We Are Under Attack !!!!!!!!

[SubaSteevo]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Read all of the resolutions starting with 246.
Lee

I have neither the time nor the desire to read all of those. You had justified the recent attacks by saying they ignored a UN resolution, I just proved that Israel has also ignored quite a few. I'm not sure how many I listed total, but my original number was 20. Take out the two-sided ones and take out the vetoed ones, and there will still be more than 20 leftover. You asked me to provide a list, I did, you asked me to provide a more recent list, I did.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo

You asked me to provide a list, I did, you asked me to provide a more recent list, I did.

I did ask for a list and you provided me one or two. Congratulations on your research. If you learned anything by it, that is great, but I am not so sure. You could have saved some time by finding the below--if you don't read all of it---at least read the very last paragraph:


The United Nations - Model Organization?

The UN is far from a model organization. Most member states are undemocratic. Giving dictatorships democratic votes in a world body is one of the absurd ideas that has been seen by humankind. The negative impact is immeasurable, which is why the process continues until today. The idea behind the United Nations is a good one, but it doesn't work when member states don't uphold the democratic process that is used in the system!

The United Nations - An Enemy of Israel

The Arab world blames Israel for the violence. The United Nations agrees and has passed literally hundreds of resolutions condemning the Jewish state since 1948. The U.N. has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other nations combined, including Iraq.

Twenty-six percent of all Security Council meetings between 1948 and the 1991 Madrid Conference dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The U.N. Security Council passed a total of 175 resolutions. Seventy-four were neutral. Four were against the perceived interests of an Arab body. Ninety-seven were against Israel. In the U.N. General Assembly, the cumulative votes cast during this same period with or for Israel totaled 7,938. Those against Israel totaled 55,642 [Source: WorldNetDaily.com]

UN resolutions 194 and 242

Many Palestinians and Palestinian supporters continuously quote the above two UN resolutions, and claim that these resolutions give Palestinians the right to return to the land where they "came from" (Israel proper). These claims are untrue! Please read on to understand how this is so.

To begin, we must look at the UN process in a little detail. The UN has two main components, one is a subsection of the other. The General Assembly is the body that has representation from every country in the world. The subset of that, is the Security Council which has five permanent spots (US, Russia, China, Britain and France) and ten rotating spots. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding while Security Council resolutions are binding. Now let's look at the big resolutions about Israel and the Palestinians:

Resolution 194 - This resolution deals with the right to return. It is a General Assembly resolution. Therefore, it is not binding, like every other General Assembly resolution!

Resolution 242 - This Security Council resolution (a binding resolution) has two main components:

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

a. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

b. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity:

a. For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
b. For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
c. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.

Resolution 338 - A security council resolution, following the Yom Kippur war of 1973, calling on both sides to begin implementation of Resolution 242.



Commentary

Resolutions 242 and 338 were unanimously approved by the Security Council and are fully binding and can be enforced by sanctions or military action. Statements 1b and 2c of resolution 242 are clearly the responsibility of the Arab states that don't acknowledge Israel's existence to a large extent. These resolutions were not unilateral - Israel was to pull out on the condition that the Arab responsibilities were fulfilled.

Further, resolution 194 is the document that Palestinians claim gives them the "right to return". However, in the UN, resolutions can be superseded by newer resolutions and it is obvious that claims of "right to return" in resolution 192 (1948) are superseded by section 2b of resolution 242 (1967), where the refugee problem is to be solved with a "just settlement" which is likely to include compensation, but unlikely the "right of return".

Further, if you are a logical person, you can imagine that a military pullout from "Palestinian territories" would take a matter of hours (as evidenced by the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 from Lebanon). The hate, belligerency and incitement created by the Palestinian Authority and other Arab entities against Israel and Jews would take generations to erase.

"The Occupied Territories"

In 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed, giving the PA authority over some lands: Gaza and Jericho. However, Israel was still responsible for "overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order."

Now, when Israel made peace with Jordan in 1994, the control those countries had over the West Bank was relinquished to the Israelis. Israel therefore is not occupying the West Bank!

The press commonly refers to the West Bank as "occupied territories". This simply is not true, because most of the land was never given to the authority of the PA and is therefore not occupied.

United Nations Charter, Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Lee

[lhopp77]

The attached link is to a site that provides a brief history from 1947 forward. It is quite concise and presents the facts. While it is a pro-Israeli site---the descriptions are factual. If you do not already know, you will see why Israel tends to be proactive after reading this.

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/HISTO...___history.asp

As an interesting side light--Lebanon has never been a player in the entire affair. They have simply been the who** of Syria, PLO, Hezballoh and any other entity that wanted to use their territory. Read France of the Middle East.

Lee

[Electrophil]

OK... Which is it?

1: Iraq is ignoring several UN resolutions and we cannot stand for that.

or

2: Israel should ignore UN resolutions because the UN is ran by dictators.

The right rules out of pure confusion of the masses.

[SubaSteevo]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

OK... Which is it?

1: Iraq is ignoring several UN resolutions and we cannot stand for that.

or

2: Israel should ignore UN resolutions because the UN is ran by dictators.

Thank you Rob, that was my point

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

OK... Which is it?

1: Iraq is ignoring several UN resolutions and we cannot stand for that.

or

2: Israel should ignore UN resolutions because the UN is ran by dictators.

The right rules out of pure confusion of the masses.

Are you trying to make this political, by apparently saying that the "right" is at fault. If you are, I think you need to review current circumstances as well as history. This is one issue that has NOT become political in this country and receives nearly equal support from both sides.

I hardly think a resolution that condemns Israel for deporting 12 trouble makers is hardly the same as a resolution pertaining to chemical and biological weapons or for using these weapons on their own populace. Or even 140 deported as the subject of another resolution.

And I submit, that if the other sides had lived up to the recognition provisions of Resolution 242 and left Israel in peace---none of the other resolutions would have been necessary. AND Israel would be within the borders of the original boundaries and not include those captured in subsequent wars caused by invasion of Arab armies. Israel actually gained from the stupidity of these invasions.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Are you trying to make this political, by apparently saying that the "right" is at fault. If you are, I think you need to review current circumstances as well as history. This is one issue that has NOT become political in this country and receives nearly equal support from both sides.

I hardly think a resolution that condemns Israel for deporting 12 trouble makers is hardly the same as a resolution pertaining to chemical and biological weapons or for using these weapons on their own populace. Or even 140 deported as the subject of another resolution.

And I submit, that if the other sides had lived up to the recognition provisions of Resolution 242 and left Israel in peace---none of the other resolutions would have been necessary. AND Israel would be within the borders of the original boundaries and not include those captured in subsequent wars caused by invasion of Arab armies. Israel actually gained from the stupidity of these invasions.

Lee

No... What you want is to have it both ways. You want to call an AWOL playboy a hero, and a Purple Heart recipient a coward. This is a trend with you guys.

The chemical weapons Saddam supposedly used on his own people are the same ones Rumsfield sold to him.

IF! He used them on his own people. I don't know personally. He says he didn't, and it turns out he was telling us the truth all along about his WMD's.

The ones that did lie to us before are the ones saying he's lying to us now. I'm not sure where the credibility lies on this one. To the one who were truthful before or the ones who gave medals out for bad intel. Or a lie.. Bad Intel seems unlikely cause who gives medals of Freedom for that?

[92svxinmn]

good luck. stay low. show them a fight if they want one إلهة مع أنت

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

No... What you want is to have it both ways. You want to call an AWOL playboy a hero, and a Purple Heart recipient a coward. This is a trend with you guys.

The chemical weapons Saddam supposedly used on his own people are the same ones Rumsfield sold to him.

IF! He used them on his own people. I don't know personally. He says he didn't, and it turns out he was telling us the truth all along about his WMD's.

The ones that did lie to us before are the ones saying he's lying to us now. I'm not sure where the credibility lies on this one. To the one who were truthful before or the ones who gave medals out for bad intel. Or a lie.. Bad Intel seems unlikely cause who gives medals of Freedom for that?

I think you are the one that is confused. You are treating fact as fiction and fiction as fact.

That Bush was AWOL is pure fiction. He fulfilled his military obligation and was honorable discharged. Anyway--troops were being withdrawn from Vietnam (mid to late 72) at the time and officers INVOLUNITARILY discharged from active duty.

I don't know about the Kerry deal, but it was his fellow officers that served with him that made the allegations. Many fellow officers.

There is no doubt that Saddam used the weapons against the Kurds in his own country. I have never known any one to seriously question the validity of this charge.

We know that nearly ALL of the political leaders, intelligence communities and world leaders were sure that Iraq had WMDs. Proven over and over again.

The Senate and now the House have overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting Israel in this current situation.

Lee

[lhopp77]

A couple more facts.

The Lebanese airport was bombed because it was used as the place for weapons to be brought to Hezballoh and the airport radar was used to guide the missle that hit the Israeli ship.

One area of devastating damage in the southern edge of the city was due to Hezballoh using civilian areas to conceal the long range missles provided by Iran. They were pulling one of the missiles out of the area to prepare for launch when it was hit by an Israeli air attack. The resulting explosion of the missle cause heavy damage to the civilian area.

I am sure I can come up with several other examples that show the fault lies largely by Hezballoh in their usual tactic of hidin amongst the civilian population including the use of hospitals and schools to stock war supplies. Whoever allows them to do this----deserves whatever they get.

Lee

[AppStateSVX]

DAnny, i'm sorry i'm late getting this to you, but PLEASE be safe. I have been away from the SVX forums for awhile, but when I first heard of this, my thoughts and prayers went out to you. be careful and keep in touch when possible.

- craig

[SubaSteevo]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I am sure I can come up with several other examples that show the fault lies largely by Hezballoh in their usual tactic of hidin amongst the civilian population including the use of hospitals and schools to stock war supplies. Whoever allows them to do this----deserves whatever they get.

Lee

So now you're condoning the killing of hundreds of innocents and children? You never cease to amaze me...

[Noir]

So I was talking to another fellow student in one of my classes to get their opinion of the Israel/Lebanon punchout.

Interesting enough (a christian that prays before eating potato chips), he agrees that Lebanon should be sacked. Apparently there's nothing wrong with civilians getting killed because they are just a casuality of war.

Then he went into the whole schpil of that the Jews were promised the land by Yahweh and that the bastard children of Abraham just can't seem to accept that fact. Lebanese lives are worth less than Israelis in this dude's book.

Then he kinda got upset when I asked if the Jews killed Jesus.

[SubaSteevo]

Originally Posted by Noir

Then he kinda got upset when I asked if the Jews killed Jesus.

HAHA!

[Electrophil]

Snort!!