Obama: It's a mistake for Palestinians to go to UN rather than talk to Israel

Source: Haaretz

U.S. president says he is confident two-state solution is possible but stresses that the UN will not be able to deliver a Palestinian state.

U.S. President Barack Obama said Wednesday that the Palestinians should negotiate with Israelis and not appeal to the United Nations for statehood.

"I strongly believe that for Palestinians to take the United Nations route rather than the path of sitting down and talking with the Israelis is a mistake," Obama said in a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron in London.

"The United Nations can achieve a lot of important work, what it is not going to be able to do is deliver a Palestinian state," he said. "The only way to see a Palestinian state is if Palestinians and Israelis agree on a just peace."


Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-it-s-a-mistake-for-palestinians-to-go-to-un-rather-than-talk-to-israel-1.364010

I disagree with the President. Time to go to the U.N. I'm sorry if this means the U.S. will be forced to take a recorded stand one way or the other. I'm sorry if Israel openly defies whatever the U.N. decides.

but is only following orders.

This would be in lieu of actual negotiations.

that if Palestine became a state then cross border disputes whatever would become acts of war ?

Not that it takes the UN to recognize that a state of war exists so long as the Occupation persists.

Oh yeah, it works so well for an occupied citizenry to approach the rogue government that stole their territory and ask them to give it back. :eyes:

I see AIPAC has been showing Obama the ropes.

That's who the territory was taken from after that war.

Much of it has been ceded to Palestinian control, Israel being the first country ever to do so of the many who have controlled that land over the years.

At no time has any effort been made to create an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank under any of the previous occupations of that territory.

Going to the UN is non-violent and is a way to discuss
If Obama says don't go to the UN and it's a bad path to take then why even be a member of the UN then?

Israel works with the UN all the time, so why not?
It's non violent, it's peaceful and therefore a very good way to discuss the issue

The discussions, in theory, are supposed to happen between the actual parties themselves, with mediation from the Quartet.

This is what the Palestinian leadership is saying is/has been a waste of time - therefore it is going to the UN to sidestep those negotiations.

on earth shouldn't the Palestinians go to the UN and ask for a state too. Obama needs to stop telling everybody what to do, and start focusing on domestic issues In the last month he has told Mubarak to go, Qaddafi to go, Assad to go and now he is telling Palestinians don't bother with the UN. Never mind the fighting and killing in the Sudan, in Yemen, in Bahrain and soon to be in Saudi Arabia

One side accepted that proposal, the other did not. A war quickly followed.

Obama is not telling the Palestinians not to bother with the UN.

He is telling the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis, with mediation from the Quartet (which includes representatives from the UN).

I'm not surprised they rejected the UN then, when it was controlled by the Western Allies and their empires.

The UN is a little bit different now that the former colonies of the Western powers threw off their chains and got membership in the UN.

I am not sure why you think that rejection was somehow a positive result for the Palestinian people (which seems to be your implication).

Of land they already had. Why would the Palestinians have agreed to this? If the UN had told the US that they were giving away half of America to some other group, would the US accept this?

They had been under colonial rule prior to that time.

At no point was there independence and autonomy and control over the land.

The UNSCOP vote was 8-3 for partition...alas the minority opinion for the creation of a federal state didn't win out... more's the pity.

As for the Palestinians-- they had no representation in the process.

The Arab states individually rejected the decision which had no direct effect on them to begin with. The Palestinians, who were most directly affected, were left out of the equation.

In other words-- going down the history of the UN vote re: the Palestinians is a dead end.

What's so wrong with finally giving the Palestinians a seat at the table at the UN to -- horror of horrors -- have a say in their own destiny.

Negotiating with Israel alone is a non-starter. No PM has ever been willing to compromise to any serious sustainable degree.

UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Valerie Amos spent four days in the occupied territories of East Jerusalem al-Quds and the West Bank. She delivered her findings on Tuesday -- and she was intensely critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinian refugees. Press TV's Hank Flynn reports from New York.

http://news.linktv.org/videos/un-slams-israel-for-ill-treatment-of-palestinians?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

seriously, wtf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine">United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine


- So they can just do it again. Maybe the 2nd time will be the charm.....

K&R

praise-a-thon that went on in Congress a few days ago to see how irrationally biased we are.

There is nothing to be gained by the Palestinians for sitting down with Israel. At least in dealing with the U.N. it brings publicity to their situation they are in and some sympathy from the rest of the world. The U.S. has not and never will show them any sympathy or favor.

said America should not be even handed when dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian problem he feel that America should continue their favoritism toward Israel.After 63 years isn't about time that little brother should act like an adult and be responsible for his actions?After 189 billions dollars in aide we need to cut them from the welfare rolls?BiBi come to our country and disrespect our president and not a peep from the media.Why do the Muslim/Arab countries hate us,we all know the reason but we are afraid to say it?What country continually refuse to comply with UN resolutions and which country continue to use their veto power to protect a rogue government?It's about time the American demand to end the non sense.Israel has the right to exist,but there are some people that continue using a statement taken out of context by a Muslim leader years ago,and the radicals who say that today have no means to defeat Israel but we let them get away with lies.I guess when the poor and middle class Americans are working to feed their families and our friends are sunning themselves on the beaches of the world,we will wonder what happened.Wake up fools before it's too late.

though, personally I think what the Palestinians are doing is understandable.

Going to the UN General Assembly won't matter much because while this may allow for Palestinian representation at the UN (which I think is completely justifiable), it really won't solve the underlying problem and create a sovereign state.

It's important to keep in mind this is going to be among the General Assembly, which I don't think is really "legally enforceable" anyways as in the case of a SC resolution...though in all reality, the only real way to create a nation state is by conducting two party talks and eventually coming to a resolution. Neither side seems particularly willing.

The current Israeli leadership is completely disingenuous and obviously Netanyahu isn't serious about a real peaceful solution. The Palestinian leadership, is as always fragmented, corrupt, and unable to marginalize their extremist factions such as Hamas. Israel, will understandably not negotiate with an organization that won't recognize its existence. At the same time, I don't see how the Palestinians are expected to form a nation state full of Israeli settlements and roads cutting through its territory (oh wait, isn't it all "Judea and Samaria"?), drawing natural resources from their people - all while having Israeli troops all the way up to the Jordan river (that's the extent of a "peace" proposal by Netanyahu).

What's really frustrating is this notion that pre '67 borders would leave Israel more vulnerable. I haven't seen one convincing piece of evidence indicating that to the be the case. Now, I understand borders won't automatically revert to what they were, but that's basically what the President said too - that you would have mutually agreed land swaps. Those arguing against the '67 borders being a realistic starting point are obviously not interested in this going anywhere.

trying to get rid of it -- and ... have we even paid our dues to UN?

We need a president who supports the United Nations and peace-keeping efforts

around the world --

and a UN which stands against wars of agression like Iraq -- which is "an illegal war

of aggression" by US and our cronies!

And I'd include Afghanistan, as well!