| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Food for George m&m
Since few days Ariel Sharon is living under high protection and security...
This time the risk doesn't come from extremist Palestinians. No the fear comes from Israel, because of the threats he has received from right-wing zealots. Why ? Nothing really interesting... The Knesset is just discussing Gaza Strip evacuation and *illegal colonies* dismantling. Who says that Hamas partisans are the only extremists and assassins in this area ? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Bruce J. Richman said: There *is* a significant difference, to most objective observers, between attacking military targets (e.g. weapons factories, rocket launches, suicide bombers, etc.) and attacking civilians in hotels, buses, restaurants. Those that gloss over or ignore these differences reveal their prejudices. If the Palestinians' cause were just, what legitimate means of protest would you recommend? Serious negotiations. Before, at the table, they got about 98% of what they wanted before Arafat backed out. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius wrote:
Bruce J. Richman said: There *is* a significant difference, to most objective observers, between attacking military targets (e.g. weapons factories, rocket launches, suicide bombers, etc.) and attacking civilians in hotels, buses, restaurants. Those that gloss over or ignore these differences reveal their prejudices. If the Palestinians' cause were just, what legitimate means of protest would you recommend? First, who defines and what is their cause? For Hamas, according to their public statements, it is the destruction of the State of Israel. So clearly, for this group, there is *no* just cause, unless one accepts genocide and elimination of a country as "just causes". Therefore, if the majority of the Palestinian people want to be represented either by Hamas with its agenda as described above, or by Arafat & his hand-picked prime minister to basically *talk* about negotiations but do nothing to prevent Hamas militants from engaging in attacks, there does not appear to be any "legitimate means of protest". All that said, many social injustices both in the US and elsewhere, have been successfully protested and changed, over a period of time, by various forms of civil disobedience. Israel has a "Peace, Now" movement, and I presume that there are a fair number of Palestinians that would also favor some form of negotiated settlement. AFAIK, neither interest group has engaged in bombing of civilians. Ironically, IMHO, by Arafat's walking away from the negotiation table at Camp David diuring Clinton's attempts to broker a reasonably crafted solution to this conflict, he simply paved the way for the Israeli electorate to vote in a much more conservative, hard-line Prime Minister who is much less interested in reaching a negotiated settlemetn. IOW, Arafat appears to be his own worst enemy in my view. Both sides, at this point, probably need different, more flexible, leadership in order for any progress to be made other than at the barrel of a gun. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Bruce J. Richman said: There *is* a significant difference, to most objective observers, between attacking military targets (e.g. weapons factories, rocket launches, suicide bombers, etc.) and attacking civilians in hotels, buses, restaurants. Those that gloss over or ignore these differences reveal their prejudices. If the Palestinians' cause were just, Then they've lost all credibilty. what legitimate means of protest would you recommend? Ghandi managed to take back a whole country without resorting to murdering people in pizza parlors, on buses, or Olympic teams. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote:
Ghandi managed to take back a whole country without resorting to murdering people in pizza parlors, on buses, or Olympic teams. LOL ! |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:12:05 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote: jak163 said: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. Do I think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's resolutions or consequence of their violation. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
jak163 wrote:
On 20 Oct 2004 16:13:51 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Religious extremists are more and more powerful in Israel. There are *real* threats against life of the people involved in the illegal colonies dismentling. Groups of Israeli extremists have the same way to read the Talmud than the Talibans read the Koran. But since it is politically incorrect to tell that it cannot be true. :-( |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
jak163 wrote:
On 20 Oct 2004 16:13:51 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Nice use of misleading statistics. And what about the literally hundreds of ant-Israel resolutions offered by the consistently antisemitic voting bloc made up of the Arab states? What about a PLO charter calling for the destruction of the state of Israel? And what about Arafat's refusal to negotiate in good faith for teturn of ocupied lands and his decision to try and get more through terrorism? For further details re. the United Nations, here's just one example: http://focusonjerusalem.com/antisemitisminun.html Bruce J. Richman |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
jak163 wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:12:05 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: jak163 said: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. Do I think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's resolutions or consequence of their violation. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. And what are your views on Palestinian suicide bombings? Or on the fact that only one side - Israel - is in the process of implementing even *one* of the "road map" steps - withdrawal from Gaza? Note that the "roadmap" also calls for the terrorist groups in the Palestinian territories to disarm. There is no evidence that Arafat, Hamas and their cronies will ever disarm. What is wrong with this picture? Bruce J. Richman |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
jak163 wrote: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:12:05 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: jak163 said: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. Do I think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's resolutions or consequence of their violation. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. And what are your views on Palestinian suicide bombings? Or on the fact that only one side - Israel - is in the process of implementing even *one* of the "road map" steps - withdrawal from Gaza? Don't forget the Israeli Zealots, the right-wing warmongers, they are in the street and are threatening Sharon and all the persons involved in withdrawal from Gaza. Note that the "roadmap" also calls for the terrorist groups in the Palestinian territories to disarm. There is no evidence that Arafat, Hamas and their cronies will ever disarm. What is wrong with this picture? Bruce J. Richman |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:17:05 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote: jak163 said: Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think I don't think that would be practical. It would have the worst drawback of democracy, i.e. voters dictating to others what they can and can't do. Suppose the U.N. had voted to ban space travel because of their fear of weapons getting put into orbit. And how about bans on hunting and fishing of endangered species? Easy to imagine a bunch of small agrarian countries uniting on those issues to overrule the "responsible" countries. Many of the social problems in the U.S. and other industrialized countries exist because of the will of the democracy. I'm sure you know that many antiquated, fear-based laws about sexual behavior and witchcraft are still on the books. The nation-level equivalents would be even more appalling. I'm speaking of the Security Council here, over which the United States has a veto. the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. I disagree. As it exists today, the U.N. is a sounding board for poor countries, and that's good. It's laudable that the countries that lack strong economies and/or armies can have an open diplomatic forum to make their views known and enlist support. But it's also a fact that not all countries respect the rule of law, nor the basic human and civil rights that are taken for granted in the industrialized nations. Simply reaching consensus on an issue should not confer executive power. Well unlimited national sovereignty doesn't have a very good record. Some kind of international cooperation I think is essential. The degree of authority it should have is a complicated subject, but I think the U.N. is generally the right direction to move in. think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's[sic] resolutions or consequence of their violation. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. Now you're getting it. A political solution to a military conflict must accommodate all parties that have a vested interest. As Dr. Bruce pointed out, the U.N.'s posturing on the subject is almost entirely anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. Yet it was an act of the U.N. that created the state of Israel in 1948. Would you have today's yahoos undo a landmark event like the creation of Israel as a haven for Jews? Not sure what you mean here. 242 and 338 do not call for undoing Israeli sovereignty, nor can the UN make such a decision under its charter. The charter does not empower the UN to supercede the sovereignty of any state. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
jak163 wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:17:05 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: jak163 said: Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think I don't think that would be practical. It would have the worst drawback of democracy, i.e. voters dictating to others what they can and can't do. Suppose the U.N. had voted to ban space travel because of their fear of weapons getting put into orbit. And how about bans on hunting and fishing of endangered species? Easy to imagine a bunch of small agrarian countries uniting on those issues to overrule the "responsible" countries. Many of the social problems in the U.S. and other industrialized countries exist because of the will of the democracy. I'm sure you know that many antiquated, fear-based laws about sexual behavior and witchcraft are still on the books. The nation-level equivalents would be even more appalling. I'm speaking of the Security Council here, over which the United States has a veto. the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. I disagree. As it exists today, the U.N. is a sounding board for poor countries, and that's good. It's laudable that the countries that lack strong economies and/or armies can have an open diplomatic forum to make their views known and enlist support. But it's also a fact that not all countries respect the rule of law, nor the basic human and civil rights that are taken for granted in the industrialized nations. Simply reaching consensus on an issue should not confer executive power. Well unlimited national sovereignty doesn't have a very good record. Some kind of international cooperation I think is essential. The degree of authority it should have is a complicated subject, but I think the U.N. is generally the right direction to move in. think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's[sic] resolutions or consequence of their violation. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. Now you're getting it. A political solution to a military conflict must accommodate all parties that have a vested interest. As Dr. Bruce pointed out, the U.N.'s posturing on the subject is almost entirely anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. Yet it was an act of the U.N. that created the state of Israel in 1948. Would you have today's yahoos undo a landmark event like the creation of Israel as a haven for Jews? Not sure what you mean here. 242 and 338 do not call for undoing Israeli sovereignty, nor can the UN make such a decision under its charter. The charter does not empower the UN to supercede the sovereignty of any state. This is a common practice from Middius. He use to mix the wrong statement who is supporting his point of view in an incredible verbiage. The most funny point is that he is sure to have correctly demonstrated something important. George is attached to the words like a coquette to frills. Ooops I forgot to quote George's false statement : "As Dr. Bruce pointed out, the U.N.'s posturing on the subject is almost entirely anti-Israel and pro-Palestine" |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
jak163 wrote:
On 20 Oct 2004 18:07:20 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: jak163 wrote: On 20 Oct 2004 16:13:51 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Nice use of misleading statistics. And what about the literally hundreds of ant-Israel resolutions offered by the consistently antisemitic voting bloc made up of the Arab states? What about a PLO charter calling for the destruction of the state of Israel? And what about Arafat's refusal to negotiate in good faith for teturn of ocupied lands and his decision to try and get more through terrorism? For further details re. the United Nations, here's just one example: http://focusonjerusalem.com/antisemitisminun.html Some General Assembly resolutions have been anti-Israel, although these don't have the force of law. Your statement was very broad, however, and I wanted to point out that the UN Security Council resolutions are not the product of an anti-Israel bloc. I should have specified _Security Council_ Resolutions 242 and 338. As for the PLO Charter and the other points you mention, they are interesting, but they do not apply to the point about whether the Security Council resolutions were passed by an anti-Israel bloc. N.b., the United States also voted for UN General Assembly Resolution 181 providing for the original partition of Palestine. I'm aware of all these facts. None of this detracts from the documented anti-Israel bias within the United Nations and its inability to look at the conflict in an objective way. Nor does any of this detract from the fact that even the so-called "road map" - endorsed by the EU, the US, Israel and Palestine - calls for reciprocal steps by both sides - NOT a withdrawal by one side while terrorism continues. As of this date, Israel has committed to withdrawal from Gaza and several settlements. The Palestinians have committed to do nothing other than continue their terrorism. Of course, the UN looks the other way, so why should any objective observer even bother with their pronouncements on the conflict? Note also that even Sharon has verbally committed to a 2 state solution. However, there is no reason that one side should concede territory while the other does nothing. Note also, that if it were not for 3 wars - all started by the Arabs - Israel would not even have the territory now being disputed. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Watch the pro-war they were suspecting Hans Blix... Gibbersih, Can anyone decipher this? |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jak163" wrote in message news  Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. You don't know? You have got to be kidding. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... jak163 wrote: Religious extremists are more and more powerful in Israel. There are *real* threats against life of the people involved in the illegal colonies dismentling. Groups of Israeli extremists have the same way to read the Talmud than the Talibans read the Koran. But since it is politically incorrect to tell that it cannot be true. :-( Both are bad, but there are some differences. The radical interpretations of the Koran are first, to kill those who do not convert, and second, the concept of jihad. The radical interpretation of the Talmud is that Jews are devinley entitled to the promised land, defined as greater Israel, i.e, the west bank and even farther, beyond the banks of the Jordan River. This is what motivates the extreme religious right in Israel. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jak163" wrote in message news On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:12:05 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: jak163 said: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. Do I think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's resolutions or consequence of their violation. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. Then you're not being honest. Absolutely nothing short of mass suicide will stop the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbolah from trying to kill Israeli's. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jak163" wrote in message ... On 20 Oct 2004 18:10:46 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: And what are your views on Palestinian suicide bombings? Or on the fact that only one side - Israel - is in the process of implementing even *one* of the "road map" steps - withdrawal from Gaza? Note that the "roadmap" also calls for the terrorist groups in the Palestinian territories to disarm. There is no evidence that Arafat, Hamas and their cronies will ever disarm. What is wrong with this picture? My position on the suicide bombings is that they are awful. What other position could one take? But that doesn't mean Israel should hold on to the occupied territories. It's not clear, for instance, that the occupation has reduced terrorism against Israel. Moreover, I think it's important to keep in mind that far more Palestinian than Israeli civilians have been killed since the start of the second Intifida. The means are different--military force and "targeted killing"--really assassination--rather than terrorism. But the death toll has been higher on the Palestinian side. As it should be. Israel's response is just that, a response. If nobody attacked them, they wouldn't be responding to anything. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jak163" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:17:05 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: jak163 said: Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think I don't think that would be practical. It would have the worst drawback of democracy, i.e. voters dictating to others what they can and can't do. Suppose the U.N. had voted to ban space travel because of their fear of weapons getting put into orbit. And how about bans on hunting and fishing of endangered species? Easy to imagine a bunch of small agrarian countries uniting on those issues to overrule the "responsible" countries. Many of the social problems in the U.S. and other industrialized countries exist because of the will of the democracy. I'm sure you know that many antiquated, fear-based laws about sexual behavior and witchcraft are still on the books. The nation-level equivalents would be even more appalling. I'm speaking of the Security Council here, over which the United States has a veto. the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. I disagree. As it exists today, the U.N. is a sounding board for poor countries, and that's good. It's laudable that the countries that lack strong economies and/or armies can have an open diplomatic forum to make their views known and enlist support. But it's also a fact that not all countries respect the rule of law, nor the basic human and civil rights that are taken for granted in the industrialized nations. Simply reaching consensus on an issue should not confer executive power. Well unlimited national sovereignty doesn't have a very good record. Some kind of international cooperation I think is essential. But that will not happen until and unless, there is agreement on and enforcement of basic human rights. Events such as Ethnic Cleansing and the like should be met with immediate response. Something much more strict that a study. The degree of authority it should have is a complicated subject, but I think the U.N. is generally the right direction to move in. If they'd actually do anything. think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's[sic] resolutions or consequence of their violation. Which is why it is essentially, a pointless excercise. Law without enforcement is not worth anything. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. Now you're getting it. A political solution to a military conflict must accommodate all parties that have a vested interest. As Dr. Bruce pointed out, the U.N.'s posturing on the subject is almost entirely anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. Yet it was an act of the U.N. that created the state of Israel in 1948. Would you have today's yahoos undo a landmark event like the creation of Israel as a haven for Jews? Not sure what you mean here. 242 and 338 do not call for undoing Israeli sovereignty, nor can the UN make such a decision under its charter. The charter does not empower the UN to supercede the sovereignty of any state. And since their is no Palestinian state and never has been, the "Palestinians should be treated as the Terrorists they are. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Bruce J. Richman wrote: jak163 wrote: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:12:05 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: jak163 said: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. Do I think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's resolutions or consequence of their violation. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. And what are your views on Palestinian suicide bombings? Or on the fact that only one side - Israel - is in the process of implementing even *one* of the "road map" steps - withdrawal from Gaza? Don't forget the Israeli Zealots, the right-wing warmongers, they are in the street and are threatening Sharon and all the persons involved in withdrawal from Gaza. That's a lot different from blowing up Pizza parlors full of inncent civilians. They are trying to make sure that in dismantling the Gaza settlements, they are not leaving themselves open to more attacks. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. You don't know? You have got to be kidding. How much of a bounty would be required to liquidate Hamas? Now there's a real good use of the money George Soros(sp?) is wasting. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... jak163 wrote: On 20 Oct 2004 16:13:51 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Religious extremists are more and more powerful in Israel. There are *real* threats against life of the people involved in the illegal colonies dismentling. Groups of Israeli extremists have the same way to read the Talmud than the Talibans read the Koran. But since it is politically incorrect to tell that it cannot be true. :-( Try and grasp the idea that threats are not the same as bombs, which is the Palestinians use. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Bruce J. Richman wrote: jak163 wrote: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:12:05 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: jak163 said: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Don't tell us you're turning into a blindly loyal jingoist. Just because the U.S. votes for a resolution, it should have the force of law? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do I think the resolutions of the Security Council _should_ have the force of law? I guess so. I think the U.N. is generally a positive thing and should be supported. Do I think they _do_ have the force of law? In principle they do--the United States is bound to the resolutions of the Security Council by the U.N. Charter, which it has ratified as a treaty. However the U.N. is very weak and is often ignored, and there's no real enforcement mechanism for it's resolutions or consequence of their violation. Do I think Israel should pull out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan? Yes, they should. And the sooner the better. Do I think this would end the conflict with the Palestinians? I don't know. And what are your views on Palestinian suicide bombings? Or on the fact that only one side - Israel - is in the process of implementing even *one* of the "road map" steps - withdrawal from Gaza? Don't forget the Israeli Zealots, the right-wing warmongers, they are in the street and are threatening Sharon and all the persons involved in withdrawal from Gaza. That's a lot different from blowing up Pizza parlors full of inncent civilians. They are trying to make sure that in dismantling the Gaza settlements, they are not leaving themselves open to more attacks. You don't answer to what I wrote. Note that the last tsahal's excursion in Gaza has also killed a lot of innocent civilians... Yes I know Arabs deads doesn't count. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message ... jak163 wrote: On 20 Oct 2004 16:13:51 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: Also, it's fairly common knowledge that because of a blatantly anti-Israel Arab voting bloc, UN resolutions against Israel are routinely put forth, yet similar resolutions against Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas terrorism are notably absent. Therefore, the UN's stance re. this conflict is laughable and highly suspect. Not resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States voted for both of these. Religious extremists are more and more powerful in Israel. There are *real* threats against life of the people involved in the illegal colonies dismentling. Groups of Israeli extremists have the same way to read the Talmud than the Talibans read the Koran. But since it is politically incorrect to tell that it cannot be true. :-( Try and grasp the idea that threats are not the same as bombs, which is the Palestinians use. The Israel must leave immediatly occuped territories and must dismantle immediatly illegal colonies. After that you will be able to speak about Palestinian crimes. Illegal colonies are not a military occupation but colonization of a country. Invoking self-defense you can justify a military occupation but you cannot explain a civil occupation, the colonization of foreign territories by hordes of degenerated extremist religious zealots. The leaders of these sects are as extremist and as nihilist than Talibans. No difference. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
George "Ass-Licker" M&M sucks in message
. .. La Salope KISSed: Once more we have the idiot point of view. LOL. Is that a pubic hair dangling from your lips, Slut? Yes it is. A kind of talisman, an amulet I got from my wife. Always with me... ;-) It is very modest, nothing comparable with your opulent beard of ass hair from cosmopolitan origins. :-D |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Food for Slut's Thoughts | Audio Opinions | |||
| Audio thread (former "food for mind") | Audio Opinions | |||
| Food for mind | Audio Opinions | |||
| More food for thought | Audio Opinions | |||
| Studio Food | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
