Obama steps away from Israel

@Lash,

I think you are asking the wrong question. Israel continuing to build settlements on occupied territories is a very bad thing for peace and for democracy. It is also bad for the United States who is tangled up in the mess there.

... but I will answer it anyway.

Netanyahu is a strongman. Whenever anyone has defied him, he lashes out at the politically. This is just the way he is. I don't think Netanyahu's behavior is out of character in any way.

But... we really should be asking why any modern Democracy support the building of settlements on occupied territory. This UN resolution is the right thing.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Wrong.

2 Replies

@mark noble,

Would you care to elaborate Mark, or are you doing a satirical Trump impression (which would be funny)?

The main support in the US for building settlements on occupied territory comes from Evangelical Christians. There are religious objections to peace in the Middle East based on an interpretation of the Bible where Jesus wants ethnic cleansing to fulfill Biblical prophecy so that he can rule for 1000 years.

It seems to me that this is the reason that there is such a irrational objection to any acceptance of Palestinians as human beings.

Am I wrong about that? Is there any rational reason that a democratic country would support building settlements in the occupied territories?

1 Reply

What with the Zionists thumbing their nose at international concensus and the peace process, the US' abstention was the very minimal the Obama administration could do to censure Israel.

Ultimately, it's a symbolic nuggie to the Zionists' head, and the Trump administration promises to fan the flames of violence and turmoil in Palestine in its embrace of the hardest line of the Zionists.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Did our government covertly run this UN censure? To what end?

Mr. Obama has always made horrific anti-Semitic attacks against Israel. It's what he does.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think you are asking the wrong question. Israel continuing to build settlements on occupied territories is a very bad thing for peace and for democracy.

This is incorrect. Settlements have no negative effects for either peace or democracy.

maxdancona wrote:

It is also bad for the United States who is tangled up in the mess there.

No negative effects for the US either.

maxdancona wrote:

But... we really should be asking why any modern Democracy support the building of settlements on occupied territory.

It's because we recognize that since Palestinian scumbags refuse to make peace, Israel has every right to use the land.

maxdancona wrote:

This UN resolution is the right thing.

Nazi proclamations are never a good thing.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The main support in the US for building settlements on occupied territory comes from Evangelical Christians. There are religious objections to peace in the Middle East based on an interpretation of the Bible where Jesus wants ethnic cleansing to fulfill Biblical prophecy so that he can rule for 1000 years.

The policy also gets lots of support from those of us who are fair minded and think that it is wrong to mistreat Israel.

maxdancona wrote:

It seems to me that this is the reason that there is such a irrational objection to any acceptance of Palestinians as human beings.

Palestinians are treated as verminous scumbags because they perpetually refuse to make peace and instead make horrendous attacks against innocent civilians.

maxdancona wrote:

Am I wrong about that?

Yes. When Palestinian scum make outrageous attacks against Israel and refuse to make peace, it is perfectly rational for fair-minded people to treat them as scum who make outrageous attacks against Israel and refuse to make peace.

maxdancona wrote:

Is there any rational reason that a democratic country would support building settlements in the occupied territories?

Yes. Since Palestinian vermin refuse to make peace, Israel gets to keep the land and do with it as they please.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

What with the Zionists thumbing their nose at international concensus and the peace process,

Denial of Israel's peace offers justifies all the settlements. Thanks for helping to make the settlements legitimate.

InfraBlue wrote:

the US' abstention was the very minimal the Obama administration could do to censure Israel.

Maybe so, but it was pretty outrageous for Israel to be censured in the first place.

InfraBlue wrote:

Ultimately, it's a symbolic nuggie to the Zionists' head, and the Trump administration promises to fan the flames of violence and turmoil in Palestine in its embrace of the hardest line of the Zionists.

The Palestinians deserve every bit of what is soon going to be done to them.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Oralloy,

I would honestly like to hear your thoughtful response to what you think the end state of a fair peace between the Palestinians and the Israeli's would look like (these back band forth contrarian comments aren't very enlightening).

First of all, I believe these things to be true

1) Anyone living in a modern democracy should have an equal vote and an equal political voice (i.e. having people live in a country without the right to vote is a bad thing).

2) People who have been living somewhere for generations shouldn't be expelled by either military or police force, or by planned laws to target a minority.

3) Any State (whether Israel or Palestine) must be sovereign with the ability to control their own economy and borders. Any state must be secure. And any state must be economically viable.

Do you except these premises?

I am going to ask you to come up with what you think would be a fair solution to this Israel/Palestine problem... and how you would propose we get there?

If you think the answer is to expel the Palestinians from the land of Israel (including the occupied territories), then I suppose our world views are to divergent to come up with a solution.

I am really hoping that instead of contrarian positions you can provide a thoughtful answer. I would like to hear what you think is a good way forward that will be fair to both sides.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I think that you are wrong right off the bat with your 3 that you "believe ... to be true".

1. Illegal immigrants should never have a right to vote. They don't in America, why should they anywhere else?

2. Just because you live somewhere doesn't mean anything. The US uses eminent domain all the time to to expel people from their homes and property.

3. Haven't I seen you take the opposite position regarding the US and the Mexican border? I argue that the US should be able to control their border and it is often argued against on A2K. \

I think your premise is flawed.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix,

I am trying to engage Oralloy, and now you, in a way that is respectful in hopes of a real dialog (rather than just throwing mud from side to side). You are throwing in a completely separate issue that I don't think is related at all. But let me try to answer by seeing if we can agree on the basic facts.

1) The modern Palestinians trace their roots in what is now called Israel for centuries or even millennia. Jewish scientists note that modern Palestinians and Modern Jews share common Middle Eastern genetic ancestors from the Bronze Age.

2) The descendants of the modern Palestinians have been living continuously in what is now called Israel since centuries before the modern State of Israel.

I would like to know how that relates to modern United States. If anything, this would relate to how we give rights to our indigenous Americans (i.e. the Navajo), who have been living continuously in what is now the United States for centuries and more.

But I don't think that is a good connection.

Can you at least agree on the facts as a starting point for a reasonable discussion?

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Did our government covertly run this UN censure? To what end? If Netanyahu doesn't have the intelligence proof behind his claim, why would he go public with this swipe against Obama?

Others claim that the UK had a key role in brokering the UN resolution on Israeli settlements.

Quote:

Britain played a key behind-the-scenes role in brokering the UN resolution condemning Israel for violating international law with its policy of building settlements on occupied Palestinian territory, it has been confirmed. The UK helped draft some of the key wording to ensure it met US concerns.

The UK role, first highlighted by Israeli diplomatic sources, leaves the UK on a collision course not just with Israel, but at odds with Donald Trump, the US president-elect and a strong opponent of the UN resolution, the first to be passed that is critical of Israel for seven years.

The UK has never hidden its support for the UN resolution, voting for its terms, and subsequently both UK ministers and diplomats have publicly justified its wording. It is also usual for the UK to play a key brokering role on UN resolutions, especially on the Middle East.

It has been confirmed the UK helped with drafts of the resolution with Egypt and the Palestinians in a bid to ensure that it met with the concerns of the US president, Barack Obama. The US said it did not veto the resolution because it was balanced, condemning violence and incitement, as well as illegal settlements. The US has insisted it did not draft the text, and did not even tell other delegations how it intended to vote in the key consultations process.

Formally the Foreign Office did not deny it had been involved in the drafting process. It stressed “the resolution was proposed and drafted by the Egyptian delegation”, adding that the UK, as one of the five permanent members of the security council, “engaged with” the text “as we do with all security council texts”.

... ... ...

Source

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Oralloy,

I would honestly like to hear your thoughtful response to what you think the end state of a fair peace between the Palestinians and the Israeli's would look like (these back band forth contrarian comments aren't very enlightening).

A fair peace would have been Ehud Barak's Taba offer. Or Ehud Olmert's similar offer from sometime around 2008.

But it's too late. Given all the outrages perpetrated against Israel, there is no longer a way to achieve such an outcome. And quite frankly the Palestinians have forfeited any right to fair treatment that they once possessed.

maxdancona wrote:

First of all, I believe these things to be true

1) Anyone living in a modern democracy should have an equal vote and an equal political voice (i.e. having people live in a country without the right to vote is a bad thing).

2) People who have been living somewhere for generations shouldn't be expelled by either military or police force, or by planned laws to target a minority.

3) Any State (whether Israel or Palestine) must be sovereign with the ability to control their own economy and borders. Any state must be secure. And any state must be economically viable.

Do you except these premises?

Regarding #1, Israel being a Jewish democracy, I see no problem with restricting the right to vote in Israel to only people who practice the Jewish faith.

Regarding #2, I'm unsure. It sounds like a way to justify theft. But had the Palestinians been willing to achieve a fair peace, I'd have found a two-state solution based on 1967 borders to be reasonable.

Regarding #3, Israel is the only party who is having their security threatened here. Also, I think there are plenty of impoverished states out there.

I also recognize the term "economic viability" as a term used by the Palestinians when they lie about Israeli peace offers. I do not recognize Palestinian lies as entitling the Palestinians to anything other than a smack across the head.

maxdancona wrote:

I am going to ask you to come up with what you think would be a fair solution to this Israel/Palestine problem... and how you would propose we get there?

A fair solution had Israel been treated fairly from the start? I'd say Ehud Barack's offer to the Palestinians at Taba was fair. And also Ehud Olmert's offer to the Palestinians from around 2008.

How do we get there? We don't. We can't. The Palestinians and their demented supporters have ended all possibility of it happening. YOU've ended all possibility of it happening.

A fair solution now, given the outrageous way Israel has been treated all these years? Have Israel finish building the Security Fence, including around Jerusalem and in the other places where Israel is being pressured not to complete it. Have Israel declare the Security Fence as their official international border and annex all land west of the Fence.

East of the Fence, increase Israel's military presence in Areas B and C, so that when the Palestinians unilaterally declare their own state, Palestinian sovereignty is restricted to Area A alone.

maxdancona wrote:

If you think the answer is to expel the Palestinians from the land of Israel (including the occupied territories), then I suppose our world views are to divergent to come up with a solution.

It's an interesting idea. The Palestinians certainly deserve it after everything they've done. But I think it would be easier to just use force to confine their state to Area A alone.

maxdancona wrote:

I am really hoping that instead of contrarian positions you can provide a thoughtful answer. I would like to hear what you think is a good way forward that will be fair to both sides.

It's too late. There is no longer any such way forward. You ruined it.

Build a time machine, go back in time, and prevent you and your compatriots from treating Israel unfairly every single time they tried to make peace.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I just want to be absolutely clear here.

You accept the forcible removal of all Palestinians based only on ethnicity from the state of Israel including the West Bank.

If this is what you are really saying, then I guess we disagree strongly. I find it incredibly troubling that the victims of ethnic cleansing in the 19th and 20th ceturies are now perpetrating ethnic cleansing in the 21st

If this is not what you are saying, please correct me. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I simply cannot believe that non-citizens should have the right to vote.

On the other hand, the right to vote should never hinge on someone's subscribing to a particular religion. One is a citizen or not a citizen.

3 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Bebe made pretty strong accusations against Obama. Obama refutes the accusations.

Did our government covertly run this UN censure? To what end? If Netanyahu doesn't have the intelligence proof behind his claim, why would he go public with this swipe against Obama?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/25/politics/israel-un-settlements-netanyahu-ambassadors/index.html

Regardless of whether anyone initiated this UN censure, is it not interesting that the U.S. chose to abstain from the vote AFTER the election, Amereican Jews having voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate. And, people think many Jews are smart (but perhaps many may be more naive than one might think).

1 Reply

@roger,

Roger,

I think the right to vote for Palestinians is rather similar to the right to vote for our Native Americans. The Palestinians were living in the land before the modern nation of Israel was created. In the United States, we decided that people who had been living the the land of the United States should be given the rights of citizenship. On the other hand, it did take us a while to reach that conclusion.

I do think that it is the only correct decision.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie,

Let's be honest here. There are many Jews (and non-Jews) who love Israel and yet are horrified by the Israeli occupation. It may even be that a majority of Jews living in America oppose the occupation.

You may have noticed that while Bernie Sanders did not support the expansion of the Settlements... Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee did. The extremist support for the occupation in the US is coming from Evangelical Christians. They believe that Israel must control what they see as Biblical Israel so that Jesus can come back. At that time these Christians believe that all of the good Jews will turn to Jesus and be saved to live forever in Christian heaven.

It is a rather perverse political marriage... It is not respectful of Judaism.

Ethnic cleansing doesn't fit too well with modern Democracy. Of course, it goes wonderfully well with Christian extremism.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Following the US example, Palestinians living in Israel when the country was formed would have become citizens. I've no opinion on whether this position should have been followed, but later arrivals would not have become citizens simply by virtue of living here.

1 Reply

Obama steps away from Israel

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know