UN Security Council demands end to Israeli settlements

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

That was me quoting Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu.

How he will go about achieving that goal is probably pretty much a close-held secret at this point.

 

In all probability, he doesn't have a clue and just spouting the usual political BS.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, canthai55 said:

 

Have you watched that Documentary ?  Seen the leaders of Israel sitting with those Right Wing Haters ?  Apparently not. But if you have - and still post such  ...

 

Apparently you think that having watched a specific documentary you now possess a unique insight into relevant issues. The team in question is indeed well known for the right leaning views of its fan base. As with similar cases, it's easy to generalize on all fans (even politicians) based on the image projected by part of them. Attending a football match is not a direct identification with the views of this or that group of fans. Over the years, there were some right wing politicians who actually stopped attending, for such reasons. Others offered criticism on the team for not curbing the actions of these fans. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, even leftist hero Noam Chomski opposes the BDS movement and totally rejects an equivalence to South Africa. Basically-- very different historical conflicts ...  very different tactics. 

 

Umm....I think Chomsky said something else. actually. Israel being worse and such. But then, that's Chomsky, anyone's choice how seriously to take him. Not a huge fan when it comes to politics, other areas yes.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Umm....I think Chomsky said something else. actually. Israel being worse and such. But then, that's Chomsky, anyone's choice how seriously to take him. Not a huge fan when it comes to politics, other areas yes.

Yeah I was wrong about his POV on apartheid (in the west bank) but I'm sure he said that just because boycott was helpful in South Africa, doesn't mean it's the correct tactic towards Israel.

[Scott]

An off-topic post and reply removed.   Please don't assume what other members are saying.

 

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I agree he probably wouldn't have gone for it if HRC had won the elections. But then, HRC would not have engaged in controversial statements and appointments the way Trump did. These surely played a part here, even without Netanyahu's actions. But he didn't do anything that previous presidents haven't done. Are Reagan, Clinton and Bush "spineless" as well?

 

Really? Did Reagan, Clinton and Bush refuse to veto important UN resolutions against Israel?

[up-country_sinclair]

Certain posters seem quite upset that President Obama  would have the audacity to put America's interests first.  

[Ulysses G.]

Stabbing our best friend, in the Middle East, in the back is hardly in America's best interest. Thanks to the present administration, we have a bad reputation with our allies already.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Really? Did Reagan, Clinton and Bush refuse to veto important UN resolutions against Israel?

 

Yes.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.   Stay on topic.  

 

[up-country_sinclair]

Netanyahu told New Zealand's foreign minister that its promotion of the UN resolution would be a "declaration of war".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/netanyahu-told-new-zealand-backing-un-vote-would-be-declaration-of-war

 

 

[up-country_sinclair]

Oh man.  Secretary Kerry is lighting up Netanyahu right now over the illegal settlements.  He's also highlighting the shortcomings on the Palestinian side, but Netanyahu and his policies are being exposed like never before by the US government.

 

I didn't vote for you in 2004 or for your boss in 2008 or 2012, but you're doing America proud today.  

 

Well done, sir.   

[up-country_sinclair]

 

Secretary Kerry is not pulling any punches!

 

Quote

“Regrettably, some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the U.S. must accept any policy regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles, even after urging again and again that the policy must change,”

 

 

Quote

“My job above all is to defend the United States of America, to stand up for and defend our values and our interests in the world, and if we were to stand idly by and know that in doing so, we are allowing a dangerous dynamic to take hold, which promises greater conflict and instability to a region in which we have vital interests, we would be derelict in our own responsibilities,” 

 

America first. 

 

Bravo!

 

   

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

The Christian perspective on Obama's deception:

 

America's "Wreck it Ralph" is at it again. This time, President Obama decided to give Israel one last (we can only pray) kick in the behind before he leaves office. On December 23, the U.N. Security Council brought a resolution to a vote declaring that settlements Israel had built on and occupied since 1967 have "no legal validity."

When U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power abstained rather than voting against the resolution, the Obama administration took the bizarre and unprecedented move to turn its back on Israel. The move serves to end Jewish settlement building and threatens to plow Israel back to its 1967 borders, potentially leaving them indefensible.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-turned-his-back-on-israel-but-god-hasnt-172372/#osDzR4AEWY3VkYhI.99

[Kiwiken]

8 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

Netanyahu told New Zealand's foreign minister that its promotion of the UN resolution would be a "declaration of war".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/netanyahu-told-new-zealand-backing-un-vote-would-be-declaration-of-war

 

 

My middle finger is raised in a salute to Netanyahu . 

[canthai55]

On 12/25/2016 at 10:10 PM, Ulysses G. said:

Stabbing our best friend, in the Middle East, in the back is hardly in America's best interest. Thanks to the present administration, we have a bad reputation with our allies already.

 

Please - USA has been the worlds bully since 1945. Their Allies ? - their Sycophants more like it.

Edited December 29, 2016 by canthai55

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The Christian perspective on Obama's deception:

 

America's "Wreck it Ralph" is at it again. This time, President Obama decided to give Israel one last (we can only pray) kick in the behind before he leaves office. On December 23, the U.N. Security Council brought a resolution to a vote declaring that settlements Israel had built on and occupied since 1967 have "no legal validity."

When U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power abstained rather than voting against the resolution, the Obama administration took the bizarre and unprecedented move to turn its back on Israel. The move serves to end Jewish settlement building and threatens to plow Israel back to its 1967 borders, potentially leaving them indefensible.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-turned-his-back-on-israel-but-god-hasnt-172372/#osDzR4AEWY3VkYhI.99

I thought the Pope spoke for more Christians than anyone else. Apparently not. Turns out It's the people at the  www.thechristianpost.com.  

Edited December 29, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎25‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 10:37 AM, Ulysses G. said:

 

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.

Not talking about war. Imposition of sanctions is likely in the scenario I describe.

Apartheid was brought down by international action without warfare.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

Netanyahu told New Zealand's foreign minister that its promotion of the UN resolution would be a "declaration of war".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/netanyahu-told-new-zealand-backing-un-vote-would-be-declaration-of-war

 

 

Bring it on then. NZ is an ally of the US.

Anyway, how is Israel going to get to NZ to attack it? I doubt Israel has much of a navy.

[Morch]

22 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The Christian perspective on Obama's deception:

 

America's "Wreck it Ralph" is at it again. This time, President Obama decided to give Israel one last (we can only pray) kick in the behind before he leaves office. On December 23, the U.N. Security Council brought a resolution to a vote declaring that settlements Israel had built on and occupied since 1967 have "no legal validity."

When U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power abstained rather than voting against the resolution, the Obama administration took the bizarre and unprecedented move to turn its back on Israel. The move serves to end Jewish settlement building and threatens to plow Israel back to its 1967 borders, potentially leaving them indefensible.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-turned-his-back-on-israel-but-god-hasnt-172372/#osDzR4AEWY3VkYhI.99

 

The illegal settlements themselves do not provide much by way of security benefits. If the argument was about control of territory, it wouldn't be a whole lot stronger, but at least with some merit. Israel was not "indefensible" up to 1967, and no agreement talks about precisely 1967 borders.

 

Furthermore, why does the "Christian perspective" (if this article even speaks for all Christians) matter?

[Morch]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not talking about war. Imposition of sanctions is likely in the scenario I describe.

Apartheid was brought down by international action without warfare.

 

There aren't going to be any effective sanctions anytime soon. Got something to do with the US president you keep busy defending, with similar trends in the West and the lack of enthusiasm by other major players (Russia, PRC).

 

The effect of sanctions on the situation in South Africa is debated, and other than being a worn talking point the term does not apply at this time. 

[dexterm]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There aren't going to be any effective sanctions anytime soon. Got something to do with the US president you keep busy defending, with similar trends in the West and the lack of enthusiasm by other major players (Russia, PRC).

 

The effect of sanctions on the situation in South Africa is debated, and other than being a worn talking point the term does not apply at this time. 

US recognition of Israel's annexation of Jerusalem looks to be a given under Trump.

 

If Israel goes further and annexes the West Bank (or even most of it), but does not grant equal citizenship to the new Israelis who now live and have lived for generations within its new borders... I believe you have called that the A-word... 

 

Morch wrote:   "If Israel was anything like South Africa, it's Arab citizens would not have voting rights. If and when Israel will annex the West Bank and deny the Palestinians the same rights, then you'll have a point."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/960242-israel-to-re-assess-un-ties-after-settlement-vote/?do=findComment&comment=11457554

 

..would you support international sanctions against Israel then? Or would you support what Kerry called "equal but separate" with a reference to US civil rights struggle? 

Edited December 30, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

US recognition of Israel's annexation of Jerusalem looks to be a given under Trump.

 

If Israel goes further and annexes the West Bank (or even most of it), but does not grant equal citizenship to the new Israelis who now live and have lived for generations within its new borders... I believe you have called that the A-word... 

 

Morch wrote:   "If Israel was anything like South Africa, it's Arab citizens would not have voting rights. If and when Israel will annex the West Bank and deny the Palestinians the same rights, then you'll have a point."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/960242-israel-to-re-assess-un-ties-after-settlement-vote/?do=findComment&comment=11457554

 

..would you support international sanctions against Israel then? Or would you support what Kerry called "equal but separate" with a reference to US civil rights struggle? 

 

The Palestinians residing in East Jerusalem are eligible for Israeli citizenship - although only a  very small minority (about 5%) choose to exercise the right. This is mostly related to attached political and symbolic issues, which means the vast majority opt for resident status. So regardless of Trump's moves, still questionable is the issue applies to East Jerusalem.

 

If, and "if" being a key word here, Israel will annex the West Bank without affording equal rights to the Palestinians, then yes - a lot of the criticism often found on these topics would apply. In the same way, international sanctions could be considered a justified, if not necessarily effective, reaction. Also, it would not be acceptable to apply the current situation in East Jerusalem (ie most Palestinians being residents) to the entire West Bank. There quantitative issue will make it into a qualitative one.

 

It is interesting though, that little attention is given to the fact that in almost all forms of resolution discussed, the future Palestinian state is envisaged as including no Jews. Not that this is bad idea, rather a practical approach. Just that from the absolute principals of equality and justice brigade, ignoring it seems a bit contrived.

[dexterm]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The Palestinians residing in East Jerusalem are eligible for Israeli citizenship - although only a  very small minority (about 5%) choose to exercise the right. This is mostly related to attached political and symbolic issues, which means the vast majority opt for resident status. So regardless of Trump's moves, still questionable is the issue applies to East Jerusalem.

 

If, and "if" being a key word here, Israel will annex the West Bank without affording equal rights to the Palestinians, then yes - a lot of the criticism often found on these topics would apply. In the same way, international sanctions could be considered a justified, if not necessarily effective, reaction. Also, it would not be acceptable to apply the current situation in East Jerusalem (ie most Palestinians being residents) to the entire West Bank. There quantitative issue will make it into a qualitative one.

 

It is interesting though, that little attention is given to the fact that in almost all forms of resolution discussed, the future Palestinian state is envisaged as including no Jews. Not that this is bad idea, rather a practical approach. Just that from the absolute principals of equality and justice brigade, ignoring it seems a bit contrived.

Thank you for your honest reply.

 

As you say I dont think many Jews apart from the most fanatically messianic ones would want to live in a Palestinian state anyway.

 

I think also that discussions and recriminations on this forum about the rights and wrongs of a two state solution may soon become redundant anyway, when Trump takes office, and allows Israel its fait accomplit one state solution.

[canthai55]

Israel already deserves sanctions, for its treatment of the Palestinians. They like walls so much - build a wall around them. Apply the same shortages of fuel, food, electricity to them as they have inflicted on others. See if they change their tune after sitting in the dark and freezing. With all that has been done to the Jewish people in the past, you would think that some compassion would be displayed by them towards others. But no - they do the exact same things as were done to them. As was done in the Balkans. Someones great great grandfather was believed to have stolen a goat, and 3 - or 10 - or 20 - generations later a grudge is still being held, and all that is on their mind is Revenge.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

Thank you for your honest reply.

 

As you say I dont think many Jews apart from the most fanatically messianic ones would want to live in a Palestinian state anyway.

 

I think also that discussions and recriminations on this forum about the rights and wrongs of a two state solution may soon become redundant anyway, when Trump takes office, and allows Israel its fait accomplit one state solution.

 

It's a pity you did not reply in kind.

 

Please do not twist my words. This is not what I said nor what I meant. Lame deflection.

Quote

As you say I dont think many Jews apart from the most fanatically messianic ones would want to live in a Palestinian state anyway.

 

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, canthai55 said:

Israel already deserves sanctions, for its treatment of the Palestinians. They like walls so much - build a wall around them. Apply the same shortages of fuel, food, electricity to them as they have inflicted on others. See if they change their tune after sitting in the dark and freezing. With all that has been done to the Jewish people in the past, you would think that some compassion would be displayed by them towards others. But no - they do the exact same things as were done to them. As was done in the Balkans. Someones great great grandfather was believed to have stolen a goat, and 3 - or 10 - or 20 - generations later a grudge is still being held, and all that is on their mind is Revenge.

 

...they do the exact same things as were done to them.

 

The usual hyperbole.

And the usual sanctions fantasy.

 

Someones great great grandfather was believed to have stolen a goat, and 3 - or 10 - or 20 - generations later a grudge is still being held, and all that is on their mind is Revenge.

 

Your deep insight into the roots of the conflict is impressive.

[canthai55]

Hyperbole - not. If you are unable to see the Hypocrisy in the actions of Israel then your own grasp of the situation is flawed. As are all arguments defending their actions. 

[Ulysses G.]

7 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Hyperbole - not. If you are unable to see the Hypocrisy in the actions of Israel then your own grasp of the situation is flawed. As are all arguments defending their actions. 

 

His point seems to be that there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides. I would imagine that you understand that already.

[Rhys]

Somehow, the political showboats don't really give a hoot; they do what functions best for their situation.