April 26, 2024, 06:18:40 PM

Author Topic: Palestinian Statehood Bid  (Read 2343 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kaliman2006

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
    • View Profile
Palestinian Statehood Bid
« on: September 23, 2011, 12:39:18 PM »
It's official. The Palestinian Authority has applied to the UN for full membership in the UN system as a recognized nation-state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/palestinians-submit-statehood-bid-at-un.html?_r=1&hp

Palestinians Formally Request U.N. Membership
Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR and J. DAVID GOODMAN
Published: September 23, 2011

Mr. Abbas was greeted by numerous standing ovations from the moment he approached the lectern to deliver his speech to the General Assembly. “I do not believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for full admission in the United Nations,” Mr. Abbas said, calling statehood “the realization of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people.”

The largest and most sustained applause, along with cheers and whistles of approval, came as Mr. Abbas held up a copy of the letter requesting membership that he said he had handed to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon shortly before. “The time has come,” he said.

Less than an hour later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel took to the same lectern in “a hall that for too long has been place of darkness for my country” and said that he would not be seeking applause but rather speaking hard truths. “The truth is the Palestinians want a state without peace,” he said.

Mr. Netanyahu lashed out at the United Nations, whose prior actions against Israeli he described as “a theater of the absurd,” and challenged a comment by Mr. Abbas that the Palestinians were armed “only with their hopes and dreams.”

“Hopes, dreams — and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran," Mr. Netanyahu said.

The request for Palestinian statehood on land occupied by Israel has become the dominant issue at this year’s General Assembly, refocusing global attention on one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.

Both men used the occasion to summarize the history of the conflict from their own perspectives. Mr. Netanyahu, in his early remarks, reviewed the many occasions when the United Nations had issued resolutions against Israel, saying the country had been unjustly singled out for condemnation “more often than all the other nations combined.”

Mr. Abbas, in his 40-minute speech, said every previous peace effort had been “shattered on the rock” of Israeli settlements and cited what he said was the historical responsibility of the United Nations to solve the problem.

He described the West Bank as “the last occupation” in the world, one that showed no sign of ending. “It is neither possible nor practical nor acceptable to return to conducting business as usual,” he said.

Drawing a line between his statehood request and the revolutions that swept through the Arab world this spring, he said, “The time has come also for the Palestinian spring, the time for independence.”

The Security Council is likely to take up the issue in earnest next week, diplomats said, when the question becomes whether the United States and its allies can stall it.

Washington is also working to prevent the Palestinians from gathering the nine votes needed for it to pass in the full council and thus avoid further wrecking the image of the United States in the Middle East by casting yet another veto against something Arabs dearly want.

The United States and the other members of the quartet that guides the negotiations — the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia — are all trying to restart direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians before any vote becomes necessary. The hope is that if negotiations begin in earnest, that the membership request can be postponed until the negotiations are over.

The diplomatic wrangling at the United Nations is expected to take several weeks before the question of a vote arises.

Among the 15 members, some are expected to stay solidly in the Palestinian camp, including Brazil, China, India, Lebanon, South Africa and Russia. The United States is a solid vote against, and the five European members — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal — are all question marks. The positions of Colombia, Gabon and Nigeria are also not entirely clear.

The African Union supports membership, but it is not entirely clear if Gabon and Nigeria will go along. President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria did not mention the issue in his speech to the General Assembly, unlike many leaders from the developing world who support Palestine, and the statement by President Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon, was somewhat enigmatic. He said he hoped to soon see a Palestinian state, but noted that both the Palestinians and the people of Israel are friends of Gabon.

In Europe, Germany tends to lean against, its relations with Israel always overshadowed by the legacy of World War II. France leans the other way, while Britain sits on the fence. Portugal and Bosnia have been close to the Palestinians and the Arab world in the past, but their support is not assured this time around.

In theory, United Nations procedures demand that the special 15-member committee — one from each state — that studies the membership issue report back in 35 days, but nothing is more flexible than a deadline at the United Nations. Security Council members can stall things for weeks and weeks by requesting more information or by saying they are waiting for instructions from their capitals.

Behind them, though, looms the policy enunciated by President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, who said that the Palestinians should get enhanced membership in the General Assembly, moving from an observer entity to a non-member observer state.

Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said it would wait to see what happens in the Security Council before moving forward. By tradition, the General Assembly does not take up an issue when the Security Council is studying it and vice versa, but it is not impossible.

The historic day of speeches engendered a sense that the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had come full circle. The Palestinians call their membership application a desperate attempt to preserve the two-state solution despite encroaching Israeli settlements, as well as an attempt to shake up the negotiations that they feel have achieved little after 20 years of American oversight.

The question is whether trying to bring the intractable problem back to its international roots will somehow provide the needed jolt to get negotiations moving again.

The general point of view of the Israeli government and its supporters is that the Palestinians and their Arab allies gave up the right to the United Nations resolutions detailing a two state solution by rejecting that original plan and waging war against Israel for six decades.

But after every war, the United Nations resolutions and indeed the peace treaties with other Arab states have all reaffirmed the resolutions that outline the two-state compromise, starting with General Assembly resolution 181 in 1947. In the annex of their membership application submitted to Mr. Ban today, the Palestinians listed every United Nations resolution that envisioned a two-state solution that has not been implemented, they said.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 12:52:14 PM by kaliman2006 »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2011, 01:19:47 PM »
Can only delay the inevitable but so long... the Obama administration (and by extension the US Congress) are hypocrites on this point, couched in light of their support of the 'Arab Spring' dissidents elsewhere.

Offline 100% Barataria

  • aka Nachilus
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2011, 01:33:12 PM »
Can only delay the inevitable but so long... the Obama administration (and by extension the US Congress) are hypocrites on this point, couched in light of their support of the 'Arab Spring' dissidents elsewhere.

Yeah, this one gets me very peeved, to say the least
Education is our passport for the future for the future belongs to those who prepare for it today

Offline Dutty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9578
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2011, 01:42:40 PM »
Can only delay the inevitable but so long... the Obama administration (and by extension the US Congress) are hypocrites on this point, couched in light of their support of the 'Arab Spring' dissidents elsewhere.

Yeah, this one gets me very peeved, to say the least

Ultra Powerful Israeli lobby machine, curry favour central

Allyuh know how de planet does run,, money uber alles
Little known fact: The online transportation medium called Uber was pioneered in Trinidad & Tobago in the 1960's. It was originally called pullin bull.

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18649
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2011, 02:26:52 PM »
Bakes,
          You right on that one. But anyone running for the US presidency should know that they have to walk the line with Israel. In election campaign they all say they will do the right thing to bring peace in the Middle East, and when they get elected the reality hit them in their faces like a Mack truck. There is no difference with Obama this time around. The Israelis have gotten everything from this administartion. All Obama asked them to do was hold off on the building of settlements in the occupied territories. Netanyahu come to DC and he and Obama had a brawl. Obama stood up to him and he get vex. And the a substantial amount of the US Jewish lobby backed Netanyahu. Koch lead the fight against the Dem. in Weiner's seat in NY. But it is inevitable, The Palestinians will have some kind of independence. They will forever be fighting.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2011, 03:59:23 PM »
Bakes,
          You right on that one. But anyone running for the US presidency should know that they have to walk the line with Israel. In election campaign they all say they will do the right thing to bring peace in the Middle East, and when they get elected the reality hit them in their faces like a Mack truck. There is no difference with Obama this time around. The Israelis have gotten everything from this administartion. All Obama asked them to do was hold off on the building of settlements in the occupied territories. Netanyahu come to DC and he and Obama had a brawl. Obama stood up to him and he get vex. And the a substantial amount of the US Jewish lobby backed Netanyahu. Koch lead the fight against the Dem. in Weiner's seat in NY. But it is inevitable, The Palestinians will have some kind of independence. They will forever be fighting.

Doh get me wrong... I very much understand the political realities, things have been this way vis-a-vis the Jewish lobby for a good 60-odd years.  My point is that it would be nice for Obama to take a chance and say "screw the political realities" for a second and just be principled and do what's right. 

It very well could be a shrewd ploy by the administration to recognize that their objections to statehood would be futile, therefore posing no impediment to UN recognition (which they may secretly desire), while at the same time mouthing platitudes at Jewish supporters by "opposing" statehood.

For all I know they've already calculated the political cost of offending supporters like myself, and figured that in light of the above paragraph, that our displeasure won't be enough to affect our votes (which it isn't... for me), and an affordable cost of appeasing Jewish support.

Offline kounty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3154
  • Truthfulness is brighter than the light of the sun
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2011, 06:44:28 PM »
well boy bakes! I well shock tonight here  :o . I real swear is the usual toots about babylon care bout some right and wrong BS I going and hear.  But I guess even the staunchest supporters have a breakin point eh (and you ent even the staunchest...so imagine how far you have to go to reach dem).  So I curious to know your take on the drone strikes.  You tink the ICC should hold and try yuh boy Barry? or Selassie know the system is not for certain people.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2011, 10:11:15 PM »
well boy bakes! I well shock tonight here  :o . I real swear is the usual toots about babylon care bout some right and wrong BS I going and hear.  But I guess even the staunchest supporters have a breakin point eh (and you ent even the staunchest...so imagine how far you have to go to reach dem).  So I curious to know your take on the drone strikes.  You tink the ICC should hold and try yuh boy Barry? or Selassie know the system is not for certain people.

The drone strikes are unfortunate... wish there was a better way to eliminate terrorist threats and avoid civilian casualties, but that's not always possible.  Pakistan needs to be doing more to eliminate the terrorist presence in the country, living among civilians.

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2011, 06:55:53 AM »
somebody help me understand this ..

how would Palestinian statehood help advance peace in the region?
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18076
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2011, 08:29:20 AM »
somebody help me understand this ..

how would Palestinian statehood help advance peace in the region?

Perhaps b/c the present arrangement ... on the question of fundamental justice ... does not aid the peace dividend in a sustainable manner.

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2011, 10:32:27 AM »
somebody help me understand this ..

how would Palestinian statehood help advance peace in the region?

Perhaps b/c the present arrangement ... on the question of fundamental justice ... does not aid the peace dividend in a sustainable manner.

ok that makes sense, the present situation is not working. So something has to change.

But will this particular change make it any better? or will it worsen the political climate in the region? which in turn will hinder the peace process?  The UN has a disproportionate number of anti-Israel resolutions and Israel will view this as another, leading to increased intransigence on Israel's part. Hence less likelihood for a peaceful negotiation of disputed borders?


 
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2011, 11:12:43 AM »
somebody help me understand this ..

how would Palestinian statehood help advance peace in the region?

Perhaps b/c the present arrangement ... on the question of fundamental justice ... does not aid the peace dividend in a sustainable manner.

Aside from which, limited as it may be... recognition of Palestinian statehood by the U.N. brings with it a bit of "protection" from arbitrary Israeli incursions into what will now be sovereign territory.  It is doubtful that recognition of statehood will result in greater Israeli intransigence... particularly at a time when there is growing impatience from every corner (including those sympathetic to Israeli interests).
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 11:14:36 AM by Bakes »

Offline Controversial

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6878
    • View Profile
    • Gino McKoy
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2011, 01:02:26 PM »
somebody help me understand this ..

how would Palestinian statehood help advance peace in the region?

Perhaps b/c the present arrangement ... on the question of fundamental justice ... does not aid the peace dividend in a sustainable manner.

Aside from which, limited as it may be... recognition of Palestinian statehood by the U.N. brings with it a bit of "protection" from arbitrary Israeli incursions into what will now be sovereign territory.  It is doubtful that recognition of statehood will result in greater Israeli intransigence... particularly at a time when there is growing impatience from every corner (including those sympathetic to Israeli interests).

Losing Jerusalem to the Palestinians has never been an option for the WZO under the control of the WZC. Especially the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount which many Jews regard as being the holiest spot on earth. It is also equally as significant for the nation is Islam and it is very likely that incursions would escalate if a Palestinian state has control over Jerusalem.

Solomon's temple is believed to be located on the Temple Mount, the location of the Holy of Holies. Even if statehood is approved it may result in an even more dangerous conflict where they will battle for control of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. The power of the WZC should not be underestimated as they have already outlined that a third temple must be constructed, many mainstream Christians share the opinion that the Jews should have control over the Temple Mount to fulfill prophecy.

In saying that, greater Israeli intransigence is more than likely to continue and escalate, there is not doubt in my mind about this.

Offline kounty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3154
  • Truthfulness is brighter than the light of the sun
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2011, 01:27:37 PM »
well boy bakes! I well shock tonight here  :o . I real swear is the usual toots about babylon care bout some right and wrong BS I going and hear.  But I guess even the staunchest supporters have a breakin point eh (and you ent even the staunchest...so imagine how far you have to go to reach dem).  So I curious to know your take on the drone strikes.  You tink the ICC should hold and try yuh boy Barry? or Selassie know the system is not for certain people.
somebody help me understand this ..

how would Palestinian statehood help advance peace in the region?
this guy could help you understand. but unfortunately he not talkin in plain english
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/o-mw9U5Fq4g" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/o-mw9U5Fq4g</a>
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 01:35:08 PM by kounty »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2011, 09:13:26 AM »
well boy bakes! I well shock tonight here  :o . I real swear is the usual toots about babylon care bout some right and wrong BS I going and hear.  But I guess even the staunchest supporters have a breakin point eh (and you ent even the staunchest...so imagine how far you have to go to reach dem).  So I curious to know your take on the drone strikes.  You tink the ICC should hold and try yuh boy Barry? or Selassie know the system is not for certain people.

Just to underscore the extent to which Pakistan cannot be trusted...


September 26, 2011

Pakistanis Tied to 2007 Border Ambush on Americans

By CARLOTTA GALL

KABUL, Afghanistan — A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.

An American major was killed and three American officers were wounded, along with their Afghan interpreter, in what fresh accounts from the Afghan and American officers who were there reveal was a complex, calculated assault by a nominal ally. The Pakistanis opened fire on the Americans, who returned fire before escaping in a blood-soaked Black Hawk helicopter.

The attack, in Teri Mangal on May 14, 2007, was kept quiet by Washington, which for much of a decade has seemed to play down or ignore signals that Pakistan would pursue its own interests, or even sometimes behave as an enemy.

The reconstruction of the attack, which several officials suggested was revenge for Afghan or Pakistani deaths at American hands, takes on new relevance given the worsening rupture in relations between Washington and Islamabad, which has often been restrained by Pakistan’s strategic importance.

The details of the ambush indicate that Americans were keenly aware of Pakistan’s sometimes duplicitous role long before Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate last week that Pakistan’s intelligence service was undermining efforts in Afghanistan and had supported insurgents who attacked the American Embassy in Kabul this month.

Though both sides kept any deeper investigations of the ambush under wraps, even at the time it was seen as a turning point by officials managing day-to-day relations with Pakistan.

Pakistani officials first attributed the attack to militants, then, when pressed to investigate, to a single rogue soldier from the Frontier Corps, the poorly controlled tribal militia that guards the border region. To this day, none of the governments have publicly clarified what happened, hoping to limit damage to relations. Both the American and Pakistani military investigations remain classified.

“The official line covered over the details in the interests of keeping the relationship with Pakistan intact,” said a former United Nations official who served in eastern Afghanistan and was briefed on the events immediately after they occurred.

“At that time in May 2007, you had a lot of analysis pointing to the role of Pakistan in destabilizing that part of Afghanistan, and here you had a case in point, and for whatever reason it was glossed over,” he said. The official did not want to be named for fear of alienating the Pakistanis, with whom he must still work.

Exactly why the Pakistanis might have chosen Teri Mangal to make a stand, and at what level the decision was made, remain unclear. Requests to the Pakistani military for information and interviews for this article were not answered. One Pakistani official who was present at the meeting indicated that the issue was too sensitive to be discussed with a journalist. Brig. Gen. Martin Schweitzer, the American commander in eastern Afghanistan at the time, whose troops were involved, also declined to be interviewed.

At first, the meeting to resolve the border dispute seemed a success. Despite some tense moments, the delegations ate lunch together, exchanged phone numbers and made plans to meet again. Then, as the Americans and Afghans prepared to leave, the Pakistanis opened fire without warning. The assault involved multiple gunmen, Pakistani intelligence agents and military officers, and an attempt to kidnap or draw away the senior American and Afghan officials.

American officials familiar with Pakistan say that the attack fit a pattern. The Pakistanis often seemed to retaliate for losses they had suffered in an accidental attack by United States forces with a deliberate assault on American troops, most probably to maintain morale among their own troops or to make a point to the Americans that they could not be pushed around, said a former American military officer who served in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Looking back, there were always these attacks that could possibly be attributed to deliberate retaliation,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because his job does not permit him to talk to journalists. Pakistani forces had suffered losses before the May 14 attack, he added.

As with so many problems with Pakistan, the case was left to fester. It has since become an enduring emblem of the distrust that has poisoned relations but that is bared only at critical junctures, like Teri Mangal, or the foray by American commandos into Pakistan in May to kill Osama bin Laden, an operation deliberately kept secret from Pakistani officials.

The attack in 2007 came after some of the worst skirmishes along the ill-marked border. By 2007 Taliban insurgents, who used Pakistan as a haven with the support of Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment, were crossing the border, frequently in sight of Pakistani border posts, and challenging the Afghan government with increasing boldness. American and Afghan forces had just fought and killed a group of 25 militants near the border in early May.

To stem the flow of militants, the Afghan government was building more border posts, including one at Gawi, in Jaji District, one of the insurgents’ main crossing points, according to Rahmatullah Rahmat, then the governor of Paktia Province in eastern Afghanistan.


Pakistani forces objected to the new post, claiming it was on Pakistani land, and occupied it by force, killing 13 Afghans. Over the following days dozens were killed as Afghan and Pakistani forces traded mortar rounds and moved troops and artillery up to the border. Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, began to talk of defending the border at all costs, said Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the senior American general in Afghanistan at the time.

The border meeting was called, and a small group of Americans and Afghans — 12 men in total — flew by helicopters to Teri Mangal, just inside Pakistan, to try to resolve the dispute. They included Mr. Rahmat. The Afghans remember the meeting as difficult but ending in agreement. The Pakistanis described it as cordial, said Mahmood Shah, a retired brigadier and a military analyst who has spoken to some of those present at the meeting.

The Americans say the experience was like refereeing children, but after five hours of back and forth the Pakistanis agreed to withdraw from the post, and the Afghans also agreed to abandon it.

Then, just as the American and Afghan officials were climbing into vehicles provided to take them the short distance to a helicopter landing zone, a Pakistani soldier opened fire with an automatic rifle, pumping multiple rounds from just 5 or 10 yards away into an American officer, Maj. Larry J. Bauguess Jr., killing him almost instantly. An operations officer with the 82nd Airborne Division from North Carolina, Major Bauguess, 36, was married and the father of two girls, ages 4 and 6.

An American soldier immediately shot and killed the attacker, but at the same instant several other Pakistanis opened fire from inside the classrooms, riddling the group and the cars with gunfire, according to the two senior Afghan commanders who were there. Both escaped injury by throwing themselves out of their car onto the ground.

“I saw the American falling and the Americans taking positions and firing,” said Brig. Gen. Muhammad Akram Same, the Afghan Army commander in eastern Afghanistan at the time. “We were not fired on from one side, but from two, probably three sides.”

Col. Sher Ahmed Kuchai, the Afghan border guard commander, was showered with glass as the car windows shattered. “It did not last more than 20 seconds, but this was a moment of life and death,” Colonel Kuchai said.

As he looked around, he said, he saw at least two Pakistanis firing from the open windows of the classrooms and another running across the veranda toward a machine gun mounted on a vehicle before he was brought down by American fire. He also saw a Pakistani shot as he fired from the back seat of a car, he said. The rapid American reaction saved their lives, the two Afghan commanders said.

The senior American and Afghan commanders had been driven out of the compound and well past the helicopter landing zone when a Pakistani post opened fire on them, recalled Mr. Rahmat, the former governor. The Pakistani colonel in the front seat ignored their protests to stop until the American commander drew his pistol and demanded that the car halt. The group had to abandon the cars and run back across fields to reach the helicopters, Mr. Rahmat said.

His account was confirmed by the former United Nations official who talked to the unit’s members on their return that evening.

Those who came under fire that day remain bitter about the duplicity of the Pakistanis. Colonel Kuchai remembers the way the senior Pakistani officers left the yard minutes before the shooting without saying goodbye, behavior that he now interprets as a sign that they knew what was coming.

He insists that at least some of the attackers were intelligence officers in plain clothes.

Mr. Rahmat remains incensed that back in Kabul an attack on a provincial governor by Pakistan was quietly smothered. There was never any Afghan investigation into the ambush, for fear of further souring relations.

Official statements from Kabul and NATO went along with the first Pakistani claim that insurgents were behind the attack. NATO did not call for an investigation by Pakistan until two days later.

General McNeill, who is retired, remembers the episode as the worst moment of his second tour as commander in Afghanistan, not only because he knew Major Bauguess and his family, but also because he never received satisfactory explanations in meetings with his counterpart, the Pakistani vice chief of army staff, Gen. Ahsan Saleem Hyat.

“Ahsan Hyat did not take it as seriously as me in asking, ‘Have we done as much as we could, and how could we have done it differently?’ ” he said.

Lt. Gen. Ron Helmly, who led the Office of the Defense Representative at the American Embassy in Pakistan at the time, was told that the Pakistani soldier who opened fire was unbalanced and was acting alone, yet he was left acutely aware of the systemic shortcomings of Pakistani investigations.

“They do not have a roster of who was there,” said General Helmly, who is retired. “It was all done from mental recollection.” The Pakistani soldiers who fired from the windows consistently claimed that they were firing at the Pakistani gunman, he said.

Both Generals Helmly and McNeill accept as plausible that a lone member of the Frontier Corps, whether connected to the militants or pressured by them, was responsible, but they also said it was possible that a larger group of soldiers was acting in concert. The two generals said there was no evidence that senior Pakistani officials had planned the attack.

As for the Afghans, they still want answers. “Why did the Pakistanis do it?” General Same of the Afghan Army said. “They have to answer this question.”

Ruhullah Khapalwak contributed reporting.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/world/asia/pakistanis-tied-to-2007-attack-on-americans.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp

Offline kaliman2006

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
    • View Profile
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2011, 07:27:30 AM »
Another interesting update here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15518173

The UN cultural organisation has voted strongly in favour of membership for the Palestinians - a move opposed by Israel and the United States.

Out of 173 countries voting, 107 were in favour, with 14 opposed and 52 abstentions.

Before the vote, the US said it would stop its funding to Unesco if the Palestinians' bid was accepted.

The UN Security Council will vote in November on whether Palestine should become a full UN member state.

Membership of Unesco - perhaps best known for its World Heritage Sites - may seem a strange step towards statehood, says the BBC's Jon Donnison, in Ramallah, but Palestinian leaders see it as part of a broader push to get international recognition and put pressure on Israel.

This is the first UN agency the Palestinians have sought to join since submitting their bid for recognition to the Security Council in September.

Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN
They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN
They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza
Enhanced observer member status could be an interim option
"This vote will erase a tiny part of the injustice done to the Palestinian people," Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki told the Unesco meeting in Paris, after the result was announced.

Funding at stake
The UN Security Council is expected to vote on that bid in November. The United States has said it will use its veto.

But at Unesco, the US does not have veto power.

"We believe this is counterproductive... The only path for the Palestinians is through direction negotiations," US Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter told delegates ahead of the vote.

The Palestinian move has put Unesco in a bind.

Following a US law passed in the 1990s, America says it would cut funding to any UN body that admitted Palestine as a full member.

That amounts to $70m (£43.7m) a year - over 20% of Unesco's entire budget.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Palestinian Statehood Bid
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2011, 12:58:50 PM »
somebody help me understand this ..

how would Palestinian statehood help advance peace in the region?

Perhaps b/c the present arrangement ... on the question of fundamental justice ... does not aid the peace dividend in a sustainable manner.

Aside from which, limited as it may be... recognition of Palestinian statehood by the U.N. brings with it a bit of "protection" from arbitrary Israeli incursions into what will now be sovereign territory.  It is doubtful that recognition of statehood will result in greater Israeli intransigence... particularly at a time when there is growing impatience from every corner (including those sympathetic to Israeli interests).

Losing Jerusalem to the Palestinians has never been an option for the WZO under the control of the WZC. Especially the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount which many Jews regard as being the holiest spot on earth. It is also equally as significant for the nation is Islam and it is very likely that incursions would escalate if a Palestinian state has control over Jerusalem.

Solomon's temple is believed to be located on the Temple Mount, the location of the Holy of Holies. Even if statehood is approved it may result in an even more dangerous conflict where they will battle for control of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. The power of the WZC should not be underestimated as they have already outlined that a third temple must be constructed, many mainstream Christians share the opinion that the Jews should have control over the Temple Mount to fulfill prophecy.

In saying that, greater Israeli intransigence is more than likely to continue and escalate, there is not doubt in my mind about this.
 

What about Greater Arab intransigence?


Saturday, October 29, 2011Saudi Prince Offers $1 Million for Capture of Israeli Soldier
Saudi Prince Khaled bin Talal Abdulaziz al-Saud, one of 7,000 members of the ruling al-Saud family in Saudi Arabia, offered $900,000 to match a previous $100,000 reward offered by a Saudi cleric for the capture of any Israeli soldier. The total reward of $1 million is claimed to be a response to similar offers by Israeli settlers for the captures or murders of freed Palestinian prisoners.



Saudi Prince Khaled bin Talal Abdulaziz al-Saud, who offered the reward money (al-Wattan TV).


Saudi cleric Awad al-Qurni offered $100,000 for the capture of an Israeli soldier last week, matching the amount that an Israeli family of settlers living in the Yitzhar settlement near Nablus offered to kill or capture two Palestinian prisoners released in mid-October’s Gilad Shalit deal. Al-Qurni has been targeted by Jewish groups for his actions and at least one group reportedly offered $1 million for his death.


Prince Khaled, originally quoted by the Palestinian network al-Wattan TV, said, “Al-Qurni offered $100,000 for whoever kidnaps a soldier, then [unnamed Israeli groups] offered $1 million to kill al-Quri, and now I’m saying to al-Qurni that I’m supporting you by offering another $900,000, which will make it a million for whoever kidnaps a soldier.”


The oil wealth of the al-Saud family is thought to be well in excess of $500 billion, with some estimates reaching $1 trillion. Prince Khaled’s personal wealth is unknown, but he is the brother of Prince al-Walid bin Talal, the 26th richest person in the world. According to his Wikipedia page, Prince Khaled is the former president of a Saudi Arabian volleyball club and the third son of Prince Talal bin Abdulaziz, who is not in the succession line to the monarchy.



 

1]; } ?>