Why did Obama not veto the anti-Israel resolution?

[fromderinside]

Why should the US continue to support a policy which guarantees peace will not be possible in the lifetime of anyone currently breathing?

There are three plausible paths to peace.

1. The Israelis push all Palestinians into the Jordan River.

2. The Palestinians push all the Israelis into to the Mediterranean Sea.

3. The nations of Israel and Palestine exist beside each other as sovereign states.

Of the three choices, only the last is technically feasible, while being politically impossible. Those who favor options 1 or 2, are the reason option 3 cannot succeed.

.. and that's it in a nutshell.

Using nutcracker: Poster child of bipolar struggle. Will end when enough fuel produced outside ME to make it irrelevant. Now would be a good time to begin countdown.

 

[skepticalbip]

A lot of people in the US think Israel can do no wrong.

Agreed... especially the Jewish community. Many (most, all) Jewish communities would excommunicate a member for implying Israel ever did anything less than perfect.

Jews in the US overwhelmingly vote Democratic. This vote makes me wonder if it will result in them changing party loyalty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where's the Jewish terrorism in Europe????

Or are you saying that Muslims are subhumans that can't avoid responding to the provocation of the existence of Israel?

- - - Updated - - -

He is going full-left wing in the lame duck period - he stopped DAPL, he blocked Arctic drilling, he appointed Wesley Cook's lawyer for "civil rights" post (what a joke) and now he sold out our best ally in the Middle East to the UN wolves.
WTF?

Why should the US continue to support a policy which guarantees peace will not be possible in the lifetime of anyone currently breathing?

You mean the existence of Israel? Because that's what's actually preventing peace.

There are three plausible paths to peace.

1. The Israelis push all Palestinians into the Jordan River.

2. The Palestinians push all the Israelis into to the Mediterranean Sea.

3. The nations of Israel and Palestine exist beside each other as sovereign states.

Of the three choices, only the last is technically feasible, while being politically impossible. Those who favor options 1 or 2, are the reason option 3 cannot succeed.

The Palestinians will not accept #3. So long as there are billions in Islamist money being poured into the situation #3 is actually the least possible of these options.

And note that #1 will not bring peace, either--the Palestinians are the proxy troops of the Islamists but not the primary driver.

The only other route to peace would be for Israel to take out the Islamists. That would involve a lot of nuclear strikes, though, and would be the worst choice.

 

[RavenSky]

While the UN spends too much time on Israel, Israel is in the wrong here with the settlement expansion.

I don't see why one ally should support another ally in their wrongdoing.

A lot of people in the US think Israel can do no wrong.

Only when it suits them to say that... as in for purposes of bashing President Obama

 

[Bronzeage]

Where's the Jewish terrorism in Europe????

Or are you saying that Muslims are subhumans that can't avoid responding to the provocation of the existence of Israel?

- - - Updated - - -

He is going full-left wing in the lame duck period - he stopped DAPL, he blocked Arctic drilling, he appointed Wesley Cook's lawyer for "civil rights" post (what a joke) and now he sold out our best ally in the Middle East to the UN wolves.
WTF?

Why should the US continue to support a policy which guarantees peace will not be possible in the lifetime of anyone currently breathing?

You mean the existence of Israel? Because that's what's actually preventing peace.

There are three plausible paths to peace.

1. The Israelis push all Palestinians into the Jordan River.

2. The Palestinians push all the Israelis into to the Mediterranean Sea.

3. The nations of Israel and Palestine exist beside each other as sovereign states.

Of the three choices, only the last is technically feasible, while being politically impossible. Those who favor options 1 or 2, are the reason option 3 cannot succeed.

The Palestinians will not accept #3. So long as there are billions in Islamist money being poured into the situation #3 is actually the least possible of these options.

And note that #1 will not bring peace, either--the Palestinians are the proxy troops of the Islamists but not the primary driver.

The only other route to peace would be for Israel to take out the Islamists. That would involve a lot of nuclear strikes, though, and would be the worst choice.

Are you familiar with the geography of the Middle East? I have to admit, "thermonuclear war for peace" would make a great bumper sticker.

 

[iolo]

Why did Obama not veto the anti-Israel resolution?

Because he's a normal human being, not a Nazi. Heil Trump and Bugger Humanity!

 

[funinspace]

Where's the Jewish terrorism in Europe????

Or are you saying that Muslims are subhumans that can't avoid responding to the provocation of the existence of Israel?

- - - Updated - - -

He is going full-left wing in the lame duck period - he stopped DAPL, he blocked Arctic drilling, he appointed Wesley Cook's lawyer for "civil rights" post (what a joke) and now he sold out our best ally in the Middle East to the UN wolves.
WTF?

Why should the US continue to support a policy which guarantees peace will not be possible in the lifetime of anyone currently breathing?

You mean the existence of Israel? Because that's what's actually preventing peace.

There are three plausible paths to peace.

1. The Israelis push all Palestinians into the Jordan River.

2. The Palestinians push all the Israelis into to the Mediterranean Sea.

3. The nations of Israel and Palestine exist beside each other as sovereign states.

Of the three choices, only the last is technically feasible, while being politically impossible. Those who favor options 1 or 2, are the reason option 3 cannot succeed.

The Palestinians will not accept #3. So long as there are billions in Islamist money being poured into the situation #3 is actually the least possible of these options.

And note that #1 will not bring peace, either--the Palestinians are the proxy troops of the Islamists but not the primary driver.

The only other route to peace would be for Israel to take out the Islamists. That would involve a lot of nuclear strikes, though, and would be the worst choice.

Are you familiar with the geography of the Middle East? I have to admit, "thermonuclear war for peace" would make a great bumper sticker.

I dunno, about three 50-kilotons nuclear bombs distributed across East Jerusalem would certainly make things interesting

So what if they can't rebuild their temple for a century....or so.

 

[Bronzeage]

I dunno, about three 50-kilotons nuclear bombs distributed across East Jerusalem would certainly make things interesting

So what if they can't rebuild their temple for a century....or so.

The foundation of every extreme position is the belief that the other side is incapable of reason.

We can't have peace in the Middle East because the Palestinians like things the way they are now.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It will be interesting to see Kerry's peace proposal today. It might be the last chance for a long time as Trump is not going to work the middle!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where's the Jewish terrorism in Europe????

Or are you saying that Muslims are subhumans that can't avoid responding to the provocation of the existence of Israel?

- - - Updated - - -

He is going full-left wing in the lame duck period - he stopped DAPL, he blocked Arctic drilling, he appointed Wesley Cook's lawyer for "civil rights" post (what a joke) and now he sold out our best ally in the Middle East to the UN wolves.
WTF?

Why should the US continue to support a policy which guarantees peace will not be possible in the lifetime of anyone currently breathing?

You mean the existence of Israel? Because that's what's actually preventing peace.

There are three plausible paths to peace.

1. The Israelis push all Palestinians into the Jordan River.

2. The Palestinians push all the Israelis into to the Mediterranean Sea.

3. The nations of Israel and Palestine exist beside each other as sovereign states.

Of the three choices, only the last is technically feasible, while being politically impossible. Those who favor options 1 or 2, are the reason option 3 cannot succeed.

The Palestinians will not accept #3. So long as there are billions in Islamist money being poured into the situation #3 is actually the least possible of these options.

And note that #1 will not bring peace, either--the Palestinians are the proxy troops of the Islamists but not the primary driver.

The only other route to peace would be for Israel to take out the Islamists. That would involve a lot of nuclear strikes, though, and would be the worst choice.

Are you familiar with the geography of the Middle East? I have to admit, "thermonuclear war for peace" would make a great bumper sticker.

I'm talking about places like Qom, Riyadh and Doha, not every city over there. It's the people providing the money that matter, not the rank and file.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm talking about places like Qom, Riyadh and Doha, not every city over there. It's the people providing the money that matter, not the rank and file.

Just so we are clear on this, you think that dropping a nuclear bomb on Riyadh, a city of 6.5 million people, would lead Israel to a safe and peaceful future.

How does this work? After the smoke has cleared, do the survivors brush themselves off and say, "Well, we certainly deserved that, after helping the Palestinians. We won't make that mistake again."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm talking about places like Qom, Riyadh and Doha, not every city over there. It's the people providing the money that matter, not the rank and file.

Just so we are clear on this, you think that dropping a nuclear bomb on Riyadh, a city of 6.5 million people, would lead Israel to a safe and peaceful future.

How does this work? After the smoke has cleared, do the survivors brush themselves off and say, "Well, we certainly deserved that, after helping the Palestinians. We won't make that mistake again."

The people sending billions to continue the war would be gone and any future governments who considered it would be very reluctant to do so. With the money no longer throwing gas on the fire it would in time die down.

 

[Ford]

Just so we are clear on this, you think that dropping a nuclear bomb on Riyadh, a city of 6.5 million people, would lead Israel to a safe and peaceful future.

How does this work? After the smoke has cleared, do the survivors brush themselves off and say, "Well, we certainly deserved that, after helping the Palestinians. We won't make that mistake again."

The people sending billions to continue the war would be gone and any future governments who considered it would be very reluctant to do so. With the money no longer throwing gas on the fire it would in time die down.

Just so we're clear on this, you think that dropping a nuclear bomb on Riyadh - a city of 6.5 million people - is okay so long as it leads to Israel having a safe and peaceful future.

 

[laughing dog]

The people sending billions to continue the war would be gone and any future governments who considered it would be very reluctant to do so. With the money no longer throwing gas on the fire it would in time die down.

Just so we're clear on this, you think that dropping a nuclear bomb on Riyadh - a city of 6.5 million people - is okay so long as it leads to Israel having a safe and peaceful future.

All it would do is make the "islamists" redouble their efforts to get a nuclear weapon. And after they got it, they would have a justification to use it.

 

[Bronzeage]

Just so we are clear on this, you think that dropping a nuclear bomb on Riyadh, a city of 6.5 million people, would lead Israel to a safe and peaceful future.

How does this work? After the smoke has cleared, do the survivors brush themselves off and say, "Well, we certainly deserved that, after helping the Palestinians. We won't make that mistake again."

The people sending billions to continue the war would be gone and any future governments who considered it would be very reluctant to do so. With the money no longer throwing gas on the fire it would in time die down.

I'm still not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying you would kill 6.5 million people to insure the safety and security of Israel? What would you do if the people who send the money were out of town when you dropped the bomb?

 

[repoman]

A bit of a tangent, but an alt-right twitter user said:

Israel existing as an ethnostate ups our chances of an ethnostate, but at some point you have to say: these people are sick

funny, funny stuff...

another:

I'm pro-Israel, and want all Jews to move there.

you are aware that these Palestinians and the UN hate white people only a little less than they hate jews right?

The left is throwing Israel under the bus for being an ethnic state.

(this may be partially true)

White Nationalists can make a hard break with skinheads and answer the JQ with ethnonationalism for ALL peoples. For now

Israeli ethnonationalism is the thin edge of the white nationalist wedge. Think of who loves Israel in the US - tactics!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The people sending billions to continue the war would be gone and any future governments who considered it would be very reluctant to do so. With the money no longer throwing gas on the fire it would in time die down.

I'm still not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying you would kill 6.5 million people to insure the safety and security of Israel? What would you do if the people who send the money were out of town when you dropped the bomb?

To say nothing of the fact that killing the people who control the money won't magically make the money disappear. There are ALOT of people with a LOT of different agendas in and connected to the Saudi Royal Family; somebody is going to inherit that money eventually and they'll have their own ideas with how to spend it.

Considering you killed their predecessors in a nuclear attack, it wouldn't be hard to guess how they'd choose to spend it either.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm still not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying you would kill 6.5 million people to insure the safety and security of Israel? What would you do if the people who send the money were out of town when you dropped the bomb?

To say nothing of the fact that killing the people who control the money won't magically make the money disappear. There are ALOT of people with a LOT of different agendas in and connected to the Saudi Royal Family; somebody is going to inherit that money eventually and they'll have their own ideas with how to spend it.

Considering you killed their predecessors in a nuclear attack, it wouldn't be hard to guess how they'd choose to spend it either.

When the only tool you own is a nuclear bomb, every problem looks like ground zero.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It will be interesting to see Kerry's peace proposal today. It might be the last chance for a long time as Trump is not going to work the middle!

What peace proposal. Israel is continuing to unilaterally build dozens of settlements in Palestinian territory to make a 2 state solution impossible. The longer the 'peace proposal' takes the more time it has to build settlements.

 

[iolo]

It will be interesting to see Kerry's peace proposal today. It might be the last chance for a long time as Trump is not going to work the middle!

What peace proposal. Israel is continuing to unilaterally build dozens of settlements in Palestinian territory to make a 2 state solution impossible. The longer the 'peace proposal' takes the more time it has to build settlements.

The two-state solution was destroyed years since, and was only ever adapted to give the Zionists time to work for death camps. The only conceivable answer is a non-racist, not-religious state of Call-it-What-you Like, and the trial of Netemyahu and the other war criminals. They will other wise set off the Final Solution of the Palestinian Question as soon as Trump is well settled in, if he ever is.