NationStates Jolt Archive

A U.N. Security Council draft resolution condemning Israel for the Gaza attacks failed Tuesday, after the United States vetoed it. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said the resolution was one-sided in that it condemned Israel but made no mention of the Palestinian rocket attacks.

(yawn) now, it's becoming to get monotonous: Israel breaking international law, draft resolution, US veto, back to the beginning, there we go again.

With such an attitude, I'm wondering wether the USA are relevant as a permanent member of the Security Council?

"The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said the resolution was one-sided in that it condemned Israel but made no mention of the Palestinian rocket attacks."

"The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said the resolution was one-sided in that it condemned Israel but made no mention of the Palestinian rocket attacks."
of course thats what the US is going to say with its unilateral support for israel, cant condemn them, they arnt muslim

well we can't be to critical of isreal, they actually seem to treat their arabs better than we treat ours. they killed 70 palestinians and its a humanitarian crisis, we kill 70 iraqis and its a wednesday.

"The resolution was one-sided in that it condemned Israel but made no mention of the Palestinian rocket attacks."Good enough reason to veto for me.Well we can't be to critical of israel, they actually seem to treat their arabs better than we treat ours. they killed 70 palestinians and its a humanitarian crisis, we kill 70 iraqis and its a wednesday. A good point.

* Might I add not every single person living in israel is jewish, there is such a thing as an israeli arab ...

Though they cop a fair bit of crap for it from both sides it seems ...

of course thats what the US is going to say with its unilateral support for israel, cant condemn them, they arnt muslim
Sorry if the US only supports people not using genocide as a policy tool.

doesnt the UN pump out a resolution(which is vetoed by the Us) condemning Israel at least once a month? Apparantly, Palestinians blowing up innocent woman in shopping markets is okay but Israeli soldiers targetting Hamas leaders is a global humanitarian crisis.

No, they're just trying to liberate themselves. Israel is Satan incarnate.

Russia got the resolution to condemn Hamas' rocket attacks, but that's not good enough for America.

doesnt the UN pump out a resolution(which is vetoed by the Us) condemning Israel at least once a month? Apparantly, Palestinians blowing up innocent woman in shopping markets is okay but Israeli soldiers targetting Hamas leaders is a global humanitarian crisis.
you got that threoy down pat.

Russia got the resolution to condemn Hamas' rocket attacks, but that's not good enough for America.
Damn right its not. If a bully threatens a kid with a knife and the kid punches him in the nuts, you don't condemn the bully and accuse the kid of using undue force.

Sorry if the US only supports people not using genocide as a policy tool.

"Yes, we never support genocidal or otherwise tyrannical governments. Iraq? We got around to attacking them...South america? People know about that now? Afghanistan? Blame the russians. Somalia? Russians. Russians are the cause of everything except israel. Then its those evil palestinians, who are invading weak Israel with their advanced technology and creating illegal settlements. What do you mean I read the telepromter wrong, and switched the names? Bah, liberal bias."

Courtesy of D.C. Bob.

Sorry if the US only supports people not using genocide as a policy tool.


Israel is the world's worst developed nation in terms of atrocities and crimes against humanity.

Damn right its not. If a bully threatens a kid with a knife and the kid punches him in the nuts, you don't condemn the bully and accuse the kid of using undue force.

Except its the exact way around. Israel is the bigger kid with the knife. Palestine has to react with dirty hits like the nuts. It may not be honorable, but it keeps it alive.

Courtesy of the american propoganda minister.

it's d.c. bob, i love that guy.

The suicide missions that palestinians embark upon in the hopes of driving the israeli military from their home is a profound expression of the once-american sentiment "Live free or die."

The suicide missions that palestinians embark upon in the hopes of driving the israeli military from their home is a profound expression of the once-american sentiment "Live free or die."

Vivre Libre ou mourir!

The suicide missions that palestinians embark upon in the hopes of driving the israeli military from their home is a profound expression of the once-american sentiment "Live free or die."
burn in hell murder of innocents is still a crime, its like saying this happenning is okay :) :sniper: sniper murders smiles everything fine.

Israel is the world's worst developed nation in terms of atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Israel has never used a WMD, although they have enough to wipe out all the Arabs in the world. Israel doesn't send its sons and daughters to blow up themselves and women and children. And something should be said about why Israel is the only developed nation in the entire Middle East.

No, they're just trying to liberate themselves. Israel is Satan incarnate.

I thought we were the great Satan. ;)

I thought we were the great Satan. ;)
Depends on which newspaper you read.

Russia got the resolution to condemn Hamas' rocket attacks, but that's not good enough for America.

Say what? More info please.....

Israel has never used a WMD, although they have enough to wipe out all the Arabs in the world. Israel doesn't send its sons and daughters to blow up themselves and women and children. And something should be said about why Israel is the only developed nation in the entire Middle East.

They send soldiers to blow up women and children, instead of citizens. The difference is because Palestine isn't funded by the richest nation in the world. If Palestine could fight for its freedom through conventional means, and had any chance of winning, it would.

The suicide missions that palestinians embark upon in the hopes of driving the israeli military from their home is a profound expression of the once-american sentiment "Live free or die."

The problem is the fact they don't all belive in suicide missions.

I remember one poor shell of a man who lost his son to a mission. He said he had not clue. He left in the morning as always and later that day he found out he was an attacker. He said he would have stopped him if he knew.

Neither side is complete innocent. Both have done nasty crap to each other.

It is a shame because I met decent people on both sides.....

They send soldiers to blow up women and children, instead of citizens. The difference is because Palestine isn't funded by the richest nation in the world. If Palestine could fight for its freedom through conventional means, and had any chance of winning, it would.

They probably would still loose.

They were equally matched in 1948.

If the situations were switched, I have no doubt Israel would be using suicide bombers if they had no conventional means.

They probably would still loose.

They were equally matched in 1948.

The point is, Palestine is fighting for its freedom. It uses suicide bombers because it has no other choice.

If the situations were switched, I have no doubt Israel would be using suicide bombers if they had no conventional means.

Well what about the scape with England? They were outmatched.

The hotel bombing was without suiciders....

They send soldiers to blow up women and children, instead of citizens. The difference is because Palestine isn't funded by the richest nation in the world. If Palestine could fight for its freedom through conventional means, and had any chance of winning, it would.
Palestine had their chance, in the Six Days War. Israel single-handedly defeated the entire Arab world. So the Arabs spend the next 50 years blowing themselves up.

Well what about the scape with England? They were outmatched.

The hotel bombing was without suiciders....

Outmatched is one thing. Palestine has no hope conventionally.

The problem is the fact they don't all belive in suicide missions.

I remember one poor shell of a man who lost his son to a mission. He said he had not clue. He left in the morning as always and later that day he found out he was an attacker. He said he would have stopped him if he knew.

Neither side is complete innocent. Both have done nasty crap to each other.

It is a shame because I met decent people on both sides.....


Indeed there have been bad things done by both sides.

Israel however has vast power over the lives and deaths of the palestinians and rules them with an iron fist by force of arms.
Also, Israel is using its military to hold lands outside her legal borders.
This gives the palestinians the moral high ground.

Palestine had their chance, in the Six Days War. Israel single-handedly defeated the entire Arab world. So the Arabs spend the next 50 years blowing themselves up.

Its still not the point. In war, there are no civilians. There are sides. Palestine is fighting to win, not to fight right.

Indeed there have been bad things done by both sides.

Israel however has vast power over the lives and deaths of the palestinians and rules them with an iron fist by force of arms.
Also, Israel is using its military to hold lands outside her legal borders.
This gives the palestinians the moral high ground.
Care to remember how Israel got that land? After it WAS ATTACKED it conquered it so Arabs couldn't place artillery up there. Do you really think if they gave it back the war would suddenly end? Anyone who targets children is by no means on the moral high ground.

The point is, Palestine is fighting for its freedom. It uses suicide bombers because it has no other choice.

Possibly.

I wonder how long the US could support Israel if the Palistineans took Ghandi's approach to dealing with Israel?

The problem is exacerbated by the fact a busload of kids, a dance club full of girls, a pizza shop full of women and children getting blown up.

You can't get much support when that happens.

Obviously women and children die from the Isralie strikes but the effect is lost as it comes across as unfortunate victums of a counter strike.

Care to remember how Israel got that land? After it WAS ATTACKED it conquered it so Arabs couldn't place artillery up there. Do you really think if they gave it back the war would suddenly end? Anyone who targets children is by no means on the moral high ground.


Israelis target children.

That removes it as a point that seperates israeli and palestinians tactics in their war.

And as Lebanon and Hitzbollah are the only relevent example, it may not end the war entirely, but it would certainly end most of it.
Return to her legal borders would give israel the moral high ground and de-legitimize palestinian attacks on israel.
Attackers of israelis would become terrorists rather than freedom fighters.

Indeed there have been bad things done by both sides.

Israel however has vast power over the lives and deaths of the palestinians and rules them with an iron fist by force of arms.


No doubt. Would you not rule with an Iron hand if a people vowed your destruction?

People were against the seattlements before the mass wave of bombings(at least the ones I talked to while I was over there).

Any intersting observation. Did you know arafat is a billionaire?

Israelis target children.

That removes it as a point that seperates israeli and palestinians tactics in their war.

And as Lebanon and Hitzbollah are the only relevent example, it may not end the war entirely, but it would certainly end most of it.
Return to her legal borders would give israel the moral high ground and de-legitimize palestinian attacks on israel.
Attackers of israelis would become terrorists rather than freedom fighters.
Israel targets safehouses. If Palestinians want to use their own children as a shield, that's just futher proof that they don't deserve their own state.

Israel targets safehouses. If Palestinians want to use their own children as a shield, that's just futher proof that they don't deserve their own state.


Israelis fire military explosive weapons indiscriminately at palestinians civilians and then use "safe houses" as a cop-out.

If you honestly believe the israeli military, or any military for that matter, i've got a bridge to sell you.

I suppose when germany said that the jews were being 'relocated,' you would have believed them.

Israelis target children.


Care to define that one? The Israelis don't plan missions only for children.

The cases of the rock throwing kids. Well a common tactic is a gunmen gets inside of a group of rock throwers. When the time is good he pops up and cranks off a few rounds. As one of our workers said "Sometimes you get the lucky shot and hit the gunmen. Sometimes you hit a child."


Attackers of israelis would become terrorists rather than freedom fighters.

Ahh but don't freedom fighters go after goverment and military targets?

Israelis fire military explosive weapons indiscriminately at palestinians civilians and then use "safe houses" as a cop-out.

If you honestly believe the israeli military, or any military for that matter, i've got a bridge to sell you.

Now but we have workers over there that do their times in the comandos and artillery from time to time. They say the same thing and guess what. They don't like the settlements.....

Israelis target children.

That removes it as a point that seperates israeli and palestinians tactics in their war.

And as Lebanon and Hitzbollah are the only relevent example, it may not end the war entirely, but it would certainly end most of it.
Return to her legal borders would give israel the moral high ground and de-legitimize palestinian attacks on israel.
Attackers of israelis would become terrorists rather than freedom fighters.

With various attacks and counterattacks, there are no real, "legal" borders anymore. Israel can't give up ground in an effort to attain peace because any ground given would be an advantage to the Arab states in the area. With such an advantage, those Arab states would most likely waste no time in invading. I would say that if the positions were reversed, the Israeli's would take advantage of any gain they made but they're too small to invade much of anything. Sure, they took some stuff in various past wars but they didn't have to deal with any sanctions because of the circumstances of the land grab. Nowadays, they'd lose too much foreign aid to risk anything drastic. From past performances, I don't think the adjoining Arab states share the same concern. Israel can possibly give away non-strategic pieces of land but nothing like the Golan Heights.

Palestine had their chance, in the Six Days War. Israel single-handedly defeated the entire Arab world. So the Arabs spend the next 50 years blowing themselves up.Yeah, talk about * angst * ;)

Yeah, talk about * angst * ;)
And their blogs aren't half as interesting.

With various attacks and counterattacks, there are no real, "legal" borders anymore. Israel can't give up ground in an effort to attain peace because any ground given would be an advantage to the Arab states in the area. With such an advantage, those Arab states would most likely waste no time in invading. I would say that if the positions were reversed, the Israeli's would take advantage of any gain they made but they're too small to invade much of anything. Sure, they took some stuff in various past wars but they didn't have to deal with any sanctions because of the circumstances of the land grab. Nowadays, they'd lose too much foreign aid to risk anything drastic. From past performances, I don't think the adjoining Arab states share the same concern. Israel can possibly give away non-strategic pieces of land but nothing like the Golan Heights.


Which arab states show an interest or have the capacity to invade israel?

Also, I suppose it was legitimate for Hitler to seize the rhineland, as it was a "strategic piece of land" that he needed for legitimate 'self-defense' against the french?

Which arab states show an interest or have the capacity to invade israel?

Also, I suppose it was legitimate for Hitler to seize the rhineland, as it was a "strategic piece of land" that he needed for legitimate 'self-defense' against the french?

Ok well if you are going to go with the typical Israel = the Third Reich I will bow out.

Think about it. The best way to get the Israelis not to listen is to liken them to Hitler.....

Which arab states show an interest or have the capacity to invade israel?

Also, I suppose it was legitimate for Hitler to seize the rhineland, as it was a "strategic piece of land" that he needed for legitimate 'self-defense' against the french?

Which ones show an interest? Look at the history books. There's no point invading anything now, so why tell the world. It's an ingrained hatred. Take this whole thread as an example. Why do the Palestinians dislike the Israelis? An ingrained hatred that's been continued through the years with new attrocities on both sides.Comparing Germany to Israel? There's a bit of a size difference. And a difference in military strength and motive. The Rhineland wasn't an artillery platform like the Golan Heights.

Which ones show an interest? Look at the history books. There's no point invading anything now, so why tell the world. It's an ingrained hatred. Take this whole thread as an example. Why do the Palestinians dislike the Israelis? An ingrained hatred that's been continued through the years with new attrocities on both sides.Comparing Germany to Israel? There's a bit of a size difference. And a difference in military strength and motive. The Rhineland wasn't an artillery platform like the Golan Heights.

They dislike the israelis because the israelis use their military to rule over their home with an iron fist.

And do you honestly believe the IAF is incapable of preventing other countries from putting artillery in the golan heights?

And DO NOT EVADE my question about arab states willing and able to invade israel.

They dislike the israelis because the israelis use their military to rule over their home with an iron fist.

And do you honestly believe the IAF is incapable of preventing other countries from putting artillery in the golan heights?

And DO NOT EVADE my question about arab states willing and able to invade israel.

They dislike each other because of an ancient grudge that never went away. As for putting artillery in the golan heights, have you ever heard of camoflauge or perhaps AA guns? The other nations would be able to do what they wanted with the territory, including putting artillery up there. I didn't evade your question. Who knows if they're able to invade anything. They certainly have the numbers. Tech wise, they're at a disadvantage. Are they willing? Of course. Israel would have been crushed long ago without some sort of intervention. The same applies today. If they were able to take out Israel, they would. Opinion of course but there's not much to prove otherwise.

They dislike each other because of an ancient grudge that never went away. As for putting artillery in the golan heights, have you ever heard of camoflauge or perhaps AA guns? The other nations would be able to do what they wanted with the territory, including putting artillery up there. I didn't evade your question. Who knows if they're able to invade anything. They certainly have the numbers. Tech wise, they're at a disadvantage. Are they willing? Of course. Israel would have been crushed long ago without some sort of intervention. The same applies today. If they were able to take out Israel, they would. Opinion of course but there's not much to prove otherwise.


You really dont have a clue about the IAF's capabilities do you...

And i dont think that the mossad would fail to notice a large contingent of camoflaged arty moving onto the golan heights.

And their blogs aren't half as interesting.NO ! BLOGS ARE EVIL !

Have recent anchor men defending each other on American T.V. taught you NOTHING ?

;)

Contrary to popular belief, air superiority is not the be all, end all of warfare. F-16's are nice but there is only a finite number of them.

Contrary to popular belief, air superiority is not the be all, end all of warfare. F-16's are nice but there is only a finite number of them.

Israel has the full military backing of the United States and absolute air superiority.

Also bear in mind that there will be a hundred thousand odd US troops in the middle east for quite a while thanks to the iraq invasion.

"The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said the resolution was one-sided in that it condemned Israel but made no mention of the Palestinian rocket attacks."

It makes about as much sense to me as: I put sugar in my neighbour's car reservoir, my neighbour burnt down my house in retaliation, and the officer at the police station says he won't take my complain because I won't admit I shouldn't have messed with my neighbour's car, got my point?

I don't suppose this would be a good time to remind everyone that Israel as a nation was born of terrorism? Its first leader was in fact a terrorist.

During the Decolonisation period in the 1960 and 1970s, dozens of countries got their freedom from imperialism due in part to the UN backing nationalist movements, which were often of a violent nature. More recently, the end of apartheid in South Africa was brought about against America's long-standing wishes, and during that struggle, the UN gave its support to the ANC, which occasionally blew up things like supermarkets.

The Palestinian issue is no different to any of those dozens of conflicts. The UN has a long history of taking the nationalist seperatists' side in conflicts of self-determination - this may be fairly said to be its default position. The one and only reason the Palestinian issue is different, is that the US will NOT let this one go.

The wording of the resolutions is irrelevant. The US will veto anything regarding the subject, end of story.

The UN has a long history of taking the nationalist seperatists' side in conflicts of self-determination - this may be fairly said to be its default position.

There you go again, talking about the UN as if it's a single entity.