Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:59 PM Nov 2012

Obama to Palestinian leader: U.S. opposes U.N. membership



By Agence France-Presse
Sunday, November 11, 2012 16:55 EST

US President Barack Obama told Mahmud Abbas on Sunday that his administration opposes a Palestinian bid for non-state membership of the UN, the Palestinian leader’s spokesman said.

“There was a long telephone conversation between president Mahmud Abbas and Barack Obama,” Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP. “Obama expressed the opposition of the United States to the decision to go to the UN General Assembly.”

Abbas explained “the reasons and motives for the Palestinian decision to go to the UN … including the continued (Jewish) settlement activity and Israeli aggression against citizens and property,” Abu Rudeina said.

Israel and the United States are both opposed to the Palestinian plan, insisting that a Palestinian state can only result from peace negotiations, which have been suspended for the past two years.

-30-

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/11/obama-to-palestinian-leader-u-s-opposes-u-n-membership/
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

lsewpershad

(2,620 posts)
1. Israel dropped a bomb in Syria
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:04 PM
Nov 2012

Why is it this country [Israel] gets away with so much... because of the unquestioned support of the USA

King_David

(14,851 posts)
3. Luckily Israel neutralized Syria's nuke
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:12 PM
Nov 2012

Imagine what Assad would of done.

They did the world and the Syrian people a huge favor.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
5. Syria has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons and a bio program. Why should it treat nukes any
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:55 PM
Nov 2012

less responsibly or differently? Same goes for Iran.

King_David

(14,851 posts)
6. You can't really tell how far Assad
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:01 PM
Nov 2012

Will go at the moment to remain in power.

The uprising there is still current.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
7. It's far-fetched to suggest that Assad will use chemical weapons internally.
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:44 PM
Nov 2012

I can see some of the Jihadis who grab power if he falls using them against us, however. The implications of that risk analysis tells me it's probably better not to let the Syrian Army fall apart, as happened in Libya. Since the Syrian Army command is all based in the Alawite clans, with the Assad clan at the head, getting rid of this particular figurehead won't make any difference at all.

So, why are we still doing this regime change?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
10. Let's hope so. This US has few reserves to draw on to carry out another 1/2 or even 1/4 war.
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:26 AM
Nov 2012

I'd hate to think of the vulnerabilities in American power and influence that would be revealed if we were to get sucked into a regional war between Sunni and Shi'ia Islam in half a dozen countries at the same time.

It won't be much fun for Americans at home, either. If you liked post-9/11 America, just wait for the nasty police state we'll become after a string of soft American targets get blown up around the world and another high casualty event inside "the Homeland."

Those 15,000 Libyan MANPADs now floating around arms bizarres will worry us for years to come. What a potential cluster f-ck that can cause! What a stupid policy to promote an armed uprising in a place like Libya!

vdogg

(1,384 posts)
2. Well, that's unfortunate
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:06 PM
Nov 2012

What's even more unfortunate is the article fails to dig into the reasons behind the President's decision. I would have liked to know because I don't particularly agree with it.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
4. Par for the course, really...
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:15 PM
Nov 2012

The US has never been anything resembling a fair broker in these "negotiations." Given that, and Israel's very obvious antagonism to the idea of a Palestinian state, it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that "direct negotiations" brokered by the US will result in no gains at all for the Palestinians. The Palestinian government has finally recognized the obvious and is exploring other options... options which htey are completely within their right to pursue.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
8. He won't explain it in any detail because we have no "Need to Know" it.
Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:48 PM
Nov 2012

It really boils down to AIPAC.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»Obama to Palestinian lead...