US abstention allows Israeli defeat

[rooster59]

US abstention allows Israeli defeat

Patrick Atack

 

 

The US has taken the strongest action in years against long standing ally Israel.

 

By abstaining from a UN vote on condemning Israeli settlements, Sarah Powers, US envoy to the UN allowed the motion to pass.

 

 

The resolution says settlements on the West Bank and in Jerusalem since 1967 have “no legal validity”.

It also insists that the halting of these settlements is vital to saving the Two-State solution

 

Danny Danon, Israeli Ambassador the UN responded by asking:
“Who gave you the right to issue such a decree denying our eternal rights in Jerusalem? Would this council have had the nerve to condemn your country for building homes in your capital?”

 

Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour, on the other hand, welcomed the passing of the resolution, saying that:
“After years of allowing the law to be trampled and the situation to spiral downward, today’s resolution may rightly be seen as a last attempt to preserve the two-state solution and revive the path for peace”

 

The move, or lack thereof, is seen as a parting blow to Israel’s Netanyahu from President Obama.

 

The pair have had a rocky relationship.

 

Obama has targeted the settlements in peace talks, which have largely failed.

 

But President-elect Trump holds a very different, pro-Netanyahu view, as hinted at by this tweet.

As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.

 

He also hopes to appoint David Friedman , a hardline zionist, as US Ambassador to Israel.

 

The security council had been due to vote on the resolution on Thursday, but Egypt withdrew the motion under pressure from Israel and Trump.

 

Israel say they reject and will not abide by the ruling which was eventually co-sponsored by New Zealand and Senegal

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-12-25

[Ulysses G.]

 

 

Krauthammer always gets it right.

[JoePai]

It's about time they were reined in - in typical fashion they try to encroach more and more and in doing so cause more trouble. Well done the US for at last seeing the light

[yardrunner]

As it is supposed to be an united nations is it not about time that no country had the right of veto on any motion and that all resolutions were put to the vote

[up-country_sinclair]

The world has finally had enough of the despicable and immoral crimes of the Israeli regime.  Despite the braying of the occupiers and their apologists, there is no going back.  Only forward towards justice for all concerned.

[mettech]

Well if Israel say no they could back it up regardless of who will try to tel Netanyahu what to do this guy is the one who control the situation an not to forge no one want to hve the israelii army against them they are very effective .

[Srikcir]

This diplomatic "defeat" (as nothing material was won or lost) might have a positive effect of encouraging the Palestinian authorities to offer Israel a more security-balanced negotiation for a two-state solution.

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

This diplomatic "defeat" (as nothing material was won or lost) might have a positive effect of encouraging the Palestinian authorities to offer Israel a more security-balanced negotiation for a two-state solution.

More likely they'll get cocky and start initiating annoying but ultimately meaningless legal actions internationally with the result of Israel reacting by getting even more right wing (most of the world against them, so what choice?). The resolution makes peace even harder, especially the strong language about East Jerusalem. 

Take a clue ... Israel is NEVER going to voluntarily abandon all of East Jerusalem. You can pass another million U.N. resolutions abou that ... won't make any difference. 

[rudi49jr]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Krauthammer always gets it right.

 

Yeah, he's a veritable fountain of wisdom .....

 

 

[Prbkk]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Krauthammer always gets it right.

 

Conveniently fails to mention that the settlements referenced in the resolution are all post 1967: 140 settlements , 500,000 illegal settlers. 

14/0 resolution, a pretty clear statement about how the rest of the world views this question.

[Jingthing]

People cheering this U.N. thingie ... I get the feeling much of it is about the good feeling of sticking it to Israel and not so much of it about favoring a path to a realistic satisfying solution for the more moderate forces on BOTH sides. Because this isn't that. 

 

Enjoy!

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Krauthammer always gets it right.

Really?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/08/the-trouble-with-charles-krauthammer

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

More likely they'll get cocky and start initiating annoying but ultimately meaningless legal actions internationally with the result of Israel reacting by getting even more right wing (most of the world against them, so what choice?). The resolution makes peace even harder, especially the strong language about East Jerusalem. 

Take a clue ... Israel is NEVER going to voluntarily abandon all of East Jerusalem. You can pass another million U.N. resolutions abou that ... won't make any difference. 

Never say never, especially as that very proposal of illegally occupied (see the UN resolution ..http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761030  well worth a read) East Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital while Israel keeps the West was on the table a mere 8 years ago.

 

All that is needed is a more realistic permanent peace leaning government in Israel, and perhaps US too, although Trump has said he will adhere to whatever the Israel people want.

[dexterm]

9 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Krauthammer always gets it right.

One sided.

In the video, Krauthammer wants Jews to be allowed to live in the so called "Jewish Quarter" of East Jerusalem. But no mention of allowing 4.5 milllion Palestinian refugees the equal right of return to live in the Palestinian Quarters of towns and villages in Israel whence they were expelled or fled during time of war and are not allowed back to their homes contrary to the Geneva Convention.

[optad]

4 hours ago, yardrunner said:

As it is supposed to be an united nations is it not about time that no country had the right of veto on any motion and that all resolutions were put to the vote

It is a lovely thought, but the those 'veto powers' were the only way to get Russia, China and the US to the same table post league of nations and WWII. Nor is funding equitable either so the argument does not flow unfortunately. Nothing is equitable in the international arena.

 

What irritates me is that it has only ever been the US to protect this injustice from being righted. Now that they have simply removed themselves, it is termed 'shameful'. Natural justice needs a palestinian solution. The chasm here suggests that there would never be movement towards a solution whilst Israel via the state dept control the rhetoric. 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, JoePai said:

It's about time they were reined in - in typical fashion they try to encroach more and more and in doing so cause more trouble. Well done the US for at last seeing the light

 

You do realize that the resolution is not legally binding, right? It's a diplomatic condemnation, that's about it. If there were actual steps suggested you can be sure that the US would not have abstained, nor would there have been enough votes to carry it though anyway.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

This diplomatic "defeat" (as nothing material was won or lost) might have a positive effect of encouraging the Palestinian authorities to offer Israel a more security-balanced negotiation for a two-state solution.

 

Judging from immediate responses, no. The same old. Equal measures of bluster, glee, sanctimoniousness and self congratulations. Sort of like many related comments on this topic and others.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

More likely they'll get cocky and start initiating annoying but ultimately meaningless legal actions internationally with the result of Israel reacting by getting even more right wing (most of the world against them, so what choice?). The resolution makes peace even harder, especially the strong language about East Jerusalem. 

Take a clue ... Israel is NEVER going to voluntarily abandon all of East Jerusalem. You can pass another million U.N. resolutions abou that ... won't make any difference. 

 

The first part, pretty much spot on.

The Jerusalem bit - there were various suggestions as to how things could be sorted, and it's not beyond possibility. Under the current conditions of mutual distrust and hatred, not very likely to materialize, though.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Never say never, especially as that very proposal of illegally occupied (see the UN resolution ..http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761030  well worth a read) East Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital while Israel keeps the West was on the table a mere 8 years ago.

 

All that is needed is a more realistic permanent peace leaning government in Israel, and perhaps US too, although Trump has said he will adhere to whatever the Israel people want.

 

It would take a Palestinian side committed to a peaceful two-state solution, and one that can deliver an agreement. That you ignore this is just the usual way of laying all blame for a two-party conflict on one of the sides.

[optad]

Morch, why doesn't Israel want the two state solution ?

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

One sided.

In the video, Krauthammer wants Jews to be allowed to live in the so called "Jewish Quarter" of East Jerusalem. But no mention of allowing 4.5 milllion Palestinian refugees the equal right of return to live in the Palestinian Quarters of towns and villages in Israel whence they were expelled or fled during time of war and are not allowed back to their homes contrary to the Geneva Convention.

 

Talk about one sided.

The correct comparison would be Jews staying in the Jewish Quarter (not "so-called", that the name, even in Arabic) vs. a comparable number of Palestinians allowed to return. There will not be a full return of all Palestinians, that's pretty much a given. Continually harping on this is meaningless. Pretty much the same as Jews not being able to return to Arab countries in which they resided.

[optad]

If they do, tease out the processes needed. Constructive pls.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, optad said:

It is a lovely thought, but the those 'veto powers' were the only way to get Russia, China and the US to the same table post league of nations and WWII. Nor is funding equitable either so the argument does not flow unfortunately. Nothing is equitable in the international arena.

 

What irritates me is that it has only ever been the US to protect this injustice from being righted. Now that they have simply removed themselves, it is termed 'shameful'. Natural justice needs a palestinian solution. The chasm here suggests that there would never be movement towards a solution whilst Israel via the state dept control the rhetoric. 

 

You can feel irritated, but the US position is actually based on some principals:

 

Negroponte doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine

 

Further explained (as well as the reasons for the current abstention) here:

 

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

 

The UN is hardly a neutral or non partisan forum when it comes to matters relating to Israel. And no, Israel's sins, whatever some may think, do not merit the level of attention it gets.

 

The solution, by the way, is for both sides, not just the Palestinians. Posters often refer to either side while this is a two-sided issue. It is not that the Palestinians were or are exactly fully committed to the idea of a peaceful two state solution. Making it all about Israel is fine, but incorrect.

[optad]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

You can feel irritated, but the US position is actually based on some principals:

 

Negroponte doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine

 

Further explained (as well as the reasons for the current abstention) here:

 

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

 

The UN is hardly a neutral or non partisan forum when it comes to matters relating to Israel. And no, Israel's sins, whatever some may think, do not merit the level of attention it gets.

 

The solution, by the way, is for both sides, not just the Palestinians. Posters often refer to either side while this is a two-sided issue. It is not that the Palestinians were or are exactly fully committed to the idea of a peaceful two state solution. Making it all about Israel is fine, but incorrect.

Hyperbole.

I kept it simple.

 

You still have not answered the question.

 

Does Israel want a two state solution? If so, how do you get there? 

 

[dexterm]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Talk about one sided.

The correct comparison would be Jews staying in the Jewish Quarter (not "so-called", that the name, even in Arabic) vs. a comparable number of Palestinians allowed to return. There will not be a full return of all Palestinians, that's pretty much a given. Continually harping on this is meaningless. Pretty much the same as Jews not being able to return to Arab countries in which they resided.

I am not sure of where the boundaries of a Palestinian East Jerusalem capital would be anyway.

 

Your comparison is dishonest. 2,000 Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem in 1948. 800,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in the same year.

 

>>There will not be a full return of all Palestinians, that's pretty much a given.

Why so? I predict that one day they will return. If the Israel right wing get their way with Trump's endorsement for a one party state, it may be sooner than you think.

 

>>Pretty much the same as Jews not being able to return to Arab countries in which they resided.
...A cheap shot. Don't blame Palestinians for what other Arab nations may have done. That's dishonest.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, optad said:

Morch, why doesn't Israel want the two state solution ?

 

That's a loaded question.

 

There's no agreed upon view on this by "Israel". The coalition government is mostly right wing, and mostly not in favor of such a solution, regardless of what they sometimes say. And no, they do not present a reasonable explanation of what's to be done or how issues are to be dealt with. 

 

But that still leaves a sizeable part of the public which does not endorse all government policies. The reasons behind the opposition's failure to return to power are manifold, and not all are related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

IMO, a lot of the ongoing impasse is due to leadership crisis on both sides. The people on top are for the most part petty or worried with their own personal political survival. Not one among them willing to make a bold move, and none got the political backing to do so. The previous agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan or the Palestinians involved leadership of a different class.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, optad said:

Hyperbole.

I kept it simple.

 

You still have not answered the question.

 

Does Israel want a two state solution? If so, how do you get there? 

 

 

How is "hyperbole" relevant? I was replying to the post quoted. Your other question was replied to in a separate post.

 

Simple is often simplistic, and misleading. Notably, you do not ask nor say anything about the Palestinian side. It's not a unilateral decision.

[optad]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a loaded question.

 

There's no agreed upon view on this by "Israel". The coalition government is mostly right wing, and mostly not in favor of such a solution, regardless of what they sometimes say. And no, they do not present a reasonable explanation of what's to be done or how issues are to be dealt with. 

 

But that still leaves a sizeable part of the public which does not endorse all government policies. The reasons behind the opposition's failure to return to power are manifold, and not all are related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

IMO, a lot of the ongoing impasse is due to leadership crisis on both sides. The people on top are for the most part petty or worried with their own personal political survival. Not one among them willing to make a bold move, and none got the political backing to do so. The previous agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan or the Palestinians involved leadership of a different class.

That helps. I imagine that domestic israeli politics is the unsaid here. And is fair enough. Impossible to know. I guessing, with guidance, that sometimes you have to choose a path and strong arm  policy benefits on the body politic. CAn this be done in  israel?

[dexterm]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can feel irritated, but the US position is actually based on some principals:

 

Negroponte doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine

 

Further explained (as well as the reasons for the current abstention) here:

 

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

 

The UN is hardly a neutral or non partisan forum when it comes to matters relating to Israel. And no, Israel's sins, whatever some may think, do not merit the level of attention it gets.

 

The solution, by the way, is for both sides, not just the Palestinians. Posters often refer to either side while this is a two-sided issue. It is not that the Palestinians were or are exactly fully committed to the idea of a peaceful two state solution. Making it all about Israel is fine, but incorrect.

I think you have previously stated (opined?) in other threads that most Palestinians are not keen on a one state solution. Now you are saying Palestinians were or are not fully committed to the idea of a peaceful two state solution either.
Which is it?

[optad]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How is "hyperbole" relevant? I was replying to the post quoted. Your other question was replied to in a separate post.

 

Simple is often simplistic, and misleading. Notably, you do not ask nor say anything about the Palestinian side. It's not a unilateral decision.

You are so defensive on this topic, you cannot even recognise the moderate when it comes along. I have read those links but asked you to direct differently.

 

A parable of this story, on this day, on this topic.