Stones of granite wrote:
You're just displaying willful ignorance now.
You're either a Moscow shill or an idiot.
Of course, the most obvious answer to the question: "What territories is Russia occupying questionably or otherwise?" is the part of Ukraine known as Crimea. I'm sure you'll be right along in your own time with another incisive comment that avoids discussing the reality. Either that or whatever Moscow Central's latest is.
Crimea is part of Russia. It isn't occupied.
The change occurred due to the violent US coup in Ukraine, by popular choice.
Now that really is comedy gold.
It happens to be the reality.
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:51 pm
by rowan
Incidentally today is the sixty-eight anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre committed by the Ergun and Stern Zionist terrorist organizations in 1948, killing up to 360 Palestinians in cold blood.
"They took us out one after the other; shot an old man and when one of his daughters cried, she was shot too. Then they called my brother Muhammad, and shot him in front [of] us, and when my mother yelled, bending over him - carrying my little sister Hudra in her hands, still breastfeeding her - they shot her too." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine)
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:35 pm
by rowan
The United Nations Security Council held a special meeting last week to discuss Israeli settlement construction and expansion in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem. An entire system within the Israeli government is dedicated to this practice, and the number of illegal settlers had grown markedly over the past 20 years. Between 2009 and 2015 alone PM Benjamin Netanyahu allowed for 11,000 new homes in contravention with international law. In total there are more than half a million illegal settlers living on hundreds of settlements in what is legally regarded as Palestinian land.
FIFA has also been facing pressure to ban Israel owing to the existence of six football clubs in the illegal settlements of occupied Palestine. A Human Rights Watch petition has collected 150,000 signiatures, as well as an open letter from dozens of European politicians, calling on FIFA to take action.
Meanwhile, Israel has suspended co-operation with UNESCO after the UN declaration Israel has no exclusive right to the Temple Mount or Western Wall, referring to Israel instead as an 'occupying force' and criticizing its aggressive behavior around the Al-Aqsa mosque. Israeli officials misinterpreted the resolution, claiming it denied their connection to the sites outright, whereas it in fact merely recognized the connection of all three of the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism. The resolution was passed by 24 votes to six with 26 abstentions. The US, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Lithuania and Estonia voted against, Russia and China were among those who backed it.
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:41 pm
by rowan
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:00 pm
by rowan
From the 'Only in Israel' files:
Israel paints fighter jet pink to raise breast cancer awareness while preventing cancer patients in Gaza from receiving treatment
First I'd heard of this, I must say, but not too surprising if it's true:
"Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it."
Wow Took his time coming out with this, didn't he?
Jack Straw: I think it would. Because I think to people not just in the Arab world but in the Muslim world the obvious injustices carried out, I’m afraid, by the Israelis against the Palestinians speak to them as of a world which is unfair and which doesn’t recognise justice for everybody, at all. And I don’t know how many of you and your colleagues have been to Israel and Palestine in recent years, I was last there three years ago, at this time of year, but the situation is terrible, and humiliating for Palestinians just going about their daily lives, constant gratuitous humiliations. I understand the security concerns of the Israelis, I do understand and I don’t dismiss them for a second, but much of what the Israelis have been doing is unnecessary, and their continuing flouting of international law and the building of these settlements and the incredible discrimination which they then go in for, so piping water to a settlement, for example, which I went to, in South Hebron, which is on top of a hill, so the Israelis have got water and electricity at relatively cheap prices, but denying water, piped water, just a couple of hundred meters down the hill to a Palestinian village, and then wrecking their cisterns, is an illustration of the problems the Palestinians face, and the difficulty of there being any kind of resolution. The other thing that I’d say is that were there to be a change of government in Israel, the chances are it would be a more right-wing government rather than a more left-wing government, because of the very profound demographic changes which have taken place in the last 25 years in the make-up of Israel’s population.”
But as they say about Trump, at least nobody's fooled anymore. Whoever Clinton would have appointed would've surely been just as bad, but it wouldn't have been so blatant.
But as they say about Trump, at least nobody's fooled anymore. Whoever Clinton would have appointed would've surely been just as bad, but it wouldn't have been so blatant.
As bad as Friedman?
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:37 pm
by rowan
They're only representatives of the government. & the American government isn't going to help the Palestinians. The preferred candidate in Israel was apparently Clinton.
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:30 pm
by morepork
So Clinton was ear marked for envoy to Israel by Trump? By herself if she was elected president? What the fuck are you on about?
Firedman is to the right of Benny Nettybaws. He is president of the American Friends of Bet El. He actively campaigns for and funds settlements and the businesses therein. His main qualification appears to be getting Trump out of responsibility for collapsed property shenanigans and working closely with his son and law to fuck people over. Might as well make David Duke ambassador to the UN now.
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:50 pm
by Eugene Wrayburn
morepork wrote:So Clinton was ear marked for envoy to Israel by Trump? By herself if she was elected president? What the fuck are you on about?
Firedman is to the right of Benny Nettybaws. He is president of the American Friends of Bet El. He actively campaigns for and funds settlements and the businesses therein. His main qualification appears to be getting Trump out of responsibility for collapsed property shenanigans and working closely with his son and law to fuck people over. Might as well make David Duke ambassador to the UN now.
Yeah but Clinton.
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:54 pm
by rowan
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:58 pm
by rowan
You didn't think the US was giving Israel & Egypt all those billions for nothing, did you?
Four U.N. Security Council members met on Friday to decide whether to vote on a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements after Egypt withdrew the measure under pressure from Israel and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.
The 15-member council had been due to vote on Thursday afternoon and Western officials said the United States had intended to allow the draft resolution to be adopted, a major reversal of U.S. practice of protecting Israel from action.
New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who were co-sponsors of the draft resolution, told Egypt on Thursday night that if Cairo did not clarify its position, then they reserved the right to "proceed to put it to vote ASAP."
Security Council member Egypt has since officially withdrawn the text, which it had worked on with the Palestinians, allowing those four countries to call for a vote, diplomats said.
In a surprising move, the United States today abstained from a vote in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on the legality of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
rowan wrote:You didn't think the US was giving Israel & Egypt all those billions for nothing, did you?
Four U.N. Security Council members met on Friday to decide whether to vote on a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements after Egypt withdrew the measure under pressure from Israel and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.
The 15-member council had been due to vote on Thursday afternoon and Western officials said the United States had intended to allow the draft resolution to be adopted, a major reversal of U.S. practice of protecting Israel from action.
New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who were co-sponsors of the draft resolution, told Egypt on Thursday night that if Cairo did not clarify its position, then they reserved the right to "proceed to put it to vote ASAP."
Security Council member Egypt has since officially withdrawn the text, which it had worked on with the Palestinians, allowing those four countries to call for a vote, diplomats said.
In a surprising move, the United States today abstained from a vote in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on the legality of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
That would be the Obama administration doing the abstaining. Trump was for the US using its veto.
Re: RE: Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:47 am
by rowan
canta_brian wrote:
rowan wrote:You didn't think the US was giving Israel & Egypt all those billions for nothing, did you?
Four U.N. Security Council members met on Friday to decide whether to vote on a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements after Egypt withdrew the measure under pressure from Israel and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.
The 15-member council had been due to vote on Thursday afternoon and Western officials said the United States had intended to allow the draft resolution to be adopted, a major reversal of U.S. practice of protecting Israel from action.
New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who were co-sponsors of the draft resolution, told Egypt on Thursday night that if Cairo did not clarify its position, then they reserved the right to "proceed to put it to vote ASAP."
Security Council member Egypt has since officially withdrawn the text, which it had worked on with the Palestinians, allowing those four countries to call for a vote, diplomats said.
In a surprising move, the United States today abstained from a vote in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on the legality of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
That would be the Obama administration doing the abstaining. Trump was for the US using its veto.
Indeed, and there was me saying all along that Trump was going to be so much better for Israel, right?
Wrong.
Meanwhile, this is, of course, the same Obama admin that recently pledged 30 billion dollars to Israel - more than 4 times the amount it has allocated the entire 3rd World continent of Africa (and the Egyptian dictatorship gets the lions share of that).
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:26 am
by Len
Dear Israel
Get fucked
Yours sincerely, New Zealand
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:55 am
by rowan
Len wrote:Dear Israel
Get fucked
Yours sincerely, New Zealand
Hair! hair! Fancy breaking off relations with all the countries who voted against their illegal settlements (read 'colonization)' on the UN committee. That's a spoilt brat's tantrum if ever there was one...
Incidentally, I've spent a lot of time watching the political videos of Pakistani-British author & writer Tariq Ali over the Xmas break (not that I get much of one here ), and came across this fascinating segment on the history of the Jews. According to at least one Jewish scholar and author there is no record of the Romans expelling the Jews from Israil, and neither is there any historical record of an influx of Jews into Europe at that time. The Romans were not in the habit of expelling their subjects from anywhere, as they needed them to work the land and pay their taxes. So where did the Jews of ancient Israel go? Nowhere. But like the rest of the Middle East they mostly converted to Islam between the 7th and 10th centuries. What does that mean? It means the Palestinians of today, the very people being driven out of the region to make way for the modern Israel, are the most likely descendents of the Jews of Roman times. So where did the Jews of Europe come from? Research suggests they entered northern Europe mostly through the Caspian region between the 8th and 11th centuries. These were the forebears of the victims of the Holocaust and pogroms and so on, and they had absolutely no connection to Israil whatsoever. That's one view, and it is certainly controversial, notably the 'Caspian' theory. But judge for yourselves:
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:17 pm
by cashead
It looks like Israel's running out of friends, and the relationship between the current Obama administration and Israel is frosty, at best. They're also accusing Britain of running interference against them.
The only group that would give them the time of day are the Russians and their motley bunch of lackeys.
Britain Pulled the Strings and Netanyahu Warned New Zealand It Was Declaring War: New Details on Israel's Battle Against the UN Vote
The British secretly worked the Palestinians and urged New Zealand to move ahead with the resolution, and a call from Netanyahu to Putin triggered a real drama at the UN HQ just one hour before the vote.
Last Friday, a few hours before the UN Security Council vote on the settlements, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned New Zealand’s foreign minister, Murray McCully. New Zealand, together with Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela, was leading the move to resubmit for a vote the resolution from which Egypt had backed down the day before.
A few hours earlier, a senior official in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem called New Zealand’s ambassador to Israel, Jonathan Curr, and warned that if New Zealand’s move came to a vote, Israel might close its embassy in Wellington in protest. Ambassador Curr noted this and reported it to his government, but when dawn came in New York Israel understood that things were still moving ahead.
Netanyahu’s phone call to McCully was almost his last attempt to prevent the vote, or at least to postpone it and buy a little time. Western diplomats say the conversation was harsh and very tense and Netanyahu let loose with sharp threats, perhaps unprecedented in relations between Israel and another Western country.
“This is a scandalous decision. I’m asking that you not support it and not promote it,” Netanyahu told McCully, according to the Western diplomats, who asked to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of the matter. “If you continue to promote this resolution from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We’ll recall our ambassador to Jerusalem.” McCully refused to back down from the vote. “This resolution conforms to our policy and we will move it forward,” he told Netanyahu.
Just one month earlier, when McCully visited Israel and met with Netanyahu, he found the latter an entirely different man. Netanyahu was pleasant, friendly and overflowing with warmth. He showed McCully the famous PowerPoint presentation that he had shown in a round of background briefings for the media last summer. Laser pointer in hand, Netanyahu told McCully that Israel was expanding its foreign relations, breaking through in the region and making friends in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The Western diplomats said that McCully, who over the past two years had been consistently pushing the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the UN Security Council, spoke with Netanyahu about the resolution his country wanted to promote. It was a much softer and more moderate version than the motion that passed last Friday. New Zealand’s resolution did talk about freezing construction in the settlements, but also about freezing Palestinian steps in the UN and the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and called for direct negotiations without
Netanyahu rejected this outright. If it were up to him, the Palestinian issue would not have come up in the meeting at all. His message to McCully was similar to what he said endlessly in public over the past few weeks. The world doesn’t care too much about the Palestinian issue. The automatic majority against Israel in the UN is about to become a thing of the past. “The vote Friday proved differently and showed that Netanyahu’s assessment was wrong,” a Western diplomat said.
Discussions with Western and Israeli diplomats reveal many interesting details about some of what happened behind the scenes at UN headquarters in New York between Thursday afternoon, when Egypt announced it was backing down from the resolution on the settlements, and Friday morning, when New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela announced that they would continue to push for a vote.
Form the moment Egypt backed down on Thursday, the Western and Israeli diplomats say, New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela were pressured to move ahead anyway. The Palestinians were the first to exert pressure, but they were joined by some of the Gulf States and Britain. The Western diplomats said that the British encouraged New Zealand to continue pushing for a vote even without Egyptian support.
The British had become active regarding the resolution a few days earlier. The Israeli diplomats say that from information that reached the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, British legal figures and diplomats had been working directly with the Palestinians on the wording of the resolution even before it was distributed by Egypt the first time on Wednesday evening. According to the Israeli diplomats, the British did this secretly and without informing Israel.
The suspicion in Jerusalem is that the British had been working during all those days for the Americans to make sure the resolution was to U.S. President Barack Obama’s liking, but without the need to intervene directly in formulating it.
“We know how to read Security Council resolutions," a senior Israeli diplomat says. "This is not a text that was formulated by the Palestinians or Egypt, but by a Western power.” Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, said in interviews with the American media on Monday that Israel had proof that the Obama administration was behind the resolution and had formulated it. It is not clear whether this was what he meant.
Western diplomats partially confirm the description of their Israeli colleagues. They say that the British had indeed played a major role in formulating the resolution and revamping it with the Palestinians. However, they said they have no proof that it was the U.S. administration that was behind the whole move.
“The British helped tone down the text so it would meet the American threshold and so it could be passed without a veto,” one of the Western diplomats said.
Netanyahu’s phone conversation with New Zealand’s foreign minister did not put an end to attempts to prevent the vote on Friday evening. A few hours before the vote, the prime minister called Russian President Vladimir Putin and tried to persuade him. Just the day before, Israel had acceded to a Russian request and had absented itself from a vote in the UN General Assembly on a resolution regarding war crimes in Syria.
It is not entirely clear what happened in the conversation between Netanyahu and Putin, but less than an hour before the vote a real drama took place at the UN headquarters in New York. While the Security Council member-states were preparing their speeches ahead of the vote and the public discussion that was held immediately that was to follow, the Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin suddenly asked for a closed consultation.
A Western diplomat said that Churkin shocked the other ambassadors of the 14 Security Council member-states when he proposed postponing the vote until after Christmas. There had not been enough discussion on the wording of the resolution, Churkin claimed, and said he was surprised at the haste of some of the countries to hold a vote as quickly as possible. The deputy Russian ambassador to Israel, Alexy Drobinin, confirmed this in an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday morning.
Drobinin told Army Radio that Russia had objections to the timing of the resolution and that Russia’s representative in New York was the only one who asked to continue discussing it. Drobinin said it should be taken into consideration that a few weeks from now there would be a new administration in the United States, and that Russia was not satisfied with the way the resolution was brought to a vote. He said the problem was not the content, but the timing and the fact that the resolution related only to one out of the many core issues of the conflict.
But Churkin’s remarks fell on deaf ears. Most of the representatives at the meeting rejected them and demanded to move ahead on the vote as planned. A Western diplomat said that the Russian ambassador, who realized that he had not managed to garner support, backed down and summarized the consultation with a typically cynical remark about the proposal abandoned by Egypt – he said that never in his life had he seen so many people wanting to adopt an orphan so quickly.
The meeting ended, the ambassadors entered the Security Council chamber and a few minutes later they passed the resolution.
cashead wrote:It looks like Israel's running out of friends, and the relationship between the current Obama administration and Israel is frosty, at best. They're also accusing Britain of running interference against them.
The only group that would give them the time of day are the Russians and their motley bunch of lackeys.
Britain Pulled the Strings and Netanyahu Warned New Zealand It Was Declaring War: New Details on Israel's Battle Against the UN Vote
The British secretly worked the Palestinians and urged New Zealand to move ahead with the resolution, and a call from Netanyahu to Putin triggered a real drama at the UN HQ just one hour before the vote.
Last Friday, a few hours before the UN Security Council vote on the settlements, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned New Zealand’s foreign minister, Murray McCully. New Zealand, together with Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela, was leading the move to resubmit for a vote the resolution from which Egypt had backed down the day before.
A few hours earlier, a senior official in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem called New Zealand’s ambassador to Israel, Jonathan Curr, and warned that if New Zealand’s move came to a vote, Israel might close its embassy in Wellington in protest. Ambassador Curr noted this and reported it to his government, but when dawn came in New York Israel understood that things were still moving ahead.
Netanyahu’s phone call to McCully was almost his last attempt to prevent the vote, or at least to postpone it and buy a little time. Western diplomats say the conversation was harsh and very tense and Netanyahu let loose with sharp threats, perhaps unprecedented in relations between Israel and another Western country.
“This is a scandalous decision. I’m asking that you not support it and not promote it,” Netanyahu told McCully, according to the Western diplomats, who asked to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of the matter. “If you continue to promote this resolution from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We’ll recall our ambassador to Jerusalem.” McCully refused to back down from the vote. “This resolution conforms to our policy and we will move it forward,” he told Netanyahu.
Just one month earlier, when McCully visited Israel and met with Netanyahu, he found the latter an entirely different man. Netanyahu was pleasant, friendly and overflowing with warmth. He showed McCully the famous PowerPoint presentation that he had shown in a round of background briefings for the media last summer. Laser pointer in hand, Netanyahu told McCully that Israel was expanding its foreign relations, breaking through in the region and making friends in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The Western diplomats said that McCully, who over the past two years had been consistently pushing the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the UN Security Council, spoke with Netanyahu about the resolution his country wanted to promote. It was a much softer and more moderate version than the motion that passed last Friday. New Zealand’s resolution did talk about freezing construction in the settlements, but also about freezing Palestinian steps in the UN and the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and called for direct negotiations without
Netanyahu rejected this outright. If it were up to him, the Palestinian issue would not have come up in the meeting at all. His message to McCully was similar to what he said endlessly in public over the past few weeks. The world doesn’t care too much about the Palestinian issue. The automatic majority against Israel in the UN is about to become a thing of the past. “The vote Friday proved differently and showed that Netanyahu’s assessment was wrong,” a Western diplomat said.
Discussions with Western and Israeli diplomats reveal many interesting details about some of what happened behind the scenes at UN headquarters in New York between Thursday afternoon, when Egypt announced it was backing down from the resolution on the settlements, and Friday morning, when New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela announced that they would continue to push for a vote.
Form the moment Egypt backed down on Thursday, the Western and Israeli diplomats say, New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela were pressured to move ahead anyway. The Palestinians were the first to exert pressure, but they were joined by some of the Gulf States and Britain. The Western diplomats said that the British encouraged New Zealand to continue pushing for a vote even without Egyptian support.
The British had become active regarding the resolution a few days earlier. The Israeli diplomats say that from information that reached the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, British legal figures and diplomats had been working directly with the Palestinians on the wording of the resolution even before it was distributed by Egypt the first time on Wednesday evening. According to the Israeli diplomats, the British did this secretly and without informing Israel.
The suspicion in Jerusalem is that the British had been working during all those days for the Americans to make sure the resolution was to U.S. President Barack Obama’s liking, but without the need to intervene directly in formulating it.
“We know how to read Security Council resolutions," a senior Israeli diplomat says. "This is not a text that was formulated by the Palestinians or Egypt, but by a Western power.” Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, said in interviews with the American media on Monday that Israel had proof that the Obama administration was behind the resolution and had formulated it. It is not clear whether this was what he meant.
Western diplomats partially confirm the description of their Israeli colleagues. They say that the British had indeed played a major role in formulating the resolution and revamping it with the Palestinians. However, they said they have no proof that it was the U.S. administration that was behind the whole move.
“The British helped tone down the text so it would meet the American threshold and so it could be passed without a veto,” one of the Western diplomats said.
Netanyahu’s phone conversation with New Zealand’s foreign minister did not put an end to attempts to prevent the vote on Friday evening. A few hours before the vote, the prime minister called Russian President Vladimir Putin and tried to persuade him. Just the day before, Israel had acceded to a Russian request and had absented itself from a vote in the UN General Assembly on a resolution regarding war crimes in Syria.
It is not entirely clear what happened in the conversation between Netanyahu and Putin, but less than an hour before the vote a real drama took place at the UN headquarters in New York. While the Security Council member-states were preparing their speeches ahead of the vote and the public discussion that was held immediately that was to follow, the Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin suddenly asked for a closed consultation.
A Western diplomat said that Churkin shocked the other ambassadors of the 14 Security Council member-states when he proposed postponing the vote until after Christmas. There had not been enough discussion on the wording of the resolution, Churkin claimed, and said he was surprised at the haste of some of the countries to hold a vote as quickly as possible. The deputy Russian ambassador to Israel, Alexy Drobinin, confirmed this in an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday morning.
Drobinin told Army Radio that Russia had objections to the timing of the resolution and that Russia’s representative in New York was the only one who asked to continue discussing it. Drobinin said it should be taken into consideration that a few weeks from now there would be a new administration in the United States, and that Russia was not satisfied with the way the resolution was brought to a vote. He said the problem was not the content, but the timing and the fact that the resolution related only to one out of the many core issues of the conflict.
But Churkin’s remarks fell on deaf ears. Most of the representatives at the meeting rejected them and demanded to move ahead on the vote as planned. A Western diplomat said that the Russian ambassador, who realized that he had not managed to garner support, backed down and summarized the consultation with a typically cynical remark about the proposal abandoned by Egypt – he said that never in his life had he seen so many people wanting to adopt an orphan so quickly.
The meeting ended, the ambassadors entered the Security Council chamber and a few minutes later they passed the resolution.
Good read. Thanks. Trump is promising to come to Israel's 'rescue,' apparently, but as I've said all along, that won't surprise many people, and at least it'll attract all the negative publicity it deserves.
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:14 am
by rowan
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:41 am
by jared_7
Its a big "finally" with regards to the US vetoing the resolution on Israel - however, the timing is very odd. I can't help but see this as Obama not having the balls to do anything whilst he had power, but now that he is leaving he can make himself look good by taking a stand that will simply be overturned once Trump gets in.
The NYT has reported John Kerry wanted to make this speech and take this position a number of time over the last couple of years and was overruled by Obama. So what's changed? Israeli settlement building has been steadily increasing over the last decade, there hasn't been a drastic change over the last year or so. Many are saying Obama perhaps didn't want to waste what the call "political capital" on the issue, but he has spent the last 4 years without the senate or congress so anyway so worrying about making other politicians happy has hardly been an issue.
Anyway, despite all this; at least it happened. Now that the resolution is passed, does this open the door to action if Israel disobeys? Or will that require another resolution which Trump will be able to veto?
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:59 am
by rowan
Yeh, good post Jared. We should remember, of course, that this wasn't America's decision alone. In fact, all they did was abstain from voting - albeit knowing this would allow the UN to finally pass a resolution that should have been passed half a century ago. Israel remains easily the largest recipient of US aid in the world, with Obama pledging 38b as a parting gift. We'll have to wait and see what Trump does.
Re: Should Israel be banned from Rugby
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:52 am
by rowan
A university rugby club have taken the unprecedented decision to place the Palestinian flag on their rugby jerseys, as a show of solidarity with Palestinians living "under occupation".
Goldsmiths Rugby Football Club said its decision was done to “demonstrate the students’ unions commitment to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement” against Israel.
A picture on the club’s Facebook page shows members wearing the new kit, which includes a Palestinian flag placed on the shirt sleeves.
The club added: "We're hoping through our collaboration with Goldsmiths Palestine Society this year, we can encourage more societies and clubs to endorse and raise awareness about BDS."
Is campaign 'obstacle to peace?'
Goldsmiths did not condemn the rugby club's decision to place the Palestinian flag on its sleeve.
But a college spokesperson told Middle East Eye that despite the club being independent, it was "disappointing that the rugby club has taken this decision. Sport should be unifying and should be played without borders and by all. No one should feel alienated or excluded."
'Sport should be unifying and should be played without borders and by all. No one should feel alienated or excluded'
- Goldsmiths spokesperson
Some users on social media described the move by Goldsmiths rugby club as “divisive” and supporting a campaign that is an "obstacle to peace".
Jonathan Fenster on Facebook wrote: "Supporting BDS and Palestinian rights of Jews is anti-semitism period. Goldsmith's, by conflating politics with sport, has shown itself to be racist and a place where Jewish students are unwelcome."
Backing from students
But the college’s Students' Union hit back, saying that it was a "shame that the university's condemnation of the rugby club has so actively sought to undermine the great work of those involved, and the political mandate of the student body."
In a statement released jointly with the Goldsmiths Rugby club, the union likened the club’s move as being similar to the "black power salute" at the 1968 Olympics medal ceremony, as well as the recent actions of American footballers, who have refused to stand for the U.S. national anthem.
"Sport should be unifying and played without borders by all,” said the union “and this is exactly the point of the campaign. We believe that the privilege we have in the UK to play sport without borders is not one available to the Palestinian people, and this action is a reminder."
'Sport should be unifying and played without borders by all and this is exactly the point of the campaign'
- Goldsmiths Students Union
Goldsmiths Union renewed its commitment to support the BDS movement last year after students submitted a motion to officially endorse the Palestinian campaign.
The decision drew praise nationwide, including Shelly Asquith, the Vice President of Welfare at the National Union of Students’, who described the decision as a “great show of solidarity with Palestine.”
Representatives from the Goldsmiths Israel Society and Palestine Society did not respond to requests for comment at the time of writing.
Flag of controversy
The BDS movement was established in 2005 after more than 170 Palestinian organisations, including trade unions, political parties and civil society organisations, called on the world and governments to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel till it complied with international law.
Universities have been a focal point for BDS activism globally, with students demanding that their institutions boycott Israeli institutions, and divest from companies complicit in human rights violations against Palestinians.
Took his time coming out with this, didn't he?
), and came across this fascinating segment on the history of the Jews. According to at least one Jewish scholar and author there is no record of the Romans expelling the Jews from Israil, and neither is there any historical record of an influx of Jews into Europe at that time. The Romans were not in the habit of expelling their subjects from anywhere, as they needed them to work the land and pay their taxes. So where did the Jews of ancient Israel go? Nowhere. But like the rest of the Middle East they mostly converted to Islam between the 7th and 10th centuries. What does that mean? It means the Palestinians of today, the very people being driven out of the region to make way for the modern Israel, are the most likely descendents of the Jews of Roman times. So where did the Jews of Europe come from? Research suggests they entered northern Europe mostly through the Caspian region between the 8th and 11th centuries. These were the forebears of the victims of the Holocaust and pogroms and so on, and they had absolutely no connection to Israil whatsoever. That's one view, and it is certainly controversial, notably the 'Caspian' theory. But judge for yourselves: