Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. A vote for Trump=a vote for a guy who has no understanding of the issues and is manipulated like an idiot child by nefarious individuals within his camp.
The people criticizing this UN vote and the US abstaining are either: 1) religious delusionals craving a Greater Israel mandated by ancient cult prophecy or 2) Don't really have understanding of the issue and are merely taking their cues from their usual right wing thought masters.
The reason why the settlements are criticized is because they are part of a deliberate strategy by the former group to undermine the two state solution. Why is this problematic? Because the two state solution is the only solution that allows Israel to exist as a democratic, modern, Jewish nation.
The only other outcomes are disasters for Israel.
Experts on this issue understand this and its why Netanyahu had the same conflicts with the Bush admin (albeit less theatric), but the US continued to shield the Israel govt from UN criticism due to a hope that better, liberal leadership would emerge. Netanyahus tightened grip and Israeli demographic trends now clearly indicate that this is not going to happen. The US allowing the UN vote to happen was actually too little too late. Should have been done 4 years ago.
Now we have an inept buffoon coming into the oval office in 2017 who lacks any sophistication on foreign affairs and is easily misled by the worst elements that a normal conservative candidate would have kept at arms length at best.
Shoshana rose gave a good response, but I would just like to add to it. Personally I think the settlements are probably a bad idea. But I can see why Netanyahu is continuing them- of course a big part of it is political as he has to fend off right wingers who think he is soft (I know shocking huh?) Most presidents are not universally popular, you could say Obama is unpopular across a large segment of the American population also.
If Israel stopped the settlements tomorrow and knocked down those that were already put in, it wouldn't matter. They have done that before and the Palestinian leaders still did not come to the table. If they would recognize Israels right to exist and renounce terrorism instead of rewarding it they could have a state in short order- YES, it really is THAT simple.
The US gives Israel military aid to protect our interests in the region, we also give similar aid to other countries in the region including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We actually also give aid to the Palestinians though their leaders squander it.
To prove my anti-Israel bias in the UN, simply note this. The UN got an unanimous condemnation of Israel for the settlements. OK, fair enough- settlements bad. But they couldn't get a majority to sanction south Sudan for rape and genocide of thousands of people. And nothing on Syria. Someone here answer that one for me. I'll be checking in all day....
That's interesting--so you can agree that the settlements are bad. That's solid.
The US is part of the UN Security Council which currently has in effect a sanction against South Sudan for rape and genocide of thousands of people and which was passed unanimously. What are you going on about there?
Syria is a somewhat different issue--what is it that you think the UN should be doing about Syria exactly given the number of players on the ground and in the background. I'm curious as to what you think is happening in Syria right now and what the right or moral course of action is supposed to be.
All this being said, I'm glad you agree that the settlements are a poor choice and the US was right in abstaining though it's pretty gutless since it didn't actually vote nor does this action have any real penalties behind it.
NY (& California) Jews are not necessarily known for their political savvy.
In fact, they are either clueless or just don't give a damn. Historically, they just blindly buy in to the liberal BS. Maybe many are transplants from LA LA LAND.
That said, many of my Jewish friends, raise this same question and have for years, at least 8 years -
"How can we blindly follow this liberal doctrine? For the last 8 years THE Obama admin is CLEARLY Pro Muslim, and is so blatantly anti Israel?"
ANSWER - Brainwashed, Pavlov Dog, style.
Wake up, Jews everywhere. The Obama Administration has never had your back, especially with this latest BS move, and Killary would have been worse, with 10s of millions of dollars from Arab states. There are more issues than Israel for all of us. But, though I never lost anyone in the Holocaust, Jewish people everywhere have. All Americans should all have this vested interest in keeping Israel strong. Israel is our most important ally in the troublesome Middle East.
That's interesting--so you can agree that the settlements are bad. That's solid.
The US is part of the UN Security Council which currently has in effect a sanction against South Sudan for rape and genocide of thousands of people and which was passed unanimously. What are you going on about there?
Syria is a somewhat different issue--what is it that you think the UN should be doing about Syria exactly given the number of players on the ground and in the background. I'm curious as to what you think is happening in Syria right now and what the right or moral course of action is supposed to be.
All this being said, I'm glad you agree that the settlements are a poor choice and the US was right in abstaining though it's pretty gutless since it didn't actually vote nor does this action have any real penalties behind it.
the link below will give you the gist of what I was referring to- I couldn't find the info about the South Sudan resolution (it was a different one than the one you referenced) but I read that there were only 8 votes in favor.
Syria is complicated true, but at the least I would think the UN would support safe zones for refugees or sanctions against the Assad regime. Yes, Russia would veto it, but at least bring it out there
If the US was going to abstain on this issue now- why wait? They could have done it years ago. the larger point is that regardless of the settlements the Palestinians will simply never approve any peace plan unless Israel completely leaves the region. Maybe you support that, fine. But any other solution is untenable to current Palestinian leadership, they simply want Israel to cease to exist, nothing else will do.
the link below will give you the gist of what I was referring to- I couldn't find the info about the South Sudan resolution (it was a different one than the one you referenced) but I read that there were only 8 votes in favor.
Syria is complicated true, but at the least I would think the UN would support safe zones for refugees or sanctions against the Assad regime. Yes, Russia would veto it, but at least bring it out there
If the US was going to abstain on this issue now- why wait? They could have done it years ago. the larger point is that regardless of the settlements the Palestinians will simply never approve any peace plan unless Israel completely leaves the region. Maybe you support that, fine. But any other solution is untenable to current Palestinian leadership, they simply want Israel to cease to exist, nothing else will do.
Did you bother to check if your link is actually true?
There is literally a sanction in place, right now, of this moment, currently against South Sudan. It passed as a unanimous vote.
Right, so given that Russia has made it abundantly clear that they would veto sanctions against Assad, what is your plan again for the UN to do? I would like to know. The UN is doing humanitarian relief efforts with refugees, but is what you want is to have them expand it or create a new body / instrument to do so outside of what exists? I think it's great that you're looking to come up with solutions, but I think it might make sense for you to try to workshop them before trying to present them.
There are, though dwindling, moderates among Palestinians who are fine with a two-state solution. I'm curious as to what you think a workable agreement is supposed to look like. It sounds like you have a lot of ideas and proposals that you feel are much better than what's out there.
Also, just so we're clear, we both understand that Netanyahu has been dipping in popularity within Israel, is currently subject to a corruption probe within Israel, and really needs to find a way to make political hay out of something right now. Also, we both understand that within Israeli Jewish society, the subject of settlements is a highly contentious issue with people who are rational people that want Israel to exist and are undoubtedly against being bombed or threatened by Palestinians or anyone else also sometimes holding the opinion that the settlements are a horrendously bad idea. Additionally, there were diplomatic overtures by the US government to stop the settlements for decades so that things like this UN resolution would not have to brought up and the US wouldn't have to this kind of stuff to so publicly deal with. We both understand all this, right?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-30-2016 at 12:25 PM..
Did you bother to check if your link is actually true?
Also, we both understand that within Israeli Jewish society, the subject of settlements is a highly contentious issue with people who are rational people that want Israel to exist and are undoubtedly against being bombed or threatened by Palestinians or anyone else also sometimes holding the opinion that the settlements are a horrendously bad idea. Additionally, there were diplomatic overtures by the US government to stop the settlements for decades so that things like this UN resolution would not have to brought up and the US wouldn't have to this kind of stuff to so publicly deal with. We both understand all this, right?
There are plenty of rational people in Israel who are against "settlements" in the West Bank.
However, there are very few (if any) Jewish Israelis who are against Israel retaining control of the Old City in East Jerusalem (which Israel annexed in 1967; is not occupying).
The UN resolution equated East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
That is a non-starter for almost all Israelis, even a left-wing Israeli government is not going to give up the Western Wall and the Old City.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
