|
Post by Amadan on Dec 28, 2016 10:36:26 GMT -5
Re: Cassandra's question -- I'm not sure exactly what I think about the settlements at this point. The history of the land there is so complicated. And the Jewish people have a longer history there. But I honestly do not believe the settlements are the main issue preventing peace, as Dershowitz explained in the link I provided. Also, why the heavy international hand towards Israel, when they are settling on a tiny portion of the land, where their citizens are living peacefully? And why does the U.N. have to stick its hypocritical hand into this business? As the U.S. and even Obama believed until this surprise spiteful move, Israel and the Palestinians should be able to negotiate their own peace without the U.N. forcing a hand one way or the other, especially a hand as biased as the U.N. has been towards Israel. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the main issue is "Are the settlements wrong?" The main issue is "Was this the correct move for the U.S.?" And I strongly believe it was an incorrect move for a host of reasons. International diplomacy is not black and white - there are things such as loyalty, possible repercussions, long-standing friendship, values, morality, fairness, strategy, that we should take into account when issuing a decree such as this. The ownership of the land should not be determined by the UN, but by agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And if one looks at the record of the UN towards Israel, one can easily see a toxic bias and a favoritism to Arab nations which is indefensible and flabbergasting to me, considering the human rights record of these other countries. At a time when the war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of, to take the time and the international stage to punish the country with the best human rights record in the ME is absurd and the U.S. SHOULD NOT STAND FOR IT. Obama has a terrible foreign policy record, and this has added exponentially to the wrongness of it. To me, it demonstrates a spitefulness of Obama towards Netanyahu, towards Israel, and even Trump. And that's shameful. First, we should all stop pretending that UN resolutions actually mean anything. Unless some country is actually willing to put troops behind it, they are posturing and virtue-signaling and nothing more. It is a complicated issue, but your position is little more than neocon talking points. Yes, Israel has the best human rights record in the ME. That is not exactly a high bar. If you're going to hold a country up as our bestest friend and a shining example of pro-Western values and democracy, I expect a little better than "Not as bad as Syria or Saudi Arabia." That said, yes, Israel plays dirty against enemies who play much, much dirtier. I don't fault them for that. And I'm very unimpressed with ohio's numbers, often trotted out as evidence of how brutal and "disproportionate" Israel is, comparing Israeli casualties with Palestinian casualties. Yes, if you send children to throw rocks and molotov cocktails at soldiers, and lob mortar rounds into Israeli neighborhoods and then use human shields when they retaliate, your casualties are going to be a lot higher than theirs. The Palestinians deliberately poke the bear so they can cry to the media when they get mauled. Obama's "spiteful" and "shameful" treatment of Netanyahu was quid pro quo for how Netanyahu treated him. And you can't be serious about Obama being spiteful towards Trump, when the President-elect has been constantly tweeting and deliberately undermining the still-sitting President since even before he got elected. International diplomacy is indeed not black and white, but your depiction of it is pretty black and white. "Israel good, Arabs bad" is no more accurate that "Palestinians victims, Israelis bullies."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2016 16:47:37 GMT -5
Re: Cassandra's question -- I'm not sure exactly what I think about the settlements at this point. The history of the land there is so complicated. And the Jewish people have a longer history there. But I honestly do not believe the settlements are the main issue preventing peace, as Dershowitz explained in the link I provided. Also, why the heavy international hand towards Israel, when they are settling on a tiny portion of the land, where their citizens are living peacefully? And why does the U.N. have to stick its hypocritical hand into this business? As the U.S. and even Obama believed until this surprise spiteful move, Israel and the Palestinians should be able to negotiate their own peace without the U.N. forcing a hand one way or the other, especially a hand as biased as the U.N. has been towards Israel. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the main issue is "Are the settlements wrong?" The main issue is "Was this the correct move for the U.S.?" And I strongly believe it was an incorrect move for a host of reasons. International diplomacy is not black and white - there are things such as loyalty, possible repercussions, long-standing friendship, values, morality, fairness, strategy, that we should take into account when issuing a decree such as this. The ownership of the land should not be determined by the UN, but by agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And if one looks at the record of the UN towards Israel, one can easily see a toxic bias and a favoritism to Arab nations which is indefensible and flabbergasting to me, considering the human rights record of these other countries. At a time when the war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of, to take the time and the international stage to punish the country with the best human rights record in the ME is absurd and the U.S. SHOULD NOT STAND FOR IT. Obama has a terrible foreign policy record, and this has added exponentially to the wrongness of it. To me, it demonstrates a spitefulness of Obama towards Netanyahu, towards Israel, and even Trump. And that's shameful. I'm afraid I disagree with pretty much every word of this. As Ohio and Amadan have pointed out, even if Obama gave Netanyahu the bird, he amply deserved it. And I reject that he owes it to Trump to kowtow to him, especially given the blatant disrespect Trump has shown him. "Spite"? This isn't any kind of new position on Obama's part. He's been opposed to the settlements since he took office. He didn't just suddenly decide to take this position to piss off Netanyahu and Trump. It so happened that this was the timing of the UN's vote. Also, I disagree that Obama has a terrible foreign policy record. Even if he did, though, I submit that's irrelevant to whether he did the right thing here. I gather from this that you are arguing that it doesn't matter whether Israel is right or wrong about the settlement issue -- even if Israel is wrong, we have a duty to support it. I.e., we must not only shut up if a close ally does something wrong, but to actively prevent them from being censured. (Note that what Obama did was abstain from vetoing, as opposed to actively supporting the measure. ) I cannot even tell you how much I disagree with that. As to whether they are wrong, the overwhelming majority of the international community agrees with Obama that the settlements are in violation of international law, and have been agreeing on that point for some decades now. You do not seem to be arguing that the settlements are right, but to the extent you are, your argument seems to be based on this: Based on...ancient history? Today's Israel is a modern creation. Prior to that, it had been 1500 years or so since the area that is now Israel had a majority Jewish population. That land had been occupied by others for a good long time. Most of the modern Jewish population does not have a longer history in Israel than the Palestinians, unless you want to skip over a millennium and count distant ancestors. Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that the modern Israeli Jews are direct descendants of the ancient Israeli population of two thousand years ago. (I'm actually not so sure to what extent that's true, since there would have been some conversions, intermarrying, etc. during the intervening millennia. But never mind -- I'm happy to assume it.) There have been a lot of conquests and border changes over the last 2000 years or so. Should we go about determining whose land was whose a couple of millennia ago and go about restoring it to the rightful descendants of those owners? We could start, I submit, by giving the United States back to the various Native American tribes we wrested it from a mere couple of hundred years ago. Indeed, if we're going on ancient claims and original human settlers of land, people were living on what is now Israel before the Jews got there. Anyway, whatever. Israel is there now. I don't contest it has a right to exist and defend itself, and I've got no problem with the United States supporting that right. To be clear, I am not, at all, arguing that Israel should be abolished, has no right to exist, that we shouldn't support it, etc. But a right to take more Palestinian land via the settlements, in violation of international law, because the Jewish people "have a longer history there"? Based on what? The Bible? Archaeology? Yeah. I don't support that. The Israel of today is a modern creation. Its borders should be based on modern law and agreements, not on two-thousand-year-old claims. ETA: I tend to agree with Rob and Amadan that the UN has its issues. However, that does not change the fact that Israel is wrong about the settlements. While removing the settlements would not bring instant peace, their continued existence guarantees that it will never be achieved. ETA: I also agree with Amadan that this resolution will likely have no teeth, and is probably more signalling than anything else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 16:12:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 29, 2016 19:07:35 GMT -5
I'm sorry but that npr article, which starts with a picture of those awful Israelis firing tear gas at those poor oppressed demonstrating Palestinians, is quite biased. As is most of the mainstream news media coverage of Israel. (Did anyone read the Atlantic article I linked to the other day?) Heck, Arab countries practically run the UN - how many are members? 23? www.humanrightsvoices.org/EYEontheUN/un_101/facts/?p=16 Which explains why Israel continues to get pummeled by the U.N. more than any other country. Again, this is flabbergasting when one sees the atrocities other countries are committing. I also read that Palestine drafted this latest U.N. resolution. I can't find the initial article I read, but this one refers to the same issue: www.timesofisrael.com/transcript-claims-to-show-us-worked-with-palestinians-on-un-resolution/ Palestine drafted this resolution? Wonderful. Does anyone here think there is something wrong with a resolution that calls ALL the Jewish settlements illegal? That's much worse (as far as politics on the world stage) than saying they are inappropriate or wrong or inciting tensions. And there was no distinguishing the different types or areas of settlements. Do you all realize what that means for future negotiations for peace? When land is one of the key negotiating factors? Does anyone here think that the settlements are the main barrier to peace? Or could it POSSIBLY be that Palestine (along with a host of other Muslim countries) wants Israel destroyed/eradicated/wiped off the face of the earth (thank you, Iran), not recognized as having a right to exist? If Israel is wrong but the U.N. is more wrong, as Rob above said and others agreed with, then the U.S. should have vetoed the resolution. (Just one other reason among many I've already listed)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 19:21:18 GMT -5
They ARE all illegal, by the overwhelming consensus of the international community.
And while they are not the only barrier to peace, they are an insuperable one. Peace will never happen while the settlements exist.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 29, 2016 19:42:00 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 19:53:38 GMT -5
I've actually read a great deal about this issue, over the course of many years. I didn't just skim an article in HuffPo and form a snap judgment.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 29, 2016 20:29:29 GMT -5
Not in any way saying you did. I'm sure you are better read than I am on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 20:43:49 GMT -5
Would the legality of the settlements make an important difference to your opinion that Obama behaved in a shameful manner in abstaining from his veto? I ask that in all sincerity, not as a rhetorical question. I'd put together an explanation of why I concur with Obama and the international community in condemning the settlements as illegal (though not tonight) if it is a crucial factor. But if it isn't an important factor...meh, it's just an academic debate.
I concluded from your previous posts that you didn't think it mattered much -- that regardless of the legality or lack thereof, Obama should have vetoed anyway because Israel is our ally, other nations have done worse, etc. If that is the case, I won't bother trying to convince you that the settlements are wrong just for funsies. But if it might convince you that Obama was right, or at least justified and acting in good faith, in declining to veto, I'll make some time to do it over the weekend.
I don't want to take the time to debate the legality of the settlements if it isn't essential to your opinion (or someone's opinion) on what you think Obama should have done, and is in your view just a sidebar question.
ETA:
I do think it's the vital question, obviously -- if I didn't feel Israel were wrong on this, I wouldn't be supporting Obama's action. But to be honest, you'd have an uphill battle convincing me the settlements are hunky-dory. I confess, it would probably take someone I'd acknowledge as an expert to do so, pointing me to information I didn't already know.
If the same is true for you, or if the issue isn't critical to your view on the issue, we probably should just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 30, 2016 1:48:09 GMT -5
I think even if some of the settlements can be fairly deemed illegal, but not all, then the resolution should have been vetoed because it made no distinction and even included East Jerusalem. Including East Jerusalem with its holy sites was a slap in the face to Judaism. And it removes the ability of Israel to negotiate land during peace talks because it is declaring Israel has no claim to the land. The resolution opens the world to punish Israel by boycotting, which has been a weapon against Israel for a while now, and the resolution doesn't say much about Palestine. It seems very biased. As long as there are sensible, coherent arguments that the settlements are not all illegal, and as long as Palestine continues to reject efforts for peace, then the U.S. did act shamefully by abstaining.
Here is another article explaining arguments that the settlements are not illegal:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 7:59:10 GMT -5
I have to ask, since you suggested I read something on the "other side," (which I have, many times) whether you did that yourself, or whether you just looked for the very few articles out there that would argue the legality. Since you acknowledged earlier in the thread you didn't know much about the issue, it rather smells like the latter.
To be honest, I'm not sure it's useful for me to spend hours going into the complicated history and explaining and debating the illegality of the settlements with you -- when, apparently, doing so would not convince you of anything anyway, and when no one else seems to need convincing.
When I have time later, I'll find a couple of good articles on "the other side" (the side the vast majority of the world has taken) and post them, just to counter yours, on the chance a lurker out there is wavering on the issue. (Assuming no one else beats me to it.).
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 30, 2016 11:47:27 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 11:56:08 GMT -5
I don't disagree with much of what Kerry said, but I likely would have restrained myself from making such a strongly-worded speech.
Note that the UK, despite May's position on Kerry's speech, supported the UN resolution. Indeed, they helped draft it.
I am not at my computer this afternoon and am posting on the fly. I'll be back with more later.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 30, 2016 12:09:57 GMT -5
Yes, I have read some on both sides. The article I just quoted above gives the arguments for illegality right after the ones I listed. And every mainstream media outlet is happy to outline the problems (legal and otherwise) with the settlements. Since I'm no law expert, it all sounds quite complicated to me. But both sides seem to have reasonable arguments, at least in terms of some of the settlements. And the U.N. is pretty much run by Arab nations and has been biased against Israel for years. And the resolution stated ALL of the settlements were illegal, which I think puts Israel in a dangerous and weak position. And it asks for nothing from Palestine. Heh. So once again, I'm back to my opinion that I don't mind if the U.S. admonishes Israel for the settlements - in particular the ones that are on land that seem clearly slated for being given to Palestine in a peace treaty. However, I remain strongly against a UN resolution which officially claims ALL the settlements are illegal and requires nothing of Palestine (which has walked away from numerous genuine attempts at peace by Israel over the past decades, including even when Israel has pulled their people out of settlements in efforts for peace). Yes, my mind is very set on this issue. I remain strongly critical of Obama to do this to Israel on his way out of the office of POTUS. And I would like Obama to try not to have the door hit him on the way out, because to me, after these last couple of weeks, Jan 20 cannot come fast enough. And yes, I strongly believe there are good guys and bad guys, even though good guys can do some bad things. Israel is one of the good guys. Ask the Arabs who continue to live in Israel (no one is forcing them to). Ask the Arabs who are members of Israel's parliament. Ask the Arabs who vote in Israel's democratic elections. Ask the Palestinians who come to Israel for medical care. www.standwithus.com/news/article.asp?id=1671 Ask the Palestinians who are treated better by their Israeli employers than Palestinian ones and make up to three times the money www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-workers-idUSKCN0VV1J6 www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/.premium-1.645266 The UN should get its biased hands out of this issue and make resolutions about other more pressing human rights issues including massive atrocities occurring while we type on this board. And the US should have never allowed itself to be drawn into a wrongheaded, petty, spiteful abstention which unfairly kicks its longtime friend and ally in the teeth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 12:39:02 GMT -5
I do have some legal expertise, and agree it's complicated.
But I must say, based on your words in this thread, you came in with (by your own statements) very little knowledge about the settlements, and yet from the get-go threw around your already settled opinion that not only was Obama wrong in not vetoing, but was acting "shamefully" and "spitefully."
You then spent 24 hours reading things to back your firm opinion, dismissing all but a couple of right-wing sites as "biased."
It is your repeated use of words like "shamefully," "spitefully" and the general accusation of Obama's bad faith that bothers me. Thinking we should support Israel is one thing. But you should not throw words like "shameful" and "spiteful" around without some solid knowledge to back it up.
|
|