Current Affairs Israel is an apartheid state

[Spadge Vernacular]

They are not refusing to take refugees because they do not support the Palestinians; they are refusing to take any refugees because they know that Israel are looking to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian territories and to take refugees would support that policy of Israel.

As for getting involved, foreign ministers from the region have agreed a common position and been touring all the SC member capitals and have delivered the same message in each - this must stop. They are visiting the US now in the last leg of that tour. If all this diplomatic work doesn't bear fruit and the Israeli government continues or ramps up the killing then I would imagine there will be an escalation.

Lebanon took huge amounts of Syrians fleeing Assad, is it 1 in 6 there are Syrians, similar in Egypt and to a lesser extent Jordan.

Also Is it not the case that Persian Gulf states such as Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman don't recognise the concept of refugees in their politics.

 

[Bluerover]

Wakey wakey yanks

US criticises Israel over civilian death toll in Gaza

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in his strongest public criticism of Israel's conduct of the war on Hamas in south Gaza, said there was a gap between the government's declared intentions to protect civilians and the casualties.

www.rte.ie

 

[Martin Alvito]

The UN is a joke and lacks any credibility. You have to ask yourself why didn’t they invoke article 99 over Ukraine yet here they are invoking it over Gaza.

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for the security council piling in and stopping the murder in Gaza but where was the UN when Russia invaded Ukraine? That situation surely presented a bigger threat to international peace and security.

When the aggressor has a Security Council veto, the UN is functionally powerless. The secretary-general could invoke Article 99, but we all know how that ends in the Security Council, so he doesn't.

What's not entirely clear is what the decision means. It could mean there's been a softening in the US position. The administration could want to do something, but require political cover for the decision. It could also mean that Guterres just wants to put the US in an uncomfortable position with respect to using the veto.

Wakey wakey yanks

US criticises Israel over civilian death toll in Gaza

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in his strongest public criticism of Israel's conduct of the war on Hamas in south Gaza, said there was a gap between the government's declared intentions to protect civilians and the casualties.

www.rte.ie

The whole issue is incredibly fraught over here. It looks to have ended the president of Penn's administrative career, after a major donor threatened to pull $100 million from the endowment unless she is removed. Taking a public position on social media could easily be career-ending in many professions, including politics. It looks likely that it will end Cori Bush's tenure in the House.

Money talks, the Israeli lobby has oodles and the Palestinian lobby doesn't. The results are as one might expect.

 

[DrEFC]

100% pure extremist rhetoric. From a person who governs a city. The UK/US have massive influence and need to stop this now.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

They are not refusing to take refugees because they do not support the Palestinians; they are refusing to take any refugees because they know that Israel are looking to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian territories and to take refugees would support that policy of Israel.

As for getting involved, foreign ministers from the region have agreed a common position and been touring all the SC member capitals and have delivered the same message in each - this must stop. They are visiting the US now in the last leg of that tour. If all this diplomatic work doesn't bear fruit and the Israeli government continues or ramps up the killing then I would imagine there will be an escalation.

When the aggressor has a Security Council veto, the UN is functionally powerless. The secretary-general could invoke Article 99, but we all know how that ends in the Security Council, so he doesn't.

What's not entirely clear is what the decision means. It could mean there's been a softening in the US position. The administration could want to do something, but require political cover for the decision. It could also mean that Guterres just wants to put the US in an uncomfortable position with respect to using the veto.


The whole issue is incredibly fraught over here. It looks to have ended the president of Penn's administrative career, after a major donor threatened to pull $100 million from the endowment unless she is removed. Taking a public position on social media could easily be career-ending in many professions, including politics. It looks likely that it will end Cori Bush's tenure in the House.

Money talks, the Israeli lobby has oodles and the Palestinian lobby doesn't. The results are as one might expect.

The killing in Gaza will stop when the US deems that enough is enough and not before. They are the only player who can influence Israeli decision making.

Anyone pinning their hopes on the useless UN forcing any type of solution are going to be very disappointed.

Once the dust has settled The big question is what comes next? You can probably discount a UN peacekeeping force as they’ll be targets for both sides. Just ask the Irish lads on here how many of their troops have been killed as part of UNIFIL on the Israeli/Lebanese border (No wonder the Irish govt hates the Israelis).

The force that goes in needs to have a military chain of command (Not a UN one). It needs to be large enough and equipped and ready to defend itself if necessary.

I noted that the Turks are interested - that maybe the best solution all round.

 

[Wizard]

 

[dublinbluenose]

US are veto-ing the UN resolution. A dark dark day.

 

[Martin Alvito]

The killing in Gaza will stop when the US deems that enough is enough and not before. They are the only player who can influence Israeli decision making.

Anyone pinning their hopes on the useless UN forcing any type of solution are going to be very disappointed.

Once the dust has settled The big question is what comes next? You can probably discount a UN peacekeeping force as they’ll be targets for both sides. Just ask the Irish lads on here how many of their troops have been killed as part of UNIFIL on the Israeli/Lebanese border (No wonder the Irish govt hates the Israelis).

The force that goes in needs to have a military chain of command (Not a UN one). It needs to be large enough and equipped and ready to defend itself if necessary.

I noted that the Turks are interested - that maybe the best solution all round.

Guterres can bring some media pressure to bear. That's not much, but it's also greater than nothing. If Biden and Blinken crack on this issue, that's the direction the pressure will have come from.

For right now they seem committed to the approach of twisting Israel's arm on food, water and fuel, which misses the point. There's no shelter, and soon there may not be anyone to distribute the aid. It's worth noting that Israel had their own Abu Ghraib moment yesterday, and that this hasn't been widely picked up over here. Israel's strategy right from the get-go has been to deny foreign journalists access. They know editors don't want to run things they may have to retract, and won't give stories reported on by foreign sources the same primacy of place as a result.

It looks like Blinken has been trying to get the Arab states to take on the peacekeeping duties, but they don't want to do it due to the optics. Biden and Blinken have been badly outmaneuvered by Netanyahu et al on this one. They needed to go after Israel on press freedoms from early days, and failed to change tack once it became clear Israel was playing for creating a humanitarian disaster as the grounds for mass deportation.

 

[summerisle]

 

[tsubaki]

The US vetoed the UAE resolution at the SC, but there was a greater degree of cohesion between the rest - all in favour apart from the UK (who abstained) - than seen before.

To sane people this would suggest it is time to draw this to a close, but Netanyahu will probably think it means he has the green light.

 

[Bluerover]

UK ass- splinters and US veto just sickening.

At least 16,000 dead.

 

[coollino]

What is the reason for the US doing this?

 

[Ruairi77]

What is the reason for the US doing this?

political donations and influence?

Not one media outlet is pushing the idea that what Bibi is doing is actually terrible for Israel, never mind Gaza.
It's like there's collective amnesia about his politics or the kind of coalition government he had to form to get back power.
No one wants the finger of antisemitism pointed at them. Just look at what's going on at Harvard.

 

[dublinbluenose]

Contempt

 

[dublinbluenose]

Tiltok will be an invaluable resource when they're eventually held to account