"U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

When it comes to combatting anti-Israel bias at the United Nations, “there’s a new sheriff in town,” United States Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley proclaimed on Monday at the AIPAC Policy Conference.
Haley cited two episodes that demonstrated her commitment to protecting Israel from unfair attacks. First, she recalled how she blocked the appointment of a former Palestinian Authority official to a high UN post. On Haley’s watch, she said, there will be “no freebies for the Palestinian Authority anymore” until the PA decides to negotiate with Israel in good faith.
Haley also mentioned how she called UN Secretary-General António Guterres and told him to withdraw a UN agency report that described Israel as an apartheid state. Guterres withdrew the report, and the director of the agency that commissioned the report resigned.
Haley touched on the speech she made shortly after attending her first Middle East-related Security Council session, in which she expressed her surprise and shock that the session focused exclusively on Israel’s alleged sins, ignoring issues like ISIS and the Syrian Civil War. Haley recalled that she had heard that anti-Israel bias was an issue at the UN, but “until you hear it and you see it, you can’t comprehend how ridiculous it is.”
She also criticized the nuclear deal with Iran. When it comes to Iran’s behavior, she promised, “We’re gonna watch them like a hawk. We’re going to make sure that every single thing they do is watched, processed, and dealt with.”

Raggamuffin wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38888649

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/24/israel-announces-2500-more-west-bank-settlement-homes

All this building of settlements is just baiting the Palestinians isn't it? They should be able to refuse permission for any of them IMO. In the event of any future deal, it will be a mess because Israel will want to keep that land.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're always talking about "self determination" but that doesn't seem to apply to the Palestinians. You excuse the occupation of the West Bank all the time.

77% of Palestine was not giving to the Arabs - you keep including Trans-Jordan/Jordan, and I've already told you why you do that. This is about the area to the west of the Jordan - you don't seem to be able to grasp that.

It does apply to the Palestinians, what you keep avoiding is that they could have had this for times and its Israel who has first provided the grounds for a semi independent Palestine.
Yes it was given to the Arabs, in the form of Jordan, which is absurd how you continue to deny.
How many Palestinians are in Jordan?
Because Jordan was part of the British Mandate and given to the Arabs.
You tell me why you seem to want to whitewash history and exclude this?

So lets ask the question.

The Scottish people are one tenth the size of the other ethnic groups of the UK.
A future Independent Scotland will gain just under half the land mass of the UK

Any objections here from you?

The you can tell me why you think the Arabs, gained 77% and then more through two offers in 1937 and the 1947, but refusing them and were still unhappy, which would have given them an even higher percentage being that they are descended from colonialists who conquered? The Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, they are to the Arabian Peninsular.

And to easily debunk Quill. why has Israel given up for more land, than it now has?

Then explain to me why Palestinian authority have thwarted for times to have a nation and peace, with instead continued conflict?



Lets then compare Jewish land to Arab land

Thorin wrote:It does apply to the Palestinians, what you keep avoiding is that they could have had this for times and its Israel who has first provided the grounds for a semi independent Palestine.
Yes it was given to the Arabs, in the form of Jordan, which is absurd how you continue to deny.
How many Palestinians are in Jordan?
Because Jordan was part of the British Mandate and given to the Arabs.
You tell me why you seem to want to whitewash history and exclude this?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're always talking about "self determination" but that doesn't seem to apply to the Palestinians. You excuse the occupation of the West Bank all the time.

77% of Palestine was not giving to the Arabs - you keep including Trans-Jordan/Jordan, and I've already told you why you do that. This is about the area to the west of the Jordan - you don't seem to be able to grasp that.

It does apply to the Palestinians, what you keep avoiding is that they could have had this for times and its Israel who has first provided the grounds for a semi independent Palestine.
Yes it was given to the Arabs, in the form of Jordan, which is absurd how you continue to deny.
How many Palestinians are in Jordan?
Because Jordan was part of the British Mandate and given to the Arabs.
You tell me why you seem to want to whitewash history and exclude this?

So lets ask the question.

The Scottish people are one tenth the size of the other ethnic groups of the UK.
A future Independent Scotland will gain just under half the land mass of the UK

Any objections here from you?

The you can tell me why you think the Arabs, gained 77% and then more through two offers in 1937 and the 1947, but refusing them and were still unhappy, which would have given them an even higher percentage being that they are descended from colonialists who conquered? The Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, they are to the Arabian Peninsular.

And to easily debunk Quill. why has Israel given up for more land, than it now has?

Then explain to me why Palestinian authority have thwarted for times to have a nation and peace, with instead continued conflict?



Lets then compare Jewish land to Arab land

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38888649

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/24/israel-announces-2500-more-west-bank-settlement-homes

All this building of settlements is just baiting the Palestinians isn't it? They should be able to refuse permission for any of them IMO. In the event of any future deal, it will be a mess because Israel will want to keep that land.

So you back a judenrein West Bank then, if you think people settling in their ancestors land is baiting? The former policy of Jordan, that ethnically cleansed the West Bank and East Jerusalem of Jews.
So you are claiming the Arabs cannot live side by side with Jews?
Then tell me why a future Palestinian state, cannot have a minority Jewish population, just as Israel has a minority Arab population?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:It does apply to the Palestinians, what you keep avoiding is that they could have had this for times and its Israel who has first provided the grounds for a semi independent Palestine.
Yes it was given to the Arabs, in the form of Jordan, which is absurd how you continue to deny.
How many Palestinians are in Jordan?
Because Jordan was part of the British Mandate and given to the Arabs.
You tell me why you seem to want to whitewash history and exclude this?

You are just reiterating all the arguments that Israel went through to deceive the world into believing that it was not a Land-Grab.

Why do you believe that California belonged to the Yahi peoples, without western style boundaries, when you would deny the Palestinians because they didn't have western style boundaries?

Israelis were once European refugees.  The one people that land did not belong to was Europeans.  Yet, they end up with it.  All right, their original grant was given.  But at issue is the expansion that has taken place since...and we have no reason to believe that is over.

That is Lebensraum.

Thorin wrote:The you can tell me why you think the Arabs, gained 77% and then more through two offers in 1937 and the 1947, but refusing them and were still unhappy, which would have given them an even higher percentage being that they are descended from colonialists who conquered? The Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, they are to the Arabian Peninsular.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are just reiterating all the arguments that Israel went through to deceive the world into believing that it was not a Land-Grab.

Why do you believe that California belonged to the Yahi peoples, without western style boundaries, when you would deny the Palestinians because they didn't have western style boundaries?

Israelis were once European refugees.  The one people that land did not belong to was Europeans.  Yet, they end up with it.  All right, their original grant was given.  But at issue is the expansion that has taken place since...and we have no reason to believe that is over.

That is Lebensraum.

Israel has had far more land, than it did 4 decades ago, which you continually ignore and it has done so for peace with Jordan and Eygpt. Why can these two Arab nations come to peace with Israel and the palestinians cannot?

Because they continue to view the whole of Israel as occupied and refuse to accept the right of self determination for the Jews and the existence of Israel.

These telling points crush your argument and even more is your view that Jews cannot move to the West Bank and become a minority of a future Palestinian nation.

Israelis in the main are descended all the way back to the expulsion of Jews by the Romans, the rest have continually lived their. So you place colonial Arabs who conquered the area, over that of the indigenous.

No surprise there really, considering you are a Californian, and actually had the US annex this land and ethnically cleanse many indigenous. I believe that the US stole countless lands, yet nobody denies them the right to the existence of America today, but they would based off your arguments.

Hence you are a hypocrite.

Again I am all for a two state solution, but the fact you continue to blame Israel for the Palestinians at every turn refusing the chance for a Palestinian state and even starting wars. Is comparable to Hitlers refusal to accept the self determination of the Polish.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

It does apply to the Palestinians, what you keep avoiding is that they could have had this for times and its Israel who has first provided the grounds for a semi independent Palestine.
Yes it was given to the Arabs, in the form of Jordan, which is absurd how you continue to deny.
How many Palestinians are in Jordan?
Because Jordan was part of the British Mandate and given to the Arabs.
You tell me why you seem to want to whitewash history and exclude this?

So lets ask the question.

The Scottish people are one tenth the size of the other ethnic groups of the UK.
A future Independent Scotland will gain just under half the land mass of the UK

Any objections here from you?

The you can tell me why you think the Arabs, gained 77% and then more through two offers in 1937 and the 1947, but refusing them and were still unhappy, which would have given them an even higher percentage being that they are descended from colonialists who conquered? The Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, they are to the Arabian Peninsular.

And to easily debunk Quill. why has Israel given up for more land, than it now has?

Then explain to me why Palestinian authority have thwarted for times to have a nation and peace, with instead continued conflict?



Lets then compare Jewish land to Arab land

Trans-Jordan/Jordan was given to the Arabs, but we're not talking about that area. You don't seem to understand that at all. The fact that it was part of the British mandate is irrelevant - it's not in dispute. The Arabs in Palestine were offered less than half of Palestine but they were in a majority.

If the Arabs are not indigenous then neither are the Jews. In fact, a lot of the Jews came from Europe to settle in Palestine.

Semi-independent Palestine? What does that even mean? They should have their own country - like the Israelis do. Why should the Israelis run the show there? They have their own country, and now they're trying to settle on someone else's land.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:The you can tell me why you think the Arabs, gained 77% and then more through two offers in 1937 and the 1947, but refusing them and were still unhappy, which would have given them an even higher percentage being that they are descended from colonialists who conquered? The Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, they are to the Arabian Peninsular.

Rejecting offers is a part of the negotiating process.  What isn't fair is the starting position.  That land was originally stolen from the Palestinians.

You keep making the analogy to the Native Americans.  But your comparison is like arguing the boundaries of the pitiful Reservation they received, after the Indians have already had their land stolen from them.  

The Israeli Land Grab is the same.  The Israelis never intended to go back to the original boundaries.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Trans-Jordan/Jordan was given to the Arabs, but we're not talking about that area. You don't seem to understand that at all. The fact that it was part of the British mandate is irrelevant - it's not in dispute. The Arabs in Palestine were offered less than half of Palestine but they were in a majority.

If the Arabs are not indigenous then neither are the Jews. In fact, a lot of the Jews came from Europe to settle in Palestine.

Semi-independent Palestine? What does that even mean? They should have their own country - like the Israelis do. Why should the Israelis run the show there? They have their own country, and now they're trying to settle on someone else's land.

Yes we are as its part of the British Mandate.

See whitewashing history, as that area was also promised to the Jews



The Palestinians should have their own nation, so why are you not questioning, why for times they have denied themselves the chance to have such a nation?
 I gave you the evidence of which you as per usual ignored.
Stop blaming Israel for the failures of the Palestinian authority

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you back a judenrein West Bank then, if you think people settling in their ancestors land is baiting? The former policy of Jordan, that ethnically cleansed the West Bank and East Jerusalem of Jews.
So you are claiming the Arabs cannot live side by side with Jews?
Then tell me why a future Palestinian state, cannot have a minority Jewish population, just as Israel has a minority Arab population?

So suddenly you're obsessed with ancestry. It's nothing to do with ancestry, it's to do with the greed of Israel and wanting to take over all the land in the area. The Jews are not in a majority there - I thought you approved of self-determination for majorities, but it seems not. Of course it's baiting the Palestinians. The settlements aren't naturally occurring, they're happening because of the Israeli Government.

The Jews were once not a majority in Israel either, but I don't disapprove of Israel because now they are the majority.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yes we are as its part of the British Mandate.

See whitewashing history, as that area was also promised to the Jews



The Palestinians should have their own nation, so why are you not questioning, why for times they have denied themselves the chance to have such a nation?
 I gave you the evidence of which you as per usual ignored.
Stop blaming Israel for the failures of the Palestinian authority

You can talk about Jordan all you like, but it's just misdirection, and it's merely confirming your aggressive Zionism.

I will blame Israel for building settlements on Palestinian land. The Palestinians should have the right to decide what is built on their land.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Israel has had far more land, than it did 4 decades ago, which you continually ignore and it has done so for peace with Jordan and Eygpt. Why can these two Arab nations come to peace with Israel and the palestinians cannot?

Because they continue to view the whole of Israel as occupied and refuse to accept the right of self determination for the Jews and the existence of Israel.

These telling points crush your argument and even more is your view that Jews cannot move to the West Bank and become a minority of a future Palestinian nation.

Israelis in the main are descended all the way back to the expulsion of Jews by the Romans, the rest have continually lived their. So you place colonial Arabs who conquered the area, over that of the indigenous.

No surprise there really, considering you are a Californian, and actually had the US annex this land and ethnically cleanse many indigenous. I believe that the US stole countless lands, yet nobody denies them the right to the existence of America today, but they would based off your arguments.

Hence you are a hypocrite.

Again I am all for a two state solution, but the fact you continue to blame Israel for the Palestinians at every turn refusing the chance for a Palestinian state and even starting wars. Is comparable to Hitlers refusal to accept the self determination of the Polish.

Because they're not under the rule of the Israelis, and they're not having settlements built in their countries by the Israeli Government.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Because they're not under the rule of the Israelis, and they're not having settlements built in their countries by the Israeli Government.

But its legal under the league of nations, for Jews to settle there.
This is binding in international law.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But its legal under the league of nations, for Jews to settle there.
This is binding in international law.

How would you like it if someone came and built a house in your back garden without your permission? If the Israelis persist in pissing off the Palestinians, they can't be surprised when they object.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How would you like it if someone came and built a house in your back garden without your permission? If the Israelis persist in pissing off the Palestinians, they can't be surprised when they object.

You have to show me its their back garden?

When was there a Palestinian independent state in history?

There has never been one.

The land was before the Mandate controlled by the Ottomans, who are not Arabs.

The last point is he back gardens were originally from Judea and Israel, before any Arabs came to these lands.

So the Jews are simply gaining their own back gardens back

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You have to show me its their back garden?

When was there a Palestinian independent state in history?

There has never been one.

The land was before the Mandate controlled by the Ottomans, who are not Arabs.

The last point is he back gardens were originally from Judea and Israel, before any Arabs came to these lands.

So the Jews are simply gaining their own back gardens back

No they're not - they were never their own back gardens.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No they're not - they were never their own back gardens.

So you are now rewriting history, claiming there was no Israel and Judea?
Even worse and very antisemitic, you are claiming that the Jews in diaspora are not descended from formerly Israel and Judea.
What you also seem to be against if a right of return for these Jewish descendants.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you are now rewriting history, claiming there was no Israel and Judea?
Even worse and very antisemitic, you are claiming that the Jews in diaspora are not descended from formerly Israel and Judea.
What you also seem to be against if a right of return for these Jewish descendants.

I don't care who they're descended from. Many of the Jews came from Europe anyway, so yes, I'm against them moving to an area they never came from in the first place and stealing land in the West Bank. You accuse me of being antisemitic but you approve of lebensraum so you have a lot in common with the nazis really. You're also an extremist Zionist, so you won't ever see reason.

I see your views on self determination go out of the window when it suits you.