This Israel thing...

The_Dude wrote:

Rocinante wrote:We give them over 3 billion a year in military aid alone. That's half of all the military aid we provide worldwide. That's not including the non military aid we give them. We're not allowed to have an opinion about how they treat the people that live there that aren't Jewish and were there prior to Israel even existing? Come on.

It's not that simple though.

Do you know and understand your WW1 and WW2 history?

And give me a break. You don't give a single fuck about Palestinians.

I just find it funny with all the government sponsored atrocities in the world the nutjob partisans that now represent the UN go after the only non fucked country in the ME.

Israel is not the only "non fucked country in the Middle-East". You make it seem like they are innocent in this conflict which they are most certainly not.

With that said, the UN is absolutely biased against Israel, or more specifically the Non-Aligned Movement within the UN. The movement has rotational leadership and most recently has been lead by Iran, and now Venezuela(an ally of Iran). This is pretty much the entire reason for the appearance/reality of UN bias against Israel. The last two leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement do not like Israel for obvious reasons, and have focused their efforts on condemning them regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Rocinante wrote:

Israel is not the only "non fucked country in the Middle-East". You make it seem like they are innocent in this conflict which they are most certainly not.

With that said, the UN is absolutely biased against Israel, or more specifically the Non-Aligned Movement within the UN. The movement has rotational leadership and most recently has been lead by Iran, and now Venezuela(an ally of Iran). This is pretty much the entire reason for the appearance/reality of UN bias against Israel. The last two leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement do not like Israel for obvious reasons, and have focused their efforts on condemning them regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I mean, seriously, if we were somehow biased against Israel, wouldn't we do something like maybe not give them over 3 billion in military aid per year along with another billion in domestic aid and trade agreements?  Like Kerry said, sometimes you have to tell your friends when they're fucking up.  There is no 2 state solution under the current policies.  Further, they don't want a two state solution.  They want to push the non-jewish local residents into the tiniest corners of the country (or out, preferably).

Rocinante wrote:

Israel is not the only "non fucked country in the Middle-East". You make it seem like they are innocent in this conflict which they are most certainly not.

With that said, the UN is absolutely biased against Israel, or more specifically the Non-Aligned Movement within the UN. The movement has rotational leadership and most recently has been lead by Iran, and now Venezuela(an ally of Iran). This is pretty much the entire reason for the appearance/reality of UN bias against Israel. The last two leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement do not like Israel for obvious reasons, and have focused their efforts on condemning them regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I mean, seriously, if we were somehow biased against Israel, wouldn't we do something like maybe not give them over 3 billion in military aid per year along with another billion in domestic aid and trade agreements? Like Kerry said, sometimes you have to tell your friends when they're fucking up. There is no 2 state solution under the current policies. Further, they don't want a two state solution. They want to push the non-jewish local residents into the tiniest corners of the country (or out, preferably).

The entire episode—the United Nations Security Council resolution, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power’s speech, the Israeli government’s (over)reaction, Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response—was entirely unnecessary and manifestly unhelpful because it maintains the fantasy of a two-state solution, diverting resources and attention away from thinking about and planning for other potential and more likely outcomes. I have written this before, but it bears repeating: The two-state solution is no longer an option because the alleged partners for peace (Israelis and Palestinians) are not actually interested in settling the conflict. The Palestinian Authority (PA) cannot claim to want two states living side by side while it routinely delegitimizes Israel and the Jewish connection to the land. The PA’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, and Fatah cannot claim to want to settle the conflict when, at the same time, they glorify, in Arabic, violence against Israelis and Jews. The people who run the Gaza Strip—Hamas—are more up front about their goals to liberate all of Palestine, meaning all of the territory that is Israel. For its part, the Israeli government cannot argue in good faith that it wants a two-state solution when it encourages its citizens to settle on the land that would be part of the Palestinian state. Even if one were to assume that Abbas and Netanyahu genuinely wanted a two-state solution, the politics of Palestinian nationalism and, for Netanyahu, the exigencies of coalition management, which means placating settler interests, preclude anything other than maximalist positions.

Rocinante wrote:

Israel is not the only "non fucked country in the Middle-East". You make it seem like they are innocent in this conflict which they are most certainly not.

With that said, the UN is absolutely biased against Israel, or more specifically the Non-Aligned Movement within the UN. The movement has rotational leadership and most recently has been lead by Iran, and now Venezuela(an ally of Iran). This is pretty much the entire reason for the appearance/reality of UN bias against Israel. The last two leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement do not like Israel for obvious reasons, and have focused their efforts on condemning them regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I mean, seriously, if we were somehow biased against Israel, wouldn't we do something like maybe not give them over 3 billion in military aid per year along with another billion in domestic aid and trade agreements? Like Kerry said, sometimes you have to tell your friends when they're fucking up. There is no 2 state solution under the current policies. Further, they don't want a two state solution. They want to push the non-jewish local residents into the tiniest corners of the country (or out, preferably).

DWags wrote:Yeah, the UN saying Israel is the biggest violators of women's rights is really fucked up. When you have nations stoning women for adultry and not letting them show their face and you do that. That's wrong. I don't like the thought of us doing what Israel wants, but let's call it like it is here.

President Barack Obama made the right call abstaining on the vote on United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements. On the one hand, the resolution reflects longstanding American opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank that has been echoed by every American president since the 1970s. On the other hand, it contains some provisions contrary to American policy, which is why the United States did not vote yes.

Like all his predecessors, Obama has understood settlements to be not the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but a major obstacle. They swallow up more land and, the more plugged into the Israeli economy and infrastructure they become, the more difficult they are to physically remove. They also become accepted by Jewish-Israeli society as part of Israel and raise the domestic political cost of removing them.

This is particularly problematic with regards to sites outside the main settlement blocs that leave less land available for a viable Palestinian state and undermine the entire peace process. Netanyahu himself has bragged about how positive these developments are.