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.