U.S. defence of Israel hurts its Iraq resolution at UN

[No Passaran]

http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=330AAF90-93BA-4BAB-9EC0-0015F60FB228


Diplomats in the UN Security Council said Washington would now have a "much harder" time trying to get a resolution that would open the way for new contributions of cash and troops in Iraq.

Syria is using its position on the Security Council to push fellow members to pass a separate resolution that would condemn Israel for the attack.





- Way to go! Another example of how much money US taxpayers have to cough up just because of our support of Israel and Sharon.

[ConcernedCanuk]

1. I could never fathom the USA-Israeli connection

Isreal is KNOWN to have 200+ nukes - and gawd knows what else - along with the USA's Blessings and BILLIONS of Murikkkan dollars in aid

The only thing I can see that makes sense to me is that Israel is Murikkka's "toe-hold" on the Middle East

Murikka doesn't give aid unless they get something back - IMHO

From the article:

"UNITED NATIONS - The United States faced new obstacles to securing UN help in Iraq yesterday after George W. Bush, the U.S. President, refused to criticize Israel for its weekend attack inside Syria."

<snip>

But the potential for any Arab support was diminished as Mr. Bush's reaction to the Israeli attack contrasted sharply with the Arab view Israel had acted without provocation or justification.

The U.S. President said he had told Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, he believed Israel has "a right to defend itself" and should "not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland.''

<snip>

OK - Let's face it

- the BFEE WANTS this to escalate

- I don't care WHAT they say out loud -

Yuppers - 'fraid I will believe anything bad about the Administration the USA has in the WH these days

Sad - but true

(sigh)

[Mal]

2. Religion is a good place to start 'fathoming'

The US being the most powerful secular theocracy in the world, and somewhere in their subconcious christianity apparently has gone full-circle, from blaming Jews for killing Christ, to seeing the existance of Israel as being a vital prerequisite to the coming of the Kingdom of God.
Of course there'll be more, but I believe that's a big part of it.

[schultzee]

3. The Fundies want the world to end as soon as possible so that

the literal interpretation of the bible can come true. I read an article yesterday that was very unsettling. American is going crazy and I just wish I had a sane refuge.

[Nevernose]

4. This doesn't have anything to do w/ the BFEE or Armageddon

Many people, myself included, see Israel as the victim here. Why do they have 200 nukes? Because of the numerous invasions they've suffered over the last 50 years. Why does Syria support terrorists? Because conventional military force doesn't work. Why did they bomb a terrorist training camp in Syria? They were training TERRORISTS!

The PLO (and the dozen or so other anti-Jewish terrorist organizations in the area) as well as most of the local governments have said they will settle for nothing less that the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. Genocide. And they don't just use the word "genocide," they've attempted it.

I don't want armageddon, or ragnarok, or some other end of the world myth taking place -- I don't give a rat's ass about religion. What I want (and most of the Israelis want) is for the sizable minority of Muslim extremists in the region to stop murdering people (Jews) at random. I think the Israelis are justified in using any means neccesary to see this accomplished.

[atreides1]

6. Hitler

..also believed that the ends justify the means, so did most dictators and tyrants in the worlds history.

By your definition the US can kill innocent Afghans, Iraqis, and any one else that might present an intent to do something to this country.
They don't have to actually do anything, all they have to do is think about it. Then we will drop bombs and kill them, as long as they have no way to defend themselves. Which is why we won't attack North Korea.

Israel's hands are not free from the shedding of innocent blood either.

If I remember my history, the last time that Israel was actually attacked by one of its Arab neighbors was back in the 70's. Almost 30 years ago. Most of the attacks since have been made by terrorist groups backed and funded by certain Arab countries. But now in the name of self defense Israel can kill anyone who might present a threat. Based on this way of thinking the Japanese were justified in attacking the US.

I don't believe in the ends justifying the means, some sections of the Israeli government have never wanted peace, and have gone out of their way to make sure that their agenda is now the primary one.

So if the ends justify the means, and pre-emptive attacks are now the
sanctioned plan, we won't be surprised if the North Koreans come over the DMZ one day, will we?

[Nevernose]

8. I was trying to illustrate that this is not a VRWC

That very rational, reasonable, and progressive people (like me, for instance) can be rabidly pro-Israel, and not be trying to bring about the armageddon (the first three posts in this thread)

I supported (and continue to support) our actions in Afghanistan. Their government, through its harboring of Al Qaeda, was a direct threat to the United States. Iraq is an ENTIRELY different situation, however.

If I remember my history, the last time that Israel was actually attacked by one of its Arab neighbors was back in the 70's. Almost 30 years ago. Most of the attacks since have been made by terrorist groups backed and funded by certain Arab countries.
Israel is STILL being attacked by its Arab neighbors, only instead of using traditional forces, conventional or guerilla, they are using terrorists. The Israeli raid into Syria was not pre-emptive, it was retaliatory self-defense.

Israel's hands are not free from the shedding of innocent blood either.

The difference, as I see it, is that the Israelis have not gone out of their way to kill innocent civilians. They go after legitimate military targets, and unfortunately innocents get caught in the crossfire. The same cannot be said for madmen who get on schoolbuses with C-4 strapped to their bellies. And where do they get the C-4 from, anyway? Syria.

I don't believe in the ends justifying the means, some sections of the Israeli government have never wanted peace, and have gone out of their way to make sure that their agenda is now the primary one

I agree with you there. While I fully support the Iraeli government's willingness to use whatever force necessary to protect their people, the Likud party doesn't give a rat's ass about diplomacy. The "stick" doesn't work without the "carrot," and the Israeli government's unwillingness or inability to negotiate honestly is one of the major reasons they have not yet seen peace. They need a Rabin; they've got a Sharon. The poor bastards.

[Evil_Dewers]

7. Israel is a rogue state in possession of hundreds of WMD.

They aren't party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

What happens when a terrorist finally smuggles a suitcase nuke into Tel Aviv and detonates it? Is Israel going to launch its 200 nuclear missiles at Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, etc...?

[Nevernose]

9. Yep.

They used to have what they termed "The Masada Complex" where they would all die before being conquered by an enemy. Now they have "The Sampson Complex" wherein they will all die, but by God take their enemies with them. Scary fuckin' place, huh?

What happens when a terrorist finally smuggles a suitcase nuke into Tel Aviv and detonates it? Is Israel going to launch its 200 nuclear missiles at Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, etc...?

Israel hopes whatever rogue state gives the terrorist that suitcase bomb knows that it will be wiped from the face of the earth, and assumes that that fact will be a good deterrant.
** ** ** ** ** **
I never said that there WOULDN'T be an armageddon, merely that armageddon was not the purpose in the United State's continued support of Israel, that reasonable people think Israel is in the right for moral reasons, not religious.

[Zhade]

24. Are you serious?

reasonable people think Israel is in the right for moral reasons

You can't seriously take the position that the Likud government is acting morally. That's not reasonable, it's completely detached from reality.

[LivingInTheBubble]

11. yeah?

I've heard your script so many times before.

Simple solution, they should be expelled from the land they are occupying to a friendly country (the US is big, i'm sure you could squeeze them in) then nobody will allegedly want to wipe them out and everyone will be happy except religious extremists.

[Nevernose]

12. Like we did with the Scottish and the Irish

When the English kicked them off of their land (that's how my 8xgreat grandfather got here, back in 1712)?

For someone who lives in a country -- Great Britain -- which commits hundreds of human rights violations in a year -- such as locking up alleged terrorists without trial, sometimes for decades -- it seems a little hypocritical to condmen a nation like Israel who has done far less against its enemies.

[LivingInTheBubble]

14. Stick to the actual situation.

"When the English kicked them off of their land (that's how my 8xgreat grandfather got here, back in 1712)? "
The situation is not the same at all, They are occupying other peoples land against numerous UN resolutions.

"For someone who lives in a country -- Great Britain -- which commits hundreds of human rights violations in a year"
I am no apologist for our regime! But that is unrelated to the subject at hand - are you just slinging mud randomly?


I found it amusing that you described yourself as "very rational, reasonable, and progressive" and then went on to disprove it :-)

[Nevernose]

18. It's a matter of perspective

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think that the Israelis are occupying anyone else's land. Therefore, kicking the Israelis off of their land and sending them to America is analogous to the English kicking the Scottish or Irish off of their land and sending them to America. This is not the only time in history that one nation has expelled an entire group of people, leaving them nowhere to go except the United States. We're not arguing with the same premise at all, which is really the root of the problem in Palestine, isn't it?

I am no apologist for our regime! But that is unrelated to the subject at hand - are you just slinging mud randomly?

I directed this at you, personally, unintentionally; I apologize. I think a broader accusation is merited, however, in the sense that G.B. will gladly condemn Israel in the Untied Nations, at the same time locking up suspected terrorists (or even acquantances of terrorists) without trial for decades. Israel, at least, has a fairly active judiciary that is constantly ordering the release of Palestinians. Can Britain's high court (the Queen's Bench?) say the same?

[beanball]

13. What the blank are you talking about?

arabs commit murder and the israeli thugs kill for defensive reasons,what a crock of crap,the sharon thugs are just plain racist.

[Julien Sorel]

19. To which invasions are you referring?

I always enjoy the answer to this question.

[Nevernose]

20. '49, '67, '73

Fortunately for Israel, none of them were successful -- in fact, they even gained land. Israel did nothing to provoke these attacks, except to populated by Jews. After the '73 war (in which the Arab nations aligned against Israel never made it out of the starting gate), they switched tactics, or (like Egypt and perhaps Saudi Arabia and Jordan) learned to live in peace.

Wasn't there one in the fifties, too?

Israel DID take the Golan Heights from Syria and Lebanon in '82, but I'm not sure if this counts as an invasion, since they weren't trying to take all of the two countries, just the parts that the people with mortars and rockets were shooting into Israel from.

(forgive me if my years are off)

[Julien Sorel]

23. You have it exactly backwards.

Israel did the invading in 1967; and Israel was not invaded in 1973; Egypt and Syria launched a limited war to recapture territory that Israel occupied and refused to return to them -- neither the Egyptians nor the Syrians set foot on Israeli soil, nor was that their plan.

Israel took the Golan Heights in the Six Days War in 1967, not in 1982 as you stated, and refused to return it, which led to the 1973 war, while the invasion of Lebanon of 1982 had nothing to do with 'mortars and rockets,' and everything to do with Israel's desire to wipe out the PLO and solidify its hold on the West Bank.

The war to which you referred 'in the fifties' was an Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956. In actual fact, Israel has been far more antagonistic to its neighbors than they have been to it.

I hate to sound rude, but you are so astonishingly off that perhaps you should either spend some time educating yourself on this topic, or refrain from commenting on it entirely in the future. It is the facilely-offered opinions of people such as yourself that has allowed the situation there to continue to fester for decades, and it is becoming far too important an issue to be ruled by falsehoods presented as truths.

[Nevernose]

25. You were waiting for that, weren't you?

However, you are wrong.

Upon independence, Israel was invaded by the armies of six Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Jewish Israelis.

The Sinai War (1956)
The invasion and temprorary conquest of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula by Israel, while France and Great Britain seized the Suez Canal.

The Six-Day War (1967)
In a rapid pre-emptive attack, Israel crushed the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and seized large amounts of land from each. Iraq also participated in the fighting on the Arab side.

The Yom Kippur (Ramadan) War (1973)
In a surprise attack launched on the Jewish Yom Kippur holiday (the dates also fell on the Muslim Ramadan holiday), Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Despite aid from Iraq, the Arab forces failed to defeat Israel.

The Osirak Raid (1981)
An Israeli air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.


The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon (1982-1984)
In response to repeated guerrilla attacks by the PLO, which were launched from South Lebanon, Israel invaded with the intent of destroying Arafat's forces. Syria, which maintained a large army in Lebanon, fought Israel and suffered an embarrassing defeat.

It is the facilely-offered opinions of people such as yourself that has allowed the situation there to continue to fester for decades, and it is becoming far too important an issue to be ruled by falsehoods presented as truths.

The same could easily be said about people such as yourself, who apparently refuse to even consider the fact that there might be other, equally valid interpretations of "truth." I would submit that your adamantly anti-Jewish interpretation of events not only smack of Palestinian propoganda, but are equally "facile."

I'm also not sure that being "facile" is a bad thing, though, as NOT being facile would imply difficulty in comprehending. Obtuseness is generally considered a bad thing (kudos on using it as an adverb, though -- I've never seen it done with "facile" before).

[tinnypriv]

26. So you can use google

Fucking-a, man. :eyes:

Every word BillyBunter said was correct, and that crap you pulled off your browser is no refutation, nor is your inability to understand that fact an excuse for continuing to post nonsense.

[Nevernose]

29. Never denied googling

I don't have an "inability to understand;" I have a different view of the same facts. We all know the facts here; what we're arguing is the interpretation of the facts

Here's something else I googled. I think its significant because they were the first two major hurdles towards peace in the Middle East, and they share one thing in common: neither side lays any blame on the other whatsoever; they just agree to coexist peacefully.

CONVINCED of the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

REAFFIRMING their adherence to the "Framework for Peace in the Middle East Agreed at Camp David," dated September 17, 1978

NOTING THAT the aforementioned Framework as appropriate is intended to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel but also between Israel and each of its other Arab neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with it on this basis;

DESIRING to bring to an end the state of war between them and to establish a peace in which every state in the area can live in security

CONVINCED THAT the conclusion of a Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel is an important step in the search for comprehensive peace in the area and for the attainment of settlement of the Arab- Israeli conflict in all its aspects

INIVITING the other Arab parties to this dispute to join the peace process with Israel guided by and based on the principles of the aforementioned Framework;

DESIRING as well to develop friendly relations and cooperation between themselves in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law governing international relations in times of peace

AGREE TO the following provisions in the free exercise of their sovereignty; in order to implement the "Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel":

AND

The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Government of the State of Israel:

Bearing in mind the Washington Declaration, signed by them on 25th July, 1994, and which they are both committed to honor;

Aiming at the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 in all their aspects;

Bearing in mind the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace based on freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights, thereby overcoming psychological barriers and promoting human dignity;

Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and recognizing their right and obligation to live in peace with each other as well as with all states, within secure and recognized boundaries;

Desiring to develop friendly relations and co-operation between them in accordance with the principles of international law governing international relations in time of peace;

Desiring as well to ensure lasting security for both their States and in particular to avoid threats and the use of force between them;

Bearing in mind that in their Washington Declaration of 25th July, 1994, they declared the termination of the state of belligerency between them;

Deciding to establish peace between them in accordance with this Treaty of Peace;

Have agreed as follows:

[Julien Sorel]

27. Instead of arguing with you,

I will suggest you read some of your own sources. For example, the 1967 war blurb clearly states Israel attacked the Arabs -- contrary to your previous statement that the Arabs 'invaded' Israel. You didn't even backpeddle on that one.

The 1973 blurb says the Arabs attacked Israel, but fails to mention that attack came on Arab soil that Israel was occupying.

And so on.

The word 'facile,' as I used it, clearly denoted 'superficiality,' or 'looseness;' perhaps 'sloppy' would do as well. Of course, there are far less pleasent adverbs that would be equally accurate.

[Nevernose]

28. They gave the land back

They didn't keep it until after the '73 war. I apologize if I didn't cut and paste a larger blurb. ;) But again, I think the key word here is "pre-eminent." Unlike Bush, the Israelis really were faced with imminent invasion (note that in my original post I specifically pointed out that none of the Arab invasions had been successful). Also, I don't think that any of the Arab nations involved deny the fact that they were planning to invade (if I am wrong, I'm sure you will correct me, but please produce links).

At this point, we can't even agree on the PREMISE of our argument. Which is the point I was making in my original post, and in most of my points since: there are no easy solutions in Israel/Palestine, since many people can't even agree on what the PROBLEMS are. If there's a lesson here, I don't think its "I'm right and you're wrong."

I would also like to point out that, if you read my earlier posts, I have been highly critical of Sharon/Likud (though not of Israeli use of military force in general). What I do NOT see in your posts -- or anywhere else at DU -- is anything beyond the most broad, general statements possible condoning anything wrong the Palestinians may have done. I don't think that this is fair or particularly accurate. I ask you, for instance: what have the Palestinians done to screw up the "peace process?"

Also, BillyBunter, you are a far more eloquent and persuasive writer than I, and it seems a shame to waste such talent on ad hominem attacks (you get points for the subtlety, though)

[Zhade]

22. You left something out.

Because of the numerous invasions they've suffered over the last 50 years.

Why have those happened? In part, because Israel was founded on stolen land, and the Palestininans have suffered brutally as a result.

No, Israel is not the only one killing innocents here. But no, Israel is also not an innocent victim. The Israeli government plays a huge role in getting itself attacked over its own actions.

[goforit]

5. How long are the Arabs gonna put up being walked on?

I guess it would be OK then for Korea to attack
the US if it feels threatenned by Bush!!!

Some day I hope This GD family eats every word they
have ever said 100 times over.

[mmm]

10. Washington will now have a "much harder" time getting UN resolution

did the price to bribe UN members just go up by thirty billion or will it be more?

[peterh]

15. Call me cynical…but the bushco interest in a new UN resolution

is for appearance sake only. Bush is going to get his money regardless…if not from others, then from us. It’s really all about control, and without giving up some, any resolution is dead-on-arrival…and bushco is not going to budge on that.

[Red_Storm]

16. The War In Iraq ...............

Israel attacks Syria........Bush defends Israel and somewhere in the distance an Al Qaeda recruiter is smiling..........

[muffit]

17. and That is the Truth

It is what I find so frustrating about the whole situation. When will they realise that you can not for any length of time subjugate a people into submission by the use of force alone. Human nature will repel against this sort of pressure, in fact it may even be a natural survival trait of all animals, even if it means giving up your life to help create something better for the next generation.

What does it achieve to try to detroy an ant hill with a sledge hammer. Sure you get some of the ants, but at the end of the process, you just have ALOT more angry ants to deal with.

(I am not trying to be condesending to the Arab people with this example, just looking for a methaphor to illustrate to stupidiity of the current approach)

[wabeewoman]

21. An eye for an eye and the whole world ends up blind....

obviously this tactic isn't working so its time to try something else. The US is being an Israeli appologist in the eyes of the rest of the world and Israel is acting like a bully because they can. And how do you justify them putting up more settlements in an area they are supposed to vacate? I don't buy the terrorist theory either. As far as I'm concerned the Israeli government is a terrorist just like the Palestines. Any country who decides to murder(and routinely assassinates people)the elected head of another government isn't lily white even if they are taking their lead from the USA. Its time to put some grown-ups in charge of the middle east. There is no justification for any of the killing.