UN Security Council resolution against Israel

[Martyn Sadler]

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

 

If the United Nations would leave Israel and Palestine alone I suspect they would make much quicker progress in negotiating a settlement.

[Farmduck]

These alleged negotiations are a farce. One of Israel's demands was restitution and/or compensation for Jewish properties left behind in Arab countries when Jews moved to Israel, primarily in the 40s and 50s. Palestine can't possibly agree, nor has it any legal ability to enforce handing over property in Morocco, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, etc. It's just a deliberate sabotage clause.

 

You know it's a completely insincere demand, whose only purpose is to derail agreement, because Israel has never even attempted to compile a list of these alleged assets and properties. At its worst, this is another "Swiss banks" shakedown, where the World Jewish Congress spent years hounding the Swiss banks for alleged monies owed to Jewish depositors who died during WWII.

[Guest]

Because they love to flex their muscles and then cry "foul" when retaliationoccurs. Hamas and similar organisations are simply unelected, undemocraticgangs who are intent upon inflicting their so called ideals and influenceupon the western communities.

You don't think that living in a concentration camp has anything to do with it??

Also Hamas was democratically elected in 2006.

[Saintslass]

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

Didn't Israel win the war which included the land on which these settlements are being built?  If so, why are they illegal?  As far as I remember, when countries are at war with each other and one wins territory as a result of that war, that won territory then belongs to the victor.  It isn't illegally obtained.  It's harsh but then war is harsh, very harsh. 

 

The UK must have been involved in building so many illegal settlements over the centuries that it's unreal.  And according to the Argentinians we are still doing so in the Falklands - is that an illegal settlement?

 

I'm embarrassed by the UK's involvement in this situation and it will come back to bite us I'm sure.  I'm embarrassed because as a country we know very well what it is like to endure terrorist attacks and yet this resolution, and us being so front and centre of it, means we are effectively excusing if not condoning Hamas terrorism.  I think that is awful.

[Farmduck]

International Law says you can't seize territory by force. The reason for this is to make war less attractive since the winner doesn't get to keep all the trophies. It is also illegal to move people into or out of occupied territory. This is to prevent stocking the area full of people A then calling for a referendum to settle the status of the occupied area once People A have established a majority. (and, obviously, to outlaw ethnic cleansing.)

[Niels]

The obvious counter argument here is that Judea and Samaria or The Weat Bank were won in entiterely defensive wars.

Also to answer a previous point, Hamas were elected in Gaza in 2006 but there have been no free elections since. In fact Fatah members were killed or sufferred expulsion fron the strip. It is the same as saying the Nazis were democratically elected.

[Bedford Roughyed]

John Kerry talking about the fears of ending the 2 state solution.  Its obvious that the (current) USA and other countries are fearful of what will happen when a pro settlement Israel and a pro one state solution (Trump) USA meet.  Peace talks in Paris in a week or so might bring more resolutions before the 20th.

[Farmduck]

The obvious counter argument here is that Judea and Samaria or The Weat Bank were won in entiterely defensive wars.

 

Doesn't make any difference. Japan bombed Australia during WW2. Would that justify Australia occupying Honshu?

[Niels]

The Israelis argument is that the territories gained are kept to ensure their safety against any future attacks.

The Australia example has no relevance here.

[Bedford Roughyed]

In other news its just been announced that the Israeli Attorney General has order the police to investigate Netanyahu for bribery and fraud.  Never a dull moment. 

[Guest]

The Israelis argument is that the territories gained are kept to ensure their safety against any future attacks.

The Australia example has no relevance here.

Well they(Israel) would say that wouldn't they. It's a land grab pure and simple. Same goes for the golan heights.

[GeordieSaint]

International Law says you can't seize territory by force.

I hadn't actually realised that so answers my earlier question (thanks Bearman as well - had forgotten about the accord signed by the Spanish). But if that's the case, how are the Russians allowed to retain Koningsberg (Kalingrad) or the islands in Northern Japan or the Turks in Cyprus?

[Shadow]

I hadn't actually realised that so answers my earlier question (thanks Bearman as well - had forgotten about the accord signed by the Spanish). But if that's the case, how are the Russians allowed to retain Koningsberg (Kalingrad) or the islands in Northern Japan or the Turks in Cyprus?

Probably got something to do with being a UN security council member and having the fifth largest army and second biggest nuclear stockpile in the world.

[Niels]

And also that the people worried about land seizures are very selective - the Russians have Crimea now also!

[Farmduck]

The Israelis argument is that the territories gained are kept to ensure their safety against any future attacks.

The Australia example has no relevance here.

By your argument, the Soviet domination of the Warsaw Pact countries for 40+ years was legitimate, including the actions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Also considering the disparity between Palestine and Israel in military strength, your argument would justify Gaza maintaining a 100km buffer zone around it, rather than an Israeli occupation of the Wests Bank.

 

The Australia/Japan argument is valid because. like this situation, it would be just a land grab.

[Farmduck]

And also that the people worried about land seizures are very selective - the Russians have Crimea now also!

Are they selective? If every poster who had criticised Israel's actions had added a paragraph, "By the way, I heartily endorse Russia's occupation of Abkhazia, Crimea and the Donbass," then your statement might hold water. They didn't.

[Niels]

I wrote previously that the Territories were gained in a defensive war. Therefore UN resolution 242 is relevant. There are also other factors such as Sovereignty, stability etc..

The analogies with the Soviet Block and Australia are just not compatable.

I think we have discussed this as far as we can now . It has all been argued before by people far more important than us and getting any more complex will just be off putting for others.

[GeordieSaint]

Probably got something to do with being a UN security council member and having the fifth largest army and second biggest nuclear stockpile in the world.

I get that; it doesn't mean they can't be challenged though otherwise the attitude to Israel or any other State in a similar situation is unfair - shows the hypocrisy of the UN and that the Security Council is in need of reform.

[Saintslass]

John Kerry talking about the fears of ending the 2 state solution.  Its obvious that the (current) USA and other countries are fearful of what will happen when a pro settlement Israel and a pro one state solution (Trump) USA meet.  Peace talks in Paris in a week or so might bring more resolutions before the 20th.

Kerry also stated that the current government of Israel was of the most right wing kind, which I think points to the real reason why the US didn't use their veto this time: ideology.  Kerry himself criticises the current Israeli government's ideology but his own influenced the comments he made in his speech.

 

Thankfully, No.10 has distanced itself from both the reference to the Israeli government's political make up and also the lopsided focus upon settlements.  I'm glad May has done this because we need to build bridges with Israel and we also need to try and prepare the way for the possible direction of travel of the incoming president.

 

I do think the Obama administration has been the weakest in years on the international scene.

[ckn]

Kerry also stated that the current government of Israel was of the most right wing kind, which I think points to the real reason why the US didn't use their veto this time: ideology.  Kerry himself criticises the current Israeli government's ideology but his own influenced the comments he made in his speech.

 

Thankfully, No.10 has distanced itself from both the reference to the Israeli government's political make up and also the lopsided focus upon settlements.  I'm glad May has done this because we need to build bridges with Israel and we also need to try and prepare the way for the possible direction of travel of the incoming president.

 

I do think the Obama administration has been the weakest in years on the international scene.

I don't get that.  Why do we need to build bridges with them?  Israel is no friend of the UK and treat us as a useful fool more than anything else.  I would support interventionist military assistance to save them from any major military assault but that's about it, their attitudes and actions are vile and deserve condemnation.  You'd think the Israeli people would have learned from their own past that oppressively treating another group of people is simply not acceptable.

[Niels]

Howard Jacobsen's book "when will Jews be forgiven the Holocaust" is a novel about your last point Craig.

He writes in the Guardian so he is an acceptable source to quote on here.

[Robin Evans]

Howard Jacobsen's book "when will Jews be forgiven the Holocaust" is a novel about your last point Craig.

He writes in the Guardian so he is an acceptable source to quote on here.

that depends.

To some the guardian is sheeite unless it supports their point when it's ok.

[ckn]

Howard Jacobsen's book "when will Jews be forgiven the Holocaust" is a novel about your last point Craig.

He writes in the Guardian so he is an acceptable source to quote on here.

It's nothing to do with being "forgiven" but more about them recognising that humanity does not come at the end of persecution.  I have the same criticisms of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, even the recent US treatment of native Americans and any other country that acts in a morally reprehensible way towards large groups of people.

 

I also find it increasingly pathetic and worthy of contempt that people cannot criticise Israel without being painted as anti-semitic.  As far as I'm concerned, only the most blitheringly dim of moronic individuals could genuinely confuse the two meaning everyone else is just using it to make a political point that suits their narrow prejudices.

[Martyn Sadler]

It's nothing to do with being "forgiven" but more about them recognising that humanity does not come at the end of persecution.  I have the same criticisms of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, even the recent US treatment of native Americans and any other country that acts in a morally reprehensible way towards large groups of people.

 

I also find it increasingly pathetic and worthy of contempt that people cannot criticise Israel without being painted as anti-semitic.  As far as I'm concerned, only the most blitheringly dim of moronic individuals could genuinely confuse the two meaning everyone else is just using it to make a political point that suits their narrow prejudices.

 

I'm neither pro- nor anti-Semitic but I think we need some balance when considering the question of Israel.

 

It isn't that you can't criticise Israel's faults, but that Israel attracts a far greater volume of criticism than countries that would have far more valid reasons for condemnation.

 

It's rather like the UN General Assembly and Security Council ignoring most of the other atrocities around the world to pump out endless resolutions critical of Israel. It's hard not to believe that many of the people proposing those resolutions are indeed anti-Semitic.

 

The truth is that Israel is the only country in the Middle East in which Muslims have any significant degree of freedom as we understand it.

 

Arabs in Israel are well represented in the Knesset, currently with 17 of the 120 seats, with the Deputy Speaker currently being an Arab Israeli, while Arabs also have a strong presence in other aspects of Israeli life. In 2004, for example, Ariel Sharon introduced legislation that compelled state-run companies to have at least one Arab on its board of directors.

 

Arabs in Israel are able to openly criticise their government without fearing repercussions. There may be other Middle Eastern states in which they can do that, but not very many.

 

As I said earlier, I think that if they were left to their own devices the Israelis and Palestinians would eventually reach a solution whereby they could live together. But that is impossible when the rest of the world can't resist trying to dictate terms to both parties.

[ckn]

You are right that Israel gets far more criticism than other nations that do worse but two wrongs don't make a right.  For example, for Russia to vote against Israel in the Security Council given their recent Ukraine and Syria actions is hypocrisy in the extreme.  Unfortunately for Israel, they have to be cleaner than clean in their ethics to stop the persistent political sniping and they're not even trying to play ethically.