Israel: 'Ironclad information' White House behind UN rebuke

[Ulysses G.]

11 minutes ago, up-country_sinclair said:

 

I hope that President Obama and the US crafted the resolution and pushed for its passage.

 

Well, it looks like you got your wish - and then they denied it. No one wants to get caught backstabbing a close friend. Luckily, Donald Trump will make it right.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

Well, you got your wish - and then they denied it. No one wants to get caught backstabbing a close friend. Luckily, Donald Trump will make it right.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I really don't see the point of Israel making a big thing about this, considering Obama is now the lamest of ducks. 

[up-country_sinclair]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps Israel should consider venting their anger towards the 12 members who voted for this resolution.  3 abstained, US, UK and Norway.

 

Permanent members	China  France  United Kingdom  United States  Soviet Union
Non-permanent members	Bangladesh  Bolivia  Czechoslovakia  Gabon  Jamaica  Kuwait  Nigeria  Norway  Portugal  Zambia

 

The occupiers and their apologists are desperately trying to spin this resolution as really has nothing to do with Israel's illegal land theft.  They normally would move to their default position of it being about the anti-semitism ( in all of these countries), but this time they're throwing up the smoke screen of it being about "treachery".  

 

Spare us the nonsense.

 

President Obama put the foreign policy interests of the United States first.    While that is clearly shocking to the Israel First crowd, it's a long overdue return to how policy should be determined.  The tail can no longer wag the dog.  

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't know if it's true or not, but I really don't see the point of Israel making a big thing about this, considering Obama is now the lamest of ducks. 

 

It certainly puts the lie to claims that he is some big friend of Israel. He waited until he could get away politically with screwing them. However, this treacherous act will be one of the few things left of his legacy when Trump is through trashing his Executive Orders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

It certainly puts the lie to claims that he is some big friend of Israel. He waited until he could get away with screwing them politically. However, this treacherous aact will be one of the few things left of his legacy when Trump is through trashing his Executive Orders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think he should have done it, but I also don't agree with the recent hawkish shift in Israel on settlement policy either. As I've said before, if Israel instead had been shifting towards signs of more reasonableness, I seriously doubt Obama would have done this. The U.S. election too which brings in a U.S. ambassador that is shockingly right wing on Israel policy. Obama acted, yes, but it wasn't in a vacuum. 

[jcsmith]

While Israel has certainly been a target in a lot of cases, they also need to be called out when they are in the wrong. I'm not a big fan of veto power being in the hands of several powerful nations and them using that to go against the will of everyone else in general. They are American allies, but that doesn't mean America should approve of everything they do. 

[notmyself]

Every [word] and his mother knows that the settlements are illegal under international law but Israel disputes this fact. Cool.... perhaps we should find out with independent arbitration? Stage left.... U.S. Veto 

[craigt3365]

42 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think the sponsors are getting the attention. That doesn't seem logical to you?

From what I've read, the US doesn't seem to be the sponsor, but is getting most of the heat.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

From what I've read, the US doesn't seem to be the sponsor, but is getting most of the heat.

Because the U.S. broke a long standing policy of having Israel's back in the U.N.

Like you didn't know that. 

I've already said I don't get the Israeli interest in making a big thing about this to the U.S.. It happened. It wasn't appreciated. Obama is leaving soon. 

As far as relations with other countries, I'm not that interested in the details. Such as Somalia. Apparently there will be consequences to them ... well, what did they expect? 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Jingthing

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Because the U.S. broke a long standing policy of having Israel's back in the U.N.

Like you didn't know that. 

I've already said I don't get the Israeli interest in making a big thing about this. It happened. It wasn't appreciated. Obama is leaving soon. 

Actually, I don't follow this stuff at all.  But the US has for a long time been against these new settlements.  I just read that today!

 

IMHO, all parties involved need to take a deep breath, deal with the issues and move forward.  It's called give and take.  Again, I don't follow this nor am I interested in following it.  A huge mess for sure.

[Jingthing]

It's not only about the settlements.

It's about the U.N.'s pattern of scapegoating Israel way out of proportion to their actions towards other nations. 

It's about theories of how potential peace negotiations can go forward.

Israel won't accept unilateral dictates from the U.N. -- if it's ever going to happen it has to be about direct negotiations between the parties without preordained final conclusions. 

Yes, U.S. policy has been anti-settlement but that's different than what goes on at the U.N.

Now, with trump coming in, U.S. settlement policy will be to the right of Netanyahu.

Which is pretty bizarre. 

[notmyself]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Apparently there will be consequences to them ... well, what did they expect? 

 

This is a 'what did you expect' wake up call to Israel.

[notmyself]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's about the U.N.'s pattern of scapegoating Israel way out of proportion to their actions towards other nations. 

 

 Cheers JT. This statement is so absurd and I have not laughed so hard over the holiday season for many many years.

[notmyself]

1. I thought your falafels were over cooked and under seasoned.

2. You are an anti-sematic.

1. Whoa. I was talking about the food.

2. See you at the UN.

[smotherb]

6 hours ago, ezzra said:

It was reported that Joe Biden took pains to  personally phone some head of states to insure the vote in favor of the resolution,, this is a blatant and orchestrated meddling and cohesion on the part of the US.....

Are you really so uninformed that you think communication to influence opinion between key personnel in country governments is unusual?

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

12 members who voted for this resolution.  3 abstained, US, UK and Norway.

It was an unanimous vote of 14-0 for the resolution. Although that doesn't discredit your comment.

Might have to go back to 1999 where there was a 14-0 vote (China abstained) for UNSC Resolution 1244 that authorized an international civil and military UN presence in Kosovo.

Frankly, if Obama had the clout to to get both Nonpermanent and Permanent UNSC members to vote the same on a resolution, he should have "interferred" years ago in UNSC resolutions.

 

[gk10002000]

OK, so what does the man expect to gain by alienating other countries?  The news has said Israel wants to cut relations or scold all the other countries.  Doesn't seem like Israel is in a position to lose allies

[ChidlomDweller]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's not only about the settlements.

It's about the U.N.'s pattern of scapegoating Israel way out of proportion to their actions towards other nations. 

It's about theories of how potential peace negotiations can go forward.

Israel won't accept unilateral dictates from the U.N. -- if it's ever going to happen it has to be about direct negotiations between the parties without preordained final conclusions. 

Yes, U.S. policy has been anti-settlement but that's different than what goes on at the U.N.

Now, with trump coming in, U.S. settlement policy will be to the right of Netanyahu.

Which is pretty bizarre. 

Ah, there we have it, the old rapist howling that the murderer is even worse excuse.

 

And it's ironic that you say Israel won't accept unilateral dicates from the UN.  But when the precursor to the UN gave away Palestinian land to the Jews, all's well and good and the Palestinians should just accept it.   

 

From your other posts you sound like a liberal American Jew.  I don't know why you feel you have to jump to the defense of Israel when it's being rightly condemned. Direct your anger to Netanyahu and ask yourself why it got to this point.  Given the absolute contempt he's shown to Obama the past 8 years, I already think Obama has been an absolute doormat and bumboy to Israel, and that this is way too little too late.  

[Jingthing]

Ah, there we have it, the old rapist howling that the murderer is even worse excuse.

 

And it's ironic that you say Israel won't accept unilateral dicates from the UN.  But when the precursor to the UN gave away Palestinian land to the Jews, all's well and good and the Palestinians should just accept it.   

 

From your other posts you sound like a liberal American Jew.  I don't know why you feel you have to jump to the defense of Israel when it's being rightly condemned. Direct your anger to Netanyahu and ask yourself why it got to this point.  Given the absolute contempt he's shown to Obama the past 8 years, I already think Obama has been an absolute doormat and bumboy to Israel, and that this is way too little too late.  

It wasn't Palestinian land. It was British colonial land and before that it was Turkish.

As far as the Arabs not accepting the original U.N partition and going to war immediately, imagine if they had accepted it. Of course to the obsessive Israel demonization agenda blame to only be pinned on the Jews. The Palestinians are innocent babes in that narrative.

No need for your disgusting and off target personal attacks either.

[ChidlomDweller]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It wasn't Palestinian land. It was British colonial land and before that it was Turkish.

As far as the Arabs not accepting the original U.N partition and going to war immediately, imagine if they had accepted it. Of course to the obsessive Israel demonization agenda blame to only be pinned on the Jews. The Palestinians are innocent babes in that narrative.

No need for your disgusting and off target personal attacks either.

Your ethical compass is way off here.  The attitude in your first two sentences is what's disgusting to most of the world.  As for personal attacks, where do I attack you personally?  I answered you twice in 2 days with a general statement and each time you jump the gun and take it as a personal attack.  Bit less emotion and more reason and universal ethical values please.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, ezzra said:

It was reported that Joe Biden took pains to  personally phone some head of states to insure the vote in favor of the resolution,, this is a blatant and orchestrated meddling and cohesion on the part of the US.....

 

And Netanyahu's diplomatic efforts to thwart the resolution from passing are not "meddling"? Turning to the not-quite-yet-president Trump so that he will work against the US government is perfectly legit?

[Jingthing]

Your ethical compass is way off here.  The attitude in your first two sentences is what's disgusting to most of the world.  As for personal attacks, where do I attack you personally?  I answered you twice in 2 days with a general statement and each time you jump the gun and take it as a personal attack.  Bit less emotion and more reason and universal ethical values please.

Stop personalizing this.

The land being dealt with in 1948 was British mandate Palestine. It was not a national entity controlled by Arabs or Jews. So facing facts instead of the toxic blame only Jews narrative you push is disgusting why exactly?

[Morch]

13 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

This after reports Obama interfered in Israel's last election.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-offensive-against-netanyahu-backfires/2015/02/02/5f800ab2-aae1-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html?utm_term=.9174dd89b903

 

 

Whereas Netanyahu's overt support and lobbying for Romney, bypassing of the Obama by appealing directly to the Congress on the Iran deal, and just now asking Trump to act against the US president weren't "interfering"?

[Morch]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

This is a typical lie from Marc Thiessen and the right wing lie machine., What happened was that a consultant from the 270 Consulting firm which does work for Obama also did some work for the Labor party in Israel. Other consultants who have worked for Obama Bill Knapp and Jay Isay have also consulted for Netanyahu. I guess in these cases Obama was interfering in Israeli elections for Netanyahu?

And a Republican consultant Arthur Finkelstein also worked for Netanyahu.  

 

 

Less straightforward than UG claimed, hardly as "innocent" as you present. Plausible deniability aside, there were funds transferred, by several stages to one or two ad hoc NGO's which cropped up before them elections and which were not exactly on Netanyahu's side.

 

 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I thought for a minute there you might not have proof. But clearly, Israeli public opinion is definitive and absolute proof of your point. Is this the evidence that the Israeli government plans to submit.  Unimpeachable stuff you've offered here.

 

A fair enough comment. A pity you do not apply it to your own repeated quoting of Israeli public opinion polls when it suits your views.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Goingmad said:

Tell that to victims families of Israel who have been murder by the PLO. A political group does not deserve a country.

 

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. Both terrorist attacks and the illegal settlement effort are obstacles to peace. Indeed, both seem to feed each other. Not clear how "a political group does not deserve a country" was meant. Offhand it sounds like a dubious proposition.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Morch

[JDGRUEN]

10 hours ago, optad said:

You are completely out of touch with world sentiment on this one Ulysses. 

 

Natural justice needs these settlements to stop and a pathway to a palestine solution. You might not like this perspective but there is natural justice behind these thoughts adn shared generally.

 

Question of time and how.

Natural unless you are the recipients of rocket attacks ... The Arabs in the region do not want peace ... they want Israel wiped off the map... Not exactly conducive to peace making  

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

 

Israel has withdrawn its ambassador to New Zealand, barred New Zealand's ambassador to Israel, and warned of further sanctions. All perfectly sensible things to do to respond to this treachery.

 

Treachery how? Was there a treaty between Israel and New Zealand which was breached? Was there a guarantee by New Zealand to vote otherwise?

 

About a month ago, the Prime Minister of New Zealand visited Israel and met with Netanyahu. Among things discussed was a way more balanced draft of a similar resolution promoted by New Zealand. Netanyahu rejected this as well, and not cries when a worse version was adopted.

 

There was no treachery, just a series of diplomatic miscalculations on Netanyahu's part. He could have avoided this outcome in several ways.

[Jingthing]

Natural unless you are the recipients of rocket attacks ... The Arabs in the region do not want peace ... they want Israel wiped off the map... Not exactly conducive to peace making  

They wouldn't mind wiping out Israel peacefully. 55555

[Srikcir]

5 minutes ago, JDGRUEN said:

Natural unless you are the recipients of rocket attacks ... The Arabs in the region do not want peace ... they want Israel wiped off the map... Not exactly conducive to peace making  

So that justifies Israel building more settlements closer to/on Palestine territory? Militarily that makes little sense.

As far as wiping Israel off the map, the last rocket attack this year was in August (1), preceded by July (2), June (0), May (2), April (0), etc. Hardly intended to wipe Israel off the map. The attacks seem more expressing frustration at Israel's lack of allowing any progress on peace making in the only way that Israel takes notice.