I never thought I would be glad to see Australia out of the Security Council but under this government that day has finally arrived. One of the last acts of this nation's membership of the body was to vote against a resolution that sought to put a timetable for a two state solution in the Middle East. In doing so we joined the perennial veto-er, the US in shooting down this latest attempt by the Palestinian people to unilaterally seek support from the rest of the world community to put pressure on Israel.

And what was the Israeli take?

“The attack is now coming on Israel from the Palestinian Authority seeking to impose on us a diktat that would undermine Israel’s security, put its future in peril,”

All the other nations in the Security Council either abstained or voted in favour of the resolution, the draft of which can be found here;

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/resolution-jerusalem-palestinian

Even the UK which was one of those countries abstaining made their position clear through their ambassador.

“We consider president Abbas a man of peace and understand the pressure that the Palestinian leadership has been under to act and their frustration with the lack of progress,”

While I can in some ways understand the vote by the US which has been a determined supporter of Israel and its actions even when those actions have been condemned by the rest of the world community. The US has historically used its veto to protect Israel from censure in the UN. It also has a large Jewish and pro-israel constituency that its leaders need to heed. But Australia is different and has in the past rightly recognised the injustices that have been inflicted on the Palestinian people. It has either supported or at worst abstained on UN resolutions aimed at Israel.

To back the US in this latest vote was a sycophantic act from a government determined to be in lockstep with the US.

Surely we are better than that.

Shame Australia shame!

Dear SteeleRedux,

Australia's consecutive governments have always
supported Israel and the Zionist lobby is extremely
strong in this country hence it is not surprising
that Australia would back Israel.
Not surprising at all - but very, very, disappointing.
And as you say - "Shame, Australia, Shame!"

Dear SteeleRedux,

We should also remember that Australia's Foreign Minister
Julie Bishop absolutely refused to refer to occupied
East Jerusalem and she made it quite clear that she would
not ask Israel to cease - "all Israeli settlements."
Thus supporting the shameless stealing of Palestinian
land.

Australian Attorney General George Brandis, speaking in
Parliament said that the administration does not consider the
eastern section of Israel's capital city to be "occupied."

So how can we expect these people to act any differently.
We can hope - but their past record does not give us much
hope.

Perhaps it is high time that the government should recognise
that Australia's trade with the Middle East accounts for
billions of dollars annually.

Now that is something they would understand.

An easy, simple, well meaning compromise for me would've been the signing of an agreement where Israel stops settlement activity.

This will give both sides some space to sit down and force them to start negotiating PROPERLY.

Israel act thuggish, determined and non-compromising.
If Israel says that it won't have outside influence dictate when or how it should negotiate peace then it should at least be put on a leash.

Without any restrictions on settlement building, there's no reason why Palestinians should stop fighting and conveyed to the world as terrorists by western media - playing into Israel's hands, nor any reason why Israel should sit down and negotiate properly because its already slowly getting what it wants unrestricted now. Its not hard to figure out.

This issue highlights to me the black-spots where democracy is just an illusion.
I know there would be a lot of people in this country who are supportive of Israel.
But I'm sure there are also plenty of people that do not support the way Israel treats the Palestinians.
Where is our balanced voice?
It doesn't matter who we vote in.
Both main parties support Israel so there is no opposition.
Not surprising I guess when you look at an aerial view of our capital city.

Dear Foxy,

I also remember very clearly Julie Bishop on Insiders stating those who believe in sanctions against Israel for the slaughter of so many civilians in the latest conflict were “anti-Semitic”.

I for one believe in sanctions as a non violent way of putting pressure on Israel. For my own foreign minister to label me in such a fashion was unconscionable.

The only other major country that will often side with the US in backing Israel is the right wing government of Canada.

In a recent vote this year the UN passed a resolution that Israel should pay compensation to Lebanon for a massive oil slick that coated the entire coast of that country. It was caused by Israeli operations against Hezbollah.

“General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion. The assembly voted 170-6 in favour, with three abstentions. Israel, the US, Canada, Australia, Micronesia and Marshall Islands voted "no".”

Why are we doing this? Surely what the right thing to do was obvious but Abbott and Bishop chose instead to put Australia at loggerheads with world opinion purely for ideology and political expediency.

They really are debasing the Australian notion of sticking up for the underdog. Instead we seemed determined to become a simpering, fawning cowardly country peering out from behind the US.

What these two have done to corrode Australia's standing in the world community should have them tried for treason.

You all seem to have it A over T.
It is the Palestinians who are the occupiers.

The Arabs invaded the area and the Koran tells them that land once
occupied by Moslems is always Moslem from then on.

Because they have been ejected a few times over centuries does not
mean they 'own' the land as the Jews "owned" it long before that.
Maybe the Canaanites have a claim if they still exist.

Dear Armchair Critic,

You wrote;

“It doesn't matter who we vote in. Both main parties support Israel so there is no opposition.”

That support is not quite equal. There are indeed differences in Australia's voting record at the UN over two particular resolutions that come up each year.

The first reaffirms the obvious, that the “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan” are illegal.

The second calls for a reaffirmation “that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,2 is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967”.

Australia traditionally had done the right thing in recognising international law and voted in favour of both. That was until the Howard government started voting against the first and abstaining on the second.

Cont..

Cont..

In 2005 on a vote regarding the occupied territories this was the outcome;

For - Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and
Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin,
Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti,
Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary,
Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic
of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon,
Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger,
Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,
Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro,
Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South
Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic,
Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),
Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against - Australia, Grenada, Israel, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United
States of America.

Yup there we were lumped in with a couple of tiny pacific nations dependent on the US largesse supporting the US and Israel in being prepared to deny the bleeding obvious.

When Howard left power the vote returned to normal but now Abbott has again tied to such a blinkered, selfish, self-centered, stance. Here is a link to Australia's voting record;

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/11/26/Changing-votes-at-the-UN.aspx?COLLCC=2018533364&

It is cowardliness and I loathe it.

Dear Bazz,

Thank you for your insightful contribution.

Dear SteeleRedux,

I am trying to understand the complexity of the Australian
government strongly supporting the US in their pro-Israel stance
in all matters.

Supporting the US could come from the fact that Australia
geographically is located in a predominantly Asian area -
and were it to be attacked - we would need the support and
help of the US in defending ourselves.

Secondly, as I pointed out earlier - the Zionist lobby is
very strong in this country. As Antony Loewenstein explains
in his book, "My Israel Question,":

"Australia has the highest rate of emigration to Israel
per capita in the Western World, and a great number of
Jews regularly make financial contributions to Israel.
A 1991 survey of Jewish students on university campuses found
that 77 per cent envisaged themselves contributing regularly
to Israel once they became salary-earners. Such close
identification with the Jewish state is based on a strong
desire to maintain an ongoing connection with the homeland,
which is seen as a significant source of inspiration..."

Therefore it makes sense that the Jewish Community would
spend money in supporting certain political parties -
and time and money - in engaging in influencing pro
Israel politics in this country.

According to Loewenstein, "The Liberals have been most
successful in attracting Jewish financial support...
Jewish business figures including Frank Lowy, Harry
Triguboff and Richard Pratt donated millions
of dollars to Liberal Party coffers...Frank Lowy,
Australia's second richest man, is a close friend of
former PM John Howard. The former PM according to Fairfax
chairman Ron Walker - listens to his advice on
international issues particularly issues relating to the
state of Israel..."

Personally I've never had a high regard for the United Nations, and I thought by now it would've gone the same way as the 'League of Nations' ? I guess their ideals and ethics are sound, sound in principle at least. But those who occupy permanent membership of the Security Council, generally do little for the benefit of those smaller (often African) nations, that need their 'clout and influence', as evidenced in many examples, too many to cite in fact ?

Some time ago, I read a book penned by Lt Gen Romeo DALLAIRE, (Canadian Forces) who headed the UN response to the crisis in Rwanda. The book was titled; 'Shake Hands with the Devil' pub. 2003. Basically it was the United Nations failure, of the entire Rwandan Campaign. A truly horrifying account of human slaughter of hundreds of people within 100 metres of so of fully armed UN troops !

I don't know, I guess we've got to have some meeting point of nations that have no direct diplomacy with each other, or other similar nations for that matter, still...?

Foxy, and other geographically challenged posters.
Australia is NOT even near Asia.
Asia is on the other side of the world.
You all went to school with Mercator's projection of the world on
your classroom walls.
Several generations of children, me included, we brainwashed into
thinking Australia is in Asia.

Not only are the longitudes in parallel on the map but the latitudes
are not the same size in the North & Southern hemispheres !
The map is a distortion of fact.

Most people who have been brainwashed in that way are not aware that
Beijing is closer to Berlin than it is to Darwin.
Indonesia is not in Asia and the Philippines also is not in Asia.
Paris is closer to Asia than Australia.
I have won bets on these.

Dear Steele,

<<I never thought I would be glad to see Australia out of the Security Council>>

I was never glad to see it in! If there is shame about it, then it is in Australia's very involvement with this rogue organisation, the "United Nations" (which were never united of course). The whole fact of being there is shameful, rather than this vote or another which makes no difference anyway.

Dear Bazz,

<<Maybe the Canaanites have a claim if they still exist.>>

Many of those who now call themselves "Palestinians" are in fact ex-Jews, farmers who never left their land in thousands of years, but were forced to convert to Islam in order to avoid the heavy extra tax on Dhimmis.

Why then all this fuss about the internal quarrels among the Jews?

Interesting Yuyutsu, I knew that DNA wise they are all Semites but I
had not thought of the Palestinians being Jews.
I guess the Jews might call them apostates and treat them fairly with Shari Law, hmmm.
The biggest rows are inside families; they cannot disconnect from each other.

Re the UN, I gave up when Gaddafi's government was chairing the Human Rights
Commission judging Australia !
The Arab countries refused to sign the Human Rights Treaty.

Now they are to tax the Australian government for funds for developing
countries global warming projects.
Well that is the what the front cover says anyway.
The world is truely stark raving mad.

Dear Bazz,

I should have made things clearer for you.
The continent of Australia shares marine
territorial boundaries with its nearest
neighbouring countries - the nearest of those
countries include Indonesia, East Timor, Papua
New Guinea, New Zealand, New Caledonia, the
Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, which are all
Island Nations or territories in the SOUTH
EAST ASIAN and ASIA PACIFIC regions.

The main point that was being made was that
should Australia be attacked - it would be hoped that
the United States would come to its defence. Hence Australia's
support of US policies. Especially its stance on Israel.

OK Foxy, the proper geographical designation for those countries plus
Philipines & Australia is Oceana.
Yes, if we were attacked I think it is reasonably sure that the US would come to our aid.
We would have had to have done something stupid to make them refuse.

I don't give a damn about the security council, our entering it was a vanity thing for the last Labor Prime Minister, & we paid dearly for that, just like everything she touched.

I want to see us out of the UN entirely.

There has never been a more corrupt or wasteful organisation in the history of mankind.

How anyone can approve of our taxes wasted on the disgusting mess I really can't imagine. Well I couldn't if I did not consider the Greens are fellow travellers, with many of the same objectives, & a lot of Labor lovies & academics are pretty damn close too.

After the collapse we will be able to send these useless types out to work for a change, & perhaps build something better, at least for a while.

Dear Foxy,

Yes it is a little perplexing.

As I stated earlier the historical ties between Israel and the US combined with a lot of pressure from Israel supporters, both Jewish and fundamentalist Christian, means a 'through thick and thin' relationship is particularly strong.

I can also see why a couple of minor Pacific nations who are beholden to the US might side with their benefactor but Australia and Canada? And only under solidly right-wing governments.

I get the argument that being in lockstep with the US is seen by some as vitally important to Australia's security but I don't think that is the whole of it by any measure. Labour governments have hardly faltered in their support either but that did not extend to selling our souls and turning our backs on world opinion.

Indeed what is it about the right-wing mindset that sees supporting Israel such an imperative?

Do they buy the story touted by the Israeli government that this is a black and white case of the good guys vs the baddies?

Are right-wingers scared of nuance, of complex histories, of evil and good coming from both sides of a conflict?

Just look at some of the responses here. Rather than tackle the issue in any meaningful way they attack the institution of the UN.

I firmly believe the answer for why the current Australian government acted as they did will not be found in the facts on the ground, or international law, or even in any treaty obligations with the US, instead it will be found in a study of what drives the right-winger.

There is something missing, some empathy gene displaced, some blindness or pathology that doesn't allow them to see what the rest of the world's nations see – the deep injustice of what has happened and continues to happen to the Palestinian people.

You are saying that Bob Hawke and other senior Labor figures must have been right wing then?

Bob Hawke,
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/palestinian-plot-to-kill-hawke/2006/12/31/1167500010729.html

The vote in the UN security council is a piece of political fantasy. Everyone knows that the US will veto it, and thus which side you vote depends on whether you want to take a left wing populist approach to tut tut Israel, or take a realistic approach.

In 1939-1940 Russia in an unprovoked move invaded Finland, and after a bitter war occupied 1/3 of its territory, expelled the native Finns and annexed the territory.

With respect to Israel, the 1948 border was defined by a ceasefire line between the Arab states and the small Jewish community which recognised by the UN by not recognised by any Arab state as a border, as they still failed to recognise Israel as a state. Subsequently, in 1967, the Arab states again launched a massive unprovoked attack on Israel, and while coming very close to winning were again defeated, this time the borders that Israel retreated to were pretty much the borders we see today, which were the minimum it required to defend Israel against further attack.

We now have the somewhat hilarious position where many Arab states still refuse to recognise Israel, but recognise the 1948 border.

The reality from Israel's perspective is that the 1948 border is indefensible, they have no faith in any of their neighbours to keep the peace, and the hundreds of thousands of Israelis that have living between the two borders for generations are certain to be ethnically cleansed if the border reverts, so the proposal is untenable.

If Palestine is achieve statehood, the new borders are going to be somewhere in between the 1948 and 1967 borders, and until the US forgos its permanent status, such fanciful resolutions are doomed.

SteeleRedux but also others do not get it.
He blames the "right wingers" etc etc.
Does he really think it is that simple ?
How about sympathy for a people that have been driven from pillar to post ?
They manage, after the holocaust, to get back their historical home
land from an invader.
They are immediately attacked by the surrounding countries and defeat them.
They build a viable economy in an area that was not exactly ideal.

That all took a lot of hard work and I think they gained a lot of
sympathy from those that had no political interest.

People who think there can be a political settlement have rocks in
their head, anything the Arab countries want is just a stepping stone
to the declared aim of the elimination of Israel.
You know that, I know that, everyone knows that !

So why the hell do you just keep boring the rest of us with your bleating ?

Dear Shadow Minister and Bazz,

Thank you for your contributions. They certainly provide an excellent opportunity to explore more directly a far right-wing perspective.

My contention of course is that people of your mindset dive for the default narrative whenever this topic is raised. I am interested in why.

By default narrative I mean statements concerning the 'threat of surrounding nations' which ignores the fact that Israel is militarily the 6th most powerful nation on the planet with hundreds of stockpiled nuclear weapons. The notion that one border would be more or less defensible than another is ludicrous but it is the narrative propagated by an Israeli government dedicated to taking as much Palestinian land as it can while under the protection of the US veto.

But this thread is about the perennial vote in the UN reaffirming that the military occupation of the West Bank is illegal and that the citizens under that occupation should be treated under international law as set out in the Geneva Convention. The only impact these have is to remind Israel and the US once a year that the world continues to watch their actions and to guard against a 'normalisation' or legitimisation of the behaviour of Israel.

Somehow both the Howard and Abbott governments have decided along with a handful of minor Pacific nations that the occupation is not illegal and those under that occupation do not deserve the protection of the Geneva Convention. Virtually every other government around the world of whatever stripe, left, right, centralist, voted differently. Recently the conservative government in Britain allowed a non-binding vote on support for a Palestinian State.

“Lawmakers in Britain's lower house of parliament voted by 274 to 12 on Monday to pass a non-binding motion which stated: "That this house believes that the government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution".”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-14/british-parliament-votes-to-symbolically-recognise-palestine/5811354

Cont..

Cont..

Even during the rule of the most right-wing British government in recent history, Thatcher's, the illegality of the occupation was not disputed.

But you two sit here and call it 'left-wing bleating'.

I will admit to being enamoured with the Israeli 'story' in my youth. It did indeed seem a black and white situation, but it didn't take much of a closer examination to show just how much more there was to the issue. But Israel's conduct, particularly over the last couple of decades, seems to have caused even the most ardent of their supporters to rethink their unswerving support.

But not you two. Why do you think that is? Perhaps it is just a case of pure bloody mindedness; 'anything that was seen as a left-wing cause can never be countenanced by us'. Granted it must take a serious effort to remain blind to world opinion but you two seem to be managing to do so.

So it is possible that the overarching, strident, unapologetic, right-wing stance taken by the Abbott government means it can't bring itself to take a moral position on this particular issue regardless of its rights or wrongs.

Abbott's belligerency wins and it defames us all.

Dear Bazz,

Your thinking is typical of the thinking of
Zionists of 100 years ago. As Israeli journalist
Dapna Baram writes, "One would think --- that
Israel was not a nucleqal regional superpower
possessing the fourth most powerful army in the
world, but a shaky sanctuary where Jews are
annihilated by the thousands every day."

The only way to defend an illegal and brutal
occupation is to be constantly on the offensive,
and slamming and threatening opponents often
forces them into submission. As Antony Loewenstein
points out:

"Zionism is an exclusionary and racist national
ideology that has always overlooked the rights of
the Palestinians. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians
has been nothing short of shameful. Israeli-only
roads are now commonplace across the West Bank, and in
the months after the Gaza "withdrawal" in 2005, Israel
commpletely cut-off the eastern sector of the West
Bank from the remainder of the West Bank. Some two million
Palestinians were prohibited from entering the area,
ruining livelihoods. Military sources told "Haaretz,"
the moves were "security measures."

"Israeli border closures have contributed to the economic
siege of the "liberated" Gaza Strip, and by March 2006
all bakeries in the strip were closed because of a lack of
flour. This policy of economic strangulation was best
articulated by Israeli prime ministerial adviser -
Dov Weisglass, who said it was, "like an appointment with a
dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but
won't die."

Such statements are rarely reported in the Western Media, though
Zionist groups would undoubtedly defend them. Even within
Israel, the media often fail to inform readers of the
reality of Israel's strangehold.

The sad thing as Loewenstein points out -
is that the Palestinians are not effective at
translating their message for a Western audience, and
most Western journalists based in Israel spend relatively little
time in East Jerusalem and the occupied territories.

Here he goes again;
He said;
But you two sit here and call it 'left-wing bleating'.

I never said a thing about "left wing" anything.
I said this;
SteeleRedux but also others do not get it.
He blames the "right wingers" etc etc.
Does he really think it is that simple ?
>
Go back and read my post.
You really do need to stop and think.

I think people across the whole political rainbow feel that Israel
needs a place to live and the area they have now is only a small part
of their historical territory.
Somehow I thought Bethlehem was part of the historical Israel.
I am not familiar with the geography but I think there are a number
of such historical towns that are now in Arab hands.

Once again for SteelRedux and Foxy, are you saying that Bob Hawke and other senior Labor figures must have been right wing?

Bob Hawke,
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/palestinian-plot-to-kill-hawke/2006/12/31/1167500010729.html
[Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 2 January 2015 11:42:57 PM]

@Bazz, Saturday, 3 January 2015 8:10:17 AM

Agreed. Such concern and sympathy were borne out in the speeches of Labor icon Bob Hawke for example.

I must be honest I don't know much about the UN or their various adherents and detractors ? I suppose (as I mentioned in an earlier thread) there needs to be a process and setting, where much smaller nations have an ability to discuss problems, both internally and externally, particularly if normal diplomatic structures, don't currently exist.

I note STEELEREDUX states inter alia; '...Israel is the 6th most powerful military nation on earth, with hundreds of stockpiled nuclear weapons...' or similar language ? Well I don't know about the accuracy of those figures ?

All I know, should Israel choose to deploy any nuclear weapon against any of it's enemy neighbours, then not only will Israel's enemies perish, but Israel itself will become almost inhabitable. The effects of nuclear fallout, have a nasty habit of biting 'everyone' on the toe ? Look at Chernobyl, ostensibly an accident ? Even today I've heard it reported, some of the overall catastrophic consequences are still apparent, almost seventy years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

A further worry for that entire region is, Iran's all out pursuit of Nuclear 'cough' 'power' ("weap.") 'power' ! Pakistan's also a nuclear power, aren't they a Moslem country, sympathetic to other Muslim nations ? The whole region's a mess.

Furthermore, any Arab nation or anyone for that matter, who seeks to provoke, tease or otherwise annoy Israel's military...Well, to my less than well informed mind, it's not unlike 'teasing' OZ's relatively quiet, but very deadly Inland Taipan snake ? Once bitten, bye bye !

In conclusion, much of what HASBEEN has said on the UN I agree with. To me they appear to be quite impotent, and like many large international bodies, some therein corrupt ? Should they be disbanded ? No, for the reasons I've already articulated herein.

If it were to be universally agreed, the United Nations in it's present form should be dissolved. What 'acceptable' scheme or process should replace it ? Surely not some ineffectual but honourable attempt, to resuscitate and revitalize the old 'League of Nations', a 'Rose' by any other name ?

For those who don't seem to understand the points
being made in connection with Australia's stance
to this conflict the
following two links should help clarify things
for you:

1) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-25/saul-its-about-time-australia-put-pressure-on-israel/5623530

And -

2) http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-language-changes-views-of-the-israelipalestinian-conflict-over-gaza-20140718-zu0s9.html

Cheers.

SR,

Your contributions give us the opportunity to experience the views of extreme left wing armchair based opinions.

It is amusing that those of your persuasion are able to hold and pontificate on pre conceived ideas in spite of holes you could sail a tanker through, and obvious contradictions. The most obvious contradiction being the condemnation of the actions by Israel while being completely oblivious to the actions of the Palestinians that are directly designed to maximise civilian casualties on both sides.

While it is true that after the last unprovoked surprise attack by the Arab states on yom kippur that the aggressors got such a hiding that most of them lost the appetite for all out war for decades, the nature and weapons of Arab aggression means that question of the size and shape of Israel is of strong strategic importance.

Given that even now, not one city stands more than about 30km from non Israeli territory, there is often less than a minute from a rocket being fired (from civilian areas) to impact, and the culprits swiftly disappear to in schools and hospitals. This distance gives Israel just enough time to intercept most of these weapons. Returning the west bank would reduce this flight time to seconds and make defense nearly impossible. This would leave Israel with option but to retaliate, which in comparison to the casualties from the limited action in Gaza, would be considerable. The nuclear stockpiles seeming to have little deterrent effect on these terrorists.

As for the border with Jordan (from whom the West bank was captured), the 1994 peace treaty legitimised the border formed in 1967 and ceded the West Bank to Israel, and in fact the only outstanding dispute is between Syria for the Golan heights. The legitimacy of the claim that the west bank is occupied territory is politically correct, but legally tenuous.

The view of the United Nations is mixed.
While not wanting to challenge the view that the UN is a mess I can
point out one field where it seems to work reasonably enough.
About every 5 years the International Telecommunications Union, a UN
body meets, usually in Geneva to thrash out frequency allocations.
It goes for three months or more at great expense and has similarities
to arguing over who owns what land.

It does work because ultimately everyone has to share it and it is very
very valuable territory, if you look at the spectrum auctions.
It has been compared to putting the negotiators in a room and locking the door.

Now perhaps it succeeds because it existed before the League of Nations.

Surely there is a lesson there for others.

Dear onthebeach,

If you have a point to make which is germane to the topic please feel free to clearly articulate it.

Dear Bazz,

My words;

“But you two sit here and call it 'left-wing bleating'.”

Note the single rather than double quotation marks indicating a thought or a paraphrasing. SM used “left-wing” and you used “bleating”.

You claim;

“I think people across the whole political rainbow feel that Israel
needs a place to live and the area they have now is only a small part
of their historical territory.”

Israel doesn't need a place to live as it is not a person. The Anglo world feels that the European Jewry need a place to live to escape the Christian racism and genocide. There is a deep sense of guilt for what occurred. There are those who live outside that sphere who see the formation of the State of Israel as a colonial and genocidal act by Europeans. Different perspectives different truths.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I wrote;

And right on cue you again dove for the “default narrative” and spruiked 'threats to Israel'. Then you dished up “The legitimacy of the claim that the west bank is occupied territory is politically correct, but legally tenuous.”

No it is not legally tenuous at all.

“The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, however Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply”
Wikipedia

Why would you think your opinion contradicts all these bodies and 97% of the governments of the world? I am interested in why you continue to sprout it though and I'm guessing you find the constructed black and white narrative highly attractive.

SteeleRedux,

The point is that your simplistic far leftist assessments are obviously chaotic and wrong. One example is enough to prove that.

Can anybody explain to me what is meant by the use of the terms 'left' and 'right' in the context of this discussion and others related to political and public policy discussions?

I see them used all the time, often as what seems to be intended as an insult or at least a dismissive pejorative, but I haven't been able to find any obvious consistency in the way they are used that might shed some light on what they signify to the users.

The historical usage doesn't help, deriving from the seating positions in the French National Assembly of 1789, during the revolution and referring to revolutionists and pro-monarchists respectively.

A more modern source seems as perplexed as I am

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

"The problem with conventional approaches to the left-right political spectrum is that they either fail to define the alternatives in question, or proceed to define them in terms of non-essentials."

Wikipedia gives a vast list of examples of disparate political movements and philosophical/ideological conceptualisations, which doesn't help much.

"There is general agreement that the Left includes: progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, left-libertarians, secularists, feminists, autonomists, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists.

There is also general consensus that the Right includes: conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, traditionalists, capitalists, neoliberals, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists and fascists."

So, following the fine example of Dr Johnson and the OED in defining the language as she is spoke and writ, I thought it would be best to be guided by those who use the terms.

Can anyone help me?

SR,

I am surprised that you consider threat posed by the tens of thousands of high explosive rockets fired from Gaza and Lebanon from civilian areas to be mere whimsy by the Israelis. Either you are a hard man accustomed war and dismissive of personal danger, or you simply don't care because they are only Jews.

With regards the legal status of the "occupation" my opinion is that the legal status of the west bank is largely irrelevant as the US veto makes it totally unenforceable, secondly as mentioned before trying to wind the clock back five decades is not only hugely impractical but wildly unlikely, as is the cession of the occupied Finnish territories by Russia.

However, I am aware of the UNSC resolution of 1979, and the non binding advisory of the International court, however, the subsequent peace treaty of 1994 by which Jordan (previous owner of the west bank) ceded the territory to Israel, as far as I am aware, makes the west bank part of Israel, and throws the question of the "occupied" status into question.

Dear SM,

<<the subsequent peace treaty of 1994 by which Jordan (previous owner of the west bank) ceded the territory to Israel, as far as I am aware, makes the west bank part of Israel>>

Jordan already renounced its claim to the West Bank in 1988 and the 1994 peace treaty did not discuss the issue.

The only hint to the existence of the West Bank was in Appendix I which discusses the exact borders, item 2A-7:

"The orthophoto maps and image maps showing the line separating Jordan from the territory that came under Israeli Military government control in 1967 shall have that line indicated in a different presentation and the legend shall carry on it the following disclaimer:
"This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of the territory."

I am confused, if Jordan, the undisputed holder of the west bank
ceded it to Israel, that is conclusive I presume.

However as most (all ?) ME countries believe Israel does not exist is
that why they claim it is occupied territory ?
Who is the occupier ? A non existent country ?

Dear Bazz,

The following link may help answer a few questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank

Dear Bazz,

<<I am confused, if Jordan, the undisputed holder of the west bank
ceded it to Israel, that is conclusive I presume.>>

IF, then so, but Jordan did not cede the West Bank to Israel: it simply relinquished it and declared that it no longer has anything to do with it.

King Hussein was a very wise man and I believe that Israel too should follow his example and do the same!

Yuyutsu, I would imagine that if it was an official government to
government treaty, contract or whatever it would be similar to the sale
of Alaska to the USA.

Re King Hussein, I spoke to him on the radio once and had a conversation
for about 20 minutes. It was halfway throuh the contact when I realised
with whom I was talking. He never said anything and neither did I after I realised who he was.
Also had a very brief contact with PM Rhiva Nerhu about six months
before he was assassinated.
Once heard King Carlos but did not make contact.
Barry Goldwater the US Senator was an interesting contact. Quite a
character, he spent a lot of time handling messages for US troops
and US people in Antarctica in the days before satcoms and internet everywhere.
Bit like masons and railway workers, we are everywhere !
Ah well enough reminiscing !

Dear Bazz,

You are very fortunate to have spoken with King Hussein - he was one person I admired.

It seems like a lot of the discussion has moved off from Australia moving out of the Security Council, but here I hesitate to add in my own personal views in mind of how sensitive the issue is. But I do personally feel that there are a lot of issues that are yet to come out of storage and make it easier to vote on what needs to be done. Both sides of the fight have certain points and histories that make a clear cut decision difficult....