Well, sorta.

I've always found it to be quite complex and just when I think I get what's going on over there, something new comes along and makes me wrong.

Anyway, as soon as I saw that the resolution that passed - http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/08/gaza.security.council/index.html - did so with 14 of the 15 members voting for it, I just KNEW it was going to be The US that abstained.

I do not get that. Is it that we don't wont to go on some kind of record that may close another diplomatic door later? Why abstain?

More questions later. Hijack all you want. It doesn't bother me. But at least try and explain why we would abstain on voting this time?

Because we want something for it.

That's the only thing I can think of.

Maybe. But I suspect it's more of a defensive move.

I know it's diplomacy and it's complex and all very important. But come on, all the " off the record " and behind the scenes negotiations are somehow, now, to be ignored? I mean, what's going to happen to the other 14 that voted? They will get embargos or something? Something bad will hapen to them? But beause we abstained, formally, we somehow have sanitized hands now?

Who is this supposed to fool?

Here's the deal:

The United States makes BILLIONS in arms sales to Israel. Probably close to enough to even out the amount of aid we give the Israeli government.

Traditionally during the Cold War, the Arab states were armed by the Soviets, and now the Russians are the prime ones providing arms.

I can think of no other explanation as to why the US has so blindly enabled what is, IMHO, the Israeli government's terroristic acts against the Palestinians in the region. There have been numerous UN sanctions against Israel, some demanding they leave the occupied territories, for over 30 years, and none of them have been followed through. The Palestinians have been largely enslaved, with their basic rights stripped, and their plight, sadly, is not that unlike slavery we had here. Yet the US government enables this, and turns the other cheek.

Yes, it is sad what happened to the Jewish folks during the Holocaust. It incenses me to this day. And it isn't the Jewish folks I blame for this predicament at all, it's their government. To their government, somehow, two wrongs make a right. They want the Palestinians and Hamas to stop rocket attacks in southern Israel, they want the violence to stop, yet they won't do anything on THEIR part to help stop the violence by giving these people some basic human rights.

Could another element at play in the decision to abstain be a desire to avoid alienating Evangelical Christians and possibly other voting blocs? The Evangelical community is really big on the idea that the US has a moral duty to support Israel. I suspect that a vote for the cease-fire resolution could be seen, in Evangelical circles, as the US telling Israel that it shouldn't be allowed to defend itself.

It's a lot more complex than money and has nothing to do with Evangelicals.

The discussion has left out some key points.

First, this battle for the land fka Palestine is a 2500 year old story. It didn't just start with this latest skirmish. If you look back at what's happened since 1948, it's pretty clear to even the casual researcher than no matter what borders are drawn, the radical Islaamic element in the region will not cease to attack Israel's right to exist, right to have any land or borders, or to live in the region peacefully. The 1967 war came about because of the aforementioned and every war since. Israel has no right to exist in the eyes of Hamas and that is the key part of the problem.

Hamas has been firing rockets on Israel throughout the cease fire that recently ended. Israeli response, up until the latest series of events, was muted. Hamas' disinterest in negotiating an extension is documented. Hamas, although elected in Gaza some years ago, is still considered a terrorist organization by just about everyone in the world. The large majority of the Arab world wants Hamas to be eliminated, not just Israel and the U.S. The fact that Egypt shut the border on south Gaza was not Israel's decision. Limiting and inspecting travel across the Gaza-Israeli border crossings is a necessity and is no different than everywhere else in the world. You can't drive a truck full of explosives into the U.S. through any border crossing, either. The fact that Hamas has done nothing for the Palestinians of Gaza is no one's fault but Hamas and the people who elected/tolerate them. The Palestinians in Gaza want unfettered access to the West Bank, and that's not tenable when they share/own no border in common. It's not Israel's responsibility to provide connecting infrastructure for them and has every right to limit their ingress/egress through the Negev.

The Israelis pulled out of Gaza but for the Hamas it wasn't enough. After years of living under sporadic rocket attack, it's about time they put an end to it. Are Palestinians caught in the middle? Yes, but only because they tolerate Hamas. Hamas is not the Taliban. Hamas is not Hezbollah. Hamas is more like al-Queda. They have only one agenda and it isn't a pretty one. If you think the Israeli government are conducting terrorist acts by disarming Hamas, you are mistaken. Gaza is not a sovereign nation (like Iraq was). Gaza has access to the sea. If they want to be independent, they should (Hamas that is) stop blaming Israel for their lack of prosperity. Israel should not be required to support Gazans anymore than the U.S. should be required to support Cubans.

Personally, I've never seen an international scenario so misinterpreted by the main stream press. Where was the outrage when the U.S. killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis?

It's naive to say that Israel bears no blame for what's going on. They were awarded land that was someone else's and have bullied the region for decades. I don't support Hamas or their tactics, but I don't support Israel either.

In fact, the US support of Israel is mainly to blame for Arab hatred towards the US.

What has Israel done for the US to deserve such protection and unlimited aid? I think we need to re-examine the relationship we have with Israel, as I don't think we benefit much from it.

"They were awarded land that was someone else's"

Not true.

Evidence of a Jewish presence in Israel dates back 3,400 years, to the formation of the religion.

"In fact, the US support of Israel is mainly to blame for Arab hatred towards the US. "

Not true from a historical perspective. The radical factions of Palestine did not accept the U.N.'s mandate in 1948. That is the root of the problem. Plus, this is Hamas, not the entire Arab world. Clearly, most Americans fail to make that distinction.

In addition, after the war for independence in 1948, Egypt remained in occupation of the Gaza Strip and Transjordan annexed the "West Bank" and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City. Except in Jordan, Arab refugees that left Palestine were settled in refugee camps and denied full citizenship and rights by the Arab countries that hosted them.

"What has Israel done for the US to deserve such protection and unlimited aid?"

"The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/1922_MANDATE/1922_mandate.asp#whitelineanchorHome

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/US_ISRAEL_RELATION/us_israel_relation.asp

Andy, what are some likely reasons that The US abstained from that vote?

Andy, I think you've disclosed previously that you're Jewish, right? I've got no dog in the fight, so I look at the situation with nothing at stake and no bias towards one group or the other.

Previous to 1948, Israel did not exist. So while there have been disputes for thousands of years, land was taken away and given to Israel and Israel then went to war and expanded their borders beyond what was awarded from the UN. Today's disputes are mainly a function of what's happened in the region for the last 50-60 years, not 3400 years ago.

As for what Israel has done for the US, you didn't answer the question. What benefit has Israel's friendship provided the US? We all know the benefits the US provides Israel. Billions of dollars, plenty of weaponry, and unconditional military backing if it came down to that. I don't wish Israel any harm, but at the same time, I wish the US would cut support from them and take a more neutral stance. Israel is perfectly capable of defending themselves.

"what are some likely reasons that The US abstained from that vote?"

If you mean the vote yesterday, I think (IMO) it's because the Bush administration has been an agressor in Iraq and hardly has a leg to stand on in the instant debacle when it comes to any of the negative impacts of the Israeli decision to permanently disarm Hamas. After all, Bush and co. ignored the pleas from the world to cease aggression because innocent Iraqis were getting bombed. Shock and awe, remember?

"right?"

Correct.

"land was taken away and given to Israel"

Again, that is your misinterpretation. The land was inhabited by many tribes primarily of Jewish and Islaamic origins, but the land was not taken away from anybody. There were no sovereign rights recognized internationally. Please read.

"Israel then went to war and expanded their borders beyond what was awarded from the UN. Today's disputes are mainly a function of what's happened in the region for the last 50-60 years, not 3400 years ago."

First, you are just restating my response to you. You keep trying to make the point that the lands of the area were not claimable by the Jews, and in fact they have as much right to the land as anyone. That's why I mentioned "3400" years ago. I also stated in my first post that this is about what's transpired since the U.N. mandate in 1948 "since 1948, it's pretty clear to even the casual researcher than no matter what borders are drawn, the radical Islaamic element in the region will not cease to attack Israel's right to exist, right to have any land or borders, or to live in the region peacefully. The 1967 war came about because of the aforementioned and every war since. Israel has no right to exist in the eyes of Hamas and that is the key part of the problem.

"you didn't answer the question. What benefit has Israel's friendship provided the US?"

Money. All you refer to is the outgoing funding. There is another side to the equation.

"The cornerstone of the vibrant U.S.-Israel economic
relationship is the 1985 Free Trade Agreement
(FTA), the first FTA ever signed by the
United States. Over the last 20 years the FTA has
enabled a sevenfold expansion of bilateral trade.
Israel has become one of the largest trading partners
of the U.S. in the Middle East and Israel’s
prime export destination is the United States.
The Israeli and American economies share common
commitments to a free market, competitiveness,
active support of international trade liberalization
and of the multilateral trading system.
There is constant dialogue between the governments
of Israel and the United States to upgrade
their economic relationship and to ensure a continued
prosperous partnership."

http://www.israelemb.org/US-Israel-Relations/usisrael_pub.pdf

***

"The deep-rooted friendship between the United States and Israel is not an accidental one, and it cannot be taken for granted. It is a friendship predicated on shared values and on a moral, human and social destiny, the main principles of which are individual liberty, social justice and peace."

— Ehud Olmert

Gotta go. Later. Thanks for the discussion.

Are the benefits Israel provides to the US worth the cost of our relationship with them? I'm not so sure it pencils out.

North America was inhabited the Native Americans previous to the Europeans arriving. If the Native Americans were awarded North Dakota thanks to an international treaty and collectively all moved there and kicked out the current residents of North Dakota, would those residents be considered terrorists if they chose to fight back by any means possible? Would those North Dakota residents have the right to feel cheated? And how would the US react if Russia supported the Native Americans with money and weapons to defend themselves and as a result, North Dakota was able to claim South Dakota as well?

It seems to me that Israel wants to have it's cake and eat it too. They bear part of the blame for what is occuring because they use terrorism as well, but on a much larger scale.