and conflict and violence so i think it's a good amp necessity because it's built on palestinian land that's not even built on the borders and not only does it deprive us of our freedom of her drives and right to see beyond the wall the here and now it's also unpleasant behind that wall and prevents them from seeing the consequences of their occupation of what's happening to the palestinians and therefore they lack the tools of dealing with reality so it than you displaced a whole nation and you replace it with another and you take their land you take the resources including water and now they're confiscating outcomes as well in addition to expelling palestinian people so we apply in accordance with our laws of immigration and naturalization the state of palestine would be occupied and the state of palestine would simply be calling negotiating how it occupying power is going to leave if israeli settlers would be interested and stay well as i've heard many times mentioned by other people they can apply through the immigration naturalization procedures that would exist within a palestinian state and according to whatever these procedures whatever procedures are they can either be allowed to stay o how would refugees fear if palestine becomes an independent state and how would it affect the palestinian citizens of israel palestine that became israel as as yet another group and those living in the other arab countries a two state solution based on the one nine hundred sixty seven lines is one that addresses some of the grievance some of the needs and interests of the population living in the west bank east jerusalem and gaza it would only indirectly deal and help the deal with and help the palestinians who are refugees in other arab countries and it does nothing for the palestinians living inside israel so it's not surprising that those for whom the impossible and to create facts on the ground which make israeli domination irreversible this is really really important that's why the boycott divestment and sanctions are so important because everything israel does is to make it so that the israeli domination of the entire land and the people is irreversible and that of course when you see in that light you understand the cleansing and you know stand the brutal policies against the palestinians everything certainly makes sense when you see it in that light in your stand the real purpose behind what they're doing so how the u n votes i think is immaterial i think it might be symbolically could be could be seen as a pulse in the victory if the vote goes for the palestinians israel probably consider it as a victory if if the vote goes their way but on the ground as terms of how palestinians are treated in terms of resolving the israeli palestinian issue this is completely insignificant for the state of palestine let's imagine that the security council discusses this and none of the permanent members oppose it and it seals through somehow and actually palestine let's imagine we're to become a full member of the united nations because then when the vote goes to the general assembly a two thirds majority in the general assembly will be smooth sailing it's not a it's not going to be hard to get t palestinians hope to gain from this because they haven't gotten their state you know the only got themselves a place in an international body of the many things that they can gain one i'd like to highlight the meaning of the negotiations at that point instantly shifts now it will be two states engaged in in a sense once the whole world has recognized that palestine is a state within the one hundred sixty seven borders israel becomes recognized as a country that's occupying the territory of another member state have veto power over any of over swaps if israelis feel strongly and i know israelis feel very strongly about the jewish holy sites in the old city which eighty seven i think that's a genuine issue that the israelis have a genuine interest in and palestinians would have to find a means of accommodating the israeli interest in that attack would be entirely different from the vegetable market scenario we have witnessed for twenty years it's worth thinking about what the concern of some palestinians are about not going ahead with full u n member status it seems that either it's a stance that doesn't do any concrete good or more significantly that it could sue render issues the full right of return and even a broader palestinian state seems to me that both of those objections are misplaced first of all the easy one stance where they need to do symbolic thing this should have been something that was pursued by the palestinian authority years ago i think they made a mistake really counting on a bilateral process with israel and counting on the u s support so the fact that president abbas of the palestinian authority is finally willing to challenge the united states in israel is a very important step i think so the palestinian community needs to push more accountability from president abbas in the palestinian authority so it's helped that so it may be a stance but it's a very useful stand that has exciting possibilities in terms of you know the broader issue of solution based on the one nine hundred sixty seven borders understanding that that's not the end game i've heard people saying you know what's the point of getting a palestinian state recognizes the you and that's will give us a state on the ground yes it's true it will but there is such a thing as legal reality you know we can we can speak just  as as corporations are legal persons you know they're not really persons like they're not natural persons they're legal persons similarly and that gives them a reality in the world that they wouldn't have if they were not recognized as legal persons similarly there is a legal reality that can be given to palestine as a state if it is a full member of the united of the united nations that it wouldn't have if it is not we're talking here symbolic we're talking one step but that would be it would have been a step or would be a step in the right direction if you if you think that a state solution was disastrous and you think it should have never been a palestinian political platform then you might celebrate the fact that the united nations the united states will be vetoing this and will stop palestine from becoming a member of the un i find that sad but i know that that's the case for some people for the palestinians efforts to deal a gentleman as israel will end in failure any action in the city in the u n you haven't changed the fundamental situation and what we are seeking to do is to get to a place where we can have two states living side by side in peace and security and action in new york is not going to achieve that objective this week and many times the united states believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent palestinian borders with israel jordan and egypt and permanent israeli borders with palestine we believe the borders of israel palestine should be based on the one nine hundred sixty seven lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states the palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential sovereign and contiguous state no irrationality is not uncommon in politics contradiction is not uncommon in politics but sometimes the irrationality and the contradiction is so blatant that even the casual observer kennel to miss it and i think this is going to be one of those instances president obama gives a speech in me saying that the parameters of an israeli palestinian peace are on the basis of the  seven lines with agreed upon land swaps he comes he comes and makes that statement himself he says that's the standard palestinians take him at his word and say ok we're asking for no more merely the recognition of a state of palestine on the basis of the one hundred sixty seven borders and if you want to put in brackets with agreed you know with agreed land swaps we can do that how does the united states justify to itself to the world just i mean in there in policymakers how do they justify in their own heads how they veto their own statements how  everything is so when palestinians are sick for a state for full membership of a palestine of palestine in the united nations on the borders of nine seven they are asking for what the whole world agrees they should have even the united states even those who will vote against them agree that's the weird well my dream is to have an independent country of palestine to be admitted to the united nations as hopefully we have one hundred ninety three countries now would it be nice if the u n general assembly voted to grant statehood a very unusual moment in modern arab history it's the moment of empowerment and dignity when palestinians who share in that sense even though they haven't had their own arab spring really haven't had their own popular movement in this last year of course those things that had many popular movements you had in thirty six we had an eighty seven we had in two thousand but now they're not they haven't participated in this in any big way but they participate in the feeling they share in that sense of pride and dignity that is shared by everybody who feels connected to the arabic speaking world in this atmosphere to make a demand for one's rights to say we whom the world admirers we stand with dignity demanding our right we're not on september twentieth i am waiting for that moment me and my family and my friends and my in october two thousand and eleven those waiting for the moment when the un recognizes palestine were disappointed when the vote in the security perspective i do not accept anything like that i think this is all nonsense and advice to go to the un or any other place i think the palestinians were hurt by both not being completely on board so that being some divison s within the palestinians on whether this was the way to go i think if they had lobbied more strenuously they might have had a chance critically to get a country like bosnia and maybe maybe even portugal to have gone along so both the us having a continuing influence in the security council and the palestinians not being one hundred percent behind this initiative explains why they only got eight other hand it was surprising and kind of a symbolic victory for the palestinians that the united states was not able to secure no votes any of the states they want it including germany so germany would vote no as a lot of the states abstains instead of voting no so i'd say that it's a mixed bag the bottom line however is that we knew that they weren't going to get security council approval because we knew the united states was going to veto it so the next step was going to be the un general assembly the un general assembly then eventually  would have voted overwhelmingly probably around one hundred fifty states would have voted to given something we could call a super observer status something in between a full member and this old status and had to an upgrade in rank although the bid for recognition in the un security council did not succeed on october thirty first two thousand and eleven the united nations voted overwhelmingly to admit palestine vote was a pretty good victory for the palestinian authority they got overwhelming membership to be sort of a full member of unesco and since we're really just talking about a legitimacy battle not so much a concrete battle i think that really show it shows the writing on the wall that the palestinian cause enjoys a lot of legitimacy so on the whole i think the decision to go ahead with the withdrawn and think about how to improve the lives of all citizens in the state of israel and in the new state of palestine so i see the best model in rather than talking about a one state solution which is not feasible any time soon versus a two state solution think about what one does after getting a two state solution and i think in israel what that means is working for much more serious civil rights so you end the systematic discrimination against the palestinians living in israel you start to build more trust between the jewish population and the palestinian arab population in israel and think about coming up with something that's not so much a jewish state anymore but an israeli state that recognizes that it's got important jewish and palestinian arab components so you know it has certain symbolic significance both to jewish culture and to palestinian arab culture and if you think along those lines you would get the best what a one state solution is calling for anyways which is a more dignified life that's not proceeding on screamin or a treatment toward palestinian arabs so i think that the two state solution is a very important base but the point is one should states versus one state and think about a more just two state solution that would accommodate things like dealing with the refugee situation and dealing with the fundamental inequality faced by palestinian and cover to continue with its destructive path now if that is no will to to act with a sense of urgency and immediacy then it says it seems to me the two state solution yes will be destroyed that means that we will stay in this very abnormal situation for generations maybe under occupation where the action is laterally where it steals the land without the people the one state solution isn't going to emerge easily or as a