Israel & Palestine-Real Story
- Thread starter missi1013
- Start date
Monkey,
You got me. I have intentionally tried to decieve you by spending hours determining which is the LEAST credible website I could find. Then, on top of that, I purposefully lied to you and said that they made claims to be "fair and unpartial" because I clearly looked over all the website and went to the homepage of the editor, saw he was a muslim with an agenda and tried to decieve you all.
Well luckily, monkey was here to figure out my clever ruse and expose me for the fraud I am. It certainly was not a mistake; rather, it was a calculated manuver that warrants a departure from the issues at hand to a self-gratifying attempt to prove me wrong over and over again....
Thank you, monkey. Thank you for being the TRUE unbaised, impartial moderator of this forum and for not letting me continue to get away with my leftist, conspiracy agenda....
You got me. I have intentionally tried to decieve you by spending hours determining which is the LEAST credible website I could find. Then, on top of that, I purposefully lied to you and said that they made claims to be "fair and unpartial" because I clearly looked over all the website and went to the homepage of the editor, saw he was a muslim with an agenda and tried to decieve you all.
Well luckily, monkey was here to figure out my clever ruse and expose me for the fraud I am. It certainly was not a mistake; rather, it was a calculated manuver that warrants a departure from the issues at hand to a self-gratifying attempt to prove me wrong over and over again....
Thank you, monkey. Thank you for being the TRUE unbaised, impartial moderator of this forum and for not letting me continue to get away with my leftist, conspiracy agenda....
The Camp David summit saw Israel give this proposal:
Essentials of the Camp David II Proposals by Israel
1. Palestinian Statehood and Conditions
A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:
-The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
-The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
-Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
-Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
-Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
-The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
-Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
2. Refugees
The Palestine refugee problem would be solved in the following way:
-Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement.
-Israel would allow the return of around 100,000 refugees under “humanitarian” grounds in the form of family reunions and considers such a step as compliance with UN Resolution 194.
-According to one source, the Palestinian State would be limited in the number of refugees it could absorb to half a million refugees according to a fixed timetable. This is not confirmed by other sources and is problematic, since a much larger number of refugees, well over a million, already live in camps in Gaza and the West Bank.
-An international fund would compensate refugees. Israel, the U.S. and Europe are to contribute. According to one source, this fund would also provide compensation to Jews who were forced to leave their possessions in Arab countries when they fled to Israel.
3. Jerusalem
Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dees, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre.
Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions.
Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian administration of holy shrines in the old city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be allowed to hoist the Palestinian flag over the Islamic and Christian shrines along with a safe passage linking northern Jerusalem, which would be annexed to the West Bank, to those areas so that Palestinians and Muslims would not pass through lands under Israeli sovereignty.
4. Land Area of Palestine
The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division beween the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.
In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).
The major settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem corridor would be annexed to Israel: Efrat, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumim. The town of Ariel and the corridor along the trans-Samaria highway would be annexed to Israel. The Jewish settlement town of Qiriat Arba would remain under Israeli administration in the heart of Palestinian territory, with a single road through Palestinian territory reaching it from the south. Isolated Jewish settlements including the settlement in Hebron, would come under Palestinian jurisdiction and would probably be abandoned.
Essentials of the Camp David II Proposals by Israel
1. Palestinian Statehood and Conditions
A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:
-The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
-The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
-Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
-Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
-Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
-The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
-Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
2. Refugees
The Palestine refugee problem would be solved in the following way:
-Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement.
-Israel would allow the return of around 100,000 refugees under “humanitarian” grounds in the form of family reunions and considers such a step as compliance with UN Resolution 194.
-According to one source, the Palestinian State would be limited in the number of refugees it could absorb to half a million refugees according to a fixed timetable. This is not confirmed by other sources and is problematic, since a much larger number of refugees, well over a million, already live in camps in Gaza and the West Bank.
-An international fund would compensate refugees. Israel, the U.S. and Europe are to contribute. According to one source, this fund would also provide compensation to Jews who were forced to leave their possessions in Arab countries when they fled to Israel.
3. Jerusalem
Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dees, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre.
Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions.
Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian administration of holy shrines in the old city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be allowed to hoist the Palestinian flag over the Islamic and Christian shrines along with a safe passage linking northern Jerusalem, which would be annexed to the West Bank, to those areas so that Palestinians and Muslims would not pass through lands under Israeli sovereignty.
4. Land Area of Palestine
The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division beween the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.
In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).
The major settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem corridor would be annexed to Israel: Efrat, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumim. The town of Ariel and the corridor along the trans-Samaria highway would be annexed to Israel. The Jewish settlement town of Qiriat Arba would remain under Israeli administration in the heart of Palestinian territory, with a single road through Palestinian territory reaching it from the south. Isolated Jewish settlements including the settlement in Hebron, would come under Palestinian jurisdiction and would probably be abandoned.
Jimmy, something from the US State Dept. would do fine. That's where I got my info.
The BBC
Here's Lehrer
CNN Special Report
You don't need to rely on French Op-Eds and Arab-run websites for your information.
The BBC
Here's Lehrer
CNN Special Report
You don't need to rely on French Op-Eds and Arab-run websites for your information.
Both sides can provide their views by referencing many sources; all seem to be biased in one direction or another. Depending on how you interpret the material you can have totally differing views. What you can’t argue against is that upon its creation Israel became a member state of the UN. This means that they have agreed to conduct themselves in the international arena in accordance with the agreed upon rules contained within the UN Charter. They are bound by those rules like all the member states are.
The Partition Plan clearly defined how that region would be divided. This is the only legitimate baseline for border definition that can be used. Any gains acquired during conflict violate principles of the UN Charter, so they must be returned to the party giving claim. The fact that the disputed territory isn’t under a recognized member state is of no significance to these agreements.
The Palestinians are entitled to the land by the fact that when the UN created Israel it clearly defined what would be the fate of the areas in question. A portion would become an Arab state, A portion would become the state of Israel, and Jerusalem would be a neutral independent city under UN control.
So again I ask, what gives Israel any right to territory beyond what was given them when they became an independent nation because of the UN?
My next issue with this topic is our continued support of a nation that abuses that relationship with us. They do this by spying on us and selling our secrets or using them for their own benefit. By stealing nuclear material, providing safe haven for fugitives from justice in the US of A, and more recently by acquiring major communications systems and networks allowing them unencumbered access to voice and data communications systems throughout the United States of America. And to top it off, we buy their military hardware with our tax dollars.
The human rights violations each side inflicts upon the other are tragic and need to stop. How should it stop? I think it should begin by getting back to the original agreement and building from there. Re-evaluating our relationship with Israel and strengthening our relations with other regional inhabitants. To include how we spend our tax dollars in that region.
Now, how does this view indicate that I am for pushing the Israelis into the sea?
The Partition Plan clearly defined how that region would be divided. This is the only legitimate baseline for border definition that can be used. Any gains acquired during conflict violate principles of the UN Charter, so they must be returned to the party giving claim. The fact that the disputed territory isn’t under a recognized member state is of no significance to these agreements.
The Palestinians are entitled to the land by the fact that when the UN created Israel it clearly defined what would be the fate of the areas in question. A portion would become an Arab state, A portion would become the state of Israel, and Jerusalem would be a neutral independent city under UN control.
So again I ask, what gives Israel any right to territory beyond what was given them when they became an independent nation because of the UN?
My next issue with this topic is our continued support of a nation that abuses that relationship with us. They do this by spying on us and selling our secrets or using them for their own benefit. By stealing nuclear material, providing safe haven for fugitives from justice in the US of A, and more recently by acquiring major communications systems and networks allowing them unencumbered access to voice and data communications systems throughout the United States of America. And to top it off, we buy their military hardware with our tax dollars.
The human rights violations each side inflicts upon the other are tragic and need to stop. How should it stop? I think it should begin by getting back to the original agreement and building from there. Re-evaluating our relationship with Israel and strengthening our relations with other regional inhabitants. To include how we spend our tax dollars in that region.
Now, how does this view indicate that I am for pushing the Israelis into the sea?
Ken,
Thank you for bringing this issue back into focus. The point here, as Ken said, really lies in Israel's need to comply with the UN guidelines and anything less is unacceptable.
Your opinions of the Arab community or the actions of Palestinian militants doesn't change the international laws involved here.
You may not like it, Israel may not like it, but that's what needs to be done. If Israel DOESN'T want to comply with the UN, then they can back out, cut ties to member states and fend for themselves, which I highly doubt they'd want to do.
A brokered peace is the only peace possible in that area. You all are right in your assessment that Arafat has not done all he can in this situation. You are wrong, however, to place the blame squarely on his shoulders.
I think one of the reasons I come down so strongly on his side (maybe why Ken appears to be doing so as well to you all) is that you all seem to have NO intentions of seeing both sides of this situation as you've already made up your minds.
So in attempting to bring to light things that the American Propaganda machine (which is HIGHLY pro-Israel and if THAT'S the kind of sources YOU are looking for, I would question that as well!) fails to recognize.
Both sides are culpable here. If you can't see that, you don't understand the situation or you are closing your eyes. End of story.
Thank you for bringing this issue back into focus. The point here, as Ken said, really lies in Israel's need to comply with the UN guidelines and anything less is unacceptable.
Your opinions of the Arab community or the actions of Palestinian militants doesn't change the international laws involved here.
You may not like it, Israel may not like it, but that's what needs to be done. If Israel DOESN'T want to comply with the UN, then they can back out, cut ties to member states and fend for themselves, which I highly doubt they'd want to do.
A brokered peace is the only peace possible in that area. You all are right in your assessment that Arafat has not done all he can in this situation. You are wrong, however, to place the blame squarely on his shoulders.
I think one of the reasons I come down so strongly on his side (maybe why Ken appears to be doing so as well to you all) is that you all seem to have NO intentions of seeing both sides of this situation as you've already made up your minds.
So in attempting to bring to light things that the American Propaganda machine (which is HIGHLY pro-Israel and if THAT'S the kind of sources YOU are looking for, I would question that as well!) fails to recognize.
Both sides are culpable here. If you can't see that, you don't understand the situation or you are closing your eyes. End of story.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
So, what you're saying is, the ONLY informed view anyone can possibly have, is one that is anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian, because anything else is succumbing to the American Propaganda machine? It's not possible for an informed person to arrive at a conclusion other than your own?
And to top it off - rather than continue the discussion, you say that such persons are - closing their eyes, don't understand the situation, made up their own minds, no intention of seeing both sides of the situation.
So either they all must agree with you - or they are all of the above?
You're doing the same thing - it just looks different from your end.
Frank,
No I'm not saying that at all. If you re-read the post, I said that all I was trying to do was to get you to see that BOTH sides are at fault here and it's not all Arafat. And, in fact, many of the problems are on Israel's side in regards to their ignoring the UN resolutions. That's not PRO-Palestinian OR Anti-Israeli; it's pro-international law and pro diplomacy.
I said nothing about people who find Arafat at some fault here as closing their eyes. The people I see closing their eyes are the ones that refuse to admit that Israel has any culpability in this situation and who STILL haven't addressed what Ken and I keep bringing up over and over and over again about the UN resolutions.
Tell me why those resolutions shouldn't be enforced? Tell me what justification Israel has to continuously break international law?
It's fine to arrive at a conclusion that is different from mine. But when it's not backed up by any rationale or fact, it's hard to take seriously.
No I'm not saying that at all. If you re-read the post, I said that all I was trying to do was to get you to see that BOTH sides are at fault here and it's not all Arafat. And, in fact, many of the problems are on Israel's side in regards to their ignoring the UN resolutions. That's not PRO-Palestinian OR Anti-Israeli; it's pro-international law and pro diplomacy.
I said nothing about people who find Arafat at some fault here as closing their eyes. The people I see closing their eyes are the ones that refuse to admit that Israel has any culpability in this situation and who STILL haven't addressed what Ken and I keep bringing up over and over and over again about the UN resolutions.
Tell me why those resolutions shouldn't be enforced? Tell me what justification Israel has to continuously break international law?
It's fine to arrive at a conclusion that is different from mine. But when it's not backed up by any rationale or fact, it's hard to take seriously.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
jimmy,
Does it make any difference to you that most of the Arab world and most definitely the AIQ (Arabs in Question) have NEVER recognized those same fine UN borders? It seems awful important to you guys that one side adhere faithfully. How about the other?
Wanna know why they WON’T recognize them? Because it would be de facto recognition of the rightful existence of Israel.
This has never been an argument over whose right or wrong. They both suck because they can’t get a good deal done.
It has ALWAYS been an argument over who is MORE wrong.
It will be illustrative when you have kids. Once you’ve heard everybody’s endless argument over who started “it” you’ll send both kids to bed early.
It’s easier that way because they both probably deserve punishment for something you may have missed but you then, like now, foster an environment of moral relative-ness, which is another way of saying “there is no true right or wrong”.
God, how I relished getting my sister in trouble when it was my fault.
Of course, when I got nailed for her crap, that was a bitter pill.
Got siblings?
PS, you are doing a FINE job of writing. I used to ignore you when you were wrong.
Now, I read the WHOLE thing and say “Hey! jimmy’s wrong again!”
There is one side more wrong than the other in this issue. They have more work to do and there are plenty of people willing to help them once they stop being stupid.
The FIRST step is get rid of Pizza Parlor Table Cloth Head.
Does it make any difference to you that most of the Arab world and most definitely the AIQ (Arabs in Question) have NEVER recognized those same fine UN borders? It seems awful important to you guys that one side adhere faithfully. How about the other?
Wanna know why they WON’T recognize them? Because it would be de facto recognition of the rightful existence of Israel.
This has never been an argument over whose right or wrong. They both suck because they can’t get a good deal done.
It has ALWAYS been an argument over who is MORE wrong.
It will be illustrative when you have kids. Once you’ve heard everybody’s endless argument over who started “it” you’ll send both kids to bed early.
It’s easier that way because they both probably deserve punishment for something you may have missed but you then, like now, foster an environment of moral relative-ness, which is another way of saying “there is no true right or wrong”.
God, how I relished getting my sister in trouble when it was my fault.
Of course, when I got nailed for her crap, that was a bitter pill.
Got siblings?
PS, you are doing a FINE job of writing. I used to ignore you when you were wrong.
Now, I read the WHOLE thing and say “Hey! jimmy’s wrong again!”
There is one side more wrong than the other in this issue. They have more work to do and there are plenty of people willing to help them once they stop being stupid.
The FIRST step is get rid of Pizza Parlor Table Cloth Head.
Jimmy, many good pro-Israel points have been brought up here - you just don't see them because you're blinded by your own ideology. They have been backed up by rationale and facts but you refuse to acknowledge them as legitimate.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand:
Ken, I'll go with your argument about UN law - as much as I despise the UN, I think that member nations should abide by the rules, get them changed, or relinquish membership. But I also think it's too late for Israel to back down. Sharon simply CAN'T show weakness now, after the suicide bombings and the terrorist actions of the Palestinians. To do that would be political, and possibly literal, suicide.
There have been several chances for Arafat to get a peace agreement - each time he has refused to do so for some arbitrary reason or another. He's tried to make it sound like these sticking points are a big deal, but when you break them down you see that they are merely trivial points and nothing that should have prevented an agreement from being reached.
Arafat has agreed to hold elections within six months. We'll see if he really does it. But I won't hold my breath. We have no real reason to believe he will follow Parliament's decisons now, considering he's ignored them in the past and done as he pleased.
The silliness Jimmy insinuated about "all those Israeli PMs and they STILL can't broker peace - why are Israelis so hard headed?" is bullsh*t. I know it, you know it. Until Arafat is out of there, there will be no chance for peace in the Middle East. He's been the monkeywrench all along.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand:
Ken, I'll go with your argument about UN law - as much as I despise the UN, I think that member nations should abide by the rules, get them changed, or relinquish membership. But I also think it's too late for Israel to back down. Sharon simply CAN'T show weakness now, after the suicide bombings and the terrorist actions of the Palestinians. To do that would be political, and possibly literal, suicide.
There have been several chances for Arafat to get a peace agreement - each time he has refused to do so for some arbitrary reason or another. He's tried to make it sound like these sticking points are a big deal, but when you break them down you see that they are merely trivial points and nothing that should have prevented an agreement from being reached.
Arafat has agreed to hold elections within six months. We'll see if he really does it. But I won't hold my breath. We have no real reason to believe he will follow Parliament's decisons now, considering he's ignored them in the past and done as he pleased.
The silliness Jimmy insinuated about "all those Israeli PMs and they STILL can't broker peace - why are Israelis so hard headed?" is bullsh*t. I know it, you know it. Until Arafat is out of there, there will be no chance for peace in the Middle East. He's been the monkeywrench all along.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
I guess because, in my mind - the U.N. can just as well take a swan dive into the East River. A U.N. resolution is not the verdict of the almighty God, Mother Nature, the universe or any kind of world government. I don't think any nation is compelled to answer to them for any reason whatsoever, nor DOES everyone.
In my view, by the same reasoning that says they should roll back their borders should compel every nation to return land which they confiscated by war - like, say, the U.S. returning all the southwest to Mexico, or all of its lands abroad to their previous owners.
If a bunch of people pick a fight with me, and I kick the ever-living crap out of them and take their stuff - too bad. Learn your lesson and go home. That's the consequence of starting a war. The fact that the surrounding Arab nations refuse to re-admit people who used to be their own citizens convinces me they are not at all concerned about the suffering of those people.
And if the U.N. objects to us starting a war with Iraq, and passes some resolution - too bad. It's mostly a powerless entity with no serious will to promote or protect world peace.
In my view, by the same reasoning that says they should roll back their borders should compel every nation to return land which they confiscated by war - like, say, the U.S. returning all the southwest to Mexico, or all of its lands abroad to their previous owners.
If a bunch of people pick a fight with me, and I kick the ever-living crap out of them and take their stuff - too bad. Learn your lesson and go home. That's the consequence of starting a war. The fact that the surrounding Arab nations refuse to re-admit people who used to be their own citizens convinces me they are not at all concerned about the suffering of those people.
And if the U.N. objects to us starting a war with Iraq, and passes some resolution - too bad. It's mostly a powerless entity with no serious will to promote or protect world peace.
Well Larry the de facto recognition of Israel wouldn't have even been necessary if they had accepted the Saudi peace proposal which recognized Israel's right to exist...but again, hard-line politics won out in the "ever more right" Israeli agenda.
The Israeli's have proven through this that their "right to exist" isnt' all that high on their agenda as they find that "right" through military "might".
They DO both suck, true, but your parenting analogy is a little thin as you apply it.
IF there is a "parent" in this situation, it would have to be the UN, correct? Not the US, as that would really redifine our role...we've been trying to be more of a mutual friend (but more leaning towards one than the other).
So if the UN is the parent, then the 'children' who are currently bickering need to be punnished based on the rules set up by the parent. The Palestinians are certainly wrong for attacking civilians but, again, that's not necessarly the direct work of of the leadership. Isreal's leadership, however, has been 'breaking the rules' for going on 35 years now.
So if the two leaderships are being reprimanded by the parent, which one is more wrong? The one that is directly violating the rules of the house, or the one who is simply punching back?
The Israeli's have proven through this that their "right to exist" isnt' all that high on their agenda as they find that "right" through military "might".
They DO both suck, true, but your parenting analogy is a little thin as you apply it.
IF there is a "parent" in this situation, it would have to be the UN, correct? Not the US, as that would really redifine our role...we've been trying to be more of a mutual friend (but more leaning towards one than the other).
So if the UN is the parent, then the 'children' who are currently bickering need to be punnished based on the rules set up by the parent. The Palestinians are certainly wrong for attacking civilians but, again, that's not necessarly the direct work of of the leadership. Isreal's leadership, however, has been 'breaking the rules' for going on 35 years now.
So if the two leaderships are being reprimanded by the parent, which one is more wrong? The one that is directly violating the rules of the house, or the one who is simply punching back?
Vrai,
"but when you break them down you see that they are merely trivial points and nothing that should have prevented an agreement from being reached."
That just shows your ignorance. The "breaking points" were INDEED heavily important issues to the Palestinians. But, of course, you're only able to look at this from a western point of view and you have no respect for them so anything they actually consider important must be crap, right?
And, Vrai, mention these "good points" that you've brought up about a pro-Israeli stance. All you've done is cite emotion disguised as fact and you think THAT's a good point? Statements like
"The silliness Jimmy insinuated about "all those Israeli PMs and they STILL can't broker peace - why are Israelis so hard headed?" is bullsh*t. I know it, you know it."
are certainly not to be considered "good points". You merely touting something as crap and bullsh*t is hardly an arguement, Vrai.
Frank,
I'm sorry that you feel that way about the UN but tough sh*t. It IS an international coalition designed to broker diplomacy throughout the world's member-states. It's been effective in some cases, and not so much in others.
Most times, however, this is because of US! The US is a monster in that arena and we take advantage of that veto power every chance we get. We don't pay our dues, we abide by the rules when it suits our purposes; no wonder the rest of the world thinks we're the Devil.
We come and go as we please and we have the attitude that YOU have, Frank, which is counterproductive to any attempts at diplomacy. The more unilateral moves we make, the further we crush the legitimacy of the UN, an organiztion that we COULD help to have the power and will that you fairly correctly assert that it lacks.
Larry,
I'm glad you are reading my posts. Warms my heart to know that another one of you right-wingers is at least giving me a fair shake, regardless of spelling or paragraph structure.
"but when you break them down you see that they are merely trivial points and nothing that should have prevented an agreement from being reached."
That just shows your ignorance. The "breaking points" were INDEED heavily important issues to the Palestinians. But, of course, you're only able to look at this from a western point of view and you have no respect for them so anything they actually consider important must be crap, right?
And, Vrai, mention these "good points" that you've brought up about a pro-Israeli stance. All you've done is cite emotion disguised as fact and you think THAT's a good point? Statements like
"The silliness Jimmy insinuated about "all those Israeli PMs and they STILL can't broker peace - why are Israelis so hard headed?" is bullsh*t. I know it, you know it."
are certainly not to be considered "good points". You merely touting something as crap and bullsh*t is hardly an arguement, Vrai.
Frank,
I'm sorry that you feel that way about the UN but tough sh*t. It IS an international coalition designed to broker diplomacy throughout the world's member-states. It's been effective in some cases, and not so much in others.
Most times, however, this is because of US! The US is a monster in that arena and we take advantage of that veto power every chance we get. We don't pay our dues, we abide by the rules when it suits our purposes; no wonder the rest of the world thinks we're the Devil.
We come and go as we please and we have the attitude that YOU have, Frank, which is counterproductive to any attempts at diplomacy. The more unilateral moves we make, the further we crush the legitimacy of the UN, an organiztion that we COULD help to have the power and will that you fairly correctly assert that it lacks.
Larry,
I'm glad you are reading my posts. Warms my heart to know that another one of you right-wingers is at least giving me a fair shake, regardless of spelling or paragraph structure.
"Ken, I'll go with your argument about UN law - as much as I despise the UN, I think that member nations should abide by the rules, get them changed, or relinquish membership. But I also think it's too late for Israel to back down. Sharon simply CAN'T show weakness now, after the suicide bombings and the terrorist actions of the Palestinians. To do that would be political, and possibly literal, suicide"
So which is it, Vrai? Member nations should abide by the rules etc., or Sharon needs to save face? Because they both can't be right.
Oh and about the issue of the US and all other nations having to give up the land it got in wars etc? The US wasn't founded by UN resolution and therefore those resolutions about land gained in a war wouldn't be retroactively applied to us or any country that has redefined it's borders through war before that resolution.
Israel, on the other hand, does not have that luxury....understand?
So which is it, Vrai? Member nations should abide by the rules etc., or Sharon needs to save face? Because they both can't be right.
Oh and about the issue of the US and all other nations having to give up the land it got in wars etc? The US wasn't founded by UN resolution and therefore those resolutions about land gained in a war wouldn't be retroactively applied to us or any country that has redefined it's borders through war before that resolution.
Israel, on the other hand, does not have that luxury....understand?
Excuse me but I believe it's the "Good Ole U.S. of A. that picks up the Lions share of every damn "Peace-Keeping, Humanitarian and Police Action that your wonderful U.N. sees fit to involve itself in.
We don't owe them anything. Let them pick up the tab and bear the cost in manpower and equipment a few dozen times then come talk to us.
Oh Ayn Rand....the "non-thinking man's" great thinker. She's a great writer but I wouldn't go taking her word for things in matters of politics....I mean, this is the "virtue of selfishness" woman, correct?
Boy am I surprised that an uber-capitalist, unappologeticly-selfish woman like Rand would loathe an organization like the UN, designed to push the common agenda, rather than grabbing what you can at all costs.
The details of the China/Tawain situation are not quite as cut and dry as Rand spells out here...
Boy am I surprised that an uber-capitalist, unappologeticly-selfish woman like Rand would loathe an organization like the UN, designed to push the common agenda, rather than grabbing what you can at all costs.
The details of the China/Tawain situation are not quite as cut and dry as Rand spells out here...
Jimmy, your posts come off as very defensive and I understand that. Had I taken the hard line that you've taken and bolstered my opinon with obviously biased information sources, I would probably be feeling the same way. But at some point logic and history must come into play. Or not - we can just keep arguing about who's more misinformed. However I have the State Department and CNN on my side - all you have are French Op-Eds and Arab websites. Care to arm wrestle?
Sharon isn't going to chase after Arafat like some lovesick schoolgirl. Since you understand politics so much better than I do, I'm surprised that you think he should.
Both and yes they can. The UN can't expect Sharon to just roll over, after all that's happened. There has to be a compromise. And by "compromise" I don't mean Sharon meets all of Arafat's demands and gets nothing in return. I thought the Camp David deal was pretty good - Arafat should have taken it. At some point in negotiations you have to realize when the deal is as good as it's going to get. That's the sign of a great leader/businessman. Arafat is neither - that's why he walked away.
Sharon isn't going to chase after Arafat like some lovesick schoolgirl. Since you understand politics so much better than I do, I'm surprised that you think he should.