I would have to disagree with you on that pointfor example the UK and Germany have presented reolutions against Israel and against the PA, France has also presented resolutions at one time or another and these have been of the countrues own free will. Also some of the more moderate arab states have presented resolutions only to have then vetoed, even vetoes that have had many countries signatures on them have simple been vetoed.
I remember going back almsot two years now and there was an interview with the former British ambassador to the UN and the issue of Israel and Palestine came up. I remember he was scathing in his view on the Palestinan authorities and Hamas however this is what he said about Israel " and of course when it comes to Israel they know they can violate international laws as they please because they have a certain ally that will never accept any criticism of that state"
Is Hamas violating international law? How about Iran and Syria? How about Hezbollah? Can you name one UN resolution that solely blames any conflict on Arab states or Islamic Terrorists?
I mentioned in my post that most resolutions are aimed at Israel and are lobbied or sponsored by Arabs. Occasionally there are others in the EU that do sponsor resolutions and the US isn’t always right for vetoing them.
If you notice, the resolutions vetoed are never taken back and reworded or reworked for more acceptable content that the US will agree upon. It’s either condemn Israel or condemn Israel and lightly condemn Islamic Terrorists.
Usually a resolution is only sponsored after Israeli actions, even if they are responding or simply initiating the violence. To this day, Hezbollah hasn’t honored the agreement for the cease fire from the last war by releasing the Israeli soldiers or laying down their arms.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
Is Hamas violating international law? How about Iran and Syria? How about Hezbollah? Can you name one UN resolution that solely blames any conflict on Arab states or Islamic Terrorists?
I mentioned in my post that most resolutions are aimed at Israel and are lobbied or sponsored by Arabs. Occasionally there are others in the EU that do sponsor resolutions and the US isn’t always right for vetoing them.
If you notice, the resolutions vetoed are never taken back and reworded or reworked for more acceptable content that the US will agree upon. It’s either condemn Israel or condemn Israel and lightly condemn Islamic Terrorists.
Usually a resolution is only sponsored after Israeli actions, even if they are responding or simply initiating the violence. To this day, Hezbollah hasn’t honored the agreement for the cease fire from the last war by releasing the Israeli soldiers or laying down their arms.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
If you notice, the resolutions vetoed are never taken back and reworded or reworked for more acceptable content that the US will agree upon. It’s either condemn Israel or condemn Israel and lightly condemn Islamic Terrorists.
Are you kidding in one instance the UK tried to rewrite a resolution 4 times and every time the US vetoed it. It's a well known fact that in some cases US diplomats don't even read the resolution just veto it if they know it will result in a condemantion or sanctions against Israel and that is just as bad as not condemming Hamas and thier buddies.
US diplomats don't even read the resolution just veto it if they know it will result in a condemantion or sanctions against Israel and that is just as bad as not condemming Hamas and thier buddies.[/COLOR] [/B]
didnt realise you were in contact with US diplomats and how they work, what a statement to make then you compare that to being as bad as terrorist, i think some peoples perception are quite strange!!
lodgebo wrote
Are you kidding in one instance the UK tried to rewrite a resolution 4 times and every time the US vetoed it. It's a well known fact that in some cases US diplomats don't even read the resolution just veto it if they know it will result in a condemantion or sanctions against Israel
If this is the case, I’m not aware of it. Usually what I see is a resolution heavily condemning Israel and making mention sometimes of Islamic terrorists. But clearly the lay blame almost squarely on Israel’s shoulders.
I also asked a question in which you’ve yet to answer. Do you know of any resolutions that blames Hamas, Jihad, Brigade, or any Islamic Terrorist Org alone for any violence? There’s plenty that blame Israel alone and the one’s that make weak reference to Islamic Terrorists usually aren’t written up until after Israel takes some sort of action.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
I also asked a question in which you’ve yet to answer. Do you know of any resolutions that blames Hamas, Jihad, Brigade, or any Islamic Terrorist Org alone for any violence? There’s plenty that blame Israel alone and the one’s that make weak reference to Islamic Terrorists usually aren’t written up until after Israel takes some sort of action.
There have been a few I don't know any of the resolution numbers but there certainly have been a few aimed at Hamas ( political wing) and toward Syria. The problem is that to bring resolutions out against terror groups is an absolutely pointless exercises, they are already acting illegally so exactly how do you punish them? there has been plenty of condemnation when terror attacks happen in Israel or anywhere in the world for that matter. but if you think we are going to get parity where we treat terrorists and government in the same manner then that is just a dream.
didnt realise you were in contact with US diplomats and how they work, what a statement to make then you compare that to being as bad as terrorist, i think some peoples perception are quite strange!!
Don't need to be in contact with US diplomats it's a well known fact who's side they will take no matter, a quck look st some of the resolutions they have vetoed will show you that.
Think about this when Hamas or any other terrorist group attacks Israel then along with Israel the first country to condemm the terrorists is the US now that is right and proper because what these terrorists have done is violate international laws , but when Israel does things which can be proven are against international law the silence from Washington is deafening and any time people try to punish Israel the US vetoes it. So for the US to condemm one group and support another is almost as bad as Hamas political wing supporting an attack on Israel. Both acts are illegal and many innocents will have died on both sides but the perpetraitors of both acts know they will get support in thier actions from at least one group.
lodgebo wrote
The problem is that to bring resolutions out against terror groups is an absolutely pointless exercises, they are already acting illegally….
…. if you think we are going to get parity where we treat terrorists and government in the same manner then that is just a dream
I couldn’t agree more with this so now what do you do when you’re a state and you have these terrorist orgs attacking your societies?
Clearly this is why Iran would rather fund and support Hezbollah than the official Lebanese government because they can act illegally while Israel is demanded to act within International Law.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
What do you do? simple you go after the leaders not the civlians don't stoop to thier level. I know it this may not be on the same level but when I was in the SAS if a major attack happend in the UK or to British troops we were in Ireland within the hour and the leaders or high up's in the terror orgs were going to have a nasty accident we did that and as a result the main civlian casulties came from the terror groups who quckly lost support at home and we won the majority of the battles. The thing was bombing downtown Belfast because it was an IRA strognhold was not an option we wanted to be better then them we probabaly would have ignored that order even if it was authorised by Maggie.
Now obvioulsy some countries do things diffrently but I seriously doubt that the IDF don't have a anti - terror special forces unit, mind you if they do what exaclty does it do?
Lodge, what do you do when they are shooting rockets into your communities from civilian locations? You have to know this is a tactic by these terrorist orgs. They hide amongst civilians and they fight from among them as well.
But even with what you suggest, going after leadership. Israel has done this and still receives condemnation. When they killed the guy in the wheelchair, many in the UN condemned Israel, especially the Arab States.
I believe we have no idea how many times Israel has called off strikes because of civilian casualties but I believe there are many. These terrorist purposely aim at civilians while shooting at them from among their own civilians. We have yet for one Arab State to condemn them for this.
Allow me to slightly digress, but they kill others as well as themselves by the hundreds and Arabs say nothing about it. But when Israel kill a Palestinians, their in the streets tearing their clothes off and chanting death to Israel and America. It’s the height of hypocrisy.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
[i]
Don't need to be in contact with US diplomats it's a well known fact who's side they will take no matter, a quck look st some of the resolutions they have vetoed will show you that. [/B]
Again you may think you know but you have no hard proof or work yourself as a diplomat, only eveidence is hear say!!
quote:
[i]
Think about this when Hamas or any other terrorist group attacks Israel then along with Israel the first country to condemm the terrorists is the US now that is right and proper because what these terrorists have done is violate international laws , but when Israel does things which can be proven are against international law the silence from Washington is deafening and any time people try to punish Israel the US vetoes it. So for the US to condemm one group and support another is almost as bad as Hamas political wing supporting an attack on Israel. Both acts are illegal and many innocents will have died on both sides but the perpetraitors of both acts know they will get support in thier actions from at least one group. [/B]
If terrorists attack they follow no rules of engagment nor International laws so the only way to compete at times is on their level fight fire with fire!!
drew1980 said this in post #4 : what im aksing is they are not from palaestine whare are they from all we know is about 400 years ago they were enslaved in egypt so what we know they are from egypt
the jews were enslaved by Egypt a few thousand years ago dude, they've been in israel for about 3000 years.
11-23-2006 11:05 PM
