Israel's Netanyahu lashes out at Obama over UN vote

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/22/by-allowing-an-anti-israel-security-council-resolution-obama-will-hurt-the-u-n-and-not-help-peace/?utm_term=.c4cbfce528ea

 

I will avoid debunking a lot of of the content (which I have, by the way, on other topics) as it doesn't pertain to the question raised - what damage was done to the US?

 

The author mentions two issues (or rather one and half, without enough emphasis on the half) - "Undermining U.S. credibility as a player in the Middle East peace process", and a possible deterioration of US-UN relations.

 

The US is not considered as a credible player, or as an honest negotiator, for quite a while now - at least when it comes to the Palestinian side. Like it or not, they are a side in this conflict so their view does matter. So citing possible lose of credibility with Israel (that is, if Israel is equated with its current government) is a partial description without referring possible credibility gained on the other side. In the same way, one can treat the US's abstention as offsetting Trump obviously not being a credible player or an a non biased negotiator when it comes to the conflict.

 

The other issue, which is perhaps more serious suggests that the aftermath of Obama's actions will push Trump into antagonistic moves toward the UN, thereby negatively effecting US global influence and perception. That's could very well be an reasonably accurate account of how things might pan out. But it treats Trump's supposed strong reactions as a given and without much comment. At some point, I hope, Trump will be held accountable to his actions and choices, without being given a free pass for anything he goes for. Whatever Trump will choose to do will be, first and foremost, his doing. If he chooses to mess US foreign relations, doubt it could all be pinned on Obama - certainly not with the way Trump been going on about it so far. Don't see that Trump had any qualms upsetting long standing US foreign policies even prior to becoming president. Nor his supporters treating it as anything out of order.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, DNPBC0 said:

Israel has been shamelessly acting in flagrant disregard of its UN obligations for decades. Israel is free to leave the UN whenever it chooses.

 

So have other countries, and so have the Arab states and Palestinians. Surely you had point other than blind hate?

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

>> the U.N. does go after Israel with absurdly more enthusiasm (and frequency) than other misbehaving members doing much, much worse. 

 

That could be because Israel as a supposedly modern democracy, yet at the moment behaving very badly occupying 4.5 million people, is ultimately savable. I have travelled with very many intelligent, humane, generous, decent Israelis... I was sharing a beer and a bedroom with some just a few weeks ago. I'd like a better future for them. Maybe the 14 SC members plus USA abstention feel the same way.

 

The perceived disproportion of UN resolutions could also be a response to US traditional and hypocritical blind use of its veto to shield Israel from criticism. If people or nations have their views censored, they try to ensure one way or another that ultimately the truth will out.

 

Same old talking points and spins.

 

Democracies come in all shapes and sizes. Israel's is not the best nor the worst. The ideal standard applied is just a dishonest means to ignore the realities of an imperfect situation. You, specifically, have zero interest in "saving" Israel. Nada. What you are after is not Israel - but an alternate political entity altogether. Spin it however you like.

 

There is no way any objective and rational person could justify the amount of country specific UN resolution dealing with Israel. Not with the UN supposedly being an international forum dealing with all global issues. It has nothing to do with your nonsense, even the number of UNSC resolutions pertaining to Israel is disproportional, whether they pass or not.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, yardrunner said:

no just following the rule of law

 

Doubt exercising the veto right would have been against US laws.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

*He is the president of the USA"

 

Not for long and good riddance. Trump is going to be a lot more faithful to our friends. 

 

The Russians? They are your new friends Ulysses.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, thetruth revealer said:

What a shame , while thousands of US Citizen are in need , supporting such Apartheid State, while breaking international law.

Isnt that a sign of weakness ??????

 

 

What a load - this US military aid  package is to be spent entirely on buying American. That's contracts and jobs.

The Apartheid nonsense is just that - or Arab citizens of Israel would not have voting rights. If and when Israel annexes the West Bank and denies the Palestinians similar rights, you'd have a point. Until then I'd rather trust former SA president de Klerk take on the matter, which is pretty much as outlined. International law is hardly a concrete concept, and many countries, including the US pick and choose which parts they accept.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

I really can't understand the criticism against Obama, for not exercising the Veto. The US has declared the settlements as illegal for the last 30 years or so, and the resolution as such, has confirmed this stand which is shared by most countries, even such countries that are very friendly to and with Israel, such as New Zealand, the UK, France, Germany and most others. So what's all the fuss about? The US and the EU are justifiably imposing sanctions on Russia for acting against international law in occupying and annexing Crimea, but is stating the occupation and annexation of territories by force by Israel is illegal,  antisemitic? 

 

Taken as a solitary action, no. Taken in the context of disproportional number of UN resolutions specifically dealing with Israel - I dunno, maybe?

[Morch]

9 hours ago, thetruth revealer said:

Yes they are all victims...

Victims of their own policy and way of thinking and acting and now unaible and unwilling to understand and accept that their illegal commitments was indeed a crime . now recognized officially by the UN.

What else does it need ?

 

 

So Netanyahu is now all Israelis? Or even, the illegal settlers are all Israelis?  Is the illegal settlement policy acceptable to all Israelis?

Their "way of thinking"? Could you make any more bigoted generalizations, not enough drivel on this topic. Funny how those whining when such generalizations are made with regard to other groups, happily click "like" to something like that.

 

 

[Andaman Al]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The resolution is not just about settlements. It prevents Jews from praying at the Wailing Wall - one of their holiest sites. It stops them from living in the Jewish Quarter - were they have lived for thousands of years.

On top of that Israel has proof that the Obama administration orchestrated the whole thing from behind the scenes. The president is too much of a hypocrite to even stand behind his own plot. Transparent NOT!

Hmm, can you show us where the resolution just passed says that Jews can no longer pray at the wailing wall, or from living in the Jewish quarter.

 

Is it wrong to turn someone away from where they have been living for thousands of years?

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Hmm, can you show us where the resolution just passed says that Jews can no longer pray at the wailing wall, or from living in the Jewish quarter.

 

 

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Newsheadlineslist.aspx

[Andaman Al]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Newsheadlineslist.aspx

 

Why not quote from an independent media source that is not full of Hype and scaremongering. Show us from the document itself i.e. THE RESOLUTION, where it says what you claim. I will save you an hour as you can never use google. It does not say it anywhere.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Well for me, OP means that the Oslo agreements are going to be finished the way Israel used to apply these agreements.

Israel took advantage of these agreements to expand illegal settlements.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine

To know that political support, success and legacy in Israel is most of all depending on the applications of hars settlements policies.

Sadly, the harsher the reprisals towards Palestinian population, the more political success was guaranteed.

You can of course not agree with me, but I can't name any Israeli political figure who could have made significant economic or social reforms.

What comes around, goes around...no time for crocodile tears on this diplomatic level...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Neither Israel nor the Palestinians fully lived up to the terms of the Oslo agreements. There are many reasons for that, and they are not all solely Israel's fault - regardless of your interpretations", or citing of one sided accounts.

 

Your "sage" pronouncements on factors pertaining to Israeli political support are laughable, shallow and obviously tainted by your bias. Nothing suggested as support, as usual. And off again on tangent - that you cannot "name any Israeli political figure who could have made significant economic or social reforms" is probably true - you can't. A matter of knowing what one is posting about.

[thetruth revealer]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So Netanyahu is now all Israelis? Or even, the illegal settlers are all Israelis?  Is the illegal settlement policy acceptable to all Israelis?

Their "way of thinking"? Could you make any more bigoted generalizations, not enough drivel on this topic. Funny how those whining when such generalizations are made with regard to other groups, happily click "like" to something like that.

 

 

If Netanyahu doesnt represent Israel as a whole , then what the heck is he ??

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, thetruth revealer said:

If Netanyahu doesnt represent Israel as a whole , then what the heck is he ??

 

Are you for real? He is a Prime Minister heading a rather narrow coalition. Are you suggesting all Israelis voted for him? Would that include Israel's Arab citizens?

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

*He is the president of the USA"

 

Not for long and good riddance. Trump is going to be a lot more faithful to our friends. 

 

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Just depends who you regard as a US President's friends...American citizens or Israelis.

 

Trump seems to be leaning toward view not supported by all of Israel's citizens. So you two probably need (but won't) to rephrase your blanket descriptions.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The resolution is not just about settlements. It prevents Jews from praying at the Wailing Wall - one of their holiest sites. It stops them from living in the Jewish Quarter - were they have lived for thousands of years.

On top of that Israel has proof that the Obama administration orchestrated the whole thing from behind the scenes. The president is too much of a hypocrite to even stand behind his own plot. Transparent NOT!

 

The resolution does not "prevent" anyone from doing anything. It does not have any binding legal meaning, there are no UN actions attached. I think you said so yourself on this topic or the other. Dunno about "proof", and please don't cite that Adelson rag posing as a newspaper.

[Andaman Al]

20 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Newsheadlineslist.aspx

I will make it easier for you than I should Ulysses.

 

Here is the information on UN resolution 2334 that has just been passed. You will also find the actual document embedded in this which you can actually read (I know you hate reading facts), even you can do it at 3 pages. Please show all of us on this forum where it says:

 

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

It prevents Jews from praying at the Wailing Wall - one of their holiest sites. It stops them from living in the Jewish Quarter - were they have lived for thousands of years.

 

Show us where it says that, even something remotely close.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Of course he did. He is President of the USA ....looking out for the interests of his own country, not some tin pot tiny recalcitrant regime's  6,000 miles away that frequently tries to undermine US foreign policy. What's so wrong about that?

 

My, and to think of the scorn you poured on Obama up until now. As usual, whenever some a US politician does something that express criticism of Israel, he's being co-opted as supporting your agenda. Biden, Kerry....depending on how much can be cherry picked.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

 

Does a right to defend yourself include evicting families from their property and land they have owned for centuries and then building apartment blocks there to be sold to settler families at incredible profit, then the local indigenous people that lived there are prevented from going on that land again. Is that 'Defence' or 'Offence' I am confused, please enlighten us.

 

No need for "enlightenment", simply applying a read-before-you-post policy would do the trick:

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/960339-israels-netanyahu-lashes-out-at-obama-over-un-vote/?page=2#comment-11459505

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/960339-israels-netanyahu-lashes-out-at-obama-over-un-vote/?page=2#comment-11459519

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

"The resolution does not prevent anyone from doing anything".

 

Because it is not legally binding. However, letting it pass sets a precedent and it will be very helpful for anti-Israel propoganda!

[thetruth revealer]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

"The resolution does not prevent anyone from doing anything".

 

Because it is not legally binding. However, letting it pass sets a precedent and it will be very helpful for anti-Israel propoganda!

Because it was illegal , not because of the resolution ...

You blame the UN for Israels commitments, really?????

Dont you understand that Israel itself is the issue, not the resolution ????

 

 

[cncltd1973]

17 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Obama is hell bent on doing as much damage as he can, in any way he can before he is finally out.

Because he's improved our position from the damage of 8 years of Cheney/Bush? How about his recent ban on drilling in federal waters as one of his last acts, before Exxon and Russia can endanger arctic waters under the Trump administration? I think if you look at it objectively, he's saved more than he's given credit for.

[Morch]

There might be actually some logic to Netanyahu's seemingly OTT response.

 

A while back, a new peace initiative was presented by France. It took the form of an international convention, without the presence of either Israel or the Palestinians. Netanyahu was, of course, antagonistic (with or without good cause, that's another matter). Things were sort of put on hold due to the US elections, and with Trump's victory is was asserted that nothing will come out of it.

 

The next international conventions associated with this initiative is supposed to convene on the 15th January (if I remember correctly), again with no participation by the actual sides. By itself, and prior to the recent UNSC resolution, it would not have been all that significant or threatening (from Netanyahu's point of view). But as things stand now - perhaps the situation is different. The US will attend, possibly represented by Kerry. Sometime last week, it was said that Kerry is scheduled to make a speech outlining his (or a) "vision" with regard to the conflict's resolution, but not sure there was actually mention of the occasion. If the two coincide, it might still not result in anything compelling action - but no doubt another diplomatic defeat Netanyahu isn't keen about.

 

Taken in this context, his reactions may be aimed at dissuading the Obama administration from further statements and diplomatic maneuvers.

 

Now, as some of you seem living for bits of fantasy, here's one - the convention assembles, Kerry makes a firm speech, and then France (for example) calls for an emergency session of the UNSC tabling another resolution, perhaps with a bit more meat to it. The timetable is tight (that inauguration) but doable. To make it clear, I think it's far fetched, but a semi-paranoid like Netanyahu could see it otherwise.

 

And also this - if the things described in the last paragraph come to pass, then yes - Obama would be out of line, IMO. It's one thing to use the end of a term for a allowing a non binding resolution to pass, quite another to set the course in the last minute. Sort of the thing that would be expected from Trump, really.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

Trump seems to be leaning toward view not supported by all of Israel's citizens. So you two probably need (but won't) to rephrase your blanket descriptions.

>>Trump seems to be leaning toward view not supported by all of Israel's citizens

 

Pedantic. In any pluralistic society of course there will always be diverse views.

 

But at the moment the elected Israel government under Netanyahu, however it was cobbled together, and Trump have a mutual love affair.

 

from the OP..
Israel's prime minister lashed out at President Barack Obama on Saturday, accusing him of a "shameful ambush" at the United Nations over West Bank settlements and saying he is looking forward to working with his "friend" President-elect Donald Trump.

 

We can only gauge whether the majority of Israelis support the policies generated by this love affair in the next Israeli election.

Edited December 26, 2016 by dexterm

[optad]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

"The resolution does not prevent anyone from doing anything".

 

Because it is not legally binding. However, letting it pass sets a precedent and it will be very helpful for anti-Israel propoganda!

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

There might be actually some logic to Netanyahu's seemingly OTT response.

 

A while back, a new peace initiative was presented by France. It took the form of an international convention, without the presence of either Israel or the Palestinians. Netanyahu was, of course, antagonistic (with or without good cause, that's another matter). Things were sort of put on hold due to the US elections, and with Trump's victory is was asserted that nothing will come out of it.

 

The next international conventions associated with this initiative is supposed to convene on the 15th January (if I remember correctly), again with no participation by the actual sides. By itself, and prior to the recent UNSC resolution, it would not have been all that significant or threatening (from Netanyahu's point of view). But as things stand now - perhaps the situation is different. The US will attend, possibly represented by Kerry. Sometime last week, it was said that Kerry is scheduled to make a speech outlining his (or a) "vision" with regard to the conflict's resolution, but not sure there was actually mention of the occasion. If the two coincide, it might still not result in anything compelling action - but no doubt another diplomatic defeat Netanyahu isn't keen about.

 

Taken in this context, his reactions may be aimed at dissuading the Obama administration from further statements and diplomatic maneuvers.

 

Now, as some of you seem living for bits of fantasy, here's one - the convention assembles, Kerry makes a firm speech, and then France (for example) calls for an emergency session of the UNSC tabling another resolution, perhaps with a bit more meat to it. The timetable is tight (that inauguration) but doable. To make it clear, I think it's far fetched, but a semi-paranoid like Netanyahu could see it otherwise.

 

And also this - if the things described in the last paragraph come to pass, then yes - Obama would be out of line, IMO. It's one thing to use the end of a term for a allowing a non binding resolution to pass, quite another to set the course in the last minute. Sort of the thing that would be expected from Trump, really.

Yes, a juicy fantasy indeed.

 

But such an action may push the current far right Israeli government to declare unilateral annexation of the West Bank in a one state solution, with Trump bombastically nodding agreement.

 

It's already been proposed
"After the vote [UN Resolution], Israel’s justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, of the far-right Jewish Home said Israel needed “to talk about annexation” of the West Bank."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/25/israel-summons-ambassadors-un-resolution-benjamin-netanyahu

 

Annexation is inevitable anyway and I think it will happen in Trump's term. If all sides cant agree on how to divide all the imponderable cakes (Jerusalem, land, borders, right of return, water resources etc etc) they may as well just share them after 100 years of disputing them.

 

The OP UN resolution may be just a wimpish last gasp for the charade of pretending to seriously negotiate a two state solution.

 

I think a two state solution would have been the only thing to save a predominantly Jewish State. But I am all for people living together peacefully in a secular modern democracy. So let it be.

 

Let Trump and Netanyahu blunder along into a one state solution then. Seems to be the only possibility as settlements expand into every corner of the West Bank leaving no land for a Palestinian state anyway. No let up in sight there, if Trump's new ambassador to Israel has a say in it.

Edited December 26, 2016 by dexterm

[CharlieK]

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Yes, a juicy fantasy indeed.

 

But such an action may push the current far right Israeli government to declare unilateral annexation of the West Bank in a one state solution, with Trump bombastically nodding agreement.

 

It's already been proposed
"After the vote [UN Resolution], Israel’s justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, of the far-right Jewish Home said Israel needed “to talk about annexation” of the West Bank."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/25/israel-summons-ambassadors-un-resolution-benjamin-netanyahu

 

Annexation is inevitable anyway and I think it will happen in Trump's term. If all sides cant agree on how to divide all the imponderable cakes (Jerusalem, land, borders, right of return, water resources etc etc) they may as well just share them after 100 years of disputing them.

 

The OP UN resolution may be just a wimpish last gasp for the charade of pretending to seriously negotiate a two state solution.

 

I think a two state solution would have been the only thing to save a predominantly Jewish State. But I am all for people living together peacefully in a secular modern democracy. So let it be.

 

Let Trump and Netanyahu blunder along into a one state solution then. Seems to be the only possibility as settlements expand into every corner of the West Bank leaving no land for a Palestinian state anyway. No let up in sight there, if Trump's new ambassador to Israel has a say in it.

pure fantasy.

[dexterm]

2 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

pure fantasy.

 Time will tell. The Cannonball Express to a one state solution is rolling. Who's going to be Casey Jones?

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

"The resolution does not prevent anyone from doing anything".

 

Because it is not legally binding. However, letting it pass sets a precedent and it will be very helpful for anti-Israel propoganda!

Here's my pic from the wailing wall.  If you need that many guns there, something is wrong.  You can see them in the first pic on the right hand side.  A very unsettling experience to see all these high powered guns...in the hands of kids.

 

[Ulysses G.]

13 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Here's my pic from the wailing wall.  If you need that many guns there, something is wrong.  You can see them in the first pic on the right hand side.  A very unsettling experience to see all these high powered guns...in the hands of kids.

 

 

 

Sure something is wrong. It is called Islamic terrorism and it has been going on for decades. The Wailing Wall is a remnant of what was the most sacred building in the Jewish world and it is the holiest spot in Jewish life.The Palestinians do not want Jews to worship there.

 

I take it those "kids" are soldiers or police. Guards are usually young people in many places                          .

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Ulysses G.