US declines to veto UN resolution on Israeli settlements...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Good job Obama"? How does abstaining serve the U.S.'s national interests in any way?

How does vetoing it serve the U.S.'s national interests? Israel is a net drain on our international reputation and clout.

You didn't answer the question. Which is, how does "abstaining" serve our interests? If you believe what you just said, Obama should have voted in favor of it, not abstained. All abstaining does is make the U.S. look like an unprincipled back-stabber who can't be counted on to back up a supposed ally when the going gets rough.

What's the "rough going" in this situation? Israel isn't being invaded. They have their domestic security situation handled well. We provide them with a massive amount of financial aid, new weaponry, and intel. They're solid.

If anything, new settlements are a stab to the back of Americans just so Bibi can please the extremist geopolitical nihilists in his coalition. 'Eff them - they don't share American interests.

When will Bibi stop stabbing Obama's back?

Just a guess, but probably when his presidency ends?

PP here:
Heh, I LOL'd

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Good job Obama"? How does abstaining serve the U.S.'s national interests in any way?

It serves US interests by showing that we support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. If Israel continues to steal all the Palestinian land, there won't be room for a Palestinian state. Israel is then left with two options: forceful expulsion of the Palestinians or Apartheid. Some would argue that Israel has already chosen Apartheid.

As the vote shows, there is no international support for Israeli settlements. Even in the US there is not much support. It serves US interests not to be isolated from world opinion, especially at a time when we are attempting to argue against foreign occupations by Russia.

why didn't o tell power to join the rest of the council in voting 'yes'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Good job Obama"? How does abstaining serve the U.S.'s national interests in any way?

It serves US interests by showing that we support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. If Israel continues to steal all the Palestinian land, there won't be room for a Palestinian state. Israel is then left with two options: forceful expulsion of the Palestinians or Apartheid. Some would argue that Israel has already chosen Apartheid.

As the vote shows, there is no international support for Israeli settlements. Even in the US there is not much support. It serves US interests not to be isolated from world opinion, especially at a time when we are attempting to argue against foreign occupations by Russia.

why didn't o tell power to join the rest of the council in voting 'yes'

Because perhaps we don't support a "YES"?

When you're one of the 5 permanent members, a "YES" votes carries different connotations than an "ABSTAIN." But this is diplomacy, so perhaps you don't understand the nuance.

[Anonymous]

Looks like the neocons are now moving toward Trump. There's a shocker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pitiful. And shameful.
Yet another black mark on Obama’s horrible legacy.

Illegal is illegal. Some of these settlements will probably be declared illegal in Israeli court.

[Anonymous]

This foreign policy team--Kerry, Powers, Rhodes--are really top flight. It was even better with Psaki.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Good job Obama"? How does abstaining serve the U.S.'s national interests in any way?

It serves US interests by showing that we support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. If Israel continues to steal all the Palestinian land, there won't be room for a Palestinian state. Israel is then left with two options: forceful expulsion of the Palestinians or Apartheid. Some would argue that Israel has already chosen Apartheid.

As the vote shows, there is no international support for Israeli settlements. Even in the US there is not much support. It serves US interests not to be isolated from world opinion, especially at a time when we are attempting to argue against foreign occupations by Russia.

why didn't o tell power to join the rest of the council in voting 'yes'

A "yes" would have been even better, but you take what you can get.

[Anonymous]

Obama is a coward. He started his career as a state senator with his 100 plus "present" votes (which had the effect of a yes vote), and now he ends it with his most famous non-vote (which also has the effect of a yes vote). This non-action was petty and personal.

[Anonymous]

The policy under Trump is about to shift away from the two state solution. The meaning of this is not really clear. Is Obama staking out a position for the Dems or is it a passing shot by Obama at Bibi?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The policy under Trump is about to shift away from the two state solution. The meaning of this is not really clear. Is Obama staking out a position for the Dems or is it a passing shot by Obama at Bibi?

One mistake Americans often make is to look at foreign policy purely in domestic policy terms. Don't lose sight of the fact that there is now a UN resolution that says that Israel's settlements have no legal justification. This likely opens legal avenues for the Palestinians. Of course Israel will ignore any such thing completely, but it may be useful in getting other countries to take harder line positions. The focus now is on BDS and this ruling will certainly help strengthen that movement (not necessarily in the US but elsewhere).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Good job Obama"? How does abstaining serve the U.S.'s national interests in any way?

How does vetoing it serve the U.S.'s national interests? Israel is a net drain on our international reputation and clout.

Agreed, I am so glad this happened. I support Israel but the settlements are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The policy under Trump is about to shift away from the two state solution. The meaning of this is not really clear. Is Obama staking out a position for the Dems or is it a passing shot by Obama at Bibi?

The two state solution is not a matter of American policy. The UN resolution is a fixed statement by the international community that Trump is unable to change.

[Anonymous]

Why does the US pay 1/5 of UN budget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does the US pay 1/5 of UN budget?

If you are asking the number, it is based on GDP and other economic factors that determine ability to pay.

If you are asking why we bother, I guess you would have to ask why we seek its backing on so many international issues, from peacekeeping to sanctions to support for the first Gulf War to the final ultimatum leading up to the second gulf war. When we have the UN behind us, we have legitimacy that does not come from going our own way. If we didn't believe in it, we wouldn't be citing UN resolutions so often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The policy under Trump is about to shift away from the two state solution. The meaning of this is not really clear. Is Obama staking out a position for the Dems or is it a passing shot by Obama at Bibi?

It is bit of both. Obama has shown himself to be petty and vindictive at times. At the same time, this was a policy decision. The settlements are illegal and Netanyahu crossed the line by stubbornly ignoring strong suggestions to stop.