Discussion in 'The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jan 4, 2009.
yeah green and red are obvious which leaves abstention but then what about the blue states?
Blue states were absent at the vote.
oh okay good i thought maybe they got confused and voted for obama
grey means not in the un (lol western sahara you ****** scrubs) and black is palestine (ALWAYS bet on black, bibi).
also diggin the little polynesian microstates that were like "ummm what'd our former colonial masters do?" and just voted with the US. Palau, you know i love u guys but that's just lame behaviour, dudes. free association doesnt mean you ahve to lick our ******** on everything. doesnt japan give you more money at this point anyways?
How exactly is "Netanyahuism" still a winning political formula in Israel? Weren't Israelis pretty optimistic about peace back in the 1990's? Was it because of all those right-leaning Russian Jews that immigrated to Israel after the Cold War? Maybe we should encourage American Jews to go to Israel (or get dual Israel-American citizenship so they can vote in their elections)...as they seem to be pretty liberal on the whole >_>
"help, colonists oppressing us... pls send more colonists!" ~no oppressed person ever
Sorry about that I could have sworn the map had a key when I first posted it...
But yeah... green was in favor, red was against, yellow was abstaining, blue was absent, gray meant not in the UN.
I get that the US got Panama (and some of our other old colonies in the Pacific) to vote with us. And of course Israel voted against it.
But what's up with Canada and the Czech Republic?
Stephen Harper and the missile shield, respectively, I assume.
From the Sydney Morning Herald today: "Israel tightens the screws on Palestinians".
So what we are seeing here is the unprecedented move by one nation to impose punitive sanctions on another nation which it is currently occupying illegally because the occupied nation has sought help from the UN. Is this possible? It would appear so. Israel annexes land in violation of international law, builds on that land in violation of international law and transfers its population into that annexed land and throws the other population out, in violation of international law, and then punishes the institution representing the people living under that occupation because it has gone to the UN seeking a diplomatic and peaceful resolution. No suicide bombs, no rockets, no snipers, no rocks even. Just a cry for help from the UN from an organisation seeking validation of global consensus to save it from politcal annihilation. I think the US and the rest of the world are starting to see that Netanyahu is not interested in peace at all and never has been. He would rather have Hamas if it means he will retain political office.
I'm not aware of any other sovereign nation in the world with full UN membership which would be able to get away with such an outrageous provocation. So, yeah, going back to the question of what the US can do? I think a good starting point is for the US to actually start honouring the concept of international law by putting an end to the 40 year old US policy of vetoing every UN Security Council Resolution which condemns Israel's violations of international law. That list of UN Security Council Resolutions vetoed by the US is very, very long. If Israel actually had to comply with its international legal obligations without the indemnity of the US and its veto rights in the UN then this conflict would have ended decades ago. When a country can act like a rogue state with total immunity then it is hardly surprising that it is reluctant to play by the rules.
If the PA folds in the West Bank, then Israel will be dealing with Hamas and Islamic Jihad for the forseeable future. Clearly, this will obviously be celebrated as a glorious victory for Hamas and Netanhayu who will then be able to cling to political power on the back of continued civilan and humanitarian atrocities for years and years to come. Does the US really want to continue this love affair with Israel? Seriously?
Liking that post would feel kinda hollow. But well spoken, Hoth.
I think it's time to redirect all criticism of Israel towards the U.S. - we should treat the Israeli government as highly traumatized, and incapable of positive action. The only sane government that's directly responsible for the current situation is Obama's. We need to start replacing Bibi's face on topical Facebook pictures with Barry's. We have to get that guy to put his money where his mouth is. It's now or never.
Hard to disagree with any you say, LOH. I guess Bibi would rather (not) negotiate with Hamas.
Two points, somewhat tangential:
1. Related to the thread title, a look at perceptions of the conflict in the US and the causes thereof (from National Interest, a "pragmatic conservative" publication -- think Scowcroft).
2. My own pragmatic views on this are becoming increasingly defeatist -- the Cilnton-Barak-Arafat Camp David talks may have been the last good chance to bring this to a resolution. To this end, a look at Likud Knesset nominees by David Frum, who is by no means a peacenik. I have the feeling things are going to have to get a whole lot worse before they start getting better.
For the same reason why Hamas is getting more and more popular. Lots of people think they are in danger and need someone strong to protect their cause. It's sort of a vicious circle, hardliners are kept in power because the other side is dangerous, causing the other side to stay with hardliners as they feel threatened themselves. Somehow I doubt that Hamas or Netanyahu have any real interest in peace. If peace ever happened, Hamas would have to actually build something, which isn't exactly their speciality, while Netanyahu couldn't play the danger-card anymore and thus would lose the votes that keep him in power.
Likut is getting more insane every minute, and the sad thing is, that won't stop them from remaining in power after the upcoming election.
Maybe Russia and China should offer some sort of deal, let the West have any resolution they want when it comes to Syria, in exchange for enforcing every single punishment on Israel as well. Would never happen, but you can't just let one country ignore resolution after resolution while you get mad at everyone else who does the same.
Then why is the world involved?
What the logic for any country outside that region need to inject themselves into a conflict their leadership seems hell bent on having?
If the US, China or Russia is not going to force a proper boarder in order to end fighting, then we should leave Israel and Hama's to face the consequnces of their actions, should we not?
Look at this look at this:
”This time it won’t just be a condemnation, there will be real action taken against Israel,” a senior European diplomat said.
Weeewww... I'm almost scared. Am I so damn jaded or are people just yapping inconsequentially too much?
Britain, France, and Sweden summoned the Israeli ambassadors to their countries on Monday to express their condemnation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to move settlement construction ahead in the area known as E1, between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem.
Well, well. And
Sky News confirmed that the British government was considering severe actions over the matter, quoting sources in the Foreign Office on Monday as saying: "All options are on the table," adding that there was an "appetite for action" within the bureau, and that officials may consider "revisiting" or even suspending EU trade agreements with Israel, based on human rights clauses.
And last but not least:
The Dutch ambassador, whose country abstained in Thursday’s UN vote on Palestinian nonmember-state status, told Barak that if the E1 construction went forward, his country could not support Israel in future UN votes. The German deputy ambassador conveyed a similar message.
Eh, not going to happen. China and Russia would certainly prefer to let both Assad and Netanyahu get away with their actions, simply because letting the world intervene in Syria would open their own governments up to foreign and domestic criticism.
Yeah, whoever thinks China and Russia are somehow the good guys are kidding themselves.
who do you think is the "good guy", dude who clearly has a totally rational worldview?
In this one? nobody. The US is swayed totally into backing a brutal israeli government; the Russians and the Chinese just don't want their own gross domestic issues being criticized, so they don't say anything either.
I don't know about that. They already get criticised anyway, they don't really care about that; and unlike in countries like Syria, they can't really be challenged by anyone.
I agree that it would never happen, two sides who block the other to protect their own interests, but it definately would be an interesting case.
Err well my point is, if China and Russia accept the logic that we should interfere in Syria because its government is abusive, then well guess who else is abusive? The Chinese and Russian governments. Certainly they're less abusive than Syria's government, but the arguments we use for supporting rebels in Syria aren't much different than those we use for supporting pro-democracy groups in China and Russia, which is why the latter two countries are always waving the "non-intervention!" and "national sovereignty!" banners.
Yeah, well, I already said that it would never happen because it goes against their interests, so I don't see what your point is supposed to be. The only thing I added was that they don't care one bit what other people say, nor would it have any real consequences, because Russia and China are on a entirely different level compared to countries like Syria.
You know we are at the edge of the apocalyptic abyss when you read something like this in the newspaper:
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/israeli-pm-in-plea-to-voters-20130122-2d3u5.html#ixzz2IeyJLjSB
I mean, the Israeli people have to choose between Netanyahu and a "extremist right wing rival" who is hostile to peace efforts? I wonder what the difference is between Hamas and the "Jewish Home Party"? Not much.
He says he doesn't want a "weak and divided Israel" and yet he allowed the Likud-Kadima coalition to fall apart?
Indeed. One is left to wonder what would have happened if Arafat hadn't unconscionably started the Second Intifada--your "Temple Mount" excuse has officially expired.
Edit: nah, I'm not going to bother with you.