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

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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

Note away. Your allies in the world community diminish with every Israeli atrocity against those they occupy.

Whatever my opinion, Israel will lose if it does not mend its ways, eventually.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

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).

 

 

IMO the entire debacle can be laid at the feet of Britain, which when faced with a few officers dying in the King David chose to pack their bags and run away, rather than stand for principle and ensure a fair transition.

Not a happy time for Britain, as they completely blew the Indian partition as well.

I guess a phsychologist could explain it, or perhaps it was just that the best of them died in two wars, but it's a real shame that they just abandoned everything they stood for. Pax Britannica no more.

[IAMHERE]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

Dismantle and send the UN building to the UK  or Iran.

 

send it to Jerusalem. 

[digger70]

What's the problem? DT is right Jerusalem IS the Capital of Israel , Israelis and Palestinians both CLAIM that Jerusalem is their Capital    So it they want that this way so be it let the rest of the world stay out of it.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

You pick an arbitrary point in time as to what's "relevant" and what "history". You apply this to both sides, according to political leanings. That was my point. You keep making it over and over again.

 

Rejecting the UN resolution is a choice, but the point of view presented is neither a consensus today, nor was it back then. I would daresay that had the UN resolution in question been in greatly in favor of the Palestinians, granting them lands which were settled by Jews, some on here would not air similar objections.

 

Essentially, you seem to claim that supposed right of ownership is related to presence. Well, how long before Israel's presence would make it's claim "legitimate" (in your eyes, at least)? Or would the same objections be raised if a future UN was to give Israel or parts of it to the Palestinian decedents? Again, when does things become "history" and when are they "relevant"? Guess it's a matter of perspective or partisanship.

 

To put the above foray into pseudo-history in perspective and focus - post 1949, there was no willingness from either the Palestinians or their Arab sponsors to discuss peace. This situation persisted for decades. Ignoring that both the Palestinians and the Arabs had a hand in creating the current sorry state of things does not change them facts.

 

That things dragged on, partly due to Arab and Palestinian intransigence is a fact, that it lasted for decades is a fact.

The expectation that the state of things should have been kept in stasis during these decades is unrealistic. Palestinian terrorism is a fact, whether posters wish to ignore this or whitewash it. Palestinian terrorism was never limited to territory allocated for the Palestinians - another fact. And Palestinian terrorism did (and does) not always limit its declared goals to being about achieving less than total victory (ie the destruction of Israel). Fact.

 

As often happens in these "discussions", posters arguments soon branch into any number of side issues, making the "debate" cumbersome and harder to follow. Notice that the bit about terrorism, for example, is not exactly what this is about.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Note away. Your allies in the world community diminish with every Israeli atrocity against those they occupy.

Whatever my opinion, Israel will lose if it does not mend its ways, eventually.

 

What "your allies"are you on? Are you daft? Or simply can't argue your point without painting my views as other than they are?

 

I have said nothing in favor of Trump's announcement - quite the opposite. I have never expressed any support for Israel's ongoing occupation and illegal settlement effort - quite the opposite. And you'll be hard pressed to find posts in support or praise of Israel's current government - quite the opposite.

 

"Eventually" is meaningless if you are a Palestinian, a non-right-wing Israeli or an interested and involved outsider. "Eventually" means a whole lot of mutual misery between now and then, with no assurances of a happy end to either side. "Eventually" is what partisan rejectionists try to sell.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the entire debacle can be laid at the feet of Britain, which when faced with a few officers dying in the King David chose to pack their bags and run away, rather than stand for principle and ensure a fair transition.

Not a happy time for Britain, as they completely blew the Indian partition as well.

I guess a phsychologist could explain it, or perhaps it was just that the best of them died in two wars, but it's a real shame that they just abandoned everything they stood for. Pax Britannica no more.

 

IMO, you're blaming pretty much everyone but the Palestinians and their Arab sponsors. Both could have been smarter or more decisive about it. Both could have (theoretically, disregarding cultural and religious issues) picked better options to tackle things. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

Essentially, you seem to claim that supposed right of ownership is related to presence. Well, how long before Israel's presence would make it's claim "legitimate" (in your eyes, at least)? Or would the same objections be raised if a future UN was to give Israel or parts of it to the Palestinian decedents? Again, when does things become "history" and when are they "relevant"? Guess it's a matter of perspective or partisanship.

 

To put the above foray into pseudo-history in perspective and focus - post 1949, there was no willingness from either the Palestinians or their Arab sponsors to discuss peace. This situation persisted for decades. Ignoring that both the Palestinians and the Arabs had a hand in creating the current sorry state of things does not change them facts.

 

 

 

Of course presence is relevant, and ownership is inferred if a people have lived somewhere long enough. However, that didn't make any difference for the poor Native Americans when Europeans decided they wanted it.

Modern Israel's presence will never be legitimate, IMO, as it was given them by a body that had no right, IMO, to do so.

They occupy the land in the same way as modern Americans live on land stolen from the previous occupiers by force of arms.

"post 1949, there was no willingness from either the Palestinians or their Arab sponsors to discuss peace."

Why does anyone think they should have agreed to it at all? To say that the UN could just take their land and they should accept it is against every tenant of human nature and natural justice.

Edited December 22, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

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?

Over the past 2 decades, I have met Israelis who have been filled with anger. Anger I had never seen anywhere else before. 

Those young Israeli folks were angry to everything. Once again, something I have never seen before. 

While most of us, most of the world wish to enjoy our lives, why the folks of Israel and currently of USA, want to be so aggressive towards everybody else?

[PaceArrow]

What the UN does or doesn't do is at the will and whim of the U.S.A.!!  If they don't like it, they can gladly pack up and move to another country.  Remember they only are allowed to exist because of the Strength and Funding of the U. S. Military and Government. The U.S. is still the reigning Super Power in the World and the one country that every other country calls upon whenever help is needed.

Those who haven't lived long enough to remember American History and it's participation in changing World History since the end of WWII  because a new Administration is in power that believes in Peace thru Strength, not weakness are severely fooling themselves.  The previous administration left the world in a more perilous position because of it's incompetence and self servicing apologetic attitude that the U.S. government should make amends to everyone for being a World Super Power that has rebuilt Europe and Japan and for the most part kept peace throughout much of the World for the past seventy years minus Muslim interference in the Middle East which has been going on for a thousand years. May God continue to Bless the U.S.A. and President Trump administration!!

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

IMO, you're blaming pretty much everyone but the Palestinians and their Arab sponsors. Both could have been smarter or more decisive about it. Both could have (theoretically, disregarding cultural and religious issues) picked better options to tackle things. 

Why would I blame the Palestinians? They didn't do anything to deserve what happened to them, other being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You think they wrote to the UN and say it was OK for the Zionists to take their land? No sane person on the planet would think that was reasonable way to react to the theft of their land.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What "your allies"are you on? Are you daft? Or simply can't argue your point without painting my views as other than they are?

 

I have said nothing in favor of Trump's announcement - quite the opposite. I have never expressed any support for Israel's ongoing occupation and illegal settlement effort - quite the opposite. And you'll be hard pressed to find posts in support or praise of Israel's current government - quite the opposite.

 

"Eventually" is meaningless if you are a Palestinian, a non-right-wing Israeli or an interested and involved outsider. "Eventually" means a whole lot of mutual misery between now and then, with no assurances of a happy end to either side. "Eventually" is what partisan rejectionists try to sell.

I miswrote. I meant to say, Israel's allies.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course presence is relevant, and ownership is inferred if a people have lived somewhere long enough. However, that didn't make any difference for the poor Native Americans when Europeans decided they wanted it.

Modern Israel's presence will never be legitimate, IMO, as it was given them by a body that had no right, IMO, to do so.

They occupy the land in the same way as modern Americans live on land stolen from the previous occupiers by force of arms.

"post 1949, there was no willingness from either the Palestinians or their Arab sponsors to discuss peace."

Why does anyone think they should have agreed to it at all? To say that the UN could just take their land and they should accept it is against every tenant of human nature and natural justice.

 

So, as said before - why are you beating around the bush? The question of whether Israel does this or that is basically irrelevant as far as your position goes. It doesn't matter in the least whether it complies with whichever UN resolution. Thanks for making you extreme position clear, will save a whole lot of time in future "discussions".

 

There was nothing whatsoever in the culture or religion of American settlers which prescribed America as relevant. It could have been anywhere. That you choose to ignore or deny the difference between these and the issue at hand is probably just an intentional wilful manifestation of the extreme position presented above. It also makes clear the insistence on history being "irrelevant", or on the arbitrary nature of what is considered "history".

 

Either one accepts the UN resolutions or one doesn't. If you wish to project an idiosyncratic, partisan take as anything but, go ahead.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What "your allies"are you on? Are you daft? Or simply can't argue your point without painting my views as other than they are?

 

I have said nothing in favor of Trump's announcement - quite the opposite. I have never expressed any support for Israel's ongoing occupation and illegal settlement effort - quite the opposite. And you'll be hard pressed to find posts in support or praise of Israel's current government - quite the opposite.

 

"Eventually" is meaningless if you are a Palestinian, a non-right-wing Israeli or an interested and involved outsider. "Eventually" means a whole lot of mutual misery between now and then, with no assurances of a happy end to either side. "Eventually" is what partisan rejectionists try to sell.

a whole lot of mutual misery between now and then

 

How's it been working out since 1949 then? Has there been any lack of "misery" in that part of the world since the UN came stomping in and giving other people's land away?

Not only has it been miserable there, but they've made it pretty miserable a lot of other places as well.

I can't see anything changing either. 

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Over the past 2 decades, I have met Israelis who have been filled with anger. Anger I had never seen anywhere else before. 

Those young Israeli folks were angry to everything. Once again, something I have never seen before. 

While most of us, most of the world wish to enjoy our lives, why the folks of Israel and currently of USA, want to be so aggressive towards everybody else?

 

Why would anyone take your claimed personal experience as representative of anything? That is, even if one was not aware of your posting history. Your nonsense generalization rests on little than standing bias and bigotry.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

Either one accepts the UN resolutions or one doesn't. If you wish to project an idiosyncratic, partisan take as anything but, go ahead.

You can put me in the "the UN is a meaningless entity as long as the US can veto anything it doesn't like" category, and no, I don't "accept" their resolutions as the whole thing is a farce. 

It's as effective as the League of Nations was before it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Why would anyone take your claimed personal experience as representative of anything? That is, even if one was not aware of your posting history. Your nonsense generalization rests on little than standing bias and bigotry.

But of course you do as you wish. Just like I did as I felt to say I experienced the world.

Go ahead, try to claim that bias and bigotry. I'll sure it will work pretty bad for your cause. 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why would I blame the Palestinians? They didn't do anything to deserve what happened to them, other being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You think they wrote to the UN and say it was OK for the Zionists to take their land? No sane person on the planet would think that was reasonable way to react to the theft of their land.

 

Deserve have nothing to do with it.

 

And like it or not, their leadership and sponsors took all the wrong choices for all the wrong reasons. If you wish to ignore that their decisions and actions played a part in how things turned out for the Palestinians, go ahead. It would not change facts one bit.

 

And please, do not associate your nonsense with what I supposedly think. There were plenty of better ways to go about it even if the Palestinians and Arab sponsors wished to effectively counter moves. If you think otherwise, then you'll have to demonstrate that there were, indeed, no other options or that the choices made were productive. Good luck with that.

[sanemax]

26 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Those young Israeli folks were angry to everything. Once again, something I have never seen before. 

While most of us, most of the world wish to enjoy our lives, why the folks of Israel and currently of USA, want to be so aggressive towards everybody else?

Whilst many Israelis can be obnoxious, they are vary rarely violent towards others .

The huge majority are very disciplined and well behaved 

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

a whole lot of mutual misery between now and then

 

How's it been working out since 1949 then? Has there been any lack of "misery" in that part of the world since the UN came stomping in and giving other people's land away?

Not only has it been miserable there, but they've made it pretty miserable a lot of other places as well.

I can't see anything changing either. 

 

You said that "Israel will lose if it does not mend its ways, eventually". If that's what your hopes for the Palestinians hang on, it is a bad answer.

 

It's not that things have been great since 1949, especially not for the Palestinians. But if the only answer on offer is the one above, then all it broadcasts is with regard to the Palestinians is defeatism, passivity and lack of accountability. Not exactly the building blocks of hope, let alone a nation or a state.

 

Perhaps alright from a point of view which gives precedence to Israel "losing" above other considerations. Or one which embodies an all-or-nothing approach. Those less bent on zealotry and purist ways, may prefer solutions which while falling short of some imagined total victory, offer a chance of alleviating the aforementioned misery.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Deserve have nothing to do with it.

 

And like it or not, their leadership and sponsors took all the wrong choices for all the wrong reasons. If you wish to ignore that their decisions and actions played a part in how things turned out for the Palestinians, go ahead. It would not change facts one bit.

 

And please, do not associate your nonsense with what I supposedly think. There were plenty of better ways to go about it even if the Palestinians and Arab sponsors wished to effectively counter moves. If you think otherwise, then you'll have to demonstrate that there were, indeed, no other options or that the choices made were productive. Good luck with that.

I'm going to stop now, not because I think you are right, but it's just a circular argument and pointless to continue. Neither of us are going to agree with each other.

I think we will probably seeing the same situation for many years to come, unless something drastic happens, like a US president that opposes Israel, and that's not likely to happen any time soon.

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You can put me in the "the UN is a meaningless entity as long as the US can veto anything it doesn't like" category, and no, I don't "accept" their resolutions as the whole thing is a farce. 

It's as effective as the League of Nations was before it.

 

What does the veto thing has to do with the original UN resolution? That one was supported by both the USA and the USSR. That you do not "accept" a UN resolution that does not conform to your politics does not change reality. But again, thanks for making your extreme point of view clear.

 

Not having the veto right, by the way, would make a whole lot of them countries which you do not like, be in a better position to pass all sorts of resolutions, say on immigration to the EU and Western countries, for example.

[sanemax]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

.

Not a happy time for Britain, as they completely blew the Indian partition as well.

 

I would just like to point out that the partition of India happened after they got Independence from the U.K .

  India and Pakistan went they their own separate ways after the UKhad left

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, oilinki said:

But of course you do as you wish. Just like I did as I felt to say I experienced the world.

Go ahead, try to claim that bias and bigotry. I'll sure it will work pretty bad for your cause. 

 

I do not have much of a cause, other than perhaps addressing some of the fine BS on these topics. You may deny previous posts all you like, doesn't change facts. Nor does it make a baiting generalization based on less than reliable personal experience to be more than lame trolling.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I do not have much of a cause, other than perhaps addressing some of the fine BS on these topics. You may deny previous posts all you like, doesn't change facts. Nor does it make a baiting generalization based on less than reliable personal experience to be more than lame trolling.

Does this mean, we can finally get rid of thinking that religious are important and we could concentrate to the fact that people and their thoughts are far more important than any religion?

If that is what you want, I'm with the free thought ideology!

 

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Does this mean, we can finally get rid of thinking that religious are important and we could concentrate to the fact that people and their thoughts are far more important than any religion?
If that is what you want, I'm with the free thought ideology!

 

Yes, Oilinki , me and you, and maybe some thaivisa readers can agree that Religion is an obstacle .

  Although that will not bring about a peaceful solution, because there are 1 and a half Billion Muslims that disagree .

  You need to go and talk to the 1 and a half billion Muslims, and get them to agree and whilst you are at it get all the Jews, Christians , Hindus, Buddhists and everyone to agree to that that as well

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, Oilinki , me and you, and maybe some thaivisa readers can agree that Religion is an obstacle .

  Although that will not bring about a peaceful solution, because there are 1 and a half Billion Muslims that disagree .

  You need to go and talk to the 1 and a half billion Muslims, and get them to agree and whilst you are at it get all the Jews, Christians , Hindus, Buddhists and everyone to agree to that that as well

You understood the problem, which is good. 

The solution is to find a reason. That reason is to grow. 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies reported and removed.  

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Does this mean, we can finally get rid of thinking that religious are important and we could concentrate to the fact that people and their thoughts are far more important than any religion?

If that is what you want, I'm with the free thought ideology!

 

 

It means that you can stop trolling, or if that's too much to ask - at least reply to the actual post and not to an imaginary one.

[Justgrazing]

Haley's rant at members of the U N is a bit selective is it not .. After all the U S is happy to use the organisation to ramp up pressure on N K , the most recent resolution (8) at the behest of the U S was Sept/17 .. not forgetting the U S secured the U N security council resolution 1398 Sept 2001 that gave them authority to bomb Afghanistan back to the dark ages late 2001.. So when it suits the U S the U N works just fine .. But when the U N barks back over the decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem which let's face it is akin to lobbing a lighted match into a fireworks factory the U S and Mizz Haley get all indignant with thinly veiled threats of no more dough to dissenters and back slapping embassy knee's-ups for the acquiesce'rs ..