A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: Israel vs The Rest  (Read 10192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #60 on: January 09, 2009, 10:14:32 AM »

So America abstained again this morning...the only country....Why?
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!
GEMM is your best source for impossible-to-find !

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13485
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #61 on: January 09, 2009, 11:35:58 AM »

Because there's a strong jewish lobby in the US politics.
Logged

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #62 on: January 09, 2009, 11:42:54 AM »

I watched a bit of the UN meet before falling asleep and all seemed to be going so well. Even Condaleeza started off encouragingly. Close your eyes and look what happens!

Israel & US seem to be making the UN look pointless. That bodes bad for the future.
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

J_Moondog

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #63 on: January 09, 2009, 02:37:10 PM »

Quote from: 63
Because there's a strong jewish lobby in the US politics.

I don't quite agree with this.  The United States has supported Israel long before there were significant Israel lobby groups in the country.  When the US supported Indonesia's ethnic cleansing of the East Timorese, it was not because of an Indonesian lobby.  When the US supported apartheid in South Africa, it was not because of a South African lobby.  Rather, it was recognized that supporting these insidious crimes would be beneficial to US economic interests in the region.  According to internal documents, Israel has been a crucial part of US foreign policy since 1947 and the Middle East was considered a valuable asset in the goal for global hegemony.  The history would take pages to explain, but to me, there is very little evidence that any of the support that has been given to Israel over the last 60+ years has had very much to do with lobby groups.
Logged

J_Moondog

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #64 on: January 09, 2009, 02:38:15 PM »

Quote from: 15
Israel & US seem to be making the UN look pointless. That bodes bad for the future.

This has generally been the US strategy in all international affairs since the 1960s

Logged

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2009, 03:22:57 PM »

Quote from: 1832

This has generally been the US strategy in all international affairs since the 1960s


Sheer arrogance (US) but I guess your right really. Humanity loses out again.
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #66 on: January 09, 2009, 03:34:42 PM »

Quote from: 15

Sheer arrogance (US) but I guess your right really. Humanity loses out again.

Don't feel quite so hopeless. IMO, what is going on there now is Israel trying to keep from getting their civilians rocketed, and not knowing what else to do, having tried many other options in the past. Hamas is shooting rockets from homes, schools, and hospitals. Who has committed the greater moral sin - the one who retaliates at those areas, with massive civilian casualties, or the one who launches military maneuvers from civilian areas in the first place? As far as I know, the rockets are still being fired from those areas ...

Remember, the US and Israel are not the only ones "posturing" at the UN. My impression is that most votes are not made on morale grounds, but rather political ones. "Let's stick it to the man", and "what's in it for us" have often been the voting credo of many countries over the past decades, right or wrong. The UN is definitely not the Altruism Society of the World.

Oh, as for sheer arrogance - why no similar feelings towards Hamas as well, who rejected the call for the cease fire also?

******************************************************************

January 10, 2009
Israel and Hamas Rebuff U.N. Cease-Fire Call
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM
Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #67 on: January 09, 2009, 04:07:24 PM »

Quote from: 1832
I think it is crucial when discussing Israel's "right to exist" that it is understood what is meant by that when the question is asked.  First of all, the "right to exist" is not a legitimate term in international law. In other words, no state demands the right to exist and no state's existence is recognized under international law.  In terms of peace proposals, Palestine has always been in favor of a settlement that would guarantee the existence of the state of Israel in exchange for mutual recognition - a proposal that is supported by practically every country in the world and historically rejected by the United States and Israel.  If one looks back at the diplomatic history, they will find that Israel shifted their position when the PLO and the Arab states supported the two-state settlement solution and that shift was characterized by the "right to exist", which meant that Palestinians would not only have to support a solution that would grant Israel statehood (since they already supported that) but, rather, have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state that dispossessed them from the land.  I'm not sure who would support that, nor is there any reason to argue that Israel should be above the standards of international law.

Not being a diplomat, but that just doesn't sound right to me. Doesn't international law recognize the right to exist in many ways, for example, the doctrines of non-interference in a country's internal affairs, a country's right to defend itself and secure its borders, etc.? I'm probably just being dense or something here, sorry for that J Moondog, but it sounds like you know what you are talking about ... please explain further - thanks!

Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #68 on: January 09, 2009, 05:02:04 PM »

Quote from: 568


Oh, as for sheer arrogance - why no similar feelings towards Hamas as well, who rejected the call for the cease fire also?


Sure..I got that snippet on the news after my comment. It's good to be educated in these matters but the news polarity seems to shift.....According to Tony Benn, (ExMP) Isreal fired first whilst there was already a ceasefire in place and strangleheld the Gaza strip from receiving humanitarian aid these last few months....It's for more cpomplex I know for my sweeping generalisations. I really hope there can be a lasting solution. I also hoped the UN could provide a rational solution......All parties have to agree of course, it's just that I heard the rejection from Israel and US first.
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #69 on: January 09, 2009, 05:28:41 PM »

Quote from: 15

Sure..I got that snippet on the news after my comment. It's good to be educated in these matters but the news polarity seems to shift.....According to Tony Benn, (ExMP) Isreal fired first whilst there was already a ceasefire in place and strangleheld the Gaza strip from receiving humanitarian aid these last few months....It's for more cpomplex I know for my sweeping generalisations. I really hope there can be a lasting solution. I also hoped the UN could provide a rational solution......All parties have to agree of course, it's just that I heard the rejection from Israel and US first.

None of us Beatle people will ever know the real truth of what happened first to whom, and really, when it comes down to it, the only important thing is the solution, not the blame. Like in a relationship, the main parties need to get past that stage to find true peace.

Jeesh, I wish I could put those words to work in my own marriage better, I do try, " ... as good as I can be"!

Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

J_Moondog

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #70 on: January 09, 2009, 05:33:11 PM »

Quote from: 568
Don't feel quite so hopeless. IMO, what is going on there now is Israel trying to keep from getting their civilians rocketed, and not knowing what else to do, having tried many other options in the past. [/i]



No serious person believes that Hamas should be firing rockets, but Israeli actions in the Gaza strip and the West Bank have been far more violent and destructive for years (well before the rockets were being fired).  I'm not sure what these "options" are that Israel has tried.  Currently, they are in violation of international law for illegal constructing settlements and development programs along the West Bank; they are in violation of the Geneva Convention for illegally occupying Gaza and its inhabitants; they are violating international humanitarian law by reducing fuel and electricity supplies in Gaza in order to put pressure on the elected Hamas government.  If the options are these grave violations of international law (much more severe than the ones carried out by Palestine), then one can only view this as an impediment to diplomacy in the region.
Logged

J_Moondog

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #71 on: January 09, 2009, 05:34:54 PM »

Quote from: 568
Remember, the US and Israel are not the only ones "posturing" at the UN.

Since the beginning of the 1970s, the United States is by far in the lead for vetoes in UN security council resolutions.  No one else comes anywhere close (Britain is in second, and the US naturally tolerates that as they often take similar positions).  So, yes, the US is almost exclusively the only party that is attempting to undermine the UN.  In terms of voting alone, they have been the chief actor in vetoing middle east peace proposals.

Logged

J_Moondog

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #72 on: January 09, 2009, 05:44:48 PM »

Quote from: 568

Not being a diplomat, but that just doesn't sound right to me. Doesn't international law recognize the right to exist in many ways, for example, the doctrines of non-interference in a country's internal affairs, a country's right to defend itself and secure its borders, etc.? I'm probably just being dense or something here, sorry for that J Moondog, but it sounds like you know what you are talking about ... please explain further - thanks!


International law does recognize "the doctrines of non-interference" and "a country's right to defend itself" but this has nothing to do with Israel and the question of "the right to exist".  When Israel first adopted the term, it was new to international diplomacy.  No country before (and no country since) had ever demanded recognition of their right to exist in international affairs.  Again, the PLO had already agreed to the international consensus of a two-state settlement that allowed for mutual recognition - meaning both state would have the very kinds of protections of international law that you noted above.  "The right to exist" goes beyond that - it is a demand for a recognition of legitimacy - in other words, that it is legitimate to dispossess people from their land.  Not only is this unheard of in terms of diplomacy, it is outright hypocritical as Israel historically has not recognized Palestine's right to exist (it still refuses to accept Palestinian nationalism even in the most recent election which plainly showed Israel's view: they may vote for whoever they want, but if it doesn't turn out the way we like, we will refuse to see the results as legitimate).  
Logged

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #73 on: January 09, 2009, 05:46:24 PM »

"One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist." is the saying I think.

Now if only DM's could have the master vote on the UN council. Thanks for the info guys. :)

oh and best of luck on the home front Alexis.
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #74 on: January 09, 2009, 05:46:39 PM »

Quote from: 1832

Since the beginning of the 1970s, the United States is by far in the lead for vetoes in UN security council resolutions.  No one else comes anywhere close (Britain is in second, and the US naturally tolerates that as they often take similar positions).  So, yes, the US is almost exclusively the only party that is attempting to undermine the UN. In terms of voting alone, they have been the chief actor in vetoing middle east peace proposals.


I seem to remember an awful lot of obstructive voting/vetos by Russia and China in the '90s when the UN was trying to bring peace to Kosovo and that region ...? And even currently, isn't China obstructing peacekeeping efforts to put an end to the Genocide in Darfur/Sudan, mainly for economic reasons (keep markets for their goods open, and keep access to mineral rights in Africa)?

I'm sorry, I reread your post, I see you were limiting it to middle east peace proposals. I guess that one would need to know what exactly was being proposed before determining whether opposition was the right course or not. I agree with you about the settlements ... from what I know, they should be torn down, didn't Israel actually agree to do this at some point?

But really, that gets back to the blame game. "You fired rockets", ... "But you built settlements" ... "You launched suicide bombers" ... "But you kept us in poverty and sickness by locking the borders" ... etc., ad nauseum.

We Beatle people, reasonable all (most  ;)), say we believe in Peace and Love - how do we propose this thing get sorted out?

Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

J_Moondog

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #75 on: January 09, 2009, 05:46:49 PM »

Quote from: 568

Not being a diplomat, but that just doesn't sound right to me. Doesn't international law recognize the right to exist in many ways, for example, the doctrines of non-interference in a country's internal affairs, a country's right to defend itself and secure its borders, etc.? I'm probably just being dense or something here, sorry for that J Moondog, but it sounds like you know what you are talking about ... please explain further - thanks!


International law does recognize "the doctrines of non-interference" and "a country's right to defend itself" but this has nothing to do with Israel and the question of "the right to exist".  When Israel first adopted the term, it was new to international diplomacy.  No country before (and no country since) had ever demanded recognition of their right to exist in international affairs.  Again, the PLO had already agreed to the international consensus of a two-state settlement that allowed for mutual recognition - meaning both state would have the very kinds of protections of international law that you noted above.  "The right to exist" goes beyond that - it is a demand for a recognition of legitimacy - in other words, that it is legitimate to dispossess people from their land.  Not only is this unheard of in terms of diplomacy, it is outright hypocritical as Israel historically has not recognized Palestine's right to exist (it still refuses to accept Palestinian nationalism even in the most recent election which plainly showed Israel's view: they may vote for whoever they want, but if it doesn't turn out the way we like, we will refuse to see the results as legitimate).  
Logged

J_Moondog

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #76 on: January 09, 2009, 06:02:06 PM »

Quote from: 568

I seem to remember an awful lot of obstructive voting/vetos by Russia and China in the '90s when the UN was trying to bring peace to Kosovo and that region ...? And even currently, isn't China obstructing peacekeeping efforts to put an end to the Genocide in Darfur/Sudan, mainly for economic reasons (keep markets for their goods open, and keep access to mineral rights in Africa)?


I only have statistics that go to 2004, but it has been fairly consistent since then, as far as my memory serves.  Between 1989 and 2004, Russia used their veto power 3 times (only once for Bosnia).  The United States in the same amount of time used their veto power 13 times (also, once for Bosnia) - so more than four times the amount of Russia.  China has only used their veto power five times total, versus the US's number of 76.  Keep in mind that some of these numbers probably should be inflated a bit for the missing four years.
Logged

J_Moondog

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #77 on: January 09, 2009, 06:07:37 PM »

Quote from: 568

I'm sorry, I reread your post, I see you were limiting it to middle east peace proposals. I guess that one would need to know what exactly was being proposed before determining whether opposition was the right course or not. I agree with you about the settlements ... from what I know, they should be torn down, didn't Israel actually agree to do this at some point?

But really, that gets back to the blame game. "You fired rockets", ... "But you built settlements" ... "You launched suicide bombers" ... "But you kept us in poverty and sickness by locking the borders" ... etc., ad nauseum.




"I guess that one would need to know what exactly was being proposed before determining whether opposition was the right course or not"

The proposal has been the same since the 1970s - the international consensus of a two-state solution, with the pre-1967 borders, and mutual recognition for both sides.  It has the support of the entire international community with the exception of the United States.

"I agree with you about the settlements ... from what I know, they should be torn down, didn't Israel actually agree to do this at some point?"

No.  At one point a few years ago, they agreed to take some settlements down, whilst wildly expanding their illegal settlements elsewhere.

"But really, that gets back to the blame game. 'You fired rockets', ... 'But you built settlements' ... 'You launched suicide bombers' ... 'But you kept us in poverty and sickness by locking the borders' ... etc., ad nauseum"

But this is drastically missing the point.  The point is that the Palestinians have been under a brutal, harsh, military occupation since 1967 that has reduced the nation to an apartheid-state.  Regardless of what happens now and who does what first now, the primary concern is that the brutal occupation must end - and again, everyone agrees to this with the exception of the US.
Logged

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2009, 02:05:46 AM »

Quote from: 1832


"I guess that one would need to know what exactly was being proposed before determining whether opposition was the right course or not"

The proposal has been the same since the 1970s - the international consensus of a two-state solution, with the pre-1967 borders, and mutual recognition for both sides.  It has the support of the entire international community with the exception of the United States.

"I agree with you about the settlements ... from what I know, they should be torn down, didn't Israel actually agree to do this at some point?"

No.  At one point a few years ago, they agreed to take some settlements down, whilst wildly expanding their illegal settlements elsewhere.

"But really, that gets back to the blame game. 'You fired rockets', ... 'But you built settlements' ... 'You launched suicide bombers' ... 'But you kept us in poverty and sickness by locking the borders' ... etc., ad nauseum"

But this is drastically missing the point.  The point is that the Palestinians have been under a brutal, harsh, military occupation since 1967 that has reduced the nation to an apartheid-state.  Regardless of what happens now and who does what first now, the primary concern is that the brutal occupation must end - and again, everyone agrees to this with the exception of the US.

But couldn't a reasonable person respond that that is drastically missing the point - that prior to 1967 Israel had nothing to do with Gaza, the Sinai, Golan Heights and the West Bank, but then it was invaded by the Arabs who had the declared intention of wiping Israel off the map? ... that Israel fought back, and pushed the Arabs back, conquering these lands in the process ... no 1967 invasion of Israel -- no occupation. Simplistic of course, but is it not true?  

 A reasonable reading of history might suggest that it wouldn't have ever occurred if Israel had not been attacked. And now with rockets fired into Israeli civilian areas from the Gaza strip by Hamas (who has sworn the destruction of Israel), I can see why Israeli policy makers might hesitate to set these areas free without an agreement for peace they can trust. It gave the Sinai back to Egypt in return for a peace treaty, so maybe there is hope ...

I agree with you strongly, the military occupation has been brutal and harsh. But (addressing your final point), I don't think the US is at all against the occupation ending, they just want it to end like the one of the Sinai did (peace with Egypt, lasting 20 years or more now), not leaving a situation where Israel's security is mortally threatened. Just my opinion, of course ...

By the way J_Moondog, thank you for engaging me and educating me about this. My source of information is generally the mainstream media here in the States, and I don't get the chance to talk to people with other points of view very often.

Respectfully -

Alexis
Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

Swine

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Israel vs The Rest
« Reply #79 on: January 12, 2009, 10:01:27 AM »

Quote from: 1789

its reported everywhere that all russians like vodka and that most of them are alcoholics, so it must be true.

i am sorry, you are obviously right about your statement.
Logged
[size=18]LIFE IS GETTING WORSE[/size]
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
 

Page created in 0.571 seconds with 27 queries.