UN Security Council demands end to Israeli settlements

[Morch]

14 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

 

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.

 

It wasn't a welfare package, and it was in fact altered (compared to previous packages) as to better fit US policy. Focusing on the figure involved is misleading when considering the new terms dictated. If Netanyahu wasn't so vain he could have probably got a better result. This was covered on many a previous topics.

[CharlieK]

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

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.

 

 

 

there is no one state solution. No one is talking about a one state solution but you. Without some external support a self sufficient palestinian state is not viable.  

 

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, CharlieK said:

 

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. 

>>Name one country that is pushing for a one state solution where Israelis and arabs are living in one state?

 

Israel...20% of the Israeli population are non Jews.

Edited December 25, 2016 by dexterm

[Kiwiken]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

 

 

The resolution itself calls for an end to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. These were Palestinian designated prior to 1967. Nothing in the resolution talks about Israeli land. As a New Zealander I am proud My Country co sponsored this bill. In New Zealand Religious Groups hold little influence in Our Secular Society and Long may it reign. The move is about fairness. Something proponents on both Sides of the Arab/Israeli divide often forget. Both must be prepared to give. This should not mean more Palestinian Land. But on the Palestinian side an end to Terrorism and Rocket attacks. On the Israeli side an end to encroachment of Land and a return to the 1967 Borders. Just as in Northern Ireland there must be the willingness to compromise or else there is no road to peace. And neither can live in safety

[Kiwiken]

5 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

there is no one state solution. No one is talking about a one state solution but you. Without some external support a self sufficient palestinian state is not viable.  

 

 

Israel is not viable without massive US financial Support

[CharlieK]

59 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Name one country that is pushing for a one state solution where Israelis and arabs are living in one state?

 

Israel...20% of the Israeli population are non Jews.

BS

[Morch]

13 hours ago, thetruth revealer said:

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

 

It can't and it won't. The resolution was under Chapter VI, not VII. Therefore, not legally binding. If it was otherwise, doubtful it would have passed, US veto right notwithstanding.

[Morch]

14 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.

 

The "new sheriff" bluster is irrelevant to the resolution not having serious effective consequences. This is related to the chapter under which the resolution was accepted. If it was proposed as a binding resolution there would have been no consensus, as long as its talk easier to pass resolutions in the UNSC.

 

Obama did more than most US presidents when it comes to shielding Israel in the UNSC. And again, opposed to "common knowledge" Obama is by no means the first president to use the end of his term in this manner - Reagan, Clinton and Bush all took more significant steps at about the same time.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

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. 

 

He waited until it would not hurt him or Hillary politically. He would not have gotten away with it before. Spineless in my book.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Boon Mee]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He waited until it would not hurt him or Hillary politically. He would not have gotten away with it before. Spineless in my book.

Not to worry as Bibi is confident that it may take a little time but that resolution will be rescinded:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-It-may-take-time-but-resolution-will-be-rescinded-476426?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

There is no threat of terrorism in the West Bank? Non when it comes to the Gaza Strip? Allow me to question your grasp of what "threat" means. Having an essentially open border between the West Bank and Jordan will not constitute a security threat? As usual, some posters tend to express simplified views and support simplified solutions which do not necessarily correspond to the real conditions.

 

The Israeli illegal settlements are an obstacle to achieving peace. But assuming that simply abandoning those illegal settlements would result in peace is a fantasy. A two state solution cannot be implemented unilaterally by one of the sides, things do not work this way in the real world. The more people continue to distort or ignore the role played in this conflict by the Palestinians, the harder it will be to reach any workable agreement.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, canthai55 said:

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.

 

 

That would be on par with taking the hardcore fans (not to use the term hooligans) of any right-wing-leaning football club in Europe as being representative of general trends. 

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

resolution will be rescinded

It would seem intuitive that to rescind a Security Council Resolution a vote needs to be conducted by the 15-SC members. But given the absolute veto power of any of the five permanent members, Russia could be expected to block rescision. What is the scenario you see that would lead to rescision?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

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.

 

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

 

Along the same lines of this "argument" - the Arabs rejected the UN resolution mentioned. Yet now they seem to be all for it. Did the above apply then? How does the above apply now? Or is it only one side that can choose which resolutions are accepted and when?

[Boon Mee]

Just now, Srikcir said:

It would seem intuitive that to rescind a Security Council Resolution a vote needs to be conducted by the 15-SC members. But given the absolute veto power of any of the five permanent members, Russia could be expected to block rescision. What is the scenario you see that would lead to rescision?

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.

[Morch]

5 hours 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.

 

      

 

Trump cannot "reverse" this resolution. In order to do so, a new resolution should be passed. The chances of this happening without a major change in Israeli policy, getting the required votes and another permanent member not exercising its veto power are insignificant,

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

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. 

 

That's a lovely sentiment, but it doesn't stand to the test of reality. I'll refer you back to ambassador power's speech which touches on the way Israel is unfairly singled out and treated differently than other members:

 

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

 

And before the usual "playing-the-victim-card" nonsense is aired (not necessarily by yourself), check the figures. Israel is hardly the worst issue or the worst country in the world, and yet the amount of specific resolutions to do with Israel remains vastly out of proportion. For example, the same USNC just previously couldn't get an agreement with regard to a resolution on the situation in South Sudan, not to mention Syria.

 

Having an "effective mechanism" to stop countries would be something along the lines of a world government, or a world army. I'm not sure that's currently a great or even a popular idea.

[Morch]

4 hours 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 

 

The Palestinians also had the opportunity of accepting a two state solution, and yet for years, they declined. Even today, the Palestinian commitment to a two state solution is questionable. The conflict is hardly as one-sided as some attempt to present. If and when Israel will annex the West Bank, without giving the Palestinians equal rights, then the Apartheid claims would be fitting. Pretty much the view of one Frederik Willem de Klerk, the former president of South Africa.

[Jingthing]

51 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He waited until it would not hurt him or Hillary politically. He would not have gotten away with it before. Spineless in my book.

Well, that's politics, eh?

He certainly would have never done if before being reelected to his second term. 

There are other reasons he did it now. The election of trump, radically more right wing on Israel policy than any president ever, and also a recent escalation of the settlement movement in Israel. If Israel had recently shown signs of going in the other direction, I have serious doubts that Obama would have done what he did. In other words, showing good faith instead of bad faith, and yes I share the PRE-trump U.S. position that expanding settlements more is hurtful to any peaceful negotiation for a two state solution.

We'll never know, but yes political speculation is fair game. 

Edited December 25, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

4 hours ago, CharlieK said:

the one state solution is the arabs going to Jordan.

 

Jordan's not inclined to accept. And the Palestinians are going nowhere.

[canthai55]

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would be on par with taking the hardcore fans (not to use the term hooligans) of any right-wing-leaning football club in Europe as being representative of general trends. 

 

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  ...

[Morch]

3 hours ago, yardrunner said:

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 

 

The two countries are nowhere the same under current conditions. If they were Israeli Arabs wouldn't have voting rights. If and when Israel will annex the West Bank without affording the same rights to the Palestinians, yes. In previous instances the right was extended, if not utilized by all. The boycott nonsense is getting tired without much of a hold in the real world. And there's quite a debate over the weight it had with regard to SA.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Morch

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The two countries are nowhere the same under current conditions. If they were Israeli Arabs wouldn't have voting rights. If and when Israel will annex the West Bank without affording the same rights to the Palestinians, yes. In previous instances the right was extended, if not utilized by all. The boycott nonsense is getting tired without much of a hold in the real world. And there's quite a debate over the weight it had with regard to SA.

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. 

[onthesoi]

Even in a thread about them stealing land the jews are still the victims?

 

That might wash with other jews but the rest of the world thinks otherwise.

 

ps

Noam chomsky actually said Israel's Actions in Palestine are a lot worse than apartheid in South Africa ..so lets not get it twisted!

 

In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid.  To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by 'apartheid' you mean South African-style apartheid. What’s happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse.

Noam Chomsky

Edited December 25, 2016 by onthesoi

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>Name one country that is pushing for a one state solution where Israelis and arabs are living in one state?

 

Israel...20% of the Israeli population are non Jews.

 

And they are not all thrilled with the one-state solution, despite your nonsensical attempt at co-opting.

That goes both for Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel.

[Boon Mee]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And they are not all thrilled with the one-state solution, despite your nonsensical attempt at co-opting.

That goes both for Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel.

And that's where it's going at least thru our lifetimes

[Jingthing]

33 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

Even in a thread about them stealing land the jews are still the victims?

 

That might wash with other jews but the rest of the world thinks otherwise.

 

ps

Noam chomsky actually said Israel's Actions in Palestine are a lot worse than apartheid in South Africa ..so lets not get it twisted!

 

In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid.  To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by 'apartheid' you mean South African-style apartheid. What’s happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse.

Noam Chomsky

Fair enough.

Here you go:

 

Interviewer: "It sounds like a call for self determination on the part of the Palestinian people" Chomsky: "and the destruction of Israel"

 

Got issues with "jews" eh? 

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

The resolution itself calls for an end to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. These were Palestinian designated prior to 1967. Nothing in the resolution talks about Israeli land. As a New Zealander I am proud My Country co sponsored this bill. In New Zealand Religious Groups hold little influence in Our Secular Society and Long may it reign. The move is about fairness. Something proponents on both Sides of the Arab/Israeli divide often forget. Both must be prepared to give. This should not mean more Palestinian Land. But on the Palestinian side an end to Terrorism and Rocket attacks. On the Israeli side an end to encroachment of Land and a return to the 1967 Borders. Just as in Northern Ireland there must be the willingness to compromise or else there is no road to peace. And neither can live in safety

 

Your post deals with the current resolution. The post I was replying to detailed a nonsense rejectionist view. I'm not quite sure how my post serves as an anchor to your own.

 

The "designated" areas for both sides were declared in 1947. Jerusalem was to be a special area, not under the sole control of either side. It was not a "Palestinian designated area" as claimed.

 

New Zealand is a great country, and very lucky to have avoided some of the plagues messing other parts of the world. Then again, it to got some relevant history. Not sure going there would serve your argument or will be in line with keeping things on topic.

 

I have absolutely nothing to say in favor of the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Thought that was clear by now. Perhaps somewhat different when it comes to Jerusalem. And as posted on many a similar topic, conflict resolution is indeed a two way street. However, most posts on these topics are more by way of trying to "prove" that one side is more worthy (or loathsome, depending on point of view) than the other, and that this serves as an all encompassing reason for whatever. Not on that tree, no need to bark.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He waited until it would not hurt him or Hillary politically. He would not have gotten away with it before. Spineless in my book.

 

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?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Not to worry as Bibi is confident that it may take a little time but that resolution will be rescinded:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-It-may-take-time-but-resolution-will-be-rescinded-476426?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

 

 

And since when did Netanyahu words make anything a "sure thing"?

Netnayahu was previously confident that he was betting on the winner with Romney, and confident that he could dissuade the US from going through with the Iran deal, just to cite two examples. Netanyahu says a lot of things, in this case, mostly to divert attention from his own failure. As explained earlier - no feasible way that the resolution will be "rescinded" anytime soon, not without a major shift in his own government's policies.