User Tag List

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: USA abstains on Vote Against Israel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    105

    Default USA abstains on Vote Against Israel

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/choosin...urity-council/
    Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council


    In a stunning departure from its policy over the last eight years, the Obama administration abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council resolution Friday that demands an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, enabling the measure to pass.
    I was stunned when I heard this.

    I thought Trump and Netanyahu's pressure on Egypt had put an end to this.

    But I just heard that New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal brought it up again.

    My own view:

    1) This was a last minute attack by Obama, and a sleazy one at that.


    2) There should be a practice that an outgoing President cannot undermine an incoming one.


    Neither side was serious about a two-state solution, so this vote was hypocritical.

    "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them." -- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

    I am pretty much convinced that Israel is using the settlements as a means to undercut the two-state solution. That is sure. One cannot negotiate on the distribution of a pie, while the stronger party is swallowing up the pie.

    But since I am not a fan of a two-state solution, this is a secondary issue to me. This vote will not move Israel.

    I think there are two options:

    One state where:

    A) Israel enfranchises the Arabs
    -or-
    B) Pays them to leave

    Still I think what Obama did was a cheap shot. A very cheap shot -- NOT that Netanyahu is incapable of cheap shots, either. How often has Netanyahu (re)-started construction just to rebuff Obama? He could not wait a few weeks.

    Still that vote was a cheap shot.

    I only wish that at least one State Dept official had resigned over this.

    The two state solution was a joke.

    Neither the Arabs nor the Israelis were serious about it.

    Had the Arabs been serious they would have stopped issuing maps with the PA controlling all of Mandatory Palestine. Had Israel been serious they would not be destroying small Arab construction in Area C, and would not be refusing permits to build in area B and C, and not be constructing Jewish housing in Area C at such a furious pace.

    Neither side was serious.

    So I favored a one-state where:

    A) Israel enfranchises the Arabs
    -or-
    B) Pays them to leave

    What Obama did was a cheap shot.

    This probably cannot be undone. Russia and China would veto a recision.

    Congress can vote a censure against Obama.

    The whole Mideast History is full of cheap shots.

    When Eisenhower pressured Ben Gurion to leave Sinai in 1956, my understand is that Israel decided to destroy the rail lines. What a sweetheart?!

    And the Arabs?! They are just murderously insane.
    Last edited by CuriousAmerican; 24-12-2016 at 10:18 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Irrelevant
    Posts
    2,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    74

    Default

    So tell me, CA, what does that say about the "powerful Israel lobby" already? 8 years of Barack H. Obama have shown that this lobby exists only in the paranoid minds of crazed Jew-haters.

    As for the resolution itself, it is entirely meaningless per se and will have no effect on the ground, rather, it is an opportunity for Israel to start acting like a sovereign country as opposed to an approval-seeking country... But I doubt the spineless leaders we now have will seize this opportunity.
    How would a sovereign country behave in this case? By breaking relations with all four sponsors of this resolution as well as the non-permanent members who voted in favour (and by kicking their nationals out, brutally if need be), by tearing up the peace treaty with Egypt (which could've vetoed or voted against the resolution) and by downgrading relations with all permanent members of the UNSC before cancelling all deals and arrangements with these countries until the resolution is repelled, in turn Israel needs to actively work against the interests of the members who voted in favour (ex: giving Russia an ultimatum to leave Syria under 24 hours or face overwhelming Israeli retaliation for encroaching on Israel's zone of influence, helping Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania & Latvia develop peaceful nuclear programs, etc). Leaving the UN until the resolution is repelled would be the best course of action, internally this resolution should give Israel the green light to build wherever it wishes and deal with the arabs as it sees fit by annexing Judea & Samaria.
    If it decides to become a major player, Israel has the potential to become the only superpower in the region, the problem is it isn't even trying to become a player.

    ^^This is how a sovereign country behaves, France wouldn't have reacted differently had the UNSC passed a resolution on French Polynesia. We brought this upon ourselves, we behaved exactly how the Useless Nations expected us to and this is our reward. We have no right to whine and complain, if we do not respect ourselves we should not expect others to respect us.

    I think the international cretins who supported this resolution are absolutely clueless as to how this resolution is going to weaken the left and all those who promote the same insane narrative about "settlements", after Gaza and Amona this resolution is the proverbial straw. We should thank them, really... But we won't.
    Last edited by Semitic Duwa; 24-12-2016 at 12:51 PM.

  3. Thanks Samaritan thanked for this post
    Likes Samaritan liked this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    120 N Main St, Hannibal, MO 63401
    Posts
    7,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    166

    Default

    What occurred today with Obama's fleeting opportunities to do his evil is not unexpected and should be seen as the opportunity to make a great change.
    First, Obama is leaving and Trump could be President for four years or eight years and Pence could be President for eight years.
    During that four years, the deal with Iran will be over, there will be no Iran hegemony in the ME in fact what I think is going to happen is the dawn of Israeli hegemony over the ME.
    I think this because of the nature of the times and Trump as well as Pence as Zionists.
    Both see Israel as the only capeable bulwark of Western values.
    The US Embassy will be moving to Jerusalem that is in direct opposition to President Harry S. Truman’s demand that Tel-Aviv will be the location for its Embassy.
    Jerusalem has only been the capitol of the Jews and the short-lived Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, it was never a capitol for anyone else, it became a city or part of a territory for nearly 2,000 years, it was never legally part of the proposed Arab State or the illegally annexed part of the Kingdom of Jordan.
    Jerusalem was to be an International city from 1946 to 1956, then a vote and the vote would decide whose country would it belong to.
    All of that was decided by others which came to an end with the Partition of Palestine and the Arabs said No the Jews said Yes.

    So what happened today, a couple views, one that the UN does not recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, but who does it belong to in their view. It should not be considered part of the so-called Palestine of a two-State solution because it was not ever part of an Arab State, it would have to be an International city with some sort of vote as in the failed Partition of Palestine.
    However, what of the American Embassy move, Does the USA place its embassies in cities that are not the capitol of that country.
    I think you’ll find that the United States of America only builds in Embassies in the capitals of those countries, further that when Trump moves the Embassy of the USA, he is saying that the USA recognizes Jerusalem and it’s neighborhood as part of sovereign Israel, putting the USA and Israel at loggerheads with the UN.
    Who would claim to be that, who was not.

  5. Thanks Semitic Duwa thanked for this post
    Likes Semitic Duwa liked this post
  6. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    120 N Main St, Hannibal, MO 63401
    Posts
    7,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    So tell me, CA, what does that say about the "powerful Israel lobby" already? 8 years of Barack H. Obama have shown that this lobby exists only in the paranoid minds of crazed Jew-haters.

    As for the resolution itself, it is entirely meaningless per se and will have no effect on the ground, rather, it is an opportunity for Israel to start acting like a sovereign country as opposed to an approval-seeking country... But I doubt the spineless leaders we now have will seize this opportunity.
    How would a sovereign country behave in this case? By breaking relations with all four sponsors of this resolution as well as the non-permanent members who voted in favour (and by kicking their nationals out, brutally if need be), by tearing up the peace treaty with Egypt (which could've vetoed or voted against the resolution) and by downgrading relations with all permanent members of the UNSC before cancelling all deals and arrangements with these countries until the resolution is repelled, in turn Israel needs to actively work against the interests of the members who voted in favour (ex: giving Russia an ultimatum to leave Syria under 24 hours or face overwhelming Israeli retaliation for encroaching on Israel's zone of influence, helping Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania & Latvia develop peaceful nuclear programs, etc). Leaving the UN until the resolution is repelled would be the best course of action, internally this resolution should give Israel the green light to build wherever it wishes and deal with the arabs as it sees fit by annexing Judea & Samaria.
    If it decides to become a major player, Israel has the potential to become the only superpower in the region, the problem is it isn't even trying to become a player.

    ^^This is how a sovereign country behaves, France wouldn't have reacted differently had the UNSC passed a resolution on French Polynesia. We brought this upon ourselves, we behaved exactly how the Useless Nations expected us to and this is our reward. We have no right to whine and complain, if we do not respect ourselves we should not expect others to respect us.

    I think the international cretins who supported this resolution are absolutely clueless as to how this resolution is going to weaken the left and all those who promote the same insane narrative about "settlements", after Gaza and Amona this resolution is the proverbial straw. We should thank them, really... But we won't.
    Who would claim to be that, who was not.

  7. Thanks Semitic Duwa thanked for this post
    Likes Semitic Duwa liked this post
  8. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    So tell me, CA, what does that say about the "powerful Israel lobby" already? 8 years of Barack H. Obama have shown that this lobby exists only in the paranoid minds of crazed Jew-haters.
    All it means is that the lobby was not as powerful as it once was. It was, and still is powerful, though not as powerful as it used to be. Part of its collapse is the changing demographics. Newer constituencies of Color - Asians and Arab-Americans are growing. Along with Blacks, these are taking a pro-Palestinian view.

    It was never the only lobby to contend with. The military lobby and oil lobbies were powerful, too. However, you are foolish to deny the power of groups like AIPAC. When Trump lands on board, the lobby will bounce back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    As for the resolution itself, it is entirely meaningless per se and will have no effect on the ground, rather, it is an opportunity for Israel to start acting like a sovereign country as opposed to an approval-seeking country... But I doubt the spineless leaders we now have will seize this opportunity.
    If Israel acted like a sovereign country it would annex Judea and Samaria (J&S). However it does not. Why? Because with annexation would come the requirement to enfranchise 2+/- million Arabs, which Israel doesn't want to do. This is understandable - no one wants Muslims in their polity - but then Israel let's the arena remain in a gray zone.

    Israel wants the rights of Jewish sovereignty without the responsibility of enfranchising the Arabs of J&S. This is one aspect of the problem.

    So you have Netanyahu who claims officially to be working towards a two-state solution, while privately he undermines it. (Click Here)

    This has infuriated the Europeans, and Obama, who consider Netanyahu duplicitous.

    While the chief problem is the Islamic mindset, Israel's actions are aggravating the problem.

    If Israel wants J&S, I have no problem. Enfranchise the Arabs.

    If Israel wants J&S, but does not want to enfranchise the Arabs, then pay them to leave.

    If Israel wants J&S, but does not want to enfranchise the Arabs, and does not want to pay them to leave, then stop calling itself the only democracy in the Mideast.

    I know Israel is in a difficult position; but make a decision.


    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    How would a sovereign country behave in this case?
    When China annexed Tibet, China bestowed, imposed Chinese citizenship on the Tibetans. This is where Israel is failing. She wants the land, but does not want to enfranchise the Arabs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    By breaking relations with all four sponsors of this resolution as well as the non-permanent members who voted in favour (and by kicking their nationals out, brutally if need be),
    Breaking relations with Senegal, Malaysia, and Venezuela is recommended. Breaking relations with New Zealand will come with a cost, albeit not much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    by tearing up the peace treaty with Egypt (which could've vetoed or voted against the resolution)
    That is unthinking petulance. Egypt actually helps you in policing the Rafah border.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    and by downgrading relations with all permanent members of the UNSC before cancelling all deals and arrangements with these countries until the resolution is repelled,
    Israel may have some influence with France and Britain, but not much over Russia, and China.

    Why would you downgrade relations with the USA, especially since Trump will be coming on board? Trump already opined against this.

    This would be Israel's version of a diplomatic boycott, and the result would be a near universal counter-boycott BDS of Israeli goods.

    Act, do not react. Such unthinking petulance would do you more harm than good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    in turn Israel needs to actively work against the interests of the members who voted in favour (ex: giving Russia an ultimatum to leave Syria under 24 hours or face overwhelming Israeli retaliation for encroaching on Israel's zone of influence,
    War with Russia? You might win, but at a frightful cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    helping Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania & Latvia develop peaceful nuclear programs, etc).
    No help to the Ukraine?! Now that would really hurt Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    Leaving the UN until the resolution is repelled would be the best course of action, internally this resolution should give Israel the green light to build wherever it wishes and deal with the arabs as it sees fit by annexing Judea & Samaria.
    I have no problem if you annex. But Israel's refusal to annex is part of the problem. You want the benefits of sovereignty without annexation. Until you annex, claiming the benefits of sovereignty is sketchy, and you give the UN the reason to condemn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    If it decides to become a major player, Israel has the potential to become the only superpower in the region, the problem is it isn't even trying to become a player.
    Are you insane? Israel has attacked Iraqi and Syrian reactors. It regularly attack Hezbollah transports. It intervenes when necessary. It sends in hit squads.

    Israel already is a player.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    ^^This is how a sovereign country behaves, France wouldn't have reacted differently had the UNSC passed a resolution on French Polynesia.
    French Polynesians are citizens of France, a secular Republic, and have representatives in the National Assembly. Are you willing to enfranchise the Arabs in J&S?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French...ns_with_France

    French Polynesia also sends three deputies to the French National Assembly, ... French Polynesia also sends two senators to the French Senate.
    ....
    French Polynesians vote in the French presidential elections
    Is it perfect?! No. Far from it. But how many members of the Knesset represent Ramallah?

    The French Republic's secularity is central. French Polynesia is very Protestant, even though France is nominally Catholic. France is a secular, not a Catholic, state; and hence French Polynesians suffer no liability for the Protesant preference.

    Israel is not exactly a secular state. Is it?! It is a Jewish state. Albeit, an Islamic state is the worst; but again, Polynesia works because of a secularity that does NOT exist in Israel, nor Araby.

    You are confusing apples with oranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    We brought this upon ourselves, we behaved exactly how the Useless Nations expected us to and this is our reward. We have no right to whine and complain, if we do not respect ourselves we should not expect others to respect us.
    Israel contributed to this by refusing to make hard decisions in J&S.

    If Israel wants J&S, I have no problem. Enfranchise the Arabs.

    If Israel wants J&S, but does not want to enfranchise the Arabs, then pay them to leave.

    If Israel wants J&S, but does not want to enfranchise the Arabs, and does not want to pay them to leave, then stop calling itself the only democracy in the Mideast.

    I know Israel is in a difficult position; but make a decision.

    Instead, Israel acted in a passive-aggressive fashion in J&S; and hoped that nobody would notice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    I think the international cretins who supported this resolution are absolutely clueless as to how this resolution is going to weaken the left and all those who promote the same insane narrative about "settlements",
    They are clueless.


    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    after Gaza and Amona this resolution is the proverbial straw. We should thank them, really... But we won't.
    Nuff said for now.

    Happy Passover, or Christmas. Whichever you celebrate.
    Last edited by CuriousAmerican; 24-12-2016 at 07:29 PM.

  9. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    105

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by Samaritan View Post
    or the illegally annexed part of the Kingdom of Jordan.


    Be careful there! Israel conspired with Abdullah for Jordan to annex that area. You cannot complain about Jordan's actions if you were part of that process.

    Source: The Right Wing Dr. Arieh Eldad (set to right time) --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U1BTelJLMA&t=42m24s

    I can find other sources. Jordan's annexation of the area was done with Israeli approval.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samaritan View Post
    Jerusalem was to be an International city from 1946 to 1956, then a vote and the vote would decide whose country would it belong to.


    I have no problem with Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem, just be fair with the permits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samaritan View Post
    I think you’ll find that the United States of America only builds in Embassies in the capitals of those countries, further that when Trump moves the Embassy of the USA, he is saying that the USA recognizes Jerusalem and it’s neighborhood as part of sovereign Israel, putting the USA and Israel at loggerheads with the UN.
    Minor issue. The Embassy will be in Western side of Jerusalem. If he moved it to the Easern side, say Orient House, then you would have a real statement.

    Happy Hannukah and Christmas. Get in touch with your Christian side, Sam.

  10. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    120 N Main St, Hannibal, MO 63401
    Posts
    7,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousAmerican View Post



    [/COLOR]Be careful there! Israel conspired with Abdullah for Jordan to annex that area. You cannot complain about Jordan's actions if you were part of that process.

    Source: The Right Wing Dr. Arieh Eldad (set to right time) --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U1BTelJLMA&t=42m24s

    I can find other sources. Jordan's annexation of the area was done with Israeli approval.



    I have no problem with Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem, just be fair with the permits.
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]

    Minor issue. The Embassy will be in Western side of Jerusalem. If he moved it to the Easern side, say Orient House, then you would have a real statement.

    Happy Hannukah and Christmas. Get in touch with your Christian side, Sam.
    My response (part one)

    As usual, you have been watching too many old conspiracy shows, this one belongs to the supposed deal with Golda and their runt king Abdullah in the Middle of the night in some desert oasis.
    It was rated poppycock btw, I am sure John Baggot Glub aka posha would have mentioned it in his book " A Soldier with the Arabs" I don't recall when I read it at University, he did.
    Any meeting or meetings, it would have been a try at a peaceful solution, not ceding over swaths of land and the idea of giving Jerusalem, or any part of the land to the Kingdom of Jordan is insulting as much as laughable on your part to accept it as fact no matter who told you or how many youtube videos or made for TV movies with or without Ingrid Bergman, cigarette or no cigarette.

    Eldad an interesting man is wrong and he is wrong for the vey reasons below


    http://www.meforum.org/302/rewriting-israels-history


    This scholarly piece proves me right and of course, as usual, you wrong, nothing ever changes does it?


    " Shlaim traces Israel's and Transjordan's alleged collusion to a secret meeting on November 17, 1947, in which King `Abdallah and Golda Meir agreed supposedly to frustrate the impending U.N. Resolution on Palestine and instead divide Palestine between themselves. He writes that


    In 1947 an explicit agreement was reached between the Hashemites and the Zionists on the carving up of Palestine following the termination of the British mandate . . . it was consciously and deliberately intended to frustrate the will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations General Assembly, in favour of creating an independent Arab state in part of Palestine.43
    Is there any evidence for this alleged conspiracy? No, none at all. First, a careful examination of the two documents used to substantiate the claim of collusion -- reports by Ezra Danin and Eliyahu Sasson, two Zionist officials -- proves that Meir implacably opposed any agreement that would violate the U.N. partition resolution passed twelve days later. In no way did she consent to the Transjordan annexation of Arab areas of Palestine. Rather, Meir made it eminently clear that:


    * Any Zionist-Hashemite arrangement would have to be compatible with the U.N. resolution. In Danin's words: "We explained that our matter was being discussed at the UN, that we hoped that it would be decided there to establish two states, one Jewish and one Arab, and that we wished to speak now about an agreement with him [i.e., `Abdallah] based on these resolutions."44 In Sasson's words: "Replied we prepared [to] give every assistance within [the] frame [of the] UN Charter."45


    * The sole purpose of Transjordan's intervention in post-Mandatory Palestine would be, in Meir's words, "to maintain law and order and to preserve peace until the UN could establish a government in that area,"46 namely, a short-lived law-enforcement operation aimed at facilitating the establishment of a legitimate Palestinian government. Indeed, even `Abdallah did not expect the meeting to produce any concrete agreement. In Danin's words: "At the end he reiterated that concrete matters could be discussed only after the UN had passed its resolution, and said that we must meet again immediately afterwards."47


    Secondly, Meir's account of her conversation with `Abdallah -- strangely omitted in this context by Shlaim (though he cites it elsewhere in his study) -- further confirms that Mandatory Palestine was not divided on November 17, 1947.


    For our part we told him then that we could not promise to help his incursion into the country [i.e., Mandatory Palestine], since we would be obliged to observe the UN Resolution which, as we already reckoned at the time, would provide for the establishment of two states in Palestine. Hence, we could not -- so we said -- give active support to the violation of this resolution.48


    Thirdly, Shlaim's thesis is predicated on the idea of a single diplomatic encounter's profoundly affecting the course of history. He naïvely subscribes to the notion that a critical decision about the making of war and peace or the division of foreign lands is made in the course of a single conversation, without consultations or extended bargaining. This account reflects a complete lack of understanding about the nature of foreign policymaking in general and of the Zionist decision-making process in particular.


    Fourthly, as mere acting head of the Jewish Agency's political department, Meir was in no position to commit her movement to a binding deal with King `Abdallah, especially since that deal would run counter to the Jewish Agency's simultaneous efforts to win a U.N. resolution on partition. All she could do was try to convince `Abdallah not to oppose the impending U.N. partition resolution violently and give him the gist of Zionist thinking.


    Fifthly, Meir's conversation with `Abdallah was never discussed by the Jewish Agency Executive, the Yishuv's effective government. The Yishuv's military operations during the 1947-49 war show not a trace of the alleged deal in either their planning or their execution. Quite the contrary, the Zionist leadership remained deeply suspicious of `Abdallah's expansionist ambitions up to May 1948.


    Lastly, while the Jewish Agency unquestionably preferred `Abdallah to his Palestinian rival, the Jerusalem mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, this preference did not lead the agency to preclude the possibility of a Palestinian state. As late as December 1948 (or more than a year after `Abdallah and Meir had allegedly divided Palestine), Ben-Gurion stated his preference for an independent Palestinian state to Transjordan's annexing the Arab parts of Mandatory Palestine. "An Arab State in Western Palestine is less dangerous than a state that is tied to Transjordan, and tomorrow -- probably to Iraq," he told his advisers. "Why should we vainly antagonize the Russians? Why should we do this [i.e., agree to Transjordan's annexation of Western Palestine] against the [wishes of the] rest of the Arab states?"49


    In short, not only did the Zionist movement not collude with King `Abdallah to divide Mandatory Palestine between themselves but it was reconciled to the advent of a Palestinian state. `Abdallah was the one who was violently opposed to such an eventuality and who caused it to fail by seizing the bulk of the territory the United Nations had allocated to the Palestinians."


    So I believe your Myth conclusion is indeed poppycock.
    ps your revisionist post zionist new historians will be given the proper respect as I have always never failed to give you, btw is this a holiday visit?
    Last edited by Samaritan; 25-12-2016 at 05:00 AM.
    Who would claim to be that, who was not.

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,653
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by semitic duwa View Post
    so tell me, ca, what does that say about the "powerful israel lobby" already? 8 years of barack h. Obama have shown that this lobby exists only in the paranoid minds of crazed jew-haters.

    As for the resolution itself, it is entirely meaningless per se and will have no effect on the ground, rather, it is an opportunity for israel to start acting like a sovereign country as opposed to an approval-seeking country... But i doubt the spineless leaders we now have will seize this opportunity.
    How would a sovereign country behave in this case? By breaking relations with all four sponsors of this resolution as well as the non-permanent members who voted in favour (and by kicking their nationals out, brutally if need be), by tearing up the peace treaty with egypt (which could've vetoed or voted against the resolution) and by downgrading relations with all permanent members of the unsc before cancelling all deals and arrangements with these countries until the resolution is repelled, in turn israel needs to actively work against the interests of the members who voted in favour (ex: Giving russia an ultimatum to leave syria under 24 hours or face overwhelming israeli retaliation for encroaching on israel's zone of influence, helping georgia, estonia, lithuania & latvia develop peaceful nuclear programs, etc). Leaving the un until the resolution is repelled would be the best course of action, internally this resolution should give israel the green light to build wherever it wishes and deal with the arabs as it sees fit by annexing judea & samaria.
    If it decides to become a major player, israel has the potential to become the only superpower in the region, the problem is it isn't even trying to become a player.

    ^^this is how a sovereign country behaves, france wouldn't have reacted differently had the unsc passed a resolution on french polynesia. We brought this upon ourselves, we behaved exactly how the useless nations expected us to and this is our reward. We have no right to whine and complain, if we do not respect ourselves we should not expect others to respect us.

    I think the international cretins who supported this resolution are absolutely clueless as to how this resolution is going to weaken the left and all those who promote the same insane narrative about "settlements", after gaza and amona this resolution is the proverbial straw. We should thank them, really... But we won't.
    loool
    ? ? ?

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    120 N Main St, Hannibal, MO 63401
    Posts
    7,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    166

    Default

    Who would claim to be that, who was not.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samaritan View Post
    So I believe your Myth conclusion is indeed poppycock.
    ps your revisionist post zionist new historians will be given the proper respect as I have always never failed to give you, btw is this a holiday visit?
    I will trust the right wing General Arieh Edad on this matter before your sources.

    Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy Channukah. Get in touch with your Christian side, Sam.
    Last edited by CuriousAmerican; 25-12-2016 at 06:53 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •