US says it’ll be ‘taking names’ of countries that oppose Jerusalem move at UN
United States Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the US will be “taking names” of countries that support a draft resolution rejecting President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, set for a General Assembly vote Thursday.
Turkey and Yemen requested the urgent meeting of the 193-nation forum on behalf of the Arab group of countries and the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) after the US vetoed the measure in the Security Council. The two countries circulated a draft resolution that mirrors the vetoed measure, reaffirming that any decision on the status of Jerusalem has no legal effect and must be rescinded.
Egypt had put forward the draft, which was backed by all 14 other Security Council members in a vote on Monday. Like the Egyptian draft, the text before the assembly does not explicitly mention Trump’s decision but expresses “deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem.”
Haley reacted angrily to the move, tweeting, “On Thurs there’ll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names.”
In a letter sent to several UN ambassadors, Haley warned that she would report back to Trump on the countries that supported the draft resolution.
“The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those countries who voted against us,” she wrote. “We will take note of each and every vote on this issue.”
In an address December 6 from the White House, Trump defied worldwide warnings and insisted that after repeated failures to achieve peace, a new approach was long overdue, describing his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the seat of Israel’s government as merely based on reality. He also said the US embassy would move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but did not give a schedule for the relocation.
Trump stressed that he was not specifying the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in the city, and called for no change in the status quo at the city’s holy sites.
The announcement was hailed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and by leaders across much of the Israeli political spectrum. It was criticized by many countries, condemned by the Arab world, and infuriated Palestinians, who held violent demonstrations for several days in the West Bank and on the Gaza Strip’s border with Israel.
The Palestinian permanent observer in the UN, Riyad Mansour, said he expected “overwhelming support” in the General Assembly vote, stating that Jerusalem is an issue “to be resolved through negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinians.
“The General Assembly will say, without the fear of the veto, that the international community is refusing to accept the unilateral position of the United States,” Mansour told reporters.
No country has veto power in the 193-nation assembly, contrary to the council, where the United States, along with Britain, China, France and Russia, can block any resolution.
Key US allies Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Ukraine were among the 14 countries in the 15-member council that voted in favor of the measure.
Ambassador Haley described that 14-1 vote “an insult” and warned “it won’t be forgotten.”
She went further on Monday, warning in her tweet: “At the UN we’re always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, abt where to locate OUR embassy, we don’t expect those we’ve helped to target us.”
In a memo to its missions around the world Tuesday, Israel’s Foreign Ministry advised diplomats to encourage their host countries to oppose the resolution at the General Assembly. In the case of countries that are planning to back the resolution, diplomats were urged to encourage their local counterparts to at least refrain from expressing public support for the proposal.
Israeli diplomats were told to emphasize that the resolution is one-sided and will harm prospects for peace by undermining Trump, and may also lead to further violence in the region.
Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War and sees the whole of Jerusalem as its undivided capital, while the Palestinians view East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.
Tags
Who is online
59 visitors
The US pays 22% of the UN budget and handles 28% of it's peacekeeping efforts. Stopping payment and reduced operations the US will save billions.
The results of the vote are below:
(source)
If we look at who voted in favor for this and compare it to who gets aid from the US, we could be seeing BILLIONS the US will save (on top of the money saved from the UN budget and operations) if the President goes through with his statement.
Seriously? Let's just say the we do that.....that will leave a power vacuum the countries like China and Russia will easily be able to pick up, thereby abdicating or claim as world leaders. Do you actually thing that places like Afghanistan or Gaza will allow any US interests in their territories if we stop aid and say Russia decides to start giving it to them? Or what about Saudi Arabia and Venzeula? Both voted in favor, you think it will be so easy to negotiate oil prices to the two largest suppliers of oil to the US?
Just admit, it was an empty bluff that didn't work......the only thing Trump has done was make Haley's job much harder in the future regarding UN resolutions about Israel!
World leaders or world police. Ever think WHY we ante up 28 % of the operations? Because the other countries won't. The very countries that have their hands out when it comes time to dole out the aid.
Pull your head out of your fourth point of contact for once. The vote was this week. But then you'd know that if you read the article.
And in the same breath why do you think that we DO?! It's not that other countries can't but the problem is they would have to compete with us when it comes to each others national interest!
Dude! What the hell are you talking about?! Of course the UN vote was this week...it was yesterday! But the resolution was initiated on the 17th and Trump made that empty threat on the 20th!.....but then you'd know that if you actually knew anything about this subject
America abdicated it's claim to be a world leader when the minority of poorly educated via the electoral college elected Donald Trump as President. We are now the "What not to do" nation and a laughing stock around the world. I guess those who elected Trump really don't care because they rarely got out of their hollers so never felt part of a global community.
What the hell is the use of being a world leader if we're afraid to make and enforce our rules? If Russia and China want to start picking up the tab, let them throw their money away and we'll be the one who refuses to obey. We'll still be a veto power in the Security Council and can block them from accomplishing anything (which is probably a good thing, they never do anything worthwhile anyway). By the way, as long as we stay a veto power that status can't be changed against our will.
And here we have another one with their head in their fourth point of contact. Since the election that has you in perpetual hissy fit, the US has hit milestones that haven't been seen in a long time. You should come out for air.
My only concern is whether there is a minimum funding requirement in order to qualify to maintain the veto right, and that amount MUST continue to be paid if there is one. I would tell UNESCO and UNRWA to go to hell.
except the part about trump ever backs down... he will keep his word.
Trump is a pathological liar and the most pathetic coward to ever occupy the White House. He is a complete and utter disgrace. Bluster and empty threats may project strength on the playground; in the adult world they are seen for what they are, weakness and immaturity.
Canada has lots of oil to supply to the USA, and besides, isn't there a movement towards using renewable energy, electric cars, etc.
So when will the big check from Mexico be coming in for that wall again? Did you get the email on when Trump will be officially recognizing China as a currency manipulator?......
Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War
An important question-- who did they capture it from? (East Jerusalem was illegally occupied before 1967-- who occupied it?)
"Illegally occupied before the 1967 Six Day War?"
Gaza was taken from Egypt. West Bank and East Jerusalem was taken from Jordan.
Of course, had the Arab States not instigated the conflict in the first place......................
Israel conquered for itself a buffer zone.
I wonder how that war would have gone had the US not been giving Israel access to its military might. It would have been a very different middle east without our jets and weapons.
Had you had things go the way you seem to indicate by your comments, there might not have been survival of Israel, but then perhaps you see that as a good thing.
My God....these people have been through hell and back.
I don't understand the hate towards Israel. I never will.
I understand it, but what's the use of naming it - it's ingrained.
The Israelite's around the world would have continued to survive and thrive, they don't need to occupy a specific location for that. They should have been given their homes and land back in Europe that was taken from them after WWII, not repatriated to a land most had never set foot in. Taking other peoples homes just to give them their ancient regional land back that hadn't been theirs in thousands of years just exacerbated the problem. Two wrongs don't make a right.
There were no "Israelites around the world" except those already living there. Please show me evidence that the Jewish refugees who TRIED to get to Israel (Britain blocked so many of them as history has shown, because after all, Arab oil was most needed) actually preferred to return to where their neighbours hated them and turned them in to the Nazis, and I'll consider agreeing with your opinion. I personally think that they would have wanted to go somewhere where the word "Jew" wasn't used as a pejorative.
You do know that the Jews have been resettling in Israel since early in the 19th century. Much of the land that was occupied by the Jewish settlers was purchased by them from the Palestinian ownwers or from the British government on land that velonged to them. Those that repatriated tgeur after ther war did so willi gly and were not forced to go there
I think you should read some of these answers as to not wanting to go back to Germany (and is probably just as applicable to the rest of Europe):
The Rothschilds purchased huge tracts of land and they were settled by Jews - Arabs came then from elsewhere because they were able to find work there - they were not indiginous.
But don't forget-- the Arabs had Soviet weapons. And it would also have been a very different Middle East if the Arabs didn't have all those Soviet weapons....
It wasn't like only one side had weapons!
Actually there are very, very few Israelites around the world. (Most of them are in Israel-- but even there their numbers are tiny).
And Israel didn’t have a lot of American weapons in either the 48 or 56 wars. It was during the 73 War airlift that Israel 🇮🇱 went almost exclusively with US weapons and then developed their top rate domestic arms industry.
And the increase in acts of anti-Semitism in western countries.
These countries are being disloyal to 'the family,' don't they know that we rule this planet, that we're the head honcho, the boss of bosses? We're making a list now, and these countries are going to fall in line or they'll be swimming with the fishies!!
Wow! I hope Trump and Haley has a couple of sheets of paper ready!
If practically the whole world (including some of your closest allies) votes against you, you're probably doing the wrong thing.
I thank God that we have a leader who knows right from wrong and doesn't need to consult other countries to do the right thing. The UN held a minute of silence for Kim Jong Il (of North Korea) when he died. They have the nerve to look at the current Middle East situation and claim that there exists a "peace process" that Trump has somehow ruined. They silently condone injustice and tyranny all over the world.
You think I'm impressed with what the UN thinks? You gotta be kidding.
Unbelievable, isn't it?
@ Spartacus:
Bravo! Well said.
Ooops. I meant Tacos, not Spartacus.
Isn't taking the "name" of "god" in vain a sin for you people? Blaming a god or gods for his decision doesn't seem sensible.
Good question.
Newsflash for ya: that goes both ways.
News flash for you: The UN needs the United States a hell of a lot more than the United Stated needs the UN.
Einstein was faced with that kind of opposition as well.
From Wikipedia:
I take particular note of this reason in the present circumstance:
if lemmings could vote against us would we then follow those lemmings off a cliff? nope.
Cheers
Wow, congratulations on your new discovery of antisemitism.
One need not seek far to find it. I first learned about anti-Semitism when I was beaten up by a gang at public school and when I complained to the principal, he slapped my palm with a ruler for being a "snitch". Not long after that when I learned to ski and wanted to join the club that had the only local ski lift, I saw their sign at the entrance "No dogs or Jews allowed". I only learned recently from my older brother that the reason my parents had to buy a home when we were little (I was one year old) that was on the other side of a street and not closer to the school was because the area nearer the school was restricted. You would have to be fucking blind not to see how rampant anti-Semitism is.
Democratic President Harry Truman also faced a lot of opposition in supporting Partition, and the USA was the first country in the world to recognize the implementation of The State of Israel. Did he do the wrong thing?
And more recently there was another Democrat who was a strong supporter of israel's right to exist:
We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary...and 60years later we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield and as president I will compromise when it comes to Israel's security.
Not when there's voices that still deny The Holocaust...not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders that are committed to Israel's destruction...
Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence...
And government funded textbooks filled with hatred towards Jews...
Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot...Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage each time they board a bus...or walk to school.
--Barack Obama
Where are the liberal Obama supporters now?
Right here Buzz. Where are the conservative Obama haters who claim Obama is a Muslim terrorist sympathizer who hates Israel?
One might wonder if Obama made that speech to get Jewish votes and campaign money, since at the end of his presidency he stabbed Israel in the back by abstaining from a UNSC resolution damning Israel, and tried (unsuccessfully, thank God) to send the Palestinians tons of money.
Obama could understand the plight of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. He was a great world leader. Trump is a petulant child who had to poke at the Palestinians for no other reason than to cause consternation and ill will.
Right here. You need some education about us? Here's for starters: I entirely support the right of Israel to exist as well as the right of the Palestinians to have their own state. That's been the position of the United States for at least 50 years. Now Idiot Trump is just about to blow that concept figuratively and literally up.
You'll be talking through your dentures when the region goes up in flames again over this.
Jeebus, why you people think linking to rightwing garbage makes you look any better is beyond reason.
They're like Egghead in this old cartoon. Watch for a laugh.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cartoon%2c+egghead+poking+a+lion&view=detail&mid=0AAA5B81344594E272170AAA5B81344594E27217&FORM=VIRE
Why do I need education about you? I believe the Palestinians should have their own state too, and if they were serious enough to negotiate instead of making it perfectly clear that their state was to be no less than "Palestine shall be free, from the Jordan to the sea" then I might support them as well.
Maybe because it's a lot more reliable than believing the Palestinian, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian garbage.
I'll never understand the worldwide hatred of Israel. What did Israel ever do to them? HALF of the UN resolutions criticizing a country are aimed at little ole Israel . HALF! WTF for? When's the last time an Israeli drove through a crowd in Paris or New York? When is the last time a Jew blew himself up to kill innocent civilians? Israel's neighbors torture and kill their own citizens for their behavior as females, or being gay or believing in some other religion. Other countries condemn prisoners without trial. Other countries even have slavery. Where is the condemnation?
Unlike other countries, Israel remains within its borders. They don't export terror around the world. All they really do is try to exist and survive. When they do take land in war (because they are threatened), they end up giving it back - and for what? To be bombed some more!
And, by the way, we're talking about a country that was put there by the UN. Absent that initial action, the UN might as well be Hamas - i.e., dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
I will never understand it either.
Please do not listen to the ridiculous arguments that we can't have peace in the Middle East because of Israel's settlements. History has shown over and over that that is not true.
There is a fundamental truth about the Israel issue: If the Palestinians and Arab terrorists agreed tomorrow to stop fighting and acknowledge Israel's right to exist, what would happen? Nothing. You'd have peace.
But if Israel announced tomorrow that it would stop fighting, tear down its wall, and dismantle its missile defense system, what would happen? All those enemies would attack immediately and without mercy.
You know it and everyone else knows it.
Here is an excellent video by a famous Liberal as to why the settlements are not the chief barrier to peace. Some key points from the video:
1) From 1947-1967, there were no settlements and the Palestinians and other Arabs in the region refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and attacked them repeatedly. So it's not the settlements.
2) Israel also occupied Sinai and Gaza but returned that land in the name of peace. They were rewarded with rocket attacks.
3) Israel is occupying the West Bank in response to an attack from Jordan, which controlled the region previously. They'd be fools to do the same thing with the West Bank that they did in Gaza.
1) Jordan controlled it illegally.
2) I can't help but feel an Israeli unilateral settlement is the only answer. A one state solution simply will not work, there is too much ingrained hatred. The two state peace deal is dead, hell, the average Dodo has more life it in than the peace accord. That leaves us with either a festering status quo, or a unilateral settlement.
And they do NOT want it back, or they would have demanded it. The Jordanian government knows better than to take in more Palestinians - nobody can name a country that wants them. If they have them, they keep them in refugee camps and do not provide to them the same freedoms as their own citizens - examples: Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
Further proof of that is that when the Palestinians demanded before they would negotiate, and Israel provided, an 11 month moratorium on settlement building, the Palestinians did not in that time come to the table until the very end of the moratorium, demanding an extension.
How was Israel as the modern country created? I noticed that you conveniently left that out.
There are few things more silly than asking a question to make a point. If you have a point, just make it. I have no reason to obscure how modern Israel was created. In fact, it makes all the more insane that virtually no one in the UN wants to support them now.
And therein lies the problem. The first and only country "invented" by the UN.
The UN at the behest of Britain reconstituted a country that had been gone since 63 BCE, almost exactly 2000 years ago, because they thought they could solve the "Jewish refugee problem" in post war Europe.
and there's been nothing but trouble from the displaced Arabs and Palestinians ever since.
HUGE surprise /s
Yeah 3500 years ago when Moses brought them out of the Sinai and the began the conquest of Caana.
And they lost that land to the Assyrians, Hittites, too many others to name and eventually Rome many times over, always the perpetual underdogs and usually the losers.
They briefly reprised Israel from 110BCE to 63BCE, a scant 47 years over 2000 years ago.
Hardly a secular reason to reconstitute a long dead country for religious reasons.
It should be noted that Britain abstained in the UN partition vote, and we refused to implement the decision on the ground.
It should also be noted the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan in favour of armed conflict.
Palestine was a Protectorate of Palestine from 1917 on..........abstaining from the vote was a prudent thing.
Yes even the uneducated Arabs could see that this map was a disaster in the making, sealing Jerusalem off from Israel would never work in the long run.
This seems to suggest the Arabs rejected the plan because Jerusalem would have been sealed off from Israel.
The link below is to the UN year book, and the Arab Higher Committee, try reading what they have to say.
More of my opinion given the background. Anyone familiar with the Zionist pressures on Britain would know that the proposed Partition as presented, would not last.
Great link, btw, great read on the trials and tribulations of the UN
A bloody shame that no one listened to Lebanon.
I see. When looking at why people do things, I tend to see what they've actual said, then weigh that against their actions.
Anyone familiar with the Zionist pressures on Britain would know that the proposed Partition as presented, would not last.
So the pressure was one side?
Did you ever hear of the Arab Revolt 1936-1939?
The Arab Revolt
The Arab Revolt of 1936–39 was the first sustained violent uprising of Palestinian Arabs in more than a century. Thousands of Arabs from all classes were mobilized, and nationalistic sentiment was fanned in the Arabic press, schools, and literary circles. The British, taken aback by the extent and intensity of the revolt, shipped more than 20,000 troops into Palestine, and by 1939 the Zionists had armed more than 15,000 Jews in their own nationalist movement.
To the best of my knowledge Britain didn't draw up the partition lines.
Palestine was a Protectorate of Britain.......sorry
Yep, The First Arab revolt 1916-1918 pitted them against the Turks/Ottoman Empire.
Soon enough they had British Naval support and TE Lawrence.
They traded Ottoman oppressors for the British and after a another 2 decades they tired of the British also.
Oh and there was this,
Sykes - Picot were the two men, one British, one French who redrew the maps of the ME after WWI.
The reverberations of that folly still continue
You know I was referring to the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, I provided the date, and a link.
The pressure wasn't only from the Jewish side, was it?
Sykes - Picot were the two men, one British, one French who redrew the maps of the ME after WWI.
We were discussing the UN partition plan, which to the best of my knowledge wasn't drawn up by Britain.
You brought up the Arab revolt of 36-39
which was a direct result of the uprising in 1916 - 1918;
the Arabs were promised independence by the British. In never came to be, hence the 36-39 revolt.
I don't care who devised the Partition - it was evident to most of the UN that it was untenable.
The UK knew it and the UN knew it.
Sorry
Fajitas, wine, guests, holiday celebrations
etc
Best wishes to you and yours
Happy Holidays
read it and make your own decision
BBC usually is accepted as the gold standard in honesty.
Especially on British history.
btw
The British Crown ( Oops those pesky empire people) also branded Sam Adams et al terrorists.
So I guess it's the lack of success that makes the Arabs terrorists while our
Founding Father's are heroes, at least in the USA.
have a good holiday weekend......
Actually, thank you
The Peel Commission was another fine example of the most biased Commission ever appointed
why would the Protectorate convene a Comission other than to exonerate their own government's stance.
The 1937 commission basically condoned giving 6% of the population (local Hebrews) , 33% of the land , AND the authority to expel the locals (Arabs/Palestinians).
Understandably the Arab Revolt continued for 2 more years until WWII started and distracted the British at least temporarily from Palestine.
With a dash of Nazi meddling the ME once again was used to tie up as many British troops as possible while Hitler went about his evil business....
Again have a good holiday
As you stated " Anyone familiar with the Zionist pressures on Britain would know that the proposed Partition as presented, would not last." this is a one sided position, an honest position would be, that both sides brought pressure to bare on the British.
which was a direct result of the uprising in 1916 - 1918;
the Arabs were promised independence by the British. In never came to be, hence the 36-39 revolt.
Really, so nothing to do with the death of al-Qassam, or as COS rightly states the findings of the Peel Commission?
I don't care who devised the Partition - it was evident to most of the UN that it was untenable.
Yet the UN voted in favour if it. The Arabs that rejected it, not as you claimed because they knew it wouldn't last, their rationales are within this link
I would submit that they were aware that not only would it last, but that the Jews had already outperformed them.
The UK knew it and the UN knew it.
Nope, Britain didn't vote for it, or implement it, because the Arabs States were against it, and this would have harmed British interests.
Even Abbas has said rejecting the UN plan was a mistake
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Arabs made a “mistake” by rejecting a 1947 U.N. proposal that would have created a Palestinian state alongside the nascent Israel, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview aired on Friday.
Founding Father's are heroes, at least in the USA.
As they led their people to victory, the Palestinian leadership led their people to disaster.
Gee i don't recall Sam Adams or any of the other Founding Fathers ordering suicide bombers to blow themselves up in buses and schools and cafes in the colonies. I dont recall reading how tgey wiuld walk down the streets and randomly shoot and stab people. When did they indiscriminately fire cannons into peaceful non military settlements. Please get me some links to show were that was done.
Thank you for making my point although, but in fact there were no buses back then,nor were there any sophisticated way to make a suicide bomb, no electronics, etc.
The British and the Tories did in fact target civillians, villages and churches of the rebels and their 'sympathizers' particularly in the Southern Colonies in response to guerilla tactics.
Since they met in 1941
it is reasonable to assume it had nothing to do with the Arab Revolt of 36-39.
However it was Hitlers intent to stir up antisemitism and further unrest throughout the region, particularly by tying up as many British troops as possible.
Which was why they abdicated
to the UN in the first place.
So it was NOT Sam Adams and the rest if the founding fathers and revolutionaries that enfaged in terrorist acts they were not British nor were they Tories.
... and the Rebels torched the homes of Loyalists. The Revolutionary War, particularly in the South, was in large part a civil war, with all the ugliness that implies.
I see you are still using the IPhone and not making much sense.
In fact Sam Adams and almost all of the colonists considered themselves to be British subjects, as did Great Britain.
Which is why they themselves acknowledged that by signing the Declaration, they signed their own death warrants as traitors to the Crown.
The sentence for treason in Britain was pretty severe and included hanging and disembowelment while still alive, followed by beheading and eventually being drawn and quartered.
Didn't you say
I don't care who devised the Partition - it was evident to most of the UN that it was untenable.
The UK knew it and the UN knew it.
Yet now you're admitting Britain acted as it did to protect it's own interests.
Britain created the situation with imperial disdain for local realities, and then sat on it for three decades without any serious effort to solve anything. And when it got unmanageable, they cut and ran.
They did the same all across their collapsing empire, leaving the unprepared locals to muddle through. The result was that almost all the genocides, from Biafra forward, occurred in former British colonies.
Nope. Totally false!
Prior to 1848, the area was controlled by Britain.
Before that it was controlled by the Turks (the "ottoman Empire").
What the UN did in 1948 was to create 2 countries-- Israel and "Palestine".
While the Jews accepted that, both the Egypt and what was then The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan didn't want a Palestinian state to be created! They seized control of the area that was supposed to be "Palestine" and illegally occupied it!
The reason the state the UN created didn't come into being because it was occupied by those 2 Arab countries-- and they didn't permit the Arabs living there to create a new Arab country to be called "Palestine.
(cont'd in next comment)
(cont'd from comment #7.3.3)
The reason the state the UN created didn't come into being because it was occupied by those 2 Arab countries-- and they didn't permit the Arabs living there to create a new Arab country to be called "Palestine.
In 1948, the UN intended to create 2 new countries there-- not one. But Egypt then occupied part (Gaza).
The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan at first occupied the other part (the "West Bank"). And then, in violation of the UN's wishes, they actually annexed it-- made it part of Jordan, thereby preventing the formation of a new country that was supposed to be called "Palestine").
Well if it's local realities you want, the modern reality is that Israel exists, and that Jerusalem is it's capital city.
As for "and then sat on it for three decades without any serious effort to solve anything" that's absurd. You can rightly argue that we left without implementing the UN plan for our own interests, but to suggest we "sat on it" is nonsense.
They did the same all across their collapsing empire, leaving the unprepared locals to muddle through. The result was that almost all the genocides, from Biafra forward, occurred in former British colonies.
The Empire wasn't collapsing, speaking from an historical point of view, our giving up the British Empire without military defeat is almost completely unique.
Your post seems to be suggesting the locals couldn't manage without us running things. It also paints them as innocent actors, and seems to even absolve them of committing genocide.
Tension between local Arabs (who were not yet called "Palestinians") and Zionist immigrants grew steadily from the moment of creation of the Mandate. The British kept the lid on with ever harsher police methods, but did nothing to resolve the situation.
If you don't like "collapsing" to describe the post-WWII Empire, then you may have "disintegrating" or even "exploding". India was in turmoil. East Africa. South Africa.
Since the beginning of the Empire, genteel Brits spoke of the "White Man's Burden", while doing nothing at all to actually prepare the locals to manage their countries. And when the shit hit the fan, the Brits boogied.
Obviously, the massacres were committed by the locals... but the Brits had drawn the borders that ignored ethnicity. The British Army had conducted master classes in savage repression of any opposition, in both Africa and the Subcontinent.
The "Raj"...
The Peel Commission was the ultimate example of "white men" deciding the future of Israel/Palestine.
It's nothing for the British to be proud of.
Feliz Navidad
Nothing new really. It's anti antisemitism ..... plain and simple.
No other word for it really.
Huh?
Eh?
Do you also believe that every criticism of President Obama was due to racism?
Do you believe every of the criticism of Israel is not antisemitic?
Signed,
Five Deferment Donny
Good. Now apply that logic to people's criticism of Israel.
You said that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic without including any word or indication that you believed in the possibility of other reasons behind that criticism.
To answer your question, of course some criticism has anti-Semitic roots to it.
Now answer mine.
So how do you explain the fact that literally every single Jew in our republican congress is a democrat? Is it antisemitic to not vote for Jews? Since clearly republicans don't vote for Jews?
.
Weird huh?
That is what they threw at us all of the time.
First this states
The other two are Jewish Republicans – Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York and Congressman David Kustoff of Tennessee.
Then it states
there are no Jewish Republicans in Congress.
Which is correct?
Almost 6% of Congress now Jewish — 28 Democrats and 2 Republicans
I criticize Israel because they get too much American money that should be spent to benefit the taxpayers of the USA
There is a difference between disagreement and hatred. Not all criticism of Israel is caused by hatred, but in my opinion anti-Semitism is rampant and sometimes displayed and sometimes hidden or disguised as anti-Zionism. But not all criticism of Israel is wrong or anti-Semitic. I have travelled through Israel more than once as have my children, and I have donated thousands of dollars over the years towards its success. There is a forest of 1000 trees in Israel dedicated as a memorial to my late father, and his support was greater than mine. I am a strong supporter of Israel, a believer that it must continue to exist, but I have over the years criticized Israel for different reasons. I have been critical of the settlers, of the Haradim (ultra-Orthodox), the government, the judiciary and the IDF, and I have posted such criticism on NV and NT over the years when I felt it was deserved. Show me a democracy in the world that is beyond criticism - there is no such thing.
Of course you know that 70% of the military aid billions provided to Israel is spent back in the USA benefiting the American people. And you know, as well, don't you what benefits the USA gains from that aid. I posted this on another article but I guess a little education here is needed as well:
For those who have not bothered to research the benefits that Israel has brought and continues to bring to the USA, perhaps a little reading is in order. Unfortunately I don't have time to seek more recent opinions, nor the inclination to relate all the technological, medical, and agricultural inventions and discoveries that Israel has brought not only to the USA but to the world at large. Perhaps without American military aid (with at least 70% of it spent back in the USA) Israel might not afford to create and discover such benefits for mankind. So if you don't support Israel's defence against their surrounding and nearby neighbours that are daily threatening Israel's existence, then you are supporting the terrorists and those who bring no benefits to the USA save, perhaps for oil, and there is no reason America cannot make itself self-sufficient (using Canada's huge natural resources as well), considering the future direction towards use of electricity and other energy producing methods.
The people who hate Israel claim they aren't anti-Semitic-- they only hate Israelis. But the fact is, over 20% ofIisraeli citizens aren't Jews-- they are Arabs! (I wonder if the Israel haters hate Israelis-- or only those that are Jews?)
It proves they didn't read their own evidence before they linked it. Welcome to debate without using reason or logic, welcome to debate using google.
The answer to your was question is the same as your answer to mine. That was the point of the question. Of course some criticism of BO was racism based but not most in my opinion.
Most criticisms on him, like mine, are opinion based only.
They gave the conquered Sinai back to Egypt because of a peace treaty. The laws of war indicate that if a country, fighting a defensive war, conquers land from the invaders, it can be kept. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of war, not just a threat, so if Israel crossed into Egypt before Egypt's massed army at the border and their threats brought against Israel didn't comply, the conquered lands were returned anyway. However, Jordan and Syria made the first shots and as far as I am concerned Israel should just legally annex what they conquered. The only thing that prevents Israel from annexing the areas where Muslims form a huge majority is that it would require that the only true democracy in the Middle East be dominated by Muslim voters and would lose its right to be the Jewish State.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Closing the Straits was an act intended to force Israel into negotiations with Egypt
NOT an unprovoked attack on Jordan.
Butt obviously this comment is superfluous and wasted on you.
Goodnight.
In 1967, Egypt’s closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships before June 5, was an unlawful act of aggression. The Israeli response was a lawful act of self-defense under Article 51 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314.
Perhaps you should read this and see what respected international jurists have to say:
I have no doubt that the Jerusalem Post and every other .com and .org with israel in the name will make wonderful arguments in the IAFs defense.
Unless I am very much mistaken, no peace treaty was ever signed between Israel and Egypt to end the 1947-48 war. That only happened in 1979. So in 1967, only "cease-fire lines" existed. Those are fragile...
Tell you what, SP. You can side with the Arabs and believe them, and I won't bother to argue with you. For myself, I support Israel. Let's just leave it at this - I know where you're coming from and you know where I'm coming from. No further discussion required.
At least on this we can agree.
That is true.
When Israeli independence was declared in 1948, 5+ Arab states attacked Israel with the intent to "Push the Jews into the Sea". Israel survived (due mainly to the fact that they were defending their ancient homeland-- the average soldier was not).
For years Israel tried to make peace with the Arabs-- but they all refused. As did Egypt, of course.
But in the 1967 war Israel captured the Egyptian Sinai. They refused to give it back unless Egypt agreed to one demand-- that they make peace with Israel. Egypt tried to have the "International Community" pressure Israel to withdraw without Egypt having to make peace. Israel refused. Finally under Sadat Egypt agreed-- it was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel.
(BTW Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq are still officially at war with Israel-- they have refused to make peace since their invasion...in 1948!)
OMG-- not an impasse!
Oh-- the horror of that...!!!
It didn't need an IMPASSE. It was a discussion with both of us presenting our personal views about the issue. We disagree. It was not an argument or a hounding so why would an IMPASSE be required?
Jordan also signed a peace treaty with Israel, in 1994, and all has been quiet on that border since then.
a good thing that gets overlooked
I was just joking... (I suppose I should've indicated that
For the Arab's its simple religious bigotry. They can't stand the idea of a second non-Muslim majority country being created in their midst. (The first was Lebanon-- when it was created it had been a Christian-majority country, but the balance has changed due to genocide of Christians, and Chrsitians fleeding that).
But why the other countries in the U.N,? Simple-- the Arabs have the oil! (Plus the largest voting block in the General Assembly is the Islamic bloc...most countries don't want to provoke them off....)
Israel has been really, really bad on Public Relations. Their position is the "just" position... and they have been downright arrogant about it. For a long time, they didn't even bother to meet the press. They assumed that everyone would see that they were in the right, and therefore be on their side.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians were developing and distributing a very different story: "The oppression of Palestine by the Jews!"
As an example, Leila Shahid was PLO Representative in France for a dozen years, appearing often on TV. She presented a very fine image of intelligent passion. She repeated the "Palestinian narrative" endlessly. Meanwhile, the Israeli Ambassador of the moment was always a stiff apparatchik. Shahid turned popular opinion, both by her own competence in front of a camera, and by the Israelis' incompetence.
We should know by now that truth is unimportant.
I fully agree with Bob. I criticized Israel a long time ago for its incompetent public relations, and I agree that Israelis are arrogant. I had a few Israeli clients and save for one or two their arrogance was an indication why the Israel government was losing the public opinion battle. Shimon Peres was an exception.
You are one of the few people I've met on either NV or NT who knows that!
Its true-- strange as it may seem, many Israelis feel it isn't worth trying to defend their positions-- while the Arabs make it a top priority, and spend YUGE amounts of time, effort, demonizing Israel. (I can't think of any other conflict where one side for the most part doesn't care about defending themselves..).
Which explains why so many people online-- on NT and elsewhere-- have so many false beliefs about the Arab-Israeli conflict....
The PR or propaganda battle (whichever you want to call it) is something Israel is losing. I also have noticed this
Well, he was quite a leftist! (As were so many of the early Zionists).
He was a member of the progressive political party Mapai
I knew a little about him-- but I just googled him -- interesting guy.
Peres was a relative of American film star Lauren Bacall.
As a child, Peres would later say, "I did not dream of becoming president of Israel. My dream as a boy was to be a shepherd or a poet of stars." [ He inherited his love of French literature from his maternal grandfather.
Peres was one of the founders of Kibbutz Alumot . Before the establishment of the state, Peres worked on the kibbutz as a shepherd and a farmer.
In 1946, Peres and Moshe Dayan were chosen as the two youth delegates in the Mapai delegation to the Zionist Congress in Basel .
In 1963, he held negotiations with U.S. President John F. Kennedy , which resulted in the sale of Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Israel, the first sale of U.S. military equipment to Israel.
I find that especially interesting in light of the "alternative facts" pushed by the anti-Israel hate groups (who claim the only reason Israel survived the Arabs' attempts to exterminate them was due to all that American aid that Israel supposedly got from the U.S.
Think about that a minute. Israel was established in 1948-- 5 Arab states attacked. Israel beat them all.
But how could that be due to American military aid-- when the first American military aid only started in 1963!!!
He was a member of the progressive political party Mapai.
More about Mapai:
Mapai ( Hebrew : מַפָּא"י , an acronym for מִפְלֶגֶת פּוֹעֲלֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל , lit. "Workers' Party of the Land of Israel ") was a centre-left political party in Israel , and was the dominant force in Israeli politics until its merger into the modern-day Israeli Labor Party in 1968.
Mapai was a member of the Labour and Socialist International between 1930 and 1940
During Mapai's time in office, a wide range of progressive reforms were carried out, [ as characterised by the establishment of a welfare state, providing minimum income, security, and free (or almost free) access to housing subsidies and health and social services
As Bob Nelson mentioned in his comment 7.7.1 above-- strange as it may seem, a lot of Israelis don't care what the world thinks! (I have noticed them many of them have the POV that no matter what they do or say, anti-Semitism will prevail and people worldwide will hate them). And remember-- they have to go up against YUGE amounts of virtually unlimited financial resources from the oil rich Arab states.
So ultimately the only thing they can do to avoid future attempts at genocide such as what happened during the Holocaust in Europe or the Arab race riots and mass murders of Jewish civilians that take place from time to time in the Arab world is to defend themselves-- militarily!
(That's also why they are so adamant on defending themselves-- and refusing to have any other country fighting for them...)
Awww, poor, poor, Israel, it's so mistreated, I mean it's not like they've done anything that MIGHT be construed as a war crime.
Has Israel destroyed the homes of the Jews who kille the Palistinians yet?
Nikki Haley is an outstanding ambassador.Definitely presidential timber.
Would that be with or without?
I think so, as well.
Sure, if that "timber" is a burned down forest not even worth salvage.
Lame. If I need a tissue it's only because I'm laughing so hard at you. You, who are apparently so religious that you don't even know your own bible "history."
There is literally no truth in the bible at all. It's a great book of stories, but that's literally about it.
There is truth in God.
And, it is of no importance that you disrespect the Bible.
Even a burned down forest is more productive than your comment.
Even more relevant:
A reprobate mind criticizing God. That would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that you seem to be determined to go to hell.
Revelations 21:6-9 Jesus declares
And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Personally, I think the bible is allegorical rather than literal - it tells realities and provides guidance in terms that could be understood at the time it was written. Whether it is divine or not is a belief that is chosen by some and rejected by others - but there is nothing to be gained by arguing about it.
As the Wise Man said, "All generalities are foolish, including 'all generalities are foolish'!"
Well, I think that's true-- at least in most cases!
Generally speaking that is.
I think that depends upon how you define "truth". IMO the teachings of Jesus (to cite one example) contain many profound spiritual truths. But because they are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally, IMO many people-- including many believers-- miss the true meaning of His teachings..
LOL
I think she is doing a fine job, I like her quite a bit actually.
Only in Russia.
"Taking names?" They're already listed for her. The world does not fear or respect Dumpf. Empty threats like this just make us look more pathetic.
Will there ever be peace in the mid-east? I can't remember a day on earth when there was. I think it is a hopeless cause.