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.