How exactly does Israel “use” the UN to do anything?
Israel is hated in the UN, has virtually no power or influence there and it’s been made clear is just about the only country that will never serve on the UN Security Council.
So, did the sky fall?
?? News I haven’t heard? Is Palestine a state? Or did the U.N. formally declare it to be? Were borders drawn? Where is its capital?
Can you give a few examples of Israel using the UN to beat Iran into submission? Please cite the specific UN enactments you have in mind and explain exactly how Israel caused those enactments to be passed.
The settlements are not an impediment to peace. For example, there were no settlements before 1967 – and no peace. There were settlements in the Sinai between 1967 and 1973 - and yet Israel made peace with Egypt. Israel pulled all of its settlements out of Gaza 5 or 10 years ago – it did not result in peace.
The settlements are an excuse, not a reason.
The actual reason there is not peace is that the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East have fundamentally irreconcilable goals: The Jews want to have a Jewish state; the Arabs want there NOT to be a Jewish state. This problem would remain even if all the settlements disappeared overnight and even if a Palestinian State were created tomorrow.
Its awfully funny how actual peace with Egypt coincided with the removal of settlements in the Sinai. Perhaps we should look to US-Japanese relations for answers, what with the US occupying Japan for over half a century and all.
Which came first? I mean, did Israel dismantle its Sinai settlements in hopes of encouraging the Egyptians to make peace with them? Or did they dismantle the settlements as part of the deal itself?
Perhaps. It certainly is worth noting that peace with Japan came not through making concessions but by defeating them, accepting their near-complete surrender, and occupying them. In short – total victory for the United States.
The sky is fallin’
Can’t you see the clouds roll down the street
The sky is fallin’
Can’t you see the clouds roll down the street
I been looking for a Mideast peace solution
And I wonder where it can be
I must be living in a bubble. Israel’s Prime Minister is consistently and constantly whining about Iran to the UN (I’m praying you to ask for a Youtube link). Iran this, Iran that, Iran with eggs, Iran with ham, Iran with red lines in sand. So yeah, whenever you come to the UN and you talk about Iran rather than focusing on your own problems (e.g. the Palestinians living in hovels, the racism against the brown people in your own country, economic warfare in Gaza, unemployment of Arab-Israelis, etc), there’s a problem. What’s more, Israel comes to the United States and whines to Congress about Iran, whines to the President about Iran, and surprisingly, comes to on American media and whines to the whole country about Iran. Like I said much earlier in this thread, if Israel were an anthropological person, she’d have a personality disorder that would stretch the gambit from delusional schizophrenia all the way to full-blown narcissism (e.g. We’re too special, pesky rules don’t apply to us!).
Here’s a news flash: no one in the Western world fears Iran except Israel. You’d think with all of the hysteria that Iran is going to start building a fleet of Gundams and take over New York City. If any U.S citizen is shaking in their boots over Iran, do us all a favor and turn your life into a reality TV show on TLC - I want to see how you live.
- Honesty
Nice goalpoast shift. That’s not the same thing as “using the UN as a blunt instrument to force Iran into submission.”
Does the same reasoning apply to other countries which talk about Israel rather than focusing on their own problems?
Or as usual, is there a double-standard?
Does this apply to every country in the world which has problems with racism and unemployment? Or as usual, is there a double-standard in play?
Lol, I think you need to learn about a psychological concept known as “projection.”
I doubt that’s true, but even if it were . . . so what? Israel has excellent reason to be afraid of Iran. Israel has excellent reason to “whine” to the UN as you put it.
Except for Britain, the E.U. as a whole, Iran’s neighbors, the United States and even Iran’s nominal supporters.
That would explain a lot. 
Well, looking at the patterns of factual error, illogic, supposition and “well I just KNOW this is true, why do I have to cite it?” that typify certain anti-Israel arguments on the Dope…
Nevermind.
Case in point: you and your fellow travelers just know Israel is bad. You also just know that Israel isn’t to be trusted. Therefore, when Israel says that Iran is a concern, you just know that isn’t isn’t to be trusted and that Iran is Israel’s enemy therefore it’s good since Israel is bad.
Of course, your claims about Iran and the western world are, shall we say, pulled from the same place you pull most of your ideas about Israel. And based on as much factual support. The EU doesn’t seem to think Iran is benign.
You may now attempt to argue for why “serious and deepening concerns” are totally different than “fears”.
You should try checking your dates. There was certainly no peace between Egypt and Israel in 1967 and 1973. Look at your own link, you’ll notice the date of the Peace Accords was 1979.
The best you can come up with is a chicken or the egg analogy? The settlements are an obstacle to peace. Can you honestly imagine any lasting peace arrangement acceptable to both sides between Egypt and Israel that left the Sinai settlements in place? A lot of pro-Israeli posters here regard the settlements as a mistake; I dare say most of them do. Israelis consider the settlements a mistake.
What’s truly sad and somewhat mindboggling is that you couldn’t see that my statement was sarcastic. Nobody but you thinks the US has occupied Japan for the last half century, because it hasn’t. The only way that you can call it occupied is by making the world mean whatever you want it to mean ala Alice in Wonderland.
I notice that nowhere in your rather long-winded rant do you actually answer my question as to how Israel “uses the UN against Iran.”
The closest you come to is attacking Netanyahu for “whining” about Iran.
You seem to be ignoring just how hated Israel is at the UN. You do realize this is the same organization that gave Idi Amin a standing ovation following a speech in which he all but called for genocide.
Agreed – but there were Israeli settlements in the Sinai, up to the time of the Peace Accords. If the UN had pressured Israel to remove settlements from the Sinai before 1979, it would not have advanced the peace process.
I guess that explains why there was peace between 1948 and 1967?
Anyway, I interpreted “impediment to peace” to mean something that would get in the way of achieving peace – not something that might be dismantled as a result of a peace agreement. If we go by your interpretation, it does not change the fact that UN pressure on Israel to dismantle the settlements does not increase the likelihood of achieving peace.
Lol, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were not engaged in semantic nitpicking. Let’s assume that the US occupation of Japan has been over since the 1950s . . . it does not affect my arguments one bit.
Simply for the record, while I’ve called for the US to suspend all aid if Israel doesn’t cease settlement expansion, I don’t believe it’s accurate to call settlements an “obstacle to peace.” Violence is an obstacle to peace, since it negates peace. Disputes over land ownership are negotiating points, but to raise one to the level of an “obstacle to peace” suggests that it must simply be conceded if negotiations are even to begin.
And while it’s certainly okay to set preconditions, I don’t think it does the debate a service to use language like “an obstacle to peace”. Something like “side B refuses to negotiate and/or will not reach a final agreement if X, Y and Z are the conditions in place.” It’s not ontologically impossible for the two sides in this instance to come to a peace agreement even without territorial swaps, and most of the proposals do involve territorial swaps to make up for settlements.
How do you know that?
Sadat had been interested in peace with Israel and allying with the US following the October War(called the Yom Kippur War by the Israelis and the Ramadan War by the Arabs). How do you know that removing the few settlements they had wouldn’t have encouraged him to make the big gestures earlier.
In point of fact, the major settlement building didn’t happen till after the treaty with Egypt and as Shamir himself admitted the point of the settlements was to prevent the creation of a Palestinian State.
Yes. Let’s also assume that the sky is blue and water is wet. :rolleyes:
I would have to both agree and disagree… In the very finest of formal proper diplomatic language, you’re quite right. But in the everyday language of the streets – and this thread certainly has its “street fightin’” aspects! – I think it is valid to say this. Each new settlement, or each expansion of existing settlements, produces a new perceived problem in the eyes of the Palestinians (and, in fact, in the eyes of many neutrals.) Every perceived problem has to be covered in comprehensive negotiations. Each new settlement means negotiations (when and if such things ever even exist) are going to be just that much longer and more difficult.
The settlements are not specifically bellicose. They just add a new complication to the overall equation. (Which, as it is, Einstein, Hawking, and Penrose couldn’t solve on a chalkboard!)
ETA: in something of the same way, the Syrian Civil War is an obstacle to Israeli/Palestinian peace, simply by happening nearby! Even if Israel hadn’t gotten involved with air strikes, the existence of open hostilities in the region makes peace negotiations harder.
There is only one perceived problem, which is that Israel exists as a Jewish state.
That’s why there was no peace even before 1967 when there was not a single settlement.
If the settlements were a real problem (and not just something seized upon as an excuse to bash Israel), then the prospects for peace and the opinion of “neutrals” (lol) of Israel would have improved when Israel dismantled all of the Gaza settlements.
Of course none of that happened – the Arabs and the rest of the world have forgotten about the dismantling of the Gaza settlements. Just as the Arabs and the rest of the world would quickly forget if Israel returned to the situation it was in on June 1, 1967.
The settlements are an excuse, not a reason.
I don’t disagree with you on this, perhaps my choice of words could have been better. In my defense I was responding to them being referred to as an impediment to peace and brazil’s creative interpretation of history. As I said though, it is hard to imagine Camp David being successful and creating a lasting peace with the Sinai settlements remaining. They are, as you and I both recognize, an actual issue, not simply an excuse as brazil would like to believe.
It’s not semantic nitpicking, it’s you using words to mean things that they don’t actually mean. You’re doing it again by the way; ‘gave you the benefit of the doubt’ doesn’t mean ‘I didn’t recognize the sarcasm obvious to everyone else.’ There is no need to assume Japan hasn’t been occupied for the last half century or more because it hasn’t been. You are not using the word correctly, that is not a semantic nitpick.
If it’s not a semantic nitpick, then you should be able to explain how my argument is undermined if one assumes that your definition is correct.
So please do so. Let’s assume that Japan has NOT been occupied by anyone since the 1950s and that I was wrong in asserting that it was.
Please explain how this affects the substance of any argument I have made about Israel or a Palestinian State.