Israel has evidence that Obama administration is behind Friday's Security Council resolution

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Vasa Croe

What Legacy?

The worst racial relations in 40 years, spurned on by his party?

The Middle East destabilized and on fire?

Obamacare?

What positive legacy does he provide other than "It Could Be Worse"?

Not saying that I agree or disagree with what I'm about to say, but realistically I see his legacy as something that looks like this:

Obamacare - He touts getting 20 million people to sign up for healthcare.

Giving the go ahead to the banks that the federal government will not come after them for giving out loans to Marijuana dispensaries where it is legal.

Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage - he will take credit for that, and the stonewall inn.

Taking out Osama Bin Laden - that's a win for him whether you like it or not

Reformation of the Prison Industrial Complex - he became the first president sitting or retired to visit a prison.

And he'll probably brag about climate change, too.

But all of the things you've mentioned should be included in his legacy, because his failures grossly overshadow his successes.

The logic of this thread escapes me.

So Israel has proof that the US admistration is behind a vote from the US. That will be a first, normally the Israel Admistration if behind a vote from the US.

If its to tell them to quit taking additional palestinian land then great. Just a hunch thats what it is.

Of course it might be something else.

it's not like a un resolution is going to stop isreal's land grab, so what difference does it make where the US stood on the issue, or if they secretly played a part in the forming of it?

At the end of the day every human should have a nationality.

So did you vote Brexit/Leave, then?

Israel has evidence that Obama administration is behind Friday's Security Council resolution

After Obama and company tried to rig ISreal's election.

You can bet on it.

a reply to: infolurker

He is black bro. Thats huge. Also he earned a nobel peace price. Let me remind you that he hails from Chicago which is a light to the world of progressive ideals.

Also he is black. Celebs love him and the people got free phones with a few minutes.

If the country is divided its because the KKK is EVERYWHERE. Its racism.

He is a champion of activism against police brutality towards 13% of the population.

He is a constitutional lawyer. So if he acts unconstitutionally its because its constitutionally sound to violate the constitution.

The debt doubled but you know what it was going to go up anyways. At this point what difference does it make.

We dont need a strong military. It should get a skeleton budget and be quadrupedally engaged world wide, for freedom. We are the good guys.

So he is our leader. The leader of the good guys is a good guy and if you dont like him you are not a good guy. You are then a bad guy.

Its clear. His legacy is that he was the greatest president ever and against the backdrop of history he will always be that black president from the turn of the century.

Also, he bought us some time with Iran.

ISIS is all but defeated and Russia has never been weaker against us.

We are truly free.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So I bolded a part that is of particular interest to me. They are going to present evidence of the US meddling in the resolution to the new Trump administration through the proper channels and allow them to disseminate the information accordingly. I wonder why they are not just making it public? Is there some reason that they would not do that?

Evidence of American influence on Egyptian action could only come from access to the communications between them. Perhaps they would not want to advertise exactly how they got this information.

Or..... Maybe they'd rather just wait and pitch their little conspiracy theory to the most gullible POTUS in American history.

Is there a conspiracy theory that Trump hasn't bought into?

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
oh boo-hoo, the UN urges an end to illegal settlements? HOW TERRIBLE FOR ISRAEL, that they can't keep stealing land even though they own it all!

How will this effect his legacy? It's one of the few instances where he's shown some backbone!

Yep. I wish he would've done this much sooner.

How quickly people forget that he's constantly helped Israel get major defense deals, placed years worth of sanctions on Israel's enemy Iran, and got Russia to delay the S-300s to Iran until Israel had a counter for them. Along with Putin, he even got Syria to give up its chemical weapons stockpile, which was Assad's countermeasure for Israeli nukes. Obama's even made sure to back Israel in the UN Security Council for years, including when he & Susan Rice disgracefully blocked Palestine's vote for independence.

And then there's that wretched Netanyahu who blatantly tried to influence the 2012 election by helping Romney. He even delivered that unprecedented speech in front of Congress, which has been forgotten as well. I wish Obama would've ditched Israel a long time ago as long as Netanyahu was in charge.

It's like people don't know that the billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who backs the Republican Party, is also backing Netanyahu. That's why Netanyahu's govt will NEVER give Pres Obama his due, even though he's done so much for them.

originally posted by: Willtell


Finally, Obama does the right thing but it’s too late.

Obama has never done the right thing for eight years.

a reply to: WhateverYouSay

Cant give back land apparently lost in wars prior to that UN resolution it seems. Oh well.

Still do deny a peoples land previously existed is just wrong to do so.

And @ray1990. The Jews lived there as well and only called themselves Israelis after israel was re formed. Ottoman empire didnt recognize anyone there but as being nomads who paid taxes to live there.

I believe this is something Obama wanted to do for ideological reasons but it is also a calculated political move. One of the reasons Obama won his elections was his stance against the Iraq war and too much involvement in the middle east. It was also a message that resonated with the former Obama voters that won Trump formerly blue states like MI and PA. America first. Get rid of the lobbyists ect. For at least 30 years now AIPAC has been one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington and whether or not that was the catalyst for the increased involvement in the mid east during that period it can be argued it was. The term Israel first is already a coined phrase.

It might not just be the GOP this political move is against but also the Hillary wing of the democratic party that some of his supporters see as the democratic version of neo-cons. That is why he waited until after the election because he knows how important AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbyists are for raising campaign funds. If Hillary won I doubt he would be doing this. Her loss showed money alone does not win elections and exposed other mistakes and realities that can be learned from.

Going back to Trump. He ran a campaign on getting out of the involvement in foreign wars and America first. I don't know if he relied on AIPAC itself much for funding or support but I do know Sheldon Adelson was a significant contributor with a huge contribution in the last week or so of the election and he is all about Israel. Most Americans don't mind defending Israel in the general sense. It's only when the spotlight is put on the costs involved or the idea of defending against paranoid hypothetical situations involving someone getting WMD and the extreme actions needed to prevent the hypothetical that causes voters to balk. Obama putting Israel and the 36 years of unconditional support from previous administrations in the policy spotlight is an interesting gambit.

In the past this would never have been a problem or a viable strategy against the GOP but if the primaries showed anything it showed that the Bush neo-con faction outside of the people who are actually politicians is now very small. Iraq and the costs involved are a huge reason for this faction falling out of favor both within their party and in the wider constituency. Not even the Cruz neo-con lite coalition is the largest in the GOP today and that coalition wouldn't win the formerly blue states that won the election for Trump. For these reasons and a few others I don't have time to get into properly right now I believe this may not have just been an ideological stance taken by Obama but also a political move against the GOP and maybe even factions within his own party.

a reply to: yuppa

That land was illegally renamed palestine by romans conquering judea and israel in the past.

Just as it was illegally renamed by the Hebrews after they conquered it.

Didnt the UN pass a law about gaining land through war?

Sure did after WW2 so Israel would still be SOL.

So the league of nations gave them back a Small piece of their original territory.

Which even though the Zionist agreed that piece of land they immediately broke that agreement by expanding their nation. To quote David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister)
"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: yuppa

I want Frankia back off the French.

I want all of Ireland back off the British.

Heck, I demand the kingdom of Northumbria to be recognised and all of her lands returned to her.

I have blood ties to all these lands, it doesn't work like that. Israel didn't exist 1000 years ago or 100 years ago, it's a piss poor excuse.

When people talk nonsense like that it makes me wish they all just buggered off to Ethiopia. They have brethren their too.

Israel and JUdea did exist. you can look it up. Its a poor excuse to say they did not when its written about. Even the ROmans said it existed. Yes all lands gained by war(except one sliek the US) should give it al back. California should be returned to mexico i agree. Texas won its war so leave that one alone.

You really haven't thought the whole give all the lands back taken by war thing though have you? If you do that then there will be no Israel. Israel came from conquered lands no nation on this planet has existed throughout time. The nations of Egypt and India would probably be better off than all the other nation.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I wonder why they are not just making it public? Is there some reason that they would not do that?

Perhaps, to make it public by whining about it would make the Israel government look pathetic and ungrateful. After all, they just received 38 Billion in US tax dollars during the last year of Obama's administration...

Anywho....if the DO have this evidence and it DOES point to Obama's administration, how is that going to fare for his outgoing legacy?

This decision to honour humanitarian issues re: the UN Security Council resolution concerning Israeli settlements, etc - is a positive thing and fares well for the Obama legacy.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

There is no law against U.N. Security Council member delegates talking to one another. In fact, it's encouraged. If Egypt consulted U.S. as to what would be required for a U.S. abstention rather than veto, the answer would be:

Balance criticism of Israel with criticism of terrorism. And make sure to balance calls to action/cease of action to all parties involved. The resolution does that.

The bottom line is that the current leadership of Israel has abandoned the two state solution and has continued along the lines of a one state solution. Danny Danon (Israel's Ambassador to U.N.) is quite blatant in his statements. So it's Israel's turn to either declare annexation of West Bank and Gaza or withdraw settlers behind 1967 lines.

The time is passed for saying "two state" while continuing de facto annexation.

originally posted by: Lucius Driftwood

At the end of the day every human should have a nationality.

So did you vote Brexit/Leave, then?

What's that got to do with nationality?

Double post

a reply to: yuppa

Still do deny a peoples land previously existed is just wrong to do so.

You mean Canaan's land? The Egyptian province? Assyrian province? Neo-Babylonian province? Persian province? Greek province? Independent kingdom of Judea? Parthian province? Roman province? Ottoman province? British mandate?

That's why you got to start somewhere, like 1949 4th Geneva Convention. "No more seizing territory and transferring your population there". That's why 1967 lines are referenced, it came after 1949.

a reply to: yuppa

Yeah yeah.

How long did the Ottomans own that land?

Cant give back land apparently lost in wars prior to that UN resolution it seems. Oh well. 

Did I say that?

I never said Palestine/Israel never had Jewish leaders in the past.

It's pointless mentioning UN charters or resolutions because Israel doesn't abide by them, they'd happily admit this.

Israel was formed after the land through conquest agreements made after WW2, they kept stealing land after amendments too but it's all good... The land was promised by God

Realistically they could have offered every person in the lands they wish to occupy citizenship within Israel.