Search Results: israel or palestine

US, UK and France are known to be the upholders of democracy in this world.. but the world's largest democracy will (or will it not?) experience a change within a month.. With a total of 1,616 political parties ( 6 national parties) It is going to be a major event in world politics are will affect various major events such as Palestine-Israel and Syria crisis.. What does it feel to you people who are generally acknowledged with 2 party elections which are pretty much straight forward and predictable? (Racist comments are okay.. I am an Indian, but i would take it as a joke :p)

Do you sympathize more with Israel or the Palestinians?

Note: this is a question about personal feelings of sympathy, not your view on your own government’s policy. For example, you could sympathize with one side strongly, but still believe that your government should be neutral.

I go for B. Israel definitely violates Palestinians’ rights, but Israel does act with far more restraint than any other country would in its situation. Israel has a remarkable level of freedom for a Middle Eastern country. I don’t see any genuinely secular, rights-respecting element in the Palestinian national movement. I think Israel gets held to a higher standard of morality than other countries, which I find suspicious.

link

130 countries and 14 security council members on one side

israels refusal to stop building on palestinians agreed land, hiding behind americas veto on the other.

first america bullied palestine not to make a resolution condemning isreali settlements.

then almost every country on earth votes to support the palestinians and against isreal.

america vetoes the resolution.

once again americas name is sh*t in this world.

...

The US has vetoed an Arab resolution at the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace.

All 14 other members of the Security Council backed the resolution, which had been endorsed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

It was the first veto exercised by the Obama administration which had promised better relations with the Muslim world.

A Palestinian official said the talks process would now be "re-assessed".

Washington was under pressure from Israel and Congress, which has a strong pro-Israel lobby, to use its veto.

On paper this was a defeat for the Palestinians but they and representatives of other Arab nations seemed to be in a buoyant mood. They had held out some hope that America would abstain, but not much, so the veto was predictable.

The degree of support, on the other hand, was overwhelming: some 130 countries co-sponsored the resolution, and all the other members of the Security Council voted for it.

The result was strong endorsement of the Palestinian position on Israeli settlements - that they are illegal, and an obstacle to peace - which isolated Israel. It also isolated the United States.

No matter what reasons America gave for the veto (it insisted bringing the matter to the Security Council complicated chances for peace talks) or how fulsomely it criticised settlement building (as a folly and threat to peace) it appeared out of sync with the international consensus, and as Israel's only defender.

Given the ferment in the Arab world at the moment, that is not a good position for Washington to be in.

Palestine wants to go to the UN about new Israeli settlements.

america doesn't want this to happen and has bullied palestine not to go to the un.

who the f*** is obama and America to do this.

every country has access to the united nations. that's the point of the united nations.

link

bbc

link

isreali news

link

retuers

what is this sh*t.

the so-called question, and which of the two you want to win over in the end

so curious to know what girls and guys thinking here about this non-ending issue