Gaza - Some Good News

yosi

Why am I surprised when complexity goes right over your head?

No, what I said is that there are a number of reasons that you get 156 countries voting the way they do. It could be bias, it could be oil concerns, it could be a host of other political or diplomatic concerns, it could a well intentioned vote premised on a false or partial understanding of the issues at stake. It is simple-minded to look at a result and to start making inferences without trying to understand the process by which that result was reached. It is equally simple-minded to assume that simply because a majority has made a decision that the decision is the right one.

yosi

I have a solution to their plight right now. Let them out of the refugee camps and allow them to become citizens with equal rights in the countries they live in. If, after the refugee question is settled between Israel and the Palestinians, they then decide they would like to move, they would be free to do so.

As an aside, I find UNRWA to be repugnant. It amounts to the world facilitating the cynical and immoral exploitation of the refugees for political ends. These people should have been treated as all the other millions of refugees in the late 1940's were. They should have been taken in assimilated by the countries to which they fled. Instead they have languished in horrid refugee camps for 60 years. Israel is not the one keeping these people in the camps. Think about that. People have been forced to live in refugee camps for 60 years in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, legally barred from acquiring citizenship and civil rights. And rather than demanding that these people be treated fairly by the countries hosting them the UN has taken on the responsibility of sustaining this situation in perpetuity. Certainly the UNRWA does good work, but they shouldn't have to be doing such work in the first place.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Why am I surprised when complexity goes right over your head?

No, what I said is that there are a number of reasons that you get 156 countries voting the way they do. It could be bias, it could be oil concerns, it could be a host of other political or diplomatic concerns, it could a well intentioned vote premised on a false or partial understanding of the issues at stake. It is simple-minded to look at a result and to start making inferences without trying to understand the process by which that result was reached. It is equally simple-minded to assume that simply because a majority has made a decision that the decision is the right one.

There's nothing complex about it at all.

156 countries consulted the evidence available, consulted the law as it pertained to the case at hand, and then voted accordingly.
And I would say that 156-6 is a pretty unanimous verdict, whatever way you look at it.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

As an aside, I find UNRWA to be repugnant. It amounts to the world facilitating the cynical and immoral exploitation of the refugees for political ends. These people should have been treated as all the other millions of refugees in the late 1940's were. They should have been taken in assimilated by the countries to which they fled. Instead they have languished in horrid refugee camps for 60 years. Israel is not the one keeping these people in the camps. Think about that. People have been forced to live in refugee camps for 60 years in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, legally barred from acquiring citizenship and civil rights. And rather than demanding that these people be treated fairly by the countries hosting them the UN has taken on the responsibility of sustaining this situation in perpetuity. Certainly the UNRWA does good work, but they shouldn't have to be doing such work in the first place.

I can see how it would suit you if the Palestinian refugees were brushed under the carpet of history.

In the meantime, maybe you can explain who is forcing 194,514 Palestinians to live in 19 refugee camps in the West Bank, and who is forcing 478,854 Palestinians to live in eight refugee camps in the Gaza Strip?

polaris_x

yosi wrote:

Why am I surprised when complexity goes right over your head?

No, what I said is that there are a number of reasons that you get 156 countries voting the way they do. It could be bias, it could be oil concerns, it could be a host of other political or diplomatic concerns, it could a well intentioned vote premised on a false or partial understanding of the issues at stake. It is simple-minded to look at a result and to start making inferences without trying to understand the process by which that result was reached. It is equally simple-minded to assume that simply because a majority has made a decision that the decision is the right one.

yosi - i respect the fact that you have come on a predominantly hostile board to try and shed a perspective that we may not necessarily see ...

but in reading many of your posts - i think you need to take a step outside your jewish ancestry and upbringing and try and view this situation as another human being on this planet ... i liken some of your responses to others on this board when their native country is being attacked ... it's often defensive in nature and rooted in some rationalization ... this one is a clear example ... you didn't like the result of the vote so therefore your response is to cite hypotheticals that have no foundation ... the majority of those countries could care less about oil and political allies ... is it possible that you are the simple-minded one in not interpreting an overwhelming majority vote the way others do?

in any case - sometimes we need to view situations from a different perspective to truly grasp the context

Byrnzie

Has everyone here seen the documentary 'Occupation 101'?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 811690589#

yosi

Polaris, thank you for your understanding. I had pretty much given up on these threads ever being a forum for respectful disagreement.

Yes, it is possible that my interpretation is wrong in this case. I don't think I'm all-knowing, so certainly, it is always possible that I'm wrong. That said, I don't believe that in this instance I am.

Why would Israel vote against such a resolution? Byrnzie would say it is because they don't really want peace. I would say that it is because despite the resolution's title, from Israel's perspective the content of the resolution is problematic, especially so for the peace process. If Byrnzie's presentation of the resolution is correct then I would imagine that Israel has an issue with the acceptance of the Palestinian "right of return," which amounts to the Palestinians making a claim to sovereign Israel. As I've explained elsewhere, the right of return is a non-starter for Israel. Regardless of what one thinks about this, it is the reality, and if there is ever going to be peace the Palestinians will have to compromise on this issue. Now, Israel knows this, but does Switzerland? Or Norway? Or Peru, Kenya, or Bangladesh? Leaving aside the countries that actually are biased (and I think everyone can agree that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc have a bias against Israel), and the issues of politics and diplomacy, which I think it would be naive to ignore, I don't think it is at all implausible that many countries, meaning well, would vote for a resolution for "the peaceful settlement of the conflict" without really understanding all the implications of what they are voting for.

No one here believes that I care about peace, but let me put it to you this way. My best friend, Ben, is now serving in the IDF, in the tank core. My cousins, Ben and Eitan, are both in elite special forces units, units that would be called on first and deployed in the most dangerous situations in any conflict. Even if you don't believe that I care about the Palestinians simply because I'm not a heartless human being, believe that I don't want to see my friends and family get killed, or have to kill other people. I want peace here more than anything, which is why I won't pretend that the reality here is anything other than what it is.

polaris_x

israel votes against every resolution against it - period. should not be a surprise to anyone nor is it problematic. you may find that in some instances, the resolutions are more problematic to the israeli cause than others but for the most part - they generally are resolutions that talk about the building of walls, the annexation of land, the treatment of palestinians, etc ... so, regardless of whether you may or may not be correct in a particular instance is secondary to the overall context ...

the rest of the world votes against israel for the most part because they are simply committing acts that goes against the values of most of the world ...

you can look at all the complexities and nuances that exists in this topic all you want ... but how does a nation who claims to want peace continue to illegally occupy lands, expand further without right, withold basic necessities to people? ...