Why the obsession with Israel?

[BedellBrave]

And this:

"Opposing Israel is The One Ring that binds us all. It is the sacred god that must not be questioned. So deep runs this bias against Israeli transgressions, that to call it out is to arouse immediately incredulity and ad hominem abuse.

So entrenched is it, that few noticed how on the very morning of Resolution 2334 a motion seeking to stem the flow of weapons going to what the UN itself fears are genocidal killers in South Sudan failed.

The Security Council could not even bring itself to adopt the simplest of resolutions calling for a seven-day ceasefire to halt the tragedy of Aleppo. Yet when it came to pushing through a final year-end condemnation of Israel, the Security Council suddenly mustered the will to act."

 

[goldfly]

you might be right that it's too focused

but even if that it's true

i'm not really sure your point.

should they have so many more resolutions against them? maybe not

but how does that change what they are doing is just wrong.

 

[BedellBrave]

you might be right that it's too focused

but even if that it's true

i'm not really sure your point.

should they have so many more resolutions against them? maybe not

but how does that change what they are doing is just wrong.

I'm not saying that it does. But when you step back and look at the bigger world picture it's weird. Why so many more? Why so much unity against settlements, but not Sudan and Aleppo? And it's not like this is a blip on the screen. This has been going on a long time.

Really - and this isn't an antagonistic question - why do you think this is? And the facts seem to clearly say there is a bias.

Why not more attention to Tibet for instance?

 

[goldfly]

there are more people that don't want Israel there than do and have the allies to keep pushing it with very little to lose by doing so

if i was going to shoot in the dark without looking into it more

Aleppo and Syria didn't have anything cause of the known veto vote from Russia when they have boots on the ground

Sundan, China is on the ground with oil and has their veto vote. same with Tibet

 

[Hawk]

You aren't answering the question. Why such an inordinate amount of attention and why such a uniform UN response to Israel versus other conflicts, versus atrocities, etc.

There are many potential answers to this question. Unlike the other states the author mentions, first and foremost, Israel has advanced nuclear capability. But it's also worth noting that the modern incarnation of the state was essentially created by the West and would thusly seem to be our responsibility. An obsession? No. An obligation? Certainly.

Also worth considering in answer to the general question: Israel's relative wealth, technological prowess, influences in American politics and industry.

 

[Hawk]

My question is not whether settlements are right or wrong (I actually think they are most often wrong).

A settlement designed to promote integration is one thing. A settlement intentionally placed to either provoke conflict or give Israel strategic advantage is more troubling (and more often the case in recent times).

 

[BedellBrave]

There are many potential answers to this question. Unlike the other states the author mentions, first and foremost, Israel has advanced nuclear capability. But it's also worth noting that the modern incarnation of the state was essentially created by the West and would thusly seem to be our responsibility. An obsession? No. An obligation? Certainly.

Also worth considering in answer to the general question: Israel's relative wealth, technological prowess, influences in American politics and industry.

Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons, are modern divisions/incarnations due to former Western involvement and have a conflict over Kashmir and how much attention is given to such by the West or the UN? Many other world conflicts have roots in Western meddling.

Certainly there's a UN obsession regarding Israel/Palestine when you look at the actual number of resolutions regarding it compared to other nations, conflicts. I can't see how you can deny it.

Obligation? Obligation of whom and to do what?

Yes, we (US) have a very intertwined connection with Israel. Are you saying that pisses off those who don't like Israel here and abroad and so they bitch more?

 

[BedellBrave]

A settlement designed to promote integration is one thing. A settlement intentionally placed to either provoke conflict or give Israel strategic advantage is more troubling (and more often the case in recent times).

Agreed. Though integration in the region doesn't exactly look like (nor does it have to) like we expect. By that I mean that in my travels through Israel and Syria and the West Bank, it became clear to me that you have very distinct towns and pockets of various minorities. The integration isn't so much on the street level. Driving through the Golan Heights you see Druze villages and towns. Driving through Galilee you see Arab villages. Driving through Judea you see Bedouin-Arab camps. And in the West Bank, Jewish settlements (villages-towns) and Arab-Christian pockets. And you see such on both sides of the divide. What ought also to be considered is how integrated minorities are in the respective governments. The liberal Arab author of the article is asking some very good questions.

 

[BedellBrave]

there are more people that don't want Israel there than do and have the allies to keep pushing it with very little to lose by doing so

if i was going to shoot in the dark without looking into it more

Aleppo and Syria didn't have anything cause of the known veto vote from Russia when they have boots on the ground

Sundan, China is on the ground with oil and has their veto vote. same with Tibet

Why do you think that is? You've been to Israel and Palestine before haven't you? It seems there's room for all. I didn't get the sense that there's a real problem in supporting the populations there now nor that they couldn't both add more in population.

Yep, the UN is scared of China and Russia.