Kerry on Isreal

Main Course

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
5waldos
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13705
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:58 pm

Kerry on Isreal

Post by 5waldos » Wed Dec 28, 2016 4:29 pm

Strong speech and he sounds really pissed off. Good for him.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 48098
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by eric84 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 4:40 pm

If Israel is one state, it can either democratic or jewish but not both.

Speech is too late. Should have done it 4 years ago.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
korgy
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 21782
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by korgy » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:03 pm

i'm listening to it as well waldos. damn good speech.. and he bursts the myth that the Obama Admin has been harder on Israel than other US admins, including Republican administrations like Reagan's, using facts.

scary times...considering that our asshole incoming President could be the most dangerous policy-maker for the area in half a century.
"the rise of Kim Crow"

User avatar
5waldos
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13705
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:58 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by 5waldos » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:24 pm

He'll have a tweet out within what- ten minutes of the end of the speech?

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 48098
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by eric84 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:31 pm

The most trollable head of state ever.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 57510
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by polardude1 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:01 pm

Israel needs a robust opposition. It's been decimated by years of terror attacks
Ereich
DCComic was, of course, the one doing the chasing. He appears to have misquoted Polar in his autosignature, something he has trouble with.

DCComic
I'm a crazy racist cunt.

No quotation marks used

User avatar
Argonheart_Po
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 15551
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Argonheart_Po » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:03 pm

Hi. I'm John Kerry. I stood by as 500,000 Syrians were killed. Now let me tell Israel what to do, because I am a moral midget.

User avatar
korgy
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 21782
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by korgy » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:10 pm

Apo, if you want to talk about Syria, please start another thread. i'm sure you know exactly what should have been done there.
"the rise of Kim Crow"

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Maxwell » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:17 pm

Many Americans and Israelis will celebrate when these jackals are out on January 20th.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 57510
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by polardude1 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:19 pm

Maxwell, do you have family in Israel? Can you find it on the map? If not, what is your unique interest?
Ereich
DCComic was, of course, the one doing the chasing. He appears to have misquoted Polar in his autosignature, something he has trouble with.

DCComic
I'm a crazy racist cunt.

No quotation marks used

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Maxwell » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:37 pm

polardude1 wrote:Maxwell, do you have family in Israel? Can you find it on the map? If not, what is your unique interest?

I really like the Star of David. I think it's really cool. I know a few Rabbis. What about you? What's your unique interest?

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 57510
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by polardude1 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:45 pm

I really like the Star of David. I think it's really cool. I know a few Rabbis. What about you? What's your unique interest?

Ten STF up. My concerns is as always, by family and friends
Ereich
DCComic was, of course, the one doing the chasing. He appears to have misquoted Polar in his autosignature, something he has trouble with.

DCComic
I'm a crazy racist cunt.

No quotation marks used

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Maxwell » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:59 pm

polardude1 wrote:
I really like the Star of David. I think it's really cool. I know a few Rabbis. What about you? What's your unique interest?

Ten STF up. My concerns is as always, by family and friends

Nope, not gonna shut up. Grow up, little fella.

Logg
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8985
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:19 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Logg » Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:12 pm

I caught part of Kerry's speech. By Kerry standards, it was a good speech. The problem is the UNSC is dysfunctionally Israel-obsessed, as Amb. Samantha Power pointed out before announcing the US was abstaining.

This resolution, however, goes beyond just being a critique of fringe-settlements; I believe it calls all Israeli building, including in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, as well as any neighborhood of Jerusalem over the Green Line illegal and illegitimate.

The UNSC is deeply dysfunctional in its obsession with Israel. It's allowed to be because the US will always veto the extreme anti-Israel stuff. So they can draft all the resolutions they want. We'll see what the result of this vote is, of declaring the Mt. Scopus campus area illegal, as well as every other Israeli area beyond the ceasefire line of 1949.

The text of this resolution does not match Kerry's rhetoric about why the US abstained. If enforced, it would turn the Western Wall among other things into Occupied Territory, which would be tantamount to declaring war on Israel. Is that what Obama wanted? To declare the Western Wall illegally occupied territory? That's what he just abstained on.

Of all the ways for Obama to "finally say something," in Kerry's words, this seems odd. He's a lame duck, and it breaks protocol, which means he's really just doing it to send a message over Netanyahu. For no-drama Obama, this sort of personal vendetta seems out of character. Senators and Congressmen in both parties were opposed to it, and he knows Trump is going to be able to make political hay from this.

If this is really what Obama believes the appropriate response is, why didn't he do it sooner? He's not going to have to be the one to deal with the fallout of declaring the dorms of Mt. Scopus and the neighborhood of Ramat Eshkol illegal, his successor is. Very strange timing to say the least.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 57510
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by polardude1 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:35 pm

Logg, for me this was the bottom line and does not depart from US policy

http://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text- ... -activity/
3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;


It referenced previous resolutions

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),



and this from the Forward


here’s not much that’s new or remarkable in that new resolution from the United Nations Security Council (text here) condemning Israel’s West Bank settlements as illegal. You might call that very fact remarkable — that the resolution is so unremarkable — given all the fuss the resolution has stirred up.

Surely with all that smoke there must be fire. But facts are facts: For the most part, the resolution simply restates positions the council adopted years ago.







http://forward.com/opinion/358516/actua ... tem-text-3
That ‘Shameful’ UN Resolution Actually Blasts the Settlements — Not Israel

J.J. GoldbergDecember 23, 2016

In at least one important sense, though, the new resolution is unusual, perhaps unique. It is, as near as I can find, the first hostile Security Council resolution in which virtually every one of Israel’s major objections is a half-truth, distortion or demonstrably false.

Myth 1. Let’s start with the biggest objection: that the United States decided to abstain rather than veto the resolution, allowing it to pass 14-0. The Obama administration, it’s alleged, thus broke with the “longstanding U.S. practice demonstrated by successive administrations,” as the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC explained on its website, namely “to oppose one-sided United Nations Security Council resolutions.“

America, AIPAC reported, has vetoed 42 “one-sided resolutions related to Israel.” The website helpfully lists 10 specific vetoes out of the 42, going back to a 1973 Nixon administration vote.


The Orthodox Union called the administration’s failure to veto “an unprecedented and deeply disturbing break from the past.”

Fact: During the same 49-year period that successive administrations vetoed 42 anti-Israel resolutions, beginning right after the Six-Day War in 1967, those same administrations allowed passage of 71 resolutions that Israel objected to — 30 by abstaining, 41 by voting “yes.” Obama’s abstention brings the total to 72.


As we can see, the idea that the veto is the standard American response to hostile Security Council resolutions is fanciful at best. In fact, the vetoes are considerably outnumbered by the hostile resolutions allowed through.



(Note: Americans for Peace Now published a list last April of hostile resolutions allowed by U.S. administrations since 1967. It found a total of 77. I worked separately from a list of all 2,334 council resolutions ever, isolating the Israel-related resolutions and working from there. Our lists are remarkably similar; they differ mainly in our judgment calls on resolutions where we couldn’t find clear record of Israeli reaction and we “presumed” based on known Israeli policies at the time. Other than slight variations, the main deviations were the Reagan administration, to which Peace Now assigned 21 “allows” and I assigned 10; and the George W. Bush administration, to which Peace Now assigned six and I assigned 10.)

The champions of allowing anti-Israel resolutions, by my count, were Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon at 13 each, followed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush at 10 each. Peace Now’s top scorers were Reagan with 21, Nixon with 15 and Jimmy Carter with 14.

The undisputed record for fewest anti-Israel resolutions allowed through is held by Barack Obama, whose total of hostile resolutions allowed was zero through seven years and 11 months of his eight years in office. His single abstention on December 23 brings his total to one, still by far the lowest of any president. (Well, Gerald Ford had two — in his 2.5 years in office.) The only “break from the past” going on here was the Obama administration’s decision to break from its unbroken record of supporting Israel, and to act instead like all the other administrations before it.

It might be argued that the reason for our strong memories of unbroken American support at the U.N. is simply that it’s been so long since we’ve had a president who wasn’t as consistently supportive as the current incumbent. To be precise, it’s been seven years and 11 months.















John Kerry Will Lay Out ‘Comprehensive’ Two-State Vision for Mideast Peace — Israel Worried

Lesley Wroughton and Matt SpetalnickDecember 28, 2016

Myth 2. The resolution “is one-sided and erroneously lays the entirety of the blame for the present impasse in the peace process on Israeli settlements rather than Palestinian refusal to come to the table,” the umbrella Jewish Council for Public Affairs said in its statement.

The American Jewish Committee’s David Harris wrote in an op-ed that the Security Council members were “obsessively and relentlessly focusing only on Israeli actions.”

Fact: The resolution actually does the opposite. In contrast to the usual Israel-bashing we associate with the U.N., this new resolution simultaneously calls on Israel to stop building settlements and on the Palestinians “for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror.” It calls for “compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism.”

It goes on to call, “on the basis of international law,” for “both parties” to “refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric.” And it states, unusually for the U.N., that the purpose of ending incitement and seriously fighting and condemning terrorism is “creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace.”

Those two paragraphs don’t mention the Palestinians by name. Still, it’s crystal clear who is being addressed, despite the mention of “both parties.” Terrorism and incitement are accusations commonly directed at the Palestinians, just as settlements are commonly understood as referring to a particular Israeli activity. It’s clear that these paragraphs are included — under threat of an American veto threat if they weren’t, according to several accounts — in order to balance the resolution. It’s also clear that, as hard as the Arab side had to swallow to accept the lumping of terrorism and incitement alongside settlements, naming the Palestinians directly was a step too far. The final wording is a compromise — America and Israel got the balancing of “illegal” actions by both Israel and the Palestinians, and the Arab group got to pretend they didn’t.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that in the Egyptian draft resolution, submitted to the council on the Palestinians’ behalf for a vote on December 22, there’s a direct reference to the obligation of “the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons.” But after Egypt withdraw its draft under pressure from Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, the new version adopted the next day eliminated any direct mention of the Palestinian Authority and its obligations.

This is what compromise looks like: For the first time the U.N. puts terrorism and incitement in the same basket as settlements, both violations of international law, both impediments to peace. Note: Settlements are “a major obstacle” to peace while ending incitement and restoring calm are “necessary for promoting” peace. Calling something an “obstacle to peace” is essentially the same thing as say it’s “necessary” to end it “for promoting peace.” The difference is that one is direct, the other indirect and weaseling.

It falls short of fully balanced and fair. But it’s miles away from “one-sided.”

Myth 3. The resolution distorts history by treating Jerusalem as “occupied territory” when it’s been central to Jewish faith and identity for millennia. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put the widely held view succinctly in remarks at the Western Wall, where he’d gone to light Hanukkah candles on Sunday evening, December 25, the festival’s second night:

“In light of the U.N. decision I thought there was no better place to light the Hanukkah candle than right here, the Western Wall,” Netanyahu said. “According to the U.N. decision, the Maccabees did not liberate Jerusalem, they conquered Palestinian territory.”

On the contrary, Netanyahu declared, “the Western Wall is not occupied, the Jewish Quarter [of the Old City of Jerusalem] is not occupied, and the other places are not occupied either. Therefore, we do not and cannot accept this resolution.”

As American Jewish Committee executive director David Harris put it in an op-ed, “no Israeli government will ever acknowledge the absurdity of the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, containing Judaism’s holiest sites, being depicted as ‘occupied Palestinian territory.’”

Fact: Determining ownership or sovereignty over a disputed stretch of land is a legal, political and diplomatic question. Nations have learned the painful lesson over the past 500 years or so that trying to resolve international disagreements by asserting the superiority of one religious claim over another is a recipe for unspeakable horror. There are some parts of the world where folks still haven’t quite internalized the lesson, and the results resonate painfully around the globe.

In late June 1967, three weeks after capturing the eastern sector of Jerusalem from the Jordanian army, Israel took the unilateral step of unifying the eastern sector with the western, Israeli sector. The U.N. General Assembly voted five days later, on July 4, to declare the Israeli action “invalid.” General Assembly resolutions aren’t legally binding, but the Security Council’s are. The council voted 10 months later, on May 21, 1968, to ratify the assembly vote by declaring Israel’s unification “invalid.” The United States abstained, as it had in the initial Gneral Assembly measure.

Since then, every Security Council statement about the status of the occupied territories has included the words “including Jerusalem.” In July 1979 the council voted to call on Israel to halt construction of settlements in the territories, “including Jerusalem.” The United States abstained. Eight months later, in March 1980, the council voted again to “strongly deplore” Israel’s continued settlement construction. This time the United States joined the majority, making it unanimous.

If there is a subtle change over time in the tone of Security Council resolutions on Jerusalem, it’s the addition of the word “East,” as in “East Jerusalem.” That’s meant to clarify that the world body isn’t quibbling with Israel over the legitimacy of its rule in West Jerusalem — merely that East Jerusalem was captured in 1967 and is part of the package that the rest of the world refers to as the “occupied territories.” Israel has been trying to convince the rest of the world otherwise for nearly 50 years, and it hasn’t made a single sale.

Here’s what the Security Council said about Jerusalem and the settlements in its latest resolution:

“The establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution.”

Myth 4. The Security Council wants to force Israel out of the Old City’s Jewish Quarter, banish Israelis from the Western Wall and render homeless the 600,000 Israelis living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Fact: In Paragraph 3 of the new resolution, the council:

“Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.”

In other words, the council will recognize changes to the 1967 lines, including in Jerusalem, if they’re agreed in negotiations. As a reminder, negotiators in the past have agreed that in a final settlement, Israel can keep the major settlement blocs along the Green Line and the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, in return for an equivalent amount of land to be swapped over from the Israeli side to the Palestinian side.

That’s not to say that the U.N., the Palestinians or any other official body outside Israel considers those dwellings to be legal — only that a trade can be made in the context of an agreement. But only as part of an agreement. Until then, as the diplomats say, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Continuing to build in those consensus areas because they’re likely to remain Israeli after a deal is signed is sort of like agreeing in principle to buy a house, then moving your furniture before you’ve gone to contract and you’re still haggling over the price. Buying somebody else’s property is generally considered legal. Moving into somebody else’s property usually isn’t. You can argue otherwise, but it does no good unless somebody else agrees with you.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.


Ereich
DCComic was, of course, the one doing the chasing. He appears to have misquoted Polar in his autosignature, something he has trouble with.

DCComic
I'm a crazy racist cunt.

No quotation marks used

Logg
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8985
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:19 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Logg » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:03 pm

I'm sorry, it's kind of hard for me to read through a c and p job like that and know who's saying what.

I'll take your word that this resolution acknowledges previous resolutions and has a clause stating that changes in the '67 lines can be made by mutual agreement. Duly noted, and thank you.

I'm honestly not sure what to make of the total count of UN resolutions under Nixon and LBJ. That was a different time. And context means everything. For one thing, I would point out that both of those administrations were before Yasser Arafat was allowed to speak at the UN and before the UN declared Zionism to be a form of racism. It was a different geopolitical era.

All I can say is, it seems very strange to have made this move now, literally as the Obama team is moving out of the White House. Wrong time for a grand gesture., and perfectly teed up for Trump to use punitively against the UN.

coffeeguy
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8759
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:26 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by coffeeguy » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:06 pm

Pretty clear with Trump and Netanyahu in power where we are headed. 1 state solution. If I was the palestineans, I'd just throw up my hands and tell Israel to govern - all yours, now lets see what you do with us. Then the Israeli judicial system can rule on the legality of land seizures. The ruling is tokenism at best.

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 20467
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Citizen Baba » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:07 pm

Argonheart_Po wrote:Hi. I'm John Kerry. I stood by as 500,000 Syrians were killed. Now let me tell Israel what to do, because I am a moral midget.


Says the guy who cheerleaded the same number of Iraqis being killed.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 57510
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by polardude1 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:08 pm

I'm honestly not sure what to make of the total count of UN resolutions under Nixon and LBJ. That was a different time. And context means everything. For one thing, I would point out that both of those administrations were before Yasser Arafat was allowed to speak at the UN and before the UN declared Zionism to be a form of racism. It was a different geopolitical era.

It was a different time, but Israel's harshest over settlements critic was HW Bush
The big problems for Israel is a lack of a strong opposition to Netanyahu


Coffeeguy
Then the Israeli judicial system can rule on the legality of land seizures. The ruling is tokenism at best
.
actually he judiciary has no t always favored settlement activity. A recent settlement was evacuated by court order
Ereich
DCComic was, of course, the one doing the chasing. He appears to have misquoted Polar in his autosignature, something he has trouble with.

DCComic
I'm a crazy racist cunt.

No quotation marks used

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 20467
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Citizen Baba » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:12 pm

Obama was far too accommodating to a belligerent Israel.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Maxwell » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:26 pm

The land belongs to Israel. Period.

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 20467
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Citizen Baba » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:29 pm

Our money does not belong to Israel.

Logg
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8985
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:19 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Logg » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:37 pm

coffeeguy wrote:Pretty clear with Trump and Netanyahu in power where we are headed. 1 state solution. If I was the palestineans, I'd just throw up my hands and tell Israel to govern - all yours, now lets see what you do with us. Then the Israeli judicial system can rule on the legality of land seizures. The ruling is tokenism at best.


Agreed. If this was really about imposing a settlement on the region that allowed the Palestinians to live non-belligerently next to or within Israel, there would have been a solution by now. If all the Palestinians wanted was autonomy they would have had it. But the nature of the conflict didn't magically change after 1967; what changed after 1967 was that Israel took the West Bank and Gaza. If the Palestinians were so inclined, they could have started trying to make Gaza into a peaceful enclave, renouncing the fight against Israel in 2005. But this is the Middle East, and they aren't Buddhists.

Part of the problem is the binary way the world views a one-state and two-state solution as the two choices. As a pragmatist, I challenge you to look at the viability of a single Palestinian state comprised of Gaza and the West Bank plus East Jerusalem, connected by a land bridge. How realistic does that sound? At this juncture, as Hamas and the PLO throw each other off rooftops, and the rest of the Middle East devolves into ISIS vs. Assad, it's almost comical to talk of a two-state solution as a realistic option with a straight face. And yet, people do.
Conversely, a one-state solution where Israel controls all the territories and rules over disenfranchised Palestinians permanently is not viable either. There is a lot of range between these two polarities.

davebt
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:48 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by davebt » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:53 pm

I just heard Secretary of State Kerry's speech. I have said many times that the agreement between the Israelis and the Arabs has long been written and that it is merely waiting for the people to catch up with it. That is to say, that if there is to be an agreement between these two sides, if it is possible to end this conflict within the two state paradigm, then there is not much left to negotiate. We all know what the contract on the table says.

So Kerry has effectively just restated what everyone already knows. He describes the security concerns, the land swaps, an intricate arrangement in Jerusalem, the retention of the settlement blocks, international assistance to compensate refugees, recognition of the Jewish state, a viable Palestinian state, adherence to the notion of two states for two peoples, an end to all claims and regional peace between the Arabs and the Jewish state.

If, what was being offered was real, then despite the minority who oppose making any agreement, the majority of Israelis would force through the political change necessary to bring the peace about. Israelis can and would sign on the dotted line.

But they will not sign on an illusion. They have seen, since 1993, that the Palestinian leadership cannot deliver those it is meant to represent. When the peace process started, more Israelis started dying, not less, and internally the Arabs highlighted that the differences between them were so deep, so unbridgeable, that whatever Israel gave in the name of peace, was turned into a weapon to kill more Jews. That underlying principle has existed since 1993 and nothing has changed. Look to 2005 and what happened with Gaza.

Today, the Arabs in Ramallah and Gaza are dividing into ever smaller factions, with Israeli prisons needing to separate prisoners into separately protected factional groups so as to prevent civil slaughter between them. The possibility of them unifying and actually accepting Israel as a Jewish state that will dominate their horizon, their economy, their everyday lives long after any occupation has ended, is virtually zero. There is no cohesion there and no ability to stop terrorism striking Jews. There remains a fundamental refusal to accept Israel behind any borders existing within enough Arab factions to continually derail any chance of settlement. Kerry, with his picture of the new Middle East, speaks even as the Middle East burns from Libya to Yemen.

Since 1993, skeptical Israelis have predicted at every turn, that what was given would in turn be used against Israel and *on every* single occasion they were proven right. There is history here, there is experience. The Israeli left turned its back on Oslo in 2000 because it understood it had been fooled. If anyone thinks they need to apply more pressure on Israel or can wait until Israel can be duped again, they are going to have a very long wait. Israelis are wise to the game now. Go and deal with the real problem in the mix and come back and talk to Israel when a little realism has entered the equation.

User avatar
Kilombo
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13665
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:10 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Kilombo » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:00 pm

All I can say is, it seems very strange to have made this move now, literally as the Obama team is moving out of the White House. Wrong time for a grand gesture., and perfectly teed up for Trump to use punitively against the UN.

The whole speech is to create some trouble to Trump IMO.
Prost!

User avatar
korgy
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 21782
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by korgy » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:05 pm

davebt wrote:So Kerry has effectively just restated what everyone already knows.
you seem to have missed the context here dave. Kerry is responding to thuggish assertions and mischaracterizations by Netanyahu and Trump. "everybody" does not know what you think they know.
If anyone thinks they need to apply more pressure on Israel or can wait until Israel can be duped again, they are going to have a very long wait. Israelis are wise to the game now. Go and deal with the real problem in the mix and come back and talk to Israel when a little realism has entered the equation.
should Israel be building settlements now on the West Bank?
"the rise of Kim Crow"

Logg
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8985
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:19 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Logg » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:42 pm

Kilombo wrote:
All I can say is, it seems very strange to have made this move now, literally as the Obama team is moving out of the White House. Wrong time for a grand gesture., and perfectly teed up for Trump to use punitively against the UN.

The whole speech is to create some trouble to Trump IMO.


That's a pretty cynical attitude to take towards Obama.

Logg
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8985
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:19 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Logg » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:04 pm

dave, this is truly a tempest in a teacup. As you mentioned, Kerry restated what is obvious. As did Power at the UN, stating that the SC is used to the point of absurdity as a one-track cudgel against Israel, before going on to abstain.

It was my fault for broadening the context of the thread to the viability of a two-state solution, and then not go on to mention Israel's working land-for-peace majorities going back to the Camp David deal with Sadat.

I would agree that there was and still is a working majority that would favor the above-mentioned parameters of a two state solution. But the truth is it spectacularly failed and success in that endeavor looks much more remote than before. I understand why people still talk of a two-state solution, because what is the alternative? And I understand why people currently act like it is all but unimplementable, because I agree.

And this is a tempest in a teacup on a slow news day that no rock stars or actors happened to die on.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 48098
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by eric84 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:08 pm

It does reflect a timidness about obama's administration that he didn't speak up sooner but also how the Iran deal meant he couldn't take both on at the same time.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
Kilombo
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13665
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:10 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Kilombo » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:25 pm

Logg wrote:
Kilombo wrote:
All I can say is, it seems very strange to have made this move now, literally as the Obama team is moving out of the White House. Wrong time for a grand gesture., and perfectly teed up for Trump to use punitively against the UN.

The whole speech is to create some trouble to Trump IMO.


That's a pretty cynical attitude to take towards Obama.

No, not for me. I mean Obama and his administration wanted to clarify some things and to make somethings clear to Trump as well. It was a very clear statement which will bring pressure and trouble to Trump.
Prost!

davebt
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:48 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by davebt » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:43 pm

korgy wrote:you seem to have missed the context here dave. Kerry is responding to thuggish assertions and mischaracterizations by Netanyahu and Trump. "everybody" does not know what you think they know.


Of course they do. The formula created via the Oslo process leads to an inevitable conclusion. There isn't a serious politician involved in the two state idea that doesn't understand this. What Kerry stated is only what has been stated 1000 times before. There is no other way of gaining theoretical acceptance between these two sides. Bibi knows the text of the contract, as do all Israeli and Palestinian politicians. The problem is not inside the contract, it is that the Arabs are not capable of uniting to accept Israel (behind any borders). This in turn has allowed for elements in Israeli society to use the impasse to continually complicate matters further.

should Israel be building settlements now on the West Bank?


What do you mean 'building settlements'? If every time anyone accused Israel of 'building settlements' (as opposed to building within an existing settlement), Israel actually built one, Israel would have to be the size of China.

My position on settlements has remained constant for over 20 years. The blocks are not going anywhere. Israel shouldn't be building outside of these blocks and the world should stop pretending that building inside and building outside (of the blocks) is the same thing.

Logg
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 8985
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:19 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Logg » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:59 pm

Kilombo wrote:
Logg wrote:
Kilombo wrote:The whole speech is to create some trouble to Trump IMO.


That's a pretty cynical attitude to take towards Obama.

No, not for me. I mean Obama and his administration wanted to clarify some things and to make somethings clear to Trump as well. It was a very clear statement which will bring pressure and trouble to Trump.


I don't think this is going to affect Trump at all, except to give him some easy political points. A UNSC resolution about Israel doesn't bind the US in the slightest. Obama's abstention vote was opposed by a strong majority of his own party in Congress and, one presumes, of the American voters based on their historical polling numbers regarding this issue.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 57510
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by polardude1 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:27 am

Davebt
My position on settlements has remained constant for over 20 years. The blocks are not going anywhere. Israel shouldn't be building outside of these blocks and the world should stop pretending that building inside and building outside (of the blocks) is the same thin


I am guessing if everyone finally sat down to talk, that could be true. Netanyahu might even adhere to this, but he has a Naftali Bennett problem, he's declared the 2 state concept dead on November 9th.
Ereich
DCComic was, of course, the one doing the chasing. He appears to have misquoted Polar in his autosignature, something he has trouble with.

DCComic
I'm a crazy racist cunt.

No quotation marks used

jedgarandclyde
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6705
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 3:30 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by jedgarandclyde » Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:41 am

The situation in the ME has been the same for ever, with no doubt the support for the hard line Jews and Arabs the blame for the situation.

Can we please have have an 'even handed' approach to the question, so that people working for peace can have their say, and be heard above all the words of hate spoken on both sides?

With both Jews and Arabs trying to see the others point of view?

Might is not right, never has been, never will be.
No signature for you!

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Lavite » Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:48 am

coffeeguy wrote:Pretty clear with Trump and Netanyahu in power where we are headed. 1 state solution. If I was the palestineans, I'd just throw up my hands and tell Israel to govern - all yours, now lets see what you do with us. Then the Israeli judicial system can rule on the legality of land seizures. The ruling is tokenism at best.


That about sums it up. Make all the Palestinians Israeli citizens is the best option for them. But it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish State, so that is likely never going to happen.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
mad hatter
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 20974
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:08 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by mad hatter » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:16 am

jedgarandclyde wrote:The situation in the ME has been the same for ever, with no doubt the support for the hard line Jews and Arabs the blame for the situation.

Can we please have have an 'even handed' approach to the question, so that people working for peace can have their say, and be heard above all the words of hate spoken on both sides?

With both Jews and Arabs trying to see the others point of view?

Might is not right, never has been, never will be.

dont hold your breath!
Anyone can go by horse or rail, but the absolute best way to travel is by hat.

jedgarandclyde
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6705
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 3:30 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by jedgarandclyde » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:30 pm

As i said 'has been the same forever', it is very obvious I will not.
No signature for you!

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Lavite » Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:23 pm

jedgarandclyde wrote: Might is not right, never has been, never will be.


Who is right is subjective. But might tends to win a good bit of the time. A lot depends on how ruthless a side is.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

davebt
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:48 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by davebt » Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:39 pm

This by David Horovitz is quite good

http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-only-thing-he-didnt-say-was-apartheid/

Until there is an understanding that the fundamental rejection by the Palestinians of an Israel behind any borders is the primary issue to be addressed, there will be no progress.

From the article above

But the secretary and his president long ago lost much of the Israeli public, even many of the settlement critics, by underestimating the depth of Palestinian opposition to the very fact of the Jewish state’s existence. The president and his secretary have underestimated, too, the consequent scarring — physical and psychological — that the Israeli public has accumulated over decades of war, terrorism, and demonization as the Palestinians and those who championed their cause have sought Israel’s obliteration.

......We left south Lebanon. Hezbollah took over. We left Gaza. Now it’s ruled by Hamas. When the secretary expresses his “total confidence” that Israel’s security requirements in the West Bank can be met via sophisticated multi-layered border defenses and such, he quite simply loses Israel.

jedgarandclyde
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6705
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 3:30 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by jedgarandclyde » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:16 pm

Who has 'might' is not subjective at all in this contex, it is not subjective in any way.

Who is in the right or wrong here i do not know, but i do know who has the 'might' in the Middle East, and that what i was talking about.
No signature for you!

User avatar
Citizen Baba
Mayor McCheese
Posts: 20467
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:44 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Citizen Baba » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:36 pm

Why is it the US' job to veto resolutions that are critical of Israel?

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 57510
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by polardude1 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:40 pm

Davebt
......We left south Lebanon. Hezbollah took over. We left Gaza. Now it’s ruled by Hamas. When the secretary expresses his “total confidence” that Israel’s security requirements in the West Bank can be met via sophisticated multi-layered border defenses and such, he quite simply loses Israel

Unilateralism does not work.
Ereich
DCComic was, of course, the one doing the chasing. He appears to have misquoted Polar in his autosignature, something he has trouble with.

DCComic
I'm a crazy racist cunt.

No quotation marks used

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Maxwell » Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:17 pm

Citizen Baba wrote:Why is it the US' job to veto resolutions that are critical of Israel?

Considering the source of the criticism and the fact Israel is our ally, a veto is most certainly called for.

polardude1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 57510
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by polardude1 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:28 pm

I don't endorse any more changes in West bank settlements. It's a horrific waste of money at the expense of the Israeli tax payer. TY for your rage
Ereich
DCComic was, of course, the one doing the chasing. He appears to have misquoted Polar in his autosignature, something he has trouble with.

DCComic
I'm a crazy racist cunt.

No quotation marks used

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Lavite » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:57 pm

This is just all about Obama having a hissy fit as he leaves office knowing his "legacy" will be quickly dismantled. If he had been serious about forcing a two-state solution, he could have threatened to cease funding Israel until it was done and follow through if necessary. That is a lot of money on the table and Israel would have had to make some hard choices.

But he didn't. Just another toothless rant so Obama and his minions can appear to have the moral high ground and maintain their illusion of ethical supremacy.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

jedgarandclyde
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6705
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 3:30 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by jedgarandclyde » Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:41 pm

'Ethical supremacy'?

We know that you do not understand simple sayings, and by doing so that you don't seem to understand very basic English, so would you please explain what this is?

Is it the same as Mr Obama telling 36 Russian diplomats to leave the US?

Is it also a term for this action?

The term is not in my Webster's dictionary of terms.

So as a politician once said in Australia...........................'Please Explain'
No signature for you!

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Lavite » Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:51 pm

jedgarandclyde wrote: So as a politician once said in Australia...........................'Please Explain'


Unfortunately, I am not trained in educating those with special needs. You are on your own.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Maxwell » Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:55 pm

Lavite wrote:This is just all about Obama having a hissy fit as he leaves office knowing his "legacy" will be quickly dismantled. If he had been serious about forcing a two-state solution, he could have threatened to cease funding Israel until it was done and follow through if necessary. That is a lot of money on the table and Israel would have had to make some hard choices.

But he didn't. Just another toothless rant so Obama and his minions can appear to have the moral high ground and maintain their illusion of ethical supremacy.

I don't think Obama can cease funding Israel. Isn't that congressional responsibility?

User avatar
korgy
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 21782
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by korgy » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:57 pm

Lavite wrote:This is just all about Obama having a hissy fit as he leaves office knowing his "legacy" will be quickly dismantled. If he had been serious about forcing a two-state solution, he could have threatened to cease funding Israel until it was done and follow through if necessary. That is a lot of money on the table and Israel would have had to make some hard choices.
like every other US President? why are you singling out Obama? do you think there might be reasons we dont do that?

what a clown.
"the rise of Kim Crow"

User avatar
Wellpisser
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 17882
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:38 am

Re: Kerry on Isreal

Post by Wellpisser » Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:18 pm

5waldos wrote:Strong speech and he sounds really pissed off. Good for him.


One long self indulgent dummy spit from an over promoted 3rd rater.

Kerry achieved bugger all in office.

Post Reply