|
Avshalom posted:and the innumerable names of g-d Turns out god isn't actually one of god's names, it's more of a description, so you can totally write god and it's all good. And to add something that resembles on-topic discussion to this last page here's something pretty funny, remember those settler assholes from Amona who are getting 'evicted' to a different swath of stolen land while getting some decent cash out of it and pretending their the victims of some horrible tragedy? well, Bibi met with them and in attempting to console them he said the following: quote:The newspaper quoted Netanyahu telling Amona residents and settler leaders Saturday night: “I understand what it is to lose a home. After the 1999 election, with no warning, my family and I were simply thrown out of our home. Just like that, with all our belongings. We were simply thrown on the street, we were forced to go to the Sheraton Plaza Hotel. It was a terrible feeling.” The man is a modern day Mary Antoinette. Also, he's lying: quote:Former prime minister Ehud Barak slammed Netanyahu on Facebook, saying, “He has lost it completely. Thrown out of his house? By the voters. I was there. It took him six weeks to pack up and leave. Hard? The time has come for it to happen again.” http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Settler-leader-downplays-insensitive-Netanyahu-statement-476051
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
In Bibi's defence, Barak is a major rear end in a top hat, both in politics and in person. I would have drawn it out as long as humanly possible to piss him off if I could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Here's some news for you, thread http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-urges-u-s-to-veto-u-n-resolution-on-settlements-1482418062 quote:A potential collision between the Obama administration and the incoming team of President-elect Donald Trump was avoided when the United Nations Security Council postponed a vote on a resolution criticizing Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Well, the US didn't veto. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...o-a7493351.html I'm not sure what difference it will make now that Trump is at the helm in less than a month though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
I'm betting that the only reason they didn't is because of Trump
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm betting that the only reason they didn't is because of Trump Twitter tells me it's because Obama is an anti-semite. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AmbDaniDayan/status/812400478449467392
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
It's really amazing that a minor resolution passing the UNSC which basically amounts to 'hey Israel, please stop violating international agreements' is met with a reaction like we bombed Tel Aviv.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I like the Syria concern trolling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
lmao, that whiny gently caress must've poo poo himself in anger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Just thought I'd stop by to say I'm glad the condemnation passed and gently caress Israel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
I'm glad the condemnation passed and will be visiting Israel soon, maybe I'll have some hot takes to share.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
So now with the US being on the wrong end of the UN's hosed up veto procedure when it comes to this particular issue, lets take a look at what the future holds.quote:UN Security Council With Trump coming in, obviously, they are going to seek to overrule this? But can they avoid getting a single veto? Ethiopia and Bolivia are two countries I'd really have my eye on. If either of them stood against it, that would buy 2 years where the US's hands would be tied. Can anyone think any of these countries would veto any resolution to un-condemn Israel for their settlement activities?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:So now with the US being on the wrong end of the UN's hosed up veto procedure when it comes to this particular issue, lets take a look at what the future holds. Only permanent members can veto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Only permanent members can veto. Well.....poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
The UN is so loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The UN is so loving dumb. Uh, vetoes have absolutely nothing to do with it. Take a minute and think about what a veto actually is - a veto can only be used to block something that would otherwise pass, not force through something that would otherwise not pass. This measure passed with fourteen out of fifteen votes (the US abstained). That means that in order to get a second resolution passed that reverses this resolution, the US needs to singlehandedly flip half the Security Council. This is why getting enraged is often a bad idea - you miss details, often quite important details, when you get too hotheaded. And speaking of details... Honestly, the real interesting thing about this resolution is Egypt's behavior, in first offering up the resolution, postponing it, and allowing other Security Council members to push it forward. Egypt has been happy to play along with the media narrative that they bowed to pressure from Trump and Netanyahu, but I don't buy it - Egypt was certainly well aware when they first wrote the resolution that Trump and Israel would both strongly oppose the move. If you ask me, this wasn't a sincere move, but rather a negotiating tactic - and we don't know what Egypt was promised in return for backing off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Haven't similar resolutions passed before under W. and H.W. Bush? I seem to remember Bush II not supporting Iron Dome and other projects that Obama readily handed out cash for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:So now with the US being on the wrong end of the UN's hosed up veto procedure when it comes to this particular issue, lets take a look at what the future holds. I don't think the US could single handedly force through a resolution overturning it. Considering this passed with 14 votes in favour and 1 abstention, the chances of getting enough security council members to overturn it seems very unlikely. Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding how the security council functions. The more important question is whether this condemnation will become anything other than symbolic. Shofixti fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Uh, vetoes have absolutely nothing to do with it. Take a minute and think about what a veto actually is - a veto can only be used to block something that would otherwise pass, not force through something that would otherwise not pass. This measure passed with fourteen out of fifteen votes (the US abstained). That means that in order to get a second resolution passed that reverses this resolution, the US needs to singlehandedly flip half the Security Council. I'm not sure who among the permanent members is married to the idea of the resolution. If they vote consistently moving forward like they just did, then yeah, there's nothing to worry about. But I'm not taking that for granted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Someone I know is currently on the Birthright trip and and it's kinda sad watching her slowly devolve into this "the Palestinians are doing so much to destroy Israel" mentality. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Israel is very cross at New Zealand and has called their ambassador home to emphasise how cross they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:So now with the US being on the wrong end of the UN's hosed up veto procedure when it comes to this particular issue, lets take a look at what the future holds. Nobody's going to veto the vote to repeal it, but all of the permanent members voted for it, the first half of the temporary members also voted for it, and none of the incoming temporary members seem like Israel diehards. A resolution to repeal the resolution that just passed 14-0 would probably get rejected 1-14. If Trump goes totally nuclear and starts threatening sanctions or something against nations that voted no, he might be able to bully nations like Ukraine into voting yes, but he'd have to start threatening to place sanctions on Japan because of a totally trivial UN vote. At that point, Trump would probably get Business Ploted out of office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Israel is very cross at New Zealand and has called their ambassador home to emphasise how cross they are. lol  http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761011?v=455D4BDDB3EFAC676DB43E40E9E176CB
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
That's from Ran Baratz, the guy who called Obama an anti-semite and is now Bibi's personal social media propagandist. He's really something else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:Do Israel and New Zealand have remotely important ties, or is this entirely symbolic gesture? The most interesting thing that has happened in Israel-NZ ties in the last twenty years is when we suspended diplomatic relations for a year because Mossad got caught faking NZ passports, so no basically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:lol Eagerly awaiting this to be expanded by a strategy of boycotts and divestment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
What would an attempt at overruling this resolution even look like? "Illegal settlements have legal validity"? Perhaps we could make a combo by having the same resolution that enshrines Israel's right to annex land also recognize Russia's right to reannex former Soviet Union territory. Maybe add a postscript about the South China Sea rightfully belonging to China.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:What would an attempt at overruling this resolution even look like? "Illegal settlements have legal validity"? Perhaps we could make a combo by having the same resolution that enshrines Israel's right to annex land also recognize Russia's right to reannex former Soviet Union territory. Maybe add a postscript about the South China Sea rightfully belonging to China. You laugh, but both of those are entirely plausible under a Trump Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'm not sure who among the permanent members is married to the idea of the resolution. If they vote consistently moving forward like they just did, then yeah, there's nothing to worry about. But I'm not taking that for granted. They always vote like this. That's why the US veto is so important - the UN membership is overwhelmingly in favor of condemning the Israeli occupations and settlements. The only countries that vote against those resolutions are the US, Israel, and a few US client states (mostly tiny Pacific island countries).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
But who even cares? What does a resolution like that even do? It's all hot air.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
post
Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Unfortunately for them, much like the rest of us, not taking him seriously is no longer an option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unfortunately for them, much like the rest of us, not taking him seriously is no longer an option. Absolutely nobody other than his gang of dumbasses takes him seriously whatsoever, only as much as they have to pretend to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:It has to start somewhere. The US stalled this beginning for decades and now they're stopping that. One got through before Trump could do anything and the UN membership certainly won't take him seriously. They might not take him seriously on any kind of personal level, but his veto matters. There's never been a problem of the US gathering too much international opposition to resolutions negative to Israel, the problem has always been the US's veto in the security council. In that sense, this is symbolic of nothing if the incoming administration will veto anything more negative to Israel than "Palestinians deserved it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
post
Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:All I meant is he won't be able to pass a new resolution that refutes this one. But that is part of the problem: what would he even need to refute? Yeah it looks bad for Israel's ego, but the resolution doesn't actually do anything. Even if Israel blatantly ignores it, like they announced they will, it would take another security council vote to do anything new, which Trump has already said he will veto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
You'd figure that Netanyahu would realize that after visiting Congress without clearing it through the White House in order to give a speech against one of Obama's big diplomatic projects would most likely result in a retributive measure like this, but...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:But that is part of the problem: what would he even need to refute? Yeah it looks bad for Israel's ego, but the resolution doesn't actually do anything. Even if Israel blatantly ignores it, like they announced they will, it would take another security council vote to do anything new, which Trump has already said he will veto. It starts the cycle of ostracizing Israel. As was mentioned, you have to start somewhere. Eventually it's going to be these types of resolutions that form the backbone of movements to sanction Israel and put more pressure on them to change their stance towards one that makes meaningful attempts to achieve a two state solution. It's the same process that eventually forced change in South Africa. You'd probably be right in assuming that the US isn't going to lead the charge in that regard, but countries like the UK and France could if there was domestic support for it. The resolution is very significant in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 10:21
|
|