61 votes

Palestine is recognized as a state.

UN General Assembly votes 138 for, 9 against, 41 abstain. Palestine is recognized as a state!

Thanks to RonPaul2012Supoorter for this video:


Note how outnumbered the US lackeys were. I hope they are ashamed, I am ashamed of them.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why no one recognizes this as

Why no one recognizes this as the same anti-semitism that allowed the NAZIs to do what they did is beyond me.

What? Was recognition by King

What? Was recognition by King George of the United States as a sovereign nation also a repeat of the Nazis?

Ventura 2012

And as a result of this vote….

Israel will continue murdering Palestinian children with impunity, and the American people will continue financing said murders.


Let's not forget - more than 700,000 Palestinians were displaced in 1948.

Supported by the country that believes in personal property rights???


"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul


the same country that displaced how many American Indians?

It sounds good on paper

but i see this is an operation to further "legitimize" the U.N as the worlds government. They wave their magic wand and poof, THEY grant a people statehood? While i agree with the premise, I don't like or trust the U.N

"I am Troll fighter, number one"




"Note how outnumbered the US lackeys were. I hope they are ashamed, I am ashamed of them."

I can't say I'm disappointed in our delegate(s) for not voting yes. I'm more sickened that we're in the UN at all. Btw, this really doesn't do much for the Palestinians. Israel is still a sovereign nation and Israel still controls Gaza and the West Bank. Maybe, it will give the Palestinians a little more negotiating clout with the Israelis, but, that's about it.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

Why is Israel panicked?


Whether I approve or not, the UN is the current global government, and the Palestinians hope to end the attempted genocide going on there.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Whoa! Wait a minute!

Here's the Reuters article: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8AR0EG20121130?irpc...

According to Wikipedia, "As of July 2012, 121 states[9] are states parties to the Statute of the Court... A further 32 countries,[9] including Russia, have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute... Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute.[10][13]"

Furthermore, Israel would have to comply with the ICC in order to be tried in it. Do you think Israel is going to submit itself to Palestinians taking them to international court? Furthermore, the U.S. would sanction the Palestinians for attempting something like that. Even if it were possible, it's scary that you would support an international body being able to coerce a sovereign nation to change it's policies because that international body finds what that sovereign nation is doing to be attrocious. The only way to enforce international law would be to invade a country with international troops. Would you want international military forces invading the U.S. in order to make arrests for the ICC or force the U.S. to adopt or change a policy the International Community opposes?

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

Funny you should say that

The nation Israel wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the UN.

That's not true.

Judaeans were migrating to what is now Israel long before the UN existed. The UN didn't for e the British out, the Haganah did. The UN didn't help Israel defeat the Arabs, the Israelis did that on their own. Furthermore, the United States and other countries around the world didn't need the UN's help in recognizing the new state of Israel. We and other countries would have done that without the UN.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

You mean Khazars...

The Turkish tribe, also called Ashkenazim, that converted to Judaism in the 7th/8th century AD in order to be independent from the Abbasid Dynasty in Baghdad.
The descendents of the Semitic Judeans are the Muslims and Christians of Palestinian. I think there are some Jewish ones as well. Judaism is a religion, not a race. The Khazars are a race. They call themselves Jews but are not Jews.

With all due respect...

...UN General Assembly Resolution 181, allowing a Jewish state called "Israel." The UN created the modern state of Israel. It appears to me, by your comments, that that is okay with you, though -- just not okay for Palestinians to have their state.

I suggest you look it up that resolution, if you want the truth.

Resolution 181

came AFTER Britain had already started to withdraw and they may in fact have already been completely out (both came in the same year - '47). The UN had nothing to do with the British withdrawal. This left the Arabs and Jews occupying the Palestinian province to fend for themselves. The Jews had every intention of setting up their own Jewish state (many of them and/or their parents had migrated to Palestine for that express purpose).
Res. 181 recommended "the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union." Jerusalem was to "be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and...be administered by the United Nations." http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330...

Israel accepted it, but, the Palestinian Arabs rejected it because they didn't want a "partition," they wanted the Jews to get out of Palestine.

If the United Nations had not existed, the history of Israel would not be much different than it has been. The Jews and Arabs would have competed to fill the administrative vacuum left by the Brits, resulting in war, resulting in Arab defeat, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, and resulting in the Jewish-run state of Israel. All Resolution 181 did was get the fighting started and over with sooner.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

Resolution 181...

...called for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Again, the nation called "Israel" was created as a result of that U.N. VOTE.

Again, the fact that is so clear is that you're all for that 1947 vote approving the state of Israel but dead against last week's vote approving the state of Palestine.

I don't like the U.N. either but your hypocrisy is showing.


So, you really believe

that if it had not been for Res 181 that Israel would not exist today as a Jewish-run state? I suppose Zionists in Palestine would have evaporated in 1947 without the UN?

I don't know where you're getting the idea I approve if either UN resolution. It's hard to approve if any UN resolution when you don't believe the UN should exist. That land doesn't belong to the UN, so, the UN has no right to divide any of it up.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

You are all...

...for the state of Israel that the U.N. created, are you not?

And, no, Israel would not have become a state without the U.N.'s (essentially, the U.S.) blessing. They had no power, no weapons that were not given to them by the U.S., which in essence WAS THE U.N.

The U.S. has slowly but surely lost its hold on the U.N. or last week's vote never would have gone down the way it did.


Britain forming a colony in the middle east is not any more legitimate than a UN vote...either way there are serious problems with supporting such a policy. Its like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland was good because it was unilateral but Desert Storm was bad because it had international support.

Ventura 2012

I'm not aware that

the United States provided the Jews with weapons before 1948. But, if we did, that just proves my point that Israel didn't need the UN. Like I said, the Jews would have tried to form a state in Palestine with or without the UN's help and the U.S. would have recognized that state with or without the UN existing. Furthermore, the latest move to make Palestine a non-member observer state really isn't a departure from 181. 181 would have created the two-state solution that the Palestinians are now clamouring for if the Palestinian Arabs at the time had accepted it.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese


...the U.N. could do nothing without the blessing and guidance of the U.S. Israel could not have gotten anywhere without being armed and funded by the U.S. and Britain (the two nations that controlled the U.N.).

That's the point I've been trying to make.

Israel didn't need the UN to exist. The U.S. would have still funded and backed Israel without the UN.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese


What part of "the U.N. created the state of Israel" was unclear to you? What part of "the U.S. controlled the U.N." was unclear to you?

Whether Israel could have become a state without the U.N.'s vote was not the point (maybe you should re-read your posts). It became a state because of the U.N.'s vote.

Do you support TSA?

Accepting reality is not supporting it.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Have we learned nothing?

Groups don't have rights. Only individuals have rights. That applies to both sides in this debate.
The individuals in Group B have to agree that they and their descendants will have to be politically subordinate to group A until the end of time or they will not even agree to start negotiations...? Give me a break.

Under capitalism

your subordination is different than that under Sharia Law. The more you grow capitalism, the less subordination. If Arabs could settle for peace "as is" and build free-market capitalism on their tiny territory, then they would even invite Jews to come over to trade and invest. The choice is simple - accept peace as it is and work hard to build capitalism OR rot under Sharia Law like in free democratic Egypt.

Palestine will not betray its

Palestine will not betray its brothers in Israel by calling Israel a Jewish state. Why does Israel need Palestine to recognize it as Jewish? That is israel's business not Palestine's. And Israel has yet to recognize Palestine's right to exist.

If you think - Would that be rather left

to people on the ground to decide? It is, after all, group demands. For example, individual rights of Gazans did not become better under Hamas in power like Egyptians individual rights did not get better under Morsi.

But anti-Semites speak with DOUBLE tongue. They KNOW they need UN & NWO to promote their group agenda. Without UN, NATO and USA pressue on Israel, Arabs would settle for peace within a year or would had faced consequences. Peace will be a no brainer.

One would think that for a RP individualist, a human life is what important. Peace first, then work on expanding capitalism which will bring individual rights. But our collectivists think in groups and promote groups & group "rights." They do not care if Palestinians' individual rights will be crushed by Sharia Law, as long as Jews are hurt.

Here we go again

The "A" word again. Some people can't argue a position without resorting to name-calling.

PLO official Hanan Ashrawi on

PLO official Hanan Ashrawi on Friday thanked the 138 UN member states that voted for Palestine's upgrade to a non-member state at the General Assembly.

"You have rescued the chances of peace by supporting the forces of reason and responsibility rather than the irrational and irresponsible exercise of force and violence," Ashrawi said in a statement.

"You have given us hope, and we pledge to work with you to make this shared world of ours more peaceful and humane."

Nine countries voted against the resolution on Thursday night and 41 members states abstained.

Ashrawi said the nations that voted for Palestine had "demonstrated courage and integrity by acting in accordance with the dictates of your conscience and integrity rather than the diktat of power and intimidation.

"The legal, political, and moral space of the State of Palestine—however long overdue—is a tribute to justice and the triumph of the human spirit in the face of adversity," she continued.


I'm sorry it's just really hard to get past this.

Arafat and Erich Honecker, secretary general of the east german communist party.

Arafat and Honecker at the XX anniversary parade of East Germany

Mr. Singh, I know you don't like this but it's like a bad cold-war B movie you can't stop watching because it's such a compelling product of it's time.