# Obama just took a parting shot at Israel — and Trump — at the UN



## sankar

*Obama just took a parting shot at Israel — and Trump — at the UN*
Updated by Jennifer Williamsjennifer@vox.com Dec 23, 2016, 5:37pm EST TWEET 

 SHARE
US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power attends the UN Security Council meeting on December 23, 2016, where the US voted to abstain on a UN Security Council resolution that demands Israel stop settlement activities on Palestinian territories. 
Volkan Furuncu/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
President Barack Obama has decided to go out with a bang: In a stunning diplomatic rebuke of Israel, the United States on Friday abstained on a controversial United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, allowing it to easily pass.

By abstaining — instead of vetoing the resolution, as the United States has reliably done to similar measures for decades — the Obama administration allowed the highly symbolic measure to make it through the chamber.

It was the first time in nearly 40 years that the Security Council has passed a resolution critical of Israeli settlements. It was also a firm rebuke of both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had strongly argued against it, and President-elect Donald Trump, who had taken the highly unprecedented move of weighing in Thursday and pressing for the measure to be vetoed.

The measure demands that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem” and declares that the establishment of settlements by Israel has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.”


This is far stronger language than the United States has ever officially used to describe Israeli settlement activity before. Although the standard US position has for three decades been that such settlements, which are built on land intended to be part of a future Palestinian state, are “obstacles to peace,” the United States has always stopped short of describing them as “illegal” under international law.





Javier Zarracina/Vox
The Obama administration’s stunning vote was thus a dramatic shift in longstanding US policy. And it was no accident.

The move was Obama’s parting shot at Netanyahu, with whom Obama repeatedly clashed throughout his tenure. As my colleague Zeeshan Aleem writes, although the Obama administration gave Israel a bigger military aid package than any US president in history, and has vetoed past UN condemnations of settlements, Obama had a “tense and at times outright hostile relationship with the right-wing Netanyahu.” Among other things, they clashed over Israeli settlement expansion and the terms of the controversial Iran nuclear deal.


But Obama’s parting shot was also aimed at Trump, who has indicated he wants to take a much stronger pro-Israel stance. For instance, he has said he wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem: a step that, as my colleague Zack Beauchamp explains, “every US government has refrained from doing because the future of the disputed city is meant to be resolved as part of direct talks between the two sides for a final status peace deal.”

And Trump’s newly named ambassador to Israel, David Friedman — who has been a personal friend of Trump’s for about 15 years — is staunchly pro-settlement.

Indeed, it seems that an unprecedented intervention by Trump himself — in the form of a personal phone call to Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — is the primary reason why Egypt, which had initially sponsored the UN measure, decided on Thursday to delay the vote indefinitely.

Mere hours before the vote was scheduled to take place, Trump issued a statement onFacebook calling for the US to veto the measure. Shortly after, Egypt announced it would be delaying the vote. Trump spokesman Sean Spicer later confirmed that Trump had indeed spoken directly with both Sisi and Netanyahu about the proposed Security Council action. Friday’s resolution was sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal — not Egypt.

It may very well have been this stunning intervention by Trump, directly meddling in a major US foreign policy decision before he has even taken office, that ultimately pushed Obama to take the dramatic step of abstaining on Friday’s vote.

Shortly after the UN measure passed on Friday, Trump reacted on Twitter by suggesting he intends to take a stronger line on defending Israel at the UN when he takes office:


Follow

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump
As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.

1:44 AM - 24 Dec 2016

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=812390964740427776


25,00225,002 Retweets


67,79867,798 likes
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/23/14071550/united-nations-vote-israeli-settlements-obama-trump

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Bye bye support to the Democrat party from Jewish groups for a good long time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Nilgiri said:


> Bye bye support to the Democrat party from Jewish groups for a good long time.



You'd be surprised how many Jewish people here think Israelis are nuts (edit: of course I'm sure they probably think the Palestinians are even nuttier)
Not anywhere near 100% obviously. But remember most of the real hardcore ones moved to Israel and the less hardcore ones remained here.

Of course there are plenty of rich hardcore people here. Money is money.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## scholseys

Bye bye palestine, its time to drop the idea of Palestine...


----------



## خره مينه لګته وي

*US president-elect reacts after UN Security Council voted in favour of calling for an end to Israeli settlements.*





It is the first resolution the Security Council has adopted on Israel and the Palestinians in nearly eight years. [Abed Al Hashlamoni/EPA]


Donald Trump has vowed to change things at the United Nations when he takes over at the White House next month, after the UN Security Council's vote in favour of a resolution demanding the halt of settlement activity by Israel in occupied Palestinian territory.

The resolution was put forward at the 15-member council for a vote on Friday by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal a day after Egypt withdrew it under pressurefrom Israel and US president-elect Trump.

Israel and Trump had called on the US to veto the measure but it ended up abstaining, resulting in the resolution being adopted with 14 votes in favour to a resounding round of applause.


It is the first resolution the Security Council has adopted on Israel and the Palestinians in nearly eight years.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812390964740427776
"This is a day of victory for international law, a victory for civilised language and negotiation and a total rejection of extremist forces in Israel," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told Reuters news agency.

"The international community has told the people of Israel that the way to security and peace is not going to be done through occupation ... but rather through peace, ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state to live side by side with the state of Israel on the 1967 line," Erekat said.

Sharif Nashashibi, a London-based analyst of Arab political affairs, told Al Jazeera: "It's historic in the sense that it's been decades since the US has done that [abstained].

"But, in my opinion, it's merely symbolic precisely for that reason, because there are already UN Security Council resolutions in existence that call for pretty much the same thing that this resolution has done."

He added: "These resolutions are decades old and they are just gathering dust. Israel has been allowed to flout them. My fear is that this will just be one of those resolutions that Israel can flout.

"We don't have any mechanism to put tangible pressure on Israel to abide by this resolution, so I fear that despite the passing of this resolution, the Security Council has still proved itself largely irrelevant to this conflict."

On Saturday, Israel refused to recognise the UN resolution and retaliated by recalling its ambassador to New Zealand and Senegal.

"Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms." said Netanyahu. 

READ MORE: UN Security Council urges end to Israeli settlements

*"At a time when the Security Council does nothing to stop the slaughter of half-a-million people in Syria, it disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and calls the Western Wall 'occupied territory'."*

*New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully said the decision should have been no surprise to Israel which knew Wellington's position long before the UN vote.*






*Trump to nominate rightwing lawyer as Israel ambassador

*
"Israel has informed us of their decision to recall their ambassador to New Zealand for consultations," McCully told AFP news agency in a statement. 

"We have been very open about our view that the [Security Council] should be doing more to support the Middle East peace process and the position we adopted today is totally in line with our long established policy on the Palestinian question.

"The vote today should not come as a surprise to anyone and we look forward to continuing to engage constructively with all parties on this issue."

*The resolution demands that "Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem."*

Malaysia and Venezuela also sponsored the UN resolution but do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. 






*Inside Story - Egypt pulls plug on UN vote on Israeli settlements


aljazeera*


----------



## Hassan Guy

Is that good or bad?


----------



## gambit

It is good. Personally, I think Trump is the bottom of the American electoral barrel, and the funny thing is that most of the Trump supporters that I encountered admitted the same thing.

That said...It is time the US reassess our relationship with the UN. While it may not be feasible in variety of ways that it is better for US to remain in the UN, the US should no longer be passive about what we expect from the UN. Ultimately, no country needs a UN-type organization, and the one country that needs the UN the least -- the US. I have always advocated the US leaving the UN and Trump should make that threat. That will force the necessary reforms into the UN, particularly corruption.


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Days after the United Nations voted to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, Donald Trump questioned its effectiveness Monday, saying it's just a club for people to "have a good time."

The president-elect wrote on Twitter that the U.N. has "such great potential," but it has become "just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!"

On Friday, Trump warned, "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th," referring to the day he takes office.


The decision by the Obama administration to abstain from Friday's U.N. vote brushed aside Trump's demands that the U.S. exercise its veto and provided a climax to years of icy relations with Israel's leadership.

Trump told The Associated Press last December that he wanted to be "very neutral" on Israel-Palestinian issues. But his tone became decidedly more pro-Israel as the presidential campaign progressed. He has spoken disparagingly of Palestinians, saying they have been "taken over" by or are condoning militant groups.

Trump's tweet Monday about the U.N. ignores much of the work that goes on in the 193-member global organization.

This year the U.N. Security Council has approved over 70 legally binding resolutions, including new sanctions on North Korea and measures tackling conflicts and authorizing the U.N.'s far-flung peacekeeping operations around the world. The General Assembly has also approved dozens of resolutions on issues, like the role of diamonds in fueling conflicts; condemned human rights abuses in Iran and North Korea; and authorized an investigation of alleged war crimes in Syria.

Trump's criticism of the U.N. is by no means unique. While the organization does engage in large-scale humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts, its massive bureaucracy has long been a source of controversy. The organization has been accused by some Western governments of being inefficient and frivolous, while developing nations have said it is overly influenced by wealthier nations.

Trump tweeted later Monday, "The world was gloomy before I won — there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10 percent and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!"

Markets are up since Trump won the general election, although not quite by that much. The Standard & Poor's 500 is up about 6 percent since Election Day, while the Dow has risen more than 8 percent.

As for holiday spending, auditing and accounting firm Deloitte projected in September that total 2016 holiday sales were expected to exceed $1 trillion, representing a 3.6 percent to 4.0 percent increase in holiday sales from November through January.

Finally, Trump took to Twitter again late Monday to complain about media coverage of his charitable foundation. He wrote that of the "millions of dollars" he has contributed to or raised for the Donald J. Trump Foundation, all of it "is given to charity, and media won't report."

Trump said Saturday he will dissolve his charitable foundation before taking office to avoid conflicts of interest. The New York attorney general's office has been investigating the foundation following media reports that foundation spending went to benefit Trump's campaign.

The president-elect is spending the holidays at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. He had no public schedule Monday.

___

Associated Press writer Edith Lederer in New York contributed to this report.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dcd6...trump-says-un-just-club-people-have-good-time

@war&peace @SherDil007 @Mentee @tps77

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SherDil

Keh to sahi raha hy......

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

Well the guy is right  i think he made good point example is our PM he goes to UN and he enjoys it

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 艹艹艹

It is said that the United States owes a lot of UN membership fees

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Well he is not wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dean Winchester

This statement is very beneficial for India as India always said that UN is a useless organization and rejected Pakistan demands of UN mediae on Kashmir.

On the other hand this harms Pakistani demands of UN mediation on Kashmir as now US president elect himself called UN a useless organization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## my2cents

We all know he is just trolling the UN. UN is as effective as its member states. IF member states use UN for political photo ops then don't blame the UN for it. 

He just appointed Nikki Haley for UN ambassador.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tps43

Well this time trump is right!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

He can call it what he wants the fact remains the organisation is older than him and will outlive him. It has bought together nations, it may not be perfect, but that's a start.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Bharat Muslim

waz said:


> He can call it what he wants the fact remains the organisation is older than him and will outlive him. It has bought together nations, it may not be perfect, but that's a start.


Yeah it's better than League of Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations


----------



## Penguin

tps77 said:


> Well this time trump is right!


Would you care to explain why you think that is the case? That way, there is room for discussion, rather than successive blurting out of one-liner comments from all directions.



Chinese-Dragon said:


> Well he is not wrong.


Would you care to explain why you think that is the case? That way, there is room for discussion, rather than successive blurting out of one-liner comments from all directions.



long_ said:


> It is said that the United States owes a lot of UN membership fees


http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/art19.shtml

Four Member States are currently in arrears under the terms of Article 19 of the Charter (see A/71/381). On 3 October 2016, the General Assembly decided that these four Member States shall be permitted to vote in the General Assembly until the end of the current session (See A/RES/71/2):


Comoros
Guinea-Bissau
Sao Tome and Principe
Somalia

Note Art 19
_A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member. (Article 19 of the Charter of the United Nations) _
http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/

Nevertheless
2014: 

Member states also owed about $2.6bn to the separate UN peacekeeping budget, Takasu said. France owed the most – $356m – followed by the US, which must pay $337m, and Italy owed about $250m.

An official at the *US *mission to the UN said those numbers were distorted because the UN’s fiscal year began on 1 January and the American fiscal year on 1 October. The US paid its regular budget assessment at the end of the calendar year in which it was due, the official said.

The official said this discrepancy accounts for $621m of the outstanding dues to the regular budget reported by the UN.

The remaining amounts in the regular and peacekeeping budget are attributable to arrears that date back more than a decade and a half, the official said.

*French *diplomats said the debt was not unusual as there was always a technical delay of a few months between the time the French government received assessments for UN contributions and the time the funds were made available to pay them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/10/un-member-states-owe-debt

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ashok321

Trump is as naive on UNO as he is on Muslims of the world.
Experience is the best teacher.
I let this flower bloom.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Solomon2

Trump said in nine words what it takes me pages to write.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Musafir117

Donald Trump has questioned the effectiveness of the United Nations, saying it's just a club for people to “have a good time”.

The statement came days after the UN Security Council voted to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The president-elect wrote Monday on Twitter that the UN has “such great potential,” but it has become “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!”

On Friday, Trump warned, “As to the UN, things will be different after Jan 20th,” referring to the day he takes office.

The decision by the Obama administration to abstain from Friday's UN vote brushed aside Trump's demands that the US exercise its veto and provided a climax to years of icy relations with Israel's leadership.

Trump told The Associated Press last December that he wanted to be “very neutral” on Israel-Palestinian issues. But his tone became decidedly more pro-Israel as the presidential campaign progressed. He has spoken disparagingly of Palestinians, saying they have been “taken over” by or are condoning militant groups.

Trump's tweet Monday about the UN ignores much of the work that goes on in the 193-member global organisation.

This year the UN Security Council has approved over 70 legally binding resolutions, including new sanctions on North Korea and measures tackling conflicts and authorising the UN's far-flung peacekeeping operations around the world.

The General Assembly has also approved dozens of resolutions on issues, like the role of diamonds in fuelling conflicts; condemned human rights abuses in Iran and North Korea; and authorised an investigation of alleged war crimes in Syria.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1304787/trump-says-un-just-a-club-for-people-to-have-a-good-time


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Agree with him at this Matter....


----------



## Penguin

INDEED: Trump's tweet Monday about the UN ignores much of the work that goes on in the 193-member global organisation.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/trump-sa...ple-to-have-a-good-time.469086/#ixzz4U41b8OPQ
UN Objectives:

Peacekeeping and security
The UN, after approval by the Security Council, sends peacekeepers to regions where armed conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace agreements and to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does not maintain its own military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member states.

Human rights
One of the UN's primary purposes is "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion", and member states pledge to undertake "joint and separate action" to protect these rights

Economic development and humanitarian assistance
Another primary purpose of the UN is "to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character". Numerous bodies have been created to work towards this goal, primarily under the authority of the General Assembly and ECOSOC

The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. Special UN programmes not included in the regular budget, such as UNICEF and the World Food Programme, are financed by voluntary contributions from member governments, corporations, and private individuals.

The two-year [regular] budget for 2012–13 was $5.512 billion in total

Top 17 contributors to the [regular] UN budget for 2016
Member state Contribution (% of UN budget)

United States 22.000
Japan 9.680
China 7.921
Germany 6.389
France 4.859
United Kingdom 4.463
Brazil 3.823
Italy 3.748
Russia 3.088
Canada 2.921
Spain 2.443
Australia 2.337
South Korea 2.039
Netherlands 1.482
Mexico 1.435
Saudi Arabia 1.146
Switzerland 1.140
Other member states 19.086

[note: Germany + France + UK + Italy + Spain + Netherlands = 23.384 "EU" > US]

A large share of the UN's expenditure addresses its core mission of peace and security, and this budget is assessed separately from the main organizational budget. UN peace operations are funded by assessments, using a formula derived from the regular funding scale that includes a weighted surcharge for the five permanent Security Council members, who must approve all peacekeeping operations. This surcharge serves to offset discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less developed countries.

The peacekeeping budget for the 2015–16 fiscal year was $8.27 billion, supporting 82,318 troops deployed in 15 missions around the world. In 2013, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations _peacekeeping operations_ were

the United States (28.38%),
Japan (10.83%),
France (7.22%),
Germany (7.14%),
the United Kingdom (6.68%),
China (6.64%),
Italy (4.45%),
the Russian Federation (3.15%),
Canada (2.98%), and
Spain (2.97%).
[note: France+Germany+UK+Italy+Spain=28.46% "EU" > US]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

Penguin said:


> ...Trump's tweet Monday about the UN ignores much of the work that goes on in the 193-member global organisation -


Not really. The U.N.'s purpose is to maintain the status quo of its members so they can continue to party with minimum effort and conflict between themselves. Peacekeeping ops are part of that. So is scapegoating Israel - a magician's hat trick, a target to focus populations' hatreds so the ruling class can continue to prosper with less scrutiny than otherwise.


----------



## Penguin

Solomon2 said:


> Not really. The U.N.'s purpose is to maintain the status quo of its members so they can continue to party with minimum effort and conflict between themselves. Peacekeeping ops are part of that. So is scapegoating Israel - a magician's hat trick, a target to focus populations' hatreds so the ruling class can continue to prosper with less scrutiny than otherwise.


You are entitled to your opinion. However, you too ignore the many things UN does around the world. And, if you are truely convinced of your opinion, why are you not active pressing your government to leave the UN (you carry 2 US flags here), rather than wining about it here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Solomon2

Penguin said:


> You are entitled to your opinion. However, you too ignore the many things UN does around the world.


Most U.N.-affiliated organizations have been infected with the disease of anti-semiitism, and thus their effectiveness and accountability have been reduced.



> And, if you are truely convinced of your opinion, why are you not active pressing your government to leave the UN (you carry 2 US flags here), rather than wining about it here.


Hmm, that's a very interesting suggestion, thanks.


----------



## Penguin

Solomon2 said:


> Most U.N.-affiliated organizations have been infected with the disease of anti-semiitism, and thus their effectiveness and accountability have been reduced.


... as evidenced by what? Again, your opinion.



Solomon2 said:


> Hmm, that's a very interesting suggestion, thanks.


Seriously, you should.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

The U.N is the best forum we have for world states to gather 

whats better?

its as useful as its component nations want it to be 

It needs reform to its security council however 

Trumps zionist masters were given a slap in the face and Trump is reacting

Reality is the U.S is the biggest user and abuser of the U.N and will be worse without it but once again the needs of the apartheid jew state are held above U.S interests


----------



## Solomon2

Penguin said:


> ... as evidenced by what? Again, your opinion.


A fair question. Article discussing report: link


----------



## Penguin

Nice media article, but what evidence does the report by Human Rights Voices and the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust actually contain?

Just so we all know what Breitbart news is:

*Breitbart News Network* (known commonly as *Breitbart News*, *Breitbart* or *Breitbart.com*) is a right-wing or far-right. American news, opinion and commentary website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator and entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart during a visit to Israel in summer 2007, with the aim of founding a site "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel". Breitbart later aligned with the European populist right and American alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steven K. Bannon's management. _The New York Times_ describes _Breitbart News_ as an organization with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist".

Interesting to compare Human Rights Voices and the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust

HRV staff
ANNE BAYEFSKY, Senior Editor
DAVID LITMAN, Research Fellow
SARAH WILLIG, Research Fellow
Board of Governors:
Anne Bayefsky
Robert Immerman
Lawrence Kadish
http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/about/who/

Touro Institute staff
Professor Anne Bayefsky, Director
Dr. Alan Kadish, M.D., president and CEO
Dr. Sara Nachama, Director Touro College Holocaust Institute in Berlin
http://legacy.touro.edu/ihrh/about_us.asp

So, these are not two independent organizations. Nor does their mission allow them to be 'neutral' in doing research
http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/about/
http://legacy.touro.edu/ihrh/human_rights_advocacy.asp

So, IMHO, you need to come up with something more convincing.

Mind you, I'm not blind to the shortcomings of the UN, I just taking an IMHO more 'rational' or 'objective' approach.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Solomon2

After doing the dirty on Israel by denying Jews' history, justice, and legal rights and then lecturing _them_ to be honest, Obama has undertaken to relieve the great stresses of his office with a taxpayer-funded trip to Honolulu and dinner and golf with his friends:


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Solomon2 said:


> After doing the dirty on Israel by denying Jews' history, justice, and legal rights and then lecturing _them_ to be honest, Obama has undertaken to relieve the great stresses of his office with a taxpayer-funded trip to Honolulu and dinner and golf with his friends:


It's sad. 

But I guess its time you wait. Bide your time.


----------



## Solomon2

SarthakGanguly said:


> It's sad.
> 
> But I guess its time you wait. Bide your time.


We can now sum up eight years of Obama's foreign policy as, "Get OBL but endorse the Muslims, blame the Jews, and ignore the rest."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Solomon2 said:


> We can now sum up eight years of Obama's foreign policy as, "Get OBL but endorse the Muslims, blame the Jews, and ignore the rest."


I will not call it so simply. But it was known that he did not like Israel much, and appeased the Muslims. He failed on both counts.

He was an ultra liberal dream.

Fantastic. Utopian.

And just that.

A dream.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MIR RAZA HUSSAIN

Solomon2 said:


> Trump said in nine words what it takes me pages to write.


 
THIS IS OFF THE TOPIC BUT YOUR PROFILE PIC WRONG.
THESE TWO FLAGS CAN NEVER JOIN HANDS UNTIL OUR PALESTINE BROTHERS GET JUSTICE


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Solomon2 said:


> We can now sum up eight years of Obama's foreign policy as, "Get OBL but endorse the Muslims, blame the Jews, and ignore the rest."




Whats so contradicting about liking muslims and getting OBL? Ohhhhh wait I forgot you are an Islamaphobe. Sorry forgot. Also there is nothing anti-jewish with this resolution dumbass, It's common sense. Israel is breaking international law and is unfairly taking land. They should be punished. That isn't anti-jew, that's common sense. 


I swear are you going to get any dumber?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tps43

Penguin said:


> Would you care to explain why you think that is the case? That way, there is room for discussion, rather than successive blurting out of one-liner comments from all directions


Well sir just look at peace keeping missions troops there have contributed alot but just look at congo east timor etc there is still war , the disaster of iraq when US and UK attacked iraq without security council resolution plus UN has failed to stop nato and usa from promoting "self styled democracy" so there isno point if they just can't stop these thing plus 5 nations decide a future of country that to acc to me is not right.


----------



## Penguin

tps77 said:


> Well sir just look at peace keeping missions troops there have contributed alot but just look at congo east timor etc there is still war , the disaster of iraq when US and UK attacked iraq without security council resolution plus UN has failed to stop nato and usa from promoting "self styled democracy" so there isno point if they just can't stop these thing plus 5 nations decide a future of country that to acc to me is not right.


Thank you for supplemental post, in which you elaborate on your position. 

Personally, I think expecting the UN (which has no military) from stopping wars alltogether may be too much to expect. Conflict has to be prevented / resolved locally, for there to be a lasting peace. Hence the difference between peacekeeping ("buffering", keeping warparties apart) and peacemaking (warparties resolving their issues together).

Since its founding, there have been many calls for reform of the United Nations but little consensus on how to do so. It is ok to criticize, but if no alternatives or specific suggestions are put forward or agreed upon, criticism alone will not change a thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

What a meaningless tweet by Trump: things are different every day.... no day is ever the same.


----------



## Tps43

Penguin said:


> Thank you for supplemental post, in which you elaborate on your position.
> 
> Personally, I think expecting the UN (which has no military) from stopping wars alltogether may be too much to expect. Conflict has to be prevented / resolved locally, for there to be a lasting peace. Hence the difference between peacekeeping ("buffering", keeping warparties apart) and peacemaking (warparties resolving their issues together).
> 
> Since its founding, there have been many calls for reform of the United Nations but little consensus on how to do so. It is ok to criticize, but if no alternatives or specific suggestions are put forward or agreed upon, criticism alone will not change a thing.


Sir another thing why doesn't America contribute in peace keeping missions rather attacking likes of iraq,Afghanistan etc they only contributed once in recent history that was in Somalia else they hadn't . My point is Security council should now be amended as soon as possible like seats should be increase like 1/3 of uno members should be in security council and there shouldn't be a special status given to P5 nations . For any resolution there should be polls where majority decides .
My thoughts


----------



## Penguin

tps77 said:


> Sir another thing why doesn't America contribute in peace keeping missions rather attacking likes of iraq,Afghanistan etc they only contributed once in recent history that was in Somalia else they hadn't . My point is Security council should now be amended as soon as possible like seats should be increase like 1/3 of uno members should be in security council and there shouldn't be a special status given to P5 nations . For any resolution there should be polls where majority decides .
> My thoughts


You are confused as to what is and is not a UN Peacekeeping operation. Pls do some research.

Current UN peacekeeping operations:
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/current.shtml
There are no UN peace keeping missions in Iraq or Afghanistan

Past UN peacekeeping operations:
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/past.shtml

Iraq:

United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG)
United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
Afghanistan

United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan (UNGOMAP)
*UNIIMOG* was established in August 1988 to verify, confirm and supervise the ceasefire and the withdrawal of all forces to the internationally recognized boundaries, pending a comprehensive settlement. UNIIMOG was terminated in February 1991after Iran and Iraq had withdrawn fully their forces to the internationally recognized boundaries

*UNIKOM *was established in April 1991 following the forced withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Its task was to monitor the demilitarized zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border, deter border violations and report on any hostile action. The mandate of the Mission was completed on 6 October 2003.

*UNGOMAP* was established in May 1988 to assist in ensuring the implementation of the Agreements on the Settlement of the Situation Relating to Afghanistan and in this context to investigate and report possible violations of any of the provisions of the Agreements.


*Who provides peacekeepers?*
The UN has no standing army or police force of its own, and Member States are asked to contribute military and police personnel required for each operation. Peacekeepers wear their countries’ uniform and are identified as UN Peacekeepers only by a UN blue helmet or beret and a badge.
Civilian staff of peacekeeping operations are international civil servants, recruited and deployed by the UN Secretariat.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/newoperation.shtml

*Troop and police contributors*

Military and police personnel are first and foremost members of their own national services and are then seconded to work with the UN. 

United States of America
29 police
5 military experts
34 troops
68 total

Below you will find a breakdown of the numbers of troops and police contributed by Member States.
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/147828.htm

Check archive contributions by country (per month)
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

In August 1990, Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait. This subsequently led to military intervention by United States-led forces in the First Gulf War. NOT A UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATION.

Iraq's armed forces were devastated during the war and shortly after it ended in 1991, Shia and Kurdish Iraqis led several uprisings against Saddam Hussein's regime, but these were successfully repressed using the Iraqi security forces and chemical weapons. It is estimated that as many as 100,000 people, including many civilians were killed.[65] During the uprisings the US, UK, France and Turkey, claiming authority under UNSCR 688, established the Iraqi no-fly zones.NOT A UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATION.

The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the Iraqi Republic. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power) NOT A UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATION.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush administration began planning the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government and in October 2002, the US Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. In November 2002, the UN Security Council passed UNSCR 1441 and in March 2003 the US and its allies invaded Iraq. On 20 March 2003, a United States-organized coalition invaded Iraq, under the pretext that Iraq had failed to abandon its weapons of mass destruction program in violation of U.N. Resolution 687.NOT A UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATION.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maximuswarrior

waz said:


> He can call it what he wants the fact remains the organisation is older than him and will outlive him. It has bought together nations, it may not be perfect, but that's a start.



Trump wants to run the world like a jungle. He sees such organizations as hurdles. If it was up to Trump, he would just do things old brute force style.


----------



## Solomon2

MIR RAZA HUSSAIN said:


> THIS IS OFF THE TOPIC BUT YOUR PROFILE PIC WRONG.
> THESE TWO FLAGS CAN NEVER JOIN HANDS UNTIL OUR PALESTINE BROTHERS GET JUSTICE


 Has Pakistan demanded such a standard in other disputes between neighboring peoples, like Sudan/South Sudan, or Morocco/Western Sahara? Furthermore, as pointed out many, many times, by design of Pakistan's educators Pakistanis have been poorly equipped to judge matters in the Israel-Palestine conflict, hence how can you determine what is just and what is not? How do you know that Israelis haven't treated the Palestinian Arabs with not only justice but mercy as well? And if you do determine this, it's also explicitly forbidden to publicly acknowledge it, yes?


----------



## Solomon2

EgyptianAmerican said:


> Whats so contradicting about liking muslims and getting OBL?


Good point. I didn't mean it to read that way but I figured there was room for only one qualification in a one-sentence summary!



> ...there is nothing anti-jewish with this resolution -


Of course there is: it doesn't pass the antisemitic smell test, if only because it subscribes to a false version of history.



> ...It's common sense. Israel is breaking international law and is unfairly taking land.


Except that it's a _lie._ I would think an Egyptian would be especially sensitive to this. Don't you remember how Nasser kicked out the Jews, by making them sign papers that they were "voluntarily" donating their property to the State? Didn't Sisi use the same device to rob some M-B supporters of their property only a few years ago? But all the anti-Israel agitprop made you forget, right?



> They should be punished. That isn't anti-jew, that's common sense.


So if Israel _wasn't_ at the top of the land-stealing list you'd be pursuing the land-stealers in other countries, or even your home, right? And if you are such a thief, then all it takes is spending a minor portion of your loot to stir up propaganda against the Jews so you can keep your "winnings" safer, yes?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

gambit said:


> ...It is time the US reassess our relationship with the UN. While it may not be feasible in variety of ways that it is better for US to remain in the UN, the US should no longer be passive about what we expect from the UN. Ultimately, no country needs a UN-type organization, and the one country that needs the UN the least -- the US. I have always advocated the US leaving the UN and Trump should make that threat. That will force the necessary reforms into the UN, particularly corruption.


I don't think it's easy for the U.S. to pull out of the U.N.: by U.S. law isn't our ambassador to the U.N. a member of the Cabinet? Suspending U.S. payments to the U.N. might have some effect but there's nothing to prevent the Saudis, Chinese, etc. from stepping up to the plate, right?


----------



## gambit

Solomon2 said:


> I don't think it's easy for the U.S. to pull out of the U.N.: by U.S. law *isn't our ambassador to the U.N. a member of the Cabinet?*


Yes, but the position is not responsible for any domestic issues. You can look at the UN Ambassador, while being a member of the Presidential Cabinet, as a 'minister-without-portfolio'.



Solomon2 said:


> Suspending U.S. payments to the U.N. might have some effect but there's nothing to prevent the Saudis, Chinese, etc. from stepping up to the plate, right?


None at all. But tacit to financially supporting the UN is being responsible in the leadership role. I doubt that either the Saudis or the Chinese would want *THAT* position and all of its responsibilities.

What happens after you gave money to a beggar at the street corner ? Do you -- in your head -- want him to do something positive with the money, such as getting a real meal instead of alcohol ? Of course you do. But that is the 'Bingo' moment. You want him to do something with that money even though you know you have no real control over him.

No difference than with the UN. It is grossly naive to believe that the Chinese or the Saudis would give money to the UN with no strings attached, especially now that the US is financially out of the UN. As the Saudis and the Chinese gain prominence in the UN because the US is out, other countries will begun to ask: "What can I do to/for my country ?" The Saudis and the Chinese cannot remain silent for long. Eventually, they will assume the mantle position of 'world leaders.


----------



## Mo12

Nice, India should also stand by Israel


----------



## mike2000 is back

Solomon2 said:


> Has Pakistan demanded such a standard in other disputes between neighboring peoples, like Sudan/South Sudan, or Morocco/Western Sahara? Furthermore, as pointed out many, many times, by design of Pakistan's educators Pakistanis have been poorly equipped to judge matters in the Israel-Palestine conflict, hence how can you determine what is just and what is not? How do you know that Israelis haven't treated the Palestinian Arabs with not only justice but mercy as well? And if you do determine this, it's also explicitly forbidden to publicly acknowledge it, yes?


Difference is Pakistan is an Islamic republic and guardian of Islam for the Arabs 
So they have no business in Sudan/South Sudan issues, Morocco/western Sahara conflict, Myanmar-Rohingya issue or even China-uygurs issue etc. The only focus should be Israel-Palestine/Arabic issues.


----------



## Solomon2

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Based on reviewing past action of US administration , this has happened before in US administrative history
> 
> Example: President carter wanted the issue to be resolved after he departed office or close to it.


Correct. This was referred to as "Joining the Jackals". 



> Also if my memory recalls even Bush (GW bush) also had introduced some positive notions for Palestinians towards end of his term.


I think it's more like the Arabs adopted a more positive stance, for in the wake of Desert Storm the PLO was bereft, friendless, and remained in exile. Arafat was pretty much willing to promise anything (which he would then reneg) in return for power.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Israel is doing that same act again


----------



## SarthakGanguly

This is sick. Innocents will pay the price for a passing ego shot.


----------



## Solomon2

SarthakGanguly said:


> This is sick. Innocents will pay the price for a passing ego shot.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/813065739221475328


----------



## SirHatesALot

So much drama as if Israel going to abide by this resolution jeez.


----------



## Nilgiri

SirHatesALot said:


> So much drama as if Israel going to abide by this resolution jeez.



There is nothing to abide by. It is simply a "condemnation" by the UNSC.

Israel will simply ignore it for the next few weeks and wait for Trump. Trump has already indicated that Obummer does not reflect the upcoming US administration in any way.

Trump has an opportunity here too to move the US embassy to Jerusalem to give a nice finger back to Obummer's parthian shot.


----------



## SirHatesALot

Nilgiri said:


> There is nothing to abide by. It is simply a "condemnation" by the UNSC.
> 
> Israel will simply ignore it for the next few weeks and wait for Trump. Trump has already indicated that Obummer does not reflect the upcoming US administration in any way.
> 
> Trump has an opportunity here too to move the US embassy to Jerusalem to give a nice finger back to Obummer's parthian shot.


Who cares i just find the drama amusing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Back in 2000-2001 US needed support to invade Iraq / Afghanistan -


Unsupported (and likely unsupportable) B.S. You don't get to portray your inventions as equal to or replacements for supportable facts.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Something big is cooking , when ever US is about to support Palestine , something normally unprecedented happens on global scale

Note there was this catch in Kerry's statement

"Israel has a chance to work with Arabs , on matters pertaining to Iran - he said so sheapishly" lol

Something big is cooking this statement was there in Kerry's 1 hour speech look for it

I personally have seen this so called change of heart before around 2000's for cause of Palestine

If 2 state does happens I personally have no beef with Jews in their own little zone

But I really hope 2 states are formed as synical as it may be just so each country can just go do their own thing and not yet again a start of new war or event


----------



## hussain0216

Nilgiri said:


> There is nothing to abide by. It is simply a "condemnation" by the UNSC.
> 
> Israel will simply ignore it for the next few weeks and wait for Trump. Trump has already indicated that Obummer does not reflect the upcoming US administration in any way.
> 
> Trump has an opportunity here too to move the US embassy to Jerusalem to give a nice finger back to Obummer's parthian shot.



Its not just a condemnation 

Its a security council resolution affirming that all of the West Bank including East Jerusalem is occupied territory which Israel has no right too declaring all settlements as illegal 

Israel wanted to change facts on the ground and then force the Palestinians into a settlement where many of the settlements are incorporated by israel.


This security council endorsed resolution has pulled the rug out under from israel and left it no legal position 
As West bank has been declared Palestinian territory and israeli dream of owning it or removing them has been crushed

*Trump also cant change it, he can of course take unilateral action but it would be against international law and security council resolutions 


This resolution is under chapter 6 so it means no sanctions as of yet (that would need to be a chapter 7 resolution) 
BUT it now opens up israel to a variety of possible action including ICC action and sanction for building unlawfully on Palestinian land
It strengthens the BDS movement with it being able to legally challenge states and companies with working with individual and groups in occupied territory.
*
Trump cant do much about it, he can fawn over israel but believe me thst will very quickly have a reaction but internationally and internationally 


Israels best bet has always been a QUIET and NUANCED foreign policy especially re the USA with smart and Quiet U.S politicians this over the top fawning over israel will have consequences israeli supporters wont like


----------



## Nilgiri

hussain0216 said:


> Its a security council resolution affirming that all of the West Bank including East Jerusalem is occupied territory which Israel has no right too declaring all settlements as illegal



There is no concrete action to be taken by the UN if Israel does not withdraw its settlements. Thus it is only a condemnation.

The UN is a weak, effeminate organisation. Trump is going to have a lot of fun with it, when he gets around to devoting a couple minutes to it, beyond the much more important domestic issues and focused bilateral diplomacy.


----------



## Solomon2

hussain0216 said:


> Its not just a condemnation
> 
> Its a security council resolution affirming that all of the West Bank including East Jerusalem is occupied territory which Israel has no right too declaring all settlements as illegal


Including the Jewish Quarter. The U.N. essentially tried to outlaw Jews from their ancient capital and homeland, even in areas with unbroken Jewish ownership for thousands of years. Essentially, this resolution was the U.N.'s endorsement of the "Palestinian" dream to ethnically cleanse Palestine of all Jews. 



> This security council endorsed resolution has pulled the rug out under from israel and left it no legal position


Not so. By design the powers of the S.C. are not judicial so any statements pretending to such have no impact in international law. Israel's possession of Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem is firmly founded under the Palestine Mandate and under Article 80 of the Charter the U.N. can't unilaterally take it away: the "Palestinian" Arabs do not have the legal right to statehood within its bounds without Israel's say-so, and of course they have no moral right to claim it as long as they won't give up the dream of robbing and murdering their peace-loving Jewish neighbors.


----------



## hussain0216

Nilgiri said:


> There is no concrete action to be taken by the UN if Israel does not withdraw its settlements. Thus it is only a condemnation.
> 
> The UN is a weak, effeminate organisation. Trump is going to have a lot of fun with it, when he gets around to devoting a couple minutes to it, beyond the much more important domestic issues and focused bilateral diplomacy.



As i said because its not a chapter 7 resolution sanctions wont be applied but this is a official U.N security council resolution including all security council members declaring West Bank and East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory where israel has no. legal right and is a occupier with all settlements declared illegal

why do you think Israelis and zionists are so burned up this has major ramifications for israel and its agenda 



Solomon2 said:


> Including the Jewish Quarter. The U.N. essentially tried to outlaw Jews from their ancient capital and homeland, even in areas with unbroken Jewish ownership for thousands of years. Essentially, this resolution was the U.N.'s endorsement of the "Palestinian" dream to ethnically cleanse Palestine of all Jews.
> 
> Not so. By design the powers of the S.C. are not judicial so any statements pretending to such have no impact in international law. Israel's possession of Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem is firmly founded under the Palestine Mandate and under Article 80 of the Charter the U.N. can't unilaterally take it away: the "Palestinian" Arabs do not have the legal right to statehood within its bounds without Israel's say-so, and of course they have no moral right to claim it as long as they won't give up the dream of robbing and murdering their peace-loving Jewish neighbors.




The U.N didnt try, they HAVE as per international law declared East Jerusalem and all of West Bank as Palestinian 
and israel as a occupier 

Your delusions of never ending jew ownership are nothing but your own ramblings


----------



## Solomon2

hussain0216 said:


> As i said because its not a chapter 7 resolution sanctions wont be applied but this is a official U.N security council resolution including all security council members declaring West Bank and East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory where israel has no. legal right and is a occupier with all settlements declared illegal


Sure, they DECLARED "settlements" (including the entire Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, 100% Jewish at least since Saladin's time!) to be "illegal". But that's a political statement, not a legal one.



> The U.N didnt try, they HAVE as per international law declared East Jerusalem and all of West Bank as Palestinian
> and israel as a occupier


Nope. The S.C. has no "per international law" basis to assume such authority.



> Your delusions of never ending jew ownership are nothing but your own ramblings


Article 80 exists for all to read.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

Solomon2 said:


> Sure, they DECLARED "settlements" (including the entire Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, 100% Jewish at least since Saladin's time!) to be "illegal". But that's a political statement, not a legal one.
> 
> Nope. The S.C. has no "per international law" basis to assume such authority.
> 
> Article 80 exists for all to read.


----------



## JazbaatiHindustaani

Israel doesn't give two hoots to UN resolution. Frankly who does?

Obama is just creating a foreign policy mess for Trump administration but too bad for him Trump is undoing his every move and all with just 141 characters )


----------



## Solomon2

*Aleppo Refugees*
_


The world is upside down, and Obama's final days as President are both loony and dangerous._​

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiannKall

SarthakGanguly said:


> I will not call it so simply. But it was known that he did not like Israel much, and appeased the Muslims. He failed on both counts.
> 
> He was an ultra liberal dream.
> 
> Fantastic. Utopian.
> 
> And just that.
> 
> A dream.



Appeased the muslims? How? How is it possible to appease the muslims by bombing 7 muslim countries?


----------



## SarthakGanguly

GiannKall said:


> Appeased the muslims? How? How is it possible to appease the muslims by bombing 7 muslim countries?


The US is hypocritical in nature. I am talking about Obama's parting shot alone. He personally appeased the Muslim leadership in the countries while continuing US admin's policies.


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

SarthakGanguly said:


> The US is hypocritical in nature. I am talking about Obama's parting shot alone. He personally appeased the Muslim leadership in the countries while continuing US admin's policies.



How exactly did he appease such Muslim leaders? Did he by chance praise Sisi in Egypt? Assad in Syria? The president of Turkey? Did he kiss the shoes of the supreme leader of Iran? Did he give Pakistan everything they asked for and more? Did he personally visit Lebanon? Kosovo?Albania?Bosnia? Did he go to Uzbekistan? Tajikistan? Did he go to Azerbaijan and reassure him that America would support their efforts against Armenia? Did he go to Afghanistan and meet every tribal elder there? Did he lounge in the Maldives and take a break in Somalia? Morocco? Western Sahara? Algeria? Ghana? Has he praised Indonesians? Malaysians? Bangladesh? Did he meet the Muslim leaders in India?


No? Then you are wrong and maybe should shut up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiannKall

SarthakGanguly said:


> The US is hypocritical in nature. I am talking about Obama's parting shot alone. He personally appeased the Muslim leadership in the countries while continuing US admin's policies.



How?


----------



## MIR RAZA HUSSAIN

Solomon2 said:


> Has Pakistan demanded such a standard in other disputes between neighboring peoples, like Sudan/South Sudan, or Morocco/Western Sahara? Furthermore, as pointed out many, many times, by design of Pakistan's educators Pakistanis have been poorly equipped to judge matters in the Israel-Palestine conflict, hence how can you determine what is just and what is not? How do you know that Israelis haven't treated the Palestinian Arabs with not only justice but mercy as well? And if you do determine this, it's also explicitly forbidden to publicly acknowledge it, yes?


any one who have eyes can see how brutal Israhelies are killing and boombing Palestinies and how they are force fully capturaing their land and other resources 

banning the prayers in Palestine, killing children, reaping females in Palestine, cutting of their basic needs and other stuff is providing justice and equal rights for you???

WAY THE GO MAN


----------



## Solomon2

MIR RAZA HUSSAIN said:


> any one who have eyes can see how brutal Israhelies are killing and boombing Palestinies and how they are force fully capturaing their land -


I think you are very sick and deluded. See here.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> I think you are very sick and deluded. See here.


Why Israel has to be a Jewish state? It can be a democratic one and give equal rights to everyone.


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> Why Israel has to be a Jewish state? It can be a democratic one and give equal rights to everyone.


Like it's not!? Read the link above.


----------



## Natan

Philia said:


> Why Israel has to be a Jewish state? It can be a democratic one and give equal rights to everyone.


Why Saudi Arabia has to be a Muslim state? Why can't I have alcohol and pork in Mecca?

Do you give equal rights to everyone in your house? Would you let a stranger eat your food, drink your drink, and sleep in your bed with your wife?


----------



## Mage

Natan said:


> Why Saudi Arabia has to be a Muslim state? Why can't I have alcohol and pork in Mecca?
> 
> Do you give equal rights to everyone in your house? Would you let a stranger eat your food, drink your drink, and sleep in your bed with your wife?


Saudi sucks. Does Israel have to suck this much too? 


Solomon2 said:


> Like it's not!? Read the link above.


No I mean everyone living in Israeli controlled areas should have equal rights. Be it Tel Aviv, Haifa or West Bank


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> No I mean everyone living in Israeli controlled areas should have equal rights. Be it Tel Aviv, Haifa or West Bank


That would mean demanding that the Palestinian Arabs allow Jews to buy and sell property in their Judea-Samaria neighborhoods and that when a Jew gets robbed or murdered by an Arab the perps are to be treated as much as criminals as if a Jew had done the same to an Arab. Essentially, you're talking about becoming a Zionist and demanding the reversal of the just-passed S.C.. resolution.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> That would mean demanding that the Palestinian Arabs allow Jews to buy and sell property in their Judea-Samaria neighborhoods and that when a Jew gets robbed or murdered by an Arab the perps are to be treated as much as criminals as if a Jew had done the same to an Arab. Essentially, you're talking about becoming a Zionist and demanding the reversal of the just-passed S.C.. resolution.


I'm talking about a state where everyone, Jews, Palestinian Arabs, and others get to vote. Judged in the same way. Also undemocratic law of Jews right to return to be reviewed. I mean Israel can give citizenship to people in West Bank and can still remain two third Jewish. I'm not advocating to do same with Gaza as there are no settlements there.


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> I'm talking about a state where everyone, Jews, Palestinian Arabs, and others get to vote.


No, you're moving the goalposts. Basically you're talking about eliminating Israel as the Jewish National Home, for once Arabs wield coercive power - whether gained from elections or from guns - they will do what they have done everywhere else:expel "others', distributing their property for the gain of their supporters, all part of establishing the family-clan system that rules everyday lives, whereas the "natiional" leadership is merely the group of thugs on top. 

Did you even know that all Arab countries, without exception, have violated the terms of the Palestine Mandate, which required them to respect Jews' property and civil rights within Arab political entities? And now that you know, are you willing to use this to hammer them for their thefts? 



> I'm not advocating to do same with Gaza as there are no settlements there.


So Arabs can live anywhere they want, but Jews can't live anywhere in the Middle East other than Israel, and that of course can change once Arabs flood the country under your proposed abolishment of the Law of Return. How very humane and just you are!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> No, you're moving the goalposts. Basically you're talking about eliminating Israel as the Jewish National Home, for once Arabs wield coercive power - whether gained from elections or from guns - they will do what they have done everywhere else:expel "others', distributing their property for the gain of their supporters, all part of establishing the family-clan system that rules everyday lives, whereas the "natiional" leadership is merely the group of thugs on top.
> 
> Did you even know that all Arab countries, without exception, have violated the terms of the Palestine Mandate, which required them to respect Jews' property and civil rights within Arab political entities? And now that you know, are you willing to use this to hammer them for their thefts?
> 
> So Arabs can live anywhere they want, but Jews can't live anywhere in the Middle East other than Israel, and that of course can change once Arabs flood the country under your proposed abolishment of the Law of Return. How very humane and just you are!


What I believe is Jews should be allowed to live wherever they want as well. I personally don't care much about religion but as I said even with West Bank population Israel will be 65% Jewish. So, it might give them Arabs more power in the elections, it does not make Jews powerless. With the amount of settlements in west Bank, you guys are not pulling out from there. If you wanna play the waiting game, your choice. That's what Bibi is doing. 
Obviously Jewish right to return is not a democratic law. I heard some Israelis criticize it too.


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> Obviously Jewish right to return is not a democratic law.


Every country controls its immigration, yes?

If you're talking about Palestinian Arab "refugees" - and "refugees" is in quotes because the world uses a unique definition that applies only to them - these are the Arabs whose community leaders or they themselves vowed to undertake armed opposition to their Jewish neighbors in 1948 or 1967 (or who moved from their home to the enemy camps to take advantage of the U.N. food dole and free education.) Under Mandate law the Jews surrendered none of their civil or property rights as existed under the Ottomans: that included the right not be robbed and murdered at will, of course. 

On the other hand, Arabs who did engage in the same _surrendered _those very rights. Under Turkish standards, their_ lives _were forfeit as well. Ben-Gurion was trained as an Ottoman lawyer. He knew what Jews had the right to do. That the unrepentant Arabs were expelled rather than slain _en masse_ was and is due to the Zionists' mercy, not any form of criminal rapacity. And these Arabs and their descendants can claim neither the moral nor the legal right to return.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> Every country controls its immigration, yes?
> 
> If you're talking about Palestinian Arab "refugees" - and "refugees" is in quotes because the world uses a unique definition that applies only to them - these are the Arabs whose community leaders or they themselves vowed to undertake armed opposition to their Jewish neighbors in 1948 or 1967 (or who moved from their home to the enemy camps to take advantage of the U.N. food dole and free education.) Under Mandate law the Jews surrendered none of their civil or property rights as existed under the Ottomans: that included the right not be robbed and murdered at will, of course.
> 
> On the other hand, Arabs who did engage in the same _surrendered _those very rights. Under Turkish standards, their_ lives _were forfeit as well. Ben-Gurion was trained as an Ottoman lawyer. He knew what Jews had the right to do. That the unrepentant Arabs were expelled rather than slain _en masse_ was and is due to the Zionists' mercy, not any form of criminal rapacity. And these Arabs and their descendants can claim neither the moral nor the legal right to return.


I'm not saying Israel should take back the Arabs that left 40-50 years ago. I'm just saying that giving citizenship to people currently living in West Bank does little harm to Israel. And that much harm they can easily manage. 

So, I guess you agree with rest of my post, which you didn't quote?


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

20-30 Year old need for 2 state in region , nothing out of ordinary


----------



## Mage

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> 20-30 Year old need for 2 state in region , nothing out of ordinary


2 states won't happen. With Trump and Bibi in office Israel will built more and more in the West Bank and they will probably shift American embassy to Jerusalem. 

The best Israel can hope for in the long term is, they take West Bank and Egypt takes Gaza. This way Israel can be a Jewish majority and a democratic state while keeping most of the parties involved happy.

Otherwise, they can wait and wait and hope things remain this way. However, Arabs aren't unwilling to stall for time either. Make it a birth rate race inside small Israel and hope one side gives in. It may take 100 or even 200 years. But not like they care. Not the Arabs at least.


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> I'm not saying Israel should take back the Arabs that left 40-50 years ago. I'm just saying that giving citizenship to people currently living in West Bank does little harm to Israel. And that much harm they can easily manage.


You may want to read Caroline Glick's book,_ The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East._






> So, I guess you agree with rest of my post, which you didn't quote?


Not sure yet.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

I think the accord already exists and Israel is bound to implement it since it recieved billions in US funding for last 20 years under its pretext


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> You may want to read Caroline Glick's book,_ The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East._
> 
> 
> .


Sorry, I don't think I have enough time or interest to read a whole book on that matter. However, if there is a point or two you'd like me to know from the book, you may very well state here or write on my page.



Solomon2 said:


> Not sure yet.


Let me know when you're sure. Nice talking to you.



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I think the accord already exists and Israel is bound to implement it since it recieved billions in US funding for last 20 years under its pretext


No. No one is bound to do anything. Not Israel at least. And a 2 state solution is no longer possible. Israel won't leave Judea, Samaria or East Jerusalem. 

The main issue is, any Israeli govt that gives up those lands won't be winning an election in 100 years. The basic thing is any realistic solution is not popular among Israelis. Because all of them requires Israel to give up something. Like give more power to Arabs in a one state solution, which our dear Solomon is unwilling to do. Or give up lands in a 2 state solution which they are unwilling as well. However here are plenty of liberal movements inside Israel as well. And off course there are people inside Israel who wishes for a peaceful coexistence. At this point the best thing is to wait and see how thing evolves.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

I think iraq was bombed becasue they did not complied with Security council mandate I expect a proper similar response for not following procedure

Israel signed the accord and so it is bound "contractual" obligation to give seperate state to Palestinians

Was it not that Iran was sanctioned for 10-20 years fore merely keeping its weapon's program active  quite a double standard it would be


----------



## Mage

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I think iraq was bombed becasue they did not complied with Security council mandate I expect a proper similar response.
> 
> Israel signed the accord and so it is bound "contractual" obligation to give seperate state to Palestinians


Iraq is not Israel. And no one would dare to bomb Israel. Israelis know that as well as UN security council.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

hahaha why is that


----------



## Mage

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> hahaha why is that


You may want to google "Samson Option"



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Was it not that Iran was sanctioned for 10-20 years fore merely keeping its weapon's program active  quite a double standard it would be


Israel in the future can be sanctioned by the UN if US starts thinking that Muslim votes are more important than Jewish votes and money. For that to happen Muslims need to make up much larger percentage of population in US tho. It is not entirely impossible to sanction Israel via UN in the future. But I doubt how effective it would be.

P.S. By"in the future" I mean at least 20 or 30 years later.


----------



## Mage

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> hmm what If I told you it will be done in 2-3 months


I'd regard it as wishful thinking


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> What I believe is Jews should be allowed to live wherever they want as well.


It would be cool if Jews could "be allowed to live wherever they want". But experience shows they cannot do so in the Arab-ruled countries nearby. Even in the case of Lebanon, which allowed absentee Jews to retain their property and has even rebuilt their synagogue, as far as I know the Jews expelled cannot return.

However, this trend may be reversing. The leader here is Syria. Two Syrian opposition groups recently invited the Jews to return.and reclaim their property. Not that there's much left: in the Syria war thread there's a video of the devastation the Syria War wreaked on what was once the Jewish section of Damascus. Much of the Jews' community property (synagogues, community centers, cemeteries, etc.) was seized and given to Palestinian Arab "refugees", or paved over, or trashed. And the opposition is going to have to win its struggle with the Assad regime first.

Perhaps equally important, however, is that the Arabs who live in areas currently controlled by Israel or in Gaza should also have the right to migrate and become citizens of other states. Because property values in Israel-controlled areas are high, and the Arabs comparatively well-educated, the market for their skills in the Arab world and the decreased cost of living would likely make migration attractive for many. Currently most don't have that right, even if they have extended family in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc., because most Arab (and, I think, Western) political leaders still see a large, trapped Arab population as yet another arrow in the quiver in their war against Israel.

So the ones in Israeli-controlled areas can't migrate, and the ones outside are restricted to camps, even if they have jobs outside them. this discrimination against "Palestinians" is the _true_ form of apartheid they are subjected to in the region: just like South African blacks, they have to live in Bantustans yet live to serve their masters outside them.

And you probably didn't realize that until now, because for seventy years and more Arab leaders have invested their financial, ideological, and terror resources into turning the truth upside-down, and convincing Western leaders to do the same.



Philia said:


> Sorry, I don't think I have enough time or interest to read a whole book on that matter. However, if there is a point or two you'd like me to know from the book, you may very well state here or write on my page.


Then I suggest going to the Amazon page and reading the reviews, both pro- and con-.



> No. No one is bound to do anything. Not Israel at least. And a 2 state solution is no longer possible. Israel won't leave Judea, Samaria or East Jerusalem.


That is not the reason. The reason is that the current Palestinian leadership, and any future one that can be imagined, will not countenance the permanent, rightful existence of Jewish self-determination in any part of the region. That's what the U.N. knows and what it is trying to avoid politically acknowledging by condemning the Jews instead.



> The basic thing is any realistic solution is not popular among Israelis. Because all of them requires Israel to give up something.


You don't know Jews very well, do you? Jews and the Israeli gov'ts they elect have proved willing to give up land if it brings peace; that was done with Egypt and Jordan and Arafat. But to surrender land to avowed enemies who see it as an advance towards the Jews' destruction does not further the cause of peace but makes conflict more likely.



> At this point the best thing is to wait and see how thing evolves.


"The best thing" for whom? The Jews? The Arabs? Or are you talking about _yourself?_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> It would be cool if Jews could "be allowed to live wherever they want". But experience shows they cannot do so in the Arab-ruled countries nearby. Even in the case of Lebanon, which allowed absentee Jews to retain their property and has even rebuilt their synagogue, as far as I know the Jews expelled cannot return.
> 
> However, this trend may be reversing. The leader here is Syria. Two Syrian opposition groups recently invited the Jews to return.and reclaim their property. Not that there's much left: in the Syria war thread there's a video of the devastation the Syria War wreaked on what was once the Jewish section of Damascus. Much of the Jews' community property (synagogues, community centers, cemeteries, etc.) was seized and given to Palestinian Arab "refugees", or paved over, or trashed. And the opposition is going to have to win its struggle with the Assad regime first.
> 
> Perhaps equally important, however, is that the Arabs who live in areas currently controlled by Israel or in Gaza should also have the right to migrate and become citizens of other states. Because property values in Israel-controlled areas are high, and the Arabs comparatively well-educated, the market for their skills in the Arab world and the decreased cost of living would likely make migration attractive for many. Currently most don't have that right, even if they have extended family in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc., because most Arab (and, I think, Western) political leaders still see a large, trapped Arab population as yet another arrow in the quiver in their war against Israel.
> 
> So the ones in Israeli-controlled areas can't migrate, and the ones outside are restricted to camps, even if they have jobs outside them. this discrimination against "Palestinians" is the _true_ form of apartheid they are subjected to in the region: just like South African blacks, they have to live in Bantustans yet live to serve their masters outside them.
> 
> And you probably didn't realize that until now, because for seventy years and more Arab leaders have invested their financial, ideological, and terror resources into turning the truth upside-down, and convincing Western leaders to do the same.


Jews couldn't live in Europe either. It's quite one sided for you to only mention Arab-ruled countries, isn't it?

As for rest of your post, Egypt or other countries won't take Palestinians. They don't have shortage in manpower. And most importantly, it is not heir problem. I'd agree that Egypt doesn't treat Palestinians better than Israel, but that doesn't do any good to Israel, does it?

Like I said an agreement is possible if Israel puts their mind to it, like that take West Bank only if Egypt takes Gaza. Then give everyone equal rights. If they can convince the Arabs and implement it accordingly, then I see this problem ending positively. Otherwise I see a birth rate race in small land of Israel. But if that's what Bibi and his fanboys prefer, let it be.



Solomon2 said:


> That is not the reason. The reason is that the current Palestinian leadership, and any future one that can be imagined, will not countenance the permanent, rightful existence of Jewish self-determination in any part of the region. That's what the U.N. knows and what it is trying to avoid politically acknowledging by condemning the Jews instead.
> 
> You don't know Jews very well, do you? Jews and the Israeli gov'ts they elect have proved willing to give up land if it brings peace; that was done with Egypt and Jordan and Arafat. But to surrender land to avowed enemies who see it as an advance towards the Jews' destruction does not further the cause of peace but makes conflict more likely.


Palestinian leadership is a joke. They are incapable of doin anything, let alone solving the problem. 

And I know Israel offered to accept a demilitarized Palestinian state and give up a portion of the demanded land which was not acceptable to the other party. And Arafat probably had issues with Palestinian right to return thingy. But that doesn't change the fact that giving up land is an unpopular idea among the Israeli population now.

And I don't know Jew well, I agree. Only met a few in my life. Can't say I dislike the ones I met.


Solomon2 said:


> "The best thing" for whom? The Jews? The Arabs? Or are you talking about yourself


For me, as an outsider spectator. Or hopefully for every parties involved


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> Jews couldn't live in Europe either. It's quite one sided for you to only mention Arab-ruled countries, isn't it?


Red herring. We weren't talking about allowing non-Jewish Europeans to migrate into Israel and become citizens.



> As for rest of your post, Egypt or other coi tries won't take Palestinians. They don't have shortage in manpower. And most importantly, it is not heir problem. I'd agree that Egypt doesn't treat Palestinians better than Israel, but that doesn't do any good to Israel, does it?



_"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable"._

_ by Abu Mazen _[current "Palestinian Presdent" Mahmoud Abbas]_, from his article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976_​
Thus the burden of moral responsibility of the surrounding Arab states far exceeds that of Israel.



> Like I said an agreement is possible if Israel puts their mind to it, like that take West Bank only if Egypt takes Gaza.


Egypt refused to "take Gaza" decades ago. Why would Egypt change its mind now?



> Then give everyone equal rights. If they can convince the Arabs -


There you go: the Jews only have rights if they can "convince the Arabs" - i.e., the Arabs have a veto over Jews' civil, property and political rights, i.e., the Arabs have the right to destroy Israel.



> ...Otherwise I see a birth rate race in small land of Israel -


I think that argument is a wash; current Arab and Jewish birthrates are nearly equal.



Philia said:


> For me, as an outsider spectator. Or hopefully for every parties involved


I appreciate your honesty. So you should appreciate that the course that may be easiest and most beneficial to you may not be the just course for the parties involved. (Certainly President Obama does not appreciate this.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> Thus the burden of moral responsibility of the surrounding Arab states far exceeds that of Israel.


No one has any moral responsibility. It's just Israel has a problem. 


Solomon2 said:


> Egypt refused to "take Gaza" decades ago. Why would Egypt change its mind now?


They won't unless they are pressured by other Arab countries. For that to happen, Israel will have to come out and say they'll take West Bank. This is Israel's problem now. Not Egypt's.


Solomon2 said:


> There you go: the Jews only have rights if they can "convince the Arabs" - i.e., the Arabs have a veto over Jews' civil, property and political rights, i.e., the Arabs have the right to destroy Israel.


You are twisting my words. I'm merely saying that Israel need to get into some sort of agreements wit the Arab countries. Palestinian leaderships don't have enough credibility. Israel need guarantee that they don't have any other responsibility after taking West Bank. Then there won't be any sanctions again them. And they will start diplomatic relations with them. Good for Israel. Nothing I said, requires Jews do give up their rights. Unless you uselessly twist it to fit your agenda. 



Solomon2 said:


> I think that argument is a wash; current Arab and Jewish birthrates are nearly equal.


Again you are twisting my words. I never said Israel's Jewish identity is at stake. I'm stating that Israel is a small land and has quite a high birth rate among citizens. And they will keep it this way because of the paranoia of becoming a minority.



Solomon2 said:


> I appreciate your honesty. So you should appreciate that the course that may be easiest and most beneficial to you may not be the just course for the parties involved. (Certainly President Obama does not appreciate this.)


Same applies for you too, right?


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> No one has any moral responsibility. It's just Israel has a problem.


"No one has any moral responsibility"? Explain.



> You are twisting my words. I'm merely saying that Israel need to get into some sort of agreements wit the Arab countries.


I beg your pardon. I've gotten a bit more defensive recently so I may have misinterpreted your words.



> ....Israel is a small land and has quite a high birth rate among citizens. And they will keep it this way because of the paranoia of becoming a minority.


Good grief. Does it have to be "paranoia" rather than supposing Israelis like to make love and raise kids? _Really. _


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> "No one has any moral responsibility"? Explain.


You know it better than me. The fact that Egypt doesn't treat Palestinians better than Israel, explains it fine. They don't consider it their problem and don't want anything to do with it.


Solomon2 said:


> I beg your pardon. I've gotten a bit more defensive recently so I may have misinterpreted your words.]


No problem.


Solomon2 said:


> Good grief. Does it have to be "paranoia" rather than supposing Israelis like to make love and raise kids? _Really. _


That's quite a reply. Haha.

On a serious note, you know it better than me as well. I'll post some article later regarding Israel's birth rate and demographic challenge, if you want. But you know them too well already


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> Same applies for you too, right?


President Obama's attitude is that _his_ interest must become Israel's interest. As a Zionist I have a voice but as an American I accept I don't cast a vote in Israeli elections, nor is it my place to decide Israel's sovereign affairs.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> President Obama's attitude is that _his_ interest must become Israel's interest. As a Zionist I have a voice but as an American I accept I don't cast a vote in Israeli elections, nor is it my place to decide Israel's sovereign affairs.


I simply asked that what you said should apply to me, should it apply to you as well? And you bring Mr. Obama here. You're giving me too much respect. 

So, what maybe the best solution in your opinion, may not be the best solution for the parties involved. Do you agree?


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> So, what maybe the best solution in your opinion, may not be the best solution for the parties involved -


I did not offer a "best solution", did I? You're the one who writes of "realistic solutions", not appreciating, not even now, that your assessment of "real" may be in error and that your desire for "solution" may be morally at fault.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> I did not offer a "best solution", did I? You're the one who writes of "realistic solutions", not appreciating, not even now, that your assessment of "real" may be in error and that your desire for "solution" may be morally at fault.


Okay, I misunderstood it. Sorry for that. 

So what do you think might be a realistic solution? Or do you prefer the no solution solution? And the solution of your preference may not be the right solution, do you agree?v


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> So what do you think might be a realistic solution?


I don't think it's up to Zionists to figure out a "solution" for the Palestinian Arabs. 

As for Israel, it must be accepted, without any conditions or qualifications, that Jews have the right to life, liberty, property, etc. as citizens in other democracies do. (All of which has been perfectly cognizant with the guarantees and strictures of Mandate Law that the Zionists have followed towards the Arabs.)

As for the Palestinian "refugees", terrorists, and other enemies who seek Israel's destruction: to act towards them with justice and mercy. To act justly you go by the facts, in context: to act with mercy depends on the attitude of the persons in dock.

And yes, this means that "the Palestinians" may remain a problem - but not Israel's problem, not a problem of the Zionists to solve.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> I don't think it's up to Zionists to figure out a "solution" for the Palestinian Arabs.
> 
> As for Israel, it must be accepted, without any conditions or qualifications, that Jews have the right to life, liberty, property, etc. as citizens in other democracies do. (All of which has been perfectly cognizant with the guarantees and strictures of Mandate Law that the Zionists have followed towards the Arabs.)
> 
> As for the Palestinian "refugees", terrorists, and other enemies who seek Israel's destruction: to act towards them with justice and mercy. To act justly you go by the facts, in context: to act with mercy depends on the attitude of the persons in dock.
> 
> And yes, this means that "the Palestinians" may remain a problem - but not Israel's problem, not a problem of the Zionists to solve.


A solution indeed. Good luck accomplishing that. I wouldn't have engaged in this debate, had I known what a bigot you are. 

Anyway...good luck with your life.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> A solution indeed. Good luck accomplishing that. I wouldn't have engaged in this debate, had I known what a bigot you are.


"Solutionism" is a kind of disease. As long as other countries, or the "Palestinians" themselves, insist on being a problem through criminal activities and genocidal ambitions they _will_ be a problem. 

Pointing that out does _not_ make me a bigot. It illuminates that the ultimate source of "solution" isn't in Israeli deeds but in Arabs' hearts.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> "Solutionism" is a kind of disease. As long as other countries, or the "Palestinians" themselves, insist on being a problem through criminal activities and genocidal ambitions they _will_ be a problem.
> 
> Pointing that out does _not_ make me a bigot. It illuminates that the ultimate source of "solution" isn't in Israeli deeds but in Arabs' hearts.


To simplify....what you are saying is you want to play the waiting game and prefer the no solution, solution. 

Not really illogical to want that. But sustainability of it is questionable in the long term. 

I have some problems with bigots. I get along with Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists. But don't get along with bigots whether they are Muslims, Jews or Christians. Never met any Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist bigot tho. But don't think I can get along with them either. And no bigot admits to being one.


----------



## Khafee

Philia said:


> Okay, I misunderstood it. Sorry for that.
> 
> So what do you think might be a realistic solution? Or do you prefer the no solution solution? And the solution of your preference may not be the right solution, do you agree?v


His only solution is to wipe out the Palestinians, and anything that goes against the zionist barbarians is wrong.



Philia said:


> To simplify....what you are saying is you want to play the waiting game and prefer the no solution, solution.
> 
> Not really illogical to want that. But sustainability of it is questionable in the long term.
> 
> I have some problems with bigots. I get along with Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists. But don't get along with bigots whether they are Muslims, Jews or Christians. Never met any Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist bigot tho. But don't think I can get along with them either. And no bigot admits to being one.



Waiting game - delay tactics - while they wipe out Palestinians.


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> To simplify....what you are saying is you want to play the waiting game and prefer the no solution, solution.


_Waiting_ implies not acting, whereas I advocate acting with justice and mercy. 



> ...no bigot admits to being one.


_Bigot:_ a person who is obstinately - in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion - intolerant to those holding different opinions, especially treating them with hatred and intolerance.

The problem with labeling me a bigot is that I admit to arguments of reason and have been very patient. True bigots hold to their opinions and prejudices in spite of facts and arguments and do not take the time to listen.



Khafee said:


> His only solution is to wipe out the Palestinians -


Thank you, Khafee. @Philia can now see the difference between an ethical advocate and a truth-destroying bigot.


----------



## Mage

Khafee said:


> while they wipe out Palestinians.


I doubt it is possible to wipe them out. Since their number is quite high. Actually if Israel could simply wipe them out then this problem would've been solved by now. But like I said there are plenty of people inside Israel that wishes for a peaceful coexistence. I think Joint Arab list was the third most voted party in Israel, last election.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> _Waiting_ implies not acting, whereas I advocate acting with justice and mercy.
> 
> _Bigot:_ a person who is obstinately - in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion - intolerant to those holding different opinions, especially treating them with hatred and intolerance.
> 
> The problem with labeling me a bigot is that I admit to arguments of reason and have been very patient. True bigots hold to their opinions and prejudices in spite of facts and arguments and do not take the time to listen.


Okay if you insist, maybe you are a lenient bigot? And what do you mean by justice and mercy? I'm not sure I understand these vague words.


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> Okay if you insist, maybe you are a lenient bigot? And what do you mean by justice and mercy? I'm not sure I understand these vague words.


O.K., last last bits:

I will accept the labels "stubborn" and "persistent".

As for "justice" and "mercy": us Jews have written entire volumes on these subjects. But suffice to say, in this context, that any "solution" that involves beating up innocent-of-crime Jews so others can revel in such wickedness is not a form of justice, and allowing the unrepentant criminal to get off scot-free so he can act again is not a desirable form of mercy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khafee

Solomon2 said:


> O.K., last last bits:
> 
> I will accept the labels "stubborn" and "persistent".
> 
> As for "justice" and "mercy": us Jews have written entire volumes on these subjects. But suffice to say, in this context, that any "solution" that involves beating up innocent-of-crime Jews so others can revel in such wickedness is not a form of justice, and allowing the unrepentant criminal to get off scot-free so he can act again is not a desirable form of mercy.


Written but not practiced. Empty words and no substance.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> O.K., last last bits:
> 
> I will accept the labels "stubborn" and "persistent".
> 
> As for "justice" and "mercy": us Jews have written entire volumes on these subjects. But suffice to say, in this context, that any "solution" that involves beating up innocent-of-crime Jews so others can revel in such wickedness is not a form of justice, and allowing the unrepentant criminal to get off scot-free so he can act again is not a desirable form of mercy.


I asked what do you mean by justice and mercy. And you wrote what do you not mean by justice and mercy. When someone asks your father's name, do you reply that my father's name is not Oliver?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Philia said:


> I'm just saying that giving citizenship to people currently living in West Bank does little harm to Israel.



Lol what a stupid idea. Typical of a Bangladeshi too.

Yes give citizenship to a people that refuse to even recognise your right to existence, who's govt gives lifetime family subsidies to those that manage to murder Israelis and who's basic culture and identity has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

They would not accept Israeli Citizenship even if offered. Israel is very correct to dominate these people and keep the status quo going.

Hopefully Israel is emboldened one day under the appropriate US govt/backing and drives them out completely to the multitude of other Arab States.

There is only one Jewish State in the world and it deserves to be eternal in character and existence.

So keep dreaming your stupid ideas about dissolving Jewish Israel....while Israel remains firm and strong. Israel has taken more than its fair share of Arab Muslims and Christians in its area, people who were given the option of Israeli Citizenship in 1967 and took it and stayed. Many serve in Israeli army now. But Israel will always remain a Jewish State.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LA se Karachi

Nilgiri said:


> Lol what a stupid idea. Typical of a Bangladeshi too.
> 
> Yes give citizenship to a people that refuse to even recognise your right to existence, who's govt gives lifetime family subsidies to those that manage to murder Israelis and who's basic culture and identity has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.
> 
> They would not accept Israeli Citizenship even if offered. Israel is very correct to dominate these people and keep the status quo going.
> 
> Hopefully Israel is emboldened one day under the appropriate US govt/backing and drives them out completely to the multitude of other Arab States.
> 
> There is only one Jewish State in the world and it deserves to be eternal in character and existence.
> 
> So keep dreaming your stupid ideas about dissolving Jewish Israel....while Israel remains firm and strong. Israel has taken more than its fair share of Arab Muslims and Christians in its area, people who were given the option of Israeli Citizenship in 1967 and took it and stayed. Many serve in Israeli army now. But Israel will always remain a Jewish State.




Very dissapointed to read your remarks. 

There is nothing right about what Israel is doing in regards to the "settlements" and the occupation of the West Bank. If Israel wants to exist outside of the West Bank and Gaza as a Jewish state, that's fine with me.

But if it wants to claim the land that these poor people live on (which I think would be illegitimate, personally), then at a bare minimum it must accept these people as its own citizens and afford them full rights. 

What is happening in Israel/Palestine is nothing short of apartheid. But the issue rarely gets that kind of attention, unfortunately.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

When UK gave Hong Kong back to China to build trust and diplomacy , if USA had rebuked UK that would be not polite , so not sure what is the issue UK has with Kerry


Done deal long time ago

Israel seperate state, Palestine seperate state






If you have issue play a soccer game and duke it out in future but live in 2 different state
Was a done deal

If Israel feels otherwise it should return 100-200 billion dollars taken from USA for commitment to 2 state project


----------



## Gothic

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/obama-israel-settlements-un-legacy-commentary.html






Kevin Lamarque | Reuters
Barack Obama
Timing is everything. And President Obama has made a timing mistake that threatens to damage his legacy for many years to come.

This has already been the busiest and most tumultuous transition period in modern American history. Donald Trump has been uncharacteristically active for a President-elect, making deals with individual companies to keep jobs in the U.S., making several highly controversial cabinet choices, and continuing to tweet and speak out with brash regularity.

Of course, President Obama has been uncharacteristically active for an outgoing president too. He's breaking records for the sheer number of pardons and commuted sentences he's ordered, especially for Americans still imprisoned for non-violent drug crimes. He's moving to block oil and other energy exploration in a massive swath of U.S. lands and waters. And now, the White House is announcing new sanctions and booting many Russian diplomats out of the country to retaliate against Moscow's alleged interference in the presidential election. Russia has already promised to respond with measures of its own.


This could get ugly, but each of the above actions are political positives for President Obama. They're all popular with most of the American public. As an added bonus for the Obama team and his fellow Democrats, the Russia story weakens Trump. That was clear even in the case of the usually unfiltered and sharp spoken President-elect Trump


----------



## Avicenna

Obama did the right thing. I cant stand Zionists.


----------



## Gothic

Avicenna said:


> Obama did the right thing. I cant stand Zionists.



you must be an odd member of your community then , most americans stand for zionists.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MIR RAZA HUSSAIN

Solomon2 said:


> I think you are very sick and deluded. See here.


their might be 1 or 2% good people but in general they are just killing innocents are illegally occupying their land


----------



## Natan

MIR RAZA HUSSAIN said:


> their might be 1 or 2% good people but in general they are just killing innocents are illegally occupying their land


Don't forget raping, organ harvesting, and baking matzah with their blood.


----------



## Blue Marlin

the guy is simply doing as much damage as possible, in a way he's no longer in charge as any important matters will be brought upto trump


----------



## Solomon2

Philia said:


> I asked what do you mean by justice and mercy. And you wrote what do you not mean by justice and mercy. When someone asks your father's name, do you reply that my father's name is not Oliver?


Saying "not Oliver" does eliminate one name from the list of possibilities.

Look what's happened here: the discussion started with specifics and now you've started addressing the broader philosophical issue of what is justice and what is mercy. You did not do this for your edification, I think. I think you did this because you didn't like the answers you were getting and were trying to avoid changing your mind. Changing one's mind against the grain of public and political opinion comes very difficult to Pakistanis. That doesn't mean such change isn't necessary.


----------



## Mage

Solomon2 said:


> Look what's happened here: the discussion started with specifics and now you've started addressing the broader philosophical issue of what is justice and what is mercy. You did not do this for your edification, I think. I think you did this because you didn't like the answers you were getting and were trying to avoid changing your mind. Changing one's mind against the grain of public and political opinion comes very difficult to Pakistanis. That doesn't mean such change isn't necessary.


I'm not a Pakistani. And you are the one who said about justice and mercy. And when I asked what do you mean by them, you keep dodging the question.
As can be seen here:


Solomon2 said:


> _Waiting_ implies not acting, whereas I advocate acting with justice and mercy.





Philia said:


> And what do you mean by justice and mercy? I'm not sure I understand these vague words.





Solomon2 said:


> As for "justice" and "mercy": us Jews have written entire volumes on these subjects. But suffice to say, in this context, that any "solution" that involves beating up innocent-of-crime Jews so others can revel in such wickedness is not a form of justice, and allowing the unrepentant criminal to get off scot-free so he can act again is not a desirable form of mercy.



Anyway I'm done discussing with you. You may reply to my post but I'm not gonna reply back. Like I said, I don't get along with bigots.


----------

