What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Israel has committed too many crimes. It’s time to stop supporting them. (1 Viewer)

By not vetoing the US tells Israel that carte blanche is off the table 
But that's not the message that was sent. Trump openly supported veto of the resolution and Obama did not.  Israel is surely emboldened by Trump's position on this issue and so will likely not curtail its settlement efforts. What a mess. 

 
So does every other country in the world who has taken land in a war have to now give it back as well?  Israel was attacked and won, taking spoils for their own protection in the process.   Or do these resolutions and rules only apply to Israel?

 
So does every other country in the world who has taken land in a war have to now give it back as well?  Israel was attacked and won, taking spoils for their own protection in the process.   Or do these resolutions and rules only apply to Israel?
The world has changed a lot in the past few centuries.  

 
I'm not intimately familiar with all of these situations but my impression is that most have also been condemned by the U.N. 
With zero expectations they'll be giving that land back ever.

Fwiw Israel ordered a 9 month (IIRC) cessation to building new settlements in 2010 and Abbas refused to negotiate. So settlement building began anew.

 
With zero expectations they'll be giving that land back ever.

Fwiw Israel ordered a 9 month (IIRC) cessation to building new settlements in 2010 and Abbas refused to negotiate. So settlement building began anew.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.  I thought your point was that Israel's actions have been singled out unfairly by the U.N.

 
So does every other country in the world who has taken land in a war have to now give it back as well?  Israel was attacked and won, taking spoils for their own protection in the process.   Or do these resolutions and rules only apply to Israel?
Wow.  I thought I didn't know much about this relationship.  Now I feel like I know quite a bit.

 
I'm not intimately familiar with all of these situations but my impression is that most have also been condemned by the U.N. 
Pretty infamously the US has never even so much as acknowledged the existence of the Armenian genocide out of our allegiance to Turkey, much less criticized their seizure of Armenian territory after WW1. 

I seriously doubt condemnation of China/Tibet has made it past China's veto.

Im almost certain the same would apply to anything involving Russia for the same reason but if be happy to learn otherwise if you have other facts.

 
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.  I thought your point was that Israel's actions have been singled out unfairly by the U.N.
I followed up with a separate point, technically what Israel has done with settlements is distinct.

I threw out some historical comps originally. I wasn't explicitly trying to support what Big Guy said because I don't agree with the principle he stated there however Yeah as a matter of fact this seems to be the only occupation that the UN appears interested in right now.

 
Pretty infamously the US has never even so much as acknowledged the existence of the Armenian genocide out of our allegiance to Turkey, much less criticized their seizure of Armenian territory after WW1. 

I seriously doubt condemnation of China/Tibet has made it past China's veto.

Im almost certain the same would apply to anything involving Russia for the same reason but if be happy to learn otherwise if you have other facts.
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how U.N. stuff works but there was s big vote condemning Russia over Crimea just last month.

 
Apparently yesterday's Israel vote was of the 15-member U.N. Security Council and last month's Crimea vote was the 170+ member Human Rights Committee.  No idea what the importance of each is.

 
Obama giving Bibi the middle finger after not being able to influence their election the way he wanted...

 
Apparently yesterday's Israel vote was of the 15-member U.N. Security Council and last month's Crimea vote was the 170+ member Human Rights Committee.  No idea what the importance of each is.
This must be the vote on Crime by the UN HR Committee.

I hadn't seen that.

Prior attempts to condemn Russian on Crimea - the invasion, the fixed referendum, etc. - on the UN SC had failed. The General Assembly did pass a resolution recognizing Crimea as part of Ukraine.

The main distinction is that Security Council is smaller and the decisions are subject to vetoes by the 5 permanent members. For whatever reasons the resolutions by the Assembly and committees also carry less weight.

 
Obama giving Bibi the middle finger after not being able to influence their election the way he wanted...


The White House’s decision to break with decades of U.S. policy and allow the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israeli settlements is the culmination of years of bad blood between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


...Obama only informed his national security team Friday morning of his decision to abstain from the vote.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/311736-why-obama-broke-with-israel-at-un

- It is interesting how breaking 36 years of foreign policy out of petulance and as part of a purposeful strategy of disengagement from the mideast is 'ok' here. It's really a big deal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your plan doesn't take into account the fact that the leadership of the Palestinian areas, along with a number of other Arab countries (Iran et. al.), have no wish to "solve" the problem or create peace, even if they got everything they claim to want. The leaders of those countries need Israel as a focus for the anger of their people, so they don't rise up against the leadership itself.
My opinion too.    The Palestine faction does not want peace & never has.

 
If you believe that this risks starting WWIII (similar to e.g One China) then you should probably elaborate how or stop equating the decisions/situations
I didn't equate it to Trump's Taiwan blunder.

The 36 years of policy being broken is from The Hill. The US has opposed this resolution as a matter of policy since 1980.

 
First off I can't find anywhere Grove's assertion about this including Jerusalem, so I hope he can offer us a link. 

Second, back in the late 1960s following the Six Day War (in which Israel seized the Occupied Territories) the United Nations passed Resolution 242, which condemned any Israeli settlements and called on Israel to return these territories (though not to the Palestinians who had never owned them, but to Egypt and Jordan). The US did not veto that resolution either. So I'm having trouble seeing that this is anything new. 

 
First off I can't find anywhere Grove's assertion about this including Jerusalem, so I hope he can offer us a link. 

Second, back in the late 1960s following the Six Day War (in which Israel seized the Occupied Territories) the United Nations passed Resolution 242, which condemned any Israeli settlements and called on Israel to return these territories (though not to the Palestinians who had never owned them, but to Egypt and Jordan). The US did not veto that resolution either. So I'm having trouble seeing that this is anything new. 
Except it is, the US has been vetoing this since 1980 per The Hill.

 
First off I can't find anywhere Grove's assertion about this including Jerusalem, so I hope he can offer us a link. 

Second, back in the late 1960s following the Six Day War (in which Israel seized the Occupied Territories) the United Nations passed Resolution 242, which condemned any Israeli settlements and called on Israel to return these territories (though not to the Palestinians who had never owned them, but to Egypt and Jordan). The US did not veto that resolution either. So I'm having trouble seeing that this is anything new. 
Resolution 242 just says Israel will not permanently acquire the territory.

 
In any case if we're going to move forward on this issue we need new players. Obama was too idealistic in his goals, and perhaps naive about the Palestinians. Netanyahu is far too narrow minded and rigid- his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, just as conservative as Bibi, had much greater vision and had he lived we might be in a much more positive situation now. The Palestinians themselves have chosen extremist leadership that wants the destruction of Israel. 

So all of this has to change at some point. Will Trump be better than Obama on this issue? His early rhetoric suggests he will revert to George W Bush's policy of support Israel whenever and however, which doesn't really serve us well either. But we'll see. Although I have a thousand negative things to say about Donald Trump, one positive about him is that he's not beholden to any previous thinking. This means that there is st least the possibility he'll approach this situation in a fresh way. Who knows how much that would help but it would at least be a start. 

 
Overall I think Obama has been a good President in terms of domestic issues but he has been horrible relative to the Middle East.
Only the Middle East?  I think he took a step backward in more than that region.

He may be only slightly better than Gary Johnson when it comes to foreign policy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's start with this proposal:

 3.  Israel will grant the Right of Return to any Palestinians who fled or was forced out in 1948 and is still alive. No descendants. The descendants will receive a monetary compensation IF they can show evidence of forced removal. The compensation will be paid for by the State of Israel with help from the United States. 
Many of the original 700-800K refugees are probably not around anymore after 70 years.  There are about 5 million descendants and I assume not 100% actually want to move back.  It seems to me they may accept an equivalent parcel of land (i.e. somewhere with water and not in the desert) or monetary compensation.  It would not be easy to prove forced removal even if it happened, but maybe prior land ownership is different.  The problem I think is they owned a lot of land before.  Does Israel have the money to pay them off with any kind of payment plans?  Exactly why do you think the U.S. and no one else should help?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In any case if we're going to move forward on this issue we need new players. Obama was too idealistic in his goals, and perhaps naive about the Palestinians. Netanyahu is far too narrow minded and rigid- his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, just as conservative as Bibi, had much greater vision and had he lived we might be in a much more positive situation now. The Palestinians themselves have chosen extremist leadership that wants the destruction of Israel. 

So all of this has to change at some point. Will Trump be better than Obama on this issue? His early rhetoric suggests he will revert to George W Bush's policy of support Israel whenever and however, which doesn't really serve us well either. But we'll see. Although I have a thousand negative things to say about Donald Trump, one positive about him is that he's not beholden to any previous thinking. This means that there is st least the possibility he'll approach this situation in a fresh way. Who knows how much that would help but it would at least be a start. 
The deal must be fair if there is any chance for agreement.

 
Let's start with this proposal:

Many of the original 700-800K refugees are probably not around anymore after 70 years.  There are about 5 million descendants and I assume not 100% actually want to move back.  It seems to me they may accept an equivalent parcel of land (i.e. somewhere with water and not in the desert) or monetary compensation.  It would not be easy to prove forced removal even if it happened, but maybe prior land ownership is different.  The problem I think is they owned a lot of land before.  Does Israel have the money to pay them off with any kind of payment plans?  Exactly why do you think the U.S. and no one else should help?
It's a great idea but whenever it's been proposed thus far the Palestinians have rejected it- they want the right of return for all Palestinians, which would effectively destroy the state of Israel. 

As to your last question, it's not an issue of do we have the responsibility to pay (we don't) but whether it's in our best interest to do so. If the Palestinians were ever willing to accept this deal it would be pennies on the dollar for us to pay for it, and a great investment for our national security, probably better than a hundred new submarines. But first, the Palestinians would have to agree and mean it. 

 
Let's start with this proposal:

Many of the original 700-800K refugees are probably not around anymore after 70 years.  There are about 5 million descendants and I assume not 100% actually want to move back.  It seems to me they may accept an equivalent parcel of land (i.e. somewhere with water and not in the desert) or monetary compensation.  It would not be easy to prove forced removal even if it happened, but maybe prior land ownership is different.  The problem I think is they owned a lot of land before.  Does Israel have the money to pay them off with any kind of payment plans?  Exactly why do you think the U.S. and no one else should help?
At least as many jews were kicked out or displaced by jordan and egypt and syria.  Israel took the jews.   Nobody wanted the palestinians. Lets call that point even.

 
It's a great idea but whenever it's been proposed thus far the Palestinians have rejected it- they want the right of return for all Palestinians, which would effectively destroy the state of Israel. 

As to your last question, it's not an issue of do we have the responsibility to pay (we don't) but whether it's in our best interest to do so. If the Palestinians were ever willing to accept this deal it would be pennies on the dollar for us to pay for it, and a great investment for our national security, probably better than a hundred new submarines. But first, the Palestinians would have to agree and mean it. 
Why don't they just implement the original UN proposal from 1947 because it was close to a even split? The Jews have to give up the extra land they occupied since then but Syria may give them Golan Heights if they are lucky.  It will look like everyone fought 70 years for nothing, but the Arabs should accept as it is way better than the situation they are in now.

The old map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My belief is that the situation is simply in a holding pattern until we get a reasonable leader on both sides willing to work something out.  Until then it will just be more bombings and missiles.  

 
Absolute worst decision of Obama's tenure.  Unbelievable.  I knew he would burn as much as possible,  but this is above what I expected.  I'd call it a mistake,  but he did this deliberately.  He knows the deal. 

 
Absolute worst decision of Obama's tenure.  Unbelievable.  I knew he would burn as much as possible,  but this is above what I expected.  I'd call it a mistake,  but he did this deliberately.  He knows the deal. 
I disagree with the decision to not vote against, but what difference does it really make? What is going to change as a result of this resolution? 

 
I disagree with the decision to not vote against, but what difference does it really make? What is going to change as a result of this resolution? 
Couple ways it damages Israel:

- It opens the door to a wide array international punitive measures by other countries.

- It is damaging to the peace process and an orderly progress towards a two state solution.

The Obama administration has had the worst record on the peace process perhaps in history. It's been an unmitigated disaster really. This is just the cherry on top.

 
Absolute worst decision of Obama's tenure.  Unbelievable.  I knew he would burn as much as possible,  but this is above what I expected.  I'd call it a mistake,  but he did this deliberately.  He knows the deal. 
of course he knows the deal.

 
I don't see the point of drawing lines in the sand now that will only complicate any future peace process.  Did Obama really need to throw a last minute stick in Netanyahu's eye?  Seems childish.

 
In any case if we're going to move forward on this issue we need new players. Obama was too idealistic in his goals, and perhaps naive about the Palestinians. Netanyahu is far too narrow minded and rigid- his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, just as conservative as Bibi, had much greater vision and had he lived we might be in a much more positive situation now. The Palestinians themselves have chosen extremist leadership that wants the destruction of Israel. 

So all of this has to change at some point. Will Trump be better than Obama on this issue? His early rhetoric suggests he will revert to George W Bush's policy of support Israel whenever and however, which doesn't really serve us well either. But we'll see. Although I have a thousand negative things to say about Donald Trump, one positive about him is that he's not beholden to any previous thinking. This means that there is st least the possibility he'll approach this situation in a fresh way. Who knows how much that would help but it would at least be a start. 
Problem with Trump is he'll be easily influenced by the Christian Wackadoos that need a united Israel in order to bring on Armageddon and the Second coming.

Honestly the only way for this to get fixed is a Martin Luther King/Gandhi type person to emerge in the Palestinians. They just need to go into the occupied settlements arm in arm in a peaceful non-violent protest and get beat down by the Bull Conner's of the Orthodox/Militant Jews there and turn the world on to the true nature of the crazies that keep Bibi in power. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top