UN Security Council demands end to Israeli settlements

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Some economic embargoes have been imposed sometime not fairly on nations like Iraq, Iran, Lybia, Syria etc. Longtime sanctions in some cases for lesser infractions than what Israel did till now.

Why an exclusivity attitude towards Israel. Enough is enough.

The illegal settlements should be evaluated in function of indexation in time and real value. The lease sum should be paid back to the Palestinian government. The payback can be spread over a few decades. Just like any WW2 reparations.
Settlements should be given back to the Palestinians refugees from Lebanon, Syria and Jordania.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Again, the US foreign policy does not subscribe to yours. That you decree "not fairly" does not make it so, nor does it say anything about the interests of the US. Same goes for your "objective" take on the measurement of "infractions".

 

Enough is enough how? Do you still fantasize about UN sponsored sanctions? Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

 

The Palestinians will not get any compensation prior to signing a comprehensive peace agreement. Even if you think they deserve it. That's reality, as opposed to the above. I would venture a guess that it would be less encompassing than you envisage, and that the same issue will be raised with regard to Jews driven away from Arab countries.

 

 

 

[deathmule]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Without, hopefully (yeah, right), getting into a dreary pseudo-historical "debate" - factually incorrect.

 

The Palestinians, by the way, were not all too keen on asserting their national rights as such. Arab nations weren't really that eager on it too for a long while.

 

 

You say it's incorrect but you don't explain how it is incorrect.

 

Please do explain

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, deathmule said:

 

You say it's incorrect but you don't explain how it is incorrect.

 

Please do explain

 

Notably, you didn't bother explaining how it is correct.

I don't think we need to rehash all the usual nonsense on each and every topic.

If you have trouble figuring it out, consult some history texts, or read previous topics.

 

[Thorgal]

 
Israel occupied a land which was already occupied by illegal occupiers - namely Egypt and Jordan. Somehow, these countries excesses are glossed over whenever this comes up. And contrary to your bold assertions, no - not "crimes against humanity". That's just the usual hyperbole. Well, that's actually goes for the rest of your post as well....doubt the poster intent on not being "rude" minds though.

Egypt and Jordan annexed parts of the Palestinian territory in 1948. To note that they've been criticised by the Arab League and the League of Nations.
Only Britain endorsed partly the annexation, because they made a deal also to the Jordanian and Egyptian leaders.
This temporary occupation started in 1948 and ended in 1967.
Egyptian and Jordanian governments acknowledged these facts.

Jewish mass immigration started in the early 1900's and annexation of Palestine was clearly visible in 1947, thus before the Egypto-Jordanian annexation.

The Egypto-Jordanian annexation was not to take land from the Palestinians, but was a defensive operation for their own border and for the Palestinians, who had no state institutions/constitution because of the Israeli annexation.

Borders of Jordan and Egypt are well defined. Israeli borders are till today not yet defined, although Ben Gurion communicated clearly Israeli territory as per resolution 181 from 1947. Resolution 181 could only be executed if BOTH parties agreed the conditions.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[deathmule]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Notably, you didn't bother explaining how it is correct.

I don't think we need to rehash all the usual nonsense on each and every topic.

If you have trouble figuring it out, consult some history texts, or read previous topics.

 

 

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/state-of-israel-proclaimed

 

Quote

On May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel, establishing the first Jewish state in 2,000 year

 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Whatever.The resolution is there on record.

 

It represents what the world thinks about Israel and the just conditions which may facilitate a solution to the conflict.

 

It is the world opinion that Trump will have to fly in the face of when he assumes office.

Unintentionally, his bull in a china shop/unwillingness to accept criticism approach may actually bring about an end to the conflict in a single binational state.

 

The US is in familiar waters taking an opposing stance on these issues, regardless of who's in the White House. Obama's own record is actually quite solid on that one, despite nonsense from Trump supporters. The link bellow explains the current US position and also the reasons for abstaining:

 

READ: U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power's Full Speech at the Security Council
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761017

 

As for attaching too much of a moral value to the resolution, each to his own. The UN is a political body governed more by interests, less by ideals. People advocating one cause or another often make much of some resolutions when these support their views. Same goes for nations.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, deathmule said:

 

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/state-of-israel-proclaimed

 

 

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, ezzra said:

the thing is that nor Obama or the UN are relevant no more, no one pays heed

to what they ' resolute ' as many of their resolutions in past years has

gone with the wind,

Yes when I think back to my younger years all those words like resolute etc. used to impress the H out of me. Now in my retirement years I am able to review my life and pick out how I was subtly pushed and prodded in certain directions. If China can thumb the decision on the fact that they have no claim to the Spratlys and thumb their nose at the  system and keep fortifying it why should the UN have an relevance. The UN is an aging dinosaur full of high paid hacks. A pox on the lot.  

[Ulysses G.]

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/

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Egypt and Jordan annexed parts of the Palestinian territory in 1948. To note that they've been criticised by the Arab League and the League of Nations.
Only Britain endorsed partly the annexation, because they made a deal also to the Jordanian and Egyptian leaders.
This temporary occupation started in 1948 and ended in 1967.
Egyptian and Jordanian governments acknowledged these facts.

Jewish mass immigration started in the early 1900's and annexation of Palestine was clearly visible in 1947, thus before the Egypto-Jordanian annexation.

The Egypto-Jordanian annexation was not to take land from the Palestinians, but was a defensive operation for their own border and for the Palestinians, who had no state institutions/constitution because of the Israeli annexation.

Borders of Jordan and Egypt are well defined. Israeli borders are till today not yet defined, although Ben Gurion communicated clearly Israeli territory as per resolution 181 from 1947. Resolution 181 could only be executed if BOTH parties agreed the conditions.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

...annexation of Palestine was clearly visible in 1947, thus before the Egypto-Jordanian annexation.

 

Annexation is an action taken in relation to an existing territorial entity, usually a state. Could you be any more disingenuous with your usage of the word?  Same goes for the undefined-Israeli-borders nonsense - how can Egypt and Jordan have defined borders, then, as they share a border with Israel? As usual, over-reaching statements. I've no idea what you're on with the resolution 181 thing, but guess it's in the same vein of pointless argumentation.

[Boon Mee]

58 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

Why an exclusivity attitude towards Israel. Enough is enough.

.


 

 

Perhaps because Israel is the last remaining Democracy in the ME?

[optad]

43 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A good question to ask is does this passed resolution, thanks to the USA abstain, bring us any closer to a negotiated peaceful two state solution? Other than provide talking points to the usual suspects, I honestly don't see that it does.

 

 

If I can add a follow up question to JT's, does domestic Israeli politics have to begin to bend on the settlements to get serious about two states at some point in the future. Where does the give come on settlements, intra Israel or is this too hard politically?

[metisdead]

A post has been removed as per this forum rule:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

 

Another post has been edited to comply with the fair use policy, as the site used commas (,) at the end of the sentences, the quoted content was reduced to 3 paragraphs. 

[thaibeachlovers]

57 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Notably, you didn't bother explaining how it is correct.

I don't think we need to rehash all the usual nonsense on each and every topic.

If you have trouble figuring it out, consult some history texts, or read previous topics.

 

The history texts I have read do not refer to Israel since the Israelites were driven out by Rome. Ergo Israel did not exist prior to it's establishment by the UN. As the part of Mandate Palestine that was not taken to create Israel was occupied by people known as Palestinians it is logical that Palestine exists outside the Israeli borders and it is the country of Palestine regardless of the wishes of some posters. The present situation that exists of an ongoing illegal occupation and the theft of Palestinian land to build illegal Israeli settlements is only due to the undemocratic principles of the UN, allowing the US to veto any resolution critical of Israel.

I for one am glad that Obama finally allowed a resolution criticising Israel to be approved.

[Thorgal]

 

...annexation of Palestine was clearly visible in 1947, thus before the Egypto-Jordanian annexation.

 

Annexation is an action taken in relation to an existing territorial entity, usually a state. Could you be any more disingenuous with your usage of the word?  Same goes for the undefined-Israeli-borders nonsense - how can Egypt and Jordan have defined borders, then, as they share a border with Israel? As usual, over-reaching statements. I've no idea what you're on with the resolution 181 thing, but guess it's in the same vein of pointless argumentation.

You must have forgotten the Israeli illegal annexation of the Golan heights which is part of Syrian sovereignty.

You must have forgotten the Israeli illegal annexation of the southern parts of Lebanon which is part of Lebanese sovereignty.

You must have forgotten the Israeli illegal annexation of East Jerusalem which is part of the Palestinian sovereignty.

The word 'usually' doesn't exclude other forms or denominations. Its wiser and highly advised to avoid to use this word in any attempt to re-write history and/or attempt of compilation of new theories.

I'm still convinced that in-depth knowledge of the resolution 181 is required in order to comment on this topic.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Jingthing]

1 hour 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/

No, not a huge surprise but heck the U.S. could have voted for it instead of abstaining. So what's a softer term for stab in the back? 

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

...annexation of Palestine was clearly visible in 1947, thus before the Egypto-Jordanian annexation.

 

Annexation is an action taken in relation to an existing territorial entity, usually a state. Could you be any more disingenuous with your usage of the word?  Same goes for the undefined-Israeli-borders nonsense - how can Egypt and Jordan have defined borders, then, as they share a border with Israel? As usual, over-reaching statements. I've no idea what you're on with the resolution 181 thing, but guess it's in the same vein of pointless argumentation.

Quite a detailed explanation way over my head but we take you at face value. I can better understand the following deep down when all is said and done and we put our keyboards away for the night. Ending on a quiet note.

We don't want freedom. We don't want justice.

We just want want someone to love.

Edited December 24, 2016 by elgordo38

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The history texts I have read do not refer to Israel since the Israelites were driven out by Rome. Ergo Israel did not exist prior to it's establishment by the UN. As the part of Mandate Palestine that was not taken to create Israel was occupied by people known as Palestinians it is logical that Palestine exists outside the Israeli borders and it is the country of Palestine regardless of the wishes of some posters. The present situation that exists of an ongoing illegal occupation and the theft of Palestinian land to build illegal Israeli settlements is only due to the undemocratic principles of the UN, allowing the US to veto any resolution critical of Israel.

I for one am glad that Obama finally allowed a resolution criticising Israel to be approved.

 

The poster who started this off topic argument claimed that Israel was not a nation prior to 1948. The first line of your post serves to contradict his incorrect statement. Israel (in one form or another) did exist, even if in ancient times. These sort of "discussions" are often about silly attempts to belittle, deny, distort or erase this history and its implications. I was hoping we wouldn't have to go through this yet again.

 

Nowhere did I deny the Palestinian right to self-determination, just pointed out that for a long while they weren't keen on realizing it, and neither were their Arab "benefactors".

 

 

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

You must have forgotten the Israeli illegal annexation of the Golan heights which is part of Syrian sovereignty.

You must have forgotten the Israeli illegal annexation of the southern parts of Lebanon which is part of Lebanese sovereignty.

You must have forgotten the Israeli illegal annexation of East Jerusalem which is part of the Palestinian sovereignty.

The word 'usually' doesn't exclude other forms or denominations. Its wiser and highly advised to avoid to use this word in any attempt to re-write history and/or attempt of compilation of new theories.

I'm still convinced that in-depth knowledge of the resolution 181 is required in order to comment on this topic.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Could you possibly stick to the topic....even if it's the off-topic content of your own posts?

 

How was there a Jewish "annexation of Palestine" prior to 1947? What was it "annexed" to?

How are Israel's border's (apparently all of them) not defined if you claim that the borders of two of its neighbors are defined?

 

Israel did annex the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. There wasn't a post were this was denied or "forgotten".

Learned not to expect accuracy or honesty when you post pictures - the lower map you posted is way outdated, Israel long withdrew from most of Southern Lebanon. Current sticking points are minimal, and related sovereignty issues are tripartite.

 

I'm still convinced that you're trying to derail the topic.

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Perhaps because Israel is the last remaining Democracy in the ME?

Actually it's not. You can find those others easiest enough w/o citations.

Israel might be the most stable and traditional democracy, perhaps the most US-friendly one.

[Thorgal]

 
Could you possibly stick to the topic....even if it's the off-topic content of your own posts?
 
How was there a Jewish "annexation of Palestine" prior to 1947? What was it "annexed" to?
How are Israel's border's (apparently all of them) not defined if you claim that the borders of two of its neighbors are defined?
 
Israel did annex the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. There wasn't a post were this was denied or "forgotten".
Learned not to expect accuracy or honesty when you post pictures - the lower map you posted is way outdated, Israel long withdrew from most of Southern Lebanon. Current sticking points are minimal, and related sovereignty issues are tripartite.
 
I'm still convinced that you're trying to derail the topic.

I've highlighted relevant historical feedback concerning the latest UN Security Council from OP which was submitted by Egypt.

http://www.unwatch.org/text-egypts-unsc-draft-resolution-settlements/

I've also corrected the wrong historical interpretation of the involvement of Egypt and Jordan into this actual crisis of settlements. A point that you've raised earlier, but flagging now as off topic...

To note that Israel stopped recently physical annexation of Sinai and Ghaza.
Still Golan, Lebanese border region and West Bank (see topic) are illegally occupied by Israel. All 3 have illegal Israeli settlements.

All annexation originated from the '67 war.

If the Security Council adopts the new resolution, other resolutions will follow for Golan and Lebanese border land.

The resolution of OP is just reaffirming other relevant resolutions like resolutions 181(1947), 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008).



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

I've highlighted relevant historical feedback concerning the latest UN Security Council from OP which was submitted by Egypt.

http://www.unwatch.org/text-egypts-unsc-draft-resolution-settlements/

I've also corrected the wrong historical interpretation of the involvement of Egypt and Jordan into this actual crisis of settlements. A point that you've raised earlier, but flagging now as off topic...

To note that Israel stopped recently physical annexation of Sinai and Ghaza.
Still Golan, Lebanese border region and West Bank (see topic) are illegally occupied by Israel. All 3 have illegal Israeli settlements.

All annexation originated from the '67 war.

If the Security Council adopts the new resolution, other resolutions will follow for Golan and Lebanese border land.

The resolution of OP is just reaffirming other relevant resolutions like resolutions 181(1947), 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008).



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

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.
 

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And I notice that your original comment was that no terrorism was mentioned in the OP.

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.

[Thorgal]

 
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.
 

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

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes 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.
 

 

 

Number one, there was no "Palestinian" territory. They rejected the UN deal. Number two, 5 Arab armies attacked Israel for accepting the deal and declaring independence. That is not a secret.

[up-country_sinclair]

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.

 

   

[Ulysses G.]

What a shocker that the UN goes after tiny Israel for repopulating the Jewish quarter, instead of getting war criminals for using chemical weapons in Syria and such. The utter hypocrisy.

[Thorgal]

 
Number one, there was no "Palestinian" territory. They rejected the UN deal. Number two, 5 Arab armies attacked Israel for accepting the deal and declaring independence. That is not a secret.

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

[Ulysses G.]

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/

Edited December 24, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

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

 

 

President Obama made the decision to abstain because he puts the interests of the United States first.  While this sort of loyalty to the United States may make the Israel Firsters confused, there are many of us who applaud his decision.  Even though we disagree with him on many, many other issues.  

 

And as has already been pointed out, President Obama granted Israel the largest ever welfare package just 3 short months ago.