UN Israeli Settlements Vote and the Chinese islands

Roadtoad

Is America drawing a clear line under Israeli settlements so they can stand up to the Chinese island-building? (by facilitating the UN Resolution)
Except nothing is clear in America presently, matching Israeli and Chinese diplomacy.

Mr.Micro

There is a hiatus IMO at the moment until Trump takes office. I say good luck with any future Middle East policy. How does one deal with a nation that does not recognise international law, the UN on most occasions, the non proliferation treaty etc.? It throws it's rattle from its pram when it does not get its own way. Trump will have his hands full with the Chinese build up in the Pacific, the Middle East, creating all those new jobs, making America great again, and all those other promises he made.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Hi Op, I've changed the name of the thread to make it clearer what you are asking.

Roadtoad wrote: »

Is America drawing a clear line under Israeli settlements so they can stand up to the Chinese island-building? (by facilitating the UN Resolution)

Is there any evidence in relation to this? America did no more than abstain from voting or vetoing a Security Council vote on Israel. The official position of the US was, up to then, to veto resolutions on Israel, not because US foreign policy supports the settlements (which it doesn't), but out of the belief that this is something that should be negotiated between Israel and Palestine.

China, while I know little about the issue you identify, appears to be seeking to expand it's territorial waters and military reach by making improvements on uninhabited or lowly inhabited islands in the South China Sea.

If you wish to start a thread about a connection between these two issues of international relations/law/politics, you will need to demonstrate how they could possibly be connected, by links or by coherent logical argument or, preferably, by both.

Simply asking the question, without any context, is not sufficient for a thread opener in this forum.

Except nothing is clear in America presently, matching Israeli and Chinese diplomacy.

Again, you need to be careful about these generalisations. One could argue that the US/Israel position is clear - the US Obama administration has signalled that it is no longer prepared to unilaterally back Israel. But another person could argue that it is because there are no ongoing talks and the US believe it will bring Israel back to the table. You will need to set out your views in relation to this.

President Elect Trump's position, I agree, is less clear. Is the motiviation a demonstration of unilateral support for Israel, a genuine belief that the leave it to negoitations strategy is the best approach, a bit of both, Trump simply trying to undermine Obama or perhaps something entirely different?

So to start a thread on this topic you might set out what you believe the position is. It doesn't have to be accepted by everyone else, it just has to be a valid, non-conspiracy theory logical position on it.

recedite

Mr.Micro wrote: »

How does one deal with a nation that does not recognise international law, the UN on most occasions, the non proliferation treaty etc.?

Are you referring to the USA, Israel or China there?
I think Ireland is the only country that respects the UN as an institution
The big players try to use it to endorse their own policies, and to veto those of their opponents. Most of the smaller players have no real interest in it except to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

recedite

Roadtoad wrote: »

Is America drawing a clear line under Israeli settlements.

No that's just Obama throwing a spanner in the works before the new chief takes over. He had all these years to pull a stunt like that, and he waits until his last few weeks in office.
All that talk about making "a smooth transition" easy for Trump was just BS.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

All that talk about making "a smooth transition" easy for Trump was just BS.

I reckon it was actually sincere, right up to the point where Trump decided to start pretending he was already in office. At that point, the Obama administration realised that a smooth transition to a clusterf*ck-in-waiting was a contradiction in terms, and decided not to bother pandering to an egomaniac and his cohort.

Overheal

It's being spun as a slap in the face to Israel and all the usual US-based slant on Israel/Palestine. It really isn't remarkably relevant though in the scheme of the next four years. Trump was going to have to deal with the Middle East anyway, etc.

AbusesToilets

2 State solution is a non-flyer anyway for a host of reasons. Pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing. Another pat on the back moment for countries that could care less about the problem.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

2 State solution is a non-flyer anyway for a host of reasons. Pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing. Another pat on the back moment for countries that could care less about the problem.

The solution is a single israeli state then ? The palestinians probably won't go for that.

Rightwing

Mr.Micro wrote: »

There is a hiatus IMO at the moment until Trump takes office. I say good luck with any future Middle East policy. How does one deal with a nation that does not recognise international law, the UN on most occasions, the non proliferation treaty etc.? It throws it's rattle from its pram when it does not get its own way. Trump will have his hands full with the Chinese build up in the Pacific, the Middle East, creating all those new jobs, making America great again, and all those other promises he made.

You start bu cutting their military aid, not increasing it to a record amount. Nice one Obama.

GreenFolder2

recedite wrote: »

Are you referring to the USA, Israel or China there?
I think Ireland is the only country that respects the UN as an institution
The big players try to use it to endorse their own policies, and to veto those of their opponents. Most of the smaller players have no real interest in it except to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

Yeah, sure we do!

We absolutey ignored them on our total lack of opening access to public education on an equal basis for all citizens and residents.

http://www.thejournal.ie/uncrc-report-ireland-2585139-Feb2016/

Ireland gets criticised by the UN on a few issues fairly regularly and we just send someone off to defend some indefensible policy and tell them we are working on it and the subcommittee on committee formation is drawing up a report on the terms of reference for a report and more or less completely ignore them.

realitykeeper

Roadtoad wrote: »

Is America drawing a clear line under Israeli settlements so they can stand up to the Chinese island-building? (by facilitating the UN Resolution)
Except nothing is clear in America presently, matching Israeli and Chinese diplomacy.

I think the Obama administration may have opened a Pandora`s box in abstaining. This is because the Trump administration will find itself opposing the UN on this issue. I would hope the US and Russia can repair the damage caused by the Obama administration but it will not help if they cannot agree on the issue of Israeli settlements. Trump has already pledged 34 billion to Israel expressly for the purpose of military equipment so it will be difficult for the UN if it is serious about ganging up on Israel.

As for China, perhaps that was the backroom deal the Obama team struck in return for abstaining on the Israel vote.

Kitsunegari

AbusesToilets wrote: »

2 State solution is a non-flyer anyway for a host of reasons. Pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing. Another pat on the back moment for countries that could care less about the problem.

Why is a two state solution a 'non-flyer'?

Itssoeasy

I know I posted something earlier but is any other poster hesitant to post stuff that isn't pro Israel for fear ormolu being called anti Semitic ? I feel you can be anti Israeli and not be anti Semitic.

InTheTrees

Trump has said he will move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Thats a pretty clear message that the "two state" solution isnt a goal anymore.

AbusesToilets

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Why is a two state solution a 'non-flyer'?

Israel will never go for it for one. It will never relinquish the territory that it has now.

Any possible Palestinian state would struggle to be viable and survive on its own. What resources would it have going for itself, what would form the base for its economy? It would likely become even more of a charity dependent entity than it already is.

Amerika

I don’t think the Palestinians will accept a two-state solution in the foreseeable future. Israel has repeatedly accepted and offered a two-state solution, but was always rejected. Abbas rejected the latest two-state peace plan with Israel in 2008 that would have given him nearly all the land the Palestinians wanted. It often seems that it’s death to Israel or nothing for the Palestinians.

FA Hayek

'The Arabs/Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity'

johnnyskeleton

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t think the Palestinians will accept a two-state solution in the foreseeable future. Israel has repeatedly accepted and offered a two-state solution, but was always rejected. Abbas rejected the latest two-state peace plan with Israel in 2008 that would have given him nearly all the land the Palestinians wanted. It often seems that it’s death to Israel or nothing for the Palestinians.

Can you provide a source for statements like this please?

Amerika

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Can you provide a source for statements like this please?

Yes, I can, and will...

http://www.voanews.com/a/abbas-admits-rejecting-peace-plan-israel/3064595.html
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=83&x_article=2116
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=449

recedite

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t think the Palestinians will accept a two-state solution in the foreseeable future.

Check out the map. All those little blue areas annexed to Israel. A border like that would always be subject to instabilty and violence. It makes the N. Ireland border look simplistic by comparison.
I don't believe a two state solution could ever lead to peace. It will have to be re-integration, eventually. Both sides need to form a single secular state, and forget about each having their own religious state.

fly_agaric

recedite wrote: »

Check out the map. All those little blue areas annexed to Israel. A border like that would always be subject to instabilty and violence. It makes the N. Ireland border look simplistic by comparison.
I don't believe a two state solution could ever lead to peace. It will have to be re-integration, eventually. Both sides need to form a single secular state, and forget about each having their own religious state.

I dunno, I don't think the Israelis have ever been quite so jaundiced about "peace" as they seem to be right now & have also never had someone like Trump in the Whitehouse+kinds of people he's going to put into positions of power in the US govt.
It looks like they are going to get green light for whatever policies they want for at least 4 years. They got a fairly free hand under Bush II (who was no Trump), and built their great wall/fence and launched 2 wars. I'd say "ethnic cleansing" to help solve the problem and improve Israel's demographics as a "Jewish state" could happen now and the US would do nothing to stop it. More ME refugees for Germany...I'm very pessimistic about the situation (hopefully unduly so).

recedite

No doubt that the Palestinian Arabs will have a harder time over the next few years. But I think the modus operandi of the Jewish State operates over a much longer timescale, and cannot really take advantage of short term changes.
It relies on consistent harassment and discrimination against one native ethnic group, encouraging them to emigrate. While slowly building new settlements for a plantation group of immigrant settlers.
Its more of a slime mould attack than a blitzkrieg.
But apparently the slime mould "is a colonial creature that performs an essential service on the forest floor"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY_uMH8Xpy0