What do you think of the latest UN resolution?

Everybody seems to be using the word "occupied territory". The Israelis consider it "disputed territory". Seems to me this land never belonged to the Palestinians. It's a fact that the Israelis offered to trade the land for peace. The Palestinians said no.The Palestinians and Arab countries from day one when Israel became a state have chanted the death to Israel. Israel claims it is their god given land. Israel claims bulding settlements includes strategic and military motivations.

Bottomline is this...The UN is a bunch of bullies. When the UN tries to bully Israel, the US protects them. This time however, The US has joined the Bullies.

20 UN resolutions against Israel. ONE UN resolution against the Assad regime. ONE resolution against Russia. Look at some of the countries who voted for the resolution condeming Israeli Settlements..China, Russia, Venezuela...Really?

Obama is going out a huge coward! You notice he didn't do this at the beginning or middle of his presidency.

You clearly just need a liberals_duck.jpg for mooslims

There was not a country called Palestine and there were no people called Palestinians. They were Jordanians who got their passports pulled by Jordan as a political tool.

Lesson 1. Don't invade another country unless you are ready for the consequences of losing said war.

Leftists support "palestine" because they are inherently anti Jew.

What is this nonsense supposed to mean?

Right of Return vs. Right to Exist pretty much needs to be resolved. So far, in 60+ years, it is yet to be resolved.

Thanks for the links Adios!

I never realized how complex this issue was. I'm still trying to fugure out why in the world Obama made this decision. I understand he is against settlements, however, he has promised numerous high level individuals that he would always have Isreals back. He agreed with Netanyahu that this issue should never be taken before the security counsel. Kerry chided Israel for 40 minutes and spoke of terrorism for only two minutes in his latest speech.

Is this just Obamas ego taking over and trying to put the screws to Netanyahu and Trump? Many democrats have come out against this decision. They better be careful or they may see the Jews flip sides over this.

I'm looking forward to learning more about this.

He's obviously an uneducated troll with nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

Here are my current assumptions

1) If the the Arabs accepted the two state solution in 1948, we wouldn't have this mess

2) If the Arabs didn't attack Israel in 1948 and 1967 we wouldn't have this mess.

3) If the Arabs had accepted the Israeli offer of land for peace this would be over

4) If The Arabs would accept Isreal's right to exist there could be peace.

5) If the Arabs didn't decide to flee the country with the intention of returning, this again would not be an issue.

Conclusion: The Arabs gambled and lost. They must now deal with the consequences.

Yes but to be fair, the right of return is based on people being dislodged from their homeland. It is a friggen mess. Anyway the most galling thing recently is having to put with LURCH making an hour and thirteen minute speech lecturing Americans and Israelis about their positions. Asserting that he is a spokesman for American values. The guy drones on and on at every opportunity. He lost in 2004 as he was rejected by the voters. The gall that guy has is unbelievable. We're well rid of him on 1/20/2017.

Lurch is an excellent name for him. How on Earth does he think this helps the peace process? The Irony is that halting the settlements is probably the only way that peace may ever come to the region. Unfortunately, the constant anti Israel drumbeat makes security an even higher priority. This condemnation will just lead to more settlements.

There were people dislodged and there were people who left willingly. I agree it's a mess but it is kind of the "you break it, you own it" line of thought. They rejected the deal in 1948. They are now living with the results.

When it's your first day of school and you have every bully around try to beat you up , you have to take increased procautions to ensure your safety. It was decided early on that the palestinians would not be allowed back. It's sad, but in war unpopular decisions are made.

How can the US expect Israel to participate in peace talks when the other side won't even recognize their right to exist?

BTW. It's the right of return philosophy that prevents other Arab countries from taking in the Palestinians. If they accept these folks into their countries, thay are essentially given up this right.

I think both sides are equally culpable. Both are full of arrogant losers who think they're God's chosen people, and see the others are somewhat inhuman or as less. The Muslims are more insane, more rabid, and more belligerent here by far (that's not even a debate - much of the Muslim world wants Israel extinguished and the Jews genocided), but the Israelis controlling all Palestinian land isn't ok either. The Jews need to swallow their insane arrogance and give back far more of what they've taken. The last war is so long ago and it's time to move on from their illegal occupation. No matter how rabid and violent the Muslims are. That's just an excuse to maintain Jewish control. They could easily live with less land if they cared about the Palestinians.

That said, Obama's action here have substantially worsened the whole situation for both sides. The guy just can't stop badly screwing up foreign policy and making it worse for all sides.

Palestinians call it "illegal occupation". Israelis call it it "disputed land". The US has long called it a "illegitimate claim". The truth is that no country has a legitimate claim to the so called "occupied land". If the Arabs had accepted the deal in 1948,then the Israelis would indeed be illegal occupiers.

Black Peter is correct regarding the Palestinians and Jordan. Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank originally and then later rescinded that claim. Whos land is Israel illegally occupying?

You can call the settlements illegitimate or not helpful to the peace process but it is in no way illegal.

I agree both sides are doing their best to not allow peace to happen. This is why Kerry's speach was so ridiculous.

If Israel's occupation of "Palestine" isn't illegal/illegitimate, why would an Arab takeover of Israel be illegal/illegitimate? Israel as a state exists solely because some Westerner 70 years ago decided to draw lines on a map that were very favorable to Jews, at the expense of Arabs. They then gave the Jews guns to defend those lines. They've since used those guns to take and occupy more land beyond even the generous original lines.

If you don't recognize the right of Palestine - which once occupied Israeli territory before being taken away with the stroke of a pen and cut down in size - to occupy without interference the lands that were given to them in that agreement, how is Israel even legitimate? It becomes appropriation of an entire country by an outside force if you let the Jews keep and settle what they've kept and settled.

How to settle such a dispute? Various international assemblies which rule on these kinds of issues might help.... oh wait if they vote in favor of calling these settlements illegal they're just antisemitic so f them and keep building

There was not a country called Palestine in 1948. It was part of Jordan. Jordan attacked Israel and lost. In their defeat, they lost a small piece of their country. The naming of the displaced people was a complete farce.

I find it interesting that the biggest critics of Israeli occupation are from countries that exist entirely due to expansion and occupation. The difference between Israel and those countries is that Israel won a war that they didn't start. Most European nations started all their expansionist wars.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Look at the countries voting. Then look at their various human rights record. Then either laugh or cry. Your choice.

The UNHRC is high comedy if you look at its membership.

Yes for half or more of the current members of the securtiy council this is ironic to say the least. However, you cannot play guilt by association for the non-human rights violators who also vote in favor, not just within the current composition of the council but throughout its history. Do you see western, non-human rights violating countries ever voting against resolutions condemning the settlements in the West Bank?

20 UN resolutions against Israeal. 1 UN resolution against Syria were 500,000 people have been killed. It seems a bit lopsided don't you think? There are Countries who will vote against Israel without having to read the resolution. This is why the US has vetoed these ridiculous votes in the past.

Do you think Venezuela really cares about settlements? The UN is corrupt. It's all about developing business relationships and giving favors for future favors.

You're crazy if you put your faith in the UN.

It's simple, the Arabs gambled on a better deal and lost.

The Arabs refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. It seems the UN should Make erradicating this attitude as a priority.

I rarely disagree with you Tooth, but I do here. Israel has every right to there land. The West Bank and Gaza are in dispute. If the Arabs attempted to occupy Israel that woukd be illegal. If the Arabs attempted to occupy the lands in dispute they would simply have an illigetimate ckaim yo that land, but it wouldn't necessarily be "illegal".

Israel has many times recognized Palestinisns right to exist and most favor a two country resolution. Israel has offered back the land in return for Peace. The Arabs continue to decline.

Israel has only captured land in response to an attack. These lands are considered strategic and necessary for the safety if it's people.

It makes sense that the US has supplied military expertese and equipment to Israel. Israel was attacked on day one of their existense and have been under attack every day since.

I'm not saying Israel has necessarily played nice all of the time. This is war, however, and is the consequence of previous attacks.

I agree a lot of these people are nut balls on both sides.

I agree that trying to bargain with a good portion of Muslims is like trying to bargain with a rabid dog. This is not a new thing; it goes back to founding of Islam and its powerful innate bigotry against non-Muslims. The US and Europe for example in the 1700s tried to sue for peace with the mass child-sex-slave-stealing Muslim states such as Tripoli who were depopulating parts of Europe with their pirate raids. This was their response:
This is the kind of rabid religious nuttiness that the Israelis are dealing with and has been unchanged for 1400 years. Perhaps it can't be bargained with - perhaps what the Jews are doing is the only possible course of action. But they haven't even tried to simply unilaterally withdraw, even make some concessions, and then see what happens. They've occupied continuously for 50 years. I don't think they will have much success given the rabid religious nuts, but they should at least try. It's been long enough. Perhaps there are enough sane people in the Palestinian territories to make it happen. We won't know until the Jews try. They have all the power here. The moderates in Palestine are stuck between the fundamentalist crazies and Jewish intransigence.

No I don't think Venezuela particularly cares. I do think France, Spain, and various western countries who have voted in favor of resolutions condemning the settlements care. These resolutions generally come down 14-1. If half of those 14 are terrible human rights violators this does not mean that the other non-human rights violators who vote in favor are in the wrong.

I agree that the Arabs should accept Israel's right to exist and that this should be a top priority. Unfortunately religion gonna religion.

They don't withdraw because they are governed by religious nuts who believe that if they can get all the Jews into the promised land and all the non-Jews out of the promised land they are worthy of the coming of the messiah. (not in any way meant as a defence of muslim agression)

This is not true at all. At various times Israel has frozen settlement building, withdrawn its forces from areas A and B (approx 40% of the west bank and home to the vast majority of the Palestinian population), withdrawn all civilians and military from Gaza, etc...

The use of "simply" before "unilaterally withdraw" is a bit strange. It would be the opposite of simple.

And I am sure you are not doing it intentionally, but using "Jews" instead of "Israelis" is bad.

Nonsense