Israel to Run For Security Counsel Seat in 2019.[W:73:82]

[Sadling]

MadLib, whether you believe that the Golan Heights is occupied by Syria, or Israel, the point is that Israel is issuing a license to drill on someone else's land.

Unsurprisingly, the Israeli govermnet is the entity assigning the term "disputed territories" to "occupied territories." The international community, however, does not recognize that the "occupied" territories are "disputed" territories. They are quite clear on that.

 

[MadLib]

Do you mind me asking that you quote my posts in the future? Thanks.

MadLib, whether you believe that the Golan Heights is occupied by Syria, or Israel, the point is that Israel is issuing a license to drill on someone else's land.

Unsurprisingly, the Israeli govermnet is the entity assigning the term "disputed territories" to "occupied territories." The international community, however, does not recognize that the "occupied" territories are "disputed" territories. They are quite clear on that.

I concede that you're correct on the Golan Heights issue; the oil permit issue notwithstanding, annexing occupied territory is a violation of international law (although I don't blame Israel too much for not wanting to deal with the Assads). However, in order to be considered occupied a territory must have had some previous recognized sovereignty, and that is not the case with Palestine, but is true concerning the Golan Heights.

 

[MadLib]

Who disputes Israel's ownership of the West Bank and Gaza other than those that live there?

Pretty much every Muslim and Arab state, as well as other nations. In any case, the status of being occupied is not dependent upon the will of the people involved, but the desire of the actual sovereign entity of the territory. Since Palestine had no such entity, it may not be considered occupied. If popular will is what determines whether or not a territory is occupied, there would be plenty more occupied territories :lol:

This is a case of self determination not disputed territory and as such places Israel in a position completely contrary to what the UN is supposed to be about.

Don't you opposed self-determination for the Jewish immigrants in Palestine in regards to the Partition Plan?

 

[Sadling]

I take your statement concerning the non-sovereign status of Palestine to mean that Israel has a license to do what they will with the Palestinian population that has been there. Are you ok with home demolitions perpetrated against Palestinians by the Israeli government?

By the way, in November of last year, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Thoughts upon the matter?

The UN is primarily a political stage upon which nations act out their intrigues. It has no teeth, and no special influence or credibility.

Even if one takes the security council seriously, Israel doesn't win anything by securing a seat for 1 year 6 years from now. They will invoke the will of the council when it serves their interests, and write the council off when it does not -- whether or not they have a seat.

 

[MMC]

The UN is primarily a political stage upon which nations act out their intrigues. It has no teeth, and no special influence or credibility.

Even if one takes the security council seriously, Israel doesn't win anything by securing a seat for 1 year 6 years from now. They will invoke the will of the council when it serves their interests, and write the council off when it does not -- whether or not they have a seat.

Heya Tactical. :2wave: Yeah myself.....I never took an Oath to UN. Still.....I wouldn't mind seeing Israel there and they should have been considered for the year before. Which is why they filed whatever complaint against Germany.

Another thing is.....I would tell Belgium they can wait. Like another 50 years or so. They shouldn't be considered at all. Nor should any that are no Power or have none.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Belgium already has two plums in its international hat. Brussels houses the headquarters of NATO and is also considered the de facto capital of the European Union. Germany has been a non-voting member of the UN Security Council six times - three times while divided (East/West) and three times since unification. Germany is also a member of the G4 bloc (Germany, India, Brazil, Japan) which are being considered for permanent SC membership positions.

Being the preeminent democracy/military power in the Middle East, Israel should probably be accorded a non-permanent/rotating position within the greater Security Council. This is unlikely to happen however due to the collective UN clout of the Muslim Bloc.

 

[calm]

I think that the U.S. is gonna walk away from the United Nations within the next 10 years, and it will be NATO which will be then utilized.

As China gains more influence within the world, the less support America will give the United Nations.

In June 2006, Kofi Annan accused the United States of undermining the United Nations. It has recently been shown that every room at the United Nations has been wiretapped by the NSA.

NATO has no obligation to consider global interests, nor does it allow non-members to participate in its decision-making.

There are two main tasks which must be completed prior to walkin' away.

At the moment, Europe is dependent upon Russia for it's gas and this must change. At the moment, there are huge military battles being fought throughout the Middle East and a race towards Western owned pipelines via finance and construction.

Israel must become a full member of NATO prior walking away from the United Nations. Israel will find it continuously difficult to ignore U.N. resolutions against the Jewish State and when push comes to shove, Israel will walk away from the U.N.. The race is on for Israel to complete the creation of "Facts On The Ground" with settlements. Because what the facts are at the moment Israel walks away from the UN, are the facts of international law and where Possession is 9/10ths of the Law.

NATO and Israel have been holding joint military exercises since 2004.

Israel and NATO became "Partners" in the fight against terror on March 07, 2013. The Israel-NATO Brussels protocol obligates NATO to come to the rescue of Israel under the doctrine of collective security, were the security of Israel to be threatened. Prior to this agreement, Israel was operating under the [NATO] Mediterranean Dialogue (Observer status), which was created in 1994.

Calm

 

[calm]

And one final point .... Israel must also "Change The Facts On The Ground" as per Gaza. At the moment, Israel has no "Land Coast" .... Without the Lands of Gaza, Israel has no rights to gas deposits off the coast and thus complicates further interests within the Mediterranean Sea. (Greece/Cyprus as an example.)

 

[Sadling]

SimpleXity,

A democracy, you say? What kind of democracy is it that demolishes people's homes, and continues to do so to this day, in occupied territories? Here is an excerpt from the Christian Monitor:

''Living on the ground with no cover is hard,'' says the father of eight who, like a dozen other men from Makhul, has been sleeping out in the open because the army blocked them from receiving humanitarian relief tents after the demolition. On a scorching summer day, Makhul's men crowded under the only tree in sight for shade, while a group of Israeli soldiers stood guard nearby to ensure they did not attempt to rebuild shelter.

Israeli Defense Ministry officials say the demolition of Makhul was a necessary law enforcement measure against unlicensed construction and they stress that the Israeli Supreme Court last month rejected a petition against the order.

But human rights groups are condemning the demolition, the latest of operations in which hundreds of residential and other structures were destroyed this year in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They say the army's handling of Makhul, as well as repeated settler attacks on Palestinian property, highlight that the US-brokered peace process launched earlier this year fails to protect Palestinians from Israeli abuses.

___________________________________________

And this from Human Rights Watch:

(Jerusalem) – Israeli forces should immediately end unlawful demolitions of Palestinian homes and other structures in Occupied Palestinian Territory. The demolitions have displaced at least 79 Palestinians since August 19, 2013. Demolitions of homes and other structures that compel Palestinians to leave their communities may amount to the forcible transfer of residents of an occupied territory, which is a war crime.

Human Rights Watch documented demolitions on August 19 in East Jerusalem that displaced 39 people, including 18 children. Israeli human rights groups and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) documented additional demolitions in East Jerusalem and the West Bank on August 20 and 21 that destroyed the homes of 40 people, including 20 children.

____________________________________________

How does that reflect democratic values?

 

[Rainman05]

Heya DT. :2wave: Myself.....I think they should be there before the likes of Belgium. Moreover if the Arab and Muslim countries can block them. Then we should block those who would do so with Israel.

As I will explain under... I think the UN security council should consist mainly of nations who seek peace and agreement that don't have a beligerent attitude. It's not about military "dick" sizes, it's about how you engage the various global issues that emerge.

Given that Israel is the target of numerous threats in their region, they should ABSOLUTELY be on the council. Not that the UN is worth :twocents: anyway though....

Israel says they are going to try and win it this time. Shouldn't the US and others in the West back this play by Israel, despite all the cries and whines from the Muslims and Arab countries.

Should the UN even use a full membership vote for the process.....knowing that the Arab and Muslim countries would vote based out of Racism?

Israel may win it but the issue is: what kind of members do you want to have in the UN security council? Israel has been beating the war drums in the past few years quite hard... asking and demanding sanctions and then military action against Iran... and thanks to the fact that there has been prudence and patience, the elections have brought in power a less radical... more considerate president which may be a boost to the stability of the region.

Do you want israel to be there in the UN security council beating the war drums? I don't know... it doesn't seem like a correct fit. if it becomes more moderate and more patient in its diplomatic ventures, sure, why not.


Then again, I think the UN security council should expand. I think Germany and Japan should become permanent members. maybe Brazil too... not India.
I also think the Eastern European block should compose of 3 nations, not 2. I also think a lot of things about the UN... but for israel... let it run in the western europe sphere, that's fine. But if they would run this year for instance, and I would have a say in the matter, I'd say no, they don't deserve it. If in the coming 5-6 years we see a difference in the way Israel engages the diplomatic stage... a less beligerent stance, then sure, let it have its day in the sun.

 

[Rogue Valley]

SimpleXity, A democracy, you say?

Whether you agree or disagree with Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories is not germane to the legitimacy of democracy and freedom in Israel proper.

Freedom House - The Middle East and North Africa region includes 21 countries and territories with 395 million people. Israel is the only MENA country ranked Free.

Middle East and North Africa | Freedom House

 

[Gardener]

The UN is primarily a political stage upon which nations act out their intrigues. It has no teeth, and no special influence or credibility.

.

and thank goodness for that, because otherwise the thuggish Arabs and their allies would simply overrun Israel in an exercise of mob rule.

Having failed to destroy Israel during its creation, the Arabs simply invented a brand new people out of whole cloth called "Palestinians" in order to shift world perception away from the real nature of the conflict -- Arab supremacism vs self determination of a minority people -- to one of big, bad Jews vs poor, defenseless "Palestinians". The U.N. has been their accomplice in foisting this propaganda upon the world and has been so successful at it that ignorant people do not even realize there were no such people as "Palestinians" mere decades ago.

 

[Sadling]

SimpleXity,

You seem to believe that a state's undemocratic behavior has no bearing on the issue of the legitimacy of its claim to be a democracy. Care to explain?

 

[Sadling]

Gardener,

Well now let's see, they had a currency called the Palestine pound. Balfour, in a letter addressed to Baron Rothschild, referred to the land he was gifting to the future state of Israel as "Palestine." The fact that the Palestinian people physically exist and are being oppressed is what's being ignored. They've been living there a very long time and they are not going anywhere. Also, there is a quote from Ben-Gurion, who described the Arab revolt of 1936 as “an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews.”

President Wilson established a commission headed by Henry Churchhill King and Charles Crane to examine the question of Palestine. In their report, they observed that the creation of a Jewish state would constitute “the gravest trespass upon the ‘civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’” Their report concluded that if the principle of self-determination was to rule, the will of the people of Palestine must be respected, and the great majority of the population was “emphatically against the entire Zionist program.”

What part of illegal settlements and home demolitions don't you get??

You want to say that Palestine doesn't exist by applying racist and colonialist “democratic principle”.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

As I will explain under... I think the UN security council should consist mainly of nations who seek peace and agreement that don't have a beligerent attitude. It's not about military "dick" sizes, it's about how you engage the various global issues that emerge.





Israel may win it but the issue is: what kind of members do you want to have in the UN security council? Israel has been beating the war drums in the past few years quite hard... asking and demanding sanctions and then military action against Iran... and thanks to the fact that there has been prudence and patience, the elections have brought in power a less radical... more considerate president which may be a boost to the stability of the region.

Do you want israel to be there in the UN security council beating the war drums? I don't know... it doesn't seem like a correct fit. if it becomes more moderate and more patient in its diplomatic ventures, sure, why not.


Then again, I think the UN security council should expand. I think Germany and Japan should become permanent members. maybe Brazil too... not India.
I also think the Eastern European block should compose of 3 nations, not 2. I also think a lot of things about the UN... but for israel... let it run in the western europe sphere, that's fine. But if they would run this year for instance, and I would have a say in the matter, I'd say no, they don't deserve it. If in the coming 5-6 years we see a difference in the way Israel engages the diplomatic stage... a less beligerent stance, then sure, let it have its day in the sun.

Personally I don't want a UN security council or the UN to exist.....

 

[Gardener]

Gardener,

Well now let's see, they had a currency called the Palestine pound. Balfour, in a letter addressed to Baron Rothschild, referred to the land he was gifting to the future state of Israel as "Palestine." The fact that the Palestinian people physically exist and are being oppressed is what's being ignored. They've been living there a very long time and they are not going anywhere. Also, there is a quote from Ben-Gurion, who described the Arab revolt of 1936 as “an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews.”

President Wilson established a commission headed by Henry Churchhill King and Charles Crane to examine the question of Palestine. In their report, they observed that the creation of a Jewish state would constitute “the gravest trespass upon the ‘civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’” Their report concluded that if the principle of self-determination was to rule, the will of the people of Palestine must be respected, and the great majority of the population was “emphatically against the entire Zionist program.”

What part of illegal settlements and home demolitions don't you get??

You want to say that Palestine doesn't exist by applying racist and colonialist “democratic principle”.

Are you really so confused that you do not comprehend the difference between a land designation and a people?

You may be able to repeat the mindless platitudes filled with hackneyed buzz phrases you have learned to parrot, but display nothing in the way of understanding.

 

[Sadling]

Gardener,

I understand that you--as I have already stated--have developed a penchant for applying racist and colonialist democratic principal in an attempt to marginalize Palestinians and give legitimatacy to Israel's racist treatment of them. That's fine. We all have our own sense of justice. But your idea that Israel is right and the rest of the world is wrong reflects some kind of delusional thinking.

Perhaps if you googled UN Security council resolutions against Israel, you would understand exactly how the rest of the world views Israel's unlawful attempts at expanding their territory at the expense of others.

You know, they ran a lady over with a bulldozer. She was trying to stop the demolition of the home of some Palestinians by the Israelis. If you didn't know that that's the kind of **** you're defending, then shame on you. Conversely, if you do know that that's the kind of **** you're defending here, then shame on you!

 

[Rogue Valley]

SimpleXity,

You seem to believe that a state's undemocratic behavior has no bearing on the issue of the legitimacy of its claim to be a democracy. Care to explain?

If one embraced your bizarre logic, then no state who has ever engaged in undemocratic behavior could claim to be a legitimate democracy. For example...

US commando raids: Libya demands explanation

 

[donsutherland1]

Israel, like any other UN member (except for the Permanent Members) should have an opportunity to run for a rotating seat on the Security Council. There is no good reason Israel should be precluded from such an opportunity. As both Germany and Belgium have previously served on the Security Council, I hope Israel will win one of the two rotating seats.

 

[Sadling]

SimpleXity,

The treatment of Palestinians by Israel is racist. They are a racist society. Their use of white phosphorous during Cast Lead is atrocious, not to mention a war crime. Now, if I understand your point, a state that engages in non-democratic behavior is a democracy. I guess I disagree with you. Maybe such a state could be referred to as democratic, but only in name, and not in deed.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I guess I disagree with you. Maybe such a state could be referred to as democratic, but only in name, and not in deed.

If your thesis is that moral purity is a requisite of a democratic state, then there are precious few bygone or extant exemplars of 'Sadling Democracy' in the corridors of history.

 

[Gardener]

Gardener,

I understand that you--as I have already stated--have developed a penchant for applying racist and colonialist democratic principal in an attempt to marginalize Palestinians and give legitimatacy to Israel's racist treatment of them. That's fine. We all have our own sense of justice. But your idea that Israel is right and the rest of the world is wrong reflects some kind of delusional thinking.

Perhaps if you googled UN Security council resolutions against Israel, you would understand exactly how the rest of the world views Israel's unlawful attempts at expanding their territory at the expense of others.

You know, they ran a lady over with a bulldozer. She was trying to stop the demolition of the home of some Palestinians by the Israelis. If you didn't know that that's the kind of **** you're defending, then shame on you. Conversely, if you do know that that's the kind of **** you're defending here, then shame on you!

Rachel Corrie died while trying to protect a tunnel used to smuggle arms for the purpose of engaging in terrorism against Jews.

Just because that is what you support, and you have learned to parrot a bunch of simple minded buzz terms created by Arab propagandists, that does not mean I am delusional. It only means that you have read some crap at hate sites designed for the ignorant and regurgitate it without thought.

 

[Wiggen]

It is difficult for me to entertain the idea of Israel occupying a seat on the Security Council when they are in the process of issuing licenses to foreign oil companies to drill in occupied territory, which is in contravention of international law. So, I would have to vote no.

I get the feeling you just have problems with Israel, period. Or is it jews you don't like? We have both types here on the forum, so I'm sure you'll find a political home somewhere.

 

[Wiggen]

I take your statement concerning the non-sovereign status of Palestine to mean that Israel has a license to do what they will with the Palestinian population that has been there. Are you ok with home demolitions perpetrated against Palestinians by the Israeli government?

By the way, in November of last year, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Who gives a rat's ass what the General Assembly says about anything? It is comprised primarily of dictatorships, muslim extremists, and countries who couldn't locate their own asses if you gave them a map.