Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

libspero

UN stands up to Israeli Aggression

Recommended Posts

Interesting development and a pretty gutsy move by the US.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/world/middleeast/israel-benjamin-netanyahu-united-nations.html

New settlement building now voted to be illegal, completely blindsiding the Israeli establishment who have fought very hard to continue the land grab (remember the smeer of the Labour Party recently when they first got vocal about it..  then the silent expansion program while the press were still too afraid to report it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel on this.

One one hand, youve got the only democracy in the ME.

On the other, its a fkcing apartheid.

Apparently the whole zionism thing wa a die toss between the ME and some place in Africa.

Should have gone for Africa.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately if it comes down to supporting either Israel or Islamic countries, Israel wins every time.  Anyone who argues differently who is not a muslim is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wherebee said:

Unfortunately if it comes down to supporting either Israel or Islamic countries, Israel wins every time.  Anyone who argues differently who is not a muslim is insane.

I'm not sure how being a Muslim or not has any real bearing on the situation regarding a person's sanity..  and I don't see it's particularly about taking sides.

Sure, Israel is infinitely more civilised than most of the ME,  but then at the same time they spend most of their time provoking their neighbours by kicking them out and building on their land.

That's hardly paving the way towards peace in the region..  then they get all upset when their neighbours start throwing rock(et)s into their back garden.

FFS guys..  stop behaving like children! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

Wonder if the UN will focus on China's aggression in Tibet (and other places) next. Bet it won't.

Too focussed on their aggression in the South China Sea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spyguy said:

Israel on this.

One one hand, youve got the only democracy in the ME.

On the other, its a fkcing apartheid.

Apparently the whole zionism thing wa a die toss between the ME and some place in Africa.

Should have gone for Africa.

 

They were offered what is now Zimbabwe, rich fertile land, but instead choose the desert because of some religious ******. Middle east is now a war zone, and southern Africa is still poor.

How different the world could of been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Snagger said:

They were offered what is now Zimbabwe, rich fertile land, but instead choose the desert because of some religious ******. Middle east is now a war zone, and southern Africa is still poor.

How different the world could of been.

I know.

Fck he history and jew9sm ground.

Pick up, start in Africa and theyd ahve created a much better place.

Something in palce to move the natives with the jews.

Christ., they could have dragged Africa up by its bootstrap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snagger said:

They were offered what is now Zimbabwe, rich fertile land, but instead choose the desert because of some religious ******. Middle east is now a war zone, and southern Africa is still poor.

How different the world could of been.

If Israel had been founded in Zimbabwe, what would the current situation be now?

1) Everyone would be criticising Israel for taking over land that was already occupied.
2) The Middle East would be a war zone. 
3) Southern Africa would be poor.

Not much difference, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SpewLabour said:

If Israel had been founded in Zimbabwe, what would the current situation be now?

1) Everyone would be criticising Israel for taking over land that was already occupied.
2) The Middle East would be a war zone. 
3) Southern Africa would be poor.

Not much difference, then.

The point here is slightly more nuanced than that..

It may or may not have been a good idea to just annex some land and give it to the Israelis,  but that is way in the past now and frankly, where would they go?  They've made it their home and they've done a good job of it.

The point as I see it is that they are still continuing to expand into land that is simply not theirs,  and kicking out locals in the process.  How can you do that and in the next breath claim your neighbours are barbarians for wanting to throw sticks at you?

AFAICT Israel just don't have the moral high ground on this..  it is interesting that the US finally seem to agree (along with most of the rest of the UN) now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snagger said:

How different the world could of been.

In a nutshell.

Now if only you understood basic grammar then we all might stand a chance...

 

 

XYY

                                                                                                               

The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

In a nutshell.

Now if only you understood basic grammar then we all might stand a chance...

 

 

XYY

 

                                                                                                               

 

The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb

 

 

Grammar is fine, there is no certainty the world would have been different. ME could still be a war zone.

 

Opps of/have but ****** it, there is a special place for grammar nazis in one of Dante's rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, libspero said:

The point here is slightly more nuanced than that..

It may or may not have been a good idea to just annex some land and give it to the Israelis,  but that is way in the past now and frankly, where would they go?  They've made it their home and they've done a good job of it.

The point as I see it is that they are still continuing to expand into land that is simply not theirs,  and kicking out locals in the process.  How can you do that and in the next breath claim your neighbours are barbarians for wanting to throw sticks at you?

AFAICT Israel just don't have the moral high ground on this..  it is interesting that the US finally seem to agree (along with most of the rest of the UN) now.

Whilst I consider myself reasonably well read on a variety of matters this whole Israel/Palestine thing is one thing that I have only ever known about from what one sees via the MSM.  I took it upon myself to do what the Establishment apparently don't like us doing these days and read up on the historical details that just don't get reported -on this and just about anything else really.

I'll assume, judging by once again the loads of rapidly accumulating responses to this thread, that there are plenty here who have opinions and/or wish to respond and/or counter the following.....

What I found interesting was that Israel, apparently, constantly refutes the assertions by much of the anti-Israel members in the wider international community with regards the so called West Bank. So I was trying to find out what any of their arguments with this viewpoint is.

One such I found is in respect of the current borders. What I found interesting is that the current borders are the subject of only an armistice agreement (1949), in much the same way that, say, the North Korea-South Korea border exists.

One thing I found, talking to others, is the widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'armistice'. The reality, as per the correct definition of the word, is that (with the exception of Egypt) the rest of the arab world officially remains at war with Israel - and refuses to accept its right to exist.  (N.B someone update me re: the current situation with Jordan and Israel). 

I, no doubt like many others, assumed that the current borders are recognised and 'defined' in the same sense as, say, the U.S.A or UK borders are.  But this is not so.  Technically the borders remain 'fluid' and subject to change IF (heavens forbid) hostilities broke out again.

It is this fact that the war still officially has not ended (excepting with Egypt - which involved return of land from Israel to Egypt) means that Israel has the right to control the disputed areas it currently does since it managed to do so in the course of war. 

There is also apparent to me a profound sense of either/both naivete and hypocrisy/double standards by many. Does anyone really truly believe that IF the circumstances in 1967 were reversed and, say, Jordan/Syria managed to acquire/increase their land holdings in the 1967 exchange of hostilities, from what Israel had pre-1967, that Jordan and Syria would not similarly be doing what they pleased with that land - over and above the protests from Israel ?!

The other thing that stands out is that, almost uniquely in the history of such conflicts involving disputed borders, the Israelis have (as you concede) improved the territory and brought it into the 21st century while at the same time making those benefits that come from that available to all the inhabitants of that area(?) - IF they wish to take advanatge of it. Again, I seriously doubt that if the roles ahad been reversed that the Syrians/Jordanians would have been affording the Jews the same rights/etc.

The hostile arab nations have now had nearly 70 years(!!) to come to terms with the Jews remaining there. The arabs could very likely have prevented all this 'expansion' by Israel IF they had put aside their, lets face it, purely medieval religiously driven hatred and pragmatically extended their hands in peace.

Israel will, rightly, lose the moral high ground IF the remaining hostile arab nations do finally agree to peace terms but it does not accept them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Snagger said:

They were offered what is now Zimbabwe, rich fertile land, but instead choose the desert because of some religious ******. Middle east is now a war zone, and southern Africa is still poor.

How different the world could of been.

No. It was Uganda.  Not former Rhodesia. 

In fact I recall reading that other similar plans included Madagascar? by the Third Reich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From the RT news line ( https://www.rt.com/news/line/ )

Quote

 

  • 09:05 GMT

    Israel to do 'all it takes' to emerge unharmed by UN vote - PM

    Israel's prime minister says he will do "all it takes'' to ensure Israel is unscathed by an anti-settlement resolution passed at the United Nations last week. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already ordered several retaliatory steps against countries that supported the resolution. He told his Cabinet on Sunday that Israel was looking into a "plan of action'' against the UN.      Since the vote passed, Israel has recalled its ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal for consultations and canceled a planned January visit to Israel by Senegal's foreign minister. [...]

Be prepared for major Mossad organised false flag attacks or killings against all countries that supported this resolution.

I wouldn't be surprised if NZ will soon experience another major artificial earthquake (epicentre approx. 10 km below ground will be a dead giveaway).

I hope the affected countries will take Netanyahu's threats very seriously and step up their security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Eagle said:

I wouldn't be surprised if NZ will soon experience another major artificial earthquake (epicentre approx. 10 km below ground will be a dead giveaway).

 

Those damn tunneling Mossad agents, they get everywhere. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, happy_renting said:

Those damn tunneling Mossad agents, they get everywhere. :rolleyes:

There is no need for any kind of tunnels to trigger an artificial earthquake in an earthquake-prone area.

A mini-nuke going off on a fault line underwater near the shore would be all that it takes and Israel certainly has mini-nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked up who voted in favour of this resolution:

China, France, Russia, UK, Angola, Egypt, Japan, Malaysia, NZ, Senegal, Spain, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela

Looks like it's best to stay away from these countries for a while (or at least stay away from potential false flag targets in these countries). :ph34r:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Eagle said:

There is no need for any kind of tunnels to trigger an artificial earthquake in an earthquake-prone area.

A mini-nuke going off on a fault line underwater near the shore would be all that it takes and Israel certainly has mini-nukes.

The only thing that is underground is the bar you set for level for proof of your nutjob conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, anonguest said:

t.  (N.B someone update me re: the current situation with Jordan and Israel). 

 

Jordan+isreal are both in trouble with ISIS tbh.

king abdullah himself is actually fairly cordial with isreal, but knows that there is a fairly substantial ISIS following in his country.To put it bluntly, if he does not come up with a sufficiently "islamist" rhetoric to placate this chunk of his population, he is is serious danger of being overthrown and replaced with a less "apostate" leader.

same with a lot of the arab kindgoms, especially saudi.

so for the time being,there is an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation going on vis a vis iran.It's not friendly but it's an alliance of convenience, so an uneasy truce.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, anonguest said:

No. It was Uganda.  Not former Rhodesia. 

In fact I recall reading that other similar plans included Madagascar? by the Third Reich?

You are correct, according to wikipedia they were first offered a small part of East Africa, but that was in 1903.

Madagascar was a Nazi plan.

Not sure where I heard the Rhodesia plan, perhaps it is just a myth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   94 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.