Defying Trump, over 120 countries at U.N. condemn Jerusalem decision

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Modern Israel has no legal right to West Jerusalem. It was excluded from the UN resolution that created modern Israel. It only occupies it, which is why no nation has an embassy there, as you well know.

 

History is irrelevant to present legality.

If history was relevant, England owns a large part of France.

 

Seems that you have changed your opinion on the Donald for this issue .

 

There were over 20 foreign embassies in West Jerusalem up until the early 1980's. The main cause for them being relocated was not Israel's control of West Jerusalem (since 1949), or even Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem (since 1967), but Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem (1980).

 

As with many posts, there's a failure to mention that the "UN resolution which created Israel", and serves as basis for the argument was rejected by the Arab/Palestinian side - not much criticism offered on that, or when it comes to calls for recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

 

Whether or not "history is irrelevant to present legality" seems to be dependent on arbitrary and partisan views of is considered "history". Since on other occasions bits of history (if more recent) are waved as "proof" for Palestinian rights, it does seem a bit of a contrived or badly constructed argument.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Doubt that the US will massively cut aid in most relevant cases - that would essentially mean pulling the plug on US leverage and military presence in some key locations. Also, as quite a bit of the aid in question is given in the form of funds to buy Made in the USA stuff and services, cancelling it would mean loss of monies and jobs to American firms."

 

Precisely, but I'd also highlight the use of 'funding' to buy weapons from the funding countries....

 

And...?

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, ravip said:

Those too are clearly indicated in the list.

 

They do appear in the picture, but somehow not mentioned in the article itself.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There were over 20 foreign embassies in West Jerusalem up until the early 1980's. The main cause for them being relocated was not Israel's control of West Jerusalem (since 1949), or even Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem (since 1967), but Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem (1980).

 

As with many posts, there's a failure to mention that the "UN resolution which created Israel", and serves as basis for the argument was rejected by the Arab/Palestinian side - not much criticism offered on that, or when it comes to calls for recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

 

Whether or not "history is irrelevant to present legality" seems to be dependent on arbitrary and partisan views of is considered "history". Since on other occasions bits of history (if more recent) are waved as "proof" for Palestinian rights, it does seem a bit of a contrived or badly constructed argument.

Thanks for pointing that out about the embassies prior to the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem. I always thought there had been none.

 

My opinion as to ''proof" of Palestinian right to live there is that they had been living there for centuries and the Jews were not, having been exiled by the Romans.

[ravip]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

They do appear in the picture, but somehow not mentioned in the article itself.

FYI from the article.

 

Member states that voted in favour of the resolution
A: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan

B: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi

C: Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica

E: Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia

F: Finland, France

G: Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana

I: Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy

J: Japan, Jordan

K: Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan

L: Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg

M:Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique

N: Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway

O: Oman

P: Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal

Q: Qatar

R: Republic of Korea (South Korea), Russia

S: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria

T: Tajikistan, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey

U: United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan

V: Venezuela, Vietnam

Y: Yemen

Z: Zimbabwe

 

Member states that voted against the resolution
G: Guatemala

H: Honduras

I: Israel

M: Marshall Islands, Micronesia

N: Nauru

P: Palau

T: Togo

U: United States

 

Member states that abstained
A: Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Australia

B: Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina

C: Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic

D: Dominican Republic

E: Equatorial Guinea

F: Fiji

H: Haiti, Hungary

J: Jamaica

K: Kiribati

L: Latvia, Lesotho

M:  Malawi, Mexico

P: Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland

R: Romania, Rwanda

S: Solomon Islands, South Sudan

T: Trinidad-Tobago, Tuvalu

U: Uganda

V: Vanuatu

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

Hahahahaha the coalition of the willing 'Merica, 'Srael, Togo and Timor Leste. A resounding endorsement of US global leadership. Trump and Haley victorious again.

I see Pakistan have announced they will no longer trade with China in dollars, following yesterday's threats by the US. This and the soon to be launched petroyuan contracts for oil will dent the US ability to continue to sell T-bills at below global rates.

Is Trump going to MAIA....Make America Irrelevant Again?

Just left East Tumor a few months ago, at least they know their check will be in the mail.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ravip said:

FYI from the article.

 

Member states that voted in favour of the resolution
A: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan

B: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi

C: Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica

E: Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia

F: Finland, France

G: Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana

I: Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy

J: Japan, Jordan

K: Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan

L: Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg

M:Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique

N: Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway

O: Oman

P: Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal

Q: Qatar

R: Republic of Korea (South Korea), Russia

S: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria

T: Tajikistan, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey

U: United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan

V: Venezuela, Vietnam

Y: Yemen

Z: Zimbabwe

 

Member states that voted against the resolution
G: Guatemala

H: Honduras

I: Israel

M: Marshall Islands, Micronesia

N: Nauru

P: Palau

T: Togo

U: United States

 

Member states that abstained
A: Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Australia

B: Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina

C: Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic

D: Dominican Republic

E: Equatorial Guinea

F: Fiji

H: Haiti, Hungary

J: Jamaica

K: Kiribati

L: Latvia, Lesotho

M:  Malawi, Mexico

P: Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland

R: Romania, Rwanda

S: Solomon Islands, South Sudan

T: Trinidad-Tobago, Tuvalu

U: Uganda

V: Vanuatu

 

Yes. My post referred to the 21 countries who did not participate in the vote, not to those who did and abstained.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thanks for pointing that out about the embassies prior to the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem. I always thought there had been none.

 

My opinion as to ''proof" of Palestinian right to live there is that they had been living there for centuries and the Jews were not, having been exiled by the Romans.

 

Thanks for making my point - apparently you feel that history is irrelevant in reference to one side, but is relevant when it comes to the other. As for Palestinians "living there for centuries" - that would again be one of them ill-defined wide-brush claims, not necessarily fully supported by facts. Choosing arbitrary points of reference and then pronouncing history as being relevant or not is not much of argument.

 

A better way, in my opinion, would be to acknowledge both sides have their past claims, without focusing on these as the main factor when addressing present issues. Denying the relevance of history altogether, and more so, in a one-sided manner, is neither helpful nor factually correct.

[jcsmith]

It's shameful that Haley would threaten other nations over not supporting a decision which has been hated almost universally except by the Trump supporters in the U.S. (a minority at this point), and Israel. 

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, Coconutman said:

Good.. i hope america pulls out of the un.

Perhaps they should be expelled from the UN for so brazenly attempting to blackmail the rest of world

Edited December 22, 2017 by farcanell

[farcanell]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo joined the United States and Israel in voting no.

So.... no one really supported the US

 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Among countries that abstained were Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda.

I’m ashamed that Australia abstained.... no balls.

 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,"

Pathetic and intimidating rhetoric.... move the UN to Brussels.

[ravip]

" the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation"

Is there ANY country today that could be called a sovereign nation?

Does the US itself recognise or believe in such a thing?

 

Who is fooling whom?

 

[dunroaming]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump had threatened to cut off financial aid to countries that voted in favour. A total of 128 countries backed the resolution, which is non-binding, nine voted against and 35 abstained. Twenty-one countries did not cast a vote.

Pretty much as expected.  There are certainly some countries that cannot afford to vote against the US and Trumps threats and they are obviously the ones who abstained or didn't vote at all.

 

6 hours ago, car720 said:

Perfect.  The next time some hairy leg talks to me about glass ceilings I am going to refer them the the balls on this one. 

You mean the way she has said exactly what she was instructed to say by her boss rather than telling him what an embarrassing jerk he is!

[Emster23]

Nikki could save time by just taking the names of those who voted with her. Next up "Make Togo to go again!"

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There were over 20 foreign embassies in West Jerusalem up until the early 1980's. The main cause for them being relocated was not Israel's control of West Jerusalem (since 1949), or even Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem (since 1967), but Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem (1980).

 

As with many posts, there's a failure to mention that the "UN resolution which created Israel", and serves as basis for the argument was rejected by the Arab/Palestinian side - not much criticism offered on that, or when it comes to calls for recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

 

Whether or not "history is irrelevant to present legality" seems to be dependent on arbitrary and partisan views of is considered "history". Since on other occasions bits of history (if more recent) are waved as "proof" for Palestinian rights, it does seem a bit of a contrived or badly constructed argument.

Not sure if you are trying to derail the thread by continually introducing Partition. But if you think it's relevant, then it deserves a reply.

 

The Palestinians rejected Partition because it was a blatantly unfair deal.

They objected to foreign powers giving away 55% of their land to newcomer European Jewish immigrants, when Jews formed only 31% of the population and owned a mere 6% of the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#British_censuses_and_estimations

 

If you were a Palestinian, would you have accepted such an atrocious deal?

No wonder the Zionists cherry picked the bits they liked, and ran rough shod over parts they rejected.

 

The Zionists have rejected it too. They have not accepted that Jerusalem as part of Partition was to be an international city. They have officially annexed it and illegally transfered 200,000 of their own citizens there which is contrary to the Geneva Convention, to which USA and Israel are both signatories.

 

History repeats. Trump is again giving away someone else's land. The Palestinians  and 128 of the world's sovereign nations have rejected that too in the OP. 

And just as last time, the Zionists, in all their power, greed and arrogance, will annex more land, only this time they will do a 100% job and there will be no more land left to steal.

But it will be a Pyrrhic victory, because they will also have annexed 4.5 million indigenous Palestinians. You can't have a Jewish state if Jews are a minority, so what to do with the majority Palestinians ...ethnic cleansing, apartheid?

Trump's disingenuous shenanigans have indeed been a game changer. The charade is over. The struggle for justice will now move into a new phase: one man one vote and equal rights for all in a single state.

Edited December 22, 2017 by dexterm

[Coconutman]

1919. The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organizationconceived in similarcircumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security.

 

 

Failure to say the least

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

 

But it will be a Pyrrhic victory, because they will also have annexed 4.5 million indigenous Palestinians. You can't have a Jewish state if Jews are a minority, so what to do with the majority Palestinians ...ethnic cleansing, apartheid?

 

Agreed but why do you think the Israelis will change anything? The present situation suits them as it unites the population against the "threat" and if they keep it up long enough perhaps they think the Palestinians will just give up and leave. Where to? Not Israel's problem.

As long as the US has a UN veto, nothing will change, though hopefully the rest of the world will mount an anti apartheid style campaign to ostracise Israel. The US didn't get on board with that either, till they were virtually forced to do so.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Not sure if you're trolling. Strike that, I am sure.

 

Funny how bringing up things is off topic if it doesn't fit your agenda, even in a topic directly addressing Jerusalem's status and in response to related posts by other posters. Derailing would be you going on one of your pointless tirades, without actually addressing the point.

 

Once again, make up your mind. On some posts you go on and on about the importance of adhering to and complying with UN resolution, and yet on other (such as above) it would appear that this is a matter of preference. Or, perhaps, it is more to do with the identity of parties involved - and you somehow assuming that the Palestinians have some privilege status with regard to accepting or rejecting UN resolutions. That you announce this or that UN resolution to be "blatantly unfair" is not a relevant consideration, but a partisan point of view.

 

And regardless of your spins, there was one side who accepted said resolution, warts and all - and one side who rejected it outright, opting for war in order to reverse it. And spin some more - the Israeli unilateral annexation of Jerusalem was decades later (and that's without the usual lack of reference to Jordan's previous annexation of the same).

 

Trump isn't giving away "someone else's land". The original UN resolution did not allocate the land to "someone", and yet you insist on painting it otherwise. Similarly, Trump's announcement addressed that it does not apply for final status borders, no matter how much you wish to ignore it.

 

You doomsday predictions (or predictions in general) have not been proven to be particularly accurate. Other than one-sided, hyperbolic propaganda tirades, you have little to offer. The supposed insights into Palestinian views and politics are laughable, at best. You lack the capability to discuss these issues in any reasonable manner, but resort to the same soapbox style at every chance.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Thanks for making my point - apparently you feel that history is irrelevant in reference to one side, but is relevant when it comes to the other. As for Palestinians "living there for centuries" - that would again be one of them ill-defined wide-brush claims, not necessarily fully supported by facts. Choosing arbitrary points of reference and then pronouncing history as being relevant or not is not much of argument.

 

A better way, in my opinion, would be to acknowledge both sides have their past claims, without focusing on these as the main factor when addressing present issues. Denying the relevance of history altogether, and more so, in a one-sided manner, is neither helpful nor factually correct.

Well, someone was living there for centuries, and it wasn't the Jews.

 

I look on it from the point of view that if an organisation on the other side of the world unilaterally decided that my land was going to be annexed and given to some people that didn't have a relevant claim to it I'd be rather annoyed, to be polite, and I might decide to do something about it.

 

If the UN was actually within it's rights ( though from what authority did they have that right? ) to give other people's land away, how about telling Turkey, Syria and Iraq, that the Kurds now have their own country on the land ON WHICH THEY ARE ACTUALLY LIVING?

 

BTW, if the UN had an ounce of integrity, they'd force the British to return Diego Garcia to it's owners. It's no wonder I have zero regard for the sham UN, and consider it to be a mere lackey of the US.

[dexterm]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agreed but why do you think the Israelis will change anything? The present situation suits them as it unites the population against the "threat" and if they keep it up long enough perhaps they think the Palestinians will just give up and leave. Where to? Not Israel's problem.

As long as the US has a UN veto, nothing will change, though hopefully the rest of the world will mount an anti apartheid style campaign to ostracise Israel. The US didn't get on board with that either, till they were virtually forced to do so.

Arm every Palestinian with a $25 smartphone to record the daily sickening thuggish brutality of the IDF and illegal colonists, and peacefuly shame Israel before the world through the social media. It's already happening.

There are still many decent people in western democracies. One of the loudest voicest against the supremacist Zionist state of Israel is from younger American Jewry.

 

Politicians of Trump and Netanyahu's ilk come ...and go.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agreed but why do you think the Israelis will change anything? The present situation suits them as it unites the population against the "threat" and if they keep it up long enough perhaps they think the Palestinians will just give up and leave. Where to? Not Israel's problem.

As long as the US has a UN veto, nothing will change, though hopefully the rest of the world will mount an anti apartheid style campaign to ostracise Israel. The US didn't get on board with that either, till they were virtually forced to do so.

 

The "Israeli population" is hardly united when it comes to the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That you imagine maintaining the current situation will change that does not correspond to reality. As for the present situation suits"them" - the same fallacy, there is no united "them" on this.

 

Posters seem perfectly capable of accepting the existence of differing points of view in some countries, but then go on about some imaginary unified general points of view existing elsewhere. Can't say it's a very compelling or even informed position.

 

Guess that for lack of any intelligent comment this will now descend into the usual rehashing of pseudo-historical nonsense accounts, inane calls for BDS support and the mandatory hyperbole tirades. Doubt most posters' countries live up to their expressed fantasies when it comes to relations with Israel.

 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, someone was living there for centuries, and it wasn't the Jews.

 

I look on it from the point of view that if an organisation on the other side of the world unilaterally decided that my land was going to be annexed and given to some people that didn't have a relevant claim to it I'd be rather annoyed, to be polite, and I might decide to do something about it.

 

If the UN was actually within it's rights ( though from what authority did they have that right? ) to give other people's land away, how about telling Turkey, Syria and Iraq, that the Kurds now have their own country on the land ON WHICH THEY ARE ACTUALLY LIVING?

 

BTW, if the UN had an ounce of integrity, they'd force the British to return Diego Garcia to it's owners. It's no wonder I have zero regard for the sham UN, and consider it to be a mere lackey of the US.

 

As said, thanks for making my point. You pick an arbitrary time frame, and decide that it is relevant. That is not disengaged from political position and hence, not very objective nor helpful in understanding the situation or addressing issues.

 

As with the other poster - do make up your mind. Are UN resolutions to be adhered to and complied with, or is it a matter depending on a partisan point of view?  Such decisions rarely address all the wishes of all parties involved, understanding the Palestinian point of view is one thing, legitimizing it is another. If you opt for the latter, then non compliance with UN resolutions should not be an issue with regard to all sides.

 

It is quite customary, at some phase of these "discussions" for the usual suspects to drop the masks and come out with the core issue - that they reject Israel's existence. That makes the whole previous charade quite unnecessary. This isn't about complying with this or that resolution, or with how a specific issue or action are approached. It's about rejecting a certain part of reality.

 

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Arm every Palestinian with a $25 smartphone to record the daily sickening thuggish brutality of the IDF and illegal colonists, and peacefuly shame Israel before the world through the social media. It's already happening.

There are still many decent people in western democracies. One of the loudest voicest against the supremacist Zionist state of Israel is from younger American Jewry.

 

Politicians of Trump and Netanyahu's ilk come ...and go.

 

Are you once more trying to present the Palestinians as peaceful loving people who are all for practicing non-violent resistance? Is there or was there anyone stopping them for carrying out a non-violent struggle during the decades of their predicament? Was this their top choice? Is this their main course of action today? That "it is already happening" does not answer the questions above, its just another deflection.

 

Equating "decent" with being anti-Israel is yet another low in your posting career. Guess you'll need to be reminded of this next time you whine about "besmirching", "smearing", and other victim-card nonsense.

 

Unsurprisingly, no criticism out of you pointed at Palestinian, Arab or Muslim leaders and politicians exhibiting similar traits to Trump, Netanyahu and their "ilk".

[mogandave]

It’s time the UN be moved to a more appropriate location.

I think Turkey would be perfect.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[thaibeachlovers]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The "Israeli population" is hardly united when it comes to the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That you imagine maintaining the current situation will change that does not correspond to reality. As for the present situation suits"them" - the same fallacy, there is no united "them" on this.

 

Posters seem perfectly capable of accepting the existence of differing points of view in some countries, but then go on about some imaginary unified general points of view existing elsewhere. Can't say it's a very compelling or even informed position.

 

Guess that for lack of any intelligent comment this will now descend into the usual rehashing of pseudo-historical nonsense accounts, inane calls for BDS support and the mandatory hyperbole tirades. Doubt most posters' countries live up to their expressed fantasies when it comes to relations with Israel.

 

The only "them" to which I refer are the "them" that have imposed the cruel occupation of Palestinian land for decades and build illegal settlements on land that does not belong to them. Obviously any other opinion has no power in Israel.

[sirineou]

More Trump nonsense , red meat for his base.

The US will send money where it serves it's interest and will not where it does not.

[dexterm]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As said, thanks for making my point. You pick an arbitrary time frame, and decide that it is relevant. That is not disengaged from political position and hence, not very objective nor helpful in understanding the situation or addressing issues.

 

As with the other poster - do make up your mind. Are UN resolutions to be adhered to and complied with, or is it a matter depending on a partisan point of view?  Such decisions rarely address all the wishes of all parties involved, understanding the Palestinian point of view is one thing, legitimizing it is another. If you opt for the latter, then non compliance with UN resolutions should not be an issue with regard to all sides.

 

It is quite customary, at some phase of these "discussions" for the usual suspects to drop the masks and come out with the core issue - that they reject Israel's existence. That makes the whole previous charade quite unnecessary. This isn't about complying with this or that resolution, or with how a specific issue or action are approached. It's about rejecting a certain part of reality.

 

>>As with the other poster - do make up your mind. Are UN resolutions to be adhered to and complied with, or is it a matter depending on a partisan point of view? 
..seems you have just described yours and Israel's behavior.

Pot kettle black spring to mind.

 

Another falsehood. I have never rejected Israel's existence. Put up or shut up. It's the hateful religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism that is the root cause of the entire conflict that I object to.

 

Without Zionists' fanatical intention for one religion solely to control the whole of Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine where two other major religions have their sacred sites too, now emboldened by the current man child in the White House,  the different peoples would have been living peacefully together years ago.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The only "them" to which I refer are the "them" that have imposed the cruel occupation of Palestinian land for decades and build illegal settlements on land that does not belong to them. Obviously any other opinion has no power in Israel.

 

Your insistence on wide brush strokes when it suits, while displaying lack of insight as to details and facts elsewhere is duly noted.

[thaibeachlovers]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As said, thanks for making my point. You pick an arbitrary time frame, and decide that it is relevant. That is not disengaged from political position and hence, not very objective nor helpful in understanding the situation or addressing issues.

 

As with the other poster - do make up your mind. Are UN resolutions to be adhered to and complied with, or is it a matter depending on a partisan point of view?  Such decisions rarely address all the wishes of all parties involved, understanding the Palestinian point of view is one thing, legitimizing it is another. If you opt for the latter, then non compliance with UN resolutions should not be an issue with regard to all sides.

 

It is quite customary, at some phase of these "discussions" for the usual suspects to drop the masks and come out with the core issue - that they reject Israel's existence. That makes the whole previous charade quite unnecessary. This isn't about complying with this or that resolution, or with how a specific issue or action are approached. It's about rejecting a certain part of reality.

 

You pick an arbitrary time frame, and decide that it is relevant.

I don't think nearly 2 millennia is an arbitrary time frame.

 

 

I reject the notion that the "UN" can deprive one group of people of their land and give it to someone else without the consent of those dispossessed.

 

The Israelis claim a legal "right" to the 1948 boundaries and occupy land outside those boundaries by force of arms. I hardly see how they can accuse those they deprived of their land of "terrorism", when it is merely trying to regain their own lands from an occupation force. By such a definition the French resistance were merely terrorists and not heroes in WW2. It is worth noting that an Israeli terrorist became a PM, but no Israeli would describe Begin as such. What is good for one is equally good for the other.

What is clear though, is that the Israelis are slowly but surely losing world support, and when it ends in tears, even if it takes 600 years, they will have only themselves to blame.

Edited December 22, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>As with the other poster - do make up your mind. Are UN resolutions to be adhered to and complied with, or is it a matter depending on a partisan point of view? 
..seems you have just described yours and Israel's behavior.

Pot kettle black spring to mind.

 

Another falsehood. I have never rejected Israel's existence. Put up or shut up. It's the hateful religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism that is the root cause of the entire conflict that I object to.

 

Without Zionists' fanatical intention for one religion solely to control the whole of Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine where two other major religions have their sacred sites too, now emboldened by the current man child in the White House,  the different peoples would have been living peacefully together years ago.

 

Seems like you trying for the same old baseless turning the tables thing. And the usual attempts to tie between my views and those of the Israeli government - which is pathetic, considering you are well aware this is a lie.

 

You have rejected Israel's existence, and you do so now. That you choose to paint an extreme version of Israel does not make my assertion untrue. What you are for is the destruction of Israel, and its replacement by either a fantasy version of multiculturalism or the ascendance of  the Palestinians over the Israelis. All to obvious and rather detailed in your many posts. Spin away. The hateful ideology, if it can be called that, is mostly what the bile you spew on these forum.

 

As opposed to your  nonsense - it was actually under Jordan's rule that access and worship were prevented for Jews (and incidentally, also for Arab citizens of Israel). As for different people living peacefully together years ago - more of your wide-brush nonsense (easy example, Jews were driven out of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule).