You can't defend yourself if you are occupying another country

Truthmonger

jlew24asu wrote:

ok lets talk about it. the last 40 years? I remember clinton giving it a go at camp david and Arafat rejecting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords

and bush's road map to peace? is that doable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace

I am not defending those plans but merely stating them. I will have to read through those links again. they are just what I remember off the top of my head.


lets talk about these "countless offers" you speak off.

Jlew, I say this with respect, but please, stop bringing up Camp David as something that could or should have been adopted. It was a sham. Arafat, or WHOEVER would have represented the Palestinians at that time, was correct to turn it down. Its offensive that such a plan was even floated. When are the Israelis going to get it - that beyond the wishes of one party or the other, there has to be an objective and VIABLE new state, one capable of functioning in every way, and into the forseeable future. Otherwise, whats the point ? What the Israelis have offered is far, far short of that. One wonders if they make these paltry concessions as an excuse to then go grab more Palestinian land under the pretext of the Palestinians "never wanting peace". Its not right, and its Israel, not the Palestinians, who are looking like idiots.

jlew24asu

Truthmonger wrote:

Jlew, I say this with respect, but please, stop bringing up Camp David as something that could or should have been adopted. It was a sham. Arafat, or WHOEVER would have represented the Palestinians at that time, was correct to turn it down. Its offensive that such a plan was even floated. When are the Israelis going to get it - that beyond the wishes of one party or the other, there has to be an objective and VIABLE new state, one capable of functioning in every way, and into the forseeable future. Otherwise, whats the point ? What the Israelis have offered is far, far short of that. One wonders if they make these paltry concessions as an excuse to then go grab more Palestinian land under the pretext of the Palestinians "never wanting peace". Its not right, and its Israel, not the Palestinians, who are looking like idiots.

that was the first time I mentioned camp david. and as I said, I wasn't defending it, it was happen to come off the top of my head.

why was the deal such a sham? i'm asking seriously because I dont know much about the deal.

I posted the wrong link before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

Truthmonger

jlew24asu wrote:

that was the first time I mentioned camp david. and as I said, I wasn't defending it, it was happen to come off the top of my head.

why was the deal such a sham? i'm asking seriously because I dont know much about the deal.

I posted the wrong link before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

B/c, inter alia, it would have seen the WB diced up by Israeli controlled roads, virtually from one end to the other. Colin Powell said of CD that there's no use "having a place cut up into a thousand pieces". I have doubts that Israel EVER wants a viable, contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state living next ot it.

jlew24asu

Truthmonger wrote:

B/c, inter alia, it would have seen the WB diced up by Israeli controlled roads, virtually from one end to the other. Colin Powell said of CD that there's no use "having a place cut up into a thousand pieces". I have doubts that Israel EVER wants a viable, contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state living next ot it.

from the wiki...

Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% (after many years - see section on territory) of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. But before any gradual Israeli withdrawal, all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Arafat, however, refused.

---

I think this would have been a good start. I also believe as time went on and both sides lived peacefully, Israel would have made more concessions as (peaceful) time went on.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

ok lets talk about it. the last 40 years? I remember clinton giving it a go at camp david and Arafat rejecting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords

Truthmonger's right. Camp David was a sham. I've commented in detail on it before on the M.T. The Israelis proposed cutting the West bank up into a number of Apartheid style bantustans, separated from one another, and guarded by Israeli checkpoints. The Israelis also would have had control of all air space and sea space. It wasn't a peace offer, it was an attempt to strangle the Palestinians and to steal more of their land.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/wbgs_campdavid.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm

'What Barak put on the table, the population doesn't know this, because people like the Western media in Canada in the United States don't tell them. Like, you can check and see how often, you for example, and others, have reported what I just said. Don't bother checking. The answer is zero.

The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.

So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.

This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.'

http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/znet_chomsky.html

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/194

Any discussion of what is called a "peace process" -- whether the one underway at Camp David or any other -- should keep in mind the operative meaning of the phrase: by definition, the "peace process" is whatever the US government happens to be pursuing.

Having grasped that essential principle, one can understand that a peace process can be advanced by Washington's clearly-proclaimed efforts to undermine peace. To illustrate, in January 1988 the press reported Secretary of State George Shultz's "peace trip" to Central America under the headline "Latin Peace Trip by Shultz Planned." The subheading explained the goal: "Mission Would Be Last-Ditch Effort to Defuse Opposition on Contra Aid." Administration officials elaborated that the "peace mission" was "the only way to save" aid to the contras in the face of "growing congressional opposition."

The timing is important. In August 1987, over strong US objections, the Central American presidents had reached a peace agreement for the bitter Central American conflicts: the Esquipulas Accords. The US acted at once to undermine them, and by January, had largely succeeded. It had effectively excluded the sole "indispensable element" cited in the Accords: an end to US support for the contras (CIA supply flights instantly tripled, and contra terror increased). Washington had also eliminated the second basic principle of the Accords: that the human rights provisions should apply to US clients as well as to Nicaragua (by US fiat, they were to apply to Nicaragua alone). Washington had also managed to terminate the despised international monitoring mission, which had committed the crime of describing truthfully what had been happening since the adoption of the plan in August. To the consternation of the Reagan Administration, Nicaragua nevertheless accepted the version of the accords crafted by US power, leading to the Shultz "peace mission," undertaken to advance the "peace process" by ensuring that there would be no backsliding from the demolition operation.

In brief, the "peace mission" was a "last-ditch effort" to block peace and mobilize Congress to support the "unlawful use of force" for which the US had recently been condemned by the World Court.

The record of the "peace process" in the Middle East has been similar, though even more extreme....

...After the Gulf War, the US was finally in a position to impose its own unilateral rejectionist stand and did so, first at Madrid in late 1991, then in the successive Israel-PLO agreements from 1993. With these measures, the "peace process" has advanced towards the Bantustan-style arrangements that the US and Israel intended, as should have been obvious to anyone with eyes open, and is entirely clear in the documentary record and, more important, the record on the ground. That brings us to the present stage: Camp David, July 2000...

..The intended result is that an eventual Palestinian state would consist of four cantons on the West Bank: (1) Jericho, (2) the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab "Jerusalem"), (3) a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm, and (4) a central canton including Ramallah. The cantons are completely surrounded by territory to be annexed to Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration are to be under Palestinian administration, an adaptation of the traditional colonial pattern that is the only sensible outcome as far as Israel and the US are concerned. The plans for the Gaza Strip, a fifth canton, are uncertain: Israel might relinquish it, or might maintain the southern coastal region and another salient virtually dividing the Strip below Gaza City.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Truthmonger's right. Camp David was a sham. I've commented in detail on it before on the M.T. The Israelis proposed cutting the West bank up into a number of Apartheid style bantustans, separated from one another, and guarded by Israeli checkpoints. The Israelis also would have had control of all air space and sea space. It wasn't a peace offer, it was an attempt to strangle the Palestinians and to steal more of their land.

according to wiki is was 91% of the west bank and east Jerusalem as the capital. I think that would have been a good start. if peace prevailed more concessions would be made over time. no?

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

last 40 years..... over 30 vetos......


lets see it? and talk about it.

30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes.
How the U.S. has Voted // Vetoed- See any bias - See any pattern ?

by rp 3:38pm Sat Mar 8 '03


1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year

---

Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

jlew24asu

edit. ^^^^^^ ok, give me a moment to read through some of those

jlew24asu

where did you get all this information? just for kicks, you threw in alot of non-Israel stuff?

I see nothing in there opposing a 2 state solution with borders drawn up.

jlew24asu

you also seem to have alot of faith in the UN as if they are something important

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

according to wiki is was 91% of the west bank and east Jerusalem as the capital. I think that would have been a good start. if peace prevailed more concessions would be made over time. no?

'But a more intractable problem arises as soon as we ask a basic question: What is Jerusalem?

When Israel conquered the West Bank in June 1967, it annexed Jerusalem -- not in a very polite fashion; for example, it has recently been revealed in Israel that the destruction of the Arab Mughrabi neighborhood near the Wailing Wall on June 10 was done with such haste that an unknown number of Palestinians were buried in the ruins left by the bulldozers.

Israel quickly tripled the borders of the city. Subsequent development programs, pursued with little variation by all governments, aimed to extend the borders of "greater Jerusalem" well beyond. Current Israeli maps articulate the basic plans clearly enough. On June 28, Israel's leading daily, Ha'aretz, published a map detailing "Israel's proposal for the permanent settlement." It is virtually identical to the government's "Final Status Map" presented a month earlier. The territory to be annexed around the greatly expanded "Jerusalem" extends in all directions. To the north it reaches well past Ramallah, and to the south well past Bethlehem, the two major nearby Palestinian towns. These are to be left under Palestinian control, but adjoining Israeli territory, and in the case of Ramallah, cut off from Palestinian territory to the east. Like all Palestinian territory, both towns are separated from Jerusalem, the center of West Bank life, by territory annexed to Israel. To the east, the territory to be annexed includes the rapidly growing Israeli town of Ma'ale Adumim and extends on to Vered Jericho, a small settlement bordering on the town of Jericho. The salient extends on to the Jordanian border. The entire Jordanian border is to be annexed to Israel along with the "Jerusalem" salient that partitions the West Bank. Another salient to be annexed farther north virtually imposes a second partition.

The intensive construction and settlement projects of the past years have been designed to "create facts" that would lead to this "permanent settlement." That has been the clear commitment of the successive governments since the first "Oslo agreement" of September 1993. Contrary to much commentary, the official doves (Rabin, Peres, Barak) have been at least as faithfully dedicated to this project as the much-condemned Binyamin Netanyahu, though they have been able to conduct the project with less protest; a familiar story, here as well. In February of this year the Israeli press reported that the number of building starts increased by almost one-third from 1998 (Netanyahu) to the current year (Barak). An analysis by Israeli correspondent Nadav Shragai reveals that only a small fraction of the lands assigned to the settlements are actually used for agricultural or other purposes. For Ma'ale Adumim, for example, the lands assigned to it are 16 times the area used, and similar proportions hold elsewhere. Palestinians have brought petitions to the Israeli High Court opposing the expansion of Ma'ale Adumim, but they have been rejected. Last November, rejecting an appeal, one High Court judge explained that "some good for the residents of the neighboring [Palestinian] villages might spring from the economic and cultural development of Ma'ale Adumim," effectively partitioning the West Bank.

The projects have been carried out thanks to the benevolence of US taxpayers, by a variety of "creative" devices to overcome the fact that US aid is officially barred for these purposes.

The intended result is that an eventual Palestinian state would consist of four cantons on the West Bank: (1) Jericho, (2) the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab "Jerusalem"), (3) a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm, and (4) a central canton including Ramallah. The cantons are completely surrounded by territory to be annexed to Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration are to be under Palestinian administration, an adaptation of the traditional colonial pattern that is the only sensible outcome as far as Israel and the US are concerned. The plans for the Gaza Strip, a fifth canton, are uncertain: Israel might relinquish it, or might maintain the southern coastal region and another salient virtually dividing the Strip below Gaza City.

These outlines are consistent with the proposals that have been put forth since 1968, when Israel adopted the "Allon plan," never presented formally but apparently intended to incorporate about 40% of the West Bank within Israel. Since then specific plans have been proposed by the ultra-right General Sharon, the Labor Party, and others. They are fairly similar in conception and outline. The basic principle is that the usable territory within the West Bank, and the crucial resources (primarily water), will remain under Israeli control, but the population will be controlled by a Palestinian client regime, which is expected to be corrupt, barbaric, and compliant. The Palestinian-administered cantons can then provide cheap and easily exploitable labor for the Israeli economy. Or in the long run, the population might be "transferred" elsewhere in one or another way, in accord with long-standing hopes.

It is possible to imagine "creative" schemes that would finesse the issues concerning the religious sites and the administration of Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem. But the more fundamental problems lie elsewhere. It is not at all clear that they can be sensibly resolved within the framework of nation-states that has been imposed throughout much of the world by Western conquest and domination, with murderous consequences within Europe itself for centuries, not to speak of the effects beyond until the present moment.'

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

'But a more intractable problem arises as soon as we ask a basic question: What is Jerusalem?

not being jewish myself, I cant really say the significance of Jerusalem to the jews people, but from what I understand its THEE most important spot for their religion. that city has been fought over since the beginning of mankind.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. should jews not have access to the city at all?

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

where did you get all this information? just for kicks, you threw in alot of non-Israel stuff?

I see nothing in there opposing a 2 state solution with borders drawn up.

From Wikipedia itself:

'Security Council resolutions dating back to 1976 supporting the two state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by the USA. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid 1970's.'

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=917
'Author of the book The Obstruction of Peace, Aruri is chancellor professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He said today: "Washington has never predicted, nor even contemplated that its own policies, subsumed under the misleading title 'peace process,' might someday prove to have been a contributory agent to a single state in [the area of] pre-1948 Palestine. U.S. accommodation of Israeli settlement policies and creeping annexation over several decades has created facts and conditions that could initially make a bi-national, multi-ethnic state (leading hopefully to a secular democracy) the only viable resolution, should apartheid and ethnic cleansing be deemed unacceptable options in the 21st century."

Aruri added: "The derailment of the two-state solution was accomplished through the accumulated effect of fruitless diplomatic efforts carried out by numerous U.S. presidents from Nixon to Clinton and Bush II. Between the signing of Oslo in 1993 and the present, the two strategic allies, Israel and the U.S., succeeded in creating their own rules of diplomatic engagement, which removed the Palestinians from the negotiating table and transformed the 'honest broker' to co-belligerent. Similarly, they created their own jurisprudence for an Israeli-Palestinian deal, which arbitrarily bestowed the West Bank on Israel, leaving Bush's vision of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state a mere rhetorical exercise, a fact that has been confirmed by Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, in today's Ha'aretz."

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

you also seem to have alot of faith in the UN as if they are something important

Some of us think that international law is important. It's a shame that the U.N is so badly hindered in its efforts by the over use of an automatic veto by certain countries.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

From Wikipedia itself:

'Security Council resolutions dating back to 1976 supporting the two state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by the USA. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid 1970's.'

exactly. it always comes down to the 1967 borders. Palestinians will accept nothing less except those borders. how can peace happen when they wont budge on this?

how bout they meet somewhere in the middle. and not just a cut and dry plan. a plan that stretches out over years, with both sides getting what they want over time providing that they can live side by side in peace.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Some of us think that international law is important. It's a shame that the U.N is so badly hindered in its efforts by the over use of an automatic veto by certain countries.

yea but the UN is joke. for example, what have they done in daufur ?

JamMastaE

jlew24asu wrote:

yea but the UN is joke. for example, what have they done in daufur ?

wow,we agree on something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

yea but the UN is joke. for example, what have they done in daufur ?

The U.N can only function with the support of it's member states, as I said above. Who was to blame for doing nothing in Bosnia for four years, and for failing Rwanda, for example? The U.N? Or the heads of those countries signed up to the U.N?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Regardless of everything, to be fair, the Jews do need a place to call home.

Everyone else seems to have one.

Funny I've been chatting with my Jewish friend. He moved to Canada from Israel in 1993, and despite everything I've told him, he does not think I'm anti-Semite at all, but totally understands why I think the way I do.

One think does strike me as odd, and that's Ahmadinejad playing down the holocaust. That is a bit concerning.

Jews surrounded by arabs, where can the Jews go? I guess this is their stand.

and it's ugly...

Byrnzie

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Regardless of everything, to be fair, the Jews do need a place to call home.

Everyone else seems to have one.

Funny I've been chatting with my Jewish friend. He moved to Canada from Israel in 1993, and despite everything I've told him, he does not think I'm anti-Semite at all, but totally understands why I think the way I do.

One think does strike me as odd, and that's Ahmadinejad playing down the holocaust. That is a bit concerning.

Jews surrounded by arabs, where can the Jews go? I guess this is their stand.

and it's ugly...

It would be fine if they did decide to 'stand' in the land alloted to them, and didn't instead seek to grab more and more land. I'd be the first one to support them if they returned to the internationally recognized borders, and made their 'stand' from there. Occupying the land belonging to the Palestinians doesn't constitute making a stand. It constitutes unjustified aggression.