Why Does The UN Back Palestine And The US Backs Israel?

Even President Obama said Palestine cannot be its own state under UN agreement so there is some connection between the US and Israel that goes beyond impartial.

In speculation it seems that Israel provides a safety net in that reigion by protecting oil if the mid east ever decides to stop its shipment to the US and give it to our enemies only like the Russians and Chinese.

Also they have AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies and the Republicans like them because of religion.

If there are any other good reasons why the US would not support a UN resolution but its own please state thanks.

 

I stopped reading your post when I saw your avatar (Obama progress) which indicates you support Obama, so I have no idea why you are asking this question. my answer is obvious, because Obama is a scum like Bush and Clinton before him. A Palestinian state would give people something to live for

 

Israel historically has served as a satellite state for US interests. Consequently there has been considerable consistency in US policy of its activities. Even though it is a legal obligation that virtually 95% of the world's governments support, Israel and the US refuse to recognize the rights of the Palestinians. Israel seeks to expand its territorial control, and the US seeks regional hegemony. The UN, and most of the rest of the world on the other hand, want peace, security and legal obligations to be upheld - thus there is a division.

 

Not quite that simple...the decision is more based on the fact that a functioning government is basically impossible due to spillover from revolution in Syria, on top of pressure from Iran and Hamas (which uses the PA as it's puppet) which would rather support Israel's destruction than even acknowledge it's right to exist or have a separate state. The US and Israel are not standing against peace, although some groups may (and please, stop the conspiracy rhetoric with AIPAC, it has about as much power as GLAAD or NAACP if you get your facts straight) never support a Palestinian state in any case. As a jew and a moderate Zionist, I support a Palestinian state as long as there is the possibility of a functional government (I hate to say it, but with the region being such a hotbed, self-determination is kind of an unrealistic and myopic nation), acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist and mutual agreements of non-aggression. The attempts at compromise the PA has provided usually go directly against the interests of Israel, and if you're talking about Israel's reluctance towards immigration, the card works on the other side too as the current political dialogue means that in a current Palestinian state it is likely Jews would be far more segregated than most Palestinians in Israel.

Hell, did you know a good amount of Palestinians in the area are actually more fearful of living under a Palestinian state than in Israel?

 

I disagree, my contention as laid out before is what I still stand by.

Based on what evidence you make this claim?

 

Of course you do. You are the traitorous one who sided and sympathized with terrorists over your own nation.

 

Who or what did I betray?

When did I do that?

 

Back when those terrorists in Australia went on trial and you justified their attmepted attack on your own people by claiming, like you always do, that the western world "has it coming".

 

Actually I said they were guilty. All I did outside of that was explain WHY they did it.

 

Not that I give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about Israel and Palestine, but if this serves as a breaking point between our country and the leeches in the UN, it's worth it.

 

LiberalMinority , with all respect , I just don't agree that the UN backed the PLO effort that much ...

but that's just my opinion ..

 

Leeches? LOL The US is one of the worst when it comes to actually paying the UN dues. Plus, the UN, more times than not, is a forum for the US to push its own political and social agenda on the world. I find it laughable that an organization is bad solely because its members (i.e. the rest of the world) have a voice and view that disagrees with yours. I would not be shocked that most people who share your point of view would be more than happy to support the UN if it was 100% supportive of US POVs instead of just 85% supportive.

 

Why dont you agree?

 

Mega it seems to me that the UN was being very careful in this matter..

If the PLO had of suceeded in their efforts , then Israel would be occupying a soverign nation , and that would lead to more violence from the PLO .

It would give the PLO an excuse to get the rocket launchers back out and continue their terrorist attacks on Israel ...

but that's just my opinion.

 

Israel has NOTHING at all to do with Middle East oil..

 

So because you disagree with his views you shut your mind to all he has to say?

 

You left wingers and your "rights." You people are blinded by your bleeding heart lust for humanitarianism. It is extremely naive to think a Palestinian state will bring peace to the middle east. It will change nothing. Palestine wants to exterminate the Jews. And they will continue to find reasons to blame the Jews for everything and like good little puppets you will continue to support them no matter how much you have already given them.

The U.S. supports Israel because the U.S. is the last country in the western world with an ounce of common sense in an era where western culture is drunk on political correctness and can no longer exercise proper prudence or sound judgment.

 

1. I'm NOT left wing. You are more left wing than I am.
2. I dont believe in rights I believe in honoring legal agreements - ie the law.
3. Rights are actually a right wing concept - an American one, in fact. The US constitution is ENTIRELY developed upon such a notion. Thus according to you the Foundling Fathers were "left wingers with their rights". hehe

Why is it naive?

Your evidence for these claims, particularly the last one?

LOL Well you should be able to blame a country for some of your problems when it blockades, invades, occupies and steals the land you inhabit.

Yep, you always know when you're near insanity when you think you are right when everyone - including your own judges, say you are wrong. The US HATES democracy, as displayed by its actions at the UN. It hates freedom as shown by its support for Israel. It has no integrity.

 

Why would there be violence?

Not really, unless Israel didnt withdraw or abide by international law - then their could be conflict. And that has been the source of it so far.

 

THe US always backs Israel.....Personally, I think the US should have to excuse themselves from voting on the issue....

 

agreed it is going to be a long process in the UN if this is to happen

 

It was the UN that gave Israel to the Jews, it should be them to give palestine to the arabs.

US right wing does not like american jews because they are liberals they would not care about Israel if not for other purposes.

 

You don't seem to understand what "right wing" and "left wing" mean. At the time, the founders would definitely have been considered left wing had that term been in use at the time. Their polar opposite was the British monarchy. Surely you aren't suggesting that monarchy is left wing, are you?

In fact, the terms left and right wing were coined in France where right wing meant supporters of the crown and left wing meant revolutionaries that opposed the crown.

 

Those "leeches" being everyone but the US and Israel, huh?

 

You are making many assumptions which render your response incorrect.
1. You are assuming, incorrectly, that the concepts of "left and right" have been the same throughout history.
2. You incorrectly assert the concept of left and right existed at that time - it didnt until the French Revolution, but it did take the alignment you describe. This however does not change my point since...
3. I am referring to left and right within the political spectrum of the US domestically, which didnt really emerge outside of ideological lines, ie federalist vs anti-federalist and so forth. In America the dividing lines have been more along statism and individualism. In modern times this has been transcribed into statism as left wing and individualism as right wing. In that sense, rights are very much right wing as they relate to the anti-federalist position of anti-statism, and now to constitutionalists lines. Look at modern examples, like Ron Paul for an embodiment of my point. It is right wing to be pro-rights in the US, hence me reference.

Correct, but that doesnt change my point.