this is why most palestinian/arabs/muslims don't like american foriegn policies; 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 absten! tions. 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 Pale! stinian 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 a! ttacks 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)
Great post boy. I don't think people in the west really understand how our veto power in the UN has been abused. I get so sick of hearing George W. talk about how these people hate our freedoms, thats why they hate us. They hate the way we have allowed Israel to do whatever they damn please without regard to sanctions from anybody. These are a people that, directly because of the US veto, have been abandoned.
That list is mindboggling. These aren't Middle Eastern countries who are supporting the resolutions. Every one of these -- maybe minus the ones with abstentions -- were supported by England, France, and other various Western European countries. Wow.
Seems to me that the list is nothing more that a continuation of this back and forth argument between which came first, the chicken or the egg? What were the underlying actions behind those vetoes is the better thing to look at. You can post about 100 pages on this board of straight links nad nothing else supporting your cause, but someone would just respond back with 100 more supporting there's, and they would ALL seem logical. Does anybody have a right to own a land forever? Do we truly beleive in our hearts that it is wrong to just kill people to conquer and expand? You certainly don't see many white politicians, or non Native American people in general fighting to help the Native Indians of our country. So, as of this thread, we have the Palestinians attacking first in 1929....its their fault, anybody got anything earlier than that? It does seem as if Israel attacks strategic points more wheras Palestinians just go right after citizens though.
Cohen said:Also, forget about peace keepers in the mideast. They would be fairly effective in not allowing Israel to defend itself but would do nothing to diminish terrorist attacks This is completely unsupported conjecture. This is used by the opponents of peace. UN peacekeepers would help the situation. How would they prevent Israel from employing F-16's and Apache gunships if they really wanted to? They would be at least as effective against terrorism as Sharon's policies which have led to a dramatic increase in terrorism. I know Sharon and his numerous supporters (Cohen?)will always claim that they could wipe out terrorism if they would just be more repressive. It is true that UN peackeepers would be better able to document the atrocities of both sides. Those of either side that opposed the UN peacekeepers would start losing worldwide political support rapidly. If Israel is as peaceful as they allege this would actually help Israel with world opinion and the political and pr war against terrorism. I can't think of any reason for Israel to oppose UN peacekeepers unless 1) they still wish to conquer more land militarily or 2) they only believe in a military approach to fighting terrorism. or 3) they are so shell shocked from the Holocaust and their never ending war status they can't think straight. The second point is probably true at this time as the vote for Sharon was essentially a vote for a purely military approach. When will Israel realize that this won't work? I agree that a non-violent resistance would perhaps work better for the Palestinians. However, why wouldn't a nonviolent approach work for the Israelis, the stonger party? Except for the religious fanatics in Israel they must realize that they will eventually have to agree to the type of peace agreement posted above, so why not do it now instead of later? Israel can always use its overwhelming military force to take care of problems if they arise later. How does agreeing to a reasonable soloution make them weaker--especailly in the military sense. Why won't Israel give peace a chance instead of relying on cliches like "peacekeepers won't work"?
I knew there was a reason why I didn't add you to my ignore list. That was an interesting web site; thanks boy.
Cohen, I must admit that I was shocked to see you reduced to namecalling. I have respected your posting in the past because you don't do that. I don't know what you mean by not reading your post. Calling your unsupported assertion "common sense" does not make it any less supported. If you are referring to my putting your support of Sharon as a ?. I did that because it seems in the past you said you weren't in favor of him, but you objectively seem to support his positions with regard to peace with the Palestinians.
Cohen, I've reread your second post. I was not trying to put words in your mouth. If you thought so I can see how you got mad. In the past another poster even put quotes around a statement he made up and attributed to me. It got me extremely hot. I still think that peacekeepers are needed to separate the hotheads on both sides. It is unreasonable to think that either side can create peace without a third party. I submit that this is just common sense. Just like couples go to binding arbitration. Or a court room where there are bailiffs and they can't just attack each other. What does Israel have to fear from peacekeepers? You still haven't spelled this out. If you think only Israel can lose in the court of public opinion with peacekeepers you are wrong. In some ways the Palestinians have more to lose in this area. The whole world supports the Palestinian cause and believes they need a real state and they need it now. If they continue bombings after they have a state and there are peacekeepers the Palestinians will begin to lose big time in the court of world opinion and Israel can resume use of its superior weaponry. Israel opposition to a two state solution now and continued building of settlements has already lost in the public opinion arena and is maintained only through military force. There are only two countries in the world where Israel has mcuh to lose in terms of public opinion. Israel and the US. With the growing strength of Arab Americans and the growth of the internet and international travel Israel can't count on maintaining their majority in US public opinion forever. Do you really think that Israel can hold out forever against a billion Muslims and the weight of international public opinion? If you are going to do the deal anyway, why delay for another generation. This only hurts Israel.
Congratulations on being the first to incite my namecalling. If putting words in your mouth upset you so much, then why in the h*ll did you do it to me, especially when I have made clear and strong statements against what you attributed to me?! What angers me even more is that you have made blanket statements in the past such as 'you cannot talk to Jews about Israel'. Regardless of many statements that I have made on this issue, you try stereotype me. Just because I think that peacekeepers would not be effective at all at reducing terrorist attacks, you state that I support Sharon's policies? I have stated that he is an idiot on more than one occasion, and I made that statement because his policies are just plain wrong and will help sink the region into war. We happen to agree on the peacekeeper issue, but for very different reasons. Name one other issue that I 'objectively seem to support his positions with regard to peace with the Palestinians'. JUST ONE. Again, it is your stereotyping me that led to your totally erroneous conclusion. I find that reprehensible. There will be some board members that will have read your previous posting and never return to this thread, and will be left with the impression that I support Sharon. I find that unacceptable BBS etiquette. For those with short or selective memories, * I dislike Sharon's policies intensely * Had hope with Rabin * Agree with a free and unfettered Palestine * Am against terrorism against innocents for whatever reason * Believe settlements should be handed over to the Palestinians BTW, stating your opinion first does not make it any more supported. You provide no support as to how peacekeepers can reduce suicide bombers (because they cannot). But my imspression is that you don't care about that because you think Israel is more to blame.
I will not respond to this post point-by-point. You are making assumptions here about my opinions and it makes no sense for me to respond, since they are not my opinions.
I have followed Cohen's posts for quite some time and I have found him to be very unbiased in much of his statements. He has spoken about the wrongful deeds and against Ariel Sharon many times. The Palestinian suicide bombers commit horrendous acts of wrong against innocents, and the Israeli Military do the same. Both sides are wrong, yet Israel's military power has allowed the casualties to be significantly heavier on the Palestinian side. Just as the Western Media is Pro-Israeli biased, the Eastern media is the opposite and is Pro-Palestinian biased. The Fact is that retalitory efforts on both sides will contines to water the seeds of death. I personally feel though that Israel, being the occupier and its current boundries and treatment of Palestinians is more at fault in this situation. They have alienated a group of people and caused a "diaspora" to which families and a people have been destroyed. The tactics of the Israelis Military are particularly brutal and harsh, thereby further fueling the hatred. A separate country with an amicable border and boundries would solve much of this problem, and the problem lies with both sides. The peace plan that Arafat rejected was because they did not want to live in more of a slave state than they already do. And Israeli's continue to bulldoze houses and build new housing in the occupied territories furthering the notion they want more land for Israel than what is currently held or was created by the United Nations.
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA.org), though official sounding, is just another sham group spewing hate against Jews. Big surprise from you boy, you must have that site on your favorites list. Now here is my special UN Resolution and further information on the firestarter in this conflict. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) November 29, 1947 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was approved on November 29, 1947 with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent. The resolution was accepted by the Jews in Palestine, yet rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states. Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting: In favor: 33 Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela. Against: 13 Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen. (Isn't this exactly what you're accusing the US of? Backing their allies?) Abstained: 10 Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In February 1947, Great Britain declared its Mandate in Palestine "unworkable" and referred the matter to the youthful UN. Eleven member states were appointed to the UN Special Committee on Palestine, the first truly independent tribunal to examine the Palestine question. Committee members were especially moved by the plight of desperate Holocaust survivors denied entry to Palestine. UNSCOP's majority concluded the pledge of a Jewish national home had never been fulfilled, as Jewish immigration and land purchases had been artificially restricted. They recommended partition into separate Jewish and Arab states with economic ties, with a separate regime for Jerusalem. Arab leaders were enraged when UN resolution 181 (the Partition Plan) was adopted on November 29, 1947 (the vote was 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions). One after another, Arab states registered immediate objections with the UN. Amb. Jamali of Iraq: "In the name of my government, I wish to state that it feels that this decision is anti-democratic, illegal,… Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision." Amb. Amir Arslan of Syria: "My country will never recognize such a decision. It will never agree to be responsible for it." When news of the decision reached Palestine, Arab rioters wreaked carnage in the Jewish commercial center in western Jerusalem in plain sight of British forces. Such hostilities continued until the British left six months later, leaving a vacuum of power Arab states hoped to fill. The Arab League thought a mere show of force would be sufficient to ensure the intervention of the major powers and prevent the birth of a Jewish state. The UN Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council on 16 February 1948: "Organized efforts are being made by strong Arab elements inside and outside Palestine to prevent the implementation of the Assembly's plan of partition and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory... This Commission now finds itself confronted with an attempt to defeat its purposes, and to nullify the resolution of the General Assembly." With diplomacy stalled at the UN, Britain announced plans to leave on May 14. By that time, several thousand Jews already had been killed or wounded. But Arab-Jewish fighting had resulted in de facto partition and the Jewish people were poised to declare statehood. As the British Mandate ended on 14 May 1948, seven Arab armies illegally attacked the nascent Jewish state. UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie termed this act "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [Second World] War." The Arab League actually included rejection of resolution 181 as a formal justification for its invasion, the first blatant breach of the UN Charter. Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha vowed: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." And in the words of the foremost Palestinian leader at the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem: "I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"
F. D. Khan, We agree on many points. From this distance, it is difficult for me to understand who is more at fault. I agree that Israel's actions have certainly not been designed to gain support from the non-violent Palestinians, to say the least. What concerns me most is how these peoples can live in peace. They both act like they are in a struggle to the death and therefore feel justified with their actions. It will continue until very very strong leaders emerge who can build mutual trust and break this cycle. Sharon is a far as you can get from a solution on the Israeli side. I'm not certain about Arafat. The strong intermediary is also missing. I dream about the day when Palestinians and Israelis live in peace and prosper...together.
boy - I know you have very intense feelings concerning Sharon...I certainly acknowledge that Sharon has done some awful things, no doubt. But please understand that the same things you accuse Sharon of doing years ago, Hamas and other Palestinian organizations just did this weekend. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR IT!!! THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE TARGETING OF CIVILIANS!!! Blowing up buses...detonating bombs in shopping center and pizzerias...these are acts of sheer terror, and are not to be condoned. Please tell me you don't condone them, even if you support the cause. Please also understand that, no matter what sharon has done in the past, right now he is in the midst of defending his nation...make no mistake about that. It was attacked violently this weekend, and the action he has taken since then has been a measured response to this weekend's events. Please understand that Israel has yet to respond to all of this with full force. Despite your posts here telling us all of how evil Israel is, make no mistake that they have checked their power in many ways...they have not used all the capabilities they possess to answer these attacks. I read today that Iraq will attack Israel if the US attacks Iraq...make no mistake...Israel will respond with full force against Iraq if this promise is kept. This whole situation is just tragic. Like Cohen, I really wish these groups could "just get along"...but it takes generations to rid the hatred and contempt that's been produced, I think. Clearly there is no good guy or bad guy here. But the Palestinians have a hard time convincing me when they murder civilians as often as they do.
Madmax thank you for at least considering my points I truly appreciate that. The difference is that my money isn't going to Hamas but the pockets of Israel. I do have a problem with that. I have just as big of a problem with my money going to Egypt too. And Timing is Gush-Shalom a big Anti-Jewish website too? Read the stuff they say.
What does Gush-Shalom have to do with anything? Israel is a Democratic society unlike the vast majority of the Middle East and there are always opposing voices to the mainstream in Democratic societies. I doubt Gush-Shalom is advocating killing all Jews like your Palestinian buddies. The Muslim citizens of the Middle East all live under the blanket of state controlled media with leadership that expouses hatred on a daily basis and an educational system that would rather force kids to memorize the Koran than teach them math, history, and literature. You can't possibly even begin to compare whatever biases exist in Israel or the US with the complete campaign of disinformation and hatred that exists in the Muslim world. What's going on in Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, etc is nothing short of massive brainwashing on an incredible level. The West Bank isn't under occupation because Israel hates Arabs, it's because Egypt, Syria, etc. keep attacking it.
Can you guys explain why there IS an Israel in the first place? How do you just CONQUER, so tospeak, a part of Palestine and proclaim it yours because your religion says so. If there's anything I've learned in my life, it's that politics has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with religion. The fact that the Taliban were religious to the max didn't stop the U.S. from ripping them up. Same with Iraq. Same with Libya. Same with all the "terrorist" nations. In politics, there's no religion. No "prophecies". The Israelis can say that it's what their religion says. But the Palestinians have an edge. THEIR religion says it too, AND they were simply there first. Let's say I have a car. I sell it, financial reasons. But I wanna get it back because it holds sentimental value. The time comes. You don't want to sell it. How the hell would I be justified in stealing the damn thing? Why would you even share it when it's YOURS?
