Overall, I think this is good news, because as Palestinian official Mohammed Shtayyeh says:  "Reality on the ground is going to be the same on the day after the U.N. vote."

Israel isn't going to make the mistake of withdrawing from the West Bank without a peace treaty, as they did from Gaza. That withdrawal has resulted in literally thousands of missiles being fired at Israeli civilians, plus assorted other deadly terrorist attacks.

If Israel were to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank, the West Bank would likely also become a terrorist enclave, because without Israel to protect them, Fatah is no match for Hamas.

So Israel is going to stay. Presumably the Palestinians will continue refusing to talk peace and so the stalemate will continue.

However, as long as there isn't increased terrorism in the West Bank, Israel will continue to facilitate the West Bank's economy and the situation on the ground will continue to improve for ordinary Palestinians.

(Assuming of course that Israel continues to observe its obligations under the Oslo Accords even though the Palestinians have nullified them by trying to change the situation unilaterally.)

The downside of the Palestinians tearing up the Oslo Accords and going for unilateral recognition has always been the inevitable disappointment to follow.  Observers have feared that the disappointment that UN recognition means nothing would lead to an upsurge in terrorism.

Obviously this would lead to deaths and injuries on both sides and to Israel putting up checkpoints again to impede the movement of arms and terrorists, which of course would lead to a worsening economic situation, etc.

So if most Palestinians are apathetic about this statehood bid, that's all to the good.

So

1)  An unenlightened life is full of suffering

2)  We all should stop worrying, sticking our noses into someone else's business--stop trying to save people from themselves--let the people involved go aboot their lives

3)  What I have been able to see, what we are all able to see, unless we are actually there, are the wishes and worldviews and bias of individuals, under who certain peoples and groups 'follow' or believe in that worldview.  As like everywhere else

Israel certainly got no credit for withdrawing from Gaza. Just rocket attacks.

I don't know if there was positive feedback on this site, I was not here then.

Overall, I find people on this site are not that interested in the Israel/Palestine question. There is a noisy group that show up at rallies and what not, sometimes saying they are from UCC, but here on WC the topic does not seem to excite a huge amount of interest.

Why should Israel get credi for withdrawing from land that didn't belong ot it?

Israel is right to kill Palestinians at random if rockets are fired? Then the 9/11 bombers were right to kill New Yorkers for a century an more of killing Moslems. You can't have it both ways.

The reality is that Israel needs a Palestinian state. It Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have to stay in Israel, they will soon by a majority - and goodbye Jewish state. Israel is as much a racist state as it is a religious one. As Israeli Palestinians multiply,Israel will have to use force to contain them - and it will move to expel them. (It has already done so woth many thousands.)

What then? My guess would be an isolated Israel fighting a civil war. In this context, it's interesting that even as US leaders boast their support of Israel, popular support is dropping like a rock.

To add to that, Israel is turning into a hell for those who aren't millionaires as the very rich gain control of the government.

The fall of living standards has led to demonstrations by tens of thousands. Funny that doesn't make the news over here.  Try reading the Israeli press on the web. There's some very good reporting in Israel. They are reporting the Israeli Spring.

I think most Israeli's want peace. But if the Palestinians are so reasonable, why is taking over 60 years to come to an agreement? Why did Arafat not use the Camp David Accords as at least a starting point? That he walked right out made a few Israeli's and Jews think he was never serious in the first place.

IE, he just wants all the Jews, not just on the West Bank, to leave.

So before I waste my time reading Brian's latest cesspool post, can someone, without an anti-muslim axe to grind, tell me if it's worth bothering with? Or is it just the typical one-sided collection of half-truths designed to make anti-muslim maladroits look as if they have two brain cells to rub together?

the middle east is now a disaster for everybody. The US will alienate most of the world by using its veto. It will even damage the standing of Israel in the eyes of the American people - where it is already slipping.

It is not possible form a Palestinian state. Israel has illegally occupied so much Palestinian territory that there is barely enough to stand on. There is no possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

Nor can Israel allow Palestinians who are Israeli citizens to remain. Even under the appalling and dangerous conditions they are forced to live in, Palestinians will soon be the majority in Israel. And Israel cannot allow that to happen.

There is not the slightest  possibility that Israel will accept a peaceful solution.Jews who even talk about such a solution are shunned.  And even if they did accept such a solution, there is not the slightest  possibility of a viable Palestine coming out of this.

It no longer matters who is right or who is wrong. We are going to see the middle east descend into chaos, the US losing influence, Israel becoming a pariah in most of the world.  At the same time, the US si just about committed to wars in Yemen, Somalia, Syria and Iran - which will complete the unravelling of that whole region of the globe.

And Canada will be there, supporting the US in the horror it has done so much to create.

Whose fault is it all? Way back, it's the fault of Hitler, the US, Canada and others for their support of anti-semitism, and their willingness to ignore what Hitler was beginning in the 1930s.

The least responsible are the Palestinians. They did not kick themselves out of their land. And they have never had the power to be a serious influence in anything.

But everybody is going to be seriously damaged by this. We are watching a lot of birds coming home to roost.

graeme, what do you think of this editorial from Times (of London)

The creation of a new state is neither ridiculous nor impossible.” This was the judgment of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, in his book The Jewish State. The stirring vision that it encapsulates applies also, 115 years later, to Palestinian national claims, on which the United Nations General Assembly will vote this week. But while the cause of Palestinian statehood is just, pursuing it by a resolution at the UN is self-defeating. Lasting peace cannot simply be declared by fiat. It needs to be created through hard work in direct negotiations between the contending parties.

The resolution proposed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) for recognition as a state will make it harder to achieve an equitable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The best way for the British Government to help to contain the damage is to vote against the resolution before the General Assembly and then, if it is carried nonetheless, to join the United States in vetoing it within the Security Council.

That outcome will be a further dispiriting stage in a tragic conflict. It is tragic because it does not pit right against wrong. Instead it concerns competing, legitimate national claims to the same territory. The lofty ideals of national independence, when translated into politics, thus meet geographical limits. The only way of realising those ideals is through compromise and mutual recognition.

That principle requires creating a sovereign Palestine alongside a secure Israel. The UK, the US and Israel are committed to that goal. A large majority of Israeli voters supports it. So does The Times. Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, Palestinian President and Prime Minister respectively, have moreover made extraordinary advances in creating the conditions for statehood. They have superseded the legacy of duplicity and corrruption represented by Yassir Arafat, the first PA president. By sound economic management, administrative competence and energetic lobbying they have presided over the West Bank’s economic development.

There remains, even so, an impediment to realising a two-state solution. It is the history and character of the conflict. This is not primarily a border dispute. If it were, it could have been resolved much sooner — indeed, when Israel was created 63 years ago. There is consensus now that each side should possess a state along something approximating the pre-1967 armistice line.

But peace has a prerequisite beyond territorial bargaining. It is confidence. The Israeli Government of Binyamin Netanyahu has received justified criticism for its unyielding position on West Bank settlements, but it expresses a reasonable, indeed essential, concern that any agreement must yield land for peace, not land without peace.

Unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, under different prime ministers from Mr Netanyahu, have not stopped rockets being fired from these territories at Israeli civilians. Gaza is under the control of an Islamist movement, Hamas, that seeks Israel’s annihilation. If rockets were fired from the West Bank, Israel would be still more vulnerable.

This is not a counsel of diplomatic inaction. On the contrary, it makes still more urgent the attainment of a comprehensive peace settlement. But peace is a process, not a predefined formula. Imagining that it can be imposed from outside is mistaken in principle and will be destabilising if applied.

Britain and the US should adopt an alternative approach. This is to declare for a Palestinian state in principle, while insisting that the details of a settlement must be worked out by the parties themselves. The role of outsiders is to support the peace process, and it should extend to pressing Israel to negotiate where its Government appears dilatory or reluctant. It is beyond time for a Palestinian state. But the UN resolution as proposed will hinder rather than help that state’s creation.

sorry i cannot provide better formatting from this terrible browser.
I am not a crackpot saying israel should rebuild temple to speed up second coming (fundamentalist idea). I agree the Palestinians have a perfectly legitimate complaint. But the continual firing of rockets into Israel from Gaza undermines the thing that Israelis fear, their security.

Maybe you are right. Simply no good solution now, it is too late, problem started with Hitler and the anti-semitism in Europe and US, Canada, etc. Too late to fix the past now.

It is very discouraging

I think that everyone there should definitely learn some form of meditation (especially to the children) so that there will be less of this 'tit for tat' mentality, the 'horrors of history', 'you took my ancestral land so I'm never going to leave'.  To lessen the various STDs -- socially transmitted diseases -- that are causing so much strife.

EO,

I think the Times editorial is good.  It's only failing is that it pussyfoots around the reasons Israelis have no confidence in the Palestinians; namely:

The continuing praise of terrorists - by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, not just Hamas.

The continuing refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the more general insistence that Israel is really Palestinian and, though Israel does exist, it really shouldn't.

The insistence that the 5 million descendent of Palestinians displaced by Arab wars against Israel must be allowed to move into Israel and make it into a second Palestinian state.

On this last point, see my most recent posting - an article from Lebanon's Daily Star - in the Politics discussion.

The motion/bid to give Palestine a seat on the Security council is going to be neither sucessful or unsuccessful.  It will be made and then further action on it will be held in abeyance.  It will not be debated.  There will be no vote.  It will be used as a goad to push both Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate a solution.  It will be both a carrot and a stick.  

I think, though, that graeme is right about the gravity of the situation and the fact that it brings all of the parties face to face with disaster.  I believe that the spectres that all the parties face will spur them to seek a solution with unprecedented resolution.

By the way the LA Times is notorious for the anti-Palestinian stances adopted in its "reporting".  Quoting the LA Times as a "respected voice" on an issue such  as this is laughable.  Here is a link to discussion of another slur/travesty printed by the LA Times.

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/09/question-to-la-times-isnt-it-standard-journalistic-practice-to-ask-for-a-response-especially-when-throwing-around-slanders-like-jew-haters.html

C'mon Brian stop trying to feed us this toxic waste.

Who quoted the LA Times? The editorial I printed was from The Times (of London, England). I provided no link because the site requires a subscription to access. I can provide a link if you want.

Then Brian referred to a thread based on an article in the Beirut Daily Star.

??????

The initial topic post is from the LA Times. On my computer it reads ...

"By Maher Abukhater, Los Angeles Times

September 18, 2011

Reporting from Ramallah, West Bank—

Recent college graduate Reem Qadan is exactly the kind of young, energetic West Bank resident the Palestinian Authority hopes will hit the streets this week when it makes its historic case for U.N. membership and statehood recognition.

But rather than use her Facebook page to coordinate plans ... blah, blah, blah"

Mondo Weiss? The moonbat supremo? And you think the LA Times is bad?

Where do you get that kool-aid you're drinking.

Well BLT actually I think it was Naomi Klein's letter that was being quoted ... 

The article Naomi Klein is referencing in her letter is found at the LA Times at the following link.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/19/entertainment/et-cause19

Here is a snippet to illustrate the style ... hysterical and intemperate ... much like BFT's own stuff.  No attempt is made to interview or quote the protestors so we just have to take the LA Times word that David Byrne, Julie Christie, Ken Loach, Jane Fonda, ViggoMortensen and Wallace Shawn really are "Jew haters".   Temperate? Balanced?!  Responsible?! High journalistic standards?!  Go LA Times!  Go BFT!  Go "baby seals"??    Really!

The point of course is that Los Angeles may be about the worst place to get your information about the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the LA Times is likely the newspaper  least likely to get a story on that particular subject matter right or to tell it straight.  Even the LA Times story I quoted references the prevailing sentiment that "the state of Israel deserves unabashed support" ... and then panders to it. 

BFT!  Don't say that about poor Mondo!  Mondo is not here to protect himself from your cruel slurs!  After all Mondo ("the moonbat supremo") is not a person and therefore can make no answer.   Mondo Weiss is  just the name of a blog site run by a couple of socially and politically engaged Jewish boys.  (Though agreeing with Naomi Klein and questioning the LA Times, as they seem to do, one has to wonder whether they are closet "Jew haters".  Maybe Naomi is too?) 

The answer is not to be round in creating or repressing any state. The fact, often ignored, is that moslems and Jews lived quite harmoniously in the middle east for centuries. The trouble began with the introduction of European  Jews, and our creation (yes, we did it) of an Israeli state.)

Cam you imagine the uproar that would be created if fundamentalist moslems were to kick Christians and Jews out of their homes and establish a moslem theocracy? But that is precisely what happened with the creation of Israel.  It is a state effectively controlled by fundamentalist zealots - something like Saudi Arabia.

There is no possibility that such a state will ever permit the existence of a Palestinian state. No oIsraeli government can survive without the support of the Jewish equivalent of jihadists. And can you imagine any Israeli government ever telling the the "settlers' to back off from the land they have taken?

Nor can Israeli possibly allow Israeli Palesinians to have equal rights. Nor is it possible that the current boundaries of Palestine could support a state.

The original idea of Zionism came two thousand years to late.  The arab world - and Iran is a good example of this - had been secularizing rapidly. So what do we do? We plant what is essentially a religious state in a land where Jews and Moslems and Christians had lived together on good terms, in theh process kicking Moslems out of the way.

The result was one we have seen in Canadian history,  in Poland, in Iran - the victims turn to the only institution that is theirs - the church of the mosque. And that religious body, usually in its more extreme form, takes people away from secularization and away from living together in peace and trust.  We caused that. We created extremism and terrorism.

I don't think there is any political solution to this. The only answer is for the people, themselves, to find that tolerance.. I have seen no evidence that any western government is willing to  help that essential process. Somehow, the people themselves have to find their way back to the principles of Judaism and of Islam.