Fabrication???? are you High??? How old are you, were you there?? I am old enough to personally see it. Crawl back into your hole.
I don't give two shits how old you are. The anti-Vietnam war movement didn't protest the troops. It protested the suits who sent them to that bullshit war. The movement was begun by vets and was run by vets.
Keep up the trolling.
Again....Are you High???????? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Get you head out of the Liberal Text Books you were raised on and learn the truth about the Vietnam war. Man your idiot.
Fabrication???? are you High??? How old are you, were you there?? I am old enough to personally see it. Crawl back into your hole.
I don't give two shits how old you are. The anti-Vietnam war movement didn't protest the troops. It protested the suits who sent them to that bullshit war. The movement was begun by vets and was run by vets.
Keep up the trolling.
Again....Are you High???????? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Get you head out of the Liberal Text Books you were raised on and learn the truth about the Vietnam war. Man your idiot.
Did these 'believes' of yours also come from your conversations with your Jewish friends, or did these 'believes' come from talking to yourself?
'The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam' is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. Lembcke's book argues, further, that posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a socially-constructed diagnostic category that disparages the image of Vietnam veterans and provided another way to discredit the many veterans in the anti-war movement. Lembcke writes that this discrediting of the anti-war movement was foreshadowed by Hermann Göring's fostering of the stab in the back myth, after Germany's defeat in Europe in 1918.[1]
Content
A persistent criticism leveled against those who protested the United States's involvement in the Vietnam War is that protesters spat upon and otherwise derided returning soldiers, calling them "baby-killers", etc. Lembcke says he found no evidence to suggest this ever happened and suggests it may have come in part from the common chant by protesters aimed at President Lyndon Baines Johnson, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" One of the hallmarks of the period's anti-war movement was its stated support for the troops in the field and the affiliation of many returning veterans with it. At the time he wrote The Spitting Image he had not found a single media report to support the claims of spitting. He theorizes that the reported "spitting on soldiers" scenario was a mythical projection by those who felt "spat upon" (ignored and unappreciated) and was meant to discredit future anti-war activism. He suggests that the images of pro-war antipathy against anti-war protesters helped contribute to the myth. Lembcke argues that memories of being verbally and physically assaulted by anti-war protesters were largely conjured, arguing that not even one case could be documented.
However, some news accounts that mention spitting do exist, although there has been no evidence to support those accounts. After a review of contemporary news sources, Northwestern Law School professor James Lindgren claimed to have found news accounts that discussed spitting incidents. Lembcke provided an 18-point response to Lindgren at http://www.slate.com/id/2159470/sidebar/2159648/ expressing interest in one of Lindgren's claims. A December 27, 1971 CBS Evening News report on veteran Delmar Pickett who said he was spat at in Seattle appears to also have some validity as a claim, but not as evidence that the incident reported actually happened.[2][3]
Covering this same topic is author and columnist Bob Greene's 1989 book Homecoming in which Greene prints several letters he had solicited from veterans, asking to hear from them if they had been spat upon and focuses on firsthand accounts of their treatment.[4] Greene's book includes 63 accounts involving spitting, and 69 accounts from veterans that did not believe anyone was spat upon after returning from Vietnam. Like Lembke, Greene questions whether the spitting stories even made sense, noting "Even during the most fervent days of anti-war protest, it seemed that it was not the soldiers whom protesters were maligning. It was the leaders of government, and the top generals—at least, that is how it seemed in memory. One of the most popular chants during the anti-war marches was, “Stop the war in Vietnam, bring the boys home.” You heard that at every peace rally in America. “Bring the boys home.” That was the message. Also, when one thought realistically about the image of what was supposed to have happened, it seemed questionable. So-called “hippies,” no matter what else one may have felt about them, were not the most macho people in the world. Picture a burly member of the Green Berets, in full uniform, walking through an airport. Now think of a “hippie” crossing his path. Would the hippie have the nerve to spit on the soldier? And if the hippie did, would the soldier—fresh from facing enemy troops in the jungles of Vietnam—just stand there and take it?" While Greene admits he couldn't validate the authenticity of the accounts in the letters he received, he did believe spitting occurred, stating,"There were simply too many letters, going into too fine a detail, to deny the fact." Greene concluded, "I think you will agree, after reading the letters, that even if several should prove to be not what they appear to be, that does not detract from the overall story that is being told."[5] Lembke claims that some of the stories that Green published "have elements of such exaggeration that one has to question the veracity of the entire account." He also points out that there were several newspaper accounts of pro-war demonstrators spitting on anti-war demonstrators and suggests that these accounts may have been reinterpreted over the years.[6] In The Spitting Image Lembcke acknowledges that he cannot prove the negative—that no Vietnam veteran was spat on—saying (p. 68) it is hard to imagine there not being expressions of hostility between veterans and activists.
The Spitting Image asserts that the claims of abuse of soldiers by antiwar demonstrators became ingrained in the American consciousness only some years after the war had come to a close; Lembcke attributes the legend's growth to films relating to Vietnam, notably Rambo. He writes that these claims were used by President George H. W. Bush as a way to help sell the Gulf War to the American people. Lembcke believes that the myth is currently useful in promoting the yellow ribbon campaign; it has led some to think that for one to support troops, one must also support the war, because it ties together the ideas of anti-war sentiment and anti-troop sentiment, although a common chant has been "Support the Troops: Bring them Home!"
Great Job searching Google. Please............. Stay in China... Again, answer my question, How Fucking old are you??????
Just out of curiosity, where did you 'learn' that returning Vietnam vets were spat on by the anti-war protestors? Did you 'learn' it from watching the Rambo movies?
Great Job searching Google. Please............. Stay in China... Again, answer my question, How Fucking old are you??????
Just out of curiosity, where did you 'learn' that returning Vietnam vets were spat on by the anti-war protestors? Did you 'learn' it from watching the Rambo movies?
How about my father and my uncle. They were treated like shit when they came back, so go go hell YOU TROLL
How about my father and my uncle. They were treated like shit when they came back, so go go hell YOU TROLL
I'm not a troll. My posts deal with the subject under discussion. I have no interest in you personally.
As for your father and Uncle, they weren't spat on.
And who treated them like shit? The protestors who fought to get them brought home, or the government who neglected them when they got back?
I am done here, you win...... Enjoy your pathetic life in China and continue to gather you facts from sources that back your loser agenda... Enjoy Hell my friend. End of my post......TROLL :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
How about my father and my uncle. They were treated like shit when they came back, so go go hell YOU TROLL
I'm not a troll. My posts deal with the subject under discussion. I have no interest in you personally.
As for your father and Uncle, they weren't spat on.
And who treated them like shit? The protestors who fought to get them brought home, or the government who neglected them when they got back?
I am done here, you win...... Enjoy your pathetic life in China and continue to gather you facts from sources that back your loser agenda... Enjoy Hell my friend. End of my post......TROLL :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Drooling on the Vietnam Vets
Jack ShaferPosted Tuesday, May 2, 2000
Last week, both the New York Times and U.S. News & World Report reprised the horrific accounts of Vietnam War protesters spitting on returning servicemen. In a piece about West Point's post-Vietnam mood (April 28), timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, Times reporter John Kifner writes:
'Much has changed since Lt. Col. Conrad C. Crane ('74) watched on television here as the war wound down, a time he remembers as "almost a siege mentality" at West Point, when cadets could not wear their uniforms off campus for fear of being spat on.'
Amanda Spake of U.S. News quotes (May 1) Terry Baker of the Vietnam Veterans Association about the disgraceful behavior:
"When the WWII guys came back," Baker adds, "they were able to talk about the war. With Vietnam, vets had to change their clothes in the bus station because people would spit on them."
Although Nexis overflows with references to protesters gobbing on Vietnam vets, and Bob Greene's 1989 book Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned From Vietnam counts 63 examples of protester spitting, Jerry Lembcke argues that the story is bunk in his 1998 book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam (click here to buy it). Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed--the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place.
While Lembcke doesn't prove that nobody ever expectorated on a serviceman--you can't prove a negative, after all--he reduces the claim to an urban myth. In most urban myths, the details morph slightly from telling to telling, but at least one element survives unchanged. In the tale of the spitting protester, the signature element is the location: The protester almost always ambushes the serviceman at the airport--not in a park, or at a bar, or on Main Street. Also, it's not uncommon for the insulted serviceman to have flown directly in from Vietnam. In the most dramatic telling of the spitting story, First Blood (1982), the first installment of the series about a vengeful Vietnam vet, the airport is the scene of the outrage. John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stallone, gives a speech about getting spat upon. Rambo says:
'It wasn't my war. You asked me, I didn't ask you. And I did what I had to do to win. But somebody wouldn't let us win. Then I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport. Protesting me. Spitting. Calling me baby killer. ... Who are they to protest me? Huh?'
Of course, the myth of the spitting protester predates the Rambo movies, but how many vets--many of whom didn't get the respect they thought they deserved after serving their country--retrofitted this memory after seeing the movie? Soldiers returning from lost wars have long healed their psychic wounds by accusing their governments and their countrymen of betrayal, Lembcke writes. Also, the spitting story resonates with biblical martyrdom. As the soldiers put the crown of thorns on Jesus and led him to his crucifixtion, they beat him with a staff and spat on him.
Lembcke uncovered a whole lot of spitting from the war years, but the published accounts always put the antiwar protester on the receiving side of a blast from a pro-Vietnam counterprotester. Surely, he contends, the news pages would have given equal treatment to a story about serviceman getting the treatment. Then why no stories in the newspaper morgues, he asks?
Lastly, there are the parts of the spitting story up that don't add up. Why does it always end with the protester spitting and the serviceman walking off in shame? Most servicemen would have given the spitters a mouthful of bloody Chiclets instead of turning the other cheek like Christ. At the very least, wouldn't the altercations have resulted in assault and battery charges and produced a paper trail retrievable across the decades?
The myth persists because: 1) Those who didn't go to Vietnam--that being most of us--don't dare contradict the "experience" of those who did; 2) the story helps maintain the perfect sense of shame many of us feel about the way we ignored our Vietvets; 3) the press keeps the story in play by uncritically repeating it, as the Times and U.S. News did; and 4) because any fool with 33 cents and the gumption to repeat the myth in his letter to the editor can keep it in circulation. Most recent mentions of the spitting protester in Nexis are of this variety.
As press crimes go, the myth of the spitting protester ain't even a misdemeanor. Reporters can't be expected to fact-check every quotation. But it does teach us a journalistic lesson: Never lend somebody a sympathetic ear just because he's sympathetic.
hey byrnzie and quimby.. you two guys wanna go some place else and whip your dicks out. stop fucking up my thread with your bullshit.
You mean you wanna be the master of ceremonies of our dick fest?
What's first prize?
seen one penis youve seen them all steve.
but consider the ancient greek aesthetic tended towards a smaller penis. the large penis was either considered grotesque or comic, sometimes both. they were usually attributed to fertility gods, satyrs and other 'barbaric' entities where intellect wasnt even a conisderation.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
hey byrnzie and quimby.. you two guys wanna go some place else and whip your dicks out. stop fucking up my thread with your bullshit.
You mean you wanna be the master of ceremonies of our dick fest?
What's first prize?
seen one penis youve seen them all steve.
but consider the ancient greek aesthetic tended towards a smaller penis. the large penis was either considered grotesque or comic, sometimes both. they were usually attributed to fertility gods, satyrs and other 'barbaric' entities where intellect wasnt even a conisderation.
I'm sure Ron Jeremy would have something to say about this!
What is at stake in Barack Obama's vehement refusal to recognise Palestine as a mini-state with a disfigured geography and no sovereignty, and his urging the world community not to recognise it while threatening the Palestinians with retribution? What is the relationship between Obama's refusal to recognise Palestine and his insistence on recognising Israel's right to be a "Jewish state" and his demand that the Palestinians and Arab countries follow suit?
It is important to stress at the outset that whether the UN grants the Palestinian Authority (PA) the government of a state under occupation and observer status as a state or refuses to do so, either outcome will be in the interest of Israel. For the only game in town has always been Israel's interests, and it is clear that whatever strategy garners international support, with or without US and Israeli approval, must guarantee Israeli interests a priori. The UN vote is a case in point.
Possible outcomes
Let us consider the two possible outcomes of the vote and how they will advance Israeli interests:
The ongoing Arab uprisings have raised Palestinian expectations about the necessity of ending the occupation and have challenged the modus vivendi the PA has with Israel. Furthermore, with the increase in Palestinian grass-roots activism to resist the Israeli occupation, the PA has decided to shift the Palestinian struggle from popular mobilisation it will not be able to control, and which it fears could topple it, to the international legal arena. The PA hopes that this shift from the popular to the juridical will demobilise Palestinian political energies and displace them onto an arena that is less threatening to the survival of the PA itself.
The PA feels abandoned by the US which assigned it the role of collaborator with the Israeli occupation, and feels frozen in a "peace process" that does not seek an end goal. PA politicians opted for the UN vote to force the hand of the Americans and the Israelis, in the hope that a positive vote will grant the PA more political power and leverage to maximise its domination of the West Bank (but not East Jerusalem or Gaza, which neither Israel nor Hamas respectively are willing to concede to the PA). Were the UN to grant the PA its wish and admit it as a member state with observer status, then, the PA argues, it would be able to force Israel in international fora to cease its violations of the UN charter, the Geneva Conventions, and numerous international agreements. The PA could then challenge Israel internationally using legal instruments only available to member states to force it to grant it "independence". What worries the Israelis most is that, were Palestine to become a member state, it would be able to legally challenge Israel.
This logic is faulty, though, because the Palestinians have not historically lacked legal instruments to challenge Israel. On the contrary, international instruments have been activated against Israel since 1948 by the UN's numerous resolutions in the General Assembly as well as in the Security Council, not to mention the more recent use of the International Court of Justice in the case of the Apartheid Wall. The problem has never been the Palestinians' ability or inability to marshal international law or legal instruments to their side. Instead, the problem is that the US blocks international law's jurisdiction from being applied to Israel through its veto power. The US uses threats and protective measures to shield the recalcitrant pariah state from being brought to justice. It has already used its veto power in the UN Security Council 41 times in defense of Israel and against Palestinian rights. How this would change if the PA became a UN member state with observer status is not clear.
True, the PA could bring more international legal pressure and sanctions to bear on Israel. It could have international bodies adjudicate Israel's violations of the rights of the Palestinian state. The PA could even make the international mobility of Israeli politicians more perilous as "war criminals". This would render Israel's international relations more difficult, but how would this ultimately weaken an Israel that the US would shield completely from such effects as it has always done?
Implications of the UN vote
This presumed addition of power the Palestinians will gain to bring Israel to justice will actually be carried out at enormous cost to the Palestinian people. If the UN votes for the PA statehood status, this would have several immediate implications:
(1) The PLO will cease to represent the Palestinian people at the UN, and the PA will replace it as their presumed state.
(2) The PLO, which represents all Palestinians (about 12 million people in historic Palestine and in the diaspora), and was recognised as their "sole" representative at the UN in 1974, will be truncated to the PA, which represents only West Bank Palestinians (about 2 million people). Incidentally this was the vision presented by the infamous "Geneva Accords" that went nowhere.
(3) It will politically weaken Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homes and be compensated, as stipulated in UN resolutions. The PA does not represent the refugees, even though it claims to represent their "hopes" of establishing a Palestinian state at their expense. Indeed, some international legal experts fear it could even abrogate the Palestinians' right of return altogether. It will also forfeit the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel who face institutional and legal racism in the Israeli state, as it presents them with a fait accompli of the existence of a Palestinian state (its phantasmatic nature notwithstanding). This will only give credence to Israeli claims that the Jews have a state and the Palestinians now have one too and if Palestinian citizens of Israel were unhappy, or even if they were happy, with their third-class status in Israel, they should move or can be forced to move to the Palestinian state at any rate.
(4) Israel could ostensibly come around soon after a UN vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and inform the PA that the territories it now controls (a small fraction of the West Bank) is all the territory Israel will concede and that this will be the territorial basis of the PA state. The Israelis do not tire of reminding the PA that the Palestinians will not have sovereignty, an army, control of their borders, control of their water resources, control over the number of refugees it could allow back, or even jurisdiction over Jewish colonial settlers. Indeed, the Israelis have already obtained UN assurances about their right to "defend" themselves and to preserve their security with whatever means they think are necessary to achieve these goals. In short, the PA will have the exact same Bantustan state that Israel and the US have been promising to grant it for two decades!
(5) The US and Israel could also, through their many allies, inject a language of "compromise" in the projected UN recognition of the PA state, stipulating that such a state must exist peacefully side by side with the "Jewish State" of Israel. This would in turn exact a precious UN recognition of Israel's "right" to be a Jewish state, which the UN and the international community, the US excepted, have refused to recognize thus far. This will directly link the UN recognition of a phantasmatic non-existent Palestinian state to UN recognition of an actually existing state of Israel that discriminates legally and institutionally against non-Jews as a "Jewish state".
(6) The US and Israel will insist after a positive vote that, while the PA is right to make certain political demands as a member state, it would have to abrogate its recent reconciliation agreement with Hamas. Additionally, sanctions could befall the PA state itself for associating with Hamas, which the US and Israel consider a terrorist group. The US Congress has already threatened to punish the PA and will not hesitate to urge the Obama administration to add Palestine to its list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" along with Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
All of these six outcomes will advance Israeli interests immeasurably, while the only inconvenience to Israel would be the ability of the PA to demand that international law and legal jurisdiction be applied to Israel so as to exact more concessions from that country. However, at every turn the US will block and will shield Israel from its effects. In short, Israeli interests will be maximised at the cost of some serious but not detrimental inconvenience.
The second possible outcome, a US veto, and/or the ability of the US to pressure and twist the arms of tens of countries around the world to reject the bid of the PA in the General Assembly, resulting in failure to recognise PA statehood, will also be to the benefit of Israel. The unending "peace process" will continue with more stringent conditions and an angry US, upset at the PA challenge, will go back to exactly where the PA is today, if not to a weaker position. President Obama and future US administrations will continue to push for PA and Arab recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" that has the right to discriminate by law against non-Jews in exchange for an ever-deferred recognition of a Palestinian Bantustan as an "economically viable" Palestinian state - a place where Palestinian neoliberal businessmen can make profits off international aid and investment.
Either outcome will keep the Palestinian people colonised, discriminated against, oppressed, and exiled. This entire brouhaha over the UN vote is ultimately about which of the two scenarios is better for Israeli interests. The Palestinian people and their interests are not even part of this equation.
The question on the table before the UN, then, is not whether the UN should recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a state in accordance with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which would grant them 45 per cent of historic Palestine, nor of a Palestinian state within the June 5, 1967 borders along the Green Line, which would grant them 22 per cent of historic Palestine. A UN recognition ultimately means the negation of the rights of the majority of the Palestinian people in Israel, in the diaspora, in East Jerusalem, and even in Gaza, and the recognition of the rights of some West Bank Palestinians to a Bantustan on a fraction of West Bank territory amounting to less than 10 per cent of historic Palestine. Israel will be celebrating either outcome.
Joseph Massad is Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York.
What is at stake in Barack Obama's vehement refusal to recognise Palestine as a mini-state with a disfigured geography and no sovereignty, and his urging the world community not to recognise it while threatening the Palestinians with retribution? What is the relationship between Obama's refusal to recognise Palestine and his insistence on recognising Israel's right to be a "Jewish state" and his demand that the Palestinians and Arab countries follow suit?
It is important to stress at the outset that whether the UN grants the Palestinian Authority (PA) the government of a state under occupation and observer status as a state or refuses to do so, either outcome will be in the interest of Israel. For the only game in town has always been Israel's interests, and it is clear that whatever strategy garners international support, with or without US and Israeli approval, must guarantee Israeli interests a priori. The UN vote is a case in point.
Possible outcomes
Let us consider the two possible outcomes of the vote and how they will advance Israeli interests:
The ongoing Arab uprisings have raised Palestinian expectations about the necessity of ending the occupation and have challenged the modus vivendi the PA has with Israel. Furthermore, with the increase in Palestinian grass-roots activism to resist the Israeli occupation, the PA has decided to shift the Palestinian struggle from popular mobilisation it will not be able to control, and which it fears could topple it, to the international legal arena. The PA hopes that this shift from the popular to the juridical will demobilise Palestinian political energies and displace them onto an arena that is less threatening to the survival of the PA itself.
The PA feels abandoned by the US which assigned it the role of collaborator with the Israeli occupation, and feels frozen in a "peace process" that does not seek an end goal. PA politicians opted for the UN vote to force the hand of the Americans and the Israelis, in the hope that a positive vote will grant the PA more political power and leverage to maximise its domination of the West Bank (but not East Jerusalem or Gaza, which neither Israel nor Hamas respectively are willing to concede to the PA). Were the UN to grant the PA its wish and admit it as a member state with observer status, then, the PA argues, it would be able to force Israel in international fora to cease its violations of the UN charter, the Geneva Conventions, and numerous international agreements. The PA could then challenge Israel internationally using legal instruments only available to member states to force it to grant it "independence". What worries the Israelis most is that, were Palestine to become a member state, it would be able to legally challenge Israel.
This logic is faulty, though, because the Palestinians have not historically lacked legal instruments to challenge Israel. On the contrary, international instruments have been activated against Israel since 1948 by the UN's numerous resolutions in the General Assembly as well as in the Security Council, not to mention the more recent use of the International Court of Justice in the case of the Apartheid Wall. The problem has never been the Palestinians' ability or inability to marshal international law or legal instruments to their side. Instead, the problem is that the US blocks international law's jurisdiction from being applied to Israel through its veto power. The US uses threats and protective measures to shield the recalcitrant pariah state from being brought to justice. It has already used its veto power in the UN Security Council 41 times in defense of Israel and against Palestinian rights. How this would change if the PA became a UN member state with observer status is not clear.
True, the PA could bring more international legal pressure and sanctions to bear on Israel. It could have international bodies adjudicate Israel's violations of the rights of the Palestinian state. The PA could even make the international mobility of Israeli politicians more perilous as "war criminals". This would render Israel's international relations more difficult, but how would this ultimately weaken an Israel that the US would shield completely from such effects as it has always done?
Implications of the UN vote
This presumed addition of power the Palestinians will gain to bring Israel to justice will actually be carried out at enormous cost to the Palestinian people. If the UN votes for the PA statehood status, this would have several immediate implications:
(1) The PLO will cease to represent the Palestinian people at the UN, and the PA will replace it as their presumed state.
(2) The PLO, which represents all Palestinians (about 12 million people in historic Palestine and in the diaspora), and was recognised as their "sole" representative at the UN in 1974, will be truncated to the PA, which represents only West Bank Palestinians (about 2 million people). Incidentally this was the vision presented by the infamous "Geneva Accords" that went nowhere.
(3) It will politically weaken Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homes and be compensated, as stipulated in UN resolutions. The PA does not represent the refugees, even though it claims to represent their "hopes" of establishing a Palestinian state at their expense. Indeed, some international legal experts fear it could even abrogate the Palestinians' right of return altogether. It will also forfeit the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel who face institutional and legal racism in the Israeli state, as it presents them with a fait accompli of the existence of a Palestinian state (its phantasmatic nature notwithstanding). This will only give credence to Israeli claims that the Jews have a state and the Palestinians now have one too and if Palestinian citizens of Israel were unhappy, or even if they were happy, with their third-class status in Israel, they should move or can be forced to move to the Palestinian state at any rate.
(4) Israel could ostensibly come around soon after a UN vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and inform the PA that the territories it now controls (a small fraction of the West Bank) is all the territory Israel will concede and that this will be the territorial basis of the PA state. The Israelis do not tire of reminding the PA that the Palestinians will not have sovereignty, an army, control of their borders, control of their water resources, control over the number of refugees it could allow back, or even jurisdiction over Jewish colonial settlers. Indeed, the Israelis have already obtained UN assurances about their right to "defend" themselves and to preserve their security with whatever means they think are necessary to achieve these goals. In short, the PA will have the exact same Bantustan state that Israel and the US have been promising to grant it for two decades!
(5) The US and Israel could also, through their many allies, inject a language of "compromise" in the projected UN recognition of the PA state, stipulating that such a state must exist peacefully side by side with the "Jewish State" of Israel. This would in turn exact a precious UN recognition of Israel's "right" to be a Jewish state, which the UN and the international community, the US excepted, have refused to recognize thus far. This will directly link the UN recognition of a phantasmatic non-existent Palestinian state to UN recognition of an actually existing state of Israel that discriminates legally and institutionally against non-Jews as a "Jewish state".
(6) The US and Israel will insist after a positive vote that, while the PA is right to make certain political demands as a member state, it would have to abrogate its recent reconciliation agreement with Hamas. Additionally, sanctions could befall the PA state itself for associating with Hamas, which the US and Israel consider a terrorist group. The US Congress has already threatened to punish the PA and will not hesitate to urge the Obama administration to add Palestine to its list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" along with Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
All of these six outcomes will advance Israeli interests immeasurably, while the only inconvenience to Israel would be the ability of the PA to demand that international law and legal jurisdiction be applied to Israel so as to exact more concessions from that country. However, at every turn the US will block and will shield Israel from its effects. In short, Israeli interests will be maximised at the cost of some serious but not detrimental inconvenience.
The second possible outcome, a US veto, and/or the ability of the US to pressure and twist the arms of tens of countries around the world to reject the bid of the PA in the General Assembly, resulting in failure to recognise PA statehood, will also be to the benefit of Israel. The unending "peace process" will continue with more stringent conditions and an angry US, upset at the PA challenge, will go back to exactly where the PA is today, if not to a weaker position. President Obama and future US administrations will continue to push for PA and Arab recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" that has the right to discriminate by law against non-Jews in exchange for an ever-deferred recognition of a Palestinian Bantustan as an "economically viable" Palestinian state - a place where Palestinian neoliberal businessmen can make profits off international aid and investment.
Either outcome will keep the Palestinian people colonised, discriminated against, oppressed, and exiled. This entire brouhaha over the UN vote is ultimately about which of the two scenarios is better for Israeli interests. The Palestinian people and their interests are not even part of this equation.
The question on the table before the UN, then, is not whether the UN should recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a state in accordance with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which would grant them 45 per cent of historic Palestine, nor of a Palestinian state within the June 5, 1967 borders along the Green Line, which would grant them 22 per cent of historic Palestine. A UN recognition ultimately means the negation of the rights of the majority of the Palestinian people in Israel, in the diaspora, in East Jerusalem, and even in Gaza, and the recognition of the rights of some West Bank Palestinians to a Bantustan on a fraction of West Bank territory amounting to less than 10 per cent of historic Palestine. Israel will be celebrating either outcome.
Joseph Massad is Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York.
A pretty negative assessment.
If this action at the U.N gives the Palestinians more muscle to implement U.N 242, and ultimately forces Israel to recognize the state of Palestine as incorporating all of the land outside of the 1967 borders, then I fail to see how this can be a bad thing.
If this action at the U.N gives the Palestinians more muscle to implement U.N 242, and ultimately forces Israel to recognize the state of Palestine as incorporating all of the land outside of the 1967 borders, then I fail to see how this can be a bad thing.
LOL. That is one big "if." Anyway, as the author of the article said, the U.S. is the one who has been blocking everything in this issue. Whether the Palestinians get a fake state at the U.N. General Assembly or not is irrelevant to that major fact. In the meantime, they'd be sacrificing many issues such as the Right of Return and are also trying to make a decision for the Palestinian people when in reality they don't represent them whatsoever.
US Will Foil Palestine, PM Assures
by Jason Ditz, September 18, 2011
Speaking today at the beginning of his cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to reassure his nation that Palestine, a would-be nation that aims to be created out of the occupied territories, is doomed to failure.
“As a result of the actions of the United States, which is working close with us, and of other governments with which we and the Americans are working, I predict this attempt will fail,” insisted Netanyahu, who expressed hope that the Palestinians would “come to their senses” and abandon statehood after Friday’s vote.
Israeli media were reporting that Netanyahu was attempting to come up with a “compromise” deal that would give the Palestinians something short of statehood, but that these attempts failed.
Obama Administration officials have vowed to oppose Palestinian statehood at all costs, and would veto it if the measure came before the UN Security Council. At the same time, the notion of an independent Palestine has broad support globally and in a General Assembly vote is expected to pass by a wide margin.
---
don't they realize that shit like this is why we are hated and why we are potentially victims of more future attacks?
Probably.
Its funny (well, not really) how the US will spend BILLIONS on the war on terror,... and possibly the simplest, cheapest thing we could do to eliminate future terror attacks would be to stay the fuck out of everyone else's business.
don't they realize that shit like this is why we are hated and why we are potentially victims of more future attacks?
Probably.
Its funny (well, not really) how the US will spend BILLIONS on the war on terror,... and possibly the simplest, cheapest thing we could do to eliminate future terror attacks would be to stay the fuck out of everyone else's business.
yep, but staying our of everybody's business is no way to run an empire..
evidently we didn't learn the morality lesson that was taught to darth vader and co.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i didn't click the links, but isn't that the story of when the kids were holding up 2 fingers in a "V" symbolizing "victory", when in fact they were holding up the same 2 fingers as a "peace sign"??
gotta love how the media portrays things like that. propaganda at it's finest..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i didn't click the links, but isn't that the story of when the kids were holding up 2 fingers in a "V" symbolizing "victory", when in fact they were holding up the same 2 fingers as a "peace sign"??
gotta love how the media portrays things like that. propaganda at it's finest..
The whole cheering on the streets of the arab world with specific and constant reference to the kids on the street in Palestine celebrating, they pushed that short video over and over after 9/11. In reality I bet the kids were just happy they were being given candy,
Netanyahu said on Sunday he expected that the Palestinian bid to join the United Nations would fail and that this might help them "come to their senses" and rejoin direct peace talks.
Netanyahu said on Sunday he expected that the Palestinian bid to join the United Nations would fail and that this might help them "come to their senses" and rejoin direct peace talks.
Friend & Supporter,
Today I joined Jewish leaders from the U.S. and abroad who share my concern that the United Nations might legitimize the Palestinian gambit to establish statehood in violation of established international accords.
Simply put, we would not be here today at the precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama Policy in the Middle East wasn't naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous.
Israel is our oldest and strongest democratic ally in the Middle East. And yet, the Obama Administration seems intent on giving equal standing to the concerns of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism.
If you agree with me that there is no moral equivalency between our allies and those who seek their destruction, please take a moment to sign our petition supporting Israel.
President Obama's policy of appeasement has forced Israel into a position of weakness - which in turn, makes America less secure.
As president, I will stand proudly with our international allies, put America's interests first and project strength and stability to a world that desperately needs it.
I hope you will take a moment now to show President Obama that we support Israel by signing our petition.
Sincerely,
Rick Perry
sign the petition below train and god bless America!
Comments
Again....Are you High???????? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Get you head out of the Liberal Text Books you were raised on and learn the truth about the Vietnam war. Man your idiot.
Did these 'believes' of yours also come from your conversations with your Jewish friends, or did these 'believes' come from talking to yourself?
How old are you ????? 10....... You are delusional......
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Like I said before, let us know if and when you have anything constructive to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image
The Spitting Image
'The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam' is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. Lembcke's book argues, further, that posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a socially-constructed diagnostic category that disparages the image of Vietnam veterans and provided another way to discredit the many veterans in the anti-war movement. Lembcke writes that this discrediting of the anti-war movement was foreshadowed by Hermann Göring's fostering of the stab in the back myth, after Germany's defeat in Europe in 1918.[1]
Content
A persistent criticism leveled against those who protested the United States's involvement in the Vietnam War is that protesters spat upon and otherwise derided returning soldiers, calling them "baby-killers", etc. Lembcke says he found no evidence to suggest this ever happened and suggests it may have come in part from the common chant by protesters aimed at President Lyndon Baines Johnson, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" One of the hallmarks of the period's anti-war movement was its stated support for the troops in the field and the affiliation of many returning veterans with it. At the time he wrote The Spitting Image he had not found a single media report to support the claims of spitting. He theorizes that the reported "spitting on soldiers" scenario was a mythical projection by those who felt "spat upon" (ignored and unappreciated) and was meant to discredit future anti-war activism. He suggests that the images of pro-war antipathy against anti-war protesters helped contribute to the myth. Lembcke argues that memories of being verbally and physically assaulted by anti-war protesters were largely conjured, arguing that not even one case could be documented.
However, some news accounts that mention spitting do exist, although there has been no evidence to support those accounts. After a review of contemporary news sources, Northwestern Law School professor James Lindgren claimed to have found news accounts that discussed spitting incidents. Lembcke provided an 18-point response to Lindgren at http://www.slate.com/id/2159470/sidebar/2159648/ expressing interest in one of Lindgren's claims. A December 27, 1971 CBS Evening News report on veteran Delmar Pickett who said he was spat at in Seattle appears to also have some validity as a claim, but not as evidence that the incident reported actually happened.[2][3]
Covering this same topic is author and columnist Bob Greene's 1989 book Homecoming in which Greene prints several letters he had solicited from veterans, asking to hear from them if they had been spat upon and focuses on firsthand accounts of their treatment.[4] Greene's book includes 63 accounts involving spitting, and 69 accounts from veterans that did not believe anyone was spat upon after returning from Vietnam. Like Lembke, Greene questions whether the spitting stories even made sense, noting "Even during the most fervent days of anti-war protest, it seemed that it was not the soldiers whom protesters were maligning. It was the leaders of government, and the top generals—at least, that is how it seemed in memory. One of the most popular chants during the anti-war marches was, “Stop the war in Vietnam, bring the boys home.” You heard that at every peace rally in America. “Bring the boys home.” That was the message. Also, when one thought realistically about the image of what was supposed to have happened, it seemed questionable. So-called “hippies,” no matter what else one may have felt about them, were not the most macho people in the world. Picture a burly member of the Green Berets, in full uniform, walking through an airport. Now think of a “hippie” crossing his path. Would the hippie have the nerve to spit on the soldier? And if the hippie did, would the soldier—fresh from facing enemy troops in the jungles of Vietnam—just stand there and take it?" While Greene admits he couldn't validate the authenticity of the accounts in the letters he received, he did believe spitting occurred, stating,"There were simply too many letters, going into too fine a detail, to deny the fact." Greene concluded, "I think you will agree, after reading the letters, that even if several should prove to be not what they appear to be, that does not detract from the overall story that is being told."[5] Lembke claims that some of the stories that Green published "have elements of such exaggeration that one has to question the veracity of the entire account." He also points out that there were several newspaper accounts of pro-war demonstrators spitting on anti-war demonstrators and suggests that these accounts may have been reinterpreted over the years.[6] In The Spitting Image Lembcke acknowledges that he cannot prove the negative—that no Vietnam veteran was spat on—saying (p. 68) it is hard to imagine there not being expressions of hostility between veterans and activists.
The Spitting Image asserts that the claims of abuse of soldiers by antiwar demonstrators became ingrained in the American consciousness only some years after the war had come to a close; Lembcke attributes the legend's growth to films relating to Vietnam, notably Rambo. He writes that these claims were used by President George H. W. Bush as a way to help sell the Gulf War to the American people. Lembcke believes that the myth is currently useful in promoting the yellow ribbon campaign; it has led some to think that for one to support troops, one must also support the war, because it ties together the ideas of anti-war sentiment and anti-troop sentiment, although a common chant has been "Support the Troops: Bring them Home!"
Proven wrong once again. Maybe you should try checking the facts yourself once in a while. That way you won't keep posting bullshit.
As for my age, it's none of your [...] business, you troll.
Just out of curiosity, where did you 'learn' that returning Vietnam vets were spat on by the anti-war protestors? Did you 'learn' it from watching the Rambo movies?
How about my father and my uncle. They were treated like shit when they came back, so go go hell YOU TROLL
I'm not a troll. My posts deal with the subject under discussion. I have no interest in you personally.
As for your father and Uncle, they weren't spat on.
And who treated them like shit? The protestors who fought to get them brought home, or the government who neglected them when they got back?
Bye bye!
http://www.slate.com/id/1005224/
Drooling on the Vietnam Vets
Jack ShaferPosted Tuesday, May 2, 2000
Last week, both the New York Times and U.S. News & World Report reprised the horrific accounts of Vietnam War protesters spitting on returning servicemen. In a piece about West Point's post-Vietnam mood (April 28), timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, Times reporter John Kifner writes:
'Much has changed since Lt. Col. Conrad C. Crane ('74) watched on television here as the war wound down, a time he remembers as "almost a siege mentality" at West Point, when cadets could not wear their uniforms off campus for fear of being spat on.'
Amanda Spake of U.S. News quotes (May 1) Terry Baker of the Vietnam Veterans Association about the disgraceful behavior:
"When the WWII guys came back," Baker adds, "they were able to talk about the war. With Vietnam, vets had to change their clothes in the bus station because people would spit on them."
Although Nexis overflows with references to protesters gobbing on Vietnam vets, and Bob Greene's 1989 book Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned From Vietnam counts 63 examples of protester spitting, Jerry Lembcke argues that the story is bunk in his 1998 book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam (click here to buy it). Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed--the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place.
While Lembcke doesn't prove that nobody ever expectorated on a serviceman--you can't prove a negative, after all--he reduces the claim to an urban myth. In most urban myths, the details morph slightly from telling to telling, but at least one element survives unchanged. In the tale of the spitting protester, the signature element is the location: The protester almost always ambushes the serviceman at the airport--not in a park, or at a bar, or on Main Street. Also, it's not uncommon for the insulted serviceman to have flown directly in from Vietnam. In the most dramatic telling of the spitting story, First Blood (1982), the first installment of the series about a vengeful Vietnam vet, the airport is the scene of the outrage. John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stallone, gives a speech about getting spat upon. Rambo says:
'It wasn't my war. You asked me, I didn't ask you. And I did what I had to do to win. But somebody wouldn't let us win. Then I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport. Protesting me. Spitting. Calling me baby killer. ... Who are they to protest me? Huh?'
Of course, the myth of the spitting protester predates the Rambo movies, but how many vets--many of whom didn't get the respect they thought they deserved after serving their country--retrofitted this memory after seeing the movie? Soldiers returning from lost wars have long healed their psychic wounds by accusing their governments and their countrymen of betrayal, Lembcke writes. Also, the spitting story resonates with biblical martyrdom. As the soldiers put the crown of thorns on Jesus and led him to his crucifixtion, they beat him with a staff and spat on him.
Lembcke uncovered a whole lot of spitting from the war years, but the published accounts always put the antiwar protester on the receiving side of a blast from a pro-Vietnam counterprotester. Surely, he contends, the news pages would have given equal treatment to a story about serviceman getting the treatment. Then why no stories in the newspaper morgues, he asks?
Lastly, there are the parts of the spitting story up that don't add up. Why does it always end with the protester spitting and the serviceman walking off in shame? Most servicemen would have given the spitters a mouthful of bloody Chiclets instead of turning the other cheek like Christ. At the very least, wouldn't the altercations have resulted in assault and battery charges and produced a paper trail retrievable across the decades?
The myth persists because: 1) Those who didn't go to Vietnam--that being most of us--don't dare contradict the "experience" of those who did; 2) the story helps maintain the perfect sense of shame many of us feel about the way we ignored our Vietvets; 3) the press keeps the story in play by uncritically repeating it, as the Times and U.S. News did; and 4) because any fool with 33 cents and the gumption to repeat the myth in his letter to the editor can keep it in circulation. Most recent mentions of the spitting protester in Nexis are of this variety.
As press crimes go, the myth of the spitting protester ain't even a misdemeanor. Reporters can't be expected to fact-check every quotation. But it does teach us a journalistic lesson: Never lend somebody a sympathetic ear just because he's sympathetic.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You mean you wanna be the master of ceremonies of our dick fest?
What's first prize?
seen one penis youve seen them all steve.
but consider the ancient greek aesthetic tended towards a smaller penis. the large penis was either considered grotesque or comic, sometimes both. they were usually attributed to fertility gods, satyrs and other 'barbaric' entities where intellect wasnt even a conisderation.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm sure Ron Jeremy would have something to say about this!
Anyway, here is the best article I have seen on the matter. Dr Joseph Massad writes brilliantly, as always:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 39481.html
What is at stake in Barack Obama's vehement refusal to recognise Palestine as a mini-state with a disfigured geography and no sovereignty, and his urging the world community not to recognise it while threatening the Palestinians with retribution? What is the relationship between Obama's refusal to recognise Palestine and his insistence on recognising Israel's right to be a "Jewish state" and his demand that the Palestinians and Arab countries follow suit?
It is important to stress at the outset that whether the UN grants the Palestinian Authority (PA) the government of a state under occupation and observer status as a state or refuses to do so, either outcome will be in the interest of Israel. For the only game in town has always been Israel's interests, and it is clear that whatever strategy garners international support, with or without US and Israeli approval, must guarantee Israeli interests a priori. The UN vote is a case in point.
Possible outcomes
Let us consider the two possible outcomes of the vote and how they will advance Israeli interests:
The ongoing Arab uprisings have raised Palestinian expectations about the necessity of ending the occupation and have challenged the modus vivendi the PA has with Israel. Furthermore, with the increase in Palestinian grass-roots activism to resist the Israeli occupation, the PA has decided to shift the Palestinian struggle from popular mobilisation it will not be able to control, and which it fears could topple it, to the international legal arena. The PA hopes that this shift from the popular to the juridical will demobilise Palestinian political energies and displace them onto an arena that is less threatening to the survival of the PA itself.
The PA feels abandoned by the US which assigned it the role of collaborator with the Israeli occupation, and feels frozen in a "peace process" that does not seek an end goal. PA politicians opted for the UN vote to force the hand of the Americans and the Israelis, in the hope that a positive vote will grant the PA more political power and leverage to maximise its domination of the West Bank (but not East Jerusalem or Gaza, which neither Israel nor Hamas respectively are willing to concede to the PA). Were the UN to grant the PA its wish and admit it as a member state with observer status, then, the PA argues, it would be able to force Israel in international fora to cease its violations of the UN charter, the Geneva Conventions, and numerous international agreements. The PA could then challenge Israel internationally using legal instruments only available to member states to force it to grant it "independence". What worries the Israelis most is that, were Palestine to become a member state, it would be able to legally challenge Israel.
This logic is faulty, though, because the Palestinians have not historically lacked legal instruments to challenge Israel. On the contrary, international instruments have been activated against Israel since 1948 by the UN's numerous resolutions in the General Assembly as well as in the Security Council, not to mention the more recent use of the International Court of Justice in the case of the Apartheid Wall. The problem has never been the Palestinians' ability or inability to marshal international law or legal instruments to their side. Instead, the problem is that the US blocks international law's jurisdiction from being applied to Israel through its veto power. The US uses threats and protective measures to shield the recalcitrant pariah state from being brought to justice. It has already used its veto power in the UN Security Council 41 times in defense of Israel and against Palestinian rights. How this would change if the PA became a UN member state with observer status is not clear.
True, the PA could bring more international legal pressure and sanctions to bear on Israel. It could have international bodies adjudicate Israel's violations of the rights of the Palestinian state. The PA could even make the international mobility of Israeli politicians more perilous as "war criminals". This would render Israel's international relations more difficult, but how would this ultimately weaken an Israel that the US would shield completely from such effects as it has always done?
Implications of the UN vote
This presumed addition of power the Palestinians will gain to bring Israel to justice will actually be carried out at enormous cost to the Palestinian people. If the UN votes for the PA statehood status, this would have several immediate implications:
(1) The PLO will cease to represent the Palestinian people at the UN, and the PA will replace it as their presumed state.
(2) The PLO, which represents all Palestinians (about 12 million people in historic Palestine and in the diaspora), and was recognised as their "sole" representative at the UN in 1974, will be truncated to the PA, which represents only West Bank Palestinians (about 2 million people). Incidentally this was the vision presented by the infamous "Geneva Accords" that went nowhere.
(3) It will politically weaken Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homes and be compensated, as stipulated in UN resolutions. The PA does not represent the refugees, even though it claims to represent their "hopes" of establishing a Palestinian state at their expense. Indeed, some international legal experts fear it could even abrogate the Palestinians' right of return altogether. It will also forfeit the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel who face institutional and legal racism in the Israeli state, as it presents them with a fait accompli of the existence of a Palestinian state (its phantasmatic nature notwithstanding). This will only give credence to Israeli claims that the Jews have a state and the Palestinians now have one too and if Palestinian citizens of Israel were unhappy, or even if they were happy, with their third-class status in Israel, they should move or can be forced to move to the Palestinian state at any rate.
(4) Israel could ostensibly come around soon after a UN vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and inform the PA that the territories it now controls (a small fraction of the West Bank) is all the territory Israel will concede and that this will be the territorial basis of the PA state. The Israelis do not tire of reminding the PA that the Palestinians will not have sovereignty, an army, control of their borders, control of their water resources, control over the number of refugees it could allow back, or even jurisdiction over Jewish colonial settlers. Indeed, the Israelis have already obtained UN assurances about their right to "defend" themselves and to preserve their security with whatever means they think are necessary to achieve these goals. In short, the PA will have the exact same Bantustan state that Israel and the US have been promising to grant it for two decades!
(5) The US and Israel could also, through their many allies, inject a language of "compromise" in the projected UN recognition of the PA state, stipulating that such a state must exist peacefully side by side with the "Jewish State" of Israel. This would in turn exact a precious UN recognition of Israel's "right" to be a Jewish state, which the UN and the international community, the US excepted, have refused to recognize thus far. This will directly link the UN recognition of a phantasmatic non-existent Palestinian state to UN recognition of an actually existing state of Israel that discriminates legally and institutionally against non-Jews as a "Jewish state".
(6) The US and Israel will insist after a positive vote that, while the PA is right to make certain political demands as a member state, it would have to abrogate its recent reconciliation agreement with Hamas. Additionally, sanctions could befall the PA state itself for associating with Hamas, which the US and Israel consider a terrorist group. The US Congress has already threatened to punish the PA and will not hesitate to urge the Obama administration to add Palestine to its list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" along with Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
All of these six outcomes will advance Israeli interests immeasurably, while the only inconvenience to Israel would be the ability of the PA to demand that international law and legal jurisdiction be applied to Israel so as to exact more concessions from that country. However, at every turn the US will block and will shield Israel from its effects. In short, Israeli interests will be maximised at the cost of some serious but not detrimental inconvenience.
The second possible outcome, a US veto, and/or the ability of the US to pressure and twist the arms of tens of countries around the world to reject the bid of the PA in the General Assembly, resulting in failure to recognise PA statehood, will also be to the benefit of Israel. The unending "peace process" will continue with more stringent conditions and an angry US, upset at the PA challenge, will go back to exactly where the PA is today, if not to a weaker position. President Obama and future US administrations will continue to push for PA and Arab recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" that has the right to discriminate by law against non-Jews in exchange for an ever-deferred recognition of a Palestinian Bantustan as an "economically viable" Palestinian state - a place where Palestinian neoliberal businessmen can make profits off international aid and investment.
Either outcome will keep the Palestinian people colonised, discriminated against, oppressed, and exiled. This entire brouhaha over the UN vote is ultimately about which of the two scenarios is better for Israeli interests. The Palestinian people and their interests are not even part of this equation.
The question on the table before the UN, then, is not whether the UN should recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a state in accordance with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which would grant them 45 per cent of historic Palestine, nor of a Palestinian state within the June 5, 1967 borders along the Green Line, which would grant them 22 per cent of historic Palestine. A UN recognition ultimately means the negation of the rights of the majority of the Palestinian people in Israel, in the diaspora, in East Jerusalem, and even in Gaza, and the recognition of the rights of some West Bank Palestinians to a Bantustan on a fraction of West Bank territory amounting to less than 10 per cent of historic Palestine. Israel will be celebrating either outcome.
Joseph Massad is Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York.
A pretty negative assessment.
If this action at the U.N gives the Palestinians more muscle to implement U.N 242, and ultimately forces Israel to recognize the state of Palestine as incorporating all of the land outside of the 1967 borders, then I fail to see how this can be a bad thing.
US Will Foil Palestine, PM Assures
by Jason Ditz, September 18, 2011
Speaking today at the beginning of his cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to reassure his nation that Palestine, a would-be nation that aims to be created out of the occupied territories, is doomed to failure.
“As a result of the actions of the United States, which is working close with us, and of other governments with which we and the Americans are working, I predict this attempt will fail,” insisted Netanyahu, who expressed hope that the Palestinians would “come to their senses” and abandon statehood after Friday’s vote.
Israeli media were reporting that Netanyahu was attempting to come up with a “compromise” deal that would give the Palestinians something short of statehood, but that these attempts failed.
Obama Administration officials have vowed to oppose Palestinian statehood at all costs, and would veto it if the measure came before the UN Security Council. At the same time, the notion of an independent Palestine has broad support globally and in a General Assembly vote is expected to pass by a wide margin.
---
don't they realize that shit like this is why we are hated and why we are potentially victims of more future attacks?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Probably.
Its funny (well, not really) how the US will spend BILLIONS on the war on terror,... and possibly the simplest, cheapest thing we could do to eliminate future terror attacks would be to stay the fuck out of everyone else's business.
evidently we didn't learn the morality lesson that was taught to darth vader and co.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and the Zionists danced...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... aelis.html
http://www.antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
gotta love how the media portrays things like that. propaganda at it's finest..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The whole cheering on the streets of the arab world with specific and constant reference to the kids on the street in Palestine celebrating, they pushed that short video over and over after 9/11. In reality I bet the kids were just happy they were being given candy,
"V for Victory sign held up to the camera!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k
the links I posted earlier are about the Israeli Spy's in the US...excuse me "Art Students"..cough cough
um duh :idea:
Friend & Supporter,
Today I joined Jewish leaders from the U.S. and abroad who share my concern that the United Nations might legitimize the Palestinian gambit to establish statehood in violation of established international accords.
Simply put, we would not be here today at the precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama Policy in the Middle East wasn't naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous.
Israel is our oldest and strongest democratic ally in the Middle East. And yet, the Obama Administration seems intent on giving equal standing to the concerns of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism.
If you agree with me that there is no moral equivalency between our allies and those who seek their destruction, please take a moment to sign our petition supporting Israel.
President Obama's policy of appeasement has forced Israel into a position of weakness - which in turn, makes America less secure.
As president, I will stand proudly with our international allies, put America's interests first and project strength and stability to a world that desperately needs it.
I hope you will take a moment now to show President Obama that we support Israel by signing our petition.
Sincerely,
Rick Perry
sign the petition below train and god bless America!
http://www.rickperry.org/support-israel ... portIsrael