Guardian group leads UK charge on reckless Palestinian bid for unilateral statehood at the UN

Abbas is asking for recognition of a state that does not exist. With Hamas dominate in Gaza and Fateh in the West Bank, Abbas is effectively declaring West Bank as Palestine because his rule in practice does not extend to Gaza.

So, why not accept this and recognise two Palestinian states, Gaza and the West Bank?

Look at the """"Palestinian""""flag. It gives you all the answers. All those who, pro forma are "explaining this away, agree with this scenario! Fact is that Israel is the ONE & ONLY land of the Jews for over 4000 years (despite the Guardian and all the other contrarians). "Palestine & Palestinians" are the utopian phantasy of Arafat the Egyptian & Carter the peanut.

One day The Guardian editors will face questioning on a public forum about their behavior over the last few years. They are no longer a newspaper but a propaganda organ for the hard irrational anarchist left. This 'left' hates Israel because it is 'bound' to the United States of America and the other 'Western Liberal Democracies' who have continuously refused to elect lunatic extreme socialists to power. The Guardian actively supports anarchy in their support of limiting police 'power' and the extended use of CCTV. They object to HiTech ID cards which would limit the way 'freedom fighters' move around in the UK. They support ALL methods to make the UK, (and the West), weak. They support Islamists who want to spread Islam to the liberal anti extremist world . Their hate of the 'market driven economies' and freedoms associated with the Western Liberal Democracies is so great that they 'champion' the expansion of Islamism while forgetting what happened to all the 'Political Left' in Iran after Ayatollah Chommenie took power in 1979.

What absolute drivel. It's all about Israel, well actually no. It's also about the palestinians who have lived under the longest occupation in modern history. And it's about Justice for those people.

There is already a 'one state' position at the moment, and that state is israel. Under Bibi there has been continuous expansion of the settlements which undermine the prospects of a contiguous palestinian state.

I'm glad Abbas is going to the security council, I'm glad that the US will be forced to use it's veto against the positive vote that is likely from the rest of the states on that body. I hope the Palestinians do go for a vote in the General Assembly following the veto and i hope that the palestinians are able to pursue israel through the ICC in the very near future.

The UK and France must join USA in a veto of the Palestinian move as it contrevenes the UN Resolution 242, which NATO and the EU have signed up to: - Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel must be given secure and defensible boundaries and the Palestinians and other Middle East governments must fully sign up to agree the state of Israel has a right to peaceful existence. The USA, UK and EU must settle for nothing less. When the above is settled and the Palestine state is accepted into the UN then the good thing I can see is that Israel can expect it to bevave responsibly and uphold international law including the denouncment and irradication of terrorism.

Great piece Robin. It's what most of us knew already as soon as the Palestinians intimated their intention vis a vis the UN. But you've expressed it very clearly and succinctly, making it an eminent reference article to highlight what will surely be a 'field day' for the left-wing media, so eagerly endorsed by the BBC, to continue their anti-Israel or Islam sucking-up bias.

Turkey, Syria, Egypt & Iran: Why not take your armies to Israels border? Go on - then you will see how many in the West support you. The fanatical extremists at the Guardian & the BBC do not speak for hte vast majority of UK citizens - just a well placed taxpayer funded vocal minority.

A vote for an official "palestinian" terrorist state is a vote for the destruction of Israel. That's all there is to it.

You mention negotiations. There are no negotiations with Islam. None. Concessions are made on the non-Islamic side, and none on the Islamic side. Islam keeps coming back for more and more concessions until it has everything it wants. Islam is perfect, so why would it make concessions for the non-Islamic world, which is imperfect? This is exactly how Mohammed thought and worked. Every time. Islam is not a stationary edifice - it's a process, and so is this. Islam started as a benign, tolerant religion, and finished up as a violent, totalitarian political ideology. This will start as two states, and finish with one Islamic state and Israel's destruction. That's the whole point of it. It's not difficult to figure out what they want.

Yes, I agree with the majority of comments on here that this is a well-written article indeed. All of the Guardian's drivel is anti-Israel, how can it be anything less when you look at the surrounding countries which of them gives aid, medical equipment and services, food etc., to a people who are bombing them on a daily basis!? The Pals have more rights than anyother Arabs in the ME - this whole idea that somehow they are Israel's to look after is totally ridiculous. Everyone knows fine well that Egypt and Jordan refused to take back GAZA and WEST BANK after the war thus making their own people nationaless! Yes their own people made them nationless and now Israel is expected to pick up the pieces. All polls show that the Pals do not see a two-state solution as viable only as a means to one day having one Palestinain state. The EU's blatent and cringe worthy attack on Israel makes me ill, surely they know and that is what makes it worst of all. Israel needs all the help it can get and siding with a people who use terror and call for destruction is totally whack! This is not just about land it is about hearts and minds - until someone figures out a way this will rage and rage

Please take a look at www.palwatch.org and see what the real truth at trench level is concerning theso called palestinian plan for Israel. see also the gross abuse of the taking of innocence from the children of these hordes by their own people. It is incredible that any civilised human being would give this sort of thing their approval.

I always get amazed when people like Danny, who probably see themselves as preaching from the altar of indignation towards anti-oppressive regimes and fair play, decide to choose the one side in this affair without a shred of either. A "state," without an elected leader, divided into two warring factions, that forbids freedom of speech and religion, even within in its own Islamic beliefs. Ignoring everything that was factually stated and proven about Palestinian aspirations towards the concept of a Jewish State in the article, these people cling to their biases and their ignorance

A good article, though I'm not sure about your politicians/press/public hierarchy at the end.

As for the BBC and the Guardain they are clueless about most things, not just the middle east.

There already is a Palestinian state; it's called Jordan.

Thanks Robin for an excellent summary of the issues. The fundamental fact that virtually every Western politician (except for a few, singular, exceptions) chooses to ignore is the Arab refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist. (“Palestinians” is a modern political construct – they’re Arabs plain and simple). Taking a step back, the moral depravity of Obama (not to mention Hague or Cameron) demanding concessions from the Middle East’s only liberal democracy, in fact the only civilised country in that benighted region, in its dealings with its violence-addicted antagonists, takes one’s breath away. If one values one’s life, one does not negotiate with a psychotic murderer whose overarching goal is to eliminate you. Having been a supporter of a two-state solution for most of my adult life, I have been forced to change my mind. Besides, as Amiens said above: the Arab ‘Palestinians’ have a state: it’s called Jordan.

Whilst I agree with everything that Robin has written, I should point out aspects of Israeli government policy that have been unwise and unhelpful and supporters of Israel should not ignore them. Over the past forty years many settlements in the West Bank have been initiated by right-wing, religious fanatics, which has meant their geographic spread has been largely unmanaged. This process will have provoked fear amongst Palestinian Arabs that Israel was seeking to annex all the territories acquired in 1967. The good news is that things have changed since the heady days of the seventies and eighties when the Herut / Likud party believed in settlement and annexation. Right now I imagine that few in that party believe they're a realistic or even a desirable option. Likewise I hope that Fatah's desire to reclaim all of Israel would diminish as it concentrates on the business of running the Palestinian state. On this score, I consider Hamas a completely lost cause. If there's a real prospect of them taking over the Palestinian state, then clearly the status quo is vastly better. People in the know need to make a judgment on that one.

The Observer's dismissing the idea that the aim of the Palestinians is to delegimitize Israel is reminiscent to that of the guards in Auschwitz telling Jews that they are led to the gas chambers to shower. Those bent on murder ensure the trouble free behaviour of the intented victim.

You mention "the more reasonable sections of the media". I would assume that The Times belongs to that category. Yet it continues to refer to the attitude of Netanyahu in its leaders as an obvious obstacle to negotiations. This at a time when he expresses consitently hs readyness to talk any time and the Palestinians are openly unwilling to talk without preconditions fulfilled. Yet when those same preconditions were fulfilled as a goodwill measure for ten months they still refused to enter into talks.

Is The Times aiming at increasing its circlation by pandering to the anti-Semites of the public, or what? They can not possibly mean it.

When taken to the police station in a then Communist state on account of being young and listening to a visiting Western group's open air concert from a distance (no tickets were available) a policeman deposited a match stick at the edge of a wall meeting the floor. Then demanded on a threatening manner my jumping over it. The attitude of those blaming Israel for not allowing a Palestinian state coming into being and refusing to talk to the Palestinians does not differ at all from that of that policeman.

Ed, Well, not quite. They are less clueless than malicious. They have their ageanda. They are more than just prepared to disseminate false propaganda in the serving of that agenda. It is a hostile one, a racist one, an utterly evil one. 'Goebbelsian' comes to mind without any inclination to exaggerate.

Jonathan K wrote: "Likewise I hope that Fatah's desire to reclaim all of Israel would diminish as it concentrates on the business of running the Palestinian state."

That is surely a deeply misplaced hope if the last 60 years are anything to go by? And not only is it misplaced. Given what's at stake, it's dangerous.

When an article has the words 'anyone but a fool' and 'anyone but a bone-headed imbecile' in its first few paragraphs as it tries to make a point is clearly not about debate or making a point but ramming views down one's throat and not countenancing any form of disagreement. Surely only a complete moron would not be able to see that?

A comment that says nothing in way of relevant argument, point, or substance, merely sweats to discredit what it dislikes is nothing but an expression of malice, poverty of mind, and especially a complete absence of basic decency of the comment's writer.

As for an addundem, I was wrong about the second paragraph Iwrote; Dimi didn't write anything about Arab prejudice to Jews. I retract that paragraph; it's my fault for writing it, and I am sorry if I caused any offense.