Israel has reportedly suspended ties with 12 UN Security Council nations

[octoberlib]

Source: Business Insider

Israel's Foreign Ministry has reportedly suspended all working ties with 12 of the UN Security Council countries that voted to pass a resolution urging Israel to halt building settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

The move came at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's request, one day after he summoned 10 of the nations' ambassadors to Jerusalem to personally reprimand them for the vote.

Foreign ministers and ambassadors from Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, Ukraine, Angola, Egypt, Uruguay, Spain, Senegal and New Zealand will not be received at Israel's Foreign Ministry amid the suspension, the Times of Israel reported. They will also not be granted an audience with Netanyahu.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-suspends-ties-with-12-un-security-council-nations-2016-12

[dhill926]

1. quite the temper tantrum....

[Jake Stern]

5. Israeli pols are so used to getting their way on the UNSC thanks to their FWB, America

That when they don't, they stomp their feet and lash out like spoiled 5 year olds. In other words Trump with a Hebrew accent.

It's refreshing to see Israel (along with Nut-and-Yahoo) get told "NO!" for once.




Enough of my self hating or Abe Foxman and Alan DerpoShitz will blow up my twitter.

[HoneyBadger]

2. US is not on that list

But Russia is. So complicated.

[msongs]

3. bite the hand that feeds you is a no no nt

[NWCorona]

26. Facts!

[GP6971]

24. The 3 remaining

members not of the list are the US, Malaysia and Venezuela.

[hlthe2b]

4. How many of these give aid/support to Israel?

Perhaps Netanyahu needs to rethink his childish tantrum.

[elmac]

28. Hey, it works for his buddy trump

so it will probably work for him.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. Doubt it.

[oberliner]

75. None

Just the US, which isn't on that list.

[guillaumeb]

6. All the Israeli Government has to do is quit stealing Palestinian and Syrian land,

and move back to the 1967 borders.

But Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have indicated that they will not allow a Palestinian State to exist.

[hack89]

20. 1967 borders are a non-starter

Land exchanges will be needed to give Israel defensible borders. As for Syria, no Golan until they sign a peace tresty.

[guillaumeb]

21. Where under International Law do we find the concept that a country can seize and keep

land from another country under the guide of attaining defensible borders? The borders of the Israeli State were established in 1948, and the history of Israel shows that since 1948 the Israeli State has continuously expanded into what was the Palestinian State. With no consequences at all. They have established a 68 year history of stealing land with US protection.

But using this previously unknown concept, can Russia seize back Ukraine and some other small countries to give itself more defensible borders?

The Israeli State has no intention of allowing a viable Palestinian State. Netanyahu and others have made that quite clear. The fallacy that the Israeli State intends, or ever intended on conducting negotiations cannot seriously be defended.

[Lithos]

27. The real discussion is the 1949 Green Line

Which has some historical basis as being the starting point referenced by Hamas and the PA for how they'd start discussions on the two State alternative. It also represents the pre-June 1967 border which is also usually mentioned.

Emphasis is on starting point as there should be a land swap for security and demographic reasons (expansion of Gaza, water rights, etc.).

However, to try and make an emotional argument and bring International law into it is just wasting time. There is a long list of border changes since the establishment of the League of Nations (which set up the basis for today's International law) which has never produced any real actionable results. Witness the seizure by the USSR (and the Russian Federation successor state) over Moldavia, Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Japan? Or Saudi Arabia over territories in the Arabian Peninsula? indonesia over Irian? N. Sudan over S. Sudan? Morocco over Spanish Sahara? I can keep going....

L-

[guillaumeb]

46. Characterizing a reference to International Law as "making an emotional argument"

says much about the one dismissing International Law.

There is no precedent under International Law for land swaps for so-called "security and demographic reasons", this concept is a fiction. It would never be used to excuse Russian expansion into neighboring countries. And the demographic reasons that you reference would justify Israeli colonization of Palestinian land. Also a violation of International Law. These demographic reasons include removing all Palestinians from resource rich land that the Israeli State has decided to steal. A modified but no less cruel form of ethnic cleansing.

And your partial list of illegal land grabs in no way excuses what the Israeli State has done since 1948. And your references to the USSR are largely outdated considering that Russia no longer occupies most of that area. But, if you are putting Israel into that category of land stealing countries, what does it say about the so-called "only Middle Eastern democracy"?

Considering how Israel has subdivided, portioned, ethnically divided, walled off and otherwise demolished Palestine, and considering that Israel treats its Arab population as second class citizens, it is obvious that Israel considers all of the area to be a part of Israel. And Netanyahu has stated that there will never be a Palestinian State under his regime. Give him points for speaking the truth on this occasion.

[Lithos]

80. It is common

India and Bangladesh did it in 2015 to settle an issue over enclaves.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/bangladesh-india-in-historic-land-swap-after-nearly-4-decades/story-gHXVmfal3DFnFdyfObEz1L.html

This was the second time they've done this - the first in 1974.

This was a rather nasty set of demographics left over from the time of the British Raj. The worst of these involved Indian territory inside of Bangladeshi territory which was surrounded completely by India. Not only did this complicate security, it caused rifts in local demographics. This land swap was a big deal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Bangladesh_enclaves

****

If you want others, Belgium and the Netherlands did a swap after a body was found in a Belgium enclave that was inaccessible from Belgium, save thru the Netherlands.

Christmas Island was transferred to Australia following the independence of Singapore in 1957. Russia and Lithuania did a minor swap in 2003 to help give extended lake access to a Lithuanian border city.

[guillaumeb]

90. Nasty set of demographics well characterizes the entire Israel/Palestine situation.

Caused, in my view, by certain Europeans wishing to "offshore the Zionist problem" by giving the Zionists land well away from Europe.

But none of these points address my points about Israel subdividing, walling off, colonizing and evicting many Palestinian Arabs to create artificial zones where only Israeli Jews are allowed to live.

And it does not address Netanyahu's explicit statement that there would never be a Palestinian State under his leadership.

Nor does it address the fact that these illegal Israeli settlements make a viable, contiguous Palestinian State impossible to achieve.

[Lithos]

112. Which "certain Europeans"

Like to know more about this conspiratorial theory.

L-

[guillaumeb]

116. Given how the Jews have been historically treated

in nearly every European country, the idea that Europe would be hostile to a Jewish State being established in Europe seems obvious.

And given the European fondness for drawing boundaries and dividing territory, what was done in Palestine was simply a continuation of what Europeans have done.

What do you feel that Netanyahu's statement that there will never be a Palestinian State on his watch represents? Is it simply an admission of what is obvious?

How can the constant land theft and settlement construction be seen as anything other than an expression of the idea that the State of Israel will never allow a viable Palestinian State?

[Lithos]

120. Interesting

The Jews never wanted a state in Europe, never asked. So your point is a non-starter. All they wanted was to be treated as equal citizens. It was the rise of modern anti-Semitism and Nationalism one of the realities being that Jews may be long standing members of a state, but they were never fully "trusted" and never full citizens. This reality was one of the fueling points of Zionism.

The Zion Congress only pursued in a lukewarm manner, a state in Uganda, though that failed to receive any significant support among Jews. Zionists have pretty much pursued establishing a state in what was ancient Israel[1]. The movement received pretty much zero support from non-Jews save for a small group of Christian Zionists who views were sympathetic only because it fit within their own Christian dispensational views.

As for the maps, I'm assuming you are referring to the map making post WW1, such as Sykes-Picot. However, Sykes-Picot only wanted to use the Zionism movement to create a British controlled client state (as they would never be large enough to defend themselves- i.e., there was contempt about Zionism's ability and they were viewed as useful idiots in the strategic sense) in Palestine to 1) Offset the Turkish influence in the Middle East and protect the Suez Canal; 2) fully open up the pilgrimage route to the Holy land for Christians; and 3) start the dismantling of the Turkish Empire. There was never an attempt or desire to establish a truly independent Jewish State, nor was there any support for actually getting people to move.

If anything there was a huge effort to resettle Jews post WWII in Europe, it was only their fear of recurring anti-Semitism and the shock of the Holocaust which caused them to leave to Israel. Even then there were huge efforts by the British government to block this effort.

If you however, think map drawing is purely a European invention, then go back to your history books, it's been used for thousands of years in all areas of the world.

Netanyahu is a demagogue which is one of the reasons he has affinity for Trump and Putin. He's currently operating in a vacuum caused by the lack of effective leadership and solidarity by the PA and Hamas. The political tension is useful to him to distract from the other activities he's doing. He will leave sooner than later - e.g., the criminal investigation just launched into his behavior concerning bribery and fraud. I would focus not on him, but more on what is going to happen once he's gone. He may survive this round of investigations, he may not, it's a matter of time before he trips up.


[1] Note: Palestine is derived from the Philistines, an adjacent people whose fortunes ebbed/waned along those of their neighbors the Israelites. Both point to the same area of the levant, but derive meaning only when talking about one of the two peoples. The actual borders change depending on the state of the respective nations.

[guillaumeb]

121. I agree that anti-Semitism has been an unfortunate constant in Europe.

The Jews were blamed for many economic problems for centuries. The Holocaust was the culmination of this hostility, with anti-Semites from many countries joining in the attempted genocide.

And yes, I was referring to Sykes-Picot, the Anglo-French attempt to portion up the Middle East into controllable spheres of interest.

Netanyahu aside, since 1967 the State of Israel has been building settlements on Palestinian land. And there has been constant war, a war that has brutalized both sides. And this settlement activity has had the (deliberate) effect of fracturing the Palestinian territory such that a viable state cannot be constructed.

And talk about mutual discussions sounds nice, but the fact is that Israel enjoys a huge advantage in military power, and it uses that advantage to push for an agreement that would basically legitimize what has already been done. Given that the UN has no real power to enforce, and given that, until this year, the US has always vetoed resolutions that condemn the Israeli settlements, Israeli politicians know that there are no real consequences to Israeli intransigence.

Except the human consequences of dead civilians on both sides, and the brutalization that has occurred on both sides.

[Calista241]

41. When several of your neighboring countries invade you and get their asses kicked

Losing territory is kind of expected consequence of trying to destroy another country.

[guillaumeb]

47. The 1967 war was started by Israel.

They called it pre-emptive self-defense. Anticipating Bush's excuse for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

And International Law does not permit for keeping such land. The actual point of my argument that you ignored.

[oberliner]

82. That is definitely not true

I don't think forces from Afghanistan and Iraq were massing on the US border and imposing a naval blockade on the United States.

[guillaumeb]

92. Which is a tacit admittance that, yes, the Israeli Government started the 1967 war. eom

[oberliner]

95. No

It is an explanation of how the war was not remotely similar to the Afghanistan or Iraq examples that you gave.

[former9thward]

43. What a rewrite of history...

The borders were not established in 1948. The Arab countries all rejected those borders. You don't get to invade another country and when you lose say you want the old borders back. The Arab countries have continuously attacked Israel for its entire history.

[Rustyeye77]

44. Kick

Yep.

[guillaumeb]

48. The Israeli State has been re-writing history snce 1946.

And Israel has been seizing Palestinian land since 1948. So to call my response a re-write of history ignores actual history in favor of the mythical Israeli history that is the accepted consensus among many Americans.

[former9thward]

50. A guess your idea that "many Americans" agree with you is comforting.

Of course I don't know what you mean by "many".

[guillaumeb]

51. I was referring to those Americans who accept the consensus history

that Israel is always the innocent victim.

There is a movie, the Occupation of the American mind, that discusses how the Israeli State has used advertising agencies to make its case to the American public and politicians. Frank Luntz, the well known GOP professional liar and pollster, plays a prominent part.

[former9thward]

53. You can try and deflect and make this some GOP thing.

Its not. The Democratic Party has always supported Israel and still does.

[guillaumeb]

55. My response remains as it is.

And the movie might actually change your mind about this subject if you watch it.

[oberliner]

74. What country did Israel seize the West Bank from?

The borders of the Israeli State were not recognized by any of its neighbors, or the Palestinians in 1948.

[guillaumeb]

78. The respective borders of Israel and Palestine were established by the

European powers after WW II. An essential update to the Balfour Declaration.

And the substance of my post, that of continuous expansion and land theft by the Israeli State, remains unanswered by any responders here.

[oberliner]

81. No they weren't

I am not sure where you got that information from. Nor do I understand why you would think "European powers" have any kind of authority in terms of setting borders between countries.

I would also point out that you did not respond to my question as to what country Israel seized the West Bank from.

That aside, I agree with you that the continued settlement expansion deep into the West Bank is 100 percent wrong and Netanyahu and those to his right have zero interest in making a Palestinian state a reality and would essentially love to continue to see more Jews move to the West Bank and populate the settlements there. This is totally unacceptable.

That being said, I think that Jerusalem is a much more complicated situation. It seems that the Palestinian side (and their allies in the international community, particularly the Arab and Muslim world) are doing everything they can to attempt to erase the connection between the Jewish people are Jerusalem that has existed, literally, for centuries, predating even the existence of Islam itself.

To refer to the Temple Mount as the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and to pretend that the Western Wall has no significance for Jews and that the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem is "Occupied Palestinian land" is preposterous.

Let us please not forget that Jews were driven from East Jerusalem and forced to evacuate their homes by Jordanian and other forces who then occupied the city, expelling all of its Jewish inhabitants, and desecrating synagogues and Jewish holy sites which they forbade Jews access to.

[guillaumeb]

91. European colonialists set borders all over the Middle East and in Africa, and in South America.

As to Jerusalem, I think it should remain an International City under UN control. A point I have previously made in other threads.

[oberliner]

96. Interesting that you find borders set by "European colonialists" to be legitimate and binding

As opposed to those determined by the people actually living in those countries.

[guillaumeb]

97. Not at all. I was responding to your "amazement" over the idea that Europeans

had anything to do with this situation.

[oberliner]

98. No amazement, just a correction of your inaccurate info

I wrote that the borders between Israel and Palestine were not established by the European powers after WWII as you claimed (There were proposed borders, but the Arab side rejected them).

The borders were established after the war (and even then, they were not accepted by all parties).

I also wrote that I did not understand why you would think European powers have the authority to set borders between countries without the consent of those living there, an opinion I have just reiterated.

[guillaumeb]

99. European colonial powers set borders that are still recognized.

And the UN partition has the force of International Law.

So if your argument is that Arab rejection invalidates the plan, a plan that was implemented anyway, that means that both sides must sit down with the UN and work out a new plan. Something the Israeli Government would never do.

[oberliner]

100. At no point was the UN Partition plan implemented

Again, I am not sure where you are getting your information from. but it is not accurate.

[guillaumeb]

103. The UN Partition Plan was an attempt by the UN to unilaterally "solve" the problem

of deciding to locate an explicitly Jewish State in Palestine.
The Palestinians, invoking the right of self-determination, rejected the plan.
Hostilities commenced.
The Arabs fought back against the forced partition of their lands and Jewish gangs known as Irgun and Stern began attacking Palestinian villages and provoked mass forced migration to escape the killing.
Since that time, the (now) Israeli State started stealing what land was left to the Palestinians, a process of theft that continues to this day.
And Netanyahu has formally stated what was unstated for many years, that Israel has no intention of allowing a viable Palestinian State to exist.

[oberliner]

104. That is not what happened

I would encourage you to consider re-examining your understanding of these historical facts by consulting primary source documents, many of which are available on the UN website.

[pfitz59]

83. Jordan ruled in the West bank until 1967

when Israel took it

[oberliner]

88. Why did Jordan rule the West Bank?

Who did they take it from?

[DRoseDARs]

7. Ok then...

[Eugene]

8. Exactly how does Netanyahu think this is productive?

Except maybe to set an example for President Trump to imitate.

Netanyahu snubs May over UN settlements vote, Israeli media says (The Guardian)

[tenorly]

16. He doesn't

He's just holding out for a Trump administration that he expects to play like a cheap fiddle.

And he knows he'll get what he wants because the only other people Trump voters generally hate more than Jews, is Muslims. It's all about hatred for most GOP voters today, and who will best act on it for them.

[shira]

37. Bibi is trying to prevent more damage before Trump comes in...

These threats are to avoid what could be worse.

[guillaumeb]

49. Bibi is a consistent liar, but on one point, he told a partial truth.

When he said that there would never be a Palestinian State on his watch. The whole truth would be that the Israeli State has no intentions of returning stolen land and allowing a viable Palestinian State. All the Israeli State will allow are the Bantustan-like open air prisons such as Gaza and the tiny fragments of Palestine that are surrounded by the Israeli walls.

[shira]

52. There wouldn't be a Palestinian state if Rabin lived.

All the Palestinians have to do is keep saying no & resume terror attacks.

They believe they don't have to concede anything, but that they'll get everything.

The antisemites support their vile cause.

[guillaumeb]

54. The opinion you expressed is contrary to actual history.

Perhaps you did not see the news when Netanyahu admitted that he will never allow a Palestinian State to exist. His admittance is merely an echo of what every Israeli Government has believed but not said. So Netanyahu gets points for being an occasionally honest violator of International Law.

As to terror attacks, terror is committed on both sides. The difference is the scale of the terror, which is weighted heavily on the Israeli side. Plus, you might not know that Israel is actually occupying Palestine, and part of Syria. Not the reverse.

[shira]

65. Rabin's last speech in 1995 is proof he would do no better than Bibi...

Like the majority of Israelis, then and now, Rabin was willing to take risks and give the peace process a chance. But he remained suspicious of his Palestinian partners, skeptical about the outcome, wary of a full-fledged Palestinian state, and insistent on maintaining defensible borders for Israel.

In fact, Rabin may have been close to calling-off the Oslo process, according his daughter Dalia. Three years ago, she told Yediot Aharonot (October 1, 2010) that “many people who were close to father told me that on the eve of the murder he considered stopping the Oslo process because of the terror that was running rampant in the streets, and because he felt that Yasser Arafat was not delivering on his promises.”

“Father after all wasn’t a blind man running forward without thought. I don’t rule out the possibility that he was considering a U-turn, doing a reverse on our side. After all he was someone for whom the national security of the state was sacrosanct and above all,” former deputy defense minister Dalia Rabin said.

In his book The Long Short Way (Yediot Aharonot Press, Hebrew, 2008), current Defense Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon wrote that a few weeks before the assassination, Rabin told Ya’alon (who was then chief of IDF Military Intelligence) that after the next election, “he [Rabin] was going to ‘set things straight’ with the Oslo process, because Arafat could no longer be trusted.”

And this was before the murderous second intifada! Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, surmised much the same thing in his award-winning book Rabin and Israel’s National Security (Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999, pages 149- 165): “At the end of 1994, Rabin was very pessimistic about Arafat’s performance.... He told the Knesset on October 3, 1994, that ‘[Arafat’s] results up until now have been far from satisfactory – to use an understatement’...

Rabin’s disappointment with the policy, which was not initiated by him but for which he was ultimately responsible, became more and more evident with the passage of time and reflected the public’s wary mood toward the peace process... He did not exclude the possibility that the Oslo agreements might not lead to reconciliation. He was not sure that an agreement on final status issues with the Palestinians could be reached... Yet he was caught in the dynamics of a process no longer fully under his control....

“Rabin wrote in 1979 that ‘there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the risks of peace are preferable by far to the grim certainties that await every nation in war.’ But even when many around him celebrated and were bursting with optimism, he remained the eternal skeptic and pessimist. Only rarely did he project enthusiasm and elation about his political path....”

“More often than not,” continued Prof. Inbar, “Rabin expressed his doubts, his qualms about an uncertain future. He perceived an improved strategic environment containing less chances for existential dangers, but he knew that such military challenges still existed. He was unmoved in the belief that an armed peace was the best to which Israel could aspire in the near future.”

In an interview in The Jerusalem Post on September 24, 1995, a month and a half before his assassination, Rabin said that for at least the next 30 years, Israel would have to maintain its military strength and not cut the defense budget.

Inbar recalls that Rabin once said that a Palestinian state would be a “cancer” in the Middle East, and that Rabin often expressed his preference for Jordan as the more responsible partner for securing Israel’s eastern border in the long term.

In his famous last speech in the Knesset (on October 5, 1995), a month before his assassination, Rabin distanced himself from Palestinian statehood.

“We view a permanent solution [as involving] a Palestinian entity which is less than a state,” he pointedly said.

Rabin then rejected the notion of withdrawal to anything approximating the pre-1967 lines, and dismissed any thought of dividing Jerusalem: “We will not return to the June 4, 1967, lines. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.” (Rabin meant to include the eastern slopes of the West Bank hills – a 360-meter-high topographical barrier ridge.) “The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, will remain in our hands,” he averred.

Rabin ruled out removing any settlements before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians.

“We committed ourselves before the Knesset not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth... And first and foremost in our concerns is a united Jerusalem, as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty,” Rabin continued.

So it’s very possible that the drive to establish a Palestinian state in the grandiose contours envisioned today by the international community and the Israeli Left, and with the malfeasant Palestinian leaders we have today – is not Rabin’s true legacy at all. The use of Rabin’s name to support a galloping-forward pro- Palestinian-state peace process is left-wing historical revisionism.

It’s rather more likely that Rabin’s true legacy is the determination to struggle for peace within secure, defensible and historically just borders for Israel, without illusions.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Yitzhak-Rabin-was-close-to-stopping-the-Oslo-process-329064

[guillaumeb]

66. Ah yes, the "Rabin alternative".

And from your own citation:

Rabin ruled out removing any settlements before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians.

“We committed ourselves before the Knesset not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth... And first and foremost in our concerns is a united Jerusalem, as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty,” Rabin continued.

So the so-called Rabin alternative would also have formalized the Israeli land theft to allow for natural growth.

SO, no matter the negotiating partner, the Israeli State never had any intention of stopping the land theft. Explain again how Israel has a commitment to a negotiated peaceful solution. The only demonstrated commitment they have is one to a greater Israel that includes all of Palestine.

The Israeli State has everything to gain by the permanent state of war. They can continue stealing land, continue cleansing Palestine of Palestinians, and continue to pose as honest people simply looking for a negotiating partner.

[shira]

68. Other than the Israeli Left, is there another nation's Left you oppose?

Or is it just everything Israel that you hate?

[guillaumeb]

70. A weak attempt at framing my citations of actual history.

Two states were established in historic Palestine.

Since 1948, one of those states has been stealing land from the other. And settling its own citizens on that stolen land. And refusing to cede control of that stolen land.

I will give you one guess as to which state it is.

(Hint: it is not Palestine.)

As to the Israeli left, no matter which party is in power, the land theft and occupation continue.

[shira]

84. History? 2 states were never established.

You're making up fake news. While you can have your own opinion, you don't get to make up your own facts.

In 1947, the Palestinians rejected the UN Partition. That rejection means the Palestinians have never had their own state or their own sovereignty.

[guillaumeb]

93. Two states were established by UN fiat.

Your parsing does not change that. That parsing falls under the "making up your own facts category, by the way".

[shira]

107. When? The answer is never. This proves u know nothing about I/P.

You can't even cite one source & everyone here knows it.

The 1947 Partition Plan was a UNGAR, non-binding unless both parties agreed to it. The fact that the Palestinians rejected it relegates it to the dustbin of history. The Palestinians have never had their own state & prefer the end of the Jewish one over a home of their own.

When you can't even get the simplest facts right, there's no point continuing. I'm sure you'll just go on, repeating that 2 states were established.

No one has time for that crap. And you can definitely have the last word here...

[guillaumeb]

108. All of this is an attempt by you to deflect from the fact that

Netanyahu, and his predecessors, have never had any intention of allowing a viable Palestinian State. And, as I pointed out earlier, the fact that both parties did not agree to the UN Partition means that there is no legal basis for everything that the Jews, later the Israelis, did in Palestine.

All the terror attacks by Irgun and Stern were designed to drive out the resident Palestinians to create a Jewish State on the ashes of historic Palestine.

As to simplest facts, anyone who follows your apologetics for the Israeli State is well aware of your demonstrated deep respect for fact.

[Rustyeye77]

56. The Palestinian "govt" has done NOTHING for peace.

And have done a lot to foment terror and murder.

[guillaumeb]

58. In reality, it is the Israeli Government that is actually occupying Palestine.

And stealing Palestinian land. Not the reverse.

Both sides are guilty of terror attacks, but the Israeli Government has the advantage of military power which allows their terror to be much larger in scale.

[shira]

62. In reality, the Palestinians have said 'No' to every offer of 2 states...

They've done absolutely nothing to bring about a peaceful 2 state resolution.

Had you made the call, would you have agreed to any of the 2 state offers going back to the 1947 Partition? Or do you reject 2 states also?

[guillaumeb]

64. Ignore what you cannot explain away.

The Israeli Government is systematically stealing Palestinian land. That inconvenient fact cannot be ignored. True, the US corporate media pays very little attention to the land theft, but it is happening and has been happening since 1948.

The Israeli State has zero intention of allowing any viable Palestinian State, or a Palestinian Army, or a Gaza without restricted access, or any Palestinian State that is not fragmented by Israeli walls, cut off by Israeli-only highways, and where the Palestinians would not be under total Israeli control.

So explain the peaceful two-state solution that Israel contemplates.

The basic fact is that the Israeli Government is the aggressor, and the Palestinians are reacting to the aggression.

[shira]

67. So it turns out you're against 2 states. How hypocritical...

You could've stated you support:

a) The 1947 Partition Plan
b) The Clinton Initiatives 2000-01
c) The Geneva Initiative
d) Olmert's 2008 offer

Instead, you pretend every offer has been terrible and that the Palestinian war on the Jewish state the past 80 years has been justified.

[guillaumeb]

69. There were two states established.

But one has been stealing land from the other since 1948. That is history, not opinion.

Hypocrisy is much in evidence here, among the uncritical defenders of Israel.

[shira]

86. Two states were never established. The Palestinians rejected it because...

....to do so would mean recognizing the existence of a Jewish state which they want destroyed. It's more important to destroy Israel and take all the land than to have their own state alongside a Jewish one.

That is history, not opinion.

LoL.

Seriously, what are your sources that teach 2 states were ever established?

[shira]

63. The Palestinians can do no wrong according to the Israel haters. n/t

[Rustyeye77]

71. Seems that way.

Israel is a liberal democracy.
The Pa are ...you fill it in.

[guillaumeb]

72. And the Israelis can do no wrong according to the Palestine haters? eom

Since 1948, has there:

Any action that has been taken by the Israeli Government that in your view was a hindrance to actual peace?

Any actions that are illegal under International Law?

Any actions that could be called terror?

[shira]

85. What have the Palestinians done wrong since 1947? Anything? n/t

[guillaumeb]

94. I will take your non-response as an admission that facts are not on your side.

A wise non-response on your part.

[shira]

114. Compare what Israel has done vs. what Palestinians have done for peace...

[guillaumeb]

118. Dealing with your chart in order:

1) Settlements are constantly expanding. Explain how constantly expanding settlements is evidence of a willingness to dismantle settlements? This logic escapes me.

2) Give up land is far too ambiguous. The fact is that Israel has been expanding into Palestine since 1967.

3) Compensation for 1948 claims? Does this include return of stolen property and a right of return?

4) If Jerusalem was treated as an International City, with full access for all peoples, that would solve the issue. But expanding Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem while evicting Palestinians is not the way to prove good faith.

5) Accept two states sounds fine, but Netanyahu's explicit statement contradicts it. And the form of these two states is vital. Palestine cannot be a state if it is divided into numerous walled off entities that are surrounded by Jewish only settlements that are connected by roads restricted to Jewish Israeli citizens.

6) Comprehensive peace is a slogan. The details are vital.

An interesting graphic, but it is propaganda because it lacks specificity.

[shira]

122. Hard to deny that chart, isn't it?

1. Israel dismantled settlements in the Sinai and in Gaza before withdrawing from both.
2. Israel already gave up land (Sinai, Gaza)
3. On compensation, Israel agreed to a package of billions of dollars (Clinton Parameters)
4. On Jerusalem, Israel agreed to the Clinton Parameters & Kerry frameworks in 2014. Olmert offered 1/2 of Jerusalem.
5. See #4
6. See #4

Meanwhile, the Palestinians (PLO, Hamas) have done zero for peace & 2-states & that's the side you support over Israel.

[Rustyeye77]

119. The PA Should have taken the deal and

negotiated from there.

They would have already had a state. Dumb.

[karynnj]

73. Trump will create more damage once he is in

Netanyahu is having a hissy fit that the US did not veto a resolution largely consistent with US policy. You speak of more "damage" - meaning that he is afraid that France will propose a 2 state solution,possibly based on Kerry's. However, the US has always said that that has to be negotiated.

W@hen Netanyahu claims that the abstention was a change in policy, he is claiming that because he says it set terms - and we always said that has to be negotiated. However, he ignores that what the resolution is basically doing is calling on Israel to do is to STOP changing the facts on the ground that are making a 2 state solution - which Netanyahu has said he favors - impossible. He had to know that at some point the US would not be endlessly willing to let Netanyahu ignore everything we say. While it is his and Israel's right to do what they choose -- the US, if they disagree -- does not have to back Israel.

One thing to consider is that many articles over the last 8 years have spoken of many countries - especially France - holding back from resolutions at the Obama administration's request to give room for a peace process where neither side really acted in good faith. Many countries have great respect for President Obama and Secretary Kerry --- do not count on the Trump administration developing the same level of trust. It was not just having a veto that made the Obama administration helpful to Israel. (Kerry lobbied hard to minimize the BDS movement in Europe.)

[OregonBlue]

9. I hope their response is to completely ignore him.

[Blue Idaho]

10. Fine with me.

When they start a shooting war with Iran - I think we should sit on our hands. I'm sure they are big enough to stand on their own two feet by now.

[MFM008]

11. Whhhaaaaaaaaaa

Typical right wingers.

[47of74]

12. Awwww, poor delicate little snowflakes

[SunSeeker]

13. Why doesn't Israel come right out and say it won't honor the 1967 borders?

It's actions have certainly said that.

[geek tragedy]

14. People of Earth, your God-King is angry with you. nt

[lunatica]

15. Netanyahu is chanelling his inner Donald Trump

Just throw fits. The bigger, the angrier, the better.

[okasha]

17. Israel wants Iran gone.

Russia wants Iran's oil.
Trump wants to play with his nuclear toys.

I see this ending badly unless one or more of the leaders involved is removed.

[hack89]

18. The UN has outlived it's usefulness

Biggest mistake they made was to legitimize dictatorships, theocracies and other non-democrat forms of government.

[Rustyeye77]

36. Exactly

Thank you.

[shira]

38. Truth. n/t

[madokie]

19. What a little pissant of a human

[Luminous_Animal]

22. Israel just BDS'd itself.

[HoneyBadger]

23. Israel has a great many dual citizens with votes, money and influence

Distance the party from them at great peril if you value their historical contributions. As Schumer is now running the show, that won't happen anyway.

[adigal]

25. So it's everyone else's fault? Kind of like Trump.

And I dont think isolating yourself is the best strategy.

[angstlessk]

29. What does Israel export that those countries cannot get from other countries, or

cannot survive without? What does Israel import that those countries depend upon for their economy?

Just askin?

[HoneyBadger]

30. From Russia?

People. There are many dual citizens.

[JI7]

32. how will trump decide between putin and netanyahu

[alfredo]

35. Follow the money for your answer

[elmac]

31. Well, much like the USA

the right wingnut government of Israel doesn't represent the views of most Israelis.

[Feeling the Bern]

33. Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan. . .Bibi, let me put it this way

Britain doesn't care.
France doesn't care!
Russia has never cared.
China won't ever care.
Japan has more important things to do.

As for the rest. . .

No one gives a shit! Fuck you, asshole!

I support Israel. I hate your fucking ass with all the fire of 10,000 suns!

[Dawson Leery]

34. Jewish PM's in Ukraine and New Zealand are not buying Bibi's bullshit.

[oberliner]

76. What are you talking about?

Jewish PM?

[zippythepinhead]

40. Neologism

That's what he is suffering. drump too.




















[block quote]

[Rustyeye77]

42. Well if Hamas is happy....

Keep paying for terrorists
Keep the Jew hatred in the pa media

The free world doesn't care apparently.

[Lil Missy]

57. Being against the unfair and illegal actions of Israeli Govt is not "Jew Hatred"

Time to set aside that kind old canard, talking point.

All they have to do is quit building settlements/stealing land, on land that doesn't belong to them.

It IS high time to make a stand. A better stand would be to cut off the aid we give them. They want to make trouble, pay your own damned way.

[oberliner]

89. But calling on children to kill Jews is Jew hatred

Which Hamas TV has been known to do.

[Lil Missy]

111. Oh FFS, that's not what this thread is about and not what I was responding to. IF you

want to change the subject, start a new thread.

[oberliner]

135. Fair enough

Just want to make it clear that Jew hatred is still alive and well among many Palestinians. I think that point does get glossed over at times and is relevant.

[Rustyeye77]

136. It's the curse that keeps on giving.

The next generation is fed a constant diet of Jew hatred ...

The PA's endless supply of martyrs and terrorists.

Smh

[BunkieBandit]

106. All they have to do is ..............

I'll be dammed. That's the answer ! After 60+ years of independence and continuous fighting off invaders, you singlehandedly have the solution. Quit building/stealing land. That's it, the war(s) is over. HAMAS and Hezbollah will most certainly lay down their arms not with the stroke of a pen, but with these now famous words to Israel," All you have to do.............."

[Lil Missy]

113. What I'm saying is simple,

Suggesting that the Israeli Gov't is acting in bad faith by STEALING LAND, AND BUILDING MORE SETTLEMENTS, is stating an opinion of fact about the Gov't of Israel. It is not "Jew hating" like the post I was responding to suggested.

Try to follow a thread. If you want to change the topic to something else, go to the proper forum and start a new thread.

[shira]

115. What you're saying is wrong. Compare Israeli actions for peace vs. Palestinian...

[Lil Missy]

117. That is bullshit. AND Has Nothing to do with the OP.

My opinion is unchanged.

[shira]

124. Totally true. See #122 above...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1651354

The Israelis have proven twice (Egypt, Jordan) they're willing to make peace & keep it. The chart is 100% accurate.

What have the Palestinians done?

[Nancy Waterman]

45. Netanyahu sounds like Trump

This may be some of what we have to look forward to when the Toddler in Chief has a tantrum.

[Gothmog]

60. Bibi is having a temper tantrum

[Squinch]

61. Where are they getting their advice from? Trump? That's monumentally stupid.

[Roland99]

77. Ol Donny will talk things up in the club

[Warpy]

79. Great way to isolate your country, Bibi

Obviously something is wrong with this guy. He needs to be retired.

[harun]

87. Yet another right wing asshole having a temper tantrum

[Auntie Bush]

101. I almost wish they would suspend relations with us.

BIbi in not my favorite person! I knew when he got elected that there would be no peace in Israel.

[louis-t]

102. Wow, the vote was 14-0 against you Bibi.

And you drag ambassadors to your office to wag your finger at them? Bibi's got some big ones. Join your buddy drumpf in being ostracized by the rest of the world. Jackass.

[jpak]

105. Bibi called the Whaaambulance

What a maroon.

[Rustyeye77]

109. It sure would be nice if the PA ...

Publicly accepted Israel as the Jewish state..and mean it.
End incitement on PA media... and talk of peace and mean it.
Renounce all terrorism by Hamas and Hezbollah... and mean it.

Abbas could be a statesman but he's afraid for his own life.

Twice they could have had a state... but they rejected both.

If he's smart, he should take the previous offer.


Unless he's holding out for all of Israel which seems to be the case.

[guillaumeb]

110. It sure would be nice if the

Israeli Government would follow International Law and not build settlements on land that they seized in war.

Unless they are holding out for all of Palestine, which seems to be the case.

[shira]

125. If Israel were holding out for all Palestine, why withdraw from Gaza?

Why agree & offer the Palestinians their own state twice (Clinton Parameters, Olmert)?

[guillaumeb]

127. Gaza is an open air prison, with Israeli limited and controlled access.

As we both well know.

If Israel is not dedicated to absorbing Palestine, why are settlements and dedicated roads that are reserved for Jewish Israeli citizens springing up everywhere?

And why the talk about "greater Israel"?

Perhaps the Palestinian State to which you refer will exist in the small walled off spaces in between the Israeli outposts?

[shira]

128. You didn't answer. Why agree to the Clinton Parameters? Why Olmert's offer?

Giving Egypt the Sinai & getting completely out of Gaza is proof Israel is willing to give up settlements for peace.

There's a proven track record there.

And yet, you side with Hamas & the PLO who have never done anything ever for peace & 2 states. They've only proven time and again to want to wage war on Israel & destroy it. Why such a preference for the PLO/Hamas side?

[guillaumeb]

129. Israel is "out of Gaza" in the sense that a master can be outside of the animal pen.

But the master is still in control and the animal can only exit with permission from the master.

The easy solution is to withdraw to the 1967 borders and negotiate with the UN serving as mediator. But the Israelis refuse to do that, knowing that building facts on the ground in the form of settlements that are limited exclusively to Jewish occupants means they are winning the battle to absorb Palestine.

As to these Jewish only settlements, how do they differ from the whites only areas that were common in South Africa before the fall of the apartheid regime?

[shira]

130. There's not 1 Jew left in Gaza. And you haven't answered the question. n/t

[guillaumeb]

131. Gaza is the prison. The jailer are outside.

I did answer the question, but not within the parameters that you accept.

I understand that words like apartheid, and ethnic separation, and open air prisons, and war crimes are not comfortable things to admit to, but unless or until the Israelis accept outside mediation and reach a settlement that includes two contiguous and viable states, there will be no peace. And many innocent people on both sides will continue to die.

[shira]

132. Sigh. There was no blockade until Hamas fired rockets. This is a waste of time. n/t

[guillaumeb]

133. Gaza was designed to be a prison. A controlled access prison.

Water, electricity, all controlled. Access to the sea controlled. No control of airspace, or borders.

And settlements have been absorbing Palestine since 1967.

[Turbineguy]

126. Well, at least they are denying themselves

a chance to change anyone's mind.

So there! Neener, neener.

[Blue Idaho]

134. It's going to be mighty lonely out there in the desert

All by themselves.