Biden and the US stand alone against Palestinian statehood

[Comrade Funk]

This president sucks.
https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1781075539735781885

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Disappointing, but this is the country that was opposed to sanctioning Apartheid South Africa in the 70s. History repeats.

[lfromnj]

Good, terrorism shouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. They can wait longer until everyone understands terrorism isn’t acceptable.

[Bismarck]

Embarrassing. 

[Libertas Vel Mors]

This is a great example of one reason why I am so extremely proud to be an American. This vote reminds me of the vote against declaring food a right, in that the US and Israel stood together both then and now against an evil but (in that body) popular cause for the benefit of humanity.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Good, terrorism shouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. They can wait longer until everyone understands terrorism isn’t acceptable.

Frankly, there should never be Palestinian statehood. Palestinians should accept equal rights under Israeli sovereignty, excluding Gaza, which can be an independent city-state after it promises not to attack Israel.

[Pericles]

Good, terrorism shouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. They can wait longer until everyone understands terrorism isn’t acceptable.

Statehood is a right, it's not something to be earned. Nothing can ever morally justify the apartheid regime that Palestinians are subjected to.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All while Israel starts a new war.

[GoTfan]

This is a great example of one reason why I am so extremely proud to be an American. This vote reminds me of the vote against declaring food a right, in that the US and Israel stood together both then and now against an evil but (in that body) popular cause for the benefit of humanity.

How can you be against feeding people? That's just cartoonish.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Good, terrorism shouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. They can wait longer until everyone understands terrorism isn’t acceptable.

Frankly, there should never be Palestinian statehood. Palestinians should accept equal rights under Israeli sovereignty, excluding Gaza, which can be an independent city-state after it promises not to attack Israel.

Giving Palestinians in the West Bank full equal rights to Jews in Israel is more radical (in the sense of being closer to a one-state solution) than most Democratic elected officials, I’ll give you that.

[jojoju1998]

This president sucks.
https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1781075539735781885

This UN Vote is merely symbolic. Since we don't even have a peace agreement to begin with !

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Good, terrorism shouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. They can wait longer until everyone understands terrorism isn’t acceptable.

Frankly, there should never be Palestinian statehood. Palestinians should accept equal rights under Israeli sovereignty, excluding Gaza, which can be an independent city-state after it promises not to attack Israel.

Thankfully, the people of Palestine, and the rest of world, don't care for the opinions of some bloodthirsty teenager, and will continue the struggle for self-determination.

[Horus]

As recently as yesterday I was defending Biden. Think I'm done now. If I hear the word "ironclad" tomorrow that'll confirm it. He will still get my vote, but that's it. I probably convinced half a dozen people to vote in 2020, this year I will not bother trying.

[quesaisje]

Frankly, there should never be Palestinian statehood. Palestinians should accept equal rights under Israeli sovereignty, excluding Gaza, which can be an independent city-state after it promises not to attack Israel.

So you're in support of a state, in which Palestinians are free, stretching from the river to the sea?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

This is a great example of one reason why I am so extremely proud to be an American. This vote reminds me of the vote against declaring food a right, in that the US and Israel stood together both then and now against an evil but (in that body) popular cause for the benefit of humanity.

How can you be against feeding people? That's just cartoonish.

I'm not against food, I'm against declaring something that isn't a right a right. People don't have a right to food produced by others, even if they're hungry.

Good, terrorism shouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. They can wait longer until everyone understands terrorism isn’t acceptable.

Frankly, there should never be Palestinian statehood. Palestinians should accept equal rights under Israeli sovereignty, excluding Gaza, which can be an independent city-state after it promises not to attack Israel.

Giving Palestinians in the West Bank full equal rights to Jews in Israel is more radical (in the sense of being closer to a one-state solution) than most Democratic elected officials, I’ll give you that.

Exactly. (This would also mean integrating Judea and Samaria into Israel.)

Frankly, there should never be Palestinian statehood. Palestinians should accept equal rights under Israeli sovereignty, excluding Gaza, which can be an independent city-state after it promises not to attack Israel.

So you're in support of a state, in which Palestinians are free, stretching from the river to the sea?

Well, no -- it shouldn't include Gaza, and thus wouldn't include the former territory of the full British mandate. But in a way, yes! Many pro-Palestinian activists seem to be unaware of the actual demographics on the ground (or favor genocide) because a simple merger of Judea and Samaria and Israel today would be easily majority Jewish. Even with Gaza included, I believe there would be a slight Jewish majority, actually.

Good, terrorism shouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. They can wait longer until everyone understands terrorism isn’t acceptable.

Frankly, there should never be Palestinian statehood. Palestinians should accept equal rights under Israeli sovereignty, excluding Gaza, which can be an independent city-state after it promises not to attack Israel.

Thankfully, the people of Palestine, and the rest of world, don't care for the opinions of some bloodthirsty teenager, and will continue the struggle for self-determination.

This is a great example of one reason why I am so extremely proud to be an American. This vote reminds me of the vote against declaring food a right, in that the US and Israel stood together both then and now against an evil but (in that body) popular cause for the benefit of humanity.

Astaghfirallah, do you even hear the nonsense coming out your mouth?

Probably they will. Luckily, the history of the last 127 years has tended to be far closer to that envisioned by Theodore Herzl than the Grand Mufti, so my dream of freedom and equality under the law will probably come true.

I'm not sure what that weird word you used means. But I don't think its nonsense at all: after all, there are many people I respect who do reject or would have rejected the idea that food is right, such as Milton Friedman, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson. And I live in a country where our government voted in favor of my stance. As our mission to Geneva, rarely a source of moral wisdom, stated:

Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation.

https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This president sucks.
https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1781075539735781885

This UN Vote is merely symbolic. Since we don't even have a peace agreement to begin with !

It's not really symbolic - it would bind Israel to respect the borders laid out in the bill or be in violation of international law, without getting any guarantees of a peace deal that would come with a two-state solution in exchange.

It would also mean that any further aggression from Hamas would likely be a formal act of war.

It would have made the situation on the ground much worse and the US knew what it was doing.

[GoTfan]

The idea that food-a basic need to sustain life-is not a right is emblematic of the insanity of Social Darwinism.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The idea that food-a basic need to sustain life-is not a right is emblematic of the insanity of Social Darwinism.

Huh? Why do you presume that because something is necessary to sustain life it is a right? Also, how can it be reflective of the inanity of social darwinism if the conception of natural rights not including food dates back centuries before that -- for example, to Locke?

[GoTfan]

The idea that food-a basic need to sustain life-is not a right is emblematic of the insanity of Social Darwinism.

Huh? Why do you presume that because something is necessary to sustain life it is a right? Also, how can it be reflective of the inanity of social darwinism if the conception of natural rights not including food dates back centuries before that -- for example, to Locke?

This comes pretty close to implying that people don't have a right to life.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The idea that food-a basic need to sustain life-is not a right is emblematic of the insanity of Social Darwinism.

Huh? Why do you presume that because something is necessary to sustain life it is a right? Also, how can it be reflective of the inanity of social darwinism if the conception of natural rights not including food dates back centuries before that -- for example, to Locke?

This comes pretty close to implying that people don't have a right to life.

You should really read more political philosophy. In the Lockean conception, the right to life refers to the right not to have your life taken from you, not the right to be sustained in life. Thus, there is no contradiction between rejecting a right to food and believing in a right to life.

[GoTfan]

The idea that food-a basic need to sustain life-is not a right is emblematic of the insanity of Social Darwinism.

Huh? Why do you presume that because something is necessary to sustain life it is a right? Also, how can it be reflective of the inanity of social darwinism if the conception of natural rights not including food dates back centuries before that -- for example, to Locke?

This comes pretty close to implying that people don't have a right to life.

You should really read more political philosophy. In the Lockean conception, the right to life refers to the right not to have life taken from you, not the right to be sustained in life. Thus, there is no contradiction between rejecting a right to food and believing in a right to life.

You're saying someone has a right to life, but not the right to sustain life.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The idea that food-a basic need to sustain life-is not a right is emblematic of the insanity of Social Darwinism.

Huh? Why do you presume that because something is necessary to sustain life it is a right? Also, how can it be reflective of the inanity of social darwinism if the conception of natural rights not including food dates back centuries before that -- for example, to Locke?

This comes pretty close to implying that people don't have a right to life.

You should really read more political philosophy. In the Lockean conception, the right to life refers to the right not to have life taken from you, not the right to be sustained in life. Thus, there is no contradiction between rejecting a right to food and believing in a right to life.

You're saying someone has a right to life, but not the right to sustain life.

You have the right to sustain your life with your own actions (ie, growing food on your own land, buying food, etc.) You don't have a right to be sustained by others (ie, a farmer doesn't have an obligation to give you food for free, even if you're starving.)

[ꙮ]

As recently as yesterday I was defending Biden. Think I'm done now. If I hear the word "ironclad" tomorrow that'll confirm it. He will still get my vote, but that's it. I probably convinced half a dozen people to vote in 2020, this year I will not bother trying.

Why is this surprising to you? Not recognizing any of the current Palestinian governments as a sovereign state has been policy for decades, even if the US is supportive of an eventual two-state solution.

Why did you think the middle of a war (one started by a Palestinian group, if not the PA) would be when that changes? Even in the optimistic scenario where the end of this conflict somehow gets everyone to the table and some non-Hamas authority ends up governing all of the Palestinian Territories, recognition of a Palestinian state would only happen after that point.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes, whilst I disagree with the US here it also surely isn't that big a deal.

[Horus]

As recently as yesterday I was defending Biden. Think I'm done now. If I hear the word "ironclad" tomorrow that'll confirm it. He will still get my vote, but that's it. I probably convinced half a dozen people to vote in 2020, this year I will not bother trying.

Why is this surprising to you? Not recognizing any of the current Palestinian governments as a sovereign state has been policy for decades, even if the US is supportive of an eventual two-state solution.

Why did you think the middle of a war (one started by a Palestinian group, if not the PA) would be when that changes? Even in the optimistic scenario where the end of this conflict somehow gets everyone to the table and some non-Hamas authority ends up governing all of the Palestinian Territories, recognition of a Palestinian state would only happen after that point.

It's not this. He's just so weak. A finger wag isn't going to stop Bibi, he needs to publicly denounce the guy and show some damn strength. He is so doddering.