UN Security Council demands end to Israeli settlements

[thetruth revealer]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

We don't and it's a hateful, disgusting obsession with Israel demonization rhetoric to aggressively try to define what Jewish identity is for obvious hostile propaganda purposes. Jewish identity is up to Jewish people, both individually and collectively. At it's most toxic, the hateful rhetoric tries to tell Ashkenazi Jews that they're not "real" Jews ... that only the most bizarrely extremist tiny cults of anti-Zionist ultra religious Jews are real Jews. Also the absurd twisted denial of the clear meaning of antisemitism.

 

This all is obvious hard core Jew hatred. 

You must learn to accept that Israel is not representing the Jews as a whole and so isnt this so called state neither. The Jewish people are not representing Israel, as a Zionist State.

Instead of expanding and ultimately seeking to fulfill their Agenda as well known the Greater Israel  , mistreating Palestinians and now ruled out by the UN, it might be time to recognize how Israel is perceived from other Countries.

Israel cant play the victim anymore .

 

 

[thetruth revealer]

2 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

Let's get back on topic.

 

The United Nations pass a resolution which said the establishment of settlements by Israel has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” 

 

Kudos to the UN members who finally said enough is enough.

 

   

But how could this be enforced ....??????

[thetruth revealer]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

It is a fact that 5 Armies attacked Israel. It is silly to claim otherwise. There has never been an independent country called Palestine governed by Arabs -never. Can't argue with the history books.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Invade.html

 

Obama let his feud with the PM of Israel get personal and refusing to veto the resolution was shameful.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/23/un-votes-against-israeli-settlements-as-us-abstains/

Cant argue with the history books.....

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, thetruth revealer said:

But how could this be enforced ....??????

 

It can't and it won't be and soon there will be a new sherrif in town that is a friend of Israel. Obama waited until he had only a few weeks in town before ignoring the will of the American people - shameful.

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, thetruth revealer said:

Cant argue with the history books.....

 

Unless you are the type that prefers fake news.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You have not "corrected" anything. Just added irrelevant details. The issue of Egypt and Jordan's involvement was briefly mentioned as it related to a secondary issue. Making it the main course is your doing, not mine.

 

How recent is recent? Israel withdrew from Sinai peninsula in 1982, from Southern Lebanon in 2000, and from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

The territory held near the Lebanese border is nothing like the map you posted earlier.

 

You posted that the Jewish annexation of Palestine began before 1947 - no explanation was given for this oddity. Now the date is set for 1967.

 

Almost all other relevant resolutions relate to all sides, not just Israel. If you imagine that anyone realistically expects to return control of the Golan Heights to Assad at this time, you're in for a rude awakening. Same goes with Hezbollah controlled Southern Lebanon.
 

The only thing you said that I agree with relates to the Golan Heights. Even I would not expect Israel to give up that.

However, no such threat exists from the west bank, and it is long past time to stop the illegal settlement construction and implement the two state solution.

If Israel does not do so, the world is turning against Israel because of it's illegal activities. Can Israelis possibly imagine that the rest of the world will accept the legitimate people of Palestine being forced into exile and a defacto expansion of Israeli borders? The only other acceptable ( to the world community ) situation is the one state solution and full citizenship for all people currently and yet to be born in the west bank.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

It can't and it won't be and soon there will be a new sherrif in town that is a friend of Israel. Obama waited until he had only a few weeks in town before ignoring the will of the American people - shameful.

Will of the American people, LOL.

There are more than a few Muslim Americans and I doubt any of them support Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Will of the American people, LOL.

There are more than a few Muslim Americans and I doubt any of them support Israel.

 

Americans support Israel over the Palestinians about 3 to 1. Muslims are a tiny minority. 

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can Israelis possibly imagine that the rest of the world will accept the legitimate people of Palestine being forced into exile and a defacto expansion of Israeli borders? 

 

Do you really think they are going to go to war for the Palestinians? It is not going to happen. Other Muslims have been beaten over and over  again when they have tried it. They have pretty much given up.

Toothless resolutions are likely to be the only consequence and Donald Trump with veto them.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[canthai55]

The government of Israel care nothing for anyone other than themselves. UN or anybody else. Which can be said for most states FWIW. For a on-the-ground look of the feelings of the Right Wing in Israel - including the Party in Power - check out this documentary -  Forever Pure - Football and Racism in Jerusalem. The victims were not even Arabs - just members of the Muslim faith.

 

[gk10002000]

So Israel objects to the UN resolution.  That is understandable.  But how about back in 1947 when the UN carved out the Israeli borders?  On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]

 

Being a member of an organization or a group can be tough.  Some times the other members don't do what you want.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[Pakboong]

16 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Many leaders on both sides of the aisle think Obama stabbed Israel in the back. Not a big surprise to most.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/krauthammer-obama-ends-his-8-years-by-stabbing-israel-in-the-back/

I have actually been of the opinion that Obama has been wanting to do something like this for years. Perhaps even worse. He tolerates Israel somewhat reluctantly. I am not an Obama fan; he felt dissed a couple of times and it raised the hair on the back of his neck to the point that he would have a hard time seeing past it as simple politics.

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, Pakboong said:

I have actually been of the opinion that Obama has been wanting to do something like this for years. Perhaps even worse. He tolerates Israel somewhat reluctantly. I am not an Obama fan; he felt dissed a couple of times and it raised the hair on the back of his neck to the point that he would have a hard time seeing past it as simple politics.

 

We agree on that. He waited until it would not hurt him or Hillary politically. Luckily he was too cowardly to actually support the resolution that some say he engineered behind the scenes.

[gk10002000]

2 minutes ago, Pakboong said:

I have actually been of the opinion that Obama has been wanting to do something like this for years. Perhaps even worse. He tolerates Israel somewhat reluctantly. I am not an Obama fan; he felt dissed a couple of times and it raised the hair on the back of his neck to the point that he would have a hard time seeing past it as simple politics.

Not passing judgement on Israel, but carving out a jewish country in an area that had become arabic majority seems like a risky thing to have done back in 1947.  Many borders around the world changed during and after WW2.  Many resulted in large scale wars or massive human migrations (India Partition into East and West Pakistan for example).  Issues were not resolved but just postponed

[Kiwiken]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

It can't and it won't be and soon there will be a new sherrif in town that is a friend of Israel. Obama waited until he had only a few weeks in town before ignoring the will of the American people - shameful.

With Trump entering the White House we have another 4 years of an American stabilised democratic Middle East. Like they have done so well so far. 

[hawker9000]

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 7:22 PM, up-country_sinclair said:

 

The world has spoken:  The settlements are illegal.

The world has spoken:  The occupiers have flagrantly violated international law.

 

Everyone knew this to be true before this landmark vote, but now it is official.  

 

Yes, the Obama administration should have taken this step back in 2011, but this is truly a case of "better late than never".   

 

Bravo.

 

      

"The world has spoken"   yadda, yadda, yadda

 

The world has also spoken on China's annexation of two entire oceans, and "the world" isn't going to do a thing about it.  The "world" also didn't lift a finger when the arabs tried to overrun Israel in 1967.    If China, who's blatantly just stealing resources for its own use, doesn't have to pay any attention, why should Israel have to pay any more attention to a world turned Jew-hating (again) simply because it's been intimidated by terrorism?   Trump will likely reverse all this, and give "the Obama legacy" the cremation it deserves.

 

Bravo.

 

      

[Kiwiken]

39 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

"The world has spoken"   yadda, yadda, yadda

 

The world has also spoken on China's annexation of two entire oceans, and "the world" isn't going to do a thing about it.  The "world" also didn't lift a finger when the arabs tried to overrun Israel in 1967.    If China, who's blatantly just stealing resources for its own use, doesn't have to pay any attention, why should Israel have to pay any more attention to a world turned Jew-hating (again) simply because it's been intimidated by terrorism?   Trump will likely reverse all this, and give "the Obama legacy" the cremation it deserves.

 

Bravo.

 

      

Objecting to Israeli occupation, and annexing of Arab Land is not anti Jewish, Objecting to Chinese encroachment on Other Nations Sovereignty in the South China Sea is not Chinese Hating. The World body in regards to Israel has simply reaffirmed its previous stance. It is a Sad thing that We do not have an effective mechanism to stop Nations when they exceed the bounds of Civility. Sadly Countries Like China, Russia the USA and others have little to no regard for International Law and only do what is in their Own self interest regardless of what impoverished people or Small States they trample on. 

[pegman]

On December 23, 2016 at 9:36 PM, dexterm said:

The topic concerns a UN resolution about the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. No mention of the fight against terrorism in the OP, despite your attempt to deflect by muddying the waters.

 

from the OP....
“One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict,” Power argued.

 

On the contrary, it is people like Trump who will ultimately bring an end to the Zionist dream of a predominantly Jewish state of Israel, when he encourages a one state solution, in which 4.5 million Palestinian co-residents' civil rights will need to be addressed, together with the already 2 million Israeli Palestinian population, who already hold citizenship.

Israel had the opportunity of accepting a two state solution. It's decision to go the apartheid route  instead means a one state is the only option left. Trump will be too busy filling his pockets and dealing with the upcoming race wars to worry about the Middle East 

[CharlieK]

On 12/24/2016 at 10:36 AM, dexterm said:

The topic concerns a UN resolution about the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. No mention of the fight against terrorism in the OP, despite your attempt to deflect by muddying the waters.

 

from the OP....
“One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict,” Power argued.

 

On the contrary, it is people like Trump who will ultimately bring an end to the Zionist dream of a predominantly Jewish state of Israel, when he encourages a one state solution, in which 4.5 million Palestinian co-residents' civil rights will need to be addressed, together with the already 2 million Israeli Palestinian population, who already hold citizenship.

the one state solution is the arabs going to Jordan.

[CharlieK]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The only other acceptable ( to the world community ) situation is the one state solution and full citizenship for all people currently and yet to be born in the west bank.

 

Name one country that is pushing for a one state solution where Israelis and arabs are living in one state? The only way the arabs would accept this is if the Israelis were not living in that state. 

 

I realise the agenda for some posters wanting this situation. So that the state of Israel doesn't exist.

 

IN YOUR DREAMS. It will never happen. 

[yardrunner]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As was predictable in any Israel political topic, the HARD CORE Israel demonizing rhetoric comes out of the closet that it's not in. Suggesting an equivalence between modern Israel and Nazi Germany is Jew hating hate speech. Once you go there, you lose all chance of having any reasoned discussion on these matters.. 

No it is not Jew hating speech, if the cap fits wear it

[yardrunner]

40 minutes ago, pegman said:

Israel had the opportunity of accepting a two state solution. It's decision to go the apartheid route  instead means a one state is the only option left. Trump will be too busy filling his pockets and dealing with the upcoming race wars to worry about the Middle East 

Yes Israel has gone the apartheid route, and if it not been for 20th century European history it would be treated as a pariah state like South Africa was before the end of Apartheid there and perhaps now is the time to boycott Israeli products as happened with South African products in the 1970s and 1980s 

[yardrunner]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

"The world has spoken"   yadda, yadda, yadda

 

The world has also spoken on China's annexation of two entire oceans, and "the world" isn't going to do a thing about it.  The "world" also didn't lift a finger when the arabs tried to overrun Israel in 1967.    If China, who's blatantly just stealing resources for its own use, doesn't have to pay any attention, why should Israel have to pay any more attention to a world turned Jew-hating (again) simply because it's been intimidated by terrorism?   Trump will likely reverse all this, and give "the Obama legacy" the cremation it deserves.

 

Bravo.

 

      

No the world has not turned Jew hating again, but it does not support state sponsored theft

[Morch]

16 hours ago, dexterm said:

It wasn't. Disinformation. Terrorism was not mentioned in the OP, exactly as I said. Try ctrl+f "terrorism" and you will discover the first reference in this thread was made by the usual deflecter attempting to somehow conflate Trump's recent statements re the scum ISIL with the OP resolution condemning the Israeli occupation and all its ramifications.

 

Coming from someone often whining about "nitpicking" that's quite amusing. As was pointed out the OP is but a stub when it comes to actual resolution, and this was mentioned in my post. If you wish to waive the flag of accuracy care to point out where ISIL was named? In the same way, there is no "OP resolution" but in your imagination. The OP is about the resolution, which was the difference alluded to in my post. Hope that's all clear now. 

 

As pointed out, the resolution is not totally one sided as you aim to present, and it does address terrorism. Try harder.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

15 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Almost 80% of Palestinian territory was annexed and under Israeli military control between end of 1947 till end of 1948. That was initially the reason why foreign Arab armies intervened.
Territorial conquest started after WW1 by Jewish colonists, and not by local Jewish people with pre-Ottoman roots.

Quote from link :

"The entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries".
and;
"To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State".

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/10%20report%20to%20the%20provisional%20government%20of%20israel.aspx

Quote from link :

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art41


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Almost 80% of Palestinian territory was annexed and under Israeli military control between end of 1947 till end of 1948.

 

If that was anywhere near a correct statement, it would mean that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitute 20% of the intended Palestinian state - seeing as these were not conquered by Israel until 1967. The only way in which this nonsense carries any meaning is if one holds the opinion that all the land in question is Palestinian. That is a hardcore rejectionist position out of tune with the UNSC resolution. The same goes for the "colonial" nonsense, or asserting that there was a Jewish "conquest" prior to around the time when the partition plan was announced.

 

 

[up-country_sinclair]

46 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

perhaps now is the time to boycott Israeli

 

It's long past time. 

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Palestine, as a country was administered by the UK under an A mandate. You should consider article 5 and 19.

See link :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

They rejected indeed the deal for many reasons. No exclusive right should be given to Israel. De deal was made in consensus. No consensus, no deal...

The 5 Arab armies myth has been debunked many times over here. If you start a separate thread, I would be delighted to provide you accurate feedback. I can provide you sociologic, politic, historical and military unbiased feedback. You've raised an off topic comment which I can't reply.

Cheers !


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Palestine was not a country as dishonestly try to claim. Even the link you provided makes it clear on it's first paragraph.

 

The "consensus" claim is bogus. There was no "exclusive right" given to Israel. There was no deal, but a vote, one sided accepted the results and one did not. Rather simple. If it was the other way around, doubt any such nonsense argument would be raised by you. The current resolution for example, does not require Israel's consensus in order to pass.

 

Quote

You've raised an off topic comment which I can't reply.

 

And yet going on about any other off topic issue  deemed supportive of your views.

 

 

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, CharlieK said:

the one state solution is the arabs going to Jordan.

And what if Palestinians refuse to leave their homes, farms and lands that have been in their families for generations to go to Jordan in order to make room for new Jewish  immigrants from USA and Europe, who have never set eyes on the place before?

 

There are 3 consequences to the one state solution that Trump is pushing and vows to blindly support whatever Israel decides:

Equal citizenship, overt apartheid or ethnic cleansing.

 

 

 

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

It is a fact that 5 Armies attacked Israel. It is silly to claim otherwise. There has never been an independent country called Palestine governed by Arabs -never. Can't argue with the history books.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Invade.html

 

Obama let his feud with the PM of Israel get personal and refusing to veto the resolution was shameful.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/23/un-votes-against-israeli-settlements-as-us-abstains/

 

Unless mistaken this was the only time Obama did not use the US veto right in this context. That's once in 8 years. Compared to many a previous US president, that's about as protective as it gets. Don't let facts confuse you. As for "getting personal" - perhaps something to do with Netanyahu's conduct during Obama's terms, and his disregard for assurances given with regard to illegal settlement expansion.