Obama shows his anti-semitism...gives Israel the middle finger on his way out the door

[MikeK]

It took me 20 years to break down and admit that the Palistinians were incapable of organizing a representative govt or council like the Zionist movement of the early 20th century. They have FAILED to make their case for "sovereign rule" of areas within the West Bank and Gaza. So at some point, since it's been almost 50 years of badly run "occupation" and no Pali movement appears --- I've just gotta say "**** it" and "life must go on".

The past Pali "leadership" HAD the entire WEST BANK under Jordanian mandate. King of Jordan was feeding them money, including them in the Jordanian govt and they represented a full 1/3 of the Jordanian economy. The PLO screwed that deal. By mounting an armed insurrection against the govt in Amman. (Black September).. And they got their butts TOSSED OUT of the West Bank and Jordan.. And then TOSSED OUT of Lebanon.

It's a history of Pali FAILURE --- not Israeli oppression..

I agree. My position quite simply is it's none of our business. It's between Israel and the Muslim world.

We have enough problems of our own.

 

[easyt65]

Obama just VERIFIED what we all recently learned from the DNC's hacked and exposed personal e-mails --

The Democratic party, from the TOP down, is full of racists, sexists, anti-Catholic, and homophobic ANTI-SEMITES.

 

[rhodescholar]

[...]

Israel DID make major moves to grant Pali sovereignty. They dragged Israeli settlers KICKING AND SCREAMING out of the Gaza strip in early 2000s.

[...]

Thank you for the intelligent response. It is a welcome change.

I agree with the general thrust of what you've presented and I sincerely wish Israel could eventually reach some peaceful accord with its Muslim neighbors, but I don't think it's possible (oil and water).

Re: the above highlighted excerpt: That action on Sharon's part was the result of pressure applied by George W. Bush immediately after the 9/11 attack. It was prompted by PBS Frontline's re-releasing the transcript of John Miller's 1998 interview with Osama bin Laden in which bin Laden threatened "major consequences" for U.S. support of the Gaza settlement expansion and the presence of the American air base in the Saudi holy land.

Bin Laden's threat was repeated several times after that interview but bush (via Condoleeza Rice) denied receiving those communiques. That is why Bush hurriedly pressured (bribed) Sharon to evict the Gaza settlers and why he removed the bin Sultan airbase immediately after the 9/11 attack. He did this for two reasons; to be able to say he did it -- and to remove what he then had cause to know was not an idle threat.

Aside from all of that, my main concern is U.S. support of Israel is, has been and will continue to be harmful to us and it represents absolutely no reciprocal benefits. I have nothing against Israel but there is no good reason for us to continue involving ourselves in an historical conflict which is none of our business.

American Jews who are concerned with Israel's safety should migrate there and directly participate in the conflict.

You are so ******* clueless its hilarious. Bush bribed sharon LOL, that's funny. So bin laden threatened the US over Israel's presence in gaza - but not the west bank LOL. He didn't threaten because of Israel's existence, because of its presence in the west bank, no it was ONLY because of gaza LOL. Maybe next you'll claim it was because israeli jews chew gum. People in the US who have no idea about the mideast should just stop posting BS about it and other related issues they know nothing about, or that they get from the ****-awful NYT.

Second, only a lazy, stupid, clueless moron actually believes that the muslim filth and terrorists will attack the US or West any more or less regardless of what israel does, doesn't do, wants to do, etc. IT IS A FIG LEAF, TOTAL GARBAGE.

BTW, the saudis and muslim brotherhood (aka hamas) HATE each other; bin laden could not have given a FF what happened or did not happen in gaza. Grow some brains.

 

[flacaltenn]

[...]

Israel DID make major moves to grant Pali sovereignty. They dragged Israeli settlers KICKING AND SCREAMING out of the Gaza strip in early 2000s.

[...]

Thank you for the intelligent response. It is a welcome change.

I agree with the general thrust of what you've presented and I sincerely wish Israel could eventually reach some peaceful accord with its Muslim neighbors, but I don't think it's possible (oil and water).

Re: the above highlighted excerpt: That action on Sharon's part was the result of pressure applied by George W. Bush immediately after the 9/11 attack. It was prompted by PBS Frontline's re-releasing the transcript of John Miller's 1998 interview with Osama bin Laden in which bin Laden threatened "major consequences" for U.S. support of the Gaza settlement expansion and the presence of the American air base in the Saudi holy land.

Bin Laden's threat was repeated several times after that interview but bush (via Condoleeza Rice) denied receiving those communiques. That is why Bush hurriedly pressured (bribed) Sharon to evict the Gaza settlers and why he removed the bin Sultan airbase immediately after the 9/11 attack. He did this for two reasons; to be able to say he did it -- and to remove what he then had cause to know was not an idle threat.

Aside from all of that, my main concern is U.S. support of Israel is, has been and will continue to be harmful to us and it represents absolutely no reciprocal benefits. I have nothing against Israel but there is no good reason for us to continue involving ourselves in an historical conflict which is none of our business.

American Jews who are concerned with Israel's safety should migrate there and directly participate in the conflict.

That telling of the tale is so twisted between between truth and fiction, it's almost impossible to comment. The removal of settlers and Jewish property from Gaza occurred nearly FOUR YEARS after 9/11. And it was more about Condi Rice and Bush trying to make Legacy points by ACCELERATING a settlement between the PA and Israel... Those 2 PUSHED for general Pali elections when they were TOLD by Fatah and Israel that the time was not right yet. And the result was a full-out Pali Civil war..

To get back to the OP -- This UN resolution shows the global denial of the situation.

WHO does the UN want Israel to negotiate WITH??

There IS NO recognized responsible Palestine Nation Movement anymore. It died a 1/2 dozen times when the Jordanians, the Lebanese, and NOW the Israelis attempted to negotiate with various political factions who never could unite and work together. And in the meantime, Israel has great relations with Egypt, Jordan and even the Saudis. Best they've ever been. So it's NOT that they don't want to be a good neighbor.

50 years of "occupation". Gone mostly badly. No URGENCY on the part of the Palis to form a nation-state. The UN SHOULD have put a timeline on creating a "Protectorate" for the Palis instead. A holding company partnership between Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. UNTIL such time that the Palis get their act together and ACT like a "nationalist movement"...

 

[flacaltenn]

It took me 20 years to break down and admit that the Palistinians were incapable of organizing a representative govt or council like the Zionist movement of the early 20th century. They have FAILED to make their case for "sovereign rule" of areas within the West Bank and Gaza. So at some point, since it's been almost 50 years of badly run "occupation" and no Pali movement appears --- I've just gotta say "**** it" and "life must go on".

The past Pali "leadership" HAD the entire WEST BANK under Jordanian mandate. King of Jordan was feeding them money, including them in the Jordanian govt and they represented a full 1/3 of the Jordanian economy. The PLO screwed that deal. By mounting an armed insurrection against the govt in Amman. (Black September).. And they got their butts TOSSED OUT of the West Bank and Jordan.. And then TOSSED OUT of Lebanon.

It's a history of Pali FAILURE --- not Israeli oppression..

I agree. My position quite simply is it's none of our business. It's between Israel and the Muslim world.

We have enough problems of our own.

Why would we help to HINDER that process by forcing Israel to divest of lands, create yet ANOTHER void of power in the MidEast, and make it into perfect breeding grounds for ISIS, Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and 20 other radicalized factions??? Just like we've recently done in Libya and Syria

 

[Coyote]

I don't see what is so bad about the resolution. Netanyahu can't keep giving lip service to a 2-state solution while simultaneously escelating settlement activity.

What the UNSC resolution means for the US and Israel - CNNPolitics.com

1. What are the immediate effects of the UNSC resolution?
The resolution may have no immediate practical effects on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the peace process. That's because the resolution is non-binding, effectively creating guidelines and recommendations. The resolution would require follow-up action at the United Nations for it to have an immediate effect.

Israel is concerned about exactly that type of action. Specifically, Israel is worried about a resolution that would set conditions for negotiations. Such a resolution would issue parameters for some of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including borders, the status of Jerusalem as a contested capital, Palestinian refugees, and a time-limit for negotiations.

An international peace conference in Paris scheduled for January 15 could be the forum for discussing such a resolution. That would give the international community time to introduce the resolution at the United Nations Security Council before the end of President Barack Obama's time in office. Israel has vowed not to attend the conference. The Palestinians say they will attend.

2. What are the long-term effects?
The biggest blow is to Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This resolution has left little room for negotiation about the legality of the settlements, stating that Israel's settlements have "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/politics/israel-official-rips-obama-un-settlements/index.html
When it comes to borders, the resolution does leave an opening for negotiations, saying there will be no changes to the June 4, 1967 "other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."

The resolution also calls on countries to recognize a difference between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories when dealing with Israel. That could lead to sanctions against products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't see what is so bad about the resolution. Netanyahu can't keep giving lip service to a 2-state solution while simultaneously escelating settlement activity.

What the UNSC resolution means for the US and Israel - CNNPolitics.com

1. What are the immediate effects of the UNSC resolution?
The resolution may have no immediate practical effects on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the peace process. That's because the resolution is non-binding, effectively creating guidelines and recommendations. The resolution would require follow-up action at the United Nations for it to have an immediate effect.

Israel is concerned about exactly that type of action. Specifically, Israel is worried about a resolution that would set conditions for negotiations. Such a resolution would issue parameters for some of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including borders, the status of Jerusalem as a contested capital, Palestinian refugees, and a time-limit for negotiations.

An international peace conference in Paris scheduled for January 15 could be the forum for discussing such a resolution. That would give the international community time to introduce the resolution at the United Nations Security Council before the end of President Barack Obama's time in office. Israel has vowed not to attend the conference. The Palestinians say they will attend.

2. What are the long-term effects?
The biggest blow is to Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This resolution has left little room for negotiation about the legality of the settlements, stating that Israel's settlements have "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."
When it comes to borders, the resolution does leave an opening for negotiations, saying there will be no changes to the June 4, 1967 "other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."

The resolution also calls on countries to recognize a difference between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories when dealing with Israel. That could lead to sanctions against products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Who or Whom is Israel supposed to be negotiating with? There is no answer to that question. And therefore the entire resolution makes no sense.

CERTAINLY -- the UN doesn't REALLY want Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the West Bank right now --- Correct? Because a void like that could become dangerous to BOTH Israel and Jordan and the whole rest of the neighborhood.

It's brainless. And 50 years is too long to WAIT for someone responsible to negotiate with. Even the Apaches had a tribal council and a Chief...

 

[flacaltenn]

Why is the UN not pressuring Jordan to take an active role? Their "NEW" palestinians, the ones who arrived after 1970 or so, have been living in REFUGEE CAMPS for nearly 40 years. Because King Hussein cut the West Bank loose to Israel after the Black September revolt.. Rather than becoming part of a protectorate for the Palestinians. And NOW they refuse to be part of the solution.

Refugee camps in Jordan vs bustling city centers in Israel. Where MOST of the Palis live. If the standoff goes another 20 years, even the idea of FORCING a protectorate on the Palestinians will be too late. And perhaps all that is left is chain of loosely connected, semi-autonomous Pali City States.

I STILL want a solution. But maybe I want it MORE than the Palestinians seem to want it.

 

[Coyote]

I don't see what is so bad about the resolution. Netanyahu can't keep giving lip service to a 2-state solution while simultaneously escelating settlement activity.

What the UNSC resolution means for the US and Israel - CNNPolitics.com

1. What are the immediate effects of the UNSC resolution?
The resolution may have no immediate practical effects on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the peace process. That's because the resolution is non-binding, effectively creating guidelines and recommendations. The resolution would require follow-up action at the United Nations for it to have an immediate effect.

Israel is concerned about exactly that type of action. Specifically, Israel is worried about a resolution that would set conditions for negotiations. Such a resolution would issue parameters for some of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including borders, the status of Jerusalem as a contested capital, Palestinian refugees, and a time-limit for negotiations.

An international peace conference in Paris scheduled for January 15 could be the forum for discussing such a resolution. That would give the international community time to introduce the resolution at the United Nations Security Council before the end of President Barack Obama's time in office. Israel has vowed not to attend the conference. The Palestinians say they will attend.

2. What are the long-term effects?
The biggest blow is to Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This resolution has left little room for negotiation about the legality of the settlements, stating that Israel's settlements have "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."
When it comes to borders, the resolution does leave an opening for negotiations, saying there will be no changes to the June 4, 1967 "other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."

The resolution also calls on countries to recognize a difference between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories when dealing with Israel. That could lead to sanctions against products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Who or Whom is Israel supposed to be negotiating with? There is no answer to that question. And therefore the entire resolution makes no sense.

CERTAINLY -- the UN doesn't REALLY want Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the West Bank right now --- Correct? Because a void like that could become dangerous to BOTH Israel and Jordan and the whole rest of the neighborhood.

It's brainless. And 50 years is too long to WAIT for someone responsible to negotiate with. Even the Apaches had a tribal council and a Chief...

I agree, Israel does not yet have an identifiable negotiating partner - that's one problem. But I'm not seeing this resolution as telling Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the WB, and yes if that were the case i'd agree with you.

Israel might have to negotiate with what ever they can get - for just the WB, and leave Gaza as a seperate issue.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't see what is so bad about the resolution. Netanyahu can't keep giving lip service to a 2-state solution while simultaneously escelating settlement activity.

What the UNSC resolution means for the US and Israel - CNNPolitics.com

1. What are the immediate effects of the UNSC resolution?
The resolution may have no immediate practical effects on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the peace process. That's because the resolution is non-binding, effectively creating guidelines and recommendations. The resolution would require follow-up action at the United Nations for it to have an immediate effect.

Israel is concerned about exactly that type of action. Specifically, Israel is worried about a resolution that would set conditions for negotiations. Such a resolution would issue parameters for some of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including borders, the status of Jerusalem as a contested capital, Palestinian refugees, and a time-limit for negotiations.

An international peace conference in Paris scheduled for January 15 could be the forum for discussing such a resolution. That would give the international community time to introduce the resolution at the United Nations Security Council before the end of President Barack Obama's time in office. Israel has vowed not to attend the conference. The Palestinians say they will attend.

2. What are the long-term effects?
The biggest blow is to Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This resolution has left little room for negotiation about the legality of the settlements, stating that Israel's settlements have "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."
When it comes to borders, the resolution does leave an opening for negotiations, saying there will be no changes to the June 4, 1967 "other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."

The resolution also calls on countries to recognize a difference between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories when dealing with Israel. That could lead to sanctions against products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Who or Whom is Israel supposed to be negotiating with? There is no answer to that question. And therefore the entire resolution makes no sense.

CERTAINLY -- the UN doesn't REALLY want Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the West Bank right now --- Correct? Because a void like that could become dangerous to BOTH Israel and Jordan and the whole rest of the neighborhood.

It's brainless. And 50 years is too long to WAIT for someone responsible to negotiate with. Even the Apaches had a tribal council and a Chief...

I agree, Israel does not yet have an identifiable negotiating partner - that's one problem. But I'm not seeing this resolution as telling Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the WB, and yes if that were the case i'd agree with you.

Israel might have to negotiate with what ever they can get - for just the WB, and leave Gaza as a seperate issue.

My hope is that people start to realize that the Palis need to be SHOWN the possibilities of peace and statehood. And that could be done by placing them in the smack dab center of the most important NEW trade route in the Middle East.

Can you imagine a superhiway from Gaza thru the Sinai and up to the Jordan river Valley with connections to Jordan and Lebanon? Puts every major Pali city on the route. Could be done with land swaps. Some land donated by Egypt and Jordan and Israel. Connects Egypt, Jordan and beyond with rich farmland, access to the Mediterranean and CONNECTS the Gaza Settlement with the rest of "Palestine"...


It's that kind of REGIONAL solution with a strengthened sense of neighborhood security, that breaks thru the old, "Israel only" solution. And creates a VERY DESIRABLE place for the Palis to eventually own and operate.

 

[Coyote]

Why is the UN not pressuring Jordan to take an active role? Their "NEW" palestinians, the ones who arrived after 1970 or so, have been living in REFUGEE CAMPS for nearly 40 years. Because King Hussein cut the West Bank loose to Israel after the Black September revolt.. Rather than becoming part of a protectorate for the Palestinians. And NOW they refuse to be part of the solution.

Refugee camps in Jordan vs bustling city centers in Israel. Where MOST of the Palis live. If the standoff goes another 20 years, even the idea of FORCING a protectorate on the Palestinians will be too late. And perhaps all that is left is chain of loosely connected, semi-autonomous Pali City States.

I STILL want a solution. But maybe I want it MORE than the Palestinians seem to want it.

I agree - I think the UN needs to also apply more pressure on some of these Arab states. For one, there isn't going to be a massive right of return. There needs to be a broad scale assimilation of refugees into new countries or, whomever negotiates for the WB needs to agree to take them into a new Palestinian state (which they've steadfastly refused to).

 

[Coyote]

I don't see what is so bad about the resolution. Netanyahu can't keep giving lip service to a 2-state solution while simultaneously escelating settlement activity.

What the UNSC resolution means for the US and Israel - CNNPolitics.com

1. What are the immediate effects of the UNSC resolution?
The resolution may have no immediate practical effects on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the peace process. That's because the resolution is non-binding, effectively creating guidelines and recommendations. The resolution would require follow-up action at the United Nations for it to have an immediate effect.

Israel is concerned about exactly that type of action. Specifically, Israel is worried about a resolution that would set conditions for negotiations. Such a resolution would issue parameters for some of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including borders, the status of Jerusalem as a contested capital, Palestinian refugees, and a time-limit for negotiations.

An international peace conference in Paris scheduled for January 15 could be the forum for discussing such a resolution. That would give the international community time to introduce the resolution at the United Nations Security Council before the end of President Barack Obama's time in office. Israel has vowed not to attend the conference. The Palestinians say they will attend.

2. What are the long-term effects?
The biggest blow is to Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This resolution has left little room for negotiation about the legality of the settlements, stating that Israel's settlements have "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."
When it comes to borders, the resolution does leave an opening for negotiations, saying there will be no changes to the June 4, 1967 "other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."

The resolution also calls on countries to recognize a difference between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories when dealing with Israel. That could lead to sanctions against products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Who or Whom is Israel supposed to be negotiating with? There is no answer to that question. And therefore the entire resolution makes no sense.

CERTAINLY -- the UN doesn't REALLY want Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the West Bank right now --- Correct? Because a void like that could become dangerous to BOTH Israel and Jordan and the whole rest of the neighborhood.

It's brainless. And 50 years is too long to WAIT for someone responsible to negotiate with. Even the Apaches had a tribal council and a Chief...

I agree, Israel does not yet have an identifiable negotiating partner - that's one problem. But I'm not seeing this resolution as telling Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the WB, and yes if that were the case i'd agree with you.

Israel might have to negotiate with what ever they can get - for just the WB, and leave Gaza as a seperate issue.

My hope is that people start to realize that the Palis need to be SHOWN the possibilities of peace and statehood. And that could be done by placing them in the smack dab center of the most important NEW trade route in the Middle East.

Can you imagine a superhiway from Gaza thru the Sinai and up to the Jordan river Valley with connections to Jordan and Lebanon? Puts every major Pali city on the route. Could be done with land swaps. Some land donated by Egypt and Jordan and Israel. Connects Egypt, Jordan and beyond with rich farmland, access to the Mediterranean and CONNECTS the Gaza Settlement with the rest of "Palestine"...


It's that kind of REGIONAL solution with a strengthened sense of neighborhood security, that breaks thru the old, "Israel only" solution. And creates a VERY DESIRABLE place for the Palis to eventually own and operate.

You know...that's really a creative out-of-the-box way of thinking. That could make an interesting topic in and of itself. Of course, assuming the Palestinians can get it together.

 

[MikeK]

Why would we help to HINDER that process by forcing Israel to divest of lands, create yet ANOTHER void of power in the MidEast, and make it into perfect breeding grounds for ISIS, Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and 20 other radicalized factions??? Just like we've recently done in Libya and Syria

I'm not suggesting we force Israel to do anything other than wave goodbye to its U.S. big brother.

As far as the emergence of a more prolific breeding ground in that region is concerned, I believe there is only one way to deal with the emergence of these Muslim terrorist organizations and that is with a massive alliance consisting of the U.S., Russia, European and Scandinavian nations to sweep into the Middle East, hunt them down and squash them. If we're not willing to do that then we might as well get used to living with the occasional bombings and other terrorist attacks. Continuing to be Israel's big brother while Israel continues to peck away at Arab territories will do nothing but ensure a future of increasing paranoia from a regular progression of attacks.

 

[Coyote]

Why would we help to HINDER that process by forcing Israel to divest of lands, create yet ANOTHER void of power in the MidEast, and make it into perfect breeding grounds for ISIS, Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and 20 other radicalized factions??? Just like we've recently done in Libya and Syria

I'm not suggesting we force Israel to do anything other than wave goodbye to its U.S. big brother.

As far as the emergence of a more prolific breeding ground in that region is concerned, I believe there is only one way to deal with the emergence of these Muslim terrorist organizations and that is with a massive alliance consisting of the U.S., Russia, European and Scandinavian nations to sweep into the Middle East, hunt them down and squash them. If we're not willing to do that then we might as well get used to living with the occasional bombings and other terrorist attacks. Continuing to be Israel's big brother while Israel continues to peck away at Arab territories will do nothing but ensure a future of increasing paranoia from a regular progression of attacks.

And we'll create even more terrorism as a result.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't see what is so bad about the resolution. Netanyahu can't keep giving lip service to a 2-state solution while simultaneously escelating settlement activity.

What the UNSC resolution means for the US and Israel - CNNPolitics.com

1. What are the immediate effects of the UNSC resolution?
The resolution may have no immediate practical effects on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the peace process. That's because the resolution is non-binding, effectively creating guidelines and recommendations. The resolution would require follow-up action at the United Nations for it to have an immediate effect.

Israel is concerned about exactly that type of action. Specifically, Israel is worried about a resolution that would set conditions for negotiations. Such a resolution would issue parameters for some of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including borders, the status of Jerusalem as a contested capital, Palestinian refugees, and a time-limit for negotiations.

An international peace conference in Paris scheduled for January 15 could be the forum for discussing such a resolution. That would give the international community time to introduce the resolution at the United Nations Security Council before the end of President Barack Obama's time in office. Israel has vowed not to attend the conference. The Palestinians say they will attend.

2. What are the long-term effects?
The biggest blow is to Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This resolution has left little room for negotiation about the legality of the settlements, stating that Israel's settlements have "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."
When it comes to borders, the resolution does leave an opening for negotiations, saying there will be no changes to the June 4, 1967 "other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."

The resolution also calls on countries to recognize a difference between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories when dealing with Israel. That could lead to sanctions against products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Who or Whom is Israel supposed to be negotiating with? There is no answer to that question. And therefore the entire resolution makes no sense.

CERTAINLY -- the UN doesn't REALLY want Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the West Bank right now --- Correct? Because a void like that could become dangerous to BOTH Israel and Jordan and the whole rest of the neighborhood.

It's brainless. And 50 years is too long to WAIT for someone responsible to negotiate with. Even the Apaches had a tribal council and a Chief...

I agree, Israel does not yet have an identifiable negotiating partner - that's one problem. But I'm not seeing this resolution as telling Israel to withdraw policing and military presence from the WB, and yes if that were the case i'd agree with you.

Israel might have to negotiate with what ever they can get - for just the WB, and leave Gaza as a seperate issue.

My hope is that people start to realize that the Palis need to be SHOWN the possibilities of peace and statehood. And that could be done by placing them in the smack dab center of the most important NEW trade route in the Middle East.

Can you imagine a superhiway from Gaza thru the Sinai and up to the Jordan river Valley with connections to Jordan and Lebanon? Puts every major Pali city on the route. Could be done with land swaps. Some land donated by Egypt and Jordan and Israel. Connects Egypt, Jordan and beyond with rich farmland, access to the Mediterranean and CONNECTS the Gaza Settlement with the rest of "Palestine"...


It's that kind of REGIONAL solution with a strengthened sense of neighborhood security, that breaks thru the old, "Israel only" solution. And creates a VERY DESIRABLE place for the Palis to eventually own and operate.

You know...that's really a creative out-of-the-box way of thinking. That could make an interesting topic in and of itself. Of course, assuming the Palestinians can get it together.

Sounds corny. But how about "If you build it -- they will come" ???

40 years of arguing about 100 year old land rights hasn't produced a thing. Something of VALUE needs to be created to get peace and settle the Palestinians into something worth organizing for.

From everything I know about negotiating, Jordan would LOVE to get rid of their Refugee camp issues, Egypt would love having a trade route to Jordan and beyond. This is WAY out of the box. BUT -- it's puts everyone that NEEDS to be interested in a solution into the game.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why would we help to HINDER that process by forcing Israel to divest of lands, create yet ANOTHER void of power in the MidEast, and make it into perfect breeding grounds for ISIS, Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and 20 other radicalized factions??? Just like we've recently done in Libya and Syria

I'm not suggesting we force Israel to do anything other than wave goodbye to its U.S. big brother.

As far as the emergence of a more prolific breeding ground in that region is concerned, I believe there is only one way to deal with the emergence of these Muslim terrorist organizations and that is with a massive alliance consisting of the U.S., Russia, European and Scandinavian nations to sweep into the Middle East, hunt them down and squash them. If we're not willing to do that then we might as well get used to living with the occasional bombings and other terrorist attacks. Continuing to be Israel's big brother while Israel continues to peck away at Arab territories will do nothing but ensure a future of increasing paranoia from a regular progression of attacks.

There is no "pecking away". Israel worked with Egypt and gave back 1/2 the Sinai that it captured in that same war. Offered to work with Jordan on the West Bank early on. Jordan DID NOT WANT IT BACK !!! What does that tell you?

 

[flacaltenn]

Why would we help to HINDER that process by forcing Israel to divest of lands, create yet ANOTHER void of power in the MidEast, and make it into perfect breeding grounds for ISIS, Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and 20 other radicalized factions??? Just like we've recently done in Libya and Syria

I'm not suggesting we force Israel to do anything other than wave goodbye to its U.S. big brother.

As far as the emergence of a more prolific breeding ground in that region is concerned, I believe there is only one way to deal with the emergence of these Muslim terrorist organizations and that is with a massive alliance consisting of the U.S., Russia, European and Scandinavian nations to sweep into the Middle East, hunt them down and squash them. If we're not willing to do that then we might as well get used to living with the occasional bombings and other terrorist attacks. Continuing to be Israel's big brother while Israel continues to peck away at Arab territories will do nothing but ensure a future of increasing paranoia from a regular progression of attacks.

When did YOU become a carpet bombing crusader? We BROKE the stability in that region trying to make democracy bloom by taking down leadership that didn't meet our standards? When allies ASK for help and protection -- then get on the phone to your Scandanavian buds.

 

[Preacher]

I'm not sure I understand the point of lying to Israeli officials before the UN vote. That is a serious ***** move.

Remember that in the Koran, it's ok to lie to non Muslims to achieve your goals. Mohammed preaches this in no uncertainty.

I HIGHLY suggest you read the Talmud...hint hint it says THE EXACT SAME THING you just said plus MUCH worse...

 

[ColonelAngus]

I'm not sure I understand the point of lying to Israeli officials before the UN vote. That is a serious ***** move.

Remember that in the Koran, it's ok to lie to non Muslims to achieve your goals. Mohammed preaches this in no uncertainty.

I HIGHLY suggest you read the Talmud...hint hint it says THE EXACT SAME THING you just said plus MUCH worse...

The USA is not a theocracy.

 

[Preacher]

I'm not sure I understand the point of lying to Israeli officials before the UN vote. That is a serious ***** move.

Remember that in the Koran, it's ok to lie to non Muslims to achieve your goals. Mohammed preaches this in no uncertainty.

I HIGHLY suggest you read the Talmud...hint hint it says THE EXACT SAME THING you just said plus MUCH worse...

The USA is not a theocracy.

Never said it was. Neither is Jordan nor Syria nor Lebanon nor Iraq,etc etc...I can go on. My point is that the Talmud of your beloved JEWS says the exact same thing you claim the Koran says. It says MUCH worse actually.