Will the Palestinian State be established in 2009?

I am unsure what you mean by Palestine State, are we talking self rule are some thing more? What if just the West Bank and not Gaza, would that count? To a degree the Palestinian National Authority runs the West Bank, why is this not good enough to satify the question, what more needs to be met for this to be state hood? What do you mean by "establishment of an independent state"?
Would you please clarify these issues, thank you.

Seems I deleted an important sentence in the introduction: "Proposals for a Palestinian state refer to the proposed establishment of an independent state for the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, which is currently controlled by Hamas, and parts of the West Bank, which is now administered by the Palestinian National Authority."

Is, in the original text, followed by: "The precise borders of this state are under debate. The state of Palestine is currently recognized by 96 countries."

Since this is the aim of the Oslo peace process, this question refers to any result of that. The exact borders of the state are not important. Any solution which does not include (parts of) the West Bank and Gaza are not discussed in the process and therefor neglected by this question. But should it happen that a Palestine State is proclaimed which does not include both parts, though, this question ought to settle "Yes" nevertheless.

all israel bashers - can you tell me why none of the surrounding arab-muslim countries will let the palestinian people in their country? eygpt has them blocked off, iran gives them arms, saudi araba won't take them, syria does the same as iran. saddam gave them money-aide every once in awhile. seems the only reason their neighbors deal with them is to get them to harrass israel. all their neighbors are bigger, stronger, and richer..why don't they fire missles at israel? israel blew up a "suspected" nuclear site in syria..what did syria do about it? do the palestinian's have the plaque? if your neighboring state-country had a diaster-attacked by another state would you let them in your state? i'd be willing to bet the EVIL USA would let canadians or mexicans in if they had a disaster-attacked by another country.

is any israel basher here? didn't see any...
only asking this outs you to be poorly informed. but it's a good sign you still want to know and ask about the problems.
one article about this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-rotten-state-of-egypt-is-too-powerless-and-corrupt-to-act-1220048.html

kruijs - first your link won't work..says page can't be displayed. i only posted the question/comment here cause the other questions where most people was bashing israel was overloaded. if your "opinon/commentators" link opens later i might check it out. "opinon/commentators" speaks for it's self.

isn't your opinion based on information? so, the facts on which an opinion is based must not be wrong - and maybe there just ain't strong evidence, only indications.
there are several other articles covering this issue. just wanted to provide you one.
and, strangly, the link works for me. try using the search feature on the independent, if you wish

kruijs - link still not working for me. yes my opinon is based on info. do you see any of the palestinian people being allowed into their neighboring countries? when and if they are you can provide info saying differntly. as of today you don't see that happening.

I didn't want to say that you were wrong - you are not, egypt borders are closed. But you asked "why". and that, is what you could read in the independent article.
Try this:
http://www.google.ch/search?q=site%3Awww.independent.co.uk+"robert+fisk"+"the+rotten+state+of+egypt+is+too+powerless+and+corrupt+to+act"
(the link might be crippeled by this forum, please use the complete last line)
Actually, I just wondered why you came up with the israel bashing in the first place as I intended to give the hubdub community a more unbiased view on the situation by providing the background to this question - in contrast to the wording of many other questions.
And: To ask for the palestinian state itself is not against israel.

kruijs - the first link is working now. they guy blamed the USA which is natural/exspected, then at the end of the article said this...

Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the feeble Egyptian Foreign Minister, could only taunt the Hizbollah leaders by accusing them of trying to provoke "an anarchy similar to the one they created in their own country."

thats why the neighboring countries don't want the palestinian people. they don't wanna deal with the trouble makers. they use them to do their dirty work and suffer no penalty. why would iran, eygpt, syria, etc risk having a war with israel when they can get the thugs in palestinian to do it for them.

your question is well done with both sides presented fairly. i wasn't calling you a israel basher. in hindsight i shoulda posted my comment on the question where all the israel bashing was going on.

Israel may be ready to back two-state solution
May 16, 2009 | Associated Press

JERUSALEM (AP) - On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's crucial visit to Washington, his defense minister suggested Saturday the Israeli leader might be ready to endorse a Palestinian state when he meets President Barack Obama. That would be a significant shift for Netanyahu, who has made clear in the past that he does not think the Palestinians are ready to rule themselves. But that position has put him at odds with long-standing U.S. policy that supports Palestinian statehood as the cornerstone of Mideast peace efforts.

"I think and believe that Netanyahu will tell Obama this government is prepared to go for a political process that will result in two peoples living side by side in peace and mutual respect," Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Channel 2 TV on Saturday. Barak said he thought an agreement with the Palestinians could be achieved within three years. However, he did not explicitly use the word state in his remark, leaving open other options for Netanyahu. After the Israeli prime minister met with Jordan's king Thursday, a senior Jordanian government official said Netanyahu was likely to endorse a two-state solution when he meets Obama on Monday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

At their meeting, the two allies will be grappling with diverging policies on how to approach the Mideast conflict. They do not see eye-to-eye on the Palestinian issue or on the Obama administration's efforts to open dialogue with Syria and Iran. Netanyahu has hinted he would be prepared to take military action against Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons—something Vice President Joe Biden has said would be "ill-advised." Israeli and foreign media reported this week that CIA Director Leon Panetta secretly visited Israel earlier this month and asked for advance warning of any military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. If the Israeli leader does endorse a Palestinian state, he will almost certainly want something in return from Obama—a tougher line on reining in Iran. Netanyahu doesn't believe Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is peaceful and sees Iran as the crux of the Mideast's problems, with its nuclear ambitions, military arsenal and anti-Israel proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He traveled to Egypt and Jordan this week to try to rally Arab support against Iran.

That approach is at odds with Washington's, which sees movement toward Palestinian statehood as key to pressuring Tehran to keep its nuclear program peaceful. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pointedly made that linkage last month.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D987GLL81

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech endorsing the creation of a Palestinian state was "an important step forward," the White House said Sunday.

President Barack Obama "welcomes the important step forward in Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

In the speech, Netanyahu endorsed for the first time the creation of a Palestinian state, provided it was demilitarized, after weeks of pressure from Washington.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ihSClhrwZZ6ZiA3VBKoXe6SbbpvA

A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed a speech on Sunday by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "sabotaging" peace efforts.

A senior Palestinian negotiator called on U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene to force Israel to abide by previous interim agreements that include freezing settlement activity in the West Bank. The alternative, he said, was violence.

"The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise," negotiator Saeb Erekat said.

"Tonight, Netanyahu has flipped it over on its back."

Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah said: "Netanyahu's remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made and challenges the Palestinian, Arab and American positions."

He noted Netanyahu's demand that Jerusalem be the undivided capital of Israel and that Palestinian refugees not be allowed into Israel: "This will not lead to complete and just peace," Abu Rdainah said.

"His remarks are not enough and will not lead to a solution."

He described Netanyahu's setting of a condition of demilitarisation as a condition for Israel agreeing to a Palestinian state as "detail".

"Our main demand is the end of the occupation and finding a fair solution for Palestinian refugees and halting settlements," Abu Rdainah said. "Other details should be resolved in negotiations."

http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLE143244