Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

US abstains as UN demands end to Israeli settlements :(

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,085
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/politics/israel-official-rips-obama-un-settlements/


http://www.aol.com/article/2016/12/23/democrats-scorch-obama-over-un-vote-condemning-israeli-settlemen/21641282/


Congressional Democrats issued scathing statements aimed at the Obama administration over the US's abstention from a Friday UN Security Council vote demanding Israel stop building settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

Leading Democrats from both houses called out the UN as an inappropriate venue for rejuvenating the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. They objected to the Obama administration's departure from what they view as decades of established US policy of vetoing UN resolutions regarding Israeli settlements.

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "extremely frustrating, disappointing and confounding" that the Obama administration failed to veto the UN's vote.

Schumer called out the UN as a "fervently" anti-Israel body, since the days of "Zionism is racism."

"Whatever one's views are on settlements, the UN is the wrong forum to settle these issues," Schumer said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, called the US's abstention from the vote "unconscionable."

"A two-state solution must be negotiated directly between the Israelis and Palestinians, and this resolution flies in the face of this necessity," Blumenthal said.

He also said support for Israel must remain "bipartisan," and that he'll work with colleagues on "both sides of the aisle" to advance "productive measures" that strengthen the US's relationship with Israel.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said that he would work to form a bipartisan coalition to "suspend or significantly reduce United States assistance to the United Nations."



Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said that he was "deeply disappointed" that the Obama administration allowed such a "one-sided" resolution to pass.

"Actions like this will only take us further from the peace we all want to see," Wyden said.

And Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia said "one-sided resolutions" at the UN are counterproductive to the peace process and "achieving a two-state solution."

"I am dismayed that the administration departed from decades of U.S. policy by not vetoing the UN resolution regarding Israeli settlements," Warner said.

Rep. Eliot L. Engel, a Democrat from New York and the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was "very disappointed" by the US's "acquiescence to a one-sided, biased resolution at the United Nations Security Council."

"I have always believed that Israel can't get a fair shake at the UN, and that is why Israel has relied on the United States to protect it from the anti-Israel tendencies of some UN Security Council members," Engel said.

Engel further said that the text of the resolution places the "blame" for the stalled peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians "entirely on Israel."

I am very disappointed by Obama and his decision. :blackeye: What a way to close his presidency. I am apprehensive at what more Obama might do before the conclusion of his reign.
And while I am on this topic of being disappointed I know what Michelle Obama meant when she said "we are feeling what not having hope feels like "...well yeah I am feeling the same about Obama's latest decision to abstain from voting and thereby condemning Israel. :cry:

uwres.gif
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
This is beyond the pale for even him. The UN needs to stay out of this and the US has been the wall to keep one sided resolutions like this one from happening until now. How much more damage can he do in 3 weeks? I hate to even ask the question. As for Michelle Obama, I watched that interview and thought it was mostly ok until he showed up and her comment about no hope. She is speaking for herself and her husband, because many of us have more hope now that we have had in years as long as Trump does not implode. Obama's interviews in the past few weeks have been "woe is me" and blaming others.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,126
redwood66|1482599817|4109396 said:
This is beyond the pale for even him. The UN needs to stay out of this and the US has been the wall to keep one sided resolutions like this one from happening until now. How much more damage can he do in 3 weeks? I hate to even ask the question. As for Michelle Obama, I watched that interview and thought it was mostly ok until he showed up and her comment about no hope. She is speaking for herself and her husband, because many of us have more hope now that we have had in years as long as Trump does not implode. Obama's interviews in the past few weeks have been "woe is me" and blaming others.
I think it was stupid of her to say that and I have managed not to get politically involved lately, so to do on Christmas Eve seems foolish. I still, do, want to say, however, that although I am sure that she was speaking for herself and her husband, she was also speaking for millions of other people. Some of us have kept our feelings to ourselves (unlike the First Lady), but that doesn't mean that she was wrong.

Merry Christmas to all people of good will who wish to celebrate it. Happy Chanukah to those who celebrate it tonight and for the next week. And a Happy New Year to everyone.

Deb :wavey:
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
AGBF|1482606374|4109408 said:
redwood66|1482599817|4109396 said:
This is beyond the pale for even him. The UN needs to stay out of this and the US has been the wall to keep one sided resolutions like this one from happening until now. How much more damage can he do in 3 weeks? I hate to even ask the question. As for Michelle Obama, I watched that interview and thought it was mostly ok until he showed up and her comment about no hope. She is speaking for herself and her husband, because many of us have more hope now that we have had in years as long as Trump does not implode. Obama's interviews in the past few weeks have been "woe is me" and blaming others.
I think it was stupid of her to say that and I have managed not to get politically involved lately, so to do on Christmas Eve seems foolish. I still, do, want to say, however, that although I am sure that she was speaking for herself and her husband, she was also speaking for millions of other people. Some of us have kept our feelings to ourselves (unlike the First Lady), but that doesn't mean that she was wrong.

Merry Christmas to all people of good will who wish to celebrate it. Happy Chanukah to those who celebrate it tonight and for the next week. And a Happy New Year to everyone.

Deb :wavey:
Merry Christmas and happy new year Deb.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,085
Good morning Redwood, and thank you for responding. I knew this thread wasn't going to get many responses because most people just don't care about this.

This is beyond the pale for even him
Absolutely. In fact, from my perspective, Obama is behaving like a petulant child. Instead of going out in a strong and noble manner he is leaving office not befitting the character of a great president.

Deb, I am sorry you have lost hope. I hope you get that back because without hope what is left?

We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thank you for the happy holiday wishes and wishing you the same.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,698
AGBF|1482606374|4109408 said:
redwood66|1482599817|4109396 said:
This is beyond the pale for even him. The UN needs to stay out of this and the US has been the wall to keep one sided resolutions like this one from happening until now. How much more damage can he do in 3 weeks? I hate to even ask the question. As for Michelle Obama, I watched that interview and thought it was mostly ok until he showed up and her comment about no hope. She is speaking for herself and her husband, because many of us have more hope now that we have had in years as long as Trump does not implode. Obama's interviews in the past few weeks have been "woe is me" and blaming others.
I think it was stupid of her to say that and I have managed not to get politically involved lately, so to do on Christmas Eve seems foolish. I still, do, want to say, however, that although I am sure that she was speaking for herself and her husband, she was also speaking for millions of other people. Some of us have kept our feelings to ourselves (unlike the First Lady), but that doesn't mean that she was wrong.

Merry Christmas to all people of good will who wish to celebrate it. Happy Chanukah to those who celebrate it tonight and for the next week. And a Happy New Year to everyone.

Deb :wavey:

Merry Christmas!

I don't think that Michelle Obama was speaking for her husband, she has a brain, she has intelligence, she has grace, wisdom and class. She was speaking for millions who fear the future and what the heck is going to happen.. millions thrown off healthcare, war of words, war machine set up and going.. these things make people sad and afraid, those who have always wished for peace and don't believe in peace through war and fighting and who has more nukes (one does enough).

Obama has a strong desire for peace in the middle east and the settlements cause friction... Are the settlements legal? NO... do I have a real opinion on them, NO... The president of Israel is Netanyahu is too militant for me.. but I will go along with either Obama or Trump.. I do not like war.

In my life and in my family and friends there is deep sadness at this whole election and fear, it cannot just be eradicated because the winners through electoral college want America to come together, we can't and won't.. simple as that. . so we wait till hopefully Trump has had one term and he doesn't kill us, start a war, take away womens rights, etc.. the left agenda..

I have the utmost respect for Michelle Obama, she has been a spectacular First Lady, full of class and intelligence, her daughters seem to be normal american kids (albeit their parents are uber performers in their lives)..

So I wish you a Merry Happy Christmas, Festivus, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, whatever one believes or doesn't believe.

Red said once she didn't want the East or West coast telling her how to live, so I thought about that for a long while and came to the conclusion, I don't want middle America telling me how to live, so now I wait till this president is over and done with.. and we move along into more enlightened times.
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,837
Wonderfully put, Tekate; I agree with every word. Thanks.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,085
That might be true Matata but we also give a lot to Palestine. But apart from that issue I view Obama's abstention from voting as an attack on Israel.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/311712-obama-faces-widespread-backlash-after-abstaining-from-un-israel-vote


“Today's passage of an ill-conceived resolution on Israeli settlements marks another shameful chapter in the bizarre anti-Israel history of the United Nations,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement Friday.

“The abstention of the United States has made us complicit in this outrageous attack, and marks a troubling departure from our nation's long, bipartisan history of defending our ally Israel in the United Nations.”
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
6,882
missy|1482699209|4109564 said:
That might be true Matata but we also give a lot to Palestine. But apart from that issue I view Obama's abstention from voting as an attack on Israel.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/311712-obama-faces-widespread-backlash-after-abstaining-from-un-israel-vote


“Today's passage of an ill-conceived resolution on Israeli settlements marks another shameful chapter in the bizarre anti-Israel history of the United Nations,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement Friday.

“The abstention of the United States has made us complicit in this outrageous attack, and marks a troubling departure from our nation's long, bipartisan history of defending our ally Israel in the United Nations.”
I see it as a well deserved sucker punch for Bibi. There is no legitimacy to the claim that Obama's actions are an "attack" on Israel when you look at Obama's record. Bibi has become an admirer of his own hubris. His "attack" on Obama about the abstention vote is churlish and childish and I no longer have patience of Bibi's temper tantrums and woe-is-me whiney victim playing when things do not go his way. I used to be an avid supporter, no longer. He and Trump will have a great time massaging each others' egos.

Thanks for allowing us to disagree without rancor. Hope your holidays are filled with love, health, and happiness.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,698
Maria D|1482683498|4109539 said:
Wonderfully put, Tekate; I agree with every word. Thanks.
Thank you Maria.. Hope 2017 brings us all good news - no war - higher wages - healthcare for all - higher taxes on the very rich - hmm going left.. better stop now ;-)

Happy New Year!
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,085
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/bibi-obama/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/official-israel-turned-to-trump-to-head-off-un-resolution/2016/12/23/bfd84306-c8ef-11e6-acda-59924caa2450_story.html?utm_term=.9279a6a53b37



After taking office in February 2009, Netanyahu has spoken to Obama more than any other world leader—and vice versa. Their countries have also reached new heights of security cooperation. But at the same time, the personal relationship between Obama and Netanyahu has been, by most accounts, the worst ever between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

They have fought bitterly over the peace process, fundamentally disagreed over the Arab Spring and alienated each other over Iran. It’s hard to point to any major achievement of theirs—something like the Israeli-Arab peace accords produced by Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin, or the Israeli disengagement from Gaza orchestrated by George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon.

Netanyahu has said that he and Obama are "like a married couple"— the implication being that they may not love each other, but that they’re stuck together in the same mutual endeavor. Over the past year, however, we have spoken to nearly 50 former and current officials in Israel and the United States, and their interpretations are far less charitable. They speak not only of a relationship that has soured irreparably, due to a string of miscalculations on both sides—but also of lasting damage to the Israeli-U.S. alliance.
IMO Obama did this because of personal politics pure and simple. Obama broke with thirty plus years of US policy on the issue and he waited till Hillary Clinton lost the election and didn't do it while she was running for President. Obvious reasons. It's a passive aggressive last minute slap in the face to Israel. Disrespectful IMO. Obama let his personal feelings overcome decades of US policy in a forum that should have nothing to do with this issue. And it is also my opinion that the United Nations has a history of discrimination against Israel and Israel cannot receive fair treatment by the UN.




Matata thank you as well for disagreeing respectfully with me and wishing you health and happiness in the New Year too. And happy healthy New Year to everyone. Didn't mean to leave anyone out. Thanks to all for allowing a civil discussion and disagreement.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,698
Matata|1482701696|4109566 said:
missy|1482699209|4109564 said:
That might be true Matata but we also give a lot to Palestine. But apart from that issue I view Obama's abstention from voting as an attack on Israel.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/311712-obama-faces-widespread-backlash-after-abstaining-from-un-israel-vote


“Today's passage of an ill-conceived resolution on Israeli settlements marks another shameful chapter in the bizarre anti-Israel history of the United Nations,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement Friday.

“The abstention of the United States has made us complicit in this outrageous attack, and marks a troubling departure from our nation's long, bipartisan history of defending our ally Israel in the United Nations.”
I see it as a well deserved sucker punch for Bibi. There is no legitimacy to the claim that Obama's actions are an "attack" on Israel when you look at Obama's record. Bibi has become an admirer of his own hubris. His "attack" on Obama about the abstention vote is churlish and childish and I no longer have patience of Bibi's temper tantrums and woe-is-me whiney victim playing when things do not go his way. I used to be an avid supporter, no longer. He and Trump will have a great time massaging each others' egos.

Thanks for allowing us to disagree without rancor. Hope your holidays are filled with love, health, and happiness.
yup, well deserved. Time for the Israeli's to play fair. I'm a supporter of Israel, but not this regime, nope, no way, no how.

Happy New Year!!!
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,085
Tekate|1482759548|4109631 said:
Matata|1482701696|4109566 said:
missy|1482699209|4109564 said:
That might be true Matata but we also give a lot to Palestine. But apart from that issue I view Obama's abstention from voting as an attack on Israel.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/311712-obama-faces-widespread-backlash-after-abstaining-from-un-israel-vote


“Today's passage of an ill-conceived resolution on Israeli settlements marks another shameful chapter in the bizarre anti-Israel history of the United Nations,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement Friday.

“The abstention of the United States has made us complicit in this outrageous attack, and marks a troubling departure from our nation's long, bipartisan history of defending our ally Israel in the United Nations.”
I see it as a well deserved sucker punch for Bibi. There is no legitimacy to the claim that Obama's actions are an "attack" on Israel when you look at Obama's record. Bibi has become an admirer of his own hubris. His "attack" on Obama about the abstention vote is churlish and childish and I no longer have patience of Bibi's temper tantrums and woe-is-me whiney victim playing when things do not go his way. I used to be an avid supporter, no longer. He and Trump will have a great time massaging each others' egos.

Thanks for allowing us to disagree without rancor. Hope your holidays are filled with love, health, and happiness.
yup, well deserved. Time for the Israeli's to play fair. I'm a supporter of Israel, but not this regime, nope, no way, no how.

Happy New Year!!!

Agree to disagree Kate. Israel will never receive fair treatment from the UN who is and has been anti-Israel. Obama's personal politics got in the way IMO and he has had an unfavorable relationship with Israel throughout his presidency IMO. ::)



ETA: And anyway, I am not a fan of the "sucker punch" as you refer to it and never think of it as well deserved.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sucker%20punch
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,631
I am with you on this, Missy. Thankfully many in both parties are extremely upset over this situation. I generally stay out of political threads, but Israel is our ally and needs our support.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,698
missy|1482759469|4109630 said:
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/bibi-obama/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/official-israel-turned-to-trump-to-head-off-un-resolution/2016/12/23/bfd84306-c8ef-11e6-acda-59924caa2450_story.html?utm_term=.9279a6a53b37



After taking office in February 2009, Netanyahu has spoken to Obama more than any other world leader—and vice versa. Their countries have also reached new heights of security cooperation. But at the same time, the personal relationship between Obama and Netanyahu has been, by most accounts, the worst ever between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

They have fought bitterly over the peace process, fundamentally disagreed over the Arab Spring and alienated each other over Iran. It’s hard to point to any major achievement of theirs—something like the Israeli-Arab peace accords produced by Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin, or the Israeli disengagement from Gaza orchestrated by George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon.

Netanyahu has said that he and Obama are "like a married couple"— the implication being that they may not love each other, but that they’re stuck together in the same mutual endeavor. Over the past year, however, we have spoken to nearly 50 former and current officials in Israel and the United States, and their interpretations are far less charitable. They speak not only of a relationship that has soured irreparably, due to a string of miscalculations on both sides—but also of lasting damage to the Israeli-U.S. alliance.
IMO Obama did this because of personal politics pure and simple. Obama broke with thirty plus years of US policy on the issue and he waited till Hillary Clinton lost the election and didn't do it while she was running for President. Obvious reasons. It's a passive aggressive last minute slap in the face to Israel. Disrespectful IMO. Obama let his personal feelings overcome decades of US policy in a forum that should have nothing to do with this issue. And it is also my opinion that the United Nations has a history of discrimination against Israel and Israel cannot receive fair treatment by the UN.




Matata thank you as well for disagreeing respectfully with me and wishing you health and happiness in the New Year too. And happy healthy New Year to everyone. Didn't mean to leave anyone out. Thanks to all for allowing a civil discussion and disagreement.
Happy New Year Missy! I love your posts and find your thoughts provocative and interesting and well reasoned btw.

:) in 1917 during WWI the Brits wanted to established a Jewish homeland in Palestine see the Balfour Declaration,

The declaration had two indirect consequences, the emergence of a Jewish state and a chronic state of conflict between Arabs and Jews throughout the Middle East.[43] Starting in 1920, the Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine broke out, which widened into the regional Arab–Israeli conflict, primarily from 1948-73 but extending in a more limited manner to 2006, and finally became the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the ongoing local conflict which also began in 1948 and whose primary phase began following the 1964 foundation of the PLO. The Arab–Israeli conflict is often referred to as the world's "most intractable conflict".[90][91][92] From Wiki.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

This is an intractable conflict for sure. Israel should return the land on which the settlements were started on (six day war) and work towards peace.. to the Palestinians the country established by Euro-Americans after WWII stole their homeland (okay part of it).. it's akin to living in NY state all my life then in 1948 the winners (whomever they are) say, this land belongs to Native North American aboriginal's and you gotta get out, then the natives start fighting with CT and PA and win more land and won't give it back.. that is the feeling behind this war/intractable conflict. The best option is for Israel to leave the settlements and work towards a peaceful solution, aren't we all sick of war in the middle east? What is fair? the land was Hebrew, Ottoman's took it for thousand(s) of years and then the powers that be give it back. I am in no way not in favor of Israel, I think Israel is important for the Jewish people (since most Jews in Israeli's aren't very religious) it is symbolic and it is important for the Jewish community around the world.. but I feel strongly that the settlments are a HUGE hindrance to to peace in the middle east (at least in this part)...

As an ally what has Israel done for the USA? They buy our products, Israel has a strong military as does the USA and in conjunction is a powerful source in the middle east, we give Israel billions :) I post this because I recognize the benefits of a strong Israel-USA alliance. I think for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people the settlement land needs to go back to mostly muslim/christian Palestine and the Jews and the Palestinians need to do some serious work on peace. peace. peace. :appl:

One can be a supporter of Israel and not support the settlements, and Netanyahu is a serious nutcase in my opinion.

Happy New Year, happy Boxing Day anyone who celebrates it!!!
Peace!
 

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
2,609
Hi,

Thank you Tekate. I agree with all you said. I actually gave this some thought over the weekend, and can try to explain this vote through another example that we are familiar with. Recently, during the campaign D. Trump stated that when we invaded Iraq
, and before that Kuwait, we ought to have taken their oil. "To the victor, belongs the spoils." I think most would agree that would be wrong. That would be wrong, just as encroaching on land that does not belong to you would be wrong.

Netenyah (SP) has been the elected leader of Israel before, is very right wing and has strongly encouraged the settlements although he has been asked to stop. If there is to be Mideast peace, those settlements must come down. It is not their land to take. It belongs to the Palestinians.

Obama, did the right thing here. It is true that Israel has taken a desert and made it bloom. What wonderful work it did. But, it cannot be allowed to take anothers land.

Annette
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,698
missy|1482759781|4109633 said:
Tekate|1482759548|4109631 said:
Matata|1482701696|4109566 said:
missy|1482699209|4109564 said:
That might be true Matata but we also give a lot to Palestine. But apart from that issue I view Obama's abstention from voting as an attack on Israel.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/311712-obama-faces-widespread-backlash-after-abstaining-from-un-israel-vote


“Today's passage of an ill-conceived resolution on Israeli settlements marks another shameful chapter in the bizarre anti-Israel history of the United Nations,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement Friday.

“The abstention of the United States has made us complicit in this outrageous attack, and marks a troubling departure from our nation's long, bipartisan history of defending our ally Israel in the United Nations.”
I see it as a well deserved sucker punch for Bibi. There is no legitimacy to the claim that Obama's actions are an "attack" on Israel when you look at Obama's record. Bibi has become an admirer of his own hubris. His "attack" on Obama about the abstention vote is churlish and childish and I no longer have patience of Bibi's temper tantrums and woe-is-me whiney victim playing when things do not go his way. I used to be an avid supporter, no longer. He and Trump will have a great time massaging each others' egos.

Thanks for allowing us to disagree without rancor. Hope your holidays are filled with love, health, and happiness.
yup, well deserved. Time for the Israeli's to play fair. I'm a supporter of Israel, but not this regime, nope, no way, no how.

Happy New Year!!!

Agree to disagree Kate. Israel will never receive fair treatment from the UN who is and has been anti-Israel. Obama's personal politics got in the way IMO and he has had an unfavorable relationship with Israel throughout his presidency IMO. ::)



ETA: And anyway, I am not a fan of the "sucker punch" as you refer to it and never think of it as well deserved.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sucker%20punch

No worries to disagree is fair enough. Palestinians have rights also. To be sure Obama has not ever stood in the way of military/money assistance to Israel. I find the assistance more important than the settlements, as I think the settlements are just causing more friction.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/13/us-israel-military-aid/

The U.S. Just Agreed to Give Israel $38 Billion in Military Aid

Reuters

Updated: Sep 13, 2016 12:27 PM Eastern


The United States and Israel have reached final agreement on a record new package of at least $38 billion in U.S. military aid and the 10-year pact is expected to be signed within days, sources close to the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.
The deal will represent the biggest pledge of U.S. military assistance ever made to any country but also includes major concessions granted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according (rest at the pointer).
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,085
Thank you all for your additional comments and thoughts and I do appreciate that you can be Pro Israel without supporting the settlements. And thank you Kate for your respectful comments and for also going to the trouble of providing some backstory. And Deb, I agree with you in that Yitzhak Rabin was a good leader and good man and respected him very much may he RIP.

And DiamondSeeker, thank you for chiming in even though I know you prefer to stay away from the political threads. I feel the same way usually as they can take away from the beautiful place PS can be. So I really appreciate you posting even more because I know how you feel and not just because you agree with me but LOL that does help since everyone else who posted here disagrees with me. :wink2:


I read an interesting article this morning that I will share here.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-parting-betrayal-of-israel-1482795616

snip...
Resolution 2334 implicitly repeals the iconic Resolution 242, which affirmed, in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War, that all affected nations, obviously including Israel, had a “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” It provided further that Israel should withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”—but did not require withdrawal from “the” or “all” territories, thereby countenancing less-than-total withdrawal. In this way Resolution 242 embodied the “land for peace” theory central to America’s policy in the Middle East ever since.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
missy|1482843973|4109818 said:
Thank you all for your additional comments and thoughts and I do appreciate that you can be Pro Israel without supporting the settlements. And thank you Kate for your respectful comments and for also going to the trouble of providing some backstory. And Deb, I agree with you in that Yitzhak Rabin was a good leader and good man and respected him very much may he RIP.

And DiamondSeeker, thank you for chiming in even though I know you prefer to stay away from the political threads. I feel the same way usually as they can take away from the beautiful place PS can be. So I really appreciate you posting even more because I know how you feel and not just because you agree with me but LOL that does help since everyone else who posted here disagrees with me. :wink2:


I read an interesting article this morning that I will share here.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-parting-betrayal-of-israel-1482795616

snip...
Resolution 2334 implicitly repeals the iconic Resolution 242, which affirmed, in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War, that all affected nations, obviously including Israel, had a “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” It provided further that Israel should withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”—but did not require withdrawal from “the” or “all” territories, thereby countenancing less-than-total withdrawal. In this way Resolution 242 embodied the “land for peace” theory central to America’s policy in the Middle East ever since.
Not me - for once. :lol:
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,085
redwood66 said:
missy|1482843973|4109818 said:
Thank you all for your additional comments and thoughts and I do appreciate that you can be Pro Israel without supporting the settlements. And thank you Kate for your respectful comments and for also going to the trouble of providing some backstory. And Deb, I agree with you in that Yitzhak Rabin was a good leader and good man and respected him very much may he RIP.

And DiamondSeeker, thank you for chiming in even though I know you prefer to stay away from the political threads. I feel the same way usually as they can take away from the beautiful place PS can be. So I really appreciate you posting even more because I know how you feel and not just because you agree with me but LOL that does help since everyone else who posted here disagrees with me. :wink2:


I read an interesting article this morning that I will share here.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-parting-betrayal-of-israel-1482795616

snip...
Resolution 2334 implicitly repeals the iconic Resolution 242, which affirmed, in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War, that all affected nations, obviously including Israel, had a “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” It provided further that Israel should withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”—but did not require withdrawal from “the” or “all” territories, thereby countenancing less-than-total withdrawal. In this way Resolution 242 embodied the “land for peace” theory central to America’s policy in the Middle East ever since.
Not me - for once. :lol:
LOL sorry Redwood! I didn't mean to leave you out. I guess I am not used to us agreeing (about non bling issues that is). :lol:
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,698
Thank you Missy, I believe people can and should discuss these things and I think people can work towards a common goal..

I couldn't read the WSJ whole story as we don't subscribe, but thank you for the pointer.

I would even go as far as to say that let's all try to negotiate (Palestinians and Jews) without moving the settlements, and work towards a peaceful solution.

Missy, thank you, I find you always have a cheerful and kind outlook and it's always a pleasure to read your posts, even if I don't always agree say.

Happy New Year.

Kate
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,085
Tekate said:
Thank you Missy, I believe people can and should discuss these things and I think people can work towards a common goal..

I couldn't read the WSJ whole story as we don't subscribe, but thank you for the pointer.

I would even go as far as to say that let's all try to negotiate (Palestinians and Jews) without moving the settlements, and work towards a peaceful solution.

Missy, thank you, I find you always have a cheerful and kind outlook and it's always a pleasure to read your posts, even if I don't always agree say.

Happy New Year.

Kate
Thank you Kate and I agree with you about negotiating and working towards a peaceful solution no matter what happens re the settlements. I truly believe that is what most people want to happen. That somehow peace can and will be achieved. And thank you again about your kind comments. I feel the same about you and always enjoy your posts. Happy New Year to you too.

And FYI if you are interested...I am sorry you couldn't access it through my link so I went back to copy and paste if you want to read the article but don't feel obligated.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-parting-betrayal-of-israel-1482795616

By JOHN BOLTON
Dec. 26, 2016 6:40 p.m. ET

Last Friday, on the eve of Hanukkah and Christmas, Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the front. The departing president refused to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334—a measure ostensibly about Israeli settlement policy, but clearly intended to tip the peace process toward the Palestinians. Its adoption wasn’t pretty. But, sadly, it was predictable.

Mr. Obama’s refusal to use Washington’s veto was more than a graceless parting gesture. Its consequences pose major challenges for American interests. President-elect Donald Trump should echo Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s defiant and ringing 1975 response to the U.N.’s “Zionism is racism” resolution: that America “does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”

Mr. Obama argues that Resolution 2334 continues a bipartisan American policy toward the Middle East. It does precisely the opposite. The White House has abandoned any pretense that the actual parties to the conflict must resolve their differences. Instead, the president has essentially endorsed the Palestinian politico-legal narrative about territory formerly under League of Nations’ mandate, but not already under Israeli control after the 1948-49 war of independence.

Resolution 2334 implicitly repeals the iconic Resolution 242, which affirmed, in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War, that all affected nations, obviously including Israel, had a “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” It provided further that Israel should withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”—but did not require withdrawal from “the” or “all” territories, thereby countenancing less-than-total withdrawal. In this way Resolution 242 embodied the “land for peace” theory central to America’s policy in the Middle East ever since.

By contrast, Resolution 2334 refuses to “recognize any changes to the [1967] lines, including those with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.” This language effectively defines Israel’s borders, even while superficially affirming direct talks. Chatter about Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is nothing but a truism, equally applicable to the U.S. and Canada, or to any nations resolving trivial border disputes.

There can be no “land for peace”—with Israel retroceding territory in exchange for peace, as in the 1979 Camp David agreement with Egypt—if the land is not legitimately Israel’s to give up in the first place. Anti-Israel imagineers have used this linguistic jujitsu as their central tactic since 1967, trying to create “facts on the ground” in the U.N.’s corridors rather than by actually negotiating with Israel. Mr. Obama has given them an indefinite hall pass.

The Trump administration could veto future Security Council measures that extend Resolution 2334 (e.g., purportedly recognizing a Palestinian state). Mr. Trump could also veto efforts to implement Resolution 2334 (e.g., the sanctions for what it calls Israel’s “blatant violation under international law”). Still, there are significant dangers. Other U.N. bodies, such as the General Assembly and the numerous specialized agencies where America has no veto, can carry Resolution 2334 forward.

Even more perilous is that individual nations or the European Union can legislate their own sanctions under Resolution 2334’s provision that “all States” should “distinguish in their relevant dealings” between Israel’s territory “and the territories occupied since 1967.” This is a hunting license to ostracize Israel from the international economic system, exposing it and its citizens to incalculable personal and financial risk.

Once in office, President Trump should act urgently to mitigate or reverse Resolution 2334’s consequences. Mr. Obama has made this significantly harder by rendering America complicit in assaulting Israel. Nonetheless, handled properly, there is an escape from both the current danger zone and the wasteland in which the search for Middle East peace has long wandered.

First, there must be consequences for the adoption of Resolution 2334. The Trump administration should move to repeal the resolution, giving the 14 countries that supported it a chance to correct their error. Nations that affirm their votes should have their relations with Washington adjusted accordingly. In some cases this might involve vigorous diplomatic protests. But the main perpetrators in particular should face more tangible consequences.


As for the United Nations itself, if this mistake is not fixed the U.S. should withhold at least its assessed contributions to the U.N.—which amount to about $3 billion annually or 22%-25% of its total regular and peacekeeping budgets. Meanwhile, Washington should continue funding specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency, if only to dissuade them from entering the Resolution 2334 swamp.

Second, Mr. Trump should unambiguously reject Mr. Obama’s view that Resolution 2334 is justified to save the “two-state solution.” That goal, at best, has been on life-support for years. After Mr. Obama’s provocation, its life expectancy might now be only until Jan. 20. And good riddance. This dead-end vision, by conjuring an imaginary state with zero economic viability, has harmed not only Israel but also the Palestinians, the principal intended beneficiaries.

Far better to essay a “three-state solution,” returning Gaza to Egypt and giving those parts of the West Bank that Israel is prepared to cede to Jordan. By attaching Palestinian lands to real economies (not a make-believe one), average Palestinians (not their political elite), will have a true chance for a better future. Other alternatives to the two-state approach should also be considered.

Mr. Obama loves using the word “pivot” for his ever-changing priorities. It is now up to Mr. Trump to pivot away from his predecessor’s disastrous policies on Israel. Taking up the challenge will be difficult, but well worth the effort for America and its friends world-wide.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,698
missy|1482859601|4109859 said:
Tekate said:
Thank you Missy, I believe people can and should discuss these things and I think people can work towards a common goal..

I couldn't read the WSJ whole story as we don't subscribe, but thank you for the pointer.

I would even go as far as to say that let's all try to negotiate (Palestinians and Jews) without moving the settlements, and work towards a peaceful solution.

Missy, thank you, I find you always have a cheerful and kind outlook and it's always a pleasure to read your posts, even if I don't always agree say.

Happy New Year.

Kate
Thank you Kate and I agree with you about negotiating and working towards a peaceful solution no matter what happens re the settlements. I truly believe that is what most people want to happen. That somehow peace can and will be achieved. And thank you again about your kind comments. I feel the same about you and always enjoy your posts. Happy New Year to you too.

And FYI if you are interested...I am sorry you couldn't access it through my link so I went back to copy and paste if you want to read the article but don't feel obligated.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-parting-betrayal-of-israel-1482795616

By JOHN BOLTON
Dec. 26, 2016 6:40 p.m. ET

Last Friday, on the eve of Hanukkah and Christmas, Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the front. The departing president refused to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334—a measure ostensibly about Israeli settlement policy, but clearly intended to tip the peace process toward the Palestinians. Its adoption wasn’t pretty. But, sadly, it was predictable.

Mr. Obama’s refusal to use Washington’s veto was more than a graceless parting gesture. Its consequences pose major challenges for American interests. President-elect Donald Trump should echo Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s defiant and ringing 1975 response to the U.N.’s “Zionism is racism” resolution: that America “does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”

Mr. Obama argues that Resolution 2334 continues a bipartisan American policy toward the Middle East. It does precisely the opposite. The White House has abandoned any pretense that the actual parties to the conflict must resolve their differences. Instead, the president has essentially endorsed the Palestinian politico-legal narrative about territory formerly under League of Nations’ mandate, but not already under Israeli control after the 1948-49 war of independence.

Resolution 2334 implicitly repeals the iconic Resolution 242, which affirmed, in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War, that all affected nations, obviously including Israel, had a “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” It provided further that Israel should withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”—but did not require withdrawal from “the” or “all” territories, thereby countenancing less-than-total withdrawal. In this way Resolution 242 embodied the “land for peace” theory central to America’s policy in the Middle East ever since.

By contrast, Resolution 2334 refuses to “recognize any changes to the [1967] lines, including those with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.” This language effectively defines Israel’s borders, even while superficially affirming direct talks. Chatter about Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is nothing but a truism, equally applicable to the U.S. and Canada, or to any nations resolving trivial border disputes.

There can be no “land for peace”—with Israel retroceding territory in exchange for peace, as in the 1979 Camp David agreement with Egypt—if the land is not legitimately Israel’s to give up in the first place. Anti-Israel imagineers have used this linguistic jujitsu as their central tactic since 1967, trying to create “facts on the ground” in the U.N.’s corridors rather than by actually negotiating with Israel. Mr. Obama has given them an indefinite hall pass.

The Trump administration could veto future Security Council measures that extend Resolution 2334 (e.g., purportedly recognizing a Palestinian state). Mr. Trump could also veto efforts to implement Resolution 2334 (e.g., the sanctions for what it calls Israel’s “blatant violation under international law”). Still, there are significant dangers. Other U.N. bodies, such as the General Assembly and the numerous specialized agencies where America has no veto, can carry Resolution 2334 forward.

Even more perilous is that individual nations or the European Union can legislate their own sanctions under Resolution 2334’s provision that “all States” should “distinguish in their relevant dealings” between Israel’s territory “and the territories occupied since 1967.” This is a hunting license to ostracize Israel from the international economic system, exposing it and its citizens to incalculable personal and financial risk.

Once in office, President Trump should act urgently to mitigate or reverse Resolution 2334’s consequences. Mr. Obama has made this significantly harder by rendering America complicit in assaulting Israel. Nonetheless, handled properly, there is an escape from both the current danger zone and the wasteland in which the search for Middle East peace has long wandered.

First, there must be consequences for the adoption of Resolution 2334. The Trump administration should move to repeal the resolution, giving the 14 countries that supported it a chance to correct their error. Nations that affirm their votes should have their relations with Washington adjusted accordingly. In some cases this might involve vigorous diplomatic protests. But the main perpetrators in particular should face more tangible consequences.


As for the United Nations itself, if this mistake is not fixed the U.S. should withhold at least its assessed contributions to the U.N.—which amount to about $3 billion annually or 22%-25% of its total regular and peacekeeping budgets. Meanwhile, Washington should continue funding specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency, if only to dissuade them from entering the Resolution 2334 swamp.

Second, Mr. Trump should unambiguously reject Mr. Obama’s view that Resolution 2334 is justified to save the “two-state solution.” That goal, at best, has been on life-support for years. After Mr. Obama’s provocation, its life expectancy might now be only until Jan. 20. And good riddance. This dead-end vision, by conjuring an imaginary state with zero economic viability, has harmed not only Israel but also the Palestinians, the principal intended beneficiaries.

Far better to essay a “three-state solution,” returning Gaza to Egypt and giving those parts of the West Bank that Israel is prepared to cede to Jordan. By attaching Palestinian lands to real economies (not a make-believe one), average Palestinians (not their political elite), will have a true chance for a better future. Other alternatives to the two-state approach should also be considered.

Mr. Obama loves using the word “pivot” for his ever-changing priorities. It is now up to Mr. Trump to pivot away from his predecessor’s disastrous policies on Israel. Taking up the challenge will be difficult, but well worth the effort for America and its friends world-wide.
Thank you MIssy.. great read and great food for thought. I thoroughly believe we should support our allies. Totally :) Trump will probably de-fund or lessen USA contribution to the UN, I"m not opposed to that.. I think this is a new century and perhaps a new way of doing thing. Thank you very much MIssy.

Kate
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top