A crash course on the UN in 2016, from Aish.com:

The main effect of this latest UN resolution, as suggested in my last post here, has been to place the issue of the settlements firmly in the news, always as "illegal Israeli settlements" in "occupied Palestinian territory". So Israel is the guilty party and, by implication, the settlements are the reason that the move towards a two-state solution is stalled. That, presumably, was the intention behind these latest Obama/Kerry moves.

Of course this is laughable for anyone who's been following their history over the last few decades. There is no indication that anyone on the Palestinian side is remotely interested in a two-state settlement. The endlessly corrupt PLO, via PLO Executive Committee member Mustafa Barghouti, has indicated that Kerry hasn't bent over far enough for their tastes. Jerusalem must be the capital of Palestine; the refugee right-of-return is not negotiable; Israel cannot be a Jewish state. That's their contribution to the debate.

As for the other Palestinian party, Corbyn's friends Hamas, they're quite clear: the Jews must be completely removed from the region, one way or another.

And why should the Palestinians make any effort to compromise? No one ever puts any pressure on them. The money pours in. They're adopted by much of the Western left as their number one cause. The UN, as we see, is firmly on their side. UNWRA, the largest UN agency, dedicated solely to the plight of the Palestinian refugees, employs over 30,000 staff. No other group of refugees has its very own UN agency. In fact every other group of refugees, from all the ethnic cleansing that went on throughout the early and mid-twentieth century, managed to find their way in the world, and ceased being refugees. Only the Palestinians remained. It's possible, of course, that there's a connection there…

No, it's a one-way street. The Israelis may have triumphed in three wars against the eliminationist armies of their Arab neighbours, but much good may it do them. The rest of the world, feeling righteous now, with a decent enough interval since they established themselves in their own safe little countries, often enough through expropriation and the force of arms, are in no mood to let the Jews enjoy the same privileges. Even if the Jews only happen to be claiming their original homeland.

Posted in

2 responses to “The UN resolution revisited”

  1. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    The New Yorker and other media are busy supporting Obama and Kerry. Meanwhile, the only important politician opposing the vote is — God help us — Trump. Netanyahu is lapping it up.
    It’s part of the Escher world I live in. Everywhere you go is down. Even when you’re at the bottom.

    Like

  2. Hal Avatar
    Hal

    I think she expected the US to veto the UN vote, but better late than never… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/29/theresa-may-rebukes-us-attack-israel/
    And – let’s also give him a small, late bit of credit – Netanyahu has a sense of humour: https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/814177977038766080/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    Like

Leave a reply to Hal Cancel reply