in any case, does there is a solution not involving war?
Status quo isn't being an option, since it is tilted towards Israel.

I'm not an expert on Middle East policy and I indeed don't tend to be particularly optimistic about the present situation. I was just fed up with jmfcst's categorisation of all Muslims as one indiscrete mass.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's good to see that your perfect record of being wrong on everything ever in regards to the Middle East hasn't deterred you from making more prophecies.

Keep it up Jm! You'll get one right eventually.

actually, I can't think of a single thing I've been way wrong about in the middle east.  I've said for years that Iran was trying to build nukes, which is correct.  I predicted Pakistan would be overthrown by the Taliban by Jan 2013, but I was only "wrong" because I didnt realize how many allies the Taliban already had in the Pakistan government and therefore there was little need to for the Taliban to overthrow it.  I predicted the Arab Spring would lead to Islamic states within 5 or so years that will impose Sharia and march to war with Israel.

What exactly have I been so wrong about regarding the ME?  In fact, things have unfolded in a far worse and much faster time frame than I ever imagined

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not an expert on Middle East policy and I indeed don't tend to be particularly optimistic about the present situation. I was just fed up with jmfcst's categorisation of all Muslims as one indiscrete mass.

dude, stop playing with yourself.  I have cited polls stating the MAJORITY of Muslims in Muslim nations want Sharia Law.  A "majority" is NOT "one indiscreet mass", but it is more than enough to set the region ablaze in war.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not an expert on Middle East policy and I indeed don't tend to be particularly optimistic about the present situation. I was just fed up with jmfcst's categorisation of all Muslims as one indiscrete mass.

dude, stop playing with yourself.  I have cited polls stating the MAJORITY of Muslims in Muslim nations want Sharia Law.  A "majority" is NOT "one indiscreet mass", but it is more than enough to set the region ablaze in war.

You've also used sentences like

You must be logged in to read this quote.

. It's not exactly a Herculean feat of semantic engineering to add a 'much of' or 'most of' to that sentence.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You've also used sentences like

You must be logged in to read this quote.

. It's not exactly a Herculean feat of semantic engineering to add a 'much of' or 'most of' to that sentence.

didnt know, in light of the fact that such idiotic arguments against me have been leveled and discredited for years on end, that I needed to be that explicit.  After all, when has any country been completed united?

not to mention that I would think any "reasonable" person would understand I am not talking in terms of some idealistic unanimity, for such a togetherness neither exists in the real world nor is it required to bring a plan to fruition.

[MaxQue]

I'm not an expert on Middle East policy and I indeed don't tend to be particularly optimistic about the present situation. I was just fed up with jmfcst's categorisation of all Muslims as one indiscrete mass.

dude, stop playing with yourself.  I have cited polls stating the MAJORITY of Muslims in Muslim nations want Sharia Law.  A "majority" is NOT "one indiscreet mass", but it is more than enough to set the region ablaze in war.

Well, a big part of Americans want to use the Bible to do laws.
Should we bomb them, too?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, a big part of Americans want to use the Bible to do laws.
Should we bomb them, too?

Well, if you're so serious about comparing the two groungs, run a little experiment for us:  Go stand outside any American church on any given Sunday and speak about whatever you want...then fly to Cairo and stand in the middle Cairo's public Tahrir Square (much less outside of a mosque) and do the same.

And, provided you survive, you can give us your opinion as to which is the most dangerous group, an opinion I'm guessing will be much less idiotic than it is today. 

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd be happyish.

Israel and Palestine should trade the Jewish/Muslim areas though. Like this:
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?authuser=0&vps=2&hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=214668381355121949879.000462dacd5169e8e534d

[ag]

Well, I guess it is pretty clear that two things ARE going to happen. US vetoes the Security Council resolution, blocking Palestinian admission into the organization, and the General Assembly, with the opposing votes of US, Israel and Micronesia (and very few others, if any), votes to make Palestine an observer state (thus, recognizing it as a state). The only way to prevent this would be if Israel suddenly and entirely unexpectedly makes some major material concessions (e.g., promising to evacuate a few majorish settlements within months). But the latter is not going to happen.

Of course, Israel will use the General Assembly action as a pretext for not negotiating, but, as Israel hasn't been negotiating and hasn't had any plans to negotiate since the current government has been in office, this would only mean no material change. It would be more interesting, if the GA resolution somehow linked international recognition of Israel w/ the international recognition of Palestine, but that is, probably, too much for the Europeans, and I'd conjecture they'd try to go for consensus (recognition of Palestine would, pretty much, be non-controversial in this world, if one forgets of US, Israel and Micronesia).

[MaxQue]

Well, I guess it is pretty clear that two things ARE going to happen. US vetoes the Security Council resolution, blocking Palestinian admission into the organization, and the General Assembly, with the opposing votes of US, Israel and Micronesia (and very few others, if any), votes to make Palestine an observer state (thus, recognizing it as a state).

Harper Government, pretending to represent Canada will vote against (not a surprise, since Harper are more pro-Israel than Obama)

[ag]

Well, I guess it is pretty clear that two things ARE going to happen. US vetoes the Security Council resolution, blocking Palestinian admission into the organization, and the General Assembly, with the opposing votes of US, Israel and Micronesia (and very few others, if any), votes to make Palestine an observer state (thus, recognizing it as a state).

Harper Government, pretending to represent Canada will vote against (not a surprise, since Harper are more pro-Israel than Obama)

Yeah, I forgot about Harper: Canadians are too easy to forget about Thinking about it, a few others as well probably: but that won't change the essence.

Seriously, though, I don't see why Israel is that concerned about this. They could have gotten recognition of Israel as the Jewish state if they offered this as a price for not resisting Palestine joining the UN. In fact, they should be sponsoring this resolution. Instead they are going to merely raise doubts in their own international legitimacy. If they overplay their cards, they might get kicked out of the organization themselves (or, more likely, might not get their delegation seated, like they used to do it w/ South Africa). Not this time, but, given how many friends they are left w/ in this world, I wouldn't be shocked within a few years if that actually happened.