This message was self-deleted by its author

[Little Tich]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Little Tich) on Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:58 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[HoneyBadger]

1. Just to clarify, this means that America just took a largely symbolic stand against Israel?

What would be the blowback?

[geek tragedy]

2. It took a stand against the settlements that threaten

to make it impossible for Israel to remain a democratic and Jewish state.

Those that support Israel remaining a democratic and Jewish state oppose the settlements. Those who fail to oppose the settlements have a different agenda.

[oberliner]

3. There are many Israelis who oppose the settlements and support a two-state solution

But believe that Jerusalem is a more complicated situation.

The Obama administration agrees with that which is one of the reasons why they would not vote for it.

[geek tragedy]

4. W. Jerusalem is a separate issue from this resolution nt

[oberliner]

5. Talking about the Jewish Quarter, Western Wall, Temple Mount

All the Jewish holy sites - which are located in E Jerusalem, from which Jews were expelled by Jordan during the Jordanian occupation of the city.

[geek tragedy]

7. What does that have to legalizing colonial outposts

built on private Palestinian land?

[oberliner]

8. Have you read the resolution?

Here are the first three operative clauses:

“1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

“2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

“3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

[geek tragedy]

14. Yes, the resolution opposes Israel's slow-motion annexation

of East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

The Israelis say everything must be resolved via negotiations while creating "facts on the ground" that make negotiations moot.

[shira]

16. The Palestinians have rejected every offer of 2 states going back 8 decades....

Seems their leaders are the ones who need to be pressured.

[oberliner]

17. Until fairly recently it was just Jerusalem

It has been central to Jewish life and thought for literally centuries. In particular the Old City and the Jewish Quarter which contains almost all of the holiest sites in Judaism.

In 1947-48, Jordanian forces conquered the eastern portion of the city and expelled all of the Jewish residents. They then took to plundering formerly Jewish homes and synagogues and did not allow Jews to set foot in the Old City during their nearly twenty year occupation.

[geek tragedy]

18. Fighting over holy places is very 12th century.

[oberliner]

19. Agreed

I think that message should be spread far and wide across the Middle East and beyond.

[shira]

6. One takeaway is that UN is still obsessed w/ Israel. Silent on Syria, Yemen...

Another is that Russia voted for this, while continuing with its own settlements in Georgia & Crimea. For some reason, that's not illegal. Only when Jews do it in their ancient homeland, their ancient capital. Go figure.

Last takeaway is that the PA/Hamas will see Jews in Jerusalem as a greenlight to continue inciting, praising, and rewarding terror attacks on Jews, while continuing to be funded by western governments. Yet another proud moment for humanity.

Question:
Are we to take from this that Jews praying at the Wall is now illegal?

[karynnj]

9. The UN has not been silent on Syria

1) A UN envoy has taken the lead for several years in trying to get peace talks and to coordinate whatever aid they can get into Syria. They have been unsuccessful, but not silent.

2) I seem to remember many UN meetings dealing with Syria - in 2 recent ones, Samantha Powers and John Kerry respectively were not silent at all.

3) It IS true that there were no recent resolutions. The reason is pretty obvious - Russia has a veto. (This would be like saying that until this week, the UN was silent on Israel for the 8 year Obama term. We vetoed every other resolution. The last Syrian resolution was a very hard fought one initiated by John Kerry and worked on by many countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. That resolution was the basis for much that the UN tried to do.

The US and EU DOES call the settlements in Crimea etc illegal -- that is why fairly onerous sanctions are in place. There is no UN resolution because they have a veto. Seriously, the US sanctions on Russia are FAR MORE SEVERE a response than the US abstaining as the rest of the Security Council votes for a resolution.

It is a jump in logic to think praying at the Western Wall is illegal. Though the Knesset has worked hard to make it illegal for reform or conservative rabbis to lead any prayer at the Western Wall -- much less women doing so. Not all Jews wanting to pray are male and Orthodox.

[oberliner]

10. Ban Ki-moon says UN has 'disproportionate' focus on Israel

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the organisation has a “disproportionate” volume of resolutions against Israel, which he believes has “foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively”.

Addressing the UN Security Council on Friday, Mr Ban said: “Over the last decade I have argued that we cannot have a bias against Israel at the UN.

"Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.

“In many cases, instead of helping the Palestinian issue, this reality has foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ban-ki-moon-united-nations-disproportionate-israel-focus-resolutions-palestinians-human-rights-danny-a7481961.html

While there certainly have been resolutions passed with respect to Syria, as you point out, I think the point that Ban Ki Moon makes is a reasonable one.

[shira]

11. Samantha Powers 2 days ago...

But in reality this vote for us was not straightforward, because of where it is taking place – at the United Nations. For the simple truth is that for as long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations. And not only in decades past – such as in the infamous resolution that the General Assembly adopted in 1975, with the support of the majority of Member States, officially determining that, “Zionism is a form of racism” – but also in 2016, this year. One need only look at the 18 resolutions against Israel adopted during the UN General Assembly in September; or the 12 Israel-specific resolutions adopted this year in the Human Rights Council – more than those focused on Syria, North Korea, Iran, and South Sudan put together – to see that in 2016 Israel continues to be treated differently from other Member States.

Like U.S. administrations before it, the Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to fight for Israel’s right simply to be treated just like any other country – from advocating for Israel to finally be granted membership to a UN regional body, something no other UN Member State had been denied; to fighting to ensure that Israeli NGOs are not denied UN accreditation, simply because they are Israeli, to getting Yom Kippur finally recognized as a UN holiday; to pressing this Council to break its indefensible silence in response to terrorist attacks on Israelis. As the United States has said repeatedly, such unequal treatment not only hurts Israel, it undermines the legitimacy of the United Nations itself.

The practice of treating Israel differently at the UN matters for votes like this one. For even if one believes that the resolution proposed today is justified – or, even more, necessitated – by events on the ground, one cannot completely separate the vote from the venue.

And Member States that say they are for the two-state solution must ask themselves some difficult questions. For those states that are quick to promote resolutions condemning Israel, but refuse to recognize when innocent Israelis are the victims of terrorism – what steps will you take to stop treating Israel differently? For those states that passionately denounce the closures of crossings in Gaza as exacerbating the humanitarian situation, but saying nothing of the resources diverted from helping Gaza’s residents to dig tunnels into Israeli territory so that terrorists can attack Israelis in their homes – what will you do to end the double-standard that undermines the legitimacy of this institution?

Member States should also ask themselves about the double standards when it comes to this Council taking action. Just this morning we came together, as a Council, and we were unable to muster the will to act to stop the flow of weapons going to killers in South Sudan, who are perpetrating mass atrocities that the UN has said could lead to genocide. We couldn’t come together just to stem the flow of arms. Earlier this month, this Council could not muster the will to adopt the simplest of resolutions calling for a seven-day pause in the savage bombardment of innocent civilians, hospitals, and schools in Aleppo. Yet when a resolution on Israel comes before this Council, members suddenly summon the will to act.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761017

[shira]

12. Where specifically have you seen the US & EU call Russian settlements....

....in Crimea illegal? Or in Georgia for that matter....

Do you not believe the Western Wall is occupied territory? Along with the Jewish Quarter there? I assure you a lot of people do see it that way.

[karynnj]

13. Ukraine is the REASON for the Russian sanctions!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis Note there is a section specifically dealing with Crimea.

Here, early on is the White House denouncing the Russian imposed vote in Crimea using far tougher language than the resolution used. Not to mention, Samantha Powers explained that they ABSTAINED because they disagreed to some extent with the language.

What you ignore is that actions by Israel put Obama and Kerry in the position where not vetoing the resolution had to be done - unless they wanted to be seen as liars. The Knesset action to greatly expand settlements and to actually legalize ones ISRAEL had considered illegal was a step too far. Note that Powers spoke of the fact that settlements increased after the US vetoed the 2011 resolution.

You might also remember the perfidy of Netanyahu in introducing the Hamas ceasefire proposal as "Kerry's and Obama's" when he knew it was not. Hamas via Oman passed the proposal to a conference in Paris and Kerry then passed it to Netanyahu. This was done because Israel (and the US) and Hamas do not talk. From the Israeli media it seemed that Netanyahu thought it was too soon to have a ceasefire as Gaza needed to feel enough pain to be deterred from future attacks. The odious phrase "mowing the grass" was used by one of Netanyahu's cabinet. Point here is that Netanyahu was willing to DISHONESTLY throw both Obama and Kerry under the bus. Fortunately, the rest of the world (outside Israel and parts of the US media) give Obama and Kerry far more credit as honest statesmen than they do Netanyahu.

You might also remember that a few days before the Israeli election, Netanyahu said there would be no 2 state solution - contradicting what he had told the world. After he was elected, he again said he was for a two state solution. His actions show that he may well have been telling the truth before the election. Obama tried via two genuinely talented diplomats, George Mitchell and John Kerry, to find peace -- in fact, Netanyahu could have spared both of them the time and effort by being honest and saying he was unprepared to do so.

[shira]

15. But no language on settlers or settlements. It's only illegal when Jews do it.....

...in their historic homeland. Meaning it's not illegal at all.

Because if it isn't illegal in any other context on the planet (in another country's sovereign space) it certainly isn't illegal when Jews do it (where there has never been Palestinian sovereignty). Calling only the Jews out for illegal settling is nothing but discrimination.

Again, is the Western Wall occupied territory? Yes or No?