One may not agree with Areikat's comments, but i think it should be understood in its context: Jews already occupy a vast majority of Palestine's land, AND even in their smaller ghetto, they are occupied. So, their psyche is affected by settlements (illegal land grabs) and living under occupation.

I also wonder how does the state of Israel deal with their Arab citizens (Israeli Arabs).

The comments of the Palestinian spokesman have to be taken in an overall context, where after decades of occupation by Israel this kind of thing is to be expected (granted its not agreeable but understandable). Also the fact that most European governments are looking at Israel acting like South Africa did under apartheid and should be well within there right not to aid such regimes as long as its current practices continue just because there is a veil of democracy attached to it, this is something I believe most of Americans who commentate on Israel don't seem to get, also if this was any other country in that region there would be uproar at the same practices.

Now I'm wondering how long it'll be that im called antisemitic because I disagree with this bloggers post

March 2000 Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of Chabad-Lubavitch:
“The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of (members) of all nations of the world… A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. The entire creation (all non-jews) exists only for the sake of the Jews.”

"The terms 'democracy' or 'democratic' are totally absent from the Declaration of Independence. This is not an accident. The intention of Zionism was not to bring democracy, needless to say. It was solely motivated by the creation in Eretz-Isrel of a Jewish state belonging to all the Jewish people and to the Jewish people alone. This is why any Jew of the Diaspora has the right to immigrate to Israel and to become a citizen of Israel."- Ariel Sharon, May 28, 1993 edition of Yedioth Ahronoth.

In September 2002, Arundhati Roy wrote, “Come September”

"Given the potential consequences of any such vote, the Obama administration should be flexing all its diplomatic muscle to ensure that it does not stand alone against this reckless and provocative move."

Who saying it hasn't been flexing its muscles and twisting arms in a furious attempt to get votes on its side?

US diplomats ARE flexing their muscles, but the AREN'T getting anywhere for the simple reason that they have been handed an impossible brief, and so they would have more luck trying to arm-wrestle the tide into not coming in.

The USA simply has no leverage, precisely because Obama has squandered any goodwill by his repeated capitulations to Netanyahu.

Those capitulations have convinced everybody that all the USA wants is for everyone to keep themselves busy spinnin' their wheels while Israel puts its head down and keeps building settlements on Someone Else's Land.

Everyone is simply tired of that game, and so no amount of arm-twisting is going to convince them to come out to play.

It really is as simple as that.

Britain has not revealed it's response to the PA proposals because it has not yet SEEN them. Britain, and France and others, have previously stated it will reserve judgement until it sees the wording that it is supposed to be voting on.

The author, who is clearly some kind of pro-zionist stooge, argues that Britain should adopt the US default position which is to block any Pal initiative regardless.

Magan writes "the United States must increase its efforts to persuade the British government to reject calls for Palestinian statehood". But why the kneejerk decision? Isn't Pal statehood the objective the entire international community has been working towards for the last 20ys? Isn't it the goal?

Ultimately, the powers that be in Israel are opposed to the Pal state ON PRINCIPLE and have been doing everything they can since 1967 to prevent it from becoming a reality. This is the truth. Whatever you say about Bibi's bar-elan speech, about how great a concession it was for him to vomit those words, the formation of a viable Pal state is against everything he has stood for and worked for his entire life.

Many enlightened people have long since realised that it is the very inequality of power between the two sides which prevents any progress in bilateral negotiations. The insistence that the peace talks should be solely between Israel (a country) and the Palestinians (a stateless people) is in itself a barrier to a just solution. Fruitlessness has been the theme of negotiations during my lifetime. Perhaps enhanced status for the Pals, and the internationalisation of the conflict will assist in reaching a 2 state solution if it isn't already too late?

Also the fact that most European governments are looking at Israel acting like South Africa did under apartheid and should be well within there right not to aid such regimes as long as its current practices continue just because there is a veil of democracy attached to it, this is something I believe best microwave most of Americans who commentate on Israel don't seem to get, also if this was any other country in that region there would be uproar at the same practices.