UN Security Council Resolution 2334

[meesterperfect]

So the United Nations voted in favor of a resolution prohibiting Israel from building on anymore Palestinian land.

Normally the United States vetos these resolutions and they cease to exist but in this case on Dec. 23rd 2016 they did not vote nor veto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334

Of course there have been a few resolutions like this in the past 60 or so years that were basically ignored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_P alestine

Of course Netanyahoo is not hiding he is pissed and says F-You to the UN. We don't care, we do what we want.
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/netanyahu-initiated-resolution/
https://www.rt.com/news/371785-israel-jerusalem-homes-construction/

Of course this has been going on for years and nothing ever comes of it. To me just another blaring exemple of the overall uselessness of the UN.
I personally feel that Israel should have definitive borders and the same borders not from the 1967 Six DayWar but from the original 1948 borders that they accepted and agreed upon.
Wouldn't definitive borders sure avoid a lot of this bull shit thats been going on for decades?

But I wonder why now?
Why did the US (who by abstaining basically voted yes) and most countries, especially Western European countries decide on this now?
You don't wan't to taunt Israel too much. After all they have lots of Nukes and are the only country in the Middle East who has them.
Plus they have always refused to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty so The World can't know just how many Nukes they have and who they are aimed at.
But they're israel, they do what they want.

Also I've been reading that many Jewish people in Israel and around the world are speaking out against Israeli settlements thinking that it has gone to far , no pun intended. Not so much within israel because the take your property and lock you up for saying that.

Where is Trump in this you might ask.
The news is reporting he is against the most recent resolution.

 

[rivasky]

'Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel,' says Ban Ki-moon

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...palestinians-human-rights-danny-a7481961.html

 

[The Penis Mightier]

So the United Nations voted in favor of a resolution prohibiting Israel from building on anymore Palestinian land.

I don't understand the controversy of being against Israel building settlements on Palestinian land. If it is Palestinian land what right does Israel have to build settlements on it?

 

[bobjustbob]

Will this stop tunnels from being built? Would these original boarders stop grenades from being tossed over? Have Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon learned their lessons? Is Egypt stabilized enough to handle their boarders? If all is true then there should be no problem.

 

[Supafly]

I am very much for Israel to stop allowing the Settlers maintain the already existing illegal settlements and the Israeli-only roads in the palestinian areas and the future settlements.

Yet, as bob pointed out:

The israel state is surrounded by mortal enemies that are not to be relied on and all more or less want the israeli state to cease to exist.

So the strategy to slowly occupy the palestinian area is very understandible, and I cannot blame the israelis for doing so.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Bitch move by Obama.
If he has not shown us anything else during his 8 years, it is Crystal Clear that he is a petty and spiteful SOB.
The Palestinians are claiming sacred sections of Jerusalem as their own.

 

[meesterperfect]

Will this stop tunnels from being built? Would these original boarders stop grenades from being tossed over? Have Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon learned their lessons? Is Egypt stabilized enough to handle their boarders? If all is true then there should be no problem.

What lesson was that?
And who's throwing grenades at who?

I am very much for Israel to stop allowing the Settlers maintain the already existing illegal settlements and the Israeli-only roads in the palestinian areas and the future settlements.

Yet, as bob pointed out:

The israel state is surrounded by mortal enemies that are not to be relied on and all more or less want the israeli state to cease to exist.

So the strategy to slowly occupy the palestinian area is very understandible, and I cannot blame the israelis for doing so.

What a great plan.
Create a jewish country or state in the middle of Muslim Land then claim for 60 years "We are surrounded by mortal enemies so anything we do is justified....poor us"

You are entitled to your opinions of course but would you feel that way if it were your home and property they took from you at gunpoint and bulldozed right in front of you and your family?
You can yell and cry all you want, just don't touch one of them or they'll shoot you.

Bitch move by Obama.
If he has not shown us anything else during his 8 years, it is crystal clear that he is a petty and spiteful SOB.
The Palestinians are claiming sacred sections of Jerusalem as their own.

What a great plan. Declare land is sacred according to a book and use that as an excuse to take someones property.
How dare the people who already live there be against that.

But youre right this might be out of spite. Spite that israel didn't openly endorse or promote the criminal for PREZ.

 

[sean miguel]

Bitch move on a lame-duck Obama administration's part. If the two state solution was predicated on Israel giving up territory for "peace," what does this resolution do but make the starting point of any negotiations the 1967 borders without eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights? What other territory is there to give up then? So this actually helps Israel's position ironically.

It doesn't matter, there will never be a two-state outcome. One side will never accept a jewish state.

And those countries who want to impose economic sanctions on Israel because of this resolution, two can play that game come Jan. 20th.

Don't worry, Israel, our Grand Mufti will be out of office soon. You're still our greatest ally in the region.

 

[Johan]

It doesn't matter, there will never be a two-state outcome. One side will never accept a jewish state.

One could argue that the creation of Israel has been imposed on Palestine, that it was decided without asking them about it, that they've been robbed from their country.
How would you react if , suddenly, the UN would decide that, since Shia muslims have been victims of sunni muslims for ages, a Shia state will be created in North Carolina ? Wouldn't you want to desroy this state, wouldn't you want to get your country back ? And how would you react if that state would implement settlements into Virginia, South Carolina and Tennessee ?

I'm not telling that the creation of Israel was a mistake. I'm just saying we should understand their reaction we should do as much as possible not to provoke them anymore.

Don't worry, Israel, our Grand Mufti will be out of office soon. You're still our greatest ally in the region.

As long as the US will back every decision made by Israel, there wil be now chance for peace in the region. 'cause as long as the US will back every decision made by Israel, they will feel untouchable, they will dare to do anything.
Look at what's happening with China and Nort Korea : China suppots North Korea but sometimes they tell them "Guys, you gotta stop now, you're going too far, we won't support you on this". Otherwise, my guess is that North Korea would have already bombed the shit out of Seoul.

Israel shouldn't be the US greatest ally in the region. It should be Jordan: a stable state, with no radical islam, a constitutionnal moderate monarchy, one of the two countries that have signed a peace treaty with Israel (the other is Turkey) wih pretty good armed forces, a free-market economy, a small but influential christian minority, a 95% litteracy rate.
Queen Rania is involved in many charities (arab and international) concerning education and women's rights.

You can't achieve anything neither understand well what's happening in the region if your #1 interlocutor is a country who's at war with the rest of the region.

 

[bobjustbob]

Okay meester, give the world your solution.

 

[pool_hustler]

How is this a "bitch move" when every administration since Johnson's has criticized and/or condemned the expansion of Israeli settlements?

How is this a bitch move when none other than Ronald Reagan endorsed no less than 21 U.N. resolutions critical and/or condemning of Israel?

By comparison, this is the first and only time Obama has done so in eight years.

Reagan himself stated, in 1982: ""Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be free and fairly negotiated.”

But of course - as usual - Obama is measured by a completely different set of standards. Can't imagine why...

PS: Will Bibi be so outraged he'll refuse the historic $38 billion dollar military aid package Obama requested for Israel now?
Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[Jack Davenport]

There is a lot of anti-Semitism on this board.
The Jews have been nomads for thousands of years, run out of their lands time and time again until it came to a head in the form of the Holocaust.
The lands in dispute were deeded by the Treaty of Lausanne.

The United States is the only reason that the Israelis have a homeland now .

And is why Arab terrorists hate us.

If the U.S. turns its back on Israel they will be dispersed all over the world again.

The U.N. with their constant taunting of Israel are proof of that.

Obama played along, and by all indications is a closet anti-Semite himself.

 

[pool_hustler]

It doesn't matter, there will never be a two-state outcome. One side will never accept a jewish state.

If that's the case then you're right, there never will be.
But as Saint Ronald (and every other president since Johnson) has pointed out, Israel has a part of its own to play to help soften that position.

 

[pool_hustler]

There is a lot of anti-Semitism on this board.

Well don't look at me. I'm 1/4 Jewish.
And again, your closet anti-Semite accusation simply does not stand up to logical analysis.
He and Netanyahu don't get along. They don't see eye to eye on some significant policy issues. So what? Reagan was as tough or tougher on two Israeli PMs and I never saw anybody branding him a closet anti-Semite. His position was the same as Obama's: Steadfastly defend Israel's right to exist but don't let it dictate U.S. foreign policy.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Well don't look at me. I'm 1/4 Jewish.
And again, your closet anti-Semite accusation simply does not stand up to logical analysis.
He and Netanyahu don't get along. They don't see eye to eye on some significant policy issues. So what? Reagan was as tough or tougher on two Israeli PMs and I never saw anybody branding him a closet anti-Semite. His position was the same as Obama's: Steadfastly defend Israel's right to exist but don't let it dictate U.S. foreign policy.

The Obama administration actively sought to defeat Netanyahu. Reagan never tried to defeat an Israeli prime minister.

Mark Levin says that it is his personal opinion that Obama harbors anti-Semitic views.

His former pastor says "Jesus was a Palestinian".
You don't sit in a church for 20 minutes and listen to that shit much less 20 years if you don't believe in it.


You are throwing out blanket talking points claiming that Reagan was more harsh on Israel.

Give me a few hours and we will put that to rest once and for all.

Am I to believe Obama or my lyin' eyes.

 

[acenipplelicker]

I don't understand the controversy of being against Israel building settlements on Palestinian land. If it is Palestinian land what right does Israel have to build settlements on it?

the land ownership is in contention and building stuff on it makes it harder to transfer it when settled or it implys ownership

 

[acenipplelicker]

It doesn't matter, there will never be a two-state outcome. One side will never accept a jewish state.

If that's the case then you're right, there never will be.
But as Saint Ronald (and every other president since Johnson) has pointed out, Israel has a part of its own to play to help soften that position.

Reagans joke applies

We have outlawed Israel
we start bombing in 5 minutes

 

[pool_hustler]

I could give two shits what Mark Levin says.
Yet another shrieking purveyor of the Cloward/Piven doomsday scenario that never came to pass.

His former pastor says "Jesus was a Palestinian".

Geographically he was, correct? Born to a Jewish family living in a Palestinian town.

You are throwing out blanket talking points claiming that Reagan was more harsh on Israel.

No I'm not. May not be here tomorrow or the next day but will be glad to revisit this when I am.

 

[sean miguel]

How is this a "bitch move" when every administration since Johnson's has criticized and/or condemned the expansion of Israeli settlements?

How is this a bitch move when none other than Ronald Reagan endorsed no less than 21 U.N. resolutions critical and/or condemning of Israel?

By comparison, this is the first and only time Obama has done so in eight years.

Reagan himself stated, in 1982: ""Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be free and fairly negotiated.”

But of course - as usual - Obama is measured by a completely different set of standards. Can't imagine why...

PS: Will Bibi be so outraged he'll refuse the historic $38 billion dollar military aid package Obama requested for Israel now?
Yeah, I don't think so.

It's a bitch move because the U.S. did not exercise it's veto option as it was customary to and by a lame duck president as a final f*** you to Bibi and Israel. That's WHY it's a bitch move.
And if Netanyahu is correct, the U.S. did not just abstain, they were behind the resolution to begin with.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Reagan clashed with Menachem Begin over the treatment of Lebanese Christians during the war.
Still he armed Israel to the teeth.
The sale of AWACS to the Saudis was a contentious period, but never did Reagan question Jerusalem as the capital or claim that Israel was ill gotten gains as Obama has.

I am pretty sure Mark can recognize anti-Semitism when he sees it.