Jump to content

UN Security Council resolution against Israel

Bedford Roughyed

Recommended Posts

Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

They did this, they did that.

 

It will get nowhere if thats all that is said. 

 

Both sides have idiotic elements and commit acts of brutality.  

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

They did this, they did that.

 

It will get nowhere if thats all that is said. 

 

Both sides have idiotic elements and commit acts of brutality.

As long as Israel continues to occupy and annex Palestinian territory the Palestinians will continue to target both the Israeli military and civilians. I have no idea how this ends as Israel will never give up the settlements as long as the US has its back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowes

bowes

Posted
Posted

As long as Israel continues to occupy and annex Palestinian territory the Palestinians will continue to target both the Israeli military and civilians. I have no idea how this ends as Israel will never give up the settlements as long as the US has its back.

Israel gave up all settlements in Gaza and are still being attacked by rockets, the same would happen if they pulled out of the West Bank. Of course they should pull out of the West Bank for the sake of ordinary Palestinian people. The problem is groups like Hamas don't just want a Palestinian state, they want a Jew free Middle East.

 

You have to ask yourself why Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood ended his experiment with an open border with Gaza. The simple answer is he was fed up of terrorists flooding the Sinai and arming the Bedouin to start a terrorist insurgency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Netanyahu flips the middle finger to international law and the international community by pressing ahead with the construction of 600 "units" in the illegally occupied territories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Israel gave up all settlements in Gaza and are still being attacked by rockets, the same would happen if they pulled out of the West Bank. Of course they should pull out of the West Bank for the sake of ordinary Palestinian people. The problem is groups like Hamas don't just want a Palestinian state, they want a Jew free Middle East.

 

You have to ask yourself why Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood ended his experiment with an open border with Gaza. The simple answer is he was fed up of terrorists flooding the Sinai and arming the Bedouin to start a terrorist insurgency.

But that just isn't true is it. Israel gave up all their illegal settlements in the Gaza Strip but continued to occupy gaza's territorial waters, airspace and border crossings. Gaza just became a concentration camp. As for the West Bank there is no Hamas rockets or suicide bombers targeting Israel yet Israel continues to annex more and more territory in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint

Posted
Posted

Before anyone rants at me, I don't agree with Israel building settlements in the West Bank. I'd firmly like to see those borders return to pre-1967. However, is the Israeli occupation any different to let's say the Russian 'occupation' of Koninsberg or even the British 'occupation' of Gibraltar? The Israelis annexed the West Bank from the Jordanians who annexed the area in 1948. Is it not simply a case of the spoils of war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

Posted
Posted

Crimea and North Cyprus are other examples.

 

As is China in annexing territory illegally in the South China Sea.

 

Maybe the UN will pass a resolution that will apply to all those cases some time next week.

 

On the other hand, I'm sure that some countries would like nothing more than to pass a resolution to the effect that the UK is holding "occupied territory" in the Falklands (or Malvinas, as many in the UN would probably describe those islands).

 

I was surprised to see that the UK voted for the UN resolution on Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I was surprised to see that the UK voted for the UN resolution on Israel.

 

 

The settlements being illegal is government policy and has been for years.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As is China in annexing territory illegally in the South China Sea.

 

Maybe the UN will pass a resolution that will apply to all those cases some time next week.

 

On the other hand, I'm sure that some countries would like nothing more than to pass a resolution to the effect that the UK is holding "occupied territory" in the Falklands (or Malvinas, as many in the UN would probably describe those islands).

 

I was surprised to see that the UK voted for the UN resolution on Israel.

 

China has a veto, so nothing on that.

 

We have a veto so nothing on the Falklands.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bearman

Bearman

Posted
Posted

Before anyone rants at me, I don't agree with Israel building settlements in the West Bank. I'd firmly like to see those borders return to pre-1967. However, is the Israeli occupation any different to let's say the Russian 'occupation' of Koninsberg or even the British 'occupation' of Gibraltar? The Israelis annexed the West Bank from the Jordanians who annexed the area in 1948. Is it not simply a case of the spoils of war?

Spain agreed to cede control of Gibraltar in the Treaty of Utrecht. King Phillip V signed the treaty in perpetuity.

It was signed in good faith and that is the basis to our claim. Of course it doesn't mean it can't be changed but that is the basis for the British claim.

As for the United Nations? A dog with a weak bark and no teeth.

Ron Banks

Midlands Hurricanes and Barrow

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saintslass

Saintslass

Posted
Posted

 

I was surprised to see that the UK voted for the UN resolution on Israel.

Me too.

 

Israel needs its allies but we also need Israel as an ally ourselves in the region and by voting as we did we have shown that we are not an ally of Israel, as the subsequent cancellation of the planned visit by May to Israel has shown.  I'm getting a bit tired of the one-sided position our politicians take in effectively supporting Islamic terrorism in the area.  Hamas are terrorists and yet we have given them a real boost by voting in favour of the resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Me too.

 

Israel needs its allies but we also need Israel as an ally ourselves in the region and by voting as we did we have shown that we are not an ally of Israel, as the subsequent cancellation of the planned visit by May to Israel has shown.  I'm getting a bit tired of the one-sided position our politicians take in effectively supporting Islamic terrorism in the area.  Hamas are terrorists and yet we have given them a real boost by voting in favour of the resolution.

Hamas has no influence in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Fatah are in government. The state of Israel is a rogue state and a strategic liability and the sooner we(UK) distance ourself from the crazy right wingers that run that country the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Niels

Niels

Posted
Posted

Fatah were thought to be in control in Gaza in 2006 yet Hamas won the elections and ousted Fatah completely.

The same would happen in the West Bank. It is the Israeli security forces that enable Fatah to stay in control. Hamas has been responsible for terror attacks emanating from there and has a lot of ground support.

The Government is actually a coallition, albeit with a majority righy leaning. However, the oppostion, the left leaning Zionist Union supported the latest Gaza operation.

If you are calling Israel a rogue state then Russia would have to be classed as one also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Don't we(UK) usually abstain on all things Israel?

 

 

No, not everything.  We abstained on recognising Palestine at the UN, but I believe it is UK policy is that the settlements are illegal so have voted before.  

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Me too.

 

Israel needs its allies but we also need Israel as an ally ourselves in the region and by voting as we did we have shown that we are not an ally of Israel, as the subsequent cancellation of the planned visit by May to Israel has shown.  I'm getting a bit tired of the one-sided position our politicians take in effectively supporting Islamic terrorism in the area.  Hamas are terrorists and yet we have given them a real boost by voting in favour of the resolution.

 

 

UK policy is to support the two state solution (which seems as unlikely as ever...).  Building settlements is a clear roadblock in that plan.  We haven't been one sided, we have tried to bang heads together.  Not sure occasionally suggesting that Israel might do the odd wrong thing is effectively supporting Islamic terrorism?

 

The new (proposed) US ambassador has made many a statement that goes directly against the two state solution.  

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saddleworth

saddleworth

Posted
Posted

No it's terrorism. The question that never gets asked is why do Hamas fire rockets into Israel.

Because they love to flex their muscles and then cry "foul" when retaliation

occurs. Hamas and similar organisations are simply unelected, undemocratic

gangs who are intent upon inflicting their so called ideals and influence

upon the western communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saintslass

Saintslass

Posted
Posted

UK policy is to support the two state solution (which seems as unlikely as ever...).  Building settlements is a clear roadblock in that plan.  We haven't been one sided, we have tried to bang heads together.  Not sure occasionally suggesting that Israel might do the odd wrong thing is effectively supporting Islamic terrorism?

 

The new (proposed) US ambassador has made many a statement that goes directly against the two state solution.  

It would appear that the Israelis disagree with you, in that they believe we played a key part in writing the text of the resolution and as such they feel betrayed by a 'friend and ally'.  That would suggest we haven't done a lot of 'banging heads together' in the past, at least not via the UN. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/israel-accuses-britain-secretly-playing-lead-role-un-resolution/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

I think we have made a mistake here and we may pay for it.  We should have either abstained or vetoed the resolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It would appear that the Israelis disagree with you, in that they believe we played a key part in writing the text of the resolution and as such they feel betrayed by a 'friend and ally'.  That would suggest we haven't done a lot of 'banging heads together' in the past, at least not via the UN. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/israel-accuses-britain-secretly-playing-lead-role-un-resolution/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

I think we have made a mistake here and we may pay for it.  We should have either abstained or vetoed the resolution. 

 

 

Why abstain or veto something we (the UK government) completely agrees on?

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

Posted
Posted

Why abstain or veto something we (the UK government) completely agrees on?

 

I don't doubt that you're right, but where has this government stated its policy on the role of the settlements in the conflict?

 

Be that as it may, the UN Security Council ha sent another signal to Israel's opponents that they don't need to be serious about negotiating the way forward with the Israelis.

 

It's the latest in a long line of resolutions by the UN General Assembly and Security Council that are deeply critical of Israel. You might think that Israel is the only country in the world that does anything that can be criticised.

 

Unfortunately all those resolutions have exacerbated the problems rather than helping solve them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't doubt that you're right, but where has this government stated its policy on the role of the settlements in the conflict?

 

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/the-occupied-palestinian-territories

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Be that as it may, the UN Security Council ha sent another signal to Israel's opponents that they don't need to be serious about negotiating the way forward with the Israelis.

 

 

Since the Oslo accords more the 300,000 people have moved into illegal settlements on the West Bank.  Israel is currently looking at laws to give retrospective planning permission to many building schemes.  One might suggest that both sides don't really care about any negotiations

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

Posted
Posted

Since the Oslo accords more the 300,000 people have moved into illegal settlements on the West Bank.  Israel is currently looking at laws to give retrospective planning permission to many building schemes.  One might suggest that both sides don't really care about any negotiations

 

Given the number of UN resolutions aimed at them, and the ability of Hamas to fire rockets at them apparently without any significant criticism from the UN, I'm hardly surprised that many Israelis are inclined not to take that organisation seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Given the number of UN resolutions aimed at them, and the ability of Hamas to fire rockets at them apparently without any significant criticism from the UN, I'm hardly surprised that many Israelis are inclined not to take that organisation seriously.

 

 

Weren't you just saying that it was bad that Israel's opponents do not take negotiating seriously? I'm confused?

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.