The US has vetoed an Arab resolution at the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace.

All 14 other members of the Security Council backed the resolution, and it was sponsered by at least 130 countries.

But our puppet government bowed down to its Israeli masters and and vetoed the bill.

I think its about time for a new Amendment to the Constitution, making it illegal for americans with dual citizenships (American/Israeli) to serve in Congress.

Full Storyhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12512732

I'm not sure UN opinion is a good moral standard, though. Or even any kind of a moral standard.

The UN (effectively) provided food aid to the Islamic perpetrators of genocide in Sudan allowing a regime which probably would have collapsed under its own weight to continue its slaughter of Christians and Animists in the south.

The UN has declared that "zionism is a form of racism" though Arabs serve in the Israeli Knesset. In contrast, Jews can't even legally enter Saudi Arabia. Wouldn't that make Saudi nationalism also a form of racism? But the UN will never say this...

I was living in the Philippines when Islamic terrorists from the south of the country set off a bomb in a local mall on Valentines day as "a valentines day gift to President Arroyo" just two blocks from my house. The deliberate targeting of civilians is not particular to the Middle East.

This is a short list. It could easily be made much longer. I'm glad that America is one of the few countries willing to speak while Danish cartoonists are afraid to criticize Islam under the entirely reasonable fear that they will be murdered for it.

Israel has ALREADY offered some pretty strong concessions, including elimination of settlements, in exchange for a sustainable peace. But the supporters of Hamas are going to choke on the words "Israel has a right to exist" long before they get to "as a Jewish state." In any negotiation, a people's right to exist is a pre-condition. Egypt respected that and Israel made peace with Egypt. If Hamas wants a perpetual Hudna till they can figure out a way to destroy Israel completely, I really do hope that that kind of genocidal foreign policy comes with a heavy price tag.

(02-20-2011 12:49 PM)mark-in-dallas Wrote:  But our puppet government bowed down to its Israeli masters and and vetoed the bill.

I think its about time for a new Amendment to the Constitution, making it illegal for americans with dual citizenships (American/Israeli) to serve in Congress.

I think it's too late now. The lobby has taken control, not only of the Congress, but also the Capitol Hill and the highest chairs of the American government. The american people are enslaved and their hard-earned money is used to sponsor illicit wars against other peoples for other country's interest.

But the Karma will do its fucking job some day sooner or later, like it has always done in the past and you cannot buy it with money, nor can you manipulate it with the medias.

(03-03-2012 8:50 PM)NewAlpha Wrote:  I think it's too late now. The lobby has taken control, not only of the Congress, but also the Capitol Hill and the highest chairs of the American government. The american people are enslaved and their hard-earned money is used to sponsor illicit wars against other peoples for other country's interest.

Quote:PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146408/americ...srael.aspx

It's not a "lobby," it's broad-based popular opinion. Most Americans prefer to support a western democracy that treats women as equals and protects the civil rights of its citizens. You're welcome to try and make the argument that this support is due, not to people's informed opinions but instead to some kind of nefarious media manipulation. But in that case, you need to at least cite some evidence as to why people believe what they believe. You need to address their arguments. And while you're doing it, you should also take some time to criticize the viciously anti-free-speech policies of most of the Muslim world.

I've traveled the world. I've talked to lots of different people from lots of different countries. I read the foreign presses online when I have time, which is not as often as I'd like. You're welcome to provide evidence based support for why I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. But please don't try and tell me it's simply because I'm stupid and misled and then provide no evidence to back up that claim.

We've had posters on here who couldn't even buy alcohol for their mixes because it was against the laws of their country. I disagree with American drug laws but Sharia law is outright fascist and misogynistic. And its proponents are very explicit about their desire to impose their beliefs on other countries. They lack the ability, certainly, but not the will.

I had a Philippine friend living in Saudi Arabia for a time as a chef. Her company's van (foreign owned) got a brick through the window. And she was told not to report it to the local cops because they'd blame her and throw her in jail.

And if you want to talk about media manipulation, go live in an Arab country or Iran.

We're talking about countries that really do kill or persecute people for their religious beliefs, for whom free speech, civil rights and tolerance are often offenses to God and the local political establishment.

(03-03-2012 8:50 PM)NewAlpha Wrote:  But the Karma will do its fucking job some day sooner or later, like it has always done in the past and you cannot buy it with money, nor can you manipulate it with the medias.

It can't come soon enough, friend.

Wiserd,

I was not replying to you and don't want to go into an endless discussion with you about the Good Guys vs the Bad Guys, the West vs Iran or Muslim world, the women rights or whatever, since this is absolutely not the subject of the article and I know by experience that it will be useless.

I was just commenting Mark's post about the fact that once again, USA is the only country that vetoes the UN resolution condemning the Israeli settlements in Palestine. ALL the other countries without exception, part of the UN Security Council without exception (China, France, UK, Russia....) and at least 130 countries forming the UN agreed to say that these settlements are illegal and are a strong obstacle for peace.

And just like it's said in this article (I hope you read it), this veto isolates once again the USA and affects their credibility since it's completely unfair and the agreement including the non-settlement condition was under USA supervision !

And about the "strong pro-Israel lobby in the Congress", this is also the word used by the BBC journalist in the article...Note that it's about the 40th time that USA vetoes a resolution against Israel. This has nothing to do with religion or to protect women in muslim countries. USA is not the only country in the world from the "West" that worries about protecting human rights.... USA vetoes the resolution because Israel asks them to do it. It's against USA interest (political and economical), against the peace's interest in the Middle East but they do it anyway following Israel request because many of the Congress men feel more israelian than american.

And yes, the karma will hit hard all those who manipulate others and promote wars whatever their religion, their skin color, their origin...You find them in all sides.

http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resource...nslavement

Politics and conspiracy I am not too big on. They aren't my thing. But the UN and EU are very anti israel and anti jew. Israel exists because they needed their own land and country after WW2 and they all originally hailed from that part of the world. Israel has few allies in this world, the USA is a big one. Most of the world wants Israel to be no more, and you have many countries in the mid east who want nothing more than to destroy the country of Israel. That part of the world is majority illiterate. Few are educated and few can read.

The problem right now is the palestinians want their own country without negotiating peace. That is why the US vetoed the resolution. When the palestinians agree to peace, they will have their own country. But the irony is, they never had their own country to begin with. The palestinians historically were a group of arab nomads in that region. The other arab countries did not want them in their country's which is why they never left the area.

And there has been no administration in this country that has been more anti israel and anti jew than the present one. They had a big party and dinner for the chinese leaders, but had nothing for the Israeli prime minister.

(03-04-2012 5:46 AM)Alpha Dream Wrote:  http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resource...nslavement

@Alpha Dream - While I agree with large parts of that video and I'm friendly to libertarian sensibilities I'm not sure it really applies to the present topic.

Sure, governments use external threats to consolidate power. But can we agree that sometimes external threats are real? I taught English in Nanjing, China where the 'rape of Nanking' took place, had a chance to talk to the people there, visit the memorial, etc. A weak Chinese empire, threatened internally by communist revolutionaries, failed to defend itself from an external threat. The result was a huge number of its citizens were raped and murdered. Israel is quite reasonable in fearing the same from its neighbors. Such threats were made in living memory, and the threatening nations attempted to carry out their threats.

Further, any society is going to be more successful if it can resolve internal disputes based on common standards and laws, which require some measure of enforcement. But there's currently no good way to do this internationally. The various attempts at such have failed miserably.

Also, as regards the video but in a complete tangent to the original topic; Sweden and Israel are both examples of nations with large governments who have reduced their scope. America is, in some ways, a special case here since it convinced the world to use the dollar as the reserve standard in place of gold, insulating itself from inflationary feedback. If the world ever goes off the dollar standard we might find very quickly that deficits really "do matter" when we're unable to re-finance our debt at a sustainable rate.

(03-03-2012 11:54 PM)NewAlpha Wrote:  I was just commenting Mark's post about the fact that once again, USA is the only country that vetoes the UN resolution condemning the Israeli settlements in Palestine. ALL the other countries without exception, part of the UN Security Council without exception (China, France, UK, Russia....) and at least 130 countries forming the UN agreed to say that these settlements are illegal and are a strong obstacle for peace.

@NewAlpha

Okay, So we agree that a UN vote is morally meaningless and the question is entirely one of strategy then? Given what China is doing in Xinjiang province, to give just one example, I don't think their weighing in on the matter carries any particular moral weight. But we're you're interested in "good guys and bad guys," you said? UN resolutions and even international "laws" are not synonymous with national law because they are not enforced equally among nations. As the UN voting record quite clearly demonstrates. The question at hand is whether settlement expansion should be handled at the negotiating table (for example, ceased in exchange for an end to the "Palestinian right of return" which is an ongoing request to destroy Israel by flooding it) or ended unilaterally via a UN resolution.

Quote:And just like it's said in this article (I hope you read it), this veto isolates once again the USA and affects their credibility since it's completely unfair and the agreement including the non-settlement condition was under USA supervision !

Yes, I have read the article.

Regarding the numerous US vetos of UN resolutions, I tend to think that the effective (though possibly accidental) UN support of genocide in Sudan weighs against the nations which supported that harmful action rather than any dissenters, which is part of why I brought it up. It's the old issue about doing what feels good and makes us look good vs. doing what actually works and saves lives.

As for good intentions; I don't know what the intentions of those supplying the mis-appropriated aid to Sudan were. I do observe that good intentions don't always produce good results, and harmful movements often have widespread and well-intentioned political support. Which was what I was trying to point out. As long as Russia is ambitious and America can project force as effectively as it does, the European nations (some of them, anyways) will find a use for America as a NATO ally. And I'm not particularly worried that this matter will make us more isolated from, say, Russia.

I bring up this matter to emphasize that a nation can go against the opinion of many nations and still be taking a worthwhile position. The US position in this case, incidentally, is not support for settlements.

Quote:And about the "strong pro-Israel lobby in the Congress", this is also the word used by the BBC journalist in the article

Sure, I only argued that the phrasing was deeply misleading. It's certainly widely used phrasing as regards many different issues. However at least we agree that such media manipulations are worthy of condemnation. The most parsimonious explanation for congress's voting behavior is that they are representing the opinions of their constituents.

Quote:USA is not the only country in the world from the "West" that worries about protecting human rights...Big Grin.

Certainly! And I disagree strongly with some stuff that America has done in the past, to be clear (US actions regarding Rwanda or the civil war in El Salvador, for instance.) And with some of the stuff that Israel has done, for that matter. I just don't see the UN as a fair or effective tool in promoting human rights, based on its record. Many nations 'worry' about protecting human rights. My concern is for which tactics and strategies are effective. You hold that America's history in regards to the UN isolates America. I feel that the UN's effective support for genocide and its partisanship, among other things, undermines the effectiveness of the UN as a forum for resolving disputes.

As regards the specific situation;
Both Israelis and Palestinians want things that are fairly called "obstacles to peace." Yes, the settlements need to be removed for peace. The US hasn't said otherwise. Yes the Palestinians need to stop rocket attacks for peace, and quit demanding to flood Israel and overrun it. Such a demand is, under the circumstances, a call for Israel's destruction. And Hamas (and its supporting states) need to understand that playing a waiting game till the political landscape changes, at which time it can successfully end its "hudna" and take what it wants through violence, is a losing strategy. This seems to have been their clear intention in the past. If the PA wants to give up it's claims to a "Palestinian right of return," which is effectively equivalent to the destruction of Israel, I will wholeheartedly support an end to all settlements at that time and a return to 1967 borders. I hope such a tradeoff is the result of upcoming talks, though I'm not holding my breath. The PA has currently refused such a tradeoff when it was offered. I think the US position advances this necessary Palestinian capitulation in a way that the Russian or Chinese position does not. If the UN resolution had also demanded, as a precondition, that the Palestinian demands to flood Israel be ruled illegal, I'd be far more sympathetic to the resolution. But as usual the UN resolution is a one-sided negotiating tactic which only criticizes a single party.

Quote:And yes, the karma will hit hard all those who manipulate others and promote wars whatever their religion, their skin color, their origin...You find them in all sides.

They are found everywhere. Quite true, unfortunately.

Quote:but they do it anyway following Israel request because many of the Congress men feel more israelian(sic) than american.

I suspect that many people in Congress may feel closer to Israel than, say, to Iran or Russia or China. At least, I would hope so. That seems quite rational for reasons already mentioned. But if the US itself were under mortal threat, Congress would consider its own interests before those of other countries.

Reading Haaretz (haaretz.com) occasionally, one realizes that there is quite some spectrum of opinion within Israel over what constitutes its true national interest. The absence of frank and open discussion about controversial but important topics is certainly not one of Israel's faults, and I often find it interesting to get a local perspective.