Vetoed again...

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 4:46 pm

Okay, just to make a pathetic point, the UN tried to run an emergency resolution against the current blitzkrieg that Israel is performing on the Gaza strip, right as we speak. Guess what? The USA vetoed it! What a surprise!

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:22 pm

No surprises there. Since the 6-days war, the US has used it's veto over 40 times in order to support the continous violations of the Geneva convention and of human rights, that Israel are committing.

I have no words for this anymore. There has been several previous discussions about the Israel-Palestine conflict and the role the US has played and continues to play in this. Read two of them here if you like:

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... ge=1&pp=40

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=15793

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:28 pm

Yet nothing real about the other side of the argument. There's the UN for ya.

I am not unilateraly for these actions, far from it. But as long as the terror is not equally condemned, this resolution going through would be a farce.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:10 am

[QUOTE=Morlock]...But as long as the terror is not equally condemned, this resolution going through would be a farce.[/QUOTE]
Has any nation ever vetoed a resolution condemning terror?

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:10 am

[QUOTE=Morlock]Yet nothing real about the other side of the argument. There's the UN for ya.

I am not unilateraly for these actions, far from it. But as long as the terror is not equally condemned, this resolution going through would be a farce.[/QUOTE]

Agreed Morlock. I can take either side on the matter (as I see both aspects of it) but its not fair to heap all the blame on the Israeli's as the Palestinians are committing just as many human rights abuses as soon as they killed civilians and children.

Pointing one side out as the malefactor is the wrong way to go about this - you can't do it without displaying a massive factor of bias.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:14 am

[QUOTE=Vicsun]Has any nation ever vetoed a resolution condemning terror?[/QUOTE]

In that case why hasn't the UN stepped in and stopped both Palestine and Israel from the "terrorism".

If the UN side with the Palestinians or the Israeli's it would be the same as authorised bullying and state-sponsored terror. Why would they do that?

Also, who brought forth the resolution?

moltovir · Post by **moltovir** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:19 am

[QUOTE=Nippy]Agreed Morlock. I can take either side on the matter (as I see both aspects of it) but its not fair to heap all the blame on the Israeli's as the Palestinians are committing just as many human rights abuses as soon as they killed civilians and children.

Pointing one side out as the malefactor is the wrong way to go about this - you can't do it without displaying a massive factor of bias.[/QUOTE]

But if you look to history, the English cheated the Palestines multiple times, which is still the cause for the war today. When they fought against the Turks in 1917, the Enlgish promised the Palestines their own state at the end of the First World War, but in 1918, they suddenly seemed to have 'forgotten'. On top of that, when WW2 ended, the Europeans allowed the Jude to form a new state in the territory that was promised to that Palestines in WW1. I know violence is never good and I will never say violence is the good way to reach your goal, but the Palestines fight for their freedom and their land, while the Israeli's are at war to conquer a land that was never rightfully theirs.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:20 am

[QUOTE=moltovir]But if you look to history, the English cheated the Palestines multiple times, which is still the cause for the war today. When they fought against the Turks in 1917, the Enlgish promised the Palestines their own state at the end of the First World War, but in 1918, they suddenly seemed to have 'forgotten'. On top of that, when WW2 ended, the Europeans allowed the Jude to form a new state in the territory that was promised to that Palestines in WW1. I know violence is never good and I will never say violence is the good way to reach your goal, but the Palestines fight for their freedom and their land, while the Israeli's are at war to conquer a land that was never rightfully theirs.[/QUOTE]

I have never disputed that Palestine hadn't suffered, and Englands act could be considered to be reprehensible, but how do you define the level of wrongness? Granted, the Palestinians MAY deserve the land, but, do they need to kill civilians and children at the same time? The Rules of War dictate that you should not target non-combatants. If you don't fight by the Rules then you are terrorist - as some people consider the Israel's to be too.

Just because you have a reason to fight doesn't mean you have to fight in the wrong way. Both parties are wrong in this because both parties have continued to fight and kill each others non-combatants! Why can't we all see the middle-ground and realise that both Israel and Palestine have done things wrong in the conflict.

As far as I can see it doesn't matter that Palestine started with something that was virtuous. Their whole argument was destroyed in my eyes when they resorted to civilian attacks and Israel retaliated. The words vicious cycle comes to mind.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:42 am

[QUOTE=Nippy]Also, who brought forth the resolution?[/QUOTE]
The Arab Nations.

[QUOTE=moltovir]I know violence is never good and I will never say violence is the good way to reach your goal, but the Palestines fight for their freedom and their land, while the Israeli's are at war to conquer a land that was never rightfully theirs.[/QUOTE]

Israelis are at war to stay alive. Israel does not want to conquer any land. Israel has had 3 major wars with the Arab nations, all of them instigated by the Arab nations, and the suffered miserable defeat in all of them. If Egypt had not taken actions against Israel in 1967, There'd be no settlements. Again in 1973- if Egypy had not taken actions againt Israel, Israel would not have conquered any land, which was only taken in an attempt to supress the offensive of it's enemies. Another few hours, and Israel would've captured Cairo, Israel stopped when the cease fire was reached. Any land gained by Israel was done by Egypt and Jordan losing a war they instigated.
And Israel is fighting to give back the land to the Palestinians. I assure you, the second the terror ends, the Palestinians will have a state.

All of this does not condone reprehensible actions that Israel has done, if most of them unintentional (as opposed to what some would say, Israel does not aim for innocent people, but there is no denying that many, many Palestinians die needlesly, carelessly, and outragously).
BUT the fact remains- the instant the terror ends, there'll be no more Palestinian casualties, purposeful or unpurposeful. A coutry does have the right to defend itself when it's citizens are being bombed on busses and attacked by mortars in their homes. And the Palestianian authority has showed no interest or inclination in stopping it. They were given guns, those guns went straight to Hamas. The methods are often wrong. But no nation in the world would take this kind of killin of innocent civilians, week in and week out.

Opalescence · Post by **Opalescence** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:48 am

Personally, Israel is acting very much like a rogue terrorist state, doing "targeted assassinations" and invading other people's territories. The primary problem is that the UN, after WWII, in the same kind of thinking that allowed Americans to "buy" land from France (Louisiana Purchase) that really belonged to neither (it should've belonged to the Native Americans), chose to plop Israel right in the middle of land that wasn't theirs to give away. I mean, if France, England or the US was so keen on a Zionist state, couldn't they have given up a piece of their own country, say a portion of the Riviera or perhaps a chunk of New York or California?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:03 am

Also, who brought forth the resolution?

The Arab Nations.

Some Mid-Eastern nations, other than Israel. There are quite a few "Arab" nations that weren't involved in the resolution, at all. Uniformly stereotyping all Arabic nations as a single, united hostile force is part of the problem, IMO.

moltovir · Post by **moltovir** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:25 pm

[QUOTE=Morlock] Israelis are at war to stay alive. And Israel is fighting to give back the land to the Palestinians. I assure you, the second the terror ends, the Palestinians will have a state. [/QUOTE]

Since when are Israelis fighting for their own sake? Since 1949, Israel has slowly driven the Palestines back to Gaza and some small settlements, while they keep al the economical and religious important areas (harbors, Jeruzalem, fertile lands). Israel was the land of the Palestines for 1600 years, so I see no reason why the Israelis should have the right to conquer Palestina. And I think your opinion should be turned backwards: from the moment Israel gives the Palestines equal rights and land, most of the terror will stop. I say most, because you always have fanatici with no moral sense at all.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:09 pm

@Morlock: First, congrats to the Nobel price in Chemistry going to two Israeli scientists for the fundamental discovery of protein degradation in cells. Like some Israeli journalists said, it's nice to be able to report some happy news.

Morlock wrote: Israelis are at war to stay alive. Israel does not want to conquer any land. Israel has had 3 major wars with the Arab nations, all of them instigated by the Arab nations, and the suffered miserable defeat in all of them. If Egypt had not taken actions against Israel in 1967, There'd be no settlements. Again in 1973- if Egypy had not taken actions againt Israel, Israel would not have conquered any land, which was only taken in an attempt to supress the offensive of it's enemies. Another few hours, and Israel would've captured Cairo, Israel stopped when the cease fire was reached. Any land gained by Israel was done by Egypt and Jordan losing a war they instigated.

Israel has already conquered land. Just look at any map of Israel in 1948 and the increase of territory after the 6-days war in 1967. It does not matter which side started a war, taking territory from other states is a violation against the Geneva convention (which Israel has signed). After the 6-day war Israel kept the land it had taken from Egypt, Syria and Jordan, including the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan heights. If Israel has followed the Geneva convention and the pre-war borders had been kept, there had been no occupied land and thus no problem. After 1967, Israel destroyed thousands of Palestinian homes in order to occupied 50% of the West bank and 30% of the Gaza strip for military use and Israeli settlers. This meant that the Palestinians were left with only 22% of the land, although the original agreement was 45%.

And Israel is fighting to give back the land to the Palestinians. I assure you, the second the terror ends, the Palestinians will have a state.

Like Moltovir says, by the same reasoning you could also say that if Israel had never occupied the land in the first place, the terror would never have started. Israel has had many chances to return the land in the past. After the 1991 and 1993 peace negotiations, Israel promised to withdraw from Gaza and the West bank. Instead, Israeli settlements increased with 70% up to 2000, when the 2nd Intifada started. Then came the 9/11 attack in the US 2001, and Sharon's "hardline" politics became even harder.

My opinion on this matter has always been that Israel should have ceased the occupation long ago (or rather, never started it) and given the occupied land back to Syria, Egypt and Jordan. The Israeli borders from 1948 should have been kept. However, although I view many of Israels actions towards Lebanon and Palestine as state terrorism, I cannot fathom why the Palestinians never take the chances that are given to them. After the Jenin war crimes the world was very critical towards Israel, at one occation the US even did not veto! Since then though, the Palestinian targetting of Israeli citizens have only increased, and escalated the cycle of violence. Just like with Russia and Chechnya, I fail to understand why a group of people who have a just cause fall back on using methods that are not only morally unacceptable (that I would understand although I would be critical) but also totally inefficient - terrorist methods leads to nothing else than increased violence towards themselves, and less possibilities of reaching their ultimate goal.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:24 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Just like with Russia and Chechnya, I fail to understand why a group of people who have a just cause fall back on using methods that are not only morally unacceptable (that I would understand although I would be critical) but also totally inefficient - terrorist methods leads to nothing else than increased violence towards themselves, and less possibilities of reaching their ultimate goal.[/QUOTE]

I would say the group (not all of the Palestinians) will never except Israel. The main reason they fall back on the old method. A minority with the power to control the destiny of the majority. This group knows Israel will not let them get away with an attack and use this to their advantage. The added benefit of being within the population of the majority just adds more to their advantage. They know if they are killed, the chances are others not involved will die as well, adding some to their ranks. This group holds power (and will not go) to stop the majority from gaining peace. In peace, the minority will lose their strength.

Sadly Israel must continue on this road until both sides decide to get rid of the minority groups. Israel, I have no doubt can find a person to meet half way, the Palestinians though seem to lack someone willing (or better put, willing to die) to step forward. I really can't blame them though, putting your life on the line for peace takes a special person. Not many have been born and survived on the planet Earth. Might makes right survives longer.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:41 am

I do not want to comment on the issue itself as it is plainly obvious where I stand. However i wanted to point out to the "terrorist" aspect of this "self-determination" movement/war.

During World War II and after it, it became customary international law, that any resistance to a foriegn invader is legal and morally acceptable. This is what the concept of self-determination mentioned in the UN charter is all about. It is based on this concept that de-colonization occured. It is based on this concept that Kashmir, East Timor and other such independence movements were given legal precedence in the UN and other bodies of International law.

These insurgents in Iraq, the terrorists in Israel and the crazies of chechnya have legal backing for what they wish to do. Just because it is unacceptable now for people to demand the right to exist and live does not mean it is wrong.

Weasel what minority groups. Morlock has stated that the Israelis wish to give back the lands to the Palestinian people once there is peace. Yet for the past 30 years they have been building settlements at an increasing rate. They have destroyed Palestinian villages to make way for Israeli settlements. Heck Shimon Peres the "dove" in the Israeli camp was the mastermind behind these settlements. It shows how much peace and a palestinain state is on the mind of the Israeli government and people.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:01 am

[QUOTE=CM]
Weasel what minority groups. Morlock has stated that the Israelis wish to give back the lands to the Palestinian people once there is peace. Yet for the past 30 years they have been building settlements at an increasing rate. [/QUOTE]

I consider the ones who build on taken land as the minority. They have no right to build there. I can see putting troops on the land to stop the minority from the other side from launching attacks, but to build housing for civilains crosses the line.

Note, I believe both sides are in the wrong and sadly I see no end in sight.

Wolfguard · Post by **Wolfguard** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:05 pm

A brief background to the modern conflict

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Palestine/Background.asp

The Mideast: A Century of Conflict

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/

A Brief History of Israel and Palestine and the Conflict

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:04 pm

I do know one thing, there ain't any future in agression on the part of Israel, at least when it comes down to survival for the nation long term.

There has to be peace, if not eventually something like nukes or bioweapons are going to be used and facts are, maybe Israel might be able to fight back, but rather like the US/Soviet hypothetical nuke war, nobody would really win. The future for both being radioactive rubble.