visionary Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Resolution just passed. The US and Susan Rice in particular for speaking out against it at the UN now are getting bashed mercilessly on twitter. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129 Palestinians win implicit U.N. recognition of sovereign stateThe 193-nation U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution on Thursday to upgrade the Palestinian Authority's observer status at the United Nations from "entity" to "non-member state," implicitly recognizing a Palestinian state. There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions https://twitter.com/pdanahar Voted No: Canada, Czechs, Palau, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall island, Panama, US, Israel.5:26 PM ----------- https://twitter.com/oxfordgirl Very, very bad speech from Susan Rice, you have just lost a lot of respect worldwide. US looks like a toothless tiger, how sad5:08 PM https://twitter.com/MohammedASalih I wonder if the script Susan Rice is reading from was directly faxed to her from Netanyahu's office! She sounds harsher than him! 5:12 PM https://twitter.com/rzsanati Truly feel bad for @AmbassadorRice. What an awful position to be in, defending something that all of mankind is against.5:13 PM https://twitter.com/Doylech US standing in the Middle East manages to reach new lows, and then goes even lower. Incredible achievement5:29 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 29, 2012 Author Share Posted November 29, 2012 Rather puzzled as to why the US would be so opposed to this thing. (Unless it's simply a case of doing what Our Israeli Masters Order.) To me, recognizing Palestine is like recognizing gravity. Anything else is simply denying reality. And I think that recognizing the West Bank (as opposed to Hamas) is a good political play. IMO, if you don;t like Hamas, then you want to see the Palestine that didn't vote for them, to have some victories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Rather puzzled as to why the US would be so opposed to this thing. (Unless it's simply a case of doing what Our Israeli Masters Order.) the Oslo Accords maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Rather puzzled as to why the US would be so opposed to this thing. (Unless it's simply a case of doing what Our Israeli Masters Order.) To me, recognizing Palestine is like recognizing gravity. Anything else is simply denying reality. And I think that recognizing the West Bank (as opposed to Hamas) is a good political play. IMO, if you don;t like Hamas, then you want to see the Palestine that didn't vote for them, to have some victories. I think the facts are we secretly wanted this declaration as it coincides with our stated long term goal for the region... Two independent states living side by side. So now the UN has recognized kinda, Palestinians as an independent state... We and Israel give up very little; meanwhile it seem the Palestinians have given up or weakened a potentially powerful argument looming over Israel's head. The apartheid argument, the claim by the Palestinians they are not an independent state, having lived under occupation for 70 years, that they should be granted the vote. Being recognized by the UN would seem to dilute that argument. Why did we vote against this, because frankly Bibi Netanyahu's ruling coalition doesn't support a two state solution even though every US President since and including Clinton has. This is due to internal Israeli politics even though the Kadima party which won the most votes in the last Israeli election did favor a two state solution for exactly the reasons outlined above. I also think it's just less controversial to do what everybody thinks we would do and use our UN vote to rubber stamp the policy of Israel's government. Suffice it to say our vote which we lost what 300-9 was symbology, and the symbology we were asserting is we stand with Israel. This makes sense cause our policy has never been to pressure Israel on peace; Rather we support Israel hopefully making peace talks more possible. Our vote would have been just as meaningless in the real world if we voted the other way but as a symbol it would have telegraphed a message we weren't willing to send. Besides our policy has always been to support Israel but Israel has to do the heavy lifting. So secretly I think their are a lot of Israeli's and Americans happy about this move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 We and Israel give up very little; meanwhile it seem the Palestinians have given up or weakened a potentially powerful argument looming over Israel's head. The apartheid argument, the claim by the Palestinians they are not an independent state, having lived under occupation for 70 years, that they should be granted the vote. Being recognized by the UN would seem to dilute that argument. Oh, I think we all agree that if it came down to a choice between The Palestinians voting for the government of a country called Palestine. The Palestinians voting for the government of Israel. Every person in Israel says "Uh, I'll take Option A". Why did we vote against this, because frankly Bibi Netanyahu's ruling coalition doesn't support a two state solution even though every US President since and including Clinton has. This is due to internal Israeli politics even though the Kadima party which won the most votes in the last Israeli election did favor a two state solution for exactly the reasons outlined above. I also think it's just less controversial to do what everybody thinks we would do and use our UN vote to rubber stamp the policy of Israel's government. Suffice it to say our vote which we lost what 300-9 was symbology, and the symbology we were asserting is we stand with Israel. This makes sense cause our policy has never been to pressure Israel on peace; Rather we support Israel hopefully making peace talks more possible. Our vote would have been just as meaningless in the real world if we voted the other way but as a symbol it would have telegraphed a message we weren't willing to send. Besides our policy has always been to support Israel but Israel has to do the heavy lifting. Oh, I agree. This vote is so lopsided that our vote was a symbol. (But, because of our importance, a really big symbol.) But that goes both ways, too. We chose to be essentially the only country on Earth to vote against this. That's a symbol, too. I think the wrong one. To me, we chose to stand in the schoolhouse door, that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Oh, I think we all agree that if it came down to a choice between The Palestinians voting for the government of a country called Palestine. The Palestinians voting for the government of Israel. Every person in Israel says "Uh, I'll take Option A". One would think.. but logic and reason aren't always the things which govern ones actions. The question is you are in a train tunnel and you see a light and hear a noise coming towards you.. Do you assume it's a rabbit pumping frantically on a coachman's car or do you assume it's a train and you need to run like hell. Aryail Sharon one of the most hard ass fring right wing political figures in the history of Israel came to the conclusion that it must be a train. Thus in order to escape the demographic bomb ( Jew's being a minority based on Population in greater Israel)... he opted for the two state solution.. This was quite a deal given the fact he couldn't even bring himself to sit at the table with the Palestinians who seemingly would agree with some of his positions... ( removing settlers from Gaza)... etc.. On the other hand Benjamen Netanyahu has decided the noise and light don't mean a train is coming; and has decided to ignore the fact that Jews are today a minority of the people in greater Israel ( Israel + occupied territories)... So Bibi is just going to continue with the status quoe unpressurized with the changing demographics.. Oh, I agree. This vote is so lopsided that our vote was a symbol. (But, because of our importance, a really big symbol.) But that goes both ways, too. We chose to be essentially the only country on Earth to vote against this. Yes, but isn't that a given? We have used our veto in the security councel more times in defense of Israel since 1980 than all the other security councel members combined have used their veto's over that period of time. I don't think it shocked anybody we voted against this meaningless recognition. I think it would have shocked everybody if we had voted for it. That's a symbol, too. I think the wrong one. To me, we chose to stand in the schoolhouse door, that day. I think ultimately I'm ambivalent. The vote was meaningless so I don't have a big problem with us using our vote on the side of stability given the region is in such flux anyway. I am a big proponent of a negotiated peace. So to my mind does the vote against support the peace talks which are just about non existent; or do they ultimately harm the peace talks... Is Israel the kind of country who would see the world arrayed against them and acquiesce? Or are they the kind of country which would dig in? I'll leave that up too you, I will just note that this kind of vote going against Israel is not an isolated thing. If Obama wants to actually try to get Israel to move on some of the peace talks, he needed to vote against this bill, period the end. Now that he's done that, let's see what happens. Maybe the next such vote the US administration will decide that being seen as backing Israel entirely isn't the best way to motivate Israel after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 Yahoo: Israel okays new West Bank settlement construction JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel approved the construction of 3,000 homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, a government official said Friday, drawing swift criticism from the Palestinians a day after their successful U.N. recognition bid.The Palestinians strongly condemned the announcement and repeated their refusal to start peace negotiations while building continued. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apparently poised for re-election and insisting that any negotiations begin without preconditions, prospects for peace appear to be going into deep freeze. The unusually large building plan came a day after the United Nations voted overwhelmingly to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem as a non-member observer state, setting off jubilant celebrations among Palestinians. I'm well aware that my anger management skills are insufficient to a career in international diplomacy. But I will confess that, every time I see this story, the fantasy that occurs to me has myself, as President, announcing that any attempt to construct or expand any settlement will by opposed by the US Marines. (This probably explains why, in the words of the old cliche, I will never be President.) There was a principal that I thought we established in Desert Storm: That no, the US will not permit a nation to simply decide to take a piece of another country. And yet, there seems to be an asterisk on that policy, along the lines of "unless it's Israel, in which case the US will not only not oppose it, but will endorse it and subsidize it." Sorry for the rant. Probably need to cool off some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 How can you take a piece from a country w/o borders that you already occupy? Did you seriously expect Israel to not respond to them going for UN recognition instead of negotiating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 deleted post. Think calm thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 How can you take a piece from a country w/o borders that you already occupy?Did you seriously expect Israel to not respond to them going for UN recognition instead of negotiating #1 The only reason the Palestinians don't have offical boarders is because ISrael doesn't have or claim international boarders. Jordan, Syria, Lebonon and Egypt all have offical boarders. Israel doesn't. #2 Israel has been illegally creating and expanding their settlements since 1967 in oposition to UN resolutions telling them to allow the people they displaced to return to their homes.. No nation in the world recognized Israel's rights to the occupied territories not even the United States and Israel they continues to illegally build homes there and continues to confiscate Palestinian land through force of arms. #3 Un recognition is meaningless unless the palestinians get US and other security councel members on their side. Crap like this goes a long way towards accmplishing that. #4 There is no military path toward peace for Israel. Her only path to peace is negotiation. Crap like this just puts negotiations that much further away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 #1 The only reason the Palestinians don't have offical boarders is because ISrael doesn't have or claim international boarders.Jordan, Syria, Lebonon and Egypt all have offical boarders. . No, the reason they don't is because they turned it down when offered in hopes of more....repeatedly perhaps when they give up the idea of exterminating the Jews a real country and peace will be negotiable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 No, the reason they don't is because they turned it down when offered in hopes of more....repeatedlyperhaps when they give up the idea of exterminating the Jews a real country and peace will be negotiable So the Palestinians you are saying forced ISrael to not define her boarders? The first time in the history of the middle east the Palestinians forced Israel to do anything. No, the reason Israel doesn't declair her boarders is because her boarders are controvercial for Israeli's. Many in Israel want Israel to reclaim all the ancestrial lands which they held in biblical times. The problem is not even all Israeli's agree on how much land that is. Anyway that's why Israel has not and won't anytime soon define her boarders. Cause many folks in Israel don't think she's done growing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 No, the reason they don't is because they turned it down when offered in hopes of more....repeatedly Yeah, it's terrible the way those Palestinians keep demanding more and more, and turning down offer after offer, because they want more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Yeah, it's terrible the way those Palestinians keep demanding more and more, and turning down offer after offer, because they want more. Not working out too well is it probably shouldn't have sided with the Nazis either....or listened to the siren call of the Arabs......or turned down the mandate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/30/15573067-us-slams-israels-decision-to-expand-settlements?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1 US slams Israel's decision to expand settlementsThe White House and the State Department said on Friday a new Israeli settlement expansion plan was "counterproductive" and could make it harder to bring Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. "We reiterate our longstanding opposition to settlements and East Jerusalem construction and announcements," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland reiterated this position, adding: "We're going to be evenhanded in our concern about any actions that are provocative, any actions that make it harder to get these two parties back to the table." Israel plans to build thousands of new homes for its settlers in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, an Israeli official said earlier, defying a U.N. vote that implicitly recognized Palestinian statehood there. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conservative government had authorized the construction of 3,000 housing units and ordered "preliminary zoning and planning work for thousands" more. Palestinians had a major symbolic victory when the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to recognize them, but the U.S. argued the new status could set back Palestinians in the path to peace. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports. "We believe these actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve of a two state solution," Vietor said. "Direct negotiations remain our goal and we encourage all parties to take steps to make that easier to achieve." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I love the idea of Netanyahu complaining that the UN recognition of the Palestinian state interferes with the negotiations and the peace process, when he has personally spent the last decade refusing to negotiate, catering to his far right wing, building ever more settlements and completely ignoring Abbas - the one man who actually wants a peaceful negotiated solution. No one understands chutzpah better than that guy. ---------- Post added December-1st-2012 at 04:58 PM ---------- How can you take a piece from a country w/o borders that you already occupy?Did you seriously expect Israel to not respond to them going for UN recognition instead of negotiating oh hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa! Good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Hunter #21 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I've reached the point where I know that these situations will never end. Everyone wants peace and prosperity for all but both of those things tend to go against human nature. History has taught us that peace within itself is a myth and mere periods of calm is the best that we can all expect. It's extremely tough to read/watch these horrific situations unfold before our very own eyes not knowing the true solutions that can fix such problems. Intense debates occur, finger pointing, and name calling without a resolution. The day that "the people" realize that the world within itself is enslaved by ideals that only present themselves as simple band-aids over a horrendous/infected wound is the day that true change will occur. Until then, the only option that we have consists of doing the very best that we can to have a positive impact instead of amplifying what's already a colossal mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/2012122121637512632.html Abbas returns to hero's welcome Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas has returned to the West Bank after his successful UN bid for upgraded status. Abbas told cheering crowds on Sunday: "Yes, now we have a state. Palestine has accomplished a historic achievement at the UN." The crowds chanted his name and waved Palestinian flags. Israel has also withheld this month's transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority in response to the status upgrade.Under interim peace deals, which Israel says the Palestinians violated by unilaterally seeking an upgrade of their status, it collects about $100m a month in duties on behalf of the authority. But, Israeli officials said, the authority owes about $200m to the Israel Electric Corporation, and that money would now be deducted from the tax transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Israel = amoral, ruthless and petty. Like a scorned woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/30/15573067-us-slams-israels-decision-to-expand-settlements?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1 This is a good step in my opinion. A small step but one in the proper direction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2012/12/3359/israeli-official-agreement-not-to-build-in-sensitive-e1-zone-no-longer-relevant/ Israeli official: Agreement not to build in sensitive E1 zone ‘no longer relevant’As Israel announced that it was withholding tax payments to the Palestinian Authority Sunday, an Israeli official told Al-Monitor that Israel considers its 2009 understanding with the Americans that it would not build in the sensitive E1 zone of East Jerusalem “no longer relevant.” “The Palestinians want to use the peace process in order to bring about the end of the State of Israel,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu charged on Sunday, as the Israeli government said it was withholding some $100 million in tax funds to the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas returned to a hero’s welcome in Ramallah Sunday, following his successful campaign to get the United Nations to vote to grant Palestine upgraded status in the world body last week. Angered by the United Nations vote, Israel on Friday announced that it was building 3,000 new settlement homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and allowing zoning and building approval permits to go forward in the sensitive E1 zone, that if pursued would effectively divide the West Bank. “I understand there was some agreement with the Americans in 2009 … at the start of this government’s term of office not to build in E1,” the Israeli official, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor Sunday by email. “That commitment has been kept in full.” “Now we have two new factors making it no longer a relevant understanding,” he continued. First, “new elections in a few weeks [that] will bring a new government…and [secondly, the Palestinian Authority’s] fundamental violation of all prior agreements and re-writing of the rules.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Now that Palestine is going to be considered its own State it has more clout in the debate A state that doesn't touch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Not working out too well is itprobably shouldn't have sided with the Nazis either....or listened to the siren call of the Arabs......or turned down the mandate :doh: I believe you would be reffering to the Grand Mufti? He's the guy who fled Palistine in 1937 one step ahead of a british arrest warrent. and spent the next decade including WWII on the run from the allies. Durring the war It's true he lived in Italy and Germany and once famously met with Hitler to get his support for Arab rule over the British Palistinian Mandate after German troops liberated it. Only German troops never came close to even threatenning the Palistinian mandate. It was never a goal for Hittler because it was militarily insignificant compared to the Suez Canal which Hittler desparately wanted, needed, and at his peak could only ever threaten mildly when Romel's Afracan corps once was able to knock on Egypts door, briefly... Absolutely the Mufti was a collaborator, but both sides tried to use Hittler to further their own means, and neither side was all that sucessful at it. Two examples of Zionist groups colluding with with the Nazi's to further their own means come to mind as well.. One included military collusion. #1) The first was the Haavara Agreement. It allowed German Jewish immigrants to leave Germany for Palistine in exchange for leaving their goods in Germany. The property then would be converted into German goods for exports for what was then Palistine. This was early in Hittler's rule before he decided upon the final solution. Zionists groups in what was then called Palistine collaborated with the Nazi's to enact this agreement to further their own profit and goals of a greater Israel. #2) The second example is much worse. The Stern Gang, a Zionist terrorist organization active in Palestine early in World War II contacted the Nazi's twice in 1941 proposing they take an active role in fighting the British on behalf and in collaboration with fthe Nazi's in exchange for allowing Jewish Immigration to Israel to continue. Members of the Stern Gang include future Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, In January 1941, Stern attempted to make an agreement with the German Nazi authorities, offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for Jewish immigration to Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state. Another attempt to contact the Germans was made in late 1941, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Stern The facts are though that the Nazi's army was on the other side of Egypt during WWII. Germany had few strategic interests in the Palistinian mandate during WWII. Nazi's were much more interested in killing both Jews and Arabs during that time than they were in striking deals with them. Germany essentially coveted the Suez Canal. If she could have gotten her hands on that Hittler would have gained a powerful achievement. The Palistinian mandate wasn't even an afterthought for him, nor were making deals with Arabs or Jews. ---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 10:43 AM ---------- US slams Israel's decision to expand settlements http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/30/15573067-us-slams-israels-decision-to-expand-settlements?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1 I'm thinking this is the beginning of the end of talks on a two state solution. ---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 10:43 AM ---------- US slams Israel's decision to expand settlements http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/30/15573067-us-slams-israels-decision-to-expand-settlements?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1 I'm thinking this is the beginning of the end of talks on a two state solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.