Beeing european I've almost never heard a bad word about jews...
Scandinavia might be differnet from the rest of Europe, but it sounds like things are worse in the US...
Heheh. That?s a good one.
Anyway Steeve, why bother with this guy? He's well informed to know the facts, but deliberately ignores those facts that refute his pro-Arab arguments. He?s neither a fool, or naïve. He is a hypocrite, that?s true enough. But I suspect he is also much more than that. David Irving comes to mind. If you examine the methodology, you?ll recognize the similarity.
And Steeve, you don?t need to go very far back to show where the U.N is at. Just look at what?s happening now. Israel withdrew it?s forces from Lebanon to U.N. recognized boundaries. Yet Lebanese militia still attack Israel with rockets across the border. Where are those resolutions condemning this aggression. Right. So much for the U.N.
I think what happend in Jenin is unjustifiable by any standard... The extreemist on both sides want the other side to disapear. Sharon is letting them set the agenda. So if this goes on there will probably be no peace...
Powell is going home tomorrow... I wonder what he writes in his report. Hopefully that it is now time for the international community to take steps to resolve the deadlock. The parties obviously can't themselves...
(BTW: At least you now agree that its their (the palestinians) land...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have not read up fully on what happened in Jenin, and I am not going to give the media the benefit of the doubt on it either. It will all come loose and then I will make a call on it.
As far as the land is concerned. The Palestinians had it, it was theirs, now it is not. If they want to have it be theirs again they are going to have to do better than what they are doing right now. And don't give me any BS about it being Israel's fault. When the suicide bombing began, their right to complain about Israel ended.
Well rumor has it that the Israelis killed (massacred) 500 palistinians. But this is from the Palistinians because the media can't confirm the deaths, only report on the rumors. Recently the IDF let the media in and the found about 45-55 bodies. But they also said the saw some IDF personnel removed 1 or 2 bodies. If you ask me I'd say it was about 80-100 dead Palistinians, not the 500 that is rumored. 45-55 (or 80-100) is excessive though, but we don't know the circumstances of the deaths. Were they shooting at soldiers? Throwing bombs? Or sleeping? We don't know yet.
[quote]Well rumor has it that the Israelis killed (massacred) 500 palistinians. But this is from the Palistinians because the media can't confirm the deaths, only report on the rumors. Recently the IDF let the media in and the found about 45-55 bodies.
But they also said the saw some IDF personnel removed 1 or 2 bodies. If you ask me I'd say it was about 80-100 dead Palistinians, not the 500 that is rumored. 45-55 (or 80-100) is excessive though, but we don't know the circumstances of the deaths. Were they shooting at soldiers? Throwing bombs? Or sleeping? We don't know yet.<hr></blockquote>
All 3rd parties have been prevented from entering Jenin for a week to 10 days after the event. Even now, most areas are strictly off-limits and the Israeli military escorts newspeople to pre-selected areas only. According to the Israelis, this is because of 'ordnance clearance'.
Have we forgotten that massacres are part of Ariel Sharon's methods? He was the man, as Israel's defense Minister, who co-planned the 1982 massacres in S. Lebanon (notoriously at Sabra and Shatila) but also at numerous other refugee camps and towns throughout S. Lebanon in the following year. The number of dead in that series of slaughters estimated from between a conservative 2500 to as high as 70,000. Later. he was even found complicit by an internal Israeli Court of Inquiry, as having 'partial responsibility' in the planning and execution of the massacres. Some three months back, the Belgians were pursuing a war crimes case against Sharon.
We don't know yet if the Jenin situation was a (smaller) repeat of 1982, but if Sharon's past is anything to go by, then it would not be of much surprise. Of course if a massacre did happen at Jenin, then Sharon would naturally do everything possible to remove the evidence from international scrutiny, having learned from past mistakes. Perhaps thats the real reason for the delay in allowing observers in.
I think Israel should really consider selling exclusive rights for this coverage. Just like in the Olympics or other major sporting events. If the media outlets are so hell bent on spreading rumors and turning this into an entertainment show, then this is really the only way to go. Given the high interest, I?d start the bidding at 1 billion dollars. This will buy you exclusive rights to film whatever you wish for a month?s time.
[quote] Besides, palestinians understand POWER-Israel is letting them know-you kill innocent Israelis and we are going to make your lives miserable. <hr></blockquote>
How? By killing innocent Palestinians in return?
[quote] "And US foreign policy is changing."
Wrong-the only countries that actively bounce from one side to another are European countries (I'm not including Britain in this). The United States support for Israel goes beyong its Jewish population. Christian conservatives will never back away from supporting Israel and are giving Bush and Powell hell for not supporting Israels anti-terror campaign more strongly. <hr></blockquote>
So US foreign policy has not changed after 9/11? Christian conservatives can hardly be the decisive force behind US foreign policy... That would be a disaster... They don't support the so-called "anti-terror" campaign because it underminds every other campaign against terror...
[quote] Name me one Arab country that has ever listened to what the UN has said, starting with the birth of Israel. <hr></blockquote>
Two wrongs don't make a right... You guys are the ones who argue that Israel is so much more "western", "democratic" and "rigteous". I've never protected any of the arab regimes...
[quote] have you ever expressed concern in the past with Arab treatment of its Jewish population? <hr></blockquote>
The arabs and jews have lived in peace for centuries. The cristians are the ones who have treated the jews bad...
[quote]A hypocrite has no balance in their views. You, sir are a hypocrite. <hr></blockquote>
You are supposed to be the ballanced one? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote] Beeing european I've almost never heard a bad word about jews...
Scandinavia might be differnet from the rest of Europe, but it sounds like things are worse in the US...
Heheh. That?s a good one.
Anyway Steeve, why bother with this guy? He's well informed to know the facts, but deliberately ignores those facts that refute his pro-Arab arguments. He?s neither a fool, or naïve. He is a hypocrite, that?s true enough. But I suspect he is also much more than that. David Irving comes to mind. If you examine the methodology, you?ll recognize the similarity.<hr></blockquote>
Whoa!!! :eek:
Your back!!! And I'm David Irving!!! My Jewish cousine is gonna have a laugh when I read this to him...
[quote] Yet Lebanese militia still attack Israel with rockets across the border. Where are those resolutions condemning this aggression. Right. So much for the U.N. <hr></blockquote>
Read this: point 2, second sentence. Does it cover the attacks? yes, very much...
Resolution 1402 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4503rd meeting, on 30 March 2002
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles,
Expressing its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority,
1. Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; and calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement;
2. Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
3. Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and the special envoys to the Middle East to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the peace process;
4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
[quote] When the suicide bombing began, their right to complain about Israel ended. <hr></blockquote>
Did the laws of moral conduct also cease to exist...?
[quote] If you ask me I'd say it was about 80-100 dead Palistinians, not the 500 that is rumored. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not asking you. I'm with NoahJ here, let's see what the final reports say. But I'm pessimistic (having read what the Israeli soldiers have said to the israeli media...)
Two wrongs don't make a right... You guys are the ones who argue that Israel is so much more "western", "democratic" and "rigteous". I've never protected any of the arab regimes...
<hr></blockquote>
Your origional point was:
- Well, since they don't follow any UN resolutions, why would the want to be in the Security Council.
Maybe to balance out the other viewpoints in the UN that are beginning to tip precariously towards a pro-Palestinian anti-Israel policy...
His point was that the Arabs never listen and still get on the committee. Why should this only apply to Israel? Why are they left out? Is there a good reason? It is not about two wrongs making it right, it is about enforcing a policy for all memebers, not just the ones you are seemingly biased against. But that is not what the UN appears to be all about these days, more of a country-club mentality than anything else.
<strong>And about David Irving: New doesn´t deny that Palestinians do horroble things. But who is defending Israels actions against innocent individuals?
Any comparison to David Irving by anyone is over the line as far as I can see. That guy has some real issues with reality. Most here are just very polarized over an issue that is very polarizing. None deny that terrible things happen, they just deny what is the truth about those terrible things and how terrible does it get on either side.
Mr Irving denies that anything happened which IMO is without conscience.
If you want more post in your topic Anders find a better way. This is a bit rediculous. Who decides who is more David Irving, you? If he disagrees with you does it make him so? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
ops... This part slipped away from the last post...
Whoa!!! :eek:
Your back!!! And I'm David Irving!!! My Jewish cousine is gonna have a laugh when I read this to him...
[quote] Yet Lebanese militia still attack Israel with rockets across the border. Where are those resolutions condemning this aggression. Right. So much for the U.N. <hr></blockquote>
Read this: point 2, second sentence. Does it cover the attacks? yes, very much...
Resolution 1402 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4503rd meeting, on 30 March 2002
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles,
Expressing its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority,
1. Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; and calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement;
2. Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
3. Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and the special envoys to the Middle East to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the peace process;
4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
[quote] When the suicide bombing began, their right to complain about Israel ended. <hr></blockquote>
Did the laws of moral conduct also cease to exist...?
[quote] If you ask me I'd say it was about 80-100 dead Palistinians, not the 500 that is rumored. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not asking you. I'm with NoahJ here, let's see what the final reports say. But I'm pessimistic (having read what the Israeli soldiers have said to the israeli media...)
If you want more post in your topic Anders find a better way. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? This is not my thread.
[quote]<strong>This is a bit rediculous. Who decides who is more David Irving, you? If he disagrees with you does it make him so? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I admit its not a productive argument but What I tried to show KILLA is that whats wrong with Irvine is not to say bad things about jews but to deny what really happens. And what really happens right now is that innoncent Palestinian individuals are suffering and dying.
And what should I do with KILLAs arguments? Write "I think you stepped over the line here" every time he does so? I would be repeating those words a lot.
[quote] His point was that the Arabs never listen and still get on the committee. <hr></blockquote>
I think Iraq is also banned... So was Afghanistan...
And since the members are voted on by the UN General Assembly (exept for the five permanent members) the selection of controversial members limits itself i guess...
I stand by my statement Re New and David Irving. Let me explain why.
From what I understand, David Irving?s line of argument during the *trial* was this. He did not really deny the evidence of mass murder by Nazis and their sympathizers of European Jews. This is impossible since they themselves documented this. Rather, David Irving denies that Hitler and the higher echelons in the Nazi regime were responsible for it.
Disregarding his fabrications of history, this is really the same line of argument New has taken here. No one, not even New, can deny that war crimes against Israel have been committed by Arabs belonging to the Fattah organization and the PLO. New, can?t deny this because the war criminals themselves claim they belong to Arafat?s organization where they are glorified. Yet, New's line of argument is that there is no link between these people?s actions and Arafat. Even though Arafat is the chairman of that organization, and like Hitler enjoys absolute power within his regime. New likes to argue that Arafat is not at all responsible for the deliberate civilian mass murder committed by his organization(s) - that he is a legitimate statesperson. When presented with evidence of direct knowledge and financing of these war crimes activities, New is typically silent.
But this argument is the same Orwellian argument adopted by the Europeans, and actually by most if not all member states in the U.N. We all know the reason for this. I?ll be curious to see if President Bush has the moral gumption to resist this duplicity. Or if he too will succumb to the Arab oil pressure.
Sice I've been likend to certain notorius historian, I've compiled this for your reading pleasure, (it's not too acurate or in-depth, but a general summary on how I see things):
Nationalism and the fight for freedom in the Middle East
AKA A short summary of the history of the Israeli and Palestinian National Movements and some more or less useful information on the events leading to the creation of the State of Israel and the turbulence thereafter...
The 19th century (1800-1900) was period of National movement. The US (1787?) and Norway (1814) beeing the best examples of new states who wrote modern constitution built on the same priciples as the french revolution (1789) and laying the basis for modern, democraticly-oriented government.
This century was gave birth to both the jewish national movement and the Palestinian national movement. Yes, both jewish culture and the arab tribes of the Middle East go far back. And have the same origins (Abraham etc.).
But that's all ancient history. Let's continue with modern times. Nationalism is in many ways a modern invention. True, nations and empires have existed for thousands of years. But the ideas of equal rights for all men, and the democratization of socity turned nationalism into a way for normal people to identify themselves, be self-concious and claim their (human) rights to be free. Before this, nations had been the toys of the elite. Borders marking the line between the property of kings and emperors. Democracy was invented by the greeks you might argue. Yes thats true, and the crazy people of Iceland even had a parlament a thousand years ago, but as I said, to keep things form getting to complicated. We will stick with modern history.
So the european jews, many beeing part of the intellectual elite at the time, startet to work for a jewish state and where quite successful in gaining support for their ideas. They tried to get the area of "Palestine" from the Ottomans (turks) but did not succeed. They also tried to get the British Colonial Empire to give them land. But England only offered parts of Uganda, and would not give away parts of Sinai or Crete, as the zionists wanted.
I'll use the term zionist is sometimes used, to show that we are talking about one jewish movement here, not jews as a whole.
The English play an important part. They took the palestinian area from the Turks during WWI, much with the help of the arab tribes in the area. They had grown tired of the heavy taxation put on them by the turks, and where much inspired by the nationalist movements of the times. The sudden arrival of europeans (first english then zionists) in the area also added momentum to this movement.
<intermission>
At this point you should rent the movie Lawrence of Arabia, to get the "romantic", and very "english" version of what happend during WWI. The scenery is beautiful, the arabs are a bit sterotypic, and Peter O'Tool is the worlds coolest "arabian"
</intermission>
In the meantime the immigration to Palestine of a mix of jewish refugees and zionist had started to increase. The very first zionist colony was founded in 1878 and the Jewish National Fund (JNF) was set up in 1901 with the aim to buy land for jews in Palestine.
Behind the scenes the Superpowers played their cards. The British promised the land to both zionist and arabs. (the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the British-Frence agreement of 1916).
While the Allies divided up the spoils ov WWI, more jews where arriving in Palestine. Violence broke out between the zionist and the arab population. One of the reasons behind the violence was that the jews had bought land from Arab landowners-in-absent, that the arabs who actually lived in the areas felt wasn't theirs (the landowners-in-absent) to sell.
When Hitler came to power, the amount of jewish refugees sharply increased. The tense situation made the British refuse jews entrance to Palestine. after 1945 former concentration camp victims where turned back from Palestine by the very same British Army that had liberated them in Europe... (what irony!)
Many jews where smuggeled into the country and Zionist movments like Irgun and Haganah then started to fight the British rule with bomb attacks and kidnappings (ring a bell?).
As a move to wash its hands, Britain (with the backing of the newly formed UN) approved a partition plan in 1947 (that both palestinians and zionist had rejected ten years earlier). It pleased no one. The Palestinians rejected it outright, saying that the UN had no right to give away their land to a group that numbered only 1/4 of the population and lived in 1/10 of the land.
The zionists publicly accepted the deal, but had no plans on honouring the deal, as later documentation has shown. Violence escalated, and the british fled the whole deal several months before the resolution was ment to be set into life...
The rest is more common knowledge. Tell me if you want to hear about that too.
Sice I've been likend to certain notorius historian, I've compiled this for your reading pleasure, (it's not too acurate or in-depth, but a general summary on how I see things):
So what else is new? (Sorry for the bad pun).
Is there anything at all here that you posted that is accurate?
btw, did you have any questions regarding that canadian essay you posted?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don?t have any questions because I know nothing on the subject (other than what?s in the essay). I had asked you to comment because I assumed that you do. You said that there are some things in there you find inaccurate so I asked that you comment on them before I proceed. When you do that I?ll proceed.
And your post re the U.N resolution only has wording condemning Israel specifically. No other parties are mentioned by name. How this relates to attacks on Israel by Lebanon is beyond me.
Israel is very close to South Africa under apartheid. I think both sides are horrible and do not agree with violence in any way. I wish that the PLO, etc. would have tried nonviolence in the mid 60s.
Comments
Beeing european I've almost never heard a bad word about jews...
Scandinavia might be differnet from the rest of Europe, but it sounds like things are worse in the US...
Heheh. That?s a good one.
Anyway Steeve, why bother with this guy? He's well informed to know the facts, but deliberately ignores those facts that refute his pro-Arab arguments. He?s neither a fool, or naïve. He is a hypocrite, that?s true enough. But I suspect he is also much more than that. David Irving comes to mind. If you examine the methodology, you?ll recognize the similarity.
mika.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
mika.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>
I think what happend in Jenin is unjustifiable by any standard... The extreemist on both sides want the other side to disapear. Sharon is letting them set the agenda. So if this goes on there will probably be no peace...
Powell is going home tomorrow... I wonder what he writes in his report. Hopefully that it is now time for the international community to take steps to resolve the deadlock. The parties obviously can't themselves...
(BTW: At least you now agree that its their (the palestinians) land...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have not read up fully on what happened in Jenin, and I am not going to give the media the benefit of the doubt on it either. It will all come loose and then I will make a call on it.
As far as the land is concerned. The Palestinians had it, it was theirs, now it is not. If they want to have it be theirs again they are going to have to do better than what they are doing right now. And don't give me any BS about it being Israel's fault. When the suicide bombing began, their right to complain about Israel ended.
But they also said the saw some IDF personnel removed 1 or 2 bodies. If you ask me I'd say it was about 80-100 dead Palistinians, not the 500 that is rumored. 45-55 (or 80-100) is excessive though, but we don't know the circumstances of the deaths. Were they shooting at soldiers? Throwing bombs? Or sleeping? We don't know yet.<hr></blockquote>
All 3rd parties have been prevented from entering Jenin for a week to 10 days after the event. Even now, most areas are strictly off-limits and the Israeli military escorts newspeople to pre-selected areas only. According to the Israelis, this is because of 'ordnance clearance'.
Have we forgotten that massacres are part of Ariel Sharon's methods? He was the man, as Israel's defense Minister, who co-planned the 1982 massacres in S. Lebanon (notoriously at Sabra and Shatila) but also at numerous other refugee camps and towns throughout S. Lebanon in the following year. The number of dead in that series of slaughters estimated from between a conservative 2500 to as high as 70,000. Later. he was even found complicit by an internal Israeli Court of Inquiry, as having 'partial responsibility' in the planning and execution of the massacres. Some three months back, the Belgians were pursuing a war crimes case against Sharon.
We don't know yet if the Jenin situation was a (smaller) repeat of 1982, but if Sharon's past is anything to go by, then it would not be of much surprise. Of course if a massacre did happen at Jenin, then Sharon would naturally do everything possible to remove the evidence from international scrutiny, having learned from past mistakes. Perhaps thats the real reason for the delay in allowing observers in.
mika.
How? By killing innocent Palestinians in return?
[quote] "And US foreign policy is changing."
Wrong-the only countries that actively bounce from one side to another are European countries (I'm not including Britain in this). The United States support for Israel goes beyong its Jewish population. Christian conservatives will never back away from supporting Israel and are giving Bush and Powell hell for not supporting Israels anti-terror campaign more strongly. <hr></blockquote>
So US foreign policy has not changed after 9/11? Christian conservatives can hardly be the decisive force behind US foreign policy... That would be a disaster... They don't support the so-called "anti-terror" campaign because it underminds every other campaign against terror...
[quote] Name me one Arab country that has ever listened to what the UN has said, starting with the birth of Israel. <hr></blockquote>
Two wrongs don't make a right... You guys are the ones who argue that Israel is so much more "western", "democratic" and "rigteous". I've never protected any of the arab regimes...
[quote] have you ever expressed concern in the past with Arab treatment of its Jewish population? <hr></blockquote>
The arabs and jews have lived in peace for centuries. The cristians are the ones who have treated the jews bad...
[quote]A hypocrite has no balance in their views. You, sir are a hypocrite. <hr></blockquote>
You are supposed to be the ballanced one? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote] Beeing european I've almost never heard a bad word about jews...
Scandinavia might be differnet from the rest of Europe, but it sounds like things are worse in the US...
Heheh. That?s a good one.
Anyway Steeve, why bother with this guy? He's well informed to know the facts, but deliberately ignores those facts that refute his pro-Arab arguments. He?s neither a fool, or naïve. He is a hypocrite, that?s true enough. But I suspect he is also much more than that. David Irving comes to mind. If you examine the methodology, you?ll recognize the similarity.<hr></blockquote>
Whoa!!! :eek:
Your back!!! And I'm David Irving!!! My Jewish cousine is gonna have a laugh when I read this to him...
[quote] Yet Lebanese militia still attack Israel with rockets across the border. Where are those resolutions condemning this aggression. Right. So much for the U.N. <hr></blockquote>
Read this: point 2, second sentence. Does it cover the attacks? yes, very much...
Resolution 1402 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4503rd meeting, on 30 March 2002
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles,
Expressing its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority,
1. Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; and calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement;
2. Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
3. Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and the special envoys to the Middle East to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the peace process;
4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
[quote] When the suicide bombing began, their right to complain about Israel ended. <hr></blockquote>
Did the laws of moral conduct also cease to exist...?
[quote] If you ask me I'd say it was about 80-100 dead Palistinians, not the 500 that is rumored. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not asking you. I'm with NoahJ here, let's see what the final reports say. But I'm pessimistic (having read what the Israeli soldiers have said to the israeli media...)
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
KILLA, please say if you agree with these statements posted in <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001049"; target="_blank">This thread</a> and lets see who is "more David Irving" than who.
Two wrongs don't make a right... You guys are the ones who argue that Israel is so much more "western", "democratic" and "rigteous". I've never protected any of the arab regimes...
<hr></blockquote>
Your origional point was:
- Well, since they don't follow any UN resolutions, why would the want to be in the Security Council.
Maybe to balance out the other viewpoints in the UN that are beginning to tip precariously towards a pro-Palestinian anti-Israel policy...
His point was that the Arabs never listen and still get on the committee. Why should this only apply to Israel? Why are they left out? Is there a good reason? It is not about two wrongs making it right, it is about enforcing a policy for all memebers, not just the ones you are seemingly biased against. But that is not what the UN appears to be all about these days, more of a country-club mentality than anything else.
<strong>And about David Irving: New doesn´t deny that Palestinians do horroble things. But who is defending Israels actions against innocent individuals?
KILLA, please say if you agree with these statements posted in <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001049"; target="_blank">This thread</a> and lets see who is "more David Irving" than who.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any comparison to David Irving by anyone is over the line as far as I can see. That guy has some real issues with reality. Most here are just very polarized over an issue that is very polarizing. None deny that terrible things happen, they just deny what is the truth about those terrible things and how terrible does it get on either side.
Mr Irving denies that anything happened which IMO is without conscience.
If you want more post in your topic Anders find a better way. This is a bit rediculous. Who decides who is more David Irving, you? If he disagrees with you does it make him so? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Whoa!!! :eek:
Your back!!! And I'm David Irving!!! My Jewish cousine is gonna have a laugh when I read this to him...
[quote] Yet Lebanese militia still attack Israel with rockets across the border. Where are those resolutions condemning this aggression. Right. So much for the U.N. <hr></blockquote>
Read this: point 2, second sentence. Does it cover the attacks? yes, very much...
Resolution 1402 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4503rd meeting, on 30 March 2002
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles,
Expressing its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority,
1. Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; and calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement;
2. Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
3. Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and the special envoys to the Middle East to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the peace process;
4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
[quote] When the suicide bombing began, their right to complain about Israel ended. <hr></blockquote>
Did the laws of moral conduct also cease to exist...?
[quote] If you ask me I'd say it was about 80-100 dead Palistinians, not the 500 that is rumored. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not asking you. I'm with NoahJ here, let's see what the final reports say. But I'm pessimistic (having read what the Israeli soldiers have said to the israeli media...)
<strong>
If you want more post in your topic Anders find a better way. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? This is not my thread.
[quote]<strong>This is a bit rediculous. Who decides who is more David Irving, you? If he disagrees with you does it make him so? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I admit its not a productive argument but What I tried to show KILLA is that whats wrong with Irvine is not to say bad things about jews but to deny what really happens. And what really happens right now is that innoncent Palestinian individuals are suffering and dying.
And what should I do with KILLAs arguments? Write "I think you stepped over the line here" every time he does so? I would be repeating those words a lot.
I think Iraq is also banned... So was Afghanistan...
And since the members are voted on by the UN General Assembly (exept for the five permanent members) the selection of controversial members limits itself i guess...
From what I understand, David Irving?s line of argument during the *trial* was this. He did not really deny the evidence of mass murder by Nazis and their sympathizers of European Jews. This is impossible since they themselves documented this. Rather, David Irving denies that Hitler and the higher echelons in the Nazi regime were responsible for it.
Disregarding his fabrications of history, this is really the same line of argument New has taken here. No one, not even New, can deny that war crimes against Israel have been committed by Arabs belonging to the Fattah organization and the PLO. New, can?t deny this because the war criminals themselves claim they belong to Arafat?s organization where they are glorified. Yet, New's line of argument is that there is no link between these people?s actions and Arafat. Even though Arafat is the chairman of that organization, and like Hitler enjoys absolute power within his regime. New likes to argue that Arafat is not at all responsible for the deliberate civilian mass murder committed by his organization(s) - that he is a legitimate statesperson. When presented with evidence of direct knowledge and financing of these war crimes activities, New is typically silent.
But this argument is the same Orwellian argument adopted by the Europeans, and actually by most if not all member states in the U.N. We all know the reason for this. I?ll be curious to see if President Bush has the moral gumption to resist this duplicity. Or if he too will succumb to the Arab oil pressure.
mika.
*<a href="http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html"; target="_blank">http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html</a>*
[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
Nationalism and the fight for freedom in the Middle East
AKA A short summary of the history of the Israeli and Palestinian National Movements and some more or less useful information on the events leading to the creation of the State of Israel and the turbulence thereafter...
The 19th century (1800-1900) was period of National movement. The US (1787?) and Norway (1814) beeing the best examples of new states who wrote modern constitution built on the same priciples as the french revolution (1789) and laying the basis for modern, democraticly-oriented government.
This century was gave birth to both the jewish national movement and the Palestinian national movement. Yes, both jewish culture and the arab tribes of the Middle East go far back. And have the same origins (Abraham etc.).
But that's all ancient history. Let's continue with modern times. Nationalism is in many ways a modern invention. True, nations and empires have existed for thousands of years. But the ideas of equal rights for all men, and the democratization of socity turned nationalism into a way for normal people to identify themselves, be self-concious and claim their (human) rights to be free. Before this, nations had been the toys of the elite. Borders marking the line between the property of kings and emperors. Democracy was invented by the greeks you might argue. Yes thats true, and the crazy people of Iceland even had a parlament a thousand years ago, but as I said, to keep things form getting to complicated. We will stick with modern history.
So the european jews, many beeing part of the intellectual elite at the time, startet to work for a jewish state and where quite successful in gaining support for their ideas. They tried to get the area of "Palestine" from the Ottomans (turks) but did not succeed. They also tried to get the British Colonial Empire to give them land. But England only offered parts of Uganda, and would not give away parts of Sinai or Crete, as the zionists wanted.
I'll use the term zionist is sometimes used, to show that we are talking about one jewish movement here, not jews as a whole.
The English play an important part. They took the palestinian area from the Turks during WWI, much with the help of the arab tribes in the area. They had grown tired of the heavy taxation put on them by the turks, and where much inspired by the nationalist movements of the times. The sudden arrival of europeans (first english then zionists) in the area also added momentum to this movement.
<intermission>
At this point you should rent the movie Lawrence of Arabia, to get the "romantic", and very "english" version of what happend during WWI. The scenery is beautiful, the arabs are a bit sterotypic, and Peter O'Tool is the worlds coolest "arabian"
</intermission>
In the meantime the immigration to Palestine of a mix of jewish refugees and zionist had started to increase. The very first zionist colony was founded in 1878 and the Jewish National Fund (JNF) was set up in 1901 with the aim to buy land for jews in Palestine.
Behind the scenes the Superpowers played their cards. The British promised the land to both zionist and arabs. (the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the British-Frence agreement of 1916).
While the Allies divided up the spoils ov WWI, more jews where arriving in Palestine. Violence broke out between the zionist and the arab population. One of the reasons behind the violence was that the jews had bought land from Arab landowners-in-absent, that the arabs who actually lived in the areas felt wasn't theirs (the landowners-in-absent) to sell.
When Hitler came to power, the amount of jewish refugees sharply increased. The tense situation made the British refuse jews entrance to Palestine. after 1945 former concentration camp victims where turned back from Palestine by the very same British Army that had liberated them in Europe... (what irony!)
Many jews where smuggeled into the country and Zionist movments like Irgun and Haganah then started to fight the British rule with bomb attacks and kidnappings (ring a bell?).
As a move to wash its hands, Britain (with the backing of the newly formed UN) approved a partition plan in 1947 (that both palestinians and zionist had rejected ten years earlier). It pleased no one. The Palestinians rejected it outright, saying that the UN had no right to give away their land to a group that numbered only 1/4 of the population and lived in 1/10 of the land.
The zionists publicly accepted the deal, but had no plans on honouring the deal, as later documentation has shown. Violence escalated, and the british fled the whole deal several months before the resolution was ment to be set into life...
The rest is more common knowledge. Tell me if you want to hear about that too.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Sice I've been likend to certain notorius historian, I've compiled this for your reading pleasure, (it's not too acurate or in-depth, but a general summary on how I see things):
So what else is new? (Sorry for the bad pun).
Is there anything at all here that you posted that is accurate?
mika.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
btw, did you have any questions regarding that canadian essay you posted?
<strong>please point out any flaws.
btw, did you have any questions regarding that canadian essay you posted?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don?t have any questions because I know nothing on the subject (other than what?s in the essay). I had asked you to comment because I assumed that you do. You said that there are some things in there you find inaccurate so I asked that you comment on them before I proceed. When you do that I?ll proceed.
mika
mika.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Mac Freak ]</p>