the stinking enigma Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/world/middleeast/israel-settlements-un-security-council-benjamin-netanyahu-obama.html?_r=0 i may well have understood it wrong but israels main problem with obama over this is not that the US voted (which they didn't) but that they didn't vetoe. i expect we will be soon democratisising these people back to the stone age like we would with any other in the region that ignored a UN resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 There are two sides to this, Stinky. Depends how you're conditioned to see it. And the make-up of the UN presiding countries. 'Palestine', and 'Palestinian' are just made up names in some circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 the anger at Obama, not for voting against them but for not preventing a democratic vote is what i find a little surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 There are two sides to this, Stinky. Depends how you're conditioned to see it. And the make-up of the UN presiding countries. 'Palestine', and 'Palestinian' are just made up names in some circles. So was Israel before 1948... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 As predicted, the United States allowed the anti-Israel resolution to be approved by the UNSC. Votes in favour were cast by Russia, which has occupied Königsberg since 1945, after capturing that ancient German city, ethnically cleansing its population and bringing in hundreds of thousands of Russian settlers; also signing was China, which has occupied Tibet and brought in hundreds of thousands of Chinese settlers. France too, they signed as if forgetting its own bloody occupation and settlements in Algeria which it maintained for decades. And good old Blighty, they signed without conscience even though it too occupied and colonised a significant potion of the globe;along with assorted other countries, several of which have deplorable and horrendous human rights records right up to the present day. Israel, on the other hand, offered to end its occupation and settlement plans in 2000-2001 and again in 2008 only to be rebuffed by the 'Palestinian leadership'. But Israel is the only country to have been condemned by the Security Council for an occupation and settlement. This hypocrisy is typical of the United Nations as even the US representative acknowledged when she explained why the United States abstained. Now peace will be more difficult to achieve, as the 'Palestinians' become further convinced that they do not have to accept Netanyahu's offer to negotiate without preconditions. Thank you, President Obama for completing your 8 years of failed foreign policy with a final blow against peace, stability and decency. Congress can ameliorate the impact of this destructive resolution by enacting a statute declaring that the resolution does not represent the United States' policy, which is that peace will not come through the United Nations but only by direct negotiations between the parties. The law should also prohibit any United States funds to be spent directly or indirectly in support of this Security Council resolution. I strongly suspect the incoming champion Trump will be willing to sign such a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 but to have an agreement in place where the US vetoes any resolution involving israel based purely on their special relationship seems a little peverse to me. New Zealand were one of the driving forces behind this resolution. They seem ok to me, don't think they have invaded too many places in their history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 Apart from New Zealand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 they had physical potential but would never have become as good at rugby as they are had we not killed most of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 anyway, the don will save the day. again it all seems a little contrived. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38451258 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 I do not see how there can be peace or any sort of lasting settlement whilst Hamas exists. Hamas opposes any settlement - that is why it is in conflict with Fatah. It's why the peace process is stalled. The ultimate defeat and suppression of Hamas is key to any peace process. Hamas does not accept the right of Israel to exist. More than that however, it seeks to create a Sunni Islamic state across the region. That would ultimately bring it into direct conflict with Shi'a factions in the region - eg Hezbollah who are backed by Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 It's all down to a sunni disposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 I was really pleased with that until I googled it and 176,000 people had beaten me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 I was really pleased with that until I googled it and 176,000 people had beaten me to it. Only 422 references to that as an exact term or phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 Israel gets an extraordinary amount of things against it by the UN for the size of the country, and for the thing of the conflict. It's the go to Liberal thing to "Blame the Jews", can you really blame Israel for not giving a fuck what the UN says for the thousandths time? I mean just look at them, last years resolutions for example http://research.un.org/en/docs/ga/quick/regular/70 - they're literally picking on the Jews. There's bugger all about Syrian conflicts in there. There's bugger all about African conflicts in there. Just pick on the Jew cos it's an easy target and it keeps them all in a job. Good on Israel for maintaining their security. They also do bad shit, but so does everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 It's worth noting that currently the majority of the member states are not full-fledged democracies and at least 56 of those states belong to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Without doubt there is a great deal of anti-Semitism at work here. Arabs and Islamist's won't turn down any opportunity to stick it to the Jews. It's been like this for 1600 years and old habits die hard. Iran regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel, threatening to wipe it from the face of the earth. And who is interested in how and why these lands have been occupied after the 6-day war? The ever-present and continuing threat toward Israel by Islamist's and anti-semites in 'Palestine' and other surrounding countries will not disappear if Israel gave back these lands. It would really make no difference except to embolden those who would see any move as a weakness to be exploited. They refuse to negotiate as it is. The occupied territories provide a buffer-zone to any other surprise attack by rogue nations. Israel should stand its ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.