NationStates Jolt Archive

Israeli PM Ariel Sharon has stated that a longstanding promise not to harm PLO leader Yasir Arafat is no longer applicable- basically, Sharon is saying that Arafat is a legitimate target for assassination.

Given the deadly missile strikes on the two most influential figures in Hamas over the last month, the fact that Arafat's movements are heavily restricted and constantly monitored by the Israeli Defence Forces, Sharon's decades-old personal hatred of Arafat, and Israel's apparent wish to destabilise and demoralise the Palestinians before it pulls out of Gaza in order to deprive them of the chance to claim the withdrawal as some sort of victory, it seems there can only be one outcome, and it will happen as soon as Sharon gives the go-ahead, which, as anyone who has studied the Middle East knows, he has been itching to do for years and years.

So do not be surprised if the news, in the next few weeks (or even days) reads "Arafat dead in missile strike"... but could Sharon be bluffing?

I doubt it. The USA has said it still stands by its plea to Sharon not to kill Arafat- although if the PLO leader were to be killed, Sharon would probably have calculated that the USA won't do much more than mumble a few half-hearted words of disapproval. The rest of the world would unequivocally (and probably unanimously) condemn a strike on Arafat but I doubt Sharon could give a damn what they think...

..meanwhile, political analysts have long said that for Sharon to kill Arafat would mean that the Palestinians would rise up in anger and rebellion- despite Arafat's secularism and nationalism, he is still popular among all strands of Palestinian society, despite his many failures. But look at what has happened after the Hamas members were killed- almost nothing. The Palestinians are too weak, impoverished and disorganised to make any meaningful response- in fact in some areas they're on the verge of famine, and meanwhile, Sharon has local lobbyists, angry at any withdrawal from 'Eretz Yisrael' to appease... many of them would be happy if Arafat were to die violently, and thus Sharon and Likud shouldn't suffer too much from withdrawing behind their security wall...

Arafat, I am sorry but I think you have days, rather than years, left to live.

I don't think that horse-trader could die soon enough.

Hmmm . . . remember when the Israelis beseiged Arafat's compound after the 2002 Passover suicide boming? Before that everyone had basically forgotten about him, but that event put him back under the spotlight.

Presto! (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/recipe.html)

Now imagine what would happen if they kill him. The Palestinian Security Forces would go crazy, and the Palestinian people would glorify his death as a martyr!!

I hope that they don't kill President Arafat. He has done a lot of good for the Palestinians and has continued to pursue his goal: a Palestinian state with full soverignty over all of its territories.

Don't think that the war criminal Sharon doesn't do anything without Bush's permission. He said he had already told Bush about this and apparently, Bush has said nothing against it.

Hmmm . . . remember when the Israelis beseiged Arafat's compound after the 2002 Passover suicide boming? Before that everyone had basically forgotten about him, but that event put him back under the spotlight.

Presto! (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/recipe.html)

Now imagine what would happen if they kill him. The Palestinian Security Forces would go crazy, and the Palestinian people would glorify his death as a martyr!!

I agree. Better to have them in their current state of relative quiescence than to hand them a rallying cry a la "Remember The Alamo". Not to mention the effect it would have all over the region politically. The egg on Bush's face would be intolerable this close to November '04.

Sharon had better be bluffing his way past Israelis in his upcoming 'vote of confidence' style referendum on the Gaza withdrawal. Whatever else ole Camel Mug is, he is the elected leader of the Palestinians. Blowing up Hamas leaders is one thing. A hit on Arafat would be a huge misjudgment.

:shock:

Arafat will be dead and the world will be free of yet another terrorist *******.

I hope that they don't kill President Arafat. He has done a lot of good for the Palestinians and has continued to pursue his goal: a Palestinian state with full soverignty over all of its territories.

Don't think that the war criminal Sharon doesn't do anything without Bush's permission. He said he had already told Bush about this and apparently, Bush has said nothing against it.

LMAO! You should be a D.J. the way you spin 'em. Sure Arafat wants that - the issue is what he considers to be "full soverignty over all of its territories'. His vision would preclude Israel's existence at all. Were it anything less he could be enjoying fond memories of Palestine's silver anniversary.

If what you say re Bush is so, then Bush would have to be willing to lose the election for Sharon's aggrandizement. Not about to happen.

:shock:

Why would the Israelis assassinate Arafat? It doesn't make sense, on several levels.
Arafat has been rendered ineffective (by both the Israelis and his own incompetence), and is well known to be a perpetrator of vile terrorist acts. Assassinating him would merely add a martyr whom could be used to incite more violence against Israel. He's also a convenient scapegoat. They're not going to eliminate him, lose all of the positive aspects of his existence (though few they may be), and risk having someone less inept take his place. He'll probably be eliminated when almost all of his pals are dead, but not before then. There's simply not a need to, he is, after all, primarily a figurehead, and not a particularly compelling one at that.

Arafat needs to go. It would be better if it was by natural causes, but right now he's going to stop almost any peace process.

A pox on both your houses.

STFU Mercutio (this is to Ravar)

Arafat needs to go. It would be better if it was by natural causes, but right now he's going to stop almost any peace process.
I agree that he deserves to die. However, this is not the oppportune moment. He needs to be eliminated after the anti-Israeli terrorist networks have been rendered sufficiently ineffective, as to eliminate him now would inflame hatred against Israel, and probably cause more death and destruction. Termination so as to make it look natural would be preferable to a cruise missile, however, I'm sure Arafat has taken every precaution to prevent both such eventualities. Arafat will eventually get his, this is just not the right time to do it. Anyhow, if he were killed today, the person who replaces him will probably be worse.

I agree that he deserves to die. However, this is not the oppportune moment. He needs to be eliminated after the anti-Israeli terrorist networks have been rendered sufficiently ineffective, as to eliminate him now would inflame hatred against Israel, and probably cause more death and destruction. Termination so as to make it look natural would be preferable to a cruise missile, however, I'm sure Arafat has taken every precaution to prevent both such eventualities. Arafat will eventually get his, this is just not the right time to do it. Anyhow, if he were killed today, the person who replaces him will probably be worse.

From a cynical point of view I'd respond that to Sharon, now is as good a time as any- if Arafat was to die now, there would probably be little effect on Israel as the Palestinians are to weak to fight back in any meaningful way... with the killings of Yassin and Rantissi everyone expected waves of violence to descend on Israel, and so far it has not really happened, and probably won't. Arafat's death would be no different. Meanwhile, there is NOBODY, good or bad, who can step up to take Arafat's place- Arafat himself has ensured that (and has thus contributed to his own downfall). Therefore, Sharon, by killing of their political leaders, would have the Palestinians exactly where he wants them- with no legitimate leaders left alive among the Palestinians, Israel won't have to negotiate and won't have to make concessions, the Palestinians will just have to accept what Israel allows them to have... the rest of the world might then rejoice at the 'birth' of a new, 'Palestinian state' and forget about the situation and the plight of the ordinary people there, at least until it collapses and foreign 'intervention' is required once again...

...as I said, it's not a 100% certainty, but don't be surprised if Arafat is dead in the next few weeks...

The best way to stop suicide bombings: Kill people in positions of power to piss them off so that they have more reason to want to kill you!!






wait hang on....

Well, wait and see....

Israel's just going all out nowadays.

Do they have a deck of cards, too?

Arafat is only dead by June in my dreams. Realistically, Sharon won't kill Arafat, if he does, I would like it, but he won't. T

Q. What is the difference between Arafat's PLO and the Taliban?
A. The PLO only harbors Jew-killing terrorists. That's why the United States tells Israel to treat the PLO as a legitimate government.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden?
A. Arafat only kills Jews. That's why the United States tells Israel not to kill him.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Saddam Hussein?
A. Arafat only threatens Jews. That's why the United States tells Israel to negotiate with him.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Adolf Hitler?
A. Arafat only exterminates Jews. Hitler was killing non-Jewish Europeans as well as Jews. That's why the United States went to war against Nazi Germany in solidarity with its allies, but will not go to war against Palestine to help its ally Israel.

Any other questions? ~ Michael.

I believe I've heard something to the effect that even Bush has advised Sharon not to kill Arafat, because if Arafat dies, it will only create a martyr and his death would become another rallying point for terrorists.

If anyone has heard the same thing...please confirm.

If so, it would probably be the first time I've ever agreed with Bush!

That guy is still alive? What's Israel waiting for?

Note: That was a rhetorical question. But he should be dead already.

If Israel kills Arafat, one would hope that finally Israel will be sanctioned this time and even the Americans hopefully won't VETO it, like they have done for every other Israeli war crime since 1948. Arafat is no harm to any one, jeezus, he's an old man.. a Nobel Peace Prize winner.. it's not his fault that the Jewish people murdered Yitzhak Rubin and put an end to the peace process and the installed an extremist government. Sharon is far worse then Arafat, hell he's been under house arrest for over 2 years. Leave the old man alone. If they do kill him, I suspect there will be world out-cry and backlash.

I dont know what the deal is with both isreal and palistine. I hear that isreal did this palistine did that ect. Why do they hate each other so much i mean if its over desert land thats pritty sad. Some one telligram me a non biased about it. I would be very greatful :?

If Israel kills Arafat, one would hope that finally Israel will be sanctioned this time and even the Americans hopefully won't VETO it, like they have done for every other Israeli war crime since 1948. Arafat is no harm to any one, jeezus, he's an old man.. a Nobel Peace Prize winner.. it's not his fault that the Jewish people murdered Yitzhak Rubin and put an end to the peace process and the installed an extremist government. Sharon is far worse then Arafat, hell he's been under house arrest for over 2 years. Leave the old man alone. If they do kill him, I suspect there will be world out-cry and backlash.

America should veto anything that is anti-Israel.

Just because somebody won the Nobel Peace prize doesn't make him a saint. The people he leads volunteer to blow up buses. If he doesn't want to get himself killed, he needs to step up and demand that Palestinians stop murdering Israeli civilians.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat's PLO and the Taliban?
A. The PLO only harbors Jew-killing terrorists. That's why the United States tells Israel to treat the PLO as a legitimate government.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden?
A. Arafat only kills Jews. That's why the United States tells Israel not to kill him.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Saddam Hussein?
A. Arafat only threatens Jews. That's why the United States tells Israel to negotiate with him.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Adolf Hitler?
A. Arafat only exterminates Jews. Hitler was killing non-Jewish Europeans as well as Jews. That's why the United States went to war against Nazi Germany in solidarity with its allies, but will not go to war against Palestine to help its ally Israel.

Any other questions? ~ Michael.

If I were elected president, I would kill all the jews and one clown.

Right, let's just put Saddam Hussein and Ariel Sharon in the same dock. No, wait a minute, let's not. Sharon's worse. Couldn't somebody assassinate him? Apart from anything else, he's a bad influence on Bush and co (who really need no help to be blinkered idiots themselves).

If Israel kills Arafat, one would hope that finally Israel will be sanctioned this time and even the Americans hopefully won't VETO it, like they have done for every other Israeli war crime since 1948. Arafat is no harm to any one, jeezus, he's an old man.. a Nobel Peace Prize winner.. it's not his fault that the Jewish people murdered Yitzhak Rubin and put an end to the peace process and the installed an extremist government. Sharon is far worse then Arafat, hell he's been under house arrest for over 2 years. Leave the old man alone. If they do kill him, I suspect there will be world out-cry and backlash.

America should veto anything that is anti-Israel.

Just because somebody won the Nobel Peace prize doesn't make him a saint. The people he leads volunteer to blow up buses. If he doesn't want to get himself killed, he needs to step up and demand that Palestinians stop murdering Israeli civilians.

PLO hasn't killed any one in years.. it's Hamas. Arafat has no control over Hamas. There has been some speculation he might have some ties to them, but most leading experts doubt that he has any say over what Hamas does.

Both Sharon and Arafat should die. Sharon should be first though.

PLO hasn't killed any one in years.. it's Hamas.
Wrong. The "Al-Aksa Martyrs", second most active Palestinian terrorist organization, is part of the Fatah (PLO) and is directly accountable to Arafat and funded by him. They have carried out quite a few suicide bombings and countless other attacks. Here's one example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60722-2004Jan29.html?nav=hptop_tb

This guy was a "twice PLO"- besides being Al-Aksa Martyrs member, he was also a PA "policeman". :roll:

Ok, I'm just puttin it in satirical terms here. THIS DOESNT EXPRESSES MY TRUE OPINION OF THE MATTER:


Da situation in Israel and Palestine haz degeneraged into nuttin more'n an ovahhyped turf war between da "rich gangsta" (very big oxymoron, yes?) Jews, and da "street-smart" Palestinians who will die for theya cause.


But in a sense it is nothing more than an overhyped turf war

I don't see Israels point, as far as land is concerned. The palestinians have more right to it. Israel hasn't existed for thousands of years before now. Palestine had. If the Native Americans demanded that all U.S.A land be given to them, the Americans wouldn't be too happy, eh?
Well, the Israelies (sp?) just came back, demanded that Palestinian land be turned over, and there we go. One Israel, coming up. Every group that has Palestinian interests at heart has my support, as long as they don't stoop to terrorism (that seems to be a rare breed though.) Groups that kill civilians don't have my support for a second though.
I hope Arafat isn't dead by June. Then Israel can do whatever it likes.

(Despite the post, I'm not actually anti-Israel, or semetic. It does deserve a nation. Just not one that includes all the palestinian territories under it's dominion. Those people deserve a state just as much.)

PLO hasn't killed any one in years.. it's Hamas.
Wrong. The "Al-Aksa Martyrs", second most active Palestinian terrorist organization, is part of the Fatah (PLO) and is directly accountable to Arafat and funded by him. They have carried out quite a few suicide bombings and countless other attacks. Here's one example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60722-2004Jan29.html?nav=hptop_tb

This guy was a "twice PLO"- besides being Al-Aksa Martyrs member, he was also a PA "policeman". :roll:

Well, most of what I have read says they can't draw a firm connection to Arafat being able to stop Hamas.. the bottom line is both sides are killing each other. Just because Israel does it with the blessing of the United States doesn't make it any better then what Palestine is doing. If you're going to murder Arafat then Sharon should be taken out as well. Sharon is just as much an extremist as any member of the PLO.

I know you live in Israel (or at least I believe you have said that before) Wom, I don't expect you to take any one's side but Israel's.. but you can't expect the rest of us to say it's ok for Israel to do as they please and then bash Palestine for trying to fight back. If Palestine had the weapons Israel has, I'm sure you would not see desperate suicide bombings.. you know it and so do I.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat's PLO and the Taliban?
A. The PLO only harbors Jew-killing terrorists. That's why the United States tells Israel to treat the PLO as a legitimate government.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden?
A. Arafat only kills Jews. That's why the United States tells Israel not to kill him.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Saddam Hussein?
A. Arafat only threatens Jews. That's why the United States tells Israel to negotiate with him.

Q. What is the difference between Arafat and Adolf Hitler?
A. Arafat only exterminates Jews. Hitler was killing non-Jewish Europeans as well as Jews. That's why the United States went to war against Nazi Germany in solidarity with its allies, but will not go to war against Palestine to help its ally Israel.

Any other questions? ~ Michael.

If I were elected president, I would kill all the jews and one clown.Why the clown? (I know the answer but its a good joke)

God damn this server and whoever operates it. Takes half an hour to make a post, and when it gets through, it comes in doubles :roll:

PLO hasn't killed any one in years.. it's Hamas.
Wrong. The "Al-Aksa Martyrs", second most active Palestinian terrorist organization, is part of the Fatah (PLO) and is directly accountable to Arafat and funded by him. They have carried out quite a few suicide bombings and countless other attacks. Here's one example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60722-2004Jan29.html?nav=hptop_tb

This guy was a "twice PLO"- besides being Al-Aksa Martyrs member, he was also a PA "policeman". :roll:

Well, most of what I have read says they can't draw a firm connection to Arafat being able to stop Hamas.. the bottom line is both sides are killing each other. Just because Israel does it with the blessing of the United States doesn't make it any better then what Palestine is doing. If you're going to murder Arafat then Sharon should be taken out as well. Sharon is just as much an extremist as any member of the PLO.

I know you live in Israel (or at least I believe you have said that before) Wom, I don't expect you to take any one's side but Israel's.. but you can't expect the rest of us to say it's ok for Israel to do as they please and then bash Palestine for trying to fight back. If Palestine had the weapons Israel has, I'm sure you would not see desperate suicide bombings.. you know it and so do I.
How convenient, hiding in the postmodern "everything equals everything" rubbish. No Stephistan, it is not about subjective interpretation or "desperation". It is about law, plain simple.

We've argued that before, I am not sure if there is a point in trying again. If you don't see the difference between eliminating notorious terrorist leaders and blowing up civilians in buses and restaurants while aiming to inflict maximum killing, your perception is probably beyond repair. Even the Geneva convention does not forbid killing enemy combatants just because there are civilians around. Being educated in the area of politics as you claim to be, you, of all people, should know the Geneva Convention:

"The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy."(Article 19)
In other words, a hospital, or any other place that is normally not a legitimate target, becomes one if used for attacks on the enemy or other hostile actions.

"...the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war." (Article 27 )
In other words, curfews, check points and other measures are lawful when dictated by military necessity.

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."(Article 28 )
Couldn't be any clearer than that, could it? Targeted assassinations are perfectly legal.

On the other hand, the suicide bombings do violate the Geneva Convention, as they intentionally target "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" (from Article 3)

No one has yet commented on the commotion that Arafat's assassination would cause. It would really make Israel & the US more popular :? . But seriously, the Arabs would kick off. I reckon US Embassies would be burnt down etc.

You can't escape the fact that he's the legitimate leader of the Palestinians.. surely even Sharon isn't crazy enough to kill him. And besides, Arafat goes, Hamas becomes stronger, more are driven to Armed Struggle, Israel assassinates the next leader.. it goes on for the next 50 years.

It seems to me that you are missing out on basic morality.
I am afraid that a palestinian civilian is equal to an Israeli civilian, no matter what you say. Targetted assasinations do not require a gunship attack. Surely a sniper would be as effective?

If you believe that an Israeli is worth more than a palestinian, then you are a racist.

Has it ever occured to you that if the Israeli gov't was to concede the fact that Palestine has as much right to exist (if not more), and if it was to give Palestine freedom to do as it pleases (as in, no helicopter attacks on houses, no tanks rumbling around in Gaza) then the attacks might, stop?

Also, by your reasoning, if the Terrorist groups were to attack, say Sharron in a hospital, as an assasination, then you would have no qualms about the legality of the bombing?

Even the Geneva convention does not forbid killing enemy combatants just because there are civilians around. Being educated in the area of politics as you claim to be, you, of all people, should know the Geneva Convention

You know Wom, with all due respect, don't go quoting International law to me to condone the actions of Israel. Since when has Israel ever given a flying crap what International law has to say? They have broken International law over and over and over again, when the UN has ever tried to sanction them for it, the Americans VETO it. The Israeli's certainly don't have any right to be quoting International law.. I will tell you that much, they lost the right to do that many years ago.

To assassinate Arafat would be a HUGE mistake...

He is the legally elected leader of Palestine. By assassinating him, Sharon would be doing to himself what he's been trying to do to Arafat for so long: To alienate the people from their leader.
Sharon would alienate Europe completely, since European countries would condemn this act. Israel needs Europe.
Sharon would enrage the countries surrounding him so much that they might finally all unite against Israel.
Let's not forget that he would be giving the Palestinian people a martyr.

Even Bush has "ordered" Sharon to let Arafat live...
Although we all know that the consiquences of defying the USA in this matter would probably be only for show from the hands of the USA and not really severe, it still wouldn't help when added to everything else.

On a side note: Both Sharon and Arafat look old and disheveled enough to drop dead tomorrow...

Even the Geneva convention does not forbid killing enemy combatants just because there are civilians around. Being educated in the area of politics as you claim to be, you, of all people, should know the Geneva Convention

You know Wom, with all due respect, don't go quoting International law to me to condone the actions of Israel. Since when has Israel ever given a flying crap what International law has to say? They have broken International law over and over and over again, when the UN has ever tried to sanction them for it, the Americans VETO it. The Israeli's certainly don't have any right to be quoting International law.. I will tell you that much, they lost the right to do that many years ago.
That is one lousy defense. You are avoiding confronting the facts I brought up to prove that Israel abides by the international law, on the grounds that "Israel has lost the right to invoke the international law because they don't abide by it"? Surely you must see that this is circular logic. By your reasoning, Israel violates the international law regardless to what the law says???

I state that Israeli actions do not violate the law, and present the above quotes from the Geneva convention as my proof. What have you to say on that?

And you complete miss out my point, whether you completely disagree or not.
So don't go and criticise others for not answering questions, when you ignore mine.
(Mine was also a direct confrontation to you.)

It seems to me that you are missing out on basic morality.
I am afraid that a palestinian civilian is equal to an Israeli civilian, no matter what you say. Targetted assasinations do not require a gunship attack. Surely a sniper would be as effective?
And infiltrating this sniper into a crowded city like Gaza, where any stranger stands out like a zebra among horses, unnoticed, without fighting his way through and hitting bystanders by stray bullets would, of course, be a very simple task?


If you believe that an Israeli is worth more than a palestinian, then you are a racist.
As Israeli is not worth more than a Palestinian, in general. But if there is no way to avoid killing, I prefer the body count to grow on the other side- just like a random person out there is not worth more than your mother, but if you were to choose one life over another, you would hardly choose the other person over your mother.


Has it ever occured to you that if the Israeli gov't was to concede the fact that Palestine has as much right to exist (if not more), and if it was to give Palestine freedom to do as it pleases (as in, no helicopter attacks on houses, no tanks rumbling around in Gaza) then the attacks might, stop?
Or they might not. You expect me to gamble on my life?


Also, by your reasoning, if the Terrorist groups were to attack, say Sharron in a hospital, as an assasination, then you would have no qualms about the legality of the bombing?
Sharon, being a government official and therefore member of the chain of command, would be a lawful target by the rules of war. As was the assassinated Israeli minister Rehavam Ze'evi. As is Arafat.

Even the Geneva convention does not forbid killing enemy combatants just because there are civilians around. Being educated in the area of politics as you claim to be, you, of all people, should know the Geneva Convention

You know Wom, with all due respect, don't go quoting International law to me to condone the actions of Israel. Since when has Israel ever given a flying crap what International law has to say? They have broken International law over and over and over again, when the UN has ever tried to sanction them for it, the Americans VETO it. The Israeli's certainly don't have any right to be quoting International law.. I will tell you that much, they lost the right to do that many years ago.
That is one lousy defense. You are avoiding confronting the facts I brought up to prove that Israel abides by the international law, on the grounds that "Israel has lost the right to invoke the international law because they don't abide by it"? Surely you must see that this is circular logic. By your reasoning, Israel violates the international law regardless to what the law says???

I state that Israeli actions do not violate the law, and present the above quotes from the Geneva convention as my proof. What have you to say on that?

The state of Israel has violated International law more then any other country in the world since 1948! You want facts, I'll give you facts.. how is this for FACTS!

UN Security Council Resolutions on Israel since 1948



Res 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed 'strongest censure' of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.



Res 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.



Res 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.



Res 127 (Jan 22, 58 ): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man's zone in Jerusalem.



Res 162 (Apr 11, 61): Urged Israel to comply with UN decisions.



Res 171 (Apr 9, 62): Determined 'flagrant violation' by Israel in its attack on Syria.



Res 228 (Nov 25, 66): Censured Israel for its attack on Samu in Jordan.



Res 237 (June 14, 67): Urged Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.



Res 248 (Mar 24, 68 ): Condemned Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.



Res 250 (Apr 27, 68 ): Called on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.



Res 251 (May 2, 68 ): Deeply deplored Israel's military parade in Jerusalem and declared invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as its capital.



Res 256 (Aug 16, 68 ): Condemned Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation'.



Res 259 (Sep 27, 68 ): Deplored Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.



Res 262 (Dec 31, 68 ): Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.



Res 265 (Apr 1, 69): Condemned Israel for air attacks on Salt in Jordan.



Res 267 (July 3, 69): Censured Israel for administrative acts to change status of Jerusalem.



Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69): Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon.



Res 271 (Sep 15, 69): Condemned Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions on Jerusalem.



Res 279 (May 12, 70): Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.



Res 280 (May 19, 70): Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.



Res 285 (Sep 5, 70): Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon.



Res 298 (Sep 25, 71): Deplored Israel's change of status of Jerusalem.



Res 313 (Aug 8, 72): Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.



Res 316 (June 26, 72): Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.



Res 317 (July 21, 72): Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.



Res 332 (Apr 21, 73): Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.



Res 337 (Aug 15, 73): Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.



Res 347 (Apr 24, 74): Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.



Res 425 (Mar 19, 78 ): Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.



Res 427 (May 3, 78 ): Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.



Res 444 (Jan 19, 79): Deplored Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peace forces.



Res 446 (Mar 22, 79): Determined Israeli settlements as a 'serious obstruction' to peace, and called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions.



Res 450 (June 14, 79): Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.



Res 452 (July 20, 79): Called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.



Res 465 (Mar 1, 80): Deplored Israel's settlements and asked all member States not to assist Israel's settlement programme.



Res 467 (Apr 24, 80): Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.



Res 468 (May 8, 80): Called on Israel to rescind illegal expulsion of two Palestinian Mayors and a Judge, and to facilitate their return.



Res 469 (May 20, 80): Strongly deplored Israel's failure to observe the Council's order not to deport Palestinians.



Res 471 (June 5, 80): Expressed deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.



Res 476 (June 30, 80): Reiterated that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'.



Res 478 (Aug 20, 80): 'Censured in the strongest terms' Israel for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'basic law'.



Res 484 (Dec 19, 80): Declared it imperative Israel re-admit two Palestinian mayors.



Res 487 (June 19, 81): Strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.



Res 497 (Dec 17, 81): Decided Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demanded that Israel rescind its decision forthwith.



Res 498 (Dec 18, 81): Called on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.



Res 501 (Feb 25, 82): Called on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.



Res 508 (June 6, 82): Demanded Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and un-conditionally from Lebanon.



Res 515 (July 29, 82): Demanded Israel lift its seige of Beirut and allow in food.



Res 517 (Aug 4, 82): Censured Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demanded Isreal withdraw its forces from Lebanon.



Res 518 (Aug 12, 82): Demanded Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.



Res 520 (Sep 17, 82): Condemned Israel's attack into West Beirut.



Res 573 (Oct 4, 85): Condemned Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO Headquarters.



Res 587 (Sep 23, 86): Took note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urged all parties to withdraw.



Res 592 (Dec 8, 86): Strongly deplored the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.



Res 605 (Dec 22, 87): Strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices denying human rights of Palestinians.



Res 607 (Jan 5, 88 ): Called on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requested it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.



Res 608 (Jan 14, 88 ): Deeply regreted that Israel had defied the UN and deported Palestinian civilians.



Res 636 (July 6, 89): Deeply regreted the Israeli deportation of Palestinians.



Res 641 (Aug 30, 89): Deplored Israel's continuous deportation of Palestinians.



Res 672 (Oct 12, 90): Condemned Israel for violence against Palestinians at Jerusalem's Haram Al-Sharif.



Res 673 (Oct 24, 90): Deplored Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN.



Res 681 (Dec 20, 90): Deplored Israel's resumption of deportation of Palestinians.



Res 694 (May 24, 91): Deplored Israel's deportation of Palestinians and called on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.



Res 726 (Jan 1, 92): 'Strongly condemned' Israel's decision to resume deportation of Palestinians from 'Palestinian territories... including Jerusalem.'



Res 799 (Dec 19, 92): Deplored Israel's mass deportation of some 400 Palestinians and called for thir immediate return.





Vetoes cast by the United States to defend Israeli crimes:



Sep 10, 72: Condemned Israel's attacks on Southern Lebanon and Syria. Vote: 13 to 1 in favor with 1 abstention.



July 26, 73: Affirmed the rights of Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections. Vote: 13 to 1 in favor with China absent.



Dec 8, 75: Condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians. Vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.



Jan 26, 76: Called for self-determination of Palestinian people. Vote: 9 to 1 with 3 abstentions.



Mar 25, 76: Deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognised as an International city by most world nations and the United Nations. Vote 14 to 1.



June 29, 76: Affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Vote: 10 to 1 in favour with 4 abstentions.



Apr 30, 80: Endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people. Vote: 10 to 1 in favour with 4 abstentions.



Jan 20, 82: Demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Vote: 9 to 1 in favour with 4 abstentions.



Apr 2, 82: Condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Ghazzah Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention protocols of civilised nations. Vote: 14 to 1.



Apr 20, 82: Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers in the Haram Al-Sharif near Al Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1.



June 8, 82: Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1.



June 26, 82: Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not end its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon and withdraw. Vote: 14 to 1.



Aug 8, 82: Urged cut-off of economic aid to Israel if it refuses to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions.



Aug 2, 83: Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Ghazzah Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace. Vote 13 to 1 with 1 abstention.



Sep 6, 84: Deplored Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal. Vote 14 to 1.



Mar 12, 85: Condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions. Sep 13, 85: Denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories. Vote: 10 to 1 with 4 abstentions.



Jan 17, 86: Strongly deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon. Vote 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions.



Jan 30, 86: Deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem which threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites. Vote 13 to 1 with 1 abstention.



Feb 6, 86: Condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger plane on 4 February. Vote: 10 to 1 with 1 abstention.



Jan 18, 88: Strongly deplored Israeli attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention.



Feb 1, 88: Called for Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian uprising that violate the rights of the Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalise a leading role for the UN in future peace negotiations. Vote: 14 to 1.



Apr 15, 88: Urged Israel to reaccept deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices. Vote: 14 to 1.



May 10, 88: Condemned Israel's May 2 incursion into Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1.



Dec 14, 88: Strongly deplored Israel's commando raids on Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1.



Feb 17, 89: Strongly deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote 14 to 1.



June 9, 89: Strongly deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote: 14 to 1.



Aug 11, 89: Demanded Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian uprising. Vote: 14 to 1.



Mar 5, 90: Called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli occupied lands. Vote: 14 to 1.



(Sources: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Washington, DC)

Good facts, Steph. Also lots of good spaces between them. :D

My question is this: Where is the UN in all of this? Sure, they're quick to condemn Israel for every little infraction but if twenty Israelis are killed by a madman with a bomb strapped to his chest, it goes unheard. The UN has more concern for a rabble that isn't even a nation and therefore not entitled to all the [explitive] promises of the UN - more concern for that rabble than a nation that is actually recognized by most of the world, including the UN.

When the UN established the Israeli state, where were their peace keeping forces? If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that the UN created Israel just to get all the jews in one place so that the Arabs could finish what Hitler and Stalin had begun. It was totally immoral and ignorant of the UN to create an Israeli state - knowing full well a war would break out - and then not do anything to help the very state they created.

So why do people wonder why Israel doesn't listen to the UN or why the US vetos everything that pertains to Israel? Look at the Security Council. You've got Russia who has had a history of anti-semitism dating back till their earliest days of civilization [when Russia was looking for a religion to unify its people, it completely passed over Judaism]. That dates back to the time of the Crusades. You've got France which is increasingly anti-Semitic. I'd say that England just wanted to get rid of the Jews and did it by calling for the creation of an Israeli state, China who doesn't really care about or do anything [so why are they on the Security Council?]. Finally you have the US. We're messed up, to be sure, but at least our government isn't so anti-Semitic.

For the life of me I can't understand why anti-Semitism is still around. Has Israel not suffered enough? They have been brutalized by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, and then the Romans - the ultimate brutal power of the classical world. Then you have a 1900 year gap and Russia comes along with its Pograms and Hitler with his malevolent genocide. I'm getting off track here, but after Rome, Russia, and Germany I'd go so far as to say Israel has earned the right to defend itself through malicious means.

But back to the subject, the UN is at fault here. I really do believe that if Sharon or another Israeli official was assassinated that the UN would either drag its feet, or do nothing at all. Meanwhile, the UN doesn't waste a second to try to condemn Israel for the assassinations of Yassin and Rantisi.

Moral of the story? The UN thinks it is okay to kill Jews, which is implied through their dealings with Israel, but abhores the thought of the death of one man. It truly is a sad thing when an international body, the largest in history, will take time and resources to condemn one murder but does little to nothing about the deaths of Jews.

So I repeat my personal saying: Piss on the UN.

Even the Geneva convention does not forbid killing enemy combatants just because there are civilians around. Being educated in the area of politics as you claim to be, you, of all people, should know the Geneva Convention

You know Wom, with all due respect, don't go quoting International law to me to condone the actions of Israel. Since when has Israel ever given a flying crap what International law has to say? They have broken International law over and over and over again, when the UN has ever tried to sanction them for it, the Americans VETO it. The Israeli's certainly don't have any right to be quoting International law.. I will tell you that much, they lost the right to do that many years ago.
That is one lousy defense. You are avoiding confronting the facts I brought up to prove that Israel abides by the international law, on the grounds that "Israel has lost the right to invoke the international law because they don't abide by it"? Surely you must see that this is circular logic. By your reasoning, Israel violates the international law regardless to what the law says???

I state that Israeli actions do not violate the law, and present the above quotes from the Geneva convention as my proof. What have you to say on that?

The state of Israel has violated International law more then any other country in the world since 1948! You want facts, I'll give you facts.. how is this for FACTS!

UN Security Council Resolutions on Israel since 1948



Res 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed 'strongest censure' of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.



Res 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.



Res 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.



Res 127 (Jan 22, 58 ): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man's zone in Jerusalem.



Res 162 (Apr 11, 61): Urged Israel to comply with UN decisions.



Res 171 (Apr 9, 62): Determined 'flagrant violation' by Israel in its attack on Syria.



Res 228 (Nov 25, 66): Censured Israel for its attack on Samu in Jordan.



Res 237 (June 14, 67): Urged Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.



Res 248 (Mar 24, 68 ): Condemned Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.



Res 250 (Apr 27, 68 ): Called on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.



Res 251 (May 2, 68 ): Deeply deplored Israel's military parade in Jerusalem and declared invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as its capital.



Res 256 (Aug 16, 68 ): Condemned Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation'.



Res 259 (Sep 27, 68 ): Deplored Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.



Res 262 (Dec 31, 68 ): Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.



Res 265 (Apr 1, 69): Condemned Israel for air attacks on Salt in Jordan.



Res 267 (July 3, 69): Censured Israel for administrative acts to change status of Jerusalem.



Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69): Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon.



Res 271 (Sep 15, 69): Condemned Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions on Jerusalem.



Res 279 (May 12, 70): Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.



Res 280 (May 19, 70): Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.



Res 285 (Sep 5, 70): Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon.



Res 298 (Sep 25, 71): Deplored Israel's change of status of Jerusalem.



Res 313 (Aug 8, 72): Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.



Res 316 (June 26, 72): Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.



Res 317 (July 21, 72): Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.



Res 332 (Apr 21, 73): Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.



Res 337 (Aug 15, 73): Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.



Res 347 (Apr 24, 74): Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.



Res 425 (Mar 19, 78 ): Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.



Res 427 (May 3, 78 ): Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.



Res 444 (Jan 19, 79): Deplored Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peace forces.



Res 446 (Mar 22, 79): Determined Israeli settlements as a 'serious obstruction' to peace, and called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions.



Res 450 (June 14, 79): Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.



Res 452 (July 20, 79): Called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.



Res 465 (Mar 1, 80): Deplored Israel's settlements and asked all member States not to assist Israel's settlement programme.



Res 467 (Apr 24, 80): Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.



Res 468 (May 8, 80): Called on Israel to rescind illegal expulsion of two Palestinian Mayors and a Judge, and to facilitate their return.



Res 469 (May 20, 80): Strongly deplored Israel's failure to observe the Council's order not to deport Palestinians.



Res 471 (June 5, 80): Expressed deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.



Res 476 (June 30, 80): Reiterated that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'.



Res 478 (Aug 20, 80): 'Censured in the strongest terms' Israel for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'basic law'.



Res 484 (Dec 19, 80): Declared it imperative Israel re-admit two Palestinian mayors.



Res 487 (June 19, 81): Strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.



Res 497 (Dec 17, 81): Decided Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demanded that Israel rescind its decision forthwith.



Res 498 (Dec 18, 81): Called on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.



Res 501 (Feb 25, 82): Called on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.



Res 508 (June 6, 82): Demanded Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and un-conditionally from Lebanon.



Res 515 (July 29, 82): Demanded Israel lift its seige of Beirut and allow in food.



Res 517 (Aug 4, 82): Censured Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demanded Isreal withdraw its forces from Lebanon.



Res 518 (Aug 12, 82): Demanded Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.



Res 520 (Sep 17, 82): Condemned Israel's attack into West Beirut.



Res 573 (Oct 4, 85): Condemned Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO Headquarters.



Res 587 (Sep 23, 86): Took note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urged all parties to withdraw.



Res 592 (Dec 8, 86): Strongly deplored the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.



Res 605 (Dec 22, 87): Strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices denying human rights of Palestinians.



Res 607 (Jan 5, 88 ): Called on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requested it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.



Res 608 (Jan 14, 88 ): Deeply regreted that Israel had defied the UN and deported Palestinian civilians.



Res 636 (July 6, 89): Deeply regreted the Israeli deportation of Palestinians.



Res 641 (Aug 30, 89): Deplored Israel's continuous deportation of Palestinians.



Res 672 (Oct 12, 90): Condemned Israel for violence against Palestinians at Jerusalem's Haram Al-Sharif.



Res 673 (Oct 24, 90): Deplored Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN.



Res 681 (Dec 20, 90): Deplored Israel's resumption of deportation of Palestinians.



Res 694 (May 24, 91): Deplored Israel's deportation of Palestinians and called on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.



Res 726 (Jan 1, 92): 'Strongly condemned' Israel's decision to resume deportation of Palestinians from 'Palestinian territories... including Jerusalem.'



Res 799 (Dec 19, 92): Deplored Israel's mass deportation of some 400 Palestinians and called for thir immediate return.





Vetoes cast by the United States to defend Israeli crimes:



Sep 10, 72: Condemned Israel's attacks on Southern Lebanon and Syria. Vote: 13 to 1 in favor with 1 abstention.



July 26, 73: Affirmed the rights of Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections. Vote: 13 to 1 in favor with China absent.



Dec 8, 75: Condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians. Vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.



Jan 26, 76: Called for self-determination of Palestinian people. Vote: 9 to 1 with 3 abstentions.



Mar 25, 76: Deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognised as an International city by most world nations and the United Nations. Vote 14 to 1.



June 29, 76: Affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Vote: 10 to 1 in favour with 4 abstentions.



Apr 30, 80: Endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people. Vote: 10 to 1 in favour with 4 abstentions.



Jan 20, 82: Demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Vote: 9 to 1 in favour with 4 abstentions.



Apr 2, 82: Condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Ghazzah Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention protocols of civilised nations. Vote: 14 to 1.



Apr 20, 82: Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers in the Haram Al-Sharif near Al Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1.



June 8, 82: Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1.



June 26, 82: Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not end its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon and withdraw. Vote: 14 to 1.



Aug 8, 82: Urged cut-off of economic aid to Israel if it refuses to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions.



Aug 2, 83: Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Ghazzah Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace. Vote 13 to 1 with 1 abstention.



Sep 6, 84: Deplored Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal. Vote 14 to 1.



Mar 12, 85: Condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions. Sep 13, 85: Denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories. Vote: 10 to 1 with 4 abstentions.



Jan 17, 86: Strongly deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon. Vote 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions.



Jan 30, 86: Deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem which threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites. Vote 13 to 1 with 1 abstention.



Feb 6, 86: Condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger plane on 4 February. Vote: 10 to 1 with 1 abstention.



Jan 18, 88: Strongly deplored Israeli attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention.



Feb 1, 88: Called for Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian uprising that violate the rights of the Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalise a leading role for the UN in future peace negotiations. Vote: 14 to 1.



Apr 15, 88: Urged Israel to reaccept deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices. Vote: 14 to 1.



May 10, 88: Condemned Israel's May 2 incursion into Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1.



Dec 14, 88: Strongly deplored Israel's commando raids on Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1.



Feb 17, 89: Strongly deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote 14 to 1.



June 9, 89: Strongly deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote: 14 to 1.



Aug 11, 89: Demanded Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian uprising. Vote: 14 to 1.



Mar 5, 90: Called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli occupied lands. Vote: 14 to 1.



(Sources: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Washington, DC)
And this is supposed to prove what?

If the UN condemns Israel for actions that under existing international conventions are not illegal, it does not make Israel guilty. It makes the UN resolutions doing so illegal. Unless you can prove me that these resolutions rest on a valid legal ground in terms of Geneva convention and other existing treaties, a list of UN condemnations of Israel does not answer the question.

Good facts, Steph. Also lots of good spaces between them. :D

I wanted them easy to read..lol I also copy/pasted them off my website..lol :P

And this is supposed to prove what?

It proves that Israel has killed innocent civilians.. it proves that Israel has broken the Geneva Conventions.. read it.. :roll:

My question is this: Where is the UN in all of this? Sure, they're quick to condemn Israel for every little infraction but if twenty Israelis are killed by a madman with a bomb strapped to his chest, it goes unheard. The UN has more concern for a rabble that isn't even a nation and therefore not entitled to all the [explitive] promises of the UN - more concern for that rabble than a nation that is actually recognized by most of the world, including the UN.

When the UN established the Israeli state, where were their peace keeping forces? If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that the UN created Israel just to get all the jews in one place so that the Arabs could finish what Hitler and Stalin had begun. It was totally immoral and ignorant of the UN to create an Israeli state - knowing full well a war would break out - and then not do anything to help the very state they created.

So why do people wonder why Israel doesn't listen to the UN or why the US vetos everything that pertains to Israel? Look at the Security Council. You've got Russia who has had a history of anti-semitism dating back till their earliest days of civilization [when Russia was looking for a religion to unify its people, it completely passed over Judaism]. That dates back to the time of the Crusades. You've got France which is increasingly anti-Semitic. I'd say that England just wanted to get rid of the Jews and did it by calling for the creation of an Israeli state, China who doesn't really care about or do anything [so why are they on the Security Council?]. Finally you have the US. We're messed up, to be sure, but at least our government isn't so anti-Semitic.

For the life of me I can't understand why anti-Semitism is still around. Has Israel not suffered enough? They have been brutalized by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, and then the Romans - the ultimate brutal power of the classical world. Then you have a 1900 year gap and Russia comes along with its Pograms and Hitler with his malevolent genocide. I'm getting off track here, but after Rome, Russia, and Germany I'd go so far as to say Israel has earned the right to defend itself through malicious means.

But back to the subject, the UN is at fault here. I really do believe that if Sharon or another Israeli official was assassinated that the UN would either drag its feet, or do nothing at all. Meanwhile, the UN doesn't waste a second to try to condemn Israel for the assassinations of Yassin and Rantisi.

Moral of the story? The UN thinks it is okay to kill Jews, which is implied through their dealings with Israel, but abhores the thought of the death of one man. It truly is a sad thing when an international body, the largest in history, will take time and resources to condemn one murder but does little to nothing about the deaths of Jews.

So I repeat my personal saying: Piss on the UN.

You make a good point, Ak, about the UN's abandoning of Israel after making a terrible mistake in creating it in the first place. The UN has also been slow to speak against the actions of Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers. And you are most likely right that, should Sharon be assassinated, condemnation would come very slow from the UN.

These two facts, though, do not erase Israel's responsibility for it's own actions nor do they justify the treatment lawful Palestinians endure under Israeli rule.

Additionally, you're confusing anti-semetisim with anti-zionisim, which are two entirely different things. I am certainly not anti-semetic, but I am anti-zionist and feel that the creation of Israel was a mistake of the highest order. However, it's the situation we've got now and neither side is willing to work collaboratively to find a solution.

And the Palestine hasn't killed innocent civilians?

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but two negatives do make a positive"

So, Womblingdon.
My first point. JFK. Oswald, (or whatever theory you follow, I don't care personally) managed to assasinate the president of America. if you need Arafat dead so much, you can plan it a little better than. "He'll be there in an hour. We're going to flatten the area with missiles with no regard for the citizens."
Second point, relates to the first. If you care so much, plan it. It's not impossible, just more difficult than mass murder.
Third, the palestines just want to be equal in their own land. Most are smart enough to realise that Israel is not going away, so will compromise. This in turn will act as a powerful detterant to those who will not accept Israel, as they willl have nowhere to hide.
fourth. Well, at least you agree on that, so no argument here.

My question is this: Where is the UN in all of this? Sure, they're quick to condemn Israel for every little infraction but if twenty Israelis are killed by a madman with a bomb strapped to his chest, it goes unheard. The UN has more concern for a rabble that isn't even a nation and therefore not entitled to all the [explitive] promises of the UN - more concern for that rabble than a nation that is actually recognized by most of the world, including the UN.

When the UN established the Israeli state, where were their peace keeping forces? If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that the UN created Israel just to get all the jews in one place so that the Arabs could finish what Hitler and Stalin had begun. It was totally immoral and ignorant of the UN to create an Israeli state - knowing full well a war would break out - and then not do anything to help the very state they created.

So why do people wonder why Israel doesn't listen to the UN or why the US vetos everything that pertains to Israel? Look at the Security Council. You've got Russia who has had a history of anti-semitism dating back till their earliest days of civilization [when Russia was looking for a religion to unify its people, it completely passed over Judaism]. That dates back to the time of the Crusades. You've got France which is increasingly anti-Semitic. I'd say that England just wanted to get rid of the Jews and did it by calling for the creation of an Israeli state, China who doesn't really care about or do anything [so why are they on the Security Council?]. Finally you have the US. We're messed up, to be sure, but at least our government isn't so anti-Semitic.

For the life of me I can't understand why anti-Semitism is still around. Has Israel not suffered enough? They have been brutalized by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, and then the Romans - the ultimate brutal power of the classical world. Then you have a 1900 year gap and Russia comes along with its Pograms and Hitler with his malevolent genocide. I'm getting off track here, but after Rome, Russia, and Germany I'd go so far as to say Israel has earned the right to defend itself through malicious means.

But back to the subject, the UN is at fault here. I really do believe that if Sharon or another Israeli official was assassinated that the UN would either drag its feet, or do nothing at all. Meanwhile, the UN doesn't waste a second to try to condemn Israel for the assassinations of Yassin and Rantisi.

Moral of the story? The UN thinks it is okay to kill Jews, which is implied through their dealings with Israel, but abhores the thought of the death of one man. It truly is a sad thing when an international body, the largest in history, will take time and resources to condemn one murder but does little to nothing about the deaths of Jews.

So I repeat my personal saying: Piss on the UN.

You make a good point, Ak, about the UN's abandoning of Israel after making a terrible mistake in creating it in the first place. The UN has also been slow to speak against the actions of Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers. And you are most likely right that, should Sharon be assassinated, condemnation would come very slow from the UN.

These two facts, though, do not erase Israel's responsibility for it's own actions nor do they justify the treatment lawful Palestinians endure under Israeli rule.

Additionally, you're confusing anti-semetisim with anti-zionisim, which are two entirely different things. I am certainly not anti-semetic, but I am anti-zionist and feel that the creation of Israel was a mistake of the highest order. However, it's the situation we've got now and neither side is willing to work collaboratively to find a solution.

Perhaps if Israel had played ball with the international community, after all, it was so kind as to rip the land from under Palestine and give 78% of it to Israel, but no, Israel wasn't happy with that and they murdered innocent Palestinians and invaded and occupied parts of their rightful 22% of Israel. Israel has oppressed Palestinians since 1948.. and they acted all shocked and surprised because Palestine fights back the only way they can. They don't have all the fancy weapons given to them by the United States. Perhaps if Israel had not broken Geneva Convention after Geneva Convention and refused to abide by UN resolutions in concert with Internal law, the UN would be there for them, but they don't need the UN, they pull the strings of the Americans.. what do they need the UN or International law for? They have the American government backing all their illegal actions!

I hope that they don't kill President Arafat. He has done a lot of good for the Palestinians and has continued to pursue his goal: a Palestinian state with full soverignty over all of its territories.

I'm all for a Palestinian state and I would love to see this issue resolved. But you're nuts if you think Arafat is the key or that he's even a help. There are many Palestinians who are vehemently against anything less than the destruction of Israel and they're more concerned about that than peace. There are also many people making good money off this conflict. I am not saying Israel is blameless but I think they are doing what any sovereign state would do with faced with an irrational mob trying to storm down their gates.

Don't think that the war criminal Sharon doesn't do anything without Bush's permission. He said he had already told Bush about this and apparently, Bush has said nothing against it.

Crawl out from under the rock you live under and read the news, man! The Bush administration (note: I'm not a Bush supporter!) has clearly stated they are very much against the assassination of Arafat and many Bush cabinet members have been outspoken on the issue. I don't think they have much love for the guy but I think they realize the problems that could arise if he were martyred.

Question Stephi......on your website do you also have a list of UN Resolutions condemningn not only Palestinian terrorist action but Arab aggressions and actions against the State of Israel?

dp

And this is supposed to prove what?

It proves that Israel has killed innocent civilians.. it proves that Israel has broken the Geneva Conventions.. read it.. :roll:
Where does it prove that Israel has broken the Geneva convention? Which articles in particular had been violated?

Perhaps if Israel had played ball with the international community, after all, it was so kind as to rip the land from under Palestine and give 78% of it to Israel, but no, Israel wasn't happy with that and they murdered innocent Palestinians and invaded and occupied parts of their rightful 22% of Israel. Israel has oppressed Palestinians since 1948.. and they acted all shocked and surprised because Palestine fights back the only way they can. They don't have all the fancy weapons given to them by the United States. Perhaps if Israel had not broken Geneva Convention after Geneva Convention and refused to abide by UN resolutions in concert with Internal law, the UN would be there for them, but they don't need the UN, they pull the strings of the Americans.. what do they need the UN or International law for? They have the American government backing all their illegal actions!

Ouch, Steph...and I'm on your side. :shock:

All of this is true and both sides have blood on their hands. Another fact is, though, that the UN has never denounced the specific actions of Palestinian terrorists. The UN has basically bungled the whole Israel/Palestine affair from the get go by establishing a nation where it had no right to do so and then abandoning that nation to an understandably hostile surrounding area then remaining shockingly silent on deplorable actions by the Palestinians while taking every opportunity to label legitimate Israeli defence as international crime. Basically, this whole affair is one huge cock up that everyone's had a hand in creating. The UN blew it in the first place. The Israeli's continue to blow it by not granting Palestinians the independence and land they deserve. The Palestinians continue to blow it by supporting terrorisim and refusing to compromise with Israel. The US blows it by blindly backing Israel, regardless of the facts of the individual situation and not putting any conditional limits on it's support. The rest of the Arab world blows it by increasing the tensions in the region and blindly supporting Palestine, regardless of the facts in the particular case. The rest of the world continues to blow it by doing nothing to help mitigate the damage caused by either side. All in all, it's just one huge clusterf*ck that will take who knows how long to sort out now.

The point is, there are no heros here and no victims, just zelots on either side dedicated to the eradication of the other.

Perhaps if Israel had played ball with the international community, after all, it was so kind as to rip the land from under Palestine and give 78% of it to Israel, but no, Israel wasn't happy with that and they murdered innocent Palestinians and invaded and occupied parts of their rightful 22% of Israel. Israel has oppressed Palestinians since 1948.. and they acted all shocked and surprised because Palestine fights back the only way they can. They don't have all the fancy weapons given to them by the United States. Perhaps if Israel had not broken Geneva Convention after Geneva Convention and refused to abide by UN resolutions in concert with Internal law, the UN would be there for them, but they don't need the UN, they pull the strings of the Americans.. what do they need the UN or International law for? They have the American government backing all their illegal actions!

Let's see...

The UN aids Sudan, one of the most violent areas in the world.

The UN aids the Balkan states, the scene of untold violence through the ages.

The UN tried to aid Iraq, but in the process decided to skim from the top.

The UN managed to ignore Rwanda, one new scene of genocide.

The UN condemned Portugal because Communist sympathizers attacked Portugal.

The UN didn't do much for Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

The UN holds the US to god-like standards while it condones the murder of civilians in all parts of the world.

The UN didn't do much for Chile when it was dealing with Pinochet.

The UN didn't do much for Cambodia under Pol Pot.

The UN fought for the Korea for reasons that still confuse me.

The UN sure didn't try to stop the atrocities wrought by Iraq and Iran in their little skirmish.

The UN did support Kuwait after Iraqi occupation.

What has the UN done in relation to China and human rights violations?

Article 19 of the UN Charter calls for the freedom of speech, yet it did nothing to enforce that in the Soviet Union, despite the fact that the RFSSR was a signator.

The UN ignored Soviet aggression in Afghanistan and numerous other nations where the Soviets violated human rights to the nth.

The UN condemns the US for not covering its mouth when coughing.

The UN won't even respond to the murder of its own employees, aside from the occasional 'we condemn this in the strongest possible terms' - then they do nothing else.

- - - - -

I think you can tell that the UN is rather skewed and can not be relied upon. There is no reason to listen to them. They condemn this when it is wrought here, and condone the same when it is wrough there. They don't mind murder here, but they do mind murder there. They don't mind genocide here, but they do mind genocide there.

Trusting in the UN is like trusting a manic depressive to be your psychiatrist.

Question Stephi......on your website do you also have a list of UN Resolutions condemningn not only Palestinian terrorist action but Arab aggressions and actions against the State of Israel?

Actually I don't have them posted for either side for public viewing.. I have them there as reference, I'm writing my Dissertation on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict/Peace process.

And this is supposed to prove what?

It proves that Israel has killed innocent civilians.. it proves that Israel has broken the Geneva Conventions.. read it.. :roll:
Where does it prove that Israel has broken the Geneva convention? Which articles in particular had been violated?

Just read it Wom, it clearly states which Geneva Convention has been broken over and over again. I posted it, why don't you read it instead of asking me what is already posted.

So, Womblingdon.
My first point. JFK. Oswald, (or whatever theory you follow, I don't care personally) managed to assasinate the president of America. if you need Arafat dead so much, you can plan it a little better than. "He'll be there in an hour. We're going to flatten the area with missiles with no regard for the citizens."
JFK was assassinated by a fellow American and in America. Your analogy is completely off the mark. Installing an Israeli sniper into Gaza unnoticed is an insanely difficult task, moving him around to match the last minute intel on Yassin's location is plain impossible. Anyone remotely familiar with how armed forces operate would simply laugh at your understanding of military actions and sniping in particular.

Question Stephi......on your website do you also have a list of UN Resolutions condemningn not only Palestinian terrorist action but Arab aggressions and actions against the State of Israel?

Actually I don't have them posted for either side for public viewing.. I have them there as reference, I'm writing my Dissertation on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict/Peace process.

Fair enough..but I'm going to assume you're not biased and wish to be objective..so you do have those UN Resolutions condemning not only Palestinian actions but those of other Arab states and/or entities?

And I must have looked at a totally different 1948 map because it sure as hell looks to be an equitable arrangement..and you totally blew past the event that began all this..1 day after the Jews declared the State of Israel, no less then 4 Arab armies invaded Israel.

As for fancy weapons..most IDF weapons are of Israeli manufacture, their tanks and artillery are first rate Israeli made...their troops use the Galil, an Israeli made small arms weapon last time I looked..

As far as fancy weapons..the VietCong fought us to a standstill with not 1/10 the amount of weaponry...why the need for a tank when you can make an improvised explosive device that will take out a tank?..why the need for jets or helos when you can buy an inexpensive ground to air rocket?...and they have RPG's like their going out of style..they have homemade rocket launchers and mortars..

And this is supposed to prove what?

It proves that Israel has killed innocent civilians.. it proves that Israel has broken the Geneva Conventions.. read it.. :roll:
Where does it prove that Israel has broken the Geneva convention? Which articles in particular had been violated?

Just read it Wom, it clearly states which Geneva Convention has been broken over and over again. I posted it, why don't you read it instead of asking me what is already posted.
Re-read it yourself. In the whole of your list, the Geneva convention is only mentioned once- in connection to the settlements, where applying it is indeed justified (under article 49). I am not arguing against it, but that is ONE resolution out of your whole list. The rest is yet to be proven. Have you examined the cases you are referencing, or are you using the list while blindly relying on the UN's supposed impartiality?

Besides, my original question dealt with a very specific issue- targeted killings of terrorists. You avoided it by jumping to what was more convenient for you to argue- UN resolutions on OTHER matters, that go as far back as 1948 :roll: How is that relevant?

I repeat my question. Can you prove the illegality of targeted killings on the basis of the Geneva convention or other existing international conventions?

P.S. And please, call me Womble :wink:

So, Womblingdon.
My first point. JFK. Oswald, (or whatever theory you follow, I don't care personally) managed to assasinate the president of America. if you need Arafat dead so much, you can plan it a little better than. "He'll be there in an hour. We're going to flatten the area with missiles with no regard for the citizens."
JFK was assassinated by a fellow American and in America. Your analogy is completely off the mark. Installing an Israeli sniper into Gaza unnoticed is an insanely difficult task, moving him around to match the last minute intel on Yassin's location is plain impossible. Anyone remotely familiar with how armed forces operate would simply laugh at your understanding of military actions and sniping in particular.

I have to agree with Wom here on getting a sniper to do it..a sniper would have to have been in a hostile enviroment with no support other then his spotter for hours for the right shot, and there is no guarantee that intel would have his movements down pat....even if the sniper got off the shot..you'd basically be consigning the sniper to a death sentence because then extraction of the sniper and his spotter would be near close to impossible.

So, Womblingdon.
My first point. JFK. Oswald, (or whatever theory you follow, I don't care personally) managed to assasinate the president of America. if you need Arafat dead so much, you can plan it a little better than. "He'll be there in an hour. We're going to flatten the area with missiles with no regard for the citizens."
JFK was assassinated by a fellow American and in America. Your analogy is completely off the mark. Installing an Israeli sniper into Gaza unnoticed is an insanely difficult task, moving him around to match the last minute intel on Yassin's location is plain impossible. Anyone remotely familiar with how armed forces operate would simply laugh at your understanding of military actions and sniping in particular.

Indeed. JFK was travelling a known route through Dallas, in an open car, with the public siphoned off several feet to either side of him. Oswald looked, spoke, and acted like a Texan. Compare that to inserting a Jewish sniper into a Arab city to assassinate a man who likely travels in a bulletproof vehicle through a crowd of civilians.

Question Stephi......on your website do you also have a list of UN Resolutions condemningn not only Palestinian terrorist action but Arab aggressions and actions against the State of Israel?

Actually I don't have them posted for either side for public viewing.. I have them there as reference, I'm writing my Dissertation on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict/Peace process.

Are you going to post a link to it when it's ready? I'd love to read it, and I don't mean that in a combative way, I just like to read people's dissertations. I mean, it consumed 3 to 10 years of their lives, I can give it an hour of mine.

Let's see...

The UN aids Sudan, one of the most violent areas in the world.

The UN aids the Balkan states, the scene of untold violence through the ages.

The UN tried to aid Iraq, but in the process decided to skim from the top.

The UN managed to ignore Rwanda, one new scene of genocide.

The UN condemned Portugal because Communist sympathizers attacked Portugal.

The UN didn't do much for Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

The UN holds the US to god-like standards while it condones the murder of civilians in all parts of the world.

The UN didn't do much for Chile when it was dealing with Pinochet.

The UN didn't do much for Cambodia under Pol Pot.

The UN fought for the Korea for reasons that still confuse me.

The UN sure didn't try to stop the atrocities wrought by Iraq and Iran in their little skirmish.

The UN did support Kuwait after Iraqi occupation.

What has the UN done in relation to China and human rights violations?

Article 19 of the UN Charter calls for the freedom of speech, yet it did nothing to enforce that in the Soviet Union, despite the fact that the RFSSR was a signator.

The UN ignored Soviet aggression in Afghanistan and numerous other nations where the Soviets violated human rights to the nth.

The UN condemns the US for not covering its mouth when coughing.

The UN won't even respond to the murder of its own employees, aside from the occasional 'we condemn this in the strongest possible terms' - then they do nothing else.

- - - - -

I think you can tell that the UN is rather skewed and can not be relied upon. There is no reason to listen to them. They condemn this when it is wrought here, and condone the same when it is wrough there. They don't mind murder here, but they do mind murder there. They don't mind genocide here, but they do mind genocide there.

Trusting in the UN is like trusting a manic depressive to be your psychiatrist.

I don't have time right now to go throw these all.. but I will come back if you insist and do so.. lets look indeed though.

Just off the top of my head..

"The UN aids Sudan, one of the most violent areas in the world."

So, the world should let one of the poorest countries in the world just starve to death because of it's government? hmm ok.

"The UN aids the Balkan states, the scene of untold violence through the ages."

See above.

"The UN tried to aid Iraq, but in the process decided to skim from the top"

Actually if you are talking about the "Oil for food" program if there was any wrong doing, which has yet to be decided.. it will not of been from the actual UN. This will have been the countries that agreed to abide by the sanctions placed on Iraq and gave out contracts to companies.. the UN was simply suppose to over-see it. The UN can't be held responsible for it. However, if we look back to the good 'ol Iraq/Iran war, when the UN tried to sanction Iraq for using WMD, the Americans VETO'd it.

"The UN managed to ignore Rwanda, one new scene of genocide"

Oh, I love this one.. I know this one well, given it was a Canadian initiative. Canadian General Romeo Dallaire went to the UN and begged for help before it was too late. The Americans blocked it at every step, Not one of Clinton's finest hours.. He had instructed his UN envoy to block it in fear of another Somalia. You want to blame some one for that, blame the American government at the time.

"The UN condemned Portugal because Communist sympathizers attacked Portugal."

I would have to look into this one, don't know enough about it.

"The UN didn't do much for Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops."

If memory serves me correct it was again the Americans who left Afghan in the lurch. It was them who trained and helped them, under Soviet rule they would of been far better off then they are today.

"The UN didn't do much for Chile when it was dealing with Pinochet."

"The UN didn't do much for Cambodia under Pol Pot."

One name.. Henry Kissinger!!!

Was there any thing else?

Stop requoting the lists of UN resolutions!

Does anyone else feel like a salmon trying to post right now?

Fair enough..but I'm going to assume you're not biased and wish to be objective..so you do have those UN Resolutions condemning not only Palestinian actions but those of other Arab states and/or entities?
This, you see, is part of the problem. The UN had NEVER condemned any Palestinian terrorist action or any Arab action taken against Israel. Stephistan cannot have a list of US resolution against the Palestinians, because there simply are none. I just hope she is smart enough to realize the significance of this inequality.


And I must have looked at a totally different 1948 map because it sure as hell looks to be an equitable arrangement..and you totally blew past the event that began all this..1 day after the Jews declared the State of Israel, no less then 4 Arab armies invaded Israel.
Seven, actually. There were 5 Iraqi brigades and troops from Saudi Arabia, for example.


As for fancy weapons..most IDF weapons are of Israeli manufacture, their tanks and artillery are first rate Israeli made...their troops use the Galil, an Israeli made small arms weapon last time I looked..
You are correct, exept for once thing. The Galil are mostly issued to the Armored Core. M16 rifles, though disliked, are widely used, because Israel is sort of compelled to receive them. Unfortunately, this "un-refuseable" aid from the US delays the introduction of a MUCH better rifle- the TAR 21, which is a damn shame.


As far as fancy weapons..the VietCong fought us to a standstill with not 1/10 the amount of weaponry...why the need for a tank when you can make an improvised explosive device that will take out a tank?..why the need for jets or helos when you can buy an inexpensive ground to air rocket?...and they have RPG's like their going out of style..they have homemade rocket launchers and mortars..
The whole "uneven playing field" argument is effectively invalidated by what is going on in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents are armed equally, if not undergunned, compared to the Palestinians, yet they are perfectly capable of fighting an army stronger, larger and better equipped than the IDF. If the Palestinians choose to attack civilians rather than soldiers, it is because they WANT to attack civilians, not because they can't attack soldiers.

LOL! I was wonder how long it was going to take someone to say that.

hmm. There are not many easily accesible U.S cities in Iraq for suicide bombings to take place. And also, as we can see, Irqi guerillas do attack civilian structures, like that oil rig.
The guerillas probably attack soldiers because they can't attack civilians.
Yes, I was probably wrong about the sniper. But there are better alternatives to going in guns blazing. The British in Ireland have not been allowed to order indiscriminate gunship attacks when they know an IRA leader is about. They have to get an S.A.S squad to take him in. (And most of the time, they can't because he is defended heavily, and in broad daylight.
You can compare the IRA to the palestinian terror groups. They both target civilians purposefully, and we have had quite a successful peace recently with our approach.

Here, lets stop fighting over this..

This is my bottom line,

The Jewish people are good.

The Palestinian people are good.

Both sides leadership leaves much to be desired.

*Sorry about the spaces Berkylvania, I type with a #2 pencil..lol :P

Here, lets stop fighting over this..

This is my bottom line,

The Jewish people are good.

The Palestinian people are good.

Both sides leadership leaves much to be desired.

*Sorry about the spaces Berkylvania, I type with a #2 pencil..lol :P

Hehe, no problem. And I agree with your bottom line, Steph. The people over there suffer while the leaders play power games.

Stephistan, I think you missed what I was getting at. I don't give two flipping flops who vetoed what, or who screwed what up. You agreed with me that the UN shafted Israel from the get go, then you later went on to state that Israel should follow UN resolutions.

So I'm going to make an analogy here and tell you how the cow ate the cabbage. If someone dropped me off in the woods and let me get my ass kicked I would never be friendly with that person. The UN dropped Israel off in the woods and stood by as four belligerent nations tried their hands at genocide. Why should anyone listen to the UN after that? Huh? Do you have any logical reasoning for that?

Or can we somehow magically shift the blame back to the Jews? "Well sure the Jews hadn't had a state in two thousand years, but they should have refused a UN resolution!" After all, in 1948 all the Israelis did was accept what the UN put on the table. Now should hold them responsible for that?

You see, I listed all those problems with the UN not to expose the UN as a duplicitous bastardized body, but to show you that they just can't be relied on - especially with Israel. You say that Israel should get no help because of their policies while at the same time saying the Sudan should get help despite having much more violent ideals. Is that not a double standard? You UN cronies all speak out of both sides of your mouth. To rely on the UN for anything is to build your house with rotten timber.

And regardless of what the Oil for Food program debauchery is all about and who can be held responsible, I only pointed that out for this reason: it shows that the UN is merely a brothel for the international community. I'd also point out that the UN didn't deter WWIII - nuclear weapons did. I'd point out that, according to my reckoning, there has not been a single year of peace since the UN was created. Not one single year! Now that doesn't say much for a body created to ensure peace in our time, does it?

So, let me ask this, why the hell should anyone trust the UN? If you take them at their best they are ignorant as all get out. The UN is just one massive contradiction with a long list of contradictions.

Two more things, then I'm gone. It was very nice of you to post the list of wrongs Israel has done, but very conveniant to not post anything about the Palestenians.

Finally, it is an afront to my very spirit that the UN is based in the US. Ship that bastard thing to Ghana where it belongs.

Arafat is a terrorist he heads a palestinian terrorist organization he wants nothing to do with peace he wants the destruction of israel. I say good for sharon america first off really has no right telling israel what to do when we ourselves would/are doing same thing or similar thing(s) if he is dead by JUne or any time soon I say great and any attempts I support.

Stephistan, I think you missed what I was getting at. I don't give two flipping flops who vetoed what, or who screwed what up. You agreed with me that the UN shafted Israel from the get go, then you later went on to state that Israel should follow UN resolutions.

Umm, no, I'm a Canadian, we have deep respect for International law and the UN and heck, we even wrote the "Declaration of Human Rights" What I said was Israel reaps what it sows..

I have nothing against either side.. I do however take great issue with the way the leadership of both sides have handled all of this for years.. it's childish only it's not funny because real people are getting killed for a rather stupid dispute. Both sides are acting like idiots.. But I will admit, I do usually favour the underdog, call it a sense of fairness my mother taught me.. I doubt that sense of fairness will ever leave me. I probably won't make a good politician because of it.

Stephistan, I think you missed what I was getting at. I don't give two flipping flops who vetoed what, or who screwed what up. You agreed with me that the UN shafted Israel from the get go, then you later went on to state that Israel should follow UN resolutions.

Umm, no, I'm a Canadian, we have deep respect for International law and the UN and heck, we even wrote the "Declaration of Human Rights" What I said was Israel reaps what it sows..

I have nothing against either side.. I do however take great issue with the way the leadership of both sides have handled all of this for years.. it's childish only it's not funny because real people are getting killed for a rather stupid dispute. Both sides are acting like idiots.. But I will admit, I do usually favour the underdog, call it a sense of fairness my mother taught me.. I doubt that sense of fairness will ever leave me. I probably won't make a good politician because of it.

Favoring the underdog in a senseless dispute is fairness?

Sign of the times:

GAZA CITY (CNN) -- A successor to slain Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi has been appointed, but his name is being kept secret for his protection, sources in the group's military wing said Sunday. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/rantisi.funeral/)

Sign of better times. What happened to the days when these people were proud to announce who they were? :D

Stephistan, I think you missed what I was getting at. I don't give two flipping flops who vetoed what, or who screwed what up. You agreed with me that the UN shafted Israel from the get go, then you later went on to state that Israel should follow UN resolutions.

Umm, no, I'm a Canadian, we have deep respect for International law and the UN and heck, we even wrote the "Declaration of Human Rights" What I said was Israel reaps what it sows..

I have nothing against either side.. I do however take great issue with the way the leadership of both sides have handled all of this for years.. it's childish only it's not funny because real people are getting killed for a rather stupid dispute. Both sides are acting like idiots.. But I will admit, I do usually favour the underdog, call it a sense of fairness my mother taught me.. I doubt that sense of fairness will ever leave me. I probably won't make a good politician because of it.

Favoring the underdog in a senseless dispute is fairness?

Nah, I don't really "favour" per se either side.. but I do tend to argue for Palestine more then Israel, maybe it's because I believe Israel should know better.. I think you always tend to be harder on the student, or child, or person, whatever that you believe should know better.. I believe that Israel has the upper hand without question.. few could dispute that.. I just think if they're both going to act like jackasses.. which is what they're basically doing.. the playing field should be level.

Make more sense?

Stephistan, I think you missed what I was getting at. I don't give two flipping flops who vetoed what, or who screwed what up. You agreed with me that the UN shafted Israel from the get go, then you later went on to state that Israel should follow UN resolutions.

Umm, no, I'm a Canadian, we have deep respect for International law and the UN and heck, we even wrote the "Declaration of Human Rights" What I said was Israel reaps what it sows..

I have nothing against either side.. I do however take great issue with the way the leadership of both sides have handled all of this for years.. it's childish only it's not funny because real people are getting killed for a rather stupid dispute. Both sides are acting like idiots.. But I will admit, I do usually favour the underdog, call it a sense of fairness my mother taught me.. I doubt that sense of fairness will ever leave me. I probably won't make a good politician because of it.

Favoring the underdog in a senseless dispute is fairness?

Nah, I don't really "favour" per se either side.. but I do tend to argue for Palestine more then Israel, maybe it's because I believe Israel should know better.. I think you always tend to be harder on the student, or child, or person, whatever that you believe should know better.. I believe that Israel has the upper hand without question.. few could dispute that.. I just think if they're both going to act like jackasses.. which is what they're basically doing.. the playing field should be level.

Make more sense?

I suppose, but I would strongly argue against taking any side if your goal is ending the conflict there. Each side is looking for a "victory" and arguing for one side, even if you qualify it by explaining your reasoning as you have is an underhand way of showing your support for them and displays your belief (even if you don't actually hold it) that they deserve a victory. The situation in the Middle East is not going to be resolved single handedly by either side and there can be no reasonable victory, especially not for Palestine. Each side needs to take a different perspective and agree that peace and coexistence is a better option for everyone than unqualified victory if only because peace is possible while victory is not.

I agree that Israel should know better than to act the way it does, but I also believe that the Israeli government has become trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle which it cannot break by its power alone. Every attempt that has been made for peace by either side has been ruined by violence on the part of non-governmental organizations opposed to the peace process. As long as the Israeli and Palestinian leadership is willing to back out of negotiations because of the actions of rogue groups peace is impossible. The issue of how to deal with groups such as Hamas if a peaceful settlement can be reached between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships remains a difficult one, but that hurdle will be much easier if the majority of the populations of either side can be united behind the universal goal of peace.

It's such a shame for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient to be treated in such a manner.

I wonder if he wears it around his neck as he orders Hamas and Islamic Jihad "leaders" to have one of thier "martyrs" self detonate on a bus filled with innocent men, women, and children.

I know, I know, he's a "freedom fighter" in the Left's eyes so spare me the responses.

It's such a shame for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient to be treated in such a manner.

I wonder if he wears it around his neck as he orders Hamas and Islamic Jihad "leaders" to have one of thier "martyrs" self detonate on a bus filled with innocent men, women, and children.

I know, I know, he's a "freedom fighter" in the Left's eyes so spare me the responses.

You've got to get over this Left/Right dichotomy stuff, it just doesn't work in rational debate.

I never made the claim that I'm trying to be rational. My intention is to solicit emotion...one way or the other. See, I wrote to the effect that I wasn't seeking responses which - you and I both know was a downright lie. Was that rational? It caused you a little anger though didn't it? Was that rational?

I never made the claim that I'm trying to be rational. My intention is to solicit emotion...one way or the other. See, I wrote to the effect that I wasn't seeking responses which - you and I both know was a downright lie. Was that rational? It caused you a little anger though didn't it? Was that rational?

Actually it didn't cause any anger. A year ago it might have, but now I've been around too long and dealt with too many idiots to get angry at the crap the spews from the mouths of the partisan masses.

Actually it didn't cause any anger. A year ago it might have, but now I've been around too long and dealt with too many idiots to get angry at the crap the spews from the mouths of the partisan masses.

:lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: It worked :!:

Our Earth - Yes, I would agree with most of what you have said.. I don't dispute it. I guess that sense of fairness I spoke of kicks in.. every one defends Israel, not too often unless you want to be an outcast does any one ever defend Palestine.. but on the whole.. I certainly can't argue with what you're saying.

Our Earth - Yes, I would agree with most of what you have said.. I don't dispute it. I guess that sense of fairness I spoke of kicks in.. every one defends Israel, not too often unless you want to be an outcast does any one ever defend Palestine.. but on the whole.. I certainly can't argue with what you're saying.

I sincerly hope that peace will be achieved in the Region and the more people are able to seperate themselves from taking one side or the other the better the chances of peace seem to get. I can, however, understand speaking out for Palestinians when everyone around seems to be arguing for Israel, if only to create a more balanced argument. Of course that's never really been my goal, I'm always the one on the sideline arguing against everybody.

Stableness, you really are strange.

Our Earth - Yes, I would agree with most of what you have said.. I don't dispute it. I guess that sense of fairness I spoke of kicks in.. every one defends Israel, not too often unless you want to be an outcast does any one ever defend Palestine.. but on the whole.. I certainly can't argue with what you're saying.

I sincerly hope that peace will be achieved in the Region and the more people are able to seperate themselves from taking one side or the other the better the chances of peace seem to get. I can, however, understand speaking out for Palestinians when everyone around seems to be arguing for Israel, if only to create a more balanced argument. Of course that's never really been my goal, I'm always the one on the sideline arguing against everybody.

Stableness, you really are strange.

100% agree.. I too wish for that. I can argue either side.. I believe both sides while acting like jackasses, both have legitimate beefs with each other, that they can't seem to be grown up enough to solve on their own.. This is why moderator is need.. (I'm not volunteering.. note: Game Mod, not world mod..lol)

...Stableness, you really are strange.

Kind of. I took you offguard ealier didn't I?

Our Earth - Yes, I would agree with most of what you have said.. I don't dispute it. I guess that sense of fairness I spoke of kicks in.. every one defends Israel, not too often unless you want to be an outcast does any one ever defend Palestine.. but on the whole.. I certainly can't argue with what you're saying.

I sincerly hope that peace will be achieved in the Region and the more people are able to seperate themselves from taking one side or the other the better the chances of peace seem to get. I can, however, understand speaking out for Palestinians when everyone around seems to be arguing for Israel, if only to create a more balanced argument. Of course that's never really been my goal, I'm always the one on the sideline arguing against everybody.

Stableness, you really are strange.

100% agree.. I too wish for that. I can argue either side.. I believe both sides while acting like jackasses, both have legitimate beefs with each other, that they can't seem to be grown up enough to solve on their own.. This is why moderator is need.. (I'm not volunteering.. note: Game Mod, not world mod..lol)

That'd be interesting, a world moderator with some degree of executive power over everything. If only there was some way of guaranteeing impartiality it'd work great.

...Stableness, you really are strange.

Kind of. I took you offguard ealier didn't I?

When?

Our Earth - Yes, I would agree with most of what you have said.. I don't dispute it. I guess that sense of fairness I spoke of kicks in.. every one defends Israel, not too often unless you want to be an outcast does any one ever defend Palestine.. but on the whole.. I certainly can't argue with what you're saying.

I sincerly hope that peace will be achieved in the Region and the more people are able to seperate themselves from taking one side or the other the better the chances of peace seem to get. I can, however, understand speaking out for Palestinians when everyone around seems to be arguing for Israel, if only to create a more balanced argument. Of course that's never really been my goal, I'm always the one on the sideline arguing against everybody.

Stableness, you really are strange.

100% agree.. I too wish for that. I can argue either side.. I believe both sides while acting like jackasses, both have legitimate beefs with each other, that they can't seem to be grown up enough to solve on their own.. This is why moderator is need.. (I'm not volunteering.. note: Game Mod, not world mod..lol)

That'd be interesting, a world moderator with some degree of executive power over everything. If only there was some way of guaranteeing impartiality it'd work great.

Yeah, it would have to be some European I figure, or even a Canadian in fairness.. Canada has a pretty good track record for being the "peace maker" Canada has no vested interests.. I just don't think it can be an American President, nor obviously any American envoy.. nor can it be any one from an Arab country.. It has to be some one .. or envoy.. who really has nothing to gain or lose by mediation..

While the UN has been weakened in the last year.. no argument.. I believe it has to be an entity that comes from there in some way.. at least has the international communities approval.. Because without international approval it's all for not.

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Our Earth - Yes, I would agree with most of what you have said.. I don't dispute it. I guess that sense of fairness I spoke of kicks in.. every one defends Israel, not too often unless you want to be an outcast does any one ever defend Palestine.. but on the whole.. I certainly can't argue with what you're saying.

I sincerly hope that peace will be achieved in the Region and the more people are able to seperate themselves from taking one side or the other the better the chances of peace seem to get. I can, however, understand speaking out for Palestinians when everyone around seems to be arguing for Israel, if only to create a more balanced argument. Of course that's never really been my goal, I'm always the one on the sideline arguing against everybody.

Stableness, you really are strange.

100% agree.. I too wish for that. I can argue either side.. I believe both sides while acting like jackasses, both have legitimate beefs with each other, that they can't seem to be grown up enough to solve on their own.. This is why moderator is need.. (I'm not volunteering.. note: Game Mod, not world mod..lol)

That'd be interesting, a world moderator with some degree of executive power over everything. If only there was some way of guaranteeing impartiality it'd work great.

Yeah, it would have to be some European I figure, or even a Canadian in fairness.. Canada has a pretty good track record for being the "peace maker" Canada has no vested interests.. I just don't think it can be an American President, nor obviously any American envoy.. nor can it be any one from an Arab country.. It has to be some one .. or envoy.. who really has nothing to gain or lose by mediation..

While the UN has been weakened in the last year.. no argument.. I believe it has to be an entity that comes from there in some way.. at least has the international communities approval.. Because without international approval it's all for not.

Heh, I didn't even think about the UN when I mentioned that. Ideally that's the UN's job, but as we've seen when countries choose to ignore it there is little the UN can do since it's members aren't willing to commit military or economic power to enforce resolutions, especially not against economically and militarily powerful nations like the U.S.

As for where an impartial moderator might be found, I'd say there can be no single universal moderator, because everyone has some opinions and interests, but a body of moderators from which an impartial individual could be chosen to resolve a specific dispute might work, but all parties would have to agree to follow what the moderator said and the chances of that are slim to none.

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

You are absolutely correct, for neither side is peace the ideal outcome, but in the end it is the best possible outcome for both sides. If everyone can be convinced of that then peace becomes possible, but until then both sides will continue the senseless killing in pursuit of a victory that cannot be achieved.

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine's.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

Ya know Steph....it's your humility I like so much and your hubby must love about you...lol....

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine's.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

For that matter "victory" in the eyes of radical Palestinians, that is the complete and utter destruction of Israel, is a meaningful impossibility for the sole reason that Israel has nuclear weapons and that if the last Israelis were being backed into the Mediteranean as has been hoped for by some Palestinians their last action before drowning would be to destroy every major city in the Arab world including Mecca. The vulnerability of Mecca alone gives Israel infinite protection for complete defeat.

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine's.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

For that matter "victory" in the eyes of radical Palestinians, that is the complete and utter destruction of Israel, is a meaningful impossibility for the sole reason that Israel has nuclear weapons and that if the last Israelis were being backed into the Mediteranean as has been hoped for by some Palestinians their last action before drowning would be to destroy every major city in the Arab world including Mecca. The vulnerability of Mecca alone gives Israel infinite protection for complete defeat.

You know...I've always wondered why Israel has never truly played that trump card..if I'd been the Israeli Ambassador to say Saudi Arabia, I would walk into one of their many Royal Palaces and say "Your highness, Mecca is Islam for lack of a better place...what Saudi Arabia says, other Arab nations might follow...we've planted a nuclear device somewhere in this city, indeed multiple Islamic holy cities...any move by any other Arab power or Palestinian terror group and we will detonate those devices. All we want is the right to exist..lay off us..and we'll lay off you"

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine's.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

Ya know Steph....it's your humility I like so much and your hubby must love about you...lol....

I wish you were right.. but I think it's my ass.. LOL :P

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine's.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

Ya know Steph....it's your humility I like so much and your hubby must love about you...lol....

I wish you were right.. but I think it's my ass.. LOL :P

I've seen pictures and it's not entirely unbelievable. :wink: :D

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine's.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

For that matter "victory" in the eyes of radical Palestinians, that is the complete and utter destruction of Israel, is a meaningful impossibility for the sole reason that Israel has nuclear weapons and that if the last Israelis were being backed into the Mediteranean as has been hoped for by some Palestinians their last action before drowning would be to destroy every major city in the Arab world including Mecca. The vulnerability of Mecca alone gives Israel infinite protection for complete defeat.

You know...I've always wondered why Israel has never truly played that trump card..if I'd been the Israeli Ambassador to say Saudi Arabia, I would walk into one of their many Royal Palaces and say "Your highness, Mecca is Islam for lack of a better place...what Saudi Arabia says, other Arab nations might follow...we've planted a nuclear device somewhere in this city, indeed multiple Islamic holy cities...any move by any other Arab power or Palestinian terror group and we will detonate those devices. All we want is the right to exist..lay off us..and we'll lay off you"

That might work in a comic-book... Or a hollywood movie.

Destroying Mecca and other Islamic holy cities. That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, and I've came up with a few. That would really galvanise support for Israel. Numerous terrorist nuclear strikes on holy cities, for use as blackmail or V-weapons. All that would do would be to cement hatred of Israel, for all time, in the heart of most, if not all, Muslims.

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine's.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

For that matter "victory" in the eyes of radical Palestinians, that is the complete and utter destruction of Israel, is a meaningful impossibility for the sole reason that Israel has nuclear weapons and that if the last Israelis were being backed into the Mediteranean as has been hoped for by some Palestinians their last action before drowning would be to destroy every major city in the Arab world including Mecca. The vulnerability of Mecca alone gives Israel infinite protection for complete defeat.

You know...I've always wondered why Israel has never truly played that trump card..if I'd been the Israeli Ambassador to say Saudi Arabia, I would walk into one of their many Royal Palaces and say "Your highness, Mecca is Islam for lack of a better place...what Saudi Arabia says, other Arab nations might follow...we've planted a nuclear device somewhere in this city, indeed multiple Islamic holy cities...any move by any other Arab power or Palestinian terror group and we will detonate those devices. All we want is the right to exist..lay off us..and we'll lay off you"

That particular card has never been played because there are about 1.5 billion muslims who would gleefully succeed where Hitler failed at even the slightest hint of that threat, and I very much doubt even the Bush administration would come to Israel's aid on that.

Stephistan, I direct your attention to http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3121646&highlight=#3121646

I studied that little situation and wrote that specifically for you, but I do hope that some others might take a look.

Your government is not very fond of the US, so it is understandable that what you read and hear is going to be a bit slanted against the US - just as what we read and hear is in favor of the US. But I do believe that this teen bopper trend of blaming the US should die out before too long.

I've always hated reminding people of a very much not talked about aspect....on both sides it is my opinion that neither side actually wants peace..but victory..the two are not necessarily are the same....now...does the average Israeli Jew squat on an illegal settlement in Palestinian lands and wish every Palestinian dead..no...does ever Palestinian child throw rocks at IDF personnel and hope to be a matyr..no...the answer is somewhere in between...but on the whole..it is my opinion that both sides believe only victory will resolve the situation.

Honestly.. this is me trying to be objective.. but your argument makes more sense for Israel then it does for Palestine.. Israel has time on their side.. Israel has pretty much every thing on their side.. it's far more in Israel's interests to not settle for any thing less then "victory" then it is for Palestine's.. of course like you, this is only my opinion.. but if I may be so bold, a rather educated one.. :)

For that matter "victory" in the eyes of radical Palestinians, that is the complete and utter destruction of Israel, is a meaningful impossibility for the sole reason that Israel has nuclear weapons and that if the last Israelis were being backed into the Mediteranean as has been hoped for by some Palestinians their last action before drowning would be to destroy every major city in the Arab world including Mecca. The vulnerability of Mecca alone gives Israel infinite protection for complete defeat.

You know...I've always wondered why Israel has never truly played that trump card..if I'd been the Israeli Ambassador to say Saudi Arabia, I would walk into one of their many Royal Palaces and say "Your highness, Mecca is Islam for lack of a better place...what Saudi Arabia says, other Arab nations might follow...we've planted a nuclear device somewhere in this city, indeed multiple Islamic holy cities...any move by any other Arab power or Palestinian terror group and we will detonate those devices. All we want is the right to exist..lay off us..and we'll lay off you"

That particular card has never been played because there are about 1.5 billion muslims who would gleefully succeed where Hitler failed at even the slightest hint of that threat, and I very much doubt even the Bush administration would come to Israel's aid on that.

The Arabs have tried it 4 times in the last 50 yrs..each time the Israelis handed to them their heads on a platter.