Semioticaly you are in complete error regarding “State independence” !
More so when attempting an analogy in the case of Israel vis a vis the current Palestinian attempts. The expression “unilateral” independence means that a certain national entity declares independence within a certain geopolitical circumstance as an act of detachement from a certain governing authority WITHOUT the said authority agreeing to the independence.
In the case of Israel, her independence was not objected to by ANY state,most importantly NOT by Great Britain,under whose mandate the Jewish national entity of the future Israel was at the time. Furthermore, it is of obvious importance that objections to the Palestinian attempt at unilateral inedpendence are recorded. Notwithstanding the majority in the General Assembly, the objections serve as statements of denial of State status of the unilateral declaration. It has diplomatic significance as well as a priori positions of a vast raft of denials to the objected independent state, its actions, dynamics of structures, indeed claims of legitimacy in multiple situations.
The scheduled Palestinian act of defiance is a calculated strategy of intensifying the Palestinian policy of perpetual conflict with Israel.

We have never asked for phone numbers

‘You provide the perfect example for the editor of any web site refusing to publish any post that cannot be verified with a person’s name address and phone number and the person’s name being posted with each comment.”

Sorry, I’m very new to this site, but why instead of demanding personal information like addresses and phone numbers, simply have a system like most other sites with comment sections, where a person must have a user name and password and be logged in in order to post? I’ve only recently seen what happens when people put personal details on the internet, and even though I didn’t agree with the political views of those who’d posted their names and phone numbers, I don’t think they deserved to get the abusive phone calls they got.

Also, the US can’t veto Palestine being recognised as a state, as if a majority of states in the General Assembly vote in support, then the state is internationally recognised. What the US can do is veto any application in the Security Council for Palestine to become a full member state of the UN. That’s what looks likely to happen, which will have little effect but to add to the US record of by far outstripping other permanent members of the SC in using the veto, something the US actually complained about back when the USSR used to veto SC resolutions a fair bit.

I don’t know who you are but your use of my name is offensive and shows the lengths people of your ilk are prepared to go to mislead and misrepresent. It is pretty gutless as well.

You provide the perfect example for the editor of any web site refusing to publish any post that cannot be verified with a person’s name address and phone number and the person’s name being posted with each comment.

For your information two and a half of the twelve Jewish tribes settled in Transjordan. The Jewish connection with Transjordan was long standing and continuous well before any Arabs ever set foot on its soil.

Come on JWire editor – what are you going to do about these anonymous jerks who are trying to take over your web site?

First a fake e mail address – now another stealing someone’s identity and posting views that are not those of the aggrieved person.

I would urge you to use every effort to try and find and expose these low lifes or risk the reputation of your excellent web site being trashed.

If someone is not prepared to put his real name to a post – then don’t print it. Seems a simple proposition to me.

Looking at the population of of the Palestinian Mandate in 1947, 67% were Arab (1.2 million) and 33% were Jewish (600,000). Today the descendants of the 1.2 million Arabs are trying to create a state on less than 20% of the Palestinian Mandate.

http://www.pay-palestine.org/?p=101

I have previously drawn your attention to the dodgy stats used by you and repeated in your current post in relation to this article.

You have not had the courtesy to reply and so I now post again my reply to you in the hope it might elicit a response.

“Your thinking is a bit skewered.

The history of modern Palestine did not begin in 1948. You just need to go back to 1920 to the Treaty of Sevres and the Mandate for Palestine laid out in that Treaty.

Contrary to what was initially proposed – 78% of the area of Mandatory Palestine within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted actually became a Jew-free and independent Arabs- only state of Transjordan in 1946. Round 1 to Arab residents of Palestine

This left just 22% availialble for the Jewish National Home when the UN dealt with the issue in 1947.
Of that 22% – 55% was recommended for a Jewish state and 45% for a second Arab state in Mandatory Palestine. The Jews said “yes” and the Arabs said “war”. Round 2 to Jewish residents of Palestine.

What we now have in 2011 is the Jews sovereign in 17% Mandatory Palestine (Israel), the Arabs sovereign in 78% of Mandatory Palestine (Jordan) and just 5% – the West Bank and Gaza remaining unallocated between Arabs and Jews.

Whilst we are talking figures – also remember the Arabs were offered 99.999% of the captured Ottoman Empire and the Jews just 0.001%. The Arabs have never accepted this division.

How much of the pie can you eat before you get indigestion? The Arabs have been their own worst enemies.”

I hope you respond this time.

Decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are only binding on UN member States if they agree to be parties to any litigation. The Palestinian Authority (PA) can seek as many advisory opinions as it likes – they will all have no legal effect unless Israel agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

Given the appalling decision of the ICJ on the security barrier – where critical provisions of international law were not even considered and not even referred to in the brief submitted to the Court for its advisory opinion by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan – Israel won’t very likely be going to that kangaroo court in the belief justice will be dispensed.

Yes – twenty years is a long time to negotiate. Remember however the PA has rejected two offers made by Israel in 2001 and 2008. It is probably true that negotiations with the PA are most unlikely to be successful. If that turns out to be the case and negotiations are formally ended – then Israel will have to seek another Arab negotiating partner to resolve the issue of allocating sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza – which has remained undetermined since Great Britain pulled out in 1948.. The obvious Arab negotiating partners will be Jordan and possibly Egypt.

Anyway, writing from England, that’s enough about the continent of Australia, let’s talk now about the sliver of land called Israel…….