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.

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?

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?

Obama's Hanukkah present to Israel.

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.

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.

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

The only time Presidents feel safe to do this sort of thing in when they are the lamest of ducks. But, it's better than nothing I guess. Good job Obama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very craven. If as his parting shot at Israel, Obama wanted to knife it in the back, at least he should have had the courage of his convictions and voted in favor of the resolution, making it unanimous. Abstaining while knowing the abstention will permit the resolution to pass is pure cowardice.

Agree. Cowardice is an appropriate word.

plus 1

Anonymous wrote:Very craven. If as his parting shot at Israel, Obama wanted to knife it in the back, at least he should have had the courage of his convictions and voted in favor of the resolution, making it unanimous. Abstaining while knowing the abstention will permit the resolution to pass is pure cowardice.

Agree. Cowardice is an appropriate word.

Very craven. If as his parting shot at Israel, Obama wanted to knife it in the back, at least he should have had the courage of his convictions and voted in favor of the resolution, making it unanimous. Abstaining while knowing the abstention will permit the resolution to pass is pure cowardice.

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

Meh, the settlements have been illegal for a while now. Bibi knows that, yet has never been serious about dismantling them. It's all pretty gross.

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

Wow, it's a new day. Up is down and down is sideways.

A lot of isolationist Trump supporters will applaud this.

zionists and aipac triggered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-settlements-un-vote.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

It passed 14 votes in favor, with the United States abstaining.