It was not my intent to compare the UN to Hamas and Hezbollah…it was to emphasize (although in your eyes, I must have done it badly)…to emphasize that the the UN has often served as a platform for every self-righteous, anti-Semitic despot, banana Republic and Terrorist Exporting Country that has come along since the UN’s existence.
Also; as a strong supporter of Israel; I would be one of the last to trivialize the barbarism of Hamas and Hezbollah…or their Puppet Masters.
Mufasa said it in his clarification above. Personally I didn’t need said clarification because what he was getting at in his original post was quite apparent to me, hence I stared I agreed with him. Clearly you did not think it was that obvious, but I don’t think your reaction was warranted either. That is probably a function of not “knowing” Mufasa (in the internet sense) or his post history and opinion history around PWI, due to you being a newer addition to the regular posters. He is notoriously neutral and very non-aggressive.
Could you elaborate on this please? The UN is there by mutual agreement . Israel could leave the UN, if it wished to do so. Also I don’t want to trivialise terrorism on either side (if I appeared to not be evenhanded). Palestinian terrorists have also fired rockets at civilians , bombed buses and used knife attacks on selected and random people.
I think a different Israeli administration is necessary for a lasting peace. Netanyahu (spelling) not even mentioning a two state solution in his meeting with Trump is very unhelpful. They are prepared to tear up international law and basic standards of human behaviour.
Trump could reach out also to Mahmoud Abbas the President of Palestine.
I’m not quite sure of the elaboration you need, because the statement is pretty straightforward.
The “good” about the UN can also be the “bad”.
The good is that countries; independent of how small or powerful they may be; are able to air their grievances, concerns and problems to the World.The U.N. is also a solid platform from which many strong humanitarian efforts have been launched. All good things.
The “bad” is that the UN has also been the platform from which every self-righteous, anti-Semitic despot, banana Republic and Terrorist Exporting Country has been able to spew out one-sided, anti-Israel rhetoric since almost the beginnings of the UN. I can’t make it much clearer than that.
Does the “good” of the U.N. out-way the “bad”?
On balance, probably so.
However; as a body of Nations; it tends to lean toward an anti-Israel bias.
Apologies if my response came across as uncivil and unnecessarily brusque (which, objectively speaking, it probably was). Should have sat on it for a minute before hitting Reply.
This certainly happens. However, it’s important to recognize that, by flouting UN resolutions and international law, Israel effectively co-authors their speeches for them. And this will continue until a two-state solution is achieved.
This. A true one-state solution (ie, full citizenship status for Palestinians/Arabs) would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state–clearly an unacceptable outcome. Any other sort of one-state solution (ie, in which Palestinians/Arabs are less than full citizens) is apartheid–equally unacceptable.
Some of those resolutions are barbarically poor. The resolution declaring Zionism a for off racism, for instance. In the past, most of these resolutions were driven by the Soviet bloc, now they are being driven by the Arab league. Certainly the Israelis should conform with international law, but complying with these resolutions would be like a Turkey voting for Christmas.
It’s about as valid as the Palestinian Authority cum-ba-ya quote you listed that said all religions are welcome in the PA, while making private land sales to Jews illegal (and punishable by death) and their systematic expulsion of Christians.
North Korea has a provision in its Constitution promising free and fair elections. So did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Pretty words for the gullible.
How about more local power sharing( in addition to a two state solution) and positive discrimination more Palestinians in the police force , local governance etc. Perhaps state funding from Israel and contributions from Arab nations to improve minorities standard of living (shanty towns etc).
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86, adopted on 16 December 1991, revoked the determination in Resolution 3379, which had called Zionism a form of racism.
There is an international criminal court and ad hoc tribunals for war criminals. A war criminal could be someone who merely tortures someone. There are consequences for dictators(Milosevic , Pinochet ) unless of course they possess WMD or are a superpower.
In theory Bush , Blair , Barack Obama et al.Thatcher could be prosecuted.
Keep in mind the combined Arabic land (not Muslim, which is significantly larger) is only 10% smaller than the US and EU combined. Land for peace? Please! This is a spiritual battle, over what by any physical or earthly definition - is an inconsequential, provincial backwater.
“The determination that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”, contained in the resolution [3379], was revoked in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86.”
OK then, how about IV Geneva Convention then, to which Israel is a signatory? Is it also meaningless?
I don’t understand. Are you saying the land is not worth fighting for?
The comment about size is correct - I remember how dumbfounded I was in Beirut when I realized people were taking a cab to Damascus…
If we set aside the morality issue aside, this is the crux of the problem. Israelis could have “solved” this issue in 1967 like it was solved in Turkey in 1922 or in Algeria only a few years earlier - Europeans living in Algeria (most of the for several generations) as well as Jews were given a choice - “a suitcase or a coffin” and were forced to leave. Over one million Europeans and over 80k Jews and 50k Muslims left for France in less than three months. One suitcase per person. One of the largest migrations post-WW2 in Europe.
If you read the contemporary accounts, the Israeli leadership decided rather haphazardly on the ground against ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza. Although humanitarian considerations played a part, the fear of a negative PR backlash was a major reason. But above all, they believed that the “problem will take care of itself” and that the Arab population will leave on their own, not wanting to live under Israeli military rule.
Of course, the Palestinians themselves were used as pawns by the Arab countries - if they were allowed to resettle, they would be grumbling watching TV in a cafe in Tunisia whenever Israel was mentioned, but they wouldn’t be in such a cul-de-sac as they’re now.
So now, this Israeli cherry picking of territories by constructing settlements is to get at least some land without the people, because as @EyeDentist correctly pointed out, it’s either the end of Israel or apartheid.
My opinion, upon seeing those ridiculous overpasses in West Bank proper, is that despite the wall Israel really couldn’t disentangle itself completely from the West Bank. You simply cannot have suburban satellite communities with swimming pools, gyms and all other first world luxuries just a few hundred yards from impoverished Arab ghettos.
Also, the situation on the ground is much more fascinating and complex - it’s not always a black/white “beacon of liberty” vs. Arab savages.
For example, my great aunt living in Israel was attacked by a neo nazi gang a few years back because she was a Holocaust survivor.
On the other hand, just a few dozen miles from ISIS head choppers in Syria is the Lebanon’s luxurious ski resort with groomed slopes, five star hotels, French champagne, exclusive restaurants, amazing nightlife and gorgeous women.
Very well done and very well thought out Mufasa. It does beg the questions why is the default state of affairs in the ME seem to be war. Only when concurred do they lose their propensity to make war? It’s one on two things, either culture or religion or the mix of both.
To be at war gives you a clarity and purpose that you do not have in a state of peace.
This is what everybody has been trying to do since 1967. There’s only one tiny problem, the Palestinians will not cooperate. The second a settlement seems even possible, they launch rockets in to Israel.
It’s a great idea, don’t get me wrong. It’s been tried and tried and tried.
The good news is out of these peace talks Israel, Jordan and Egypt were able to come to a tentative but peaceable agreement at least to the point where they are not trying to kill each other all the time.
Abbas has very little power, probably because he sounds almost reasonable and sane. An accord negotiated with him wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on. The PLO isn’t what it used to be, a terror organization. Hence, the lack of influence.
There’s an additional problem to the one’s already stated, each successive generating has been raised from childhood to believe in the death of Israel and all Jews. Its ingrained in them now more than ever.
Hence, Jewbacca’s original solution of annexing the lands to Egypt and Jordan, whether or not likely, seems to be the only way a real peace could be obtained.
It seems unlikely right now. But the way to get an idea off the ground is sharing it. Maybe sometime in the future, this idea may not be such a pipe dream.
Hey, 2 years ago at this time if you had told me Trump was going to be the President, I would have laughed, hell I did laugh. I thought it more likely I go to the moon then that happen… No one’s laughing now. So, one state with Egypt and Jordan as very close neighbors is possible. It will take some land trades, there is a strip along the 1967 orders where Israel is only 72 miles across, I am thinking they’d want to widen that a bit in exchange for other places.
This is the solution I am backing…
Most Palestinians are not terrorists . I think social mobility will go a long way to changing attitudes given time. What would they have to pay Egypt or Jordan?
Pat , it is still ethnic cleansing or at displacement. But let’s consider it. I am not sure everyone would be displeased moving. Given the way Egypt and Jordan behave it would have to independent . I don’t think they would agree anyway.
Both parties have religious ties (important to most I know) in the areas affected. Bethlehem being the most obvious.
