Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5287|132 and Bush

Xbone Stormsurgezz
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|4839|what

Palestinians are refusing to negotiate in peace talks until settlement building ceases.

UN votes in favour of halting settlement but is veto'd by the US because they say halting settlements will complicate efforts for peace.

How exactly? Is my question.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5287|132 and Bush

"U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice said that the U.S. veto should not be seen as an endorsement of Israel's settlement policies, which the Obama administration has repeatedly denounced. But she said adoption of the resolution "risks" undermining U.S.-led efforts to pursue a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

"We reject in the strongest term the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activities," Rice said after the vote. "For more than four decades Israel's settlement activities have undermined Israel's security and eroded hopes of peace and security in the region."

But she added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
By berating one side it may encourage the divide. That is their logic anyways.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|4839|what

"We reject in the strongest term the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activities," Rice said after the vote. "For more than four decades Israel's settlement activities have undermined Israel's security and eroded hopes of peace and security in the region."
Then maybe it's time for a binding resolution if four decades of talking does sfa.

But she added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
Palestinians have already stated they would not negotiate while Israel continues to building settlements. That's the reason they left the last round of talks.

Kmar, do you think the settlement building will halt without a UN sanctioned moratorium?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5287|132 and Bush

I don't think it will halt with one. The UN has no teeth. Don't think I am a fan of Israeli settlements or anything... but these resolutions only serve to make other countries feel better about themselves. Who cares if you condemn it? There are only two parties of that can make peace happen. You could argue that pulling US aid might help to sway Israel. But honestly, I doubt it.

The US has openly stated that they are against the settlements. But they are also against the UN becoming an instrument to coerce Israel. They have offered alternatives to show their discontent with Israel.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,609|5307|London, England
Like it would have made a difference even if they didn't veto. UN Security Council is a useless old institution anyway. With the five permanent members anything that has something which is in their vested interests gets vetoed by one of them, the only thing they can do is collectively shit on the rest of the world with resolutions that don't concern them. It's all very pointless.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|4839|what

Israel doesn't take aid from the US - other than military aid. And even so, they don't really need it. The US is importing bullets from Israel to help fight Afghanistan for example. Hardly seems like Israel "needs" that aid...

So does the US tax payer see any benefit from the aid given to Israel? The US is already in massive debt, but still gives huge amounts to Israel with what I would consider hardly any return. In fact no return. The aid to Israel and vetos such as this just cause the middle east to hate the US. Israel is just a destabiliser.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5287|132 and Bush

Relatively speaking no, it's not a huge amount given to Israel. Even if we were to cut out aid to the entire region, Arab countries included, it would do almost nothing to cut our budget deficit. .. and yet it may jeopardize our alliances and influence in the ME. I don't think the average taxpayer is happy with any amount of aid given to any country to be frank. Especially not when the economies in those countries are doing better than ours (like Israel). Three billion dollars sound like a lot of money to people who don't understand the scale of things.  I'm sure you heard about republican tea party Sen. Rand Paul and his plan to cut aid to Israel. Well, like father like son... Rep. Ron Paul is seeking a House vote on an amendment that would cut aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan as well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,609|5307|London, England
I honestly don't see how the US's relationship with Israel is helping it out in the Middle East. Americans always say it's vital that the US has a foothold over there but I don't see how Israel is a benefit in any way. All it does is make 2/3 of the region hate the US and make life more difficult, having to do all these wars and bombs and spending so much on getting their soldiers killed.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4792|eXtreme to the maX
U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice said that the U.S. veto should not be seen as an endorsement of Israel's settlement policies
What else is it but an endorsement?

This is a very bad time to be reminding the Arab world that Israel is the sole priority in the ME as far as the US is concerned.
Its likely to tip any future Egyptian elections further towards the radicals, and destabilise any other pro-US govts which are already under pressure even further.

BBC wrote:

On paper this was a defeat for the Palestinians but they and representatives of other Arab nations seemed to be in a buoyant mood. They had held out some hope that America would abstain, but not much, so the veto was predictable.

The degree of support, on the other hand, was overwhelming: some 130 countries co-sponsored the resolution, and all the other members of the Security Council voted for it.

The result was strong endorsement of the Palestinian position on Israeli settlements - that they are illegal, and an obstacle to peace - which isolated Israel. It also isolated the United States.

No matter what reasons America gave for the veto (it insisted bringing the matter to the Security Council complicated chances for peace talks) or how fulsomely it criticised settlement building (as a folly and threat to peace) it appeared out of sync with the international consensus, and as Israel's only defender.

Given the ferment in the Arab world at the moment, that is not a good position for Washington to be in.
130 Countries, all other 14 members of the security council voted in favour and the US vetoes?
Wow.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5287|132 and Bush

Mekstizzle wrote:

I honestly don't see how the US's relationship with Israel is helping it out in the Middle East. Americans always say it's vital that the US has a foothold over there but I don't see how Israel is a benefit in any way. All it does is make 2/3 of the region hate the US and make life more difficult, having to do all these wars and bombs and spending so much on getting their soldiers killed.
I believe that you are referring to blow back. Ever since the Carter Doctrine the United States has taken an open and proactive position in protecting it's interest in the ME. The US fears that abandoning the region will allow for other hostile entities to grow. The blow back is deemed acceptable in order to prevent larger more organized threats. Israel, along with several other Arab states, helps out with intelligence and policing the US threats within their borders. Obviosly our allies have had trouble with this in the past.

Note: I am explaining the reasoning behind certain US actions.. imperfect tho they might be.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5287|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:

U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice said that the U.S. veto should not be seen as an endorsement of Israel's settlement policies
What else is it but an endorsement?

This is a very bad time to be reminding the Arab world that Israel is the sole priority in the ME as far as the US is concerned.
Its likely to tip any future Egyptian elections further towards the radicals, and destabilise any other pro-US govts which are already under pressure even further.

BBC wrote:

On paper this was a defeat for the Palestinians but they and representatives of other Arab nations seemed to be in a buoyant mood. They had held out some hope that America would abstain, but not much, so the veto was predictable.

The degree of support, on the other hand, was overwhelming: some 130 countries co-sponsored the resolution, and all the other members of the Security Council voted for it.

The result was strong endorsement of the Palestinian position on Israeli settlements - that they are illegal, and an obstacle to peace - which isolated Israel. It also isolated the United States.

No matter what reasons America gave for the veto (it insisted bringing the matter to the Security Council complicated chances for peace talks) or how fulsomely it criticised settlement building (as a folly and threat to peace) it appeared out of sync with the international consensus, and as Israel's only defender.

Given the ferment in the Arab world at the moment, that is not a good position for Washington to be in.
130 Countries, all other 14 members of the security council voted in favour and the US vetoes?
Wow.
If Israel was the sole priority why would the US ask them to stop? I think we should focus on actual intent rather than pointless UN condemnations.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4792|eXtreme to the maX
Helps out with intelligence
Apart from feeding bogus intel about Iraqi WMD, and threats against the US created as a result of the existence of Israel I'm not sure what use Israel is.

The US fears that abandoning the region will allow for other hostile entities to grow.
Like what? Would Iran be pursuing WMDs and nuclear weapons if Israel weren't there?
Abandoning Israel would not mean abandoning the region at all, since the US is allied with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Bahrain etc.
If Israel was the sole priority why would the US ask them to stop?
They haven't exactly pressed the issue have they?
"Please stop, if you don't we'll give you more money and weapons"
I think we should focus on actual intent rather than pointless UN condemnations.
It would be great if the US could have a go at that also sometime.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-19 04:38:31)

Epstein didn't kill himself
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5287|132 and Bush

No not just with wmd's. Try not to be so short sighted. Do you think yourself so informed that you know all of our nations security secrets?

The US probably prevents Israel from pre-emptives strikes against iran. If the US severed ties with Israel they would have already taken care of Iran imo. It is unlikely that the US would pull out of israeli affairs but remain active in the region. It simply not possible. Peace between Israel and the other states is in the US's best economic intrest. That three billion dollars isn't shit compared to what would happen to the worlds economies if another war broke out in the ME. If you shift the current balance of power that is excactly what is going to happen. Israel is not going to just sit back while a consorted effort to attack mounts against them. Again. I don't know what the answer is. But I do know it is a lot more complicated than a UN vote of condemnation. I might feel different if such a vote served a purpose beyond agitating the situation. It's a little pie in the sky to think isolating one group will encourage cooperation.

They have pressed the issue with a vocal denoucement. Isn't that the primary grievance with the US veto? As I said before, the US does not want the UN to apply pressure to any one side since the goal is to bring each party to the table.

No matter the intent dil, I am sure you would find fault and deceit with it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|5205|Πάϊ
"U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice said that the U.S. veto should not be seen as an endorsement of Israel's settlement policies
What I don't understand is why the US feels they have to rationalise their decision to veto. We know what their policy is. We know it hasn't changed and is not going to change no matter who is in office, no matter what the whole world thinks, no matter what is right and just. So what's with the fucking hiding behind our finger thing? What are they afraid of? What would happen if that lady just said we will favor Israel despite all reason because it's in our best interest?
ƒ³
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5338|USA

AussieReaper wrote:

"We reject in the strongest term the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activities," Rice said after the vote. "For more than four decades Israel's settlement activities have undermined Israel's security and eroded hopes of peace and security in the region."
Then maybe it's time for a binding resolution if four decades of talking does sfa.

But she added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
Palestinians have already stated they would not negotiate while Israel continues to building settlements. That's the reason they left the last round of talks.

Kmar, do you think the settlement building will halt without a UN sanctioned moratorium?
Do you think there will be peace even if Israel stops building and simply exists? They have tried this before only to be rocketed and have a bunch of meatheads atand up and declare "victory" over Israel.

In the minds of the Islamic nations, there will be no peace until Israel is destroyed, and there you will be condemning Israel for fighting back.

When will you come to grips with what is to happen to israel before there is peace?

Last edited by lowing (2011-02-19 11:26:33)

mikkel
Member
+383|5288

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

"We reject in the strongest term the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activities," Rice said after the vote. "For more than four decades Israel's settlement activities have undermined Israel's security and eroded hopes of peace and security in the region."
Then maybe it's time for a binding resolution if four decades of talking does sfa.

But she added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
Palestinians have already stated they would not negotiate while Israel continues to building settlements. That's the reason they left the last round of talks.

Kmar, do you think the settlement building will halt without a UN sanctioned moratorium?
Do you think there will be peace even if Israel stops building and simply exists? They have tried this before only to be rocketed and have a bunch of meatheads atand up and declare "victory" over Israel.

In the minds of the Islamic nations, there will be no peace until Israel is destroyed, and there you will be condemning Israel for fighting back.

When will you come to grips with what is to happen to israel before there is peace?
So you're arguing that Israel's settlement of occupied territory prevents war?
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|4839|what

lowing wrote:

In the minds of the Islamic nations, there will be no peace until Israel is destroyed, and there you will be condemning Israel for fighting back.
Tanks rolling the streets of Palestine isn't fighting back. It's genocide.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|5224|Long Island, New York
Netanyahu is an asshole. I don't think that simply stopping settlements will completely stop war and create peace, but it certainly helps.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5338|USA

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

"We reject in the strongest term the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activities," Rice said after the vote. "For more than four decades Israel's settlement activities have undermined Israel's security and eroded hopes of peace and security in the region."
Then maybe it's time for a binding resolution if four decades of talking does sfa.


Palestinians have already stated they would not negotiate while Israel continues to building settlements. That's the reason they left the last round of talks.

Kmar, do you think the settlement building will halt without a UN sanctioned moratorium?
Do you think there will be peace even if Israel stops building and simply exists? They have tried this before only to be rocketed and have a bunch of meatheads atand up and declare "victory" over Israel.

In the minds of the Islamic nations, there will be no peace until Israel is destroyed, and there you will be condemning Israel for fighting back.

When will you come to grips with what is to happen to israel before there is peace?
So you're arguing that Israel's settlement of occupied territory prevents war?
no I am arguing that the settlements do not matter and peace is not contingent on their status. The destruction of Israel is what the Islamic nations want, and will settle for nothing less. The fact that peace did not progress forward after the return of the West Bank and Gaza, kinda sorta proves that.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5338|USA

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

In the minds of the Islamic nations, there will be no peace until Israel is destroyed, and there you will be condemning Israel for fighting back.
Tanks rolling the streets of Palestine isn't fighting back. It's genocide.
Dont cherry pick my post. Address the whole post and answer the question posed. Then I will address your response.
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|3722|Massachusetts, USA

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

In the minds of the Islamic nations, there will be no peace until Israel is destroyed, and there you will be condemning Israel for fighting back.
Tanks rolling the streets of Palestine isn't fighting back. It's genocide.
It's only genocide if they're murding 1000s by the week, including women and children, on purpose.


Both nations are trying to carve out an existence on the same strip of land, so there are obviously going to be problems.

Last edited by UnkleRukus (2011-02-19 16:56:32)

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
mikkel
Member
+383|5288

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:


Do you think there will be peace even if Israel stops building and simply exists? They have tried this before only to be rocketed and have a bunch of meatheads atand up and declare "victory" over Israel.

In the minds of the Islamic nations, there will be no peace until Israel is destroyed, and there you will be condemning Israel for fighting back.

When will you come to grips with what is to happen to israel before there is peace?
So you're arguing that Israel's settlement of occupied territory prevents war?
no I am arguing that the settlements do not matter and peace is not contingent on their status. The destruction of Israel is what the Islamic nations want, and will settle for nothing less. The fact that peace did not progress forward after the return of the West Bank and Gaza, kinda sorta proves that.
Of course the settlements matter. Even if you're correct in your cynicism, then halting the construction of settlements would both eliminate one of the ways in which Israel is at odds with international law, and hold the Palestinians to their word. I can't see how you can hold the opinions you express in your post, and simultaneously consider the settlements irrelevant to the peace process.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5287|132 and Bush

International law. Laws are irrelevant to the people that brake them. That is why I said it would be different if the UN actually had teeth. A consensus is meaningless if nobody is will to do anything.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5338|USA

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

So you're arguing that Israel's settlement of occupied territory prevents war?
no I am arguing that the settlements do not matter and peace is not contingent on their status. The destruction of Israel is what the Islamic nations want, and will settle for nothing less. The fact that peace did not progress forward after the return of the West Bank and Gaza, kinda sorta proves that.
Of course the settlements matter. Even if you're correct in your cynicism, then halting the construction of settlements would both eliminate one of the ways in which Israel is at odds with international law, and hold the Palestinians to their word. I can't see how you can hold the opinions you express in your post, and simultaneously consider the settlements irrelevant to the peace process.
I can hold my opinion easily when history is on my side. Israel has met demands before to leave the west bank, gaza, it has given back the Sinai Peninsula and still nothing changes for Israel, they are still met with, not compromise in good faith, but banter of defeats, and the continuation of rocket attacks, from the very places they just left. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the Islamic nations are not interested in peace WITH Israel.? I can hold my opinion in the same way you can hold your opinion that the Islamic nations will make peace with Israel if they would JUST stop building settlements.

Saddam Hussein launched unprovoked scuds into Israel for the sole purpose of Israel fighting back, giving all Islamic nations itching to fight Israel a reason to. It was all the US could do to keep Israel for kicking the shit outta Iraq thus drawing in all the other Islamic nations into the fight. Personally I think the US should let Israel do its thing, then I could listen you you bitch about Israel owns all the fuckin ME.

Last edited by lowing (2011-02-20 00:24:26)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard