DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**popsicesHoupe** · 10-26-2007, 11:10 PM

Owen, please see the list of those United Nations resolutions regarding the Middle Eastern situation that were vetoed by America below: this surely does not indicate a position "helpful" to the peace process?

Many of the U.N. resolutions were totally one-sided in their condemnation of Israel, while ignoring atrocities committed by Palestinian terror groups. The U.S. vetoes were usually a recognition of this one-sidedness, as well as a recognition that the oft-insisted-upon "right of return" would amount to demographic suicide for Israel. The resolutions were not really helpful to the "peace process" in the first place. Undoubtedly, there are exceptions - I don't see any obvious reason for the veto of the 2001 resolution (though it called for compliance with recommendations of other reports, and I haven't read them all) - but I think it's true in general.

One of the primary problems in dealing with the issues between Israel and the Palestinians is that we are not just dealing with two different perspectives. We might as well be dealing with two different realities. The famous Mitchell Report stated this well.

Divergent Perspectives: During the last seven months, these views have hardened into divergent realities. Each side views the other as having acted in bad faith; as having turned the optimism of Oslo into suffering and grief of victims and their loved ones. In their statements and actions, each side demonstrates a perspective that fails to recognize any truth in the perspective of the other.

The Palestinian Perspective: For the Palestinian side, “Madrid” and “Oslo” heralded the prospect of a State, and guaranteed an end to the occupation and a resolution of outstanding matters within an agreed time. Palestinians are genuinely angry at the continued growth of settlements and at their daily experiences of humiliation and disruption as a result of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories. Palestinians see settlers and settlements in their midst not only as violating the spirit of the Oslo process, but also as application of force in the form of Israel’s overwhelming military superiority.

The PLO also claims that the GOI has failed to comply with other commitments, such as the further withdrawal from the West Bank and the release of Palestinian prisoners. In addition, Palestinians expressed frustration with the impasse over refugees and the deteriorating economic circumstances in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Israeli Perspective: From the GOI perspective, the expansion of settlement activity and the taking of measures to facilitate the convenience and safety of settlers do not prejudice the outcome of permanent status negotiations…

Indeed, Israelis point out that at the Camp David summit and during subsequent talks, the GOI offered to make significant concessions with respect to the settlements in the context of an overall agreement.

Security, however, is the key GOI concern. The GOI maintains that the PLO has breached its solemn commitments by continuing the use of violence in the pursuit of political objectives…

According to the GOI, the Palestinian failure takes on several forms: Institutionalized anti-Israel, anti-Jewish incitement; the release from detention of terrorists; the failure to control illegal weapons; and the actual conduct of violent operations… The GOI maintains that the PLO has significantly violated its renunciation of terrorism and other acts of violence, thereby significantly eroding trust between the parties. (ellipses are present in the online text I referenced; I did no editing)

In Christ,
Mike

10-26-2007, 11:10 PM	#12
popsicesHoupe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 417 Senior Member	Owen, please see the list of those United Nations resolutions regarding the Middle Eastern situation that were vetoed by America below: this surely does not indicate a position "helpful" to the peace process? Many of the U.N. resolutions were totally one-sided in their condemnation of Israel, while ignoring atrocities committed by Palestinian terror groups. The U.S. vetoes were usually a recognition of this one-sidedness, as well as a recognition that the oft-insisted-upon "right of return" would amount to demographic suicide for Israel. The resolutions were not really helpful to the "peace process" in the first place. Undoubtedly, there are exceptions - I don't see any obvious reason for the veto of the 2001 resolution (though it called for compliance with recommendations of other reports, and I haven't read them all) - but I think it's true in general. One of the primary problems in dealing with the issues between Israel and the Palestinians is that we are not just dealing with two different perspectives. We might as well be dealing with two different realities. The famous Mitchell Report stated this well. Divergent Perspectives: During the last seven months, these views have hardened into divergent realities. Each side views the other as having acted in bad faith; as having turned the optimism of Oslo into suffering and grief of victims and their loved ones. In their statements and actions, each side demonstrates a perspective that fails to recognize any truth in the perspective of the other. The Palestinian Perspective: For the Palestinian side, “Madrid” and “Oslo” heralded the prospect of a State, and guaranteed an end to the occupation and a resolution of outstanding matters within an agreed time. Palestinians are genuinely angry at the continued growth of settlements and at their daily experiences of humiliation and disruption as a result of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories. Palestinians see settlers and settlements in their midst not only as violating the spirit of the Oslo process, but also as application of force in the form of Israel’s overwhelming military superiority. The PLO also claims that the GOI has failed to comply with other commitments, such as the further withdrawal from the West Bank and the release of Palestinian prisoners. In addition, Palestinians expressed frustration with the impasse over refugees and the deteriorating economic circumstances in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israeli Perspective: From the GOI perspective, the expansion of settlement activity and the taking of measures to facilitate the convenience and safety of settlers do not prejudice the outcome of permanent status negotiations… Indeed, Israelis point out that at the Camp David summit and during subsequent talks, the GOI offered to make significant concessions with respect to the settlements in the context of an overall agreement. Security, however, is the key GOI concern. The GOI maintains that the PLO has breached its solemn commitments by continuing the use of violence in the pursuit of political objectives… According to the GOI, the Palestinian failure takes on several forms: Institutionalized anti-Israel, anti-Jewish incitement; the release from detention of terrorists; the failure to control illegal weapons; and the actual conduct of violent operations… The GOI maintains that the PLO has significantly violated its renunciation of terrorism and other acts of violence, thereby significantly eroding trust between the parties. (ellipses are present in the online text I referenced; I did no editing) In Christ, Mike
	Quote