Do you support Donald Trump's decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem?

Do you support Donald Trump's decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Closed
May 2017
1,201
Syria
#61
When did the territorial integrity norm become well-established?
Although the 1945 UN charter affirmed states' obligation not to use force to alter boundaries it wasn't until the 1950s and 1960s that we saw major examples of this norm being applied and respected, such as in 1957 when the Organization of American States (OAS) pressured Nicaragua to withdraw from occupied areas in Honduras and persuaded the two states to submit their dispute to the international court of justice, or in 1958 when the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the Arab League pressured Egypt to withdraw from areas it occupied in northern Sudan, or in 1963 when Morocco was pressured by the OAU and Arab League to withdraw from regions it occupied in Algeria, or in 1965 when the OAU pressured Ghana to withdraw from areas it occupied from the Upper Volta.

After all, I seem to recall that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was not internationally recognized even though it occurred at the same time that Israel's expansion did. Was it because Jordan was on the aggressors' side in this war?
Jordan was on the aggressors' side fighting the independence of a country which got the support of all the world's great powers at the time (the US, France, the UK, and the USSR).
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,363
#62
Jordan was on the aggressors' side fighting the independence of a country which got the support of all the world's great powers at the time (the US, France, the UK, and the USSR).
In 1948 Jordan did NOT invade Israel. It's focres with strict orders were operating entirely within the borders of the proposed Arab state. With the full approval before had of the British. The Arab Legion basically the Jordanian army was commanded in senior positions by British Army officers on secondment, and Birtian was the pretty much teh soles arms provider. Jordan was basically an British puppet state. British officers were dismissed in 1956.

Israel was certaibly not getting the support of the UK who were pretty darn miffed by the terrosist campaign waged by Zionists against Brtiish Forces in the Mandate of Palestine.,a s well as the assassination of Lord Moyne, and letterbomb campaigns in Britain. Britain abstained on the vote for partition, 33 for, 13 against 10 Abstentions including the UK.

there was quite a deal of arm twisting for the vote.

"President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me.""

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

Any characterization of the UK supporting Israel is wrong and it certainly supported Jordan.

The Jordanian-Israeli conflict in 1948 was over who was going to annex what parts of the proposed Arab state.
 
Likes: JaddHaidar
May 2015
1,055
The Netherlands
#63
It can't be Resolution 47 since that resolution pertains to Kashmir:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 - Wikipedia.
My bad, something must have gone wrong in the editing process. This should of course be United Nations Security Council Resolution 478.

Israel has actually been pretty mild in its settlement enterprise in recent years. I seem to recall only one new Israeli settlement (at least of any meaningful size) being built over the last 20 years--specifically Givat Hamatos. Before that, the last new Israeli settlement was Har Homa (built in 1997), if I remember correctly.

Of course, this doesn't approve what Israel is doing, but some context is nice.
Surely you're not that naive? New housing units for settlement expansion are approved constantly and under the Obama presidency alone the Israeli settler population in the West Bank - excluding East Jerusalem - grew by more than 25%. If you like context, I can give you some. New Israeli settlements are still popping up all over the West Bank. They just don't call them settlements anymore, but give them a different name. By calling them 'outposts' instead of 'settlements', Israel can maintain a characade to the outside world that it's not further escalating its colonial enterprise. In addition to some 150 Israeli settlements, there are now also over a 100 Israeli outposts, half of which have been created since 2000. Although the outposts are illegal under international law AND Israeli law, most of them are willingly condoned by the Israeli government. They simply exist, expanding and creating facts on the ground, and in many cases even receive basic services provided by Israeli companies in violation of Israeli law. The current Israeli government has begun to retroactively legalize some of these illegal outposts by calling them 'neighbourhoods' of existing settlements, even if they're miles away from them. It is expected that one third of the outposts have or will eventually be legalized. Currently, there are even plans to legalize all of the outposts as a result of the unreserved pro-Israeli stance of the Trump Administration.

BTW, a Palestinian state is still going to be viable as long as Israel doesn't engage in mass settlement beyond the West Bank barrier:

This map is misleading and does not show the full extent of Israeli encroachment: built-up areas of settlements, settler-roads and all the administrative schemes designed by Israel to deprive Palestinian access to large part of the West Bank. Israel is currently in the process of permanently cutting up the West Bank in three or more parts, thereby rendering a viable Palestinian state impossible for good. Also, the route of the barrier is not fixed, but changes to accommodate a constantly changing reality in the West Bank.

A more accurate map would be this:



There are better and more accurate to show the full extent of Israeli encroachment on the Palestinians, such as this one, but they're too large and detailed to include here.
 
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#65
According to the UN security council resolution 2334:
"The establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace "

As has been said before, the fact that Jerusalem, the designated Israeli capital, partially consists of Palestinian territory, the occupation of which has no "legal validity" and is a "flagrant violation" according to the united nations says more than needs to be said on the subject.
That is, if you accept resolutions of the United Nations' General Assembly as the determinant of what is right and wrong. I don't.

And I don't accept as a general principle that the losers in a war should be entitled to recoup lost territory.
 
May 2017
1,201
Syria
#67
That is, if you accept resolutions of the United Nations' General Assembly as the determinant of what is right and wrong. I don't.
Odd that now United Nations resolutions are being ignored and rejected when it was just another United Nations resolution that partitioned Palestine and said that Israel could exist in the first place. Really makes you think doesn't it?
 
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#68
Odd that now United Nations resolutions are being discarded and rejected when it was just another United Nations resolution that partitioned British controlled Palestine and said that Israel could exist in the first place. Really makes you think doesn't it?
No. The original resolution gave Israel a right to exist. The later ones have tried to take away Israel's right to defend itself, that is, to continue to exist.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#69
P
if UN resolutions has no authority over Isarel, then Isarel should not exist in the first place. it was just another UN resolution which said Israel could be founded.

one should make the choice to accept whether UN resolutions on Isarel is to be accepted.

after all, if one is not happy with UN, one should just quit UN.
maybe that is the reason US decided to not pay the 2018 club fee of UN even as late as Oct. 2018?
Contributions received for 2017 for the UN Regular Budget - Committee on Contributions - UN General Assembly

in that case, US should also quit UNSC and all other UN organizations.
US shall not make any voice on how UN should be u like the yanaged in that case, too.
i don't argue with you whether china[/QUOTEl
Odd that now United Nations resolutions are being ignored and rejected when it was just another United Nations resolution that partitioned Palestine and said that Israel could exist in the first place. Really makes you think doesn't it?
Turkey has ignored the UN Resolutions on Cyprus. UN Resolutions are often ignored, but it is only againsyvIsrael that you and others want it enforced.
 
May 2017
1,201
Syria
#70
Turkey has ignored the UN Resolutions on Cyprus. UN Resolutions are often ignored, but it is only against Israel that you and others want it enforced.
This is either you displaying your psychic mind-reading abilities or attempting to poison the well - only two possible explanations on why you're confidently asserting that "me and others" only want UN resolutions on Israel imposed giving the UN resolution on Cyprus as an example when I, for my entire stay on the forum, never even mentioned Cyprus, the Turkish invasion of Cyrpus, the UN security council resolution 541 or simply any UN resolutions other than ones related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Until now of course. 🤦
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed