ljkeane Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Excuse me, but I have stated many times in this thread that I do not support the settlement program, nor do I support numerous other policies of my current government, so please do not purposely misrepresent my words for arguments sake.Fair point, that was unfair. I apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoadm Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC.It might just be the best thing the US could do for Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 It might just be the best thing the US could do for Israel.In what sense?UN resolutions tend to reference previous resolutions on the issue being addressed, if the US wants a solution in line with the Clinton Parameters (which I suspect they do) then a new UN resolution on East Jerusalem would put the US in a difficult position. I doubt they want to have to veto a resolution on the issue either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoadm Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 In what sense?UN resolutions tend to reference previous resolutions on the issue being addressed, if the US wants a solution in line with the Clinton Parameters (which I suspect they do) then a new UN resolution on East Jerusalem would put the US in a difficult position. I doubt they want to have to veto a resolution on the issue either.In the past, I totally supported the US vetoing the insanely large amount of anti-Israeli resolutions pushed through the UN by the Arab league, because they had no merit, sometimes little content, beyond bashing Israel. Those resolutions flowd in whether Israel was in the right or in the wrong. Thus, I saw the US as a king of balancing force, preventing Israel from becoming a punching bag and the UN a joke. Currently, with a government that stands in the way of face to face negotiation with the Palestinians, and the settlements expanding, a GA resolution regarding the halt of the settlements will put alot of pressure on the Israeli government, and create a norm of zero tolerance for settlements. But there is another side to this...Learning from history, too much pressure on Israel has caused the Palestinian side to stiffen its demands, to a point where Israel couldnt be expected to adher to them. In such a scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if the Palestinians demanded "Israel evacuate the whole west bank, then we will talk", which is unthinkable, even to some moderate Palestinians. It can allso cause the collapse of the Israeli government. Alternatively, it might push Bibi to ditch Lieberman and the other hawkish parties, and join up with Kadima to create a strong (but small) majority coalition, that can actually pay the painfull price of peace with the Palestinians (the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people).So, I have mixed feelings regarding the issue at hand, but overall, when nothing can be worse, it can only get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 In the past, I totally supported the US vetoing the insanely large amount of anti-Israeli resolutions pushed through the UN by the Arab league, because they had no merit, sometimes little content, beyond bashing Israel. Those resolutions flowd in whether Israel was in the right or in the wrong. Thus, I saw the US as a king of balancing force, preventing Israel from becoming a punching bag and the UN a joke. Currently, with a government that stands in the way of face to face negotiation with the Palestinians, and the settlements expanding, a GA resolution regarding the halt of the settlements will put alot of pressure on the Israeli government, and create a norm of zero tolerance for settlements. I agree that putting some pressure on the Israeli government is a positive step, but considering the current UN Security Council resolutions on East Jerusalem I don't think there's much leeway for a resolution that would facilitate a compromise solution like Clinton proposed. I don't think the US wants to be seen to be supporting Israel's current policies either so I think it would rather there wasn't a resolution proposed on East Jerusalem.I think there are steps that the US could take before a Security Council resolution, most people seem to favour some cuts in the military aid to Israel. I'm not sure how much of an impact that would have on the Israeli government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Learning from history, too much pressure on Israel has caused the Palestinian side to stiffen its demands, to a point where Israel couldnt be expected to adher to them. In such a scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if the Palestinians demanded "Israel evacuate the whole west bank, then we will talk", which is unthinkable, even to some moderate Palestinians. It can allso cause the collapse of the Israeli government. Alternatively, it might push Bibi to ditch Lieberman and the other hawkish parties, and join up with Kadima to create a strong (but small) majority coalition, that can actually pay the painfull price of peace with the Palestinians (the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people).You think? I don't know that Bibi actually genuinely supports two-states at all, and all the recent speechifying has been little more that appeasing US pressure (in other words - lies) which he has assumed no one is ever going to put his nose to the grindstone on, especially when he's got Lieberman making an agressive ass of himself as foreign minister to foist all political blame on. He can keep making civilian concessions to the Palestinians to look good while not practically budging an inch on settlement or military issues and working towards his 'economic peace' (in other words - one state quasi apartheid fantasy.)I kind of forgot that under his mask of slimy naked ambition and agressive capitalism hes got a fairly deep background of hard Jabotinskiyan rightwingism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Oh AIPAC, when aren't you a horrible shill:America's main pro-Israel lobby group is mobilising members of Congress to pressure the White House over its bitter public confrontation with Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.The move, by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), appears aimed at exploiting differences in the Obama administration as it decides how to use the crisis around settlement building in Jerusalem to press Israel toward concessions to kickstart peace negotiations.Aipac has persuaded more than three-quarters of the members of the US House of Representatives to sign a letter calling for an end to public criticism of Israel and urging the US to "reinforce" its relationship with the Jewish state.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/30/us-israel-lobby-pressure-obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.