US Vetoes Another UN Resolution Against Israel (This One On Arafat)

bamaslammer · Sep 17, 2003

MacB,
I've been to Israel. The so-called Palestinians are no different in culture, language or religion than the rest of the Arabs. They are simply the mortar the Arab states use to grind Israel into oblivion with the pestle. Why do they need a separate country? Before the Israelis were there, that place was a barren hellhole, but now, you should see it.

They paid the Palestinians for their land and there was no forced relocation of the Palestinians. It was their own Arab brethern who closed the door on their own people to use them against Israel. And besides, there weren't any "Palestinians" until the seventies. There never has been a nation called Palestine, ever. And your link to the Phillistines is not substantiated at all. Israel is the promised land of the Hebrew people and for the Arabs to say it is theirs, is ridiculous. They own all of the Middle-East and yet the Jews, who have persecuted in every country they've lived in, can not have their own little nation in the land of their birthright?

Dark Rhino · Sep 17, 2003

I was under the impression that...

the Romans created "Palestine" in 70 A.D. when the Romans tried to obliterated the Jews and Israel from the face of the earth;

"Palestine", a name derived from the Philistines which the Jews had conquered at one point, was just an added insult to injury;

"Palestine" has never existed under self rule; Rome, Islamic and Christian crusaders, the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I have all ruled "Palestine" at one time;

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.;

the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

pippendagimp · Sep 17, 2003

If only the Cherokees, Apaches, Iroquois, Mohawks, Pueblos, Senecas, Shoshones, etc etc had the annual funding of the finest nukes available and billions of $$$, they too could then get back the promised lands of their respective birthrights

MacBeth · Sep 17, 2003

I've been to Israel. The so-called Palestinians are no different in culture, language or religion than the rest of the Arabs.
Click to expand...

That is a very broad generalization. To an outsider there may seem to be little difference between a Canadian and an American, or a Scot and an Englishman, or a Mexican and a...you get my point. And we have never required your qualifiers for cultural distinction.

Before the Israelis were there, that place was a barren hellhole, but now, you should see it.[?QUOTE}

Again, I don't get your point. At least I hope I don't. What it sounds like you're saying is remarkably akin to the apologist slant for Colonialism.

They paid the Palestinians for their land and there was no forced relocation of the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Israel is the promised land of the Hebrew people and for the Arabs to say it is theirs, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting that we ought to base international designations on religious supposition? A brief history about the Israelites claim to the land you suggest is theirs by right;

* In the period 1220-1100 BC the Hebrews, previously a nomadic desert dwelling people migrated into the region of Canaan, at a time when the great powers of the region were all relatively neutralized by varuious internal troubles. Many Canaanite enclaves reamined in the region, but the Hebrews had established nominal control over much of Canaan. Expansion to the southwest was repulsed by the Philistines, who were most likely remnants of the wave of Sea Peoples who had swept through the Eastern Mediterranean in the 13th and 12th centuries BC. Gradually the Philistines turned from defensive to aggressive response to the Hebrews, and began to gain territory in Canaan.

Israel establishes a monarchy, and begins to expand it's borders, eventually encompassing Judah, Edom, Ammon, and parts of Aram. This Kingdom lasts for only three generations before the Hebrews are defeated by the Egyptions. Then the Assyrians defeat a Levantine Allied force in which Israel was a prime player, invade and defeat Israel proper, and conquer. After that control of the region passes from Assyrian to Egyptian to Babylonian hands, and the Jews are deported en masse to Babylon. In 539 Babylon falls, and the Jews are freed to return to the Levant.

Soon the region is encompassed in the Persian Empire, and stays thus until Alexander of Macedon invades and establishes a Hellenistic state in the region. This lasts until the coming of Rome who, after numerous religious uprisings from those in the Province of Palestine who are called Jews, resolve to disperse them across the known world, which is done.

From that time onward, as indeed was the case before and during the rise and fall of the Kingdom of Israel, the residents of the region known as Philistines have continued to live along the Southern Levant, eventaully becoming incorporated liguistically and religiously into the Islamic Arab culture which spread through the Arabian pennisula, Mesopotamia, the Levant, Norhtern Africa and the Iberian Penninsula. Later various other Imperial powers were nominal overlords, the Turks, the British, etc.

What is the basis for your claim that the region rightfully belongs to the Jews? By any standard, period of occupation, original recorded tenancy, conquest, etc. the Jews had no legal or ethical claim to the region. I actually support the idea of Israel, as several peoples have been disperesed over time but the jewsih ability to maintain cultural integrity was a remarkable achievment, and rewarding them for it with a land of their own was a noble idea. Screwing other people to do it, and to salve our collective guilt because of the Holocaust, however, was not the way to go.

How was it their birthright when they only occupied the land for at most 1200 years (and only for a hundred and a bit years was it under their control) and haven't for almost 2, 000 years? Because their religious text calls it their promised land?
Click to expand...

bamaslammer · Sep 17, 2003

But see, that's the whole damned point! No one got screwed. The Arabs left voluntarily for chrissakes! And to boot, there weren't that many of them anyway in what is now present-day Israel.

Israel is not going anywhere, thank God. But if people like you had your way, the Arabs would drive the Jews off the land promised them by God and you wouldn't care a wit. The Arabs were nomadic as well to flip your own logic back upon you. Why is it such a problem that the Jews wanted to go back to land they consider sacred? The Muslims own their sacred sites and the Christians own Rome and have access to the Israeli ones, but before Israel, Jews had no access to the Wailing Wall and the ancient city of Jerusalem.

So it's just not right that the Jews have a homeland, it's colonization, right? What about the colonization that the Arabs did when they conquered everything and forcibly converted a good portion of the world to that infernal religion Islam? I guess it was all hunky-dory, just as long as it wasn't the Jews doing the colonizing.

I know you've bought into all the propaganda of the so-called Palestinians who just want a peaceful nation of their own, blah, blah blah while they slaughter Jews with their cowardly homocide bombers. They want nothing more than to own all of the land, not just the so-called "occupied territories" which were taken from countries which invaded Israel upon its founding to act as a little bit of a buffer. The only thing that will bring peace to the Middle East is for the so-called Palestinians to be absorbed back into the Arab hordes from which they came.

And another thing, your generalization about the so-called Palestinians compared with the rest of their Arab brethern as being like Scots to Germans is incorrect. They share the same language, religion, culture, race...in other words, there are no major differences. It's like comparing a WASP from Kentucky to a WASP from Ohio. They share the same values, go the same church, and speak the same language. Does that mean that the WASPs in Ohio need a separate homeland?

Franchise2001 · Sep 17, 2003

I put myself right in between MacBeth and bama here. I have been to Israel as well and there are many other religions and races there besides arabs/jews. Israel is a land for everyone, except for those who want to destroy it. I think it is possible for there to be peace after the terror infrastructure is destroyed and when kids aren't taught to hate from the day they are born.

My question MacBeth, and I'm going to remain civil and try to remain unbiased(its hard since I'm Jewish), is what has the UN done since the Intifada started to support Israel? Besides denouncing suicide bombings, what have they done? Have they been as critical on Arafat as they have Sharon?

To argue about history in the region is pointless. One person's fact is another person's fiction. Just agree to disagree, mmmkay?

Timing · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by bamaslammer
But see, that's the whole damned point! No one got screwed. The Arabs left voluntarily for chrissakes! And to boot, there weren't that many of them anyway in what is now present-day Israel.

Israel is not going anywhere, thank God. But if people like you had your way, the Arabs would drive the Jews off the land promised them by God and you wouldn't care a wit. The Arabs were nomadic as well to flip your own logic back upon you. Why is it such a problem that the Jews wanted to go back to land they consider sacred? The Muslims own their sacred sites and the Christians own Rome and have access to the Israeli ones, but before Israel, Jews had no access to the Wailing Wall and the ancient city of Jerusalem.

So it's just not right that the Jews have a homeland, it's colonization, right? What about the colonization that the Arabs did when they conquered everything and forcibly converted a good portion of the world to that infernal religion Islam? I guess it was all hunky-dory, just as long as it wasn't the Jews doing the colonizing.

I know you've bought into all the propaganda of the so-called Palestinians who just want a peaceful nation of their own, blah, blah blah while they slaughter Jews with their cowardly homocide bombers. They want nothing more than to own all of the land, not just the so-called "occupied territories" which were taken from countries which invaded Israel upon its founding to act as a little bit of a buffer. The only thing that will bring peace to the Middle East is for the so-called Palestinians to be absorbed back into the Arab hordes from which they came.

And another thing, your generalization about the so-called Palestinians compared with the rest of their Arab brethern as being like Scots to Germans is incorrect. They share the same language, religion, culture, race...in other words, there are no major differences. It's like comparing a WASP from Kentucky to a WASP from Ohio. They share the same values, go the same church, and speak the same language. Does that mean that the WASPs in Ohio need a separate homeland?
Click to expand...

You are seriously one frightening guy.

MacBeth · Sep 17, 2003

I have refrained from saying this before, even when it seemed accurate,as I tend to shy away from stereotypical labels, but you, sir, are a bigot. What is more, you don't seem to be able to take things in very well. I'll illustrate that in a second, but first allow me to deal with the crap you spewed out here...

Israel is not going anywhere, thank God. But if people like you had your way, the Arabs would drive the Jews off the land promised them by God and you wouldn't care a wit.
Click to expand...

That's what would happen if people like me had their way, huh? Tell me, bama, what exactly do you know about people like me? I have repeatedly, in this very forum, said that the Israeli situation is one where both sides are right and both are wrong, and that I do not blame the Israelis for being put in this situation or for defending themselves. I have said that were I on either side of this fence I would probably have done what each of these parties have done. I have never, ever said anything to suggest that I want Israel to be driven off the map, or would have no problem with the mass slaughter that would encompass.

I realize that you throw these kinds of generalizations around like confetti at a wedding, bama, and I rarely get pissed off, but this was crap. I responded to your points with civil, albeit somewhat dumbfounded discussion. I took the time to go over the history of the region, and you come back with crap like this.

You also used the following terms in your diatribe to highlight your bigotry, just in case any of us were unsure of it's depth:

" that infernal religion Islam"... " Arab hordes "...and this classic example of smearing an entire culture..."I know you've bought into all the propaganda of the so-called Palestinians who just want a peaceful nation of their own, blah, blah blah while they slaughter Jews with their cowardly homocide bombers. They want nothing more than to own all of the land, not just the so-called "occupied territories" which were taken from countries which invaded Israel upon its founding to act as a little bit of a buffer."

I will deal with a few of your points, just to show how idiotic they are, but if this is the standard you hold yourself to in your posts, I doubt I'll respond to you again. I had responded to you several times in the past couple of days...had asked questions, pointed out flaws, etc. and you never once responded. In this thread you have, and i wonder why I bothered.

Okay, now for a sample of bama's points...such as they are...

The Arabs were nomadic as well to flip your own logic back upon you.
Click to expand...

What logic? Flip what? The fact that I stated that the Hebrews were originally nomadic?!?!? I wasn't making a point, was merely being historically accurate. We were all nomadic originally. I don't get what you think my point was, let alone how pointing out that the Arabs were flips it. People called Philistines dwelt in the region before the Jews got there and never left. There was no Palestinian Diaspora. What does the fact that the Arabs who later influenced them started out as Bedouin have to do with anything?

Why is it such a problem that the Jews wanted to go back to land they consider sacred? The Muslims own their sacred sites and the Christians own Rome and have access to the Israeli ones, but before Israel, Jews had no access to the Wailing Wall and the ancient city of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

Okay, where to begin...Access to religious locales is not the basis for national borders...Rome is not the center of Christianity...Jews had access to the Wailing Wall and Jerusalem, they just didn't own it...in fact, if you want a quick history lesson, when the first Crusaders arrived in the Holy Land, they discovered ( and promptly set about destroying) an Islamic culture which was not only tolerant of other religions, it built and refurbished temples and churches for them, including Jews and Christians.

What about the colonization that the Arabs did when they conquered everything and forcibly converted a good portion of the world to that infernal religion Islam?
Click to expand...

Uh...what forcible conversions? Islam was a very tolerant religion, and the Islamic Arabs of this period were the most open minded and educated culture in the Western world at the time. Conquerors who are normally not an open-moinded bunch even helped maintain other religions; the Moors in Spain built churches for Christians which still stand today in Granada, etc. Mahomet the Conqueror established and paid for the Byzantine Church to continue after he conquered Constantinople...etc. etc. You don't know history, you know one-sided bigotted crap. There were some periods of popular reactonism against Christians, but those were mild, brief, and understandable considering that for 4 centuries we kept launching Crusades, slaughtering women, children, anyone, including Christians, who we could in the name of God.

I saved your 'best' comment to last...

In response to my statement: "That is a very broad generalization. To an outsider there may seem to be little difference between a Canadian and an American, or a Scot and an Englishman, or a Mexican and a...you get my point. And we have never required your qualifiers for cultural distinction."

You responded:

And another thing, your generalization about the so-called Palestinians compared with the rest of their Arab brethern as being like Scots to Germans is incorrect. They share the same language, religion, culture, race...in other words, there are no major differences. It's like comparing a WASP from Kentucky to a WASP from Ohio. They share the same values, go the same church, and speak the same language. Does that mean that the WASPs in Ohio need a separate homeland?
Click to expand...

See if you can follow this. I compared Palestinians to other Arabs as not unlike Scots to English to an outsider...I don't know where you got Germans. Note that, like you try and reiterate, the Scots and the English have the same language, religion, culture, race, etc. In fact they have often been the same Kingdom. The Scotti were originally a celtic tribe from ireland who came into norhtern Briatin through the Western Isles, and eventually encompassed all of what had been the lands beyond Hadrian's Wall, mingling with and defeating the Picts, and various other norse, germanic, and romano-British inhabitants. Over the ensuing centuries there was so much onter-marriage, immigration, and assimilation between Scotland and England that, while they retain patriotic zeal, DNA, language, and other measures of the two countries reveal themn to be almost indistinguishable to an outside criteria.

That is not to say that they aren't different; I recognize the historical and cultural difference and distinction. Merely saying that according to the standard you invoked they would be indistinct to an outsider.

And as such, yes, Scotland deserves it's own homeland. Germans too, but lord knows how you brought them into this discussion. Do you even read the posts you're responding to?

MacBeth · Sep 17, 2003

I put myself right in between MacBeth and bama here.
Click to expand...

As long as somebody is.

My question MacBeth, and I'm going to remain civil and try to remain unbiased(its hard since I'm Jewish), is what has the UN done since the Intifada started to support Israel? Besides denouncing suicide bombings, what have they done? Have they been as critical on Arafat as they have Sharon?
Click to expand...

What could they do? What have they done against Israel? Issue condemnations, that's all any external power can effectively do in a situation like this. Call for peacefull resolution, condemn vindictive violence. And Palestine has actually been treated much worse than Israel, overall, in that the UN even refused to recognize their right to be heard because they were judged short of a geo-centric definition for quite some time. That and the fact that the biggest power in the UN, the US, has always, without fail protected Israel from any UN action or decree, whereas the Palestinians are routinely protected by what member of the UNSC?

To argue about history in the region is pointless. One person's fact is another person's fiction. Just agree to disagree, mmmkay?
Click to expand...

Sorry, no. Antithetical to me. Contrary to my profession. I won't launch into a diatribe on the relevance of history to any region, or the existence and/or quest for objective historical recounts, but suffice to say that I simply cannot agree to disagree with bama's version of history without refutation.

Lil · Sep 17, 2003

While you all might argue that any ONE 11-3-1 vote suggests that the US is uniquely insightful in these matters, looking at the entire history of the UN, FIFTY 11-1-3/14-1-0 votes would suggest that US policy is simply wrong.

Hell, the US vetoed a resolution condemning Saddam Hussein back in the 80s. I would say this foreign policy is highly consistent. Consistently stupid. What can you do when even the ENTIRE WORLD cannot teach us what is right and what is not?

To take a Rockets analogy, how many 30-50 seasons must we endure before we realise that there's something lacking with our team?

StupidMoniker · Sep 17, 2003

from MacBeth
in fact, if you want a quick history lesson, when the first Crusaders arrived in the Holy Land, they discovered ( and promptly set about destroying) an Islamic culture which was not only tolerant of other religions, it built and refurbished temples and churches for them, including Jews and Christians.
Click to expand...

Didn't the Muslims build the Dome of the Rock right where the Temple of Jerusalem once stood?

Anyway, I for one am glad that the US vetoed the resolution. Arafat is to Israel what Osama bin Laden is to the US. I think that Israel has shown remarkable restraint (and more than a little stupidity) in allowing him to direct his Intifada from the territories for as long as they have. In many ways, Israel is a lot like the United States. Both were formed through a combination of legal purchases and military conquest. Both treated the indiginous people in a regretable manner (moreso the US). Both are engaged in a war against terror against a militarily inferior but fanatical foe. The difference is that Israel knows where there enemy is, and isn't allowed to act, while the US is allowed/encouraged to act, but can't find their enemy.

bamaslammer · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by MacBeth

Uh...what forcible conversions? Islam was a very tolerant religion, and the Islamic Arabs of this period were the most open minded and educated culture in the Western world at the time. Conquerors who are normally not an open-moinded bunch even helped maintain other religions; the Moors in Spain built churches for Christians which still stand today in Granada, etc. Mahomet the Conqueror established and paid for the Byzantine Church to continue after he conquered Constantinople...etc. etc. You don't know history, you know one-sided bigotted crap. There were some periods of popular reactonism against Christians, but those were mild, brief, and understandable considering that for 4 centuries we kept launching Crusades, slaughtering women, children, anyone, including Christians, who we could in the name of God.

Click to expand...

MacB, I am not a bigot and for you to insult me is just childish. I don't hate Arabs, I just really don't like their strong desire to destroy Israel and finish what the Nazis started. Cripes, how many times have the Arabs launched a war of aggression against Israel? If you are counting the Intifaddah, that is five wars the Muslims have started. You should read some of the editorials in some of the "moderate" newspapers over there. It reveals the truth depth of their hatred for Israel and the Jews in particular. Who are the bigots there? I guess you buy into this religion of peace bullpuckey that Bush and many others put forth.

I've read the Koran and I know it extensively. Lemmesplain something to you, Islam is not a religion of peace and "tolerance." Under the Islamic law, the Shariah, non-Muslims (known as dhmimmis, or protected class) are bound by a ton of rules (under the pact of Umar) that make them for all practical purposes, untouchables in Muslim society. They have to pay a hefty tax simply for being non-Muslim, can not practice their religion openly, can not bear witness against any Muslim or strike a Muslim for any reason, regardless of what the Muslim did to them. I'd thought you'd want to see proof of this and here it is. Even though this covenant is over a thousand years old, it is still the blueprint for how Islam treats non-muslims within their borders.

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Click to expand...

Or try this on for size (and I have the proper attribution as well)

Saudi Arabia, April 24, 1998, According to Amnesty International's "Behind Closed Doors" report on Saudi Arabia released in November 1997, "... the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia remain denied the most basic human rights, while the government spares no effort to conceal its appalling human rights record from public scrutiny." The report noted that Saudi's religious police, the Mutawa'een, are "invested with the authority to arrest and detain, particularly with regard to Christian worshippers."
Click to expand...

Tolerant indeed. Shall I continue? When enough Muslims fill a country, they simply don't want to practice their religion of peace, they want to impose the Shariah upon the entire population. Which runs counter-current to our separation of church and state.
People don't even know what the word Islam means. Let me show you:

"And a Muslim ... is 'one who submits' or surrenders to the will of God, thereby attaining peace of mind and soul." (The Joy of Sects, Peter Occhigrosso, 1996, p394-397)
Click to expand...

Here are some lovely quotes from the Koran to show you how much they like non-Muslims:

"Fight and slay the pagans [Christians] wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Surah 9:5)
Click to expand...

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)
Click to expand...

"For he who believes in the Trinity, "the Fire will be his abode … a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemer." Qur'an (5:72-73)
Click to expand...

"Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other." (Qur'an 48:29)
Click to expand...

I'll continue this later, but I think I've made my point. Think and research before you believe this PC "religion of peace" horse dung, you may learn something.

Cohen · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by MacBeth
1) Re: the US, UN, and Israel/Palestine...one party, the UN, has repeatedly come down on both sides of the issue, and one party, the US, has without fail come down on only one side. From this you get that the UN is not Israel-friendly, and we are sticking up for them this time? Interesting.

Both sides? You really think that it's that balanced?

Since there apparently are indications that Arafat 'directs' suicide attacks, is it so unreasonable to require that those terror groups be condemned? Hmmm.

When 80% of Palestinians support attacks on civilians, is it unreasonable for the international community to show it's condemnation of those terror groups?

Also, even though the resolution did not pass, no one here mentioned that there was a joint press release from the entire council which condemned the expulsion of Arafat. No one here also has mentioned that Powell will be punishing Israel by reducing loan guarantees (amount unknown at this point) for not stopping settlement construction. To me, this is a great step by the US, reported on the same day as the resolution failure....for a reason...yet all that can be done here is berate the US for one-sidedness.

2) Without the UN there would be no Israel.

And it seems they have been sorry for it ever since. This act took place almost 60 years ago, and does nothing to defend UN bias.

It angers me that Israel has not been consistently cautious when trying to avoid civilian casualties when striking back at terrorists, but that still does not rise to the level of sponsored terrorism against civilians. Yet how many times has Israel been condemned? How many times have the Palestinian's been condemned for attacking civilians?

And many start many new threads critical of the Israeli side. To be fair, each of those should make some mention of how heinous intentionally targeting civilians is, yet it is often overlooked.

To show my balance on this, I think Sharon sucks and has no vision for peace. And Israeli actions like the destruction of Palestinian farms (because snipers were hiding in them an firing at settlements) totally unacceptable.

Where's your balance?

3) What on earth do you mean the Palestinians are simply 'Arab' and have no distinct populace or culture...They date back to the Phillistines, 1200 BC, in that very region. They lived their much longer than the Hebrews/Israelis did.

I find the focus on whether there are truly 'Palestinians' an obfuscation. So what? Even if they're the same people as other Arabs, how would that diminish their rights?

4) It's always the Israelis who have to give up land to the Palestinians!?!?!? Before the UN kicked them out, all of the land was Palestinian.

Well, except for land that was sold to the Jews. Admittedly, it was less than present day Israel, but it wasn't 'all' Palestinian.

And as was mentioned previously, Jews lost there lands in Arab countrys also as they were expelled when Israel was founded, but somehow this was OK apparently since it is never mentioned.

RocketMan Tex · Sep 17, 2003

Israel should have killed Arafat when they had him surrounded in Lebanon in 1982, but then again, hindsight is always 20/20.

Mr. Clutch · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Israel should have killed Arafat when they had him surrounded in Lebanon in 1982, but then again, hindsight is always 20/20.
Click to expand...

It's not too late now.

The UN shows once again it's corrupt moral relativism, which of course Macbeth praises.

This is a war. Once Israel realizes it, they can respond appropriately, and when the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist, a lasting peace can be formed.

FranchiseBlade · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by bamaslammer
how many times have the Arabs launched a war of aggression against Israel? If you are counting the Intifaddah, that is five wars the Muslims have started. You should read some of the editorials in some of the "moderate" newspapers over there. It reveals the truth depth of their hatred for Israel and the Jews in particular. Who are the bigots there? I guess you buy into this religion of peace bullpuckey that Bush and many others put forth.

I've read the Koran and I know it extensively. Lemmesplain something to you, Islam is not a religion of peace and "tolerance." Under the Islamic law, the Shariah, non-Muslims (known as dhmimmis, or protected class) are bound by a ton of rules (under the pact of Umar) that make them for all practical purposes, untouchables in Muslim society. They have to pay a hefty tax simply for being non-Muslim, can not practice their religion openly, can not bear witness against any Muslim or strike a Muslim for any reason, regardless of what the Muslim did to them. I'd thought you'd want to see proof of this and here it is. Even though this covenant is over a thousand years old, it is still the blueprint for how Islam treats non-muslims within their borders.

Or try this on for size (and I have the proper attribution as well)

Tolerant indeed. Shall I continue? When enough Muslims fill a country, they simply don't want to practice their religion of peace, they want to impose the Shariah upon the entire population. Which runs counter-current to our separation of church and state.
People don't even know what the word Islam means. Let me show you:

Here are some lovely quotes from the Koran to show you how much they like non-Muslims:

I'll continue this later, but I think I've made my point. Think and research before you believe this PC "religion of peace" horse dung, you may learn something.
Click to expand...

There are many factual errors in this post. I'll start from the top. If you are counting the '48 and '67 wars as Muslim wars of aggression you are mistaken. There was fighting prior to '48 by zionists who would later govern Israel. I have posted in the past quotes by such people as Ben Gurion and others in Israel's first government talking about how they were taking over Palestinian villages prior to '48. THat's one of the biggest myths circulating today.

Do you speak and read Arabic fluently? If not you haven't read the Koran but an interpretation of it, like myself. I have also read other studies on the religion and they are not a violent religion. You can dismiss that by calling it PC if you want, but it's just truth. For example look at Hakeem post dedicating himself to Islam, and prior. Which Hakeem was more peaceful?

As for Muslims practicing Shariah and running their government according to ancient Islamic law, let's look at the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia. Their female president is in keeping with Koran(Since the prophet's wife was a successful business woman who proposed to him), but her government isn't dictated by Islamic law. MacBeth already posted tolerant examples.

I can take out of context quotes from just about any religious text you mention and make it seem like a violent relgion. From the old testament I could point to God telling people kill women and children, or a dozen other things that sound really unpeaceful.

There are several books which discuss many of the same things you are talking about here. Taking Back Islam is one example. So far you seem to have believed the hype, but the truth is out there if you seek it.

MadMax · Sep 17, 2003

MacBeth --

while I completely agree that the Crusaders were met with an enemy that had established a fairly tolerant society...Mohammed was a conqueror...a physical warrior. It was, at its origin, a do or die proposition.

DaDakota · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by MacBeth
1) We are the only nation which required that these two things be linked; we are the only one which said that, in order to prevent a wrong, another possibly related but legally irrelevant issue needed to be included to prevent that wrong from happening.
Click to expand...

Good for us, it takes strong leadership to stand up in the face of adversity, especially if the right choice is not the popular one. I guess the fact that, after all these years, the EU FINALLY recognizes Hamas & Jihad as terrorist organizations means they are coming around....puhhhhllleeaaassseee.

Originally posted by MacBeth
2) We are now saying that that was our objection, but is there any reason to believe that had that happened we would have supported it? We have consistently vetoed anything against Israel in the past, and had we only wanted the verbiage to be included we could have lead such a proposal instead of just quashing it.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, then why didnt' the other nations call our bluff and include the lingo? I mean, it did nothing to the resolution, why not add it. Everyone knows that terrorism is bad, why can't the UN recognize it as bad?

Originally posted by MacBeth
3) Our demand would have made a distinction which is inconsistent with policy; for example, when the UN ruled against Iraq before the first Gulf War, it didn't feel the need to include the qualifier that slant drilling is wrong...which was the position Iraq based it's actions on, and was an actual illegality. We have never felt the need to condemn the other side when preventing one side from doing something wrong, why would we this time? There is plenty of opportunity for both issues to be dealt with seperately without needing to veto this to accomplish it.
Click to expand...

This is a major reach. The UN did not rule against IRAQ because of slant drilling, it ruled because it had INVADED another UN nation. Iraq could have dealt with the issue in another manner, and the excuse of slant drilling is a joke, and the UN and the rest of the world knew it.

Just as the case of the PLO helping to fight terrorism is a joke, and guess what? WE KNOW IT !!

DD

haven · Sep 17, 2003

Question:

Why must measures that condemn Israel also contain a denouncement of terrorism...

...yet measures that condemn Palestinian terrorism need not also denounce Israeli repression of Palestine?

Logically inconsistent.

Mr. Clutch · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by haven
Question:

Why must measures that condemn Israel also contain a denouncement of terrorism...

...yet measures that condemn Palestinian terrorism need not also denounce Israeli repression of Palestine?

Logically inconsistent.
Click to expand...

Why are they condemning Israel and not any Arab countries? Why don't they condemn African dictators or China or Cuba?

Forums

US Vetoes Another UN Resolution Against Israel (This One On Arafat)

bamaslammer Member

Dark Rhino Member

pippendagimp Member

MacBeth Member

bamaslammer Member

Franchise2001 Contributing Member

Timing Member

MacBeth Member

MacBeth Member

Lil Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

bamaslammer Member

Cohen Member

RocketMan Tex Member

Mr. Clutch Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

MadMax Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

haven Member

Mr. Clutch Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

US Vetoes Another UN Resolution Against Israel (This One On Arafat)

bamaslammer Member

Dark Rhino Member

pippendagimp Member

MacBeth Member

bamaslammer Member

Franchise2001 Contributing Member

Timing Member

MacBeth Member

MacBeth Member

Lil Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

bamaslammer Member

Cohen Member

RocketMan Tex Member

Mr. Clutch Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

MadMax Member

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

haven Member

Mr. Clutch Member

Share This Page

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member