It's April 19, 2024, 11:47:36 AM
Quote from: Don Rizzle on May 10, 2006, 03:16:12 AMiraq would just get annexed by iranThat would be a great solution. If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
iraq would just get annexed by iran
Quote from: smerlus on July 04, 2004, 02:26:45 AMQuote from: Maradona on July 04, 2004, 01:43:15 AMSo you mean to tell me that Palestinians started fighting back 500 years after the state of Israel was created? Good lord, you're an idiot.no i'm saying your an idiot for impling that something that happened 500 years ago is the same thing as something that happens recentlyEuropeans settled the land in large numbers, killed off the Native Americans, created a nation.Israelis settled the land in large numbers coming from Europe (Zionist movement), killed off the Palestinians or forced them to migrate, created a nation. I'm sure you still can't see it, but just keep using your 24 brain cells and you might figure it out.
Quote from: Maradona on July 04, 2004, 01:43:15 AMSo you mean to tell me that Palestinians started fighting back 500 years after the state of Israel was created? Good lord, you're an idiot.no i'm saying your an idiot for impling that something that happened 500 years ago is the same thing as something that happens recently
So you mean to tell me that Palestinians started fighting back 500 years after the state of Israel was created? Good lord, you're an idiot.
A breakthrough in Israel’s fifty-year exclusion from UN bodies occurred on May 30, 2000, when Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of the Western European and Others (WEOG) regional group. While only temporary, this historic step could finally end the UN’s discrimination against Israel and open the door to Israeli participation in the Security Council.Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies.The WEOG is the only regional group which is not purely geographical, but rather geopolitical, namely a group of states that share a Western-Democratic common denominator. WEOG comprises 27 members: all the West European states; and the "others" — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.Israel’s membership in the WEOG is severely limited. Every four years Israel will have to reapply for membership, since its status is only temporary. Israel was not allowed to present candidacies for open seats in any UN body for two years and is not able to compete for major UN bodies, such as the Economic and Social Council, for a longer period. Also, for the first two years, Israeli representatives were not allowed to run for positions on the UN Council.Besides these restrictions, Israel is only allowed to participate in WEOG activities in the New York office of the UN. Israel is excluded from WEOG discussion and consultations at the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna; therefore, Israel cannot participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and a number of other issues handled in these offices.In February 2003, Israel was elected to serve on the UN General Assembly Working Group on Disarmament, its first committee posting since 1961 (after 1961, the UN split the membership into regional groups and that was when Israel became isolated). An Israeli representative was elected as one of the group's three vice-chairmen and received votes from Iran and several Arab states. On the other hand, during the same month, an Israeli candidate was defeated for a position on the UN Committee on the rights of the child. The year before Israeli candidates also lost votes for positions on the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the UN Racial Discrimination Committee.
The UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets — including xenophobia — but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism. It was only on November 24, 1998, mor than 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."Since the early 1970s, the UN itself has become permeated with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiment. The following examples illustrate how ugly the atmosphere has become:“Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?”— Libyan UN Representative Ali Treiki.“The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.” —Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos.On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.
The vote did not signal an end to the UN's bias against Israel. The same month the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East. On December 9, 1991, Israel's handling of the intifada was condemned by a vote of 150-2. On the 11th, it voted 104-2 for a resolution calling for a UN-sponsored peace conference that would include the PLO and voted 142-2 to condemn Israeli behavior toward Palestinians in the territories. On December 16 — the very day it repealed the Zionism measure — the UN voted 152-1, with the U.S. abstaining, to call on Israel to rescind a Knesset resolution declaring Jerusalem its capital, to demand Israel's withdrawal from “occupied territories,” including Jerusalem and to denounce Israeli administration of the Golan Heights. Another resolution expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.The repeal vote was marred by the fact that 13 of the 19 Arab countries — including those engaged in negotiations with Israel — Syria, Lebanon and Jordan — voted to retain the resolution, as did Saudi Arabia. Six, including Egypt — which lobbied against repeal — were absent.The Arabs “voted once again to impugn the very birthright of the Jewish State,” the New York Times noted. “That even now most Arab states cling to a demeaning and vicious doctrine mars an otherwise belated triumph for sense and conscience.”
A careful analysis of the Security Council's actions on the Middle East shows it has been little better than the General Assembly in its treatment of Israel.Candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs. In the Middle East, this means the Arab League and its allies are usually included. Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council whereas at least 16 Arab League members have. Syria, a nation on the U.S. list of countries that sponsor terrorism, began a two-year term as a member of the Security Council in 2002 and served as president of the body in June 2002.Debates on Israel abound, and the Security Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State, but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. Emergency special sessions of the General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. For nearly two decades, these sessions have been called primarily to condemn Israel.
UN resolutions are documents issued by political bodies and need to be interpreted in light of the constitution of those bodies. They represent the political viewpoints of those who support them rather than embodying any particular legal rules or principles. Resolutions can have moral and political force when they are perceived as expressing the agreed view of the international community, or the views of leading, powerful and respected nations.The UN Charter (Articles 10 and 14) specifically empowers the General Assembly to make only nonbinding "recommendations." Assembly resolutions are only considered binding in relation to budgetary and internal procedural matters. The legality of Security Council resolutions is more ambiguous. It is not clear if all Security Council resolutions are binding or only those adopted under Chapter 7 of the Charter.15 Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are obligated to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter," but it is unclear which kinds of resolutions are covered by the term "decisions." Regardless, it would be difficult to show that Israel has violated any Security Council resolutions on their wording and the Council has never sanctioned Israel for noncompliance.
While the UN routinely adopts resolutions critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, it has never adopted a single resolution unequivocally condemning violence against Israeli citizens. One of the most dramatic examples of the institution’s double-standard came in 2003 when Israel offered a draft resolution in the General Assembly for the first time in 27 years.The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, but it did not receive enough support from the members of the General Assembly to even come to a vote. Israel had introduced the resolution in response to the murder of dozens of Israeli children in terrorist attacks, and after a similar resolution had been adopted by a UN committee (later adopted by the full Assembly) calling for the protection of Palestinian children from “Israeli aggression.” Israel's ambassador withdrew the proposed draft after it became clear that members of the nonaligned movement were determined to revise it in such a way that it would have ultimately been critical of Israel.16
1) jews were not entitled to the land2) israel regected the partition and the cease fire agreement anyway because it was too small, and showed little interest in peace intiatives3) israel got arabs off the land by any means 4) the arab nations generally attacked the expanded part of israel not included in the partition5) look at israel on a map palestine is cut in 2, and israel is much bigger than the two halves put together.6) year on year israels terrirtory has expanded7) arabs and in particular palestinians have incured far more deaths and injuries since israel was started8 ) israel pays little attention to international watchdogs and organisations like the UN or even international law9) israel has one of the largest nuclear stock piles of weapons in the world and has not signed up to the non proliferication treaty so is not subject to sanctions and opporates on a "no show no tell policy" while they expect the rest of the middle east to be put under international pressure to not produce nuclear weapons (eg iran)10) in whats left of palestine the israeli army enjoys shooting small children, buldozing farms and houses to the ground, firering missles and tank shells into the refugee camps especially when large crowds are present, have military check points everywhere.11) in 1947 the area allocated to the jews by the UN had a jewish population of 520,000. there are now over 4 million palestinian refugees at the present day.who do u think got a raw deal?
Sigh...Some people just don't get it.Myth: "Israel enjoys the same rights as any other member of the United Nations."Fact:QuoteA breakthrough in Israel’s fifty-year exclusion from UN bodies occurred on May 30, 2000, when Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of the Western European and Others (WEOG) regional group. While only temporary, this historic step could finally end the UN’s discrimination against Israel and open the door to Israeli participation in the Security Council.Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies.The WEOG is the only regional group which is not purely geographical, but rather geopolitical, namely a group of states that share a Western-Democratic common denominator. WEOG comprises 27 members: all the West European states; and the "others" — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.Israel’s membership in the WEOG is severely limited. Every four years Israel will have to reapply for membership, since its status is only temporary. Israel was not allowed to present candidacies for open seats in any UN body for two years and is not able to compete for major UN bodies, such as the Economic and Social Council, for a longer period. Also, for the first two years, Israeli representatives were not allowed to run for positions on the UN Council.Besides these restrictions, Israel is only allowed to participate in WEOG activities in the New York office of the UN. Israel is excluded from WEOG discussion and consultations at the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna; therefore, Israel cannot participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and a number of other issues handled in these offices.In February 2003, Israel was elected to serve on the UN General Assembly Working Group on Disarmament, its first committee posting since 1961 (after 1961, the UN split the membership into regional groups and that was when Israel became isolated). An Israeli representative was elected as one of the group's three vice-chairmen and received votes from Iran and several Arab states. On the other hand, during the same month, an Israeli candidate was defeated for a position on the UN Committee on the rights of the child. The year before Israeli candidates also lost votes for positions on the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the UN Racial Discrimination Committee.Myth: "The United Nations and its affiliate institutions are critical of Israeli policies, but never attack Jews or engage in anti-Semitic rhetoric."Fact:QuoteThe UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets — including xenophobia — but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism. It was only on November 24, 1998, mor than 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."Since the early 1970s, the UN itself has become permeated with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiment. The following examples illustrate how ugly the atmosphere has become:“Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?”— Libyan UN Representative Ali Treiki.“The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.” —Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos.On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.Myth: "The 1991 repeal of the resolution libeling Zionism proves that the UN is no longer biased against Israel."Fact:QuoteThe vote did not signal an end to the UN's bias against Israel. The same month the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East. On December 9, 1991, Israel's handling of the intifada was condemned by a vote of 150-2. On the 11th, it voted 104-2 for a resolution calling for a UN-sponsored peace conference that would include the PLO and voted 142-2 to condemn Israeli behavior toward Palestinians in the territories. On December 16 — the very day it repealed the Zionism measure — the UN voted 152-1, with the U.S. abstaining, to call on Israel to rescind a Knesset resolution declaring Jerusalem its capital, to demand Israel's withdrawal from “occupied territories,” including Jerusalem and to denounce Israeli administration of the Golan Heights. Another resolution expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.The repeal vote was marred by the fact that 13 of the 19 Arab countries — including those engaged in negotiations with Israel — Syria, Lebanon and Jordan — voted to retain the resolution, as did Saudi Arabia. Six, including Egypt — which lobbied against repeal — were absent.The Arabs “voted once again to impugn the very birthright of the Jewish State,” the New York Times noted. “That even now most Arab states cling to a demeaning and vicious doctrine mars an otherwise belated triumph for sense and conscience.”Myth: "Even if the General Assembly is biased, the Security Council has always been balanced in its treatment of the Middle East."FactQuoteA careful analysis of the Security Council's actions on the Middle East shows it has been little better than the General Assembly in its treatment of Israel.Candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs. In the Middle East, this means the Arab League and its allies are usually included. Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council whereas at least 16 Arab League members have. Syria, a nation on the U.S. list of countries that sponsor terrorism, began a two-year term as a member of the Security Council in 2002 and served as president of the body in June 2002.Debates on Israel abound, and the Security Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State, but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. Emergency special sessions of the General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. For nearly two decades, these sessions have been called primarily to condemn Israel.Myth: "Israel's failure to implement UN resolutions is a violation of international law."Fact:QuoteUN resolutions are documents issued by political bodies and need to be interpreted in light of the constitution of those bodies. They represent the political viewpoints of those who support them rather than embodying any particular legal rules or principles. Resolutions can have moral and political force when they are perceived as expressing the agreed view of the international community, or the views of leading, powerful and respected nations.The UN Charter (Articles 10 and 14) specifically empowers the General Assembly to make only nonbinding "recommendations." Assembly resolutions are only considered binding in relation to budgetary and internal procedural matters. The legality of Security Council resolutions is more ambiguous. It is not clear if all Security Council resolutions are binding or only those adopted under Chapter 7 of the Charter.15 Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are obligated to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter," but it is unclear which kinds of resolutions are covered by the term "decisions." Regardless, it would be difficult to show that Israel has violated any Security Council resolutions on their wording and the Council has never sanctioned Israel for noncompliance.Myth: “The United Nations has demonstrated equal concern for the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.”fact:QuoteWhile the UN routinely adopts resolutions critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, it has never adopted a single resolution unequivocally condemning violence against Israeli citizens. One of the most dramatic examples of the institution’s double-standard came in 2003 when Israel offered a draft resolution in the General Assembly for the first time in 27 years.The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, but it did not receive enough support from the members of the General Assembly to even come to a vote. Israel had introduced the resolution in response to the murder of dozens of Israeli children in terrorist attacks, and after a similar resolution had been adopted by a UN committee (later adopted by the full Assembly) calling for the protection of Palestinian children from “Israeli aggression.” Israel's ambassador withdrew the proposed draft after it became clear that members of the nonaligned movement were determined to revise it in such a way that it would have ultimately been critical of Israel.16
Quote from: Don Rizzle on July 08, 2004, 05:27:37 PM1) jews were not entitled to the land2) israel regected the partition and the cease fire agreement anyway because it was too small, and showed little interest in peace intiatives3) israel got arabs off the land by any means 4) the arab nations generally attacked the expanded part of israel not included in the partition5) look at israel on a map palestine is cut in 2, and israel is much bigger than the two halves put together.6) year on year israels terrirtory has expanded7) arabs and in particular palestinians have incured far more deaths and injuries since israel was started8 ) israel pays little attention to international watchdogs and organisations like the UN or even international law9) israel has one of the largest nuclear stock piles of weapons in the world and has not signed up to the non proliferication treaty so is not subject to sanctions and opporates on a "no show no tell policy" while they expect the rest of the middle east to be put under international pressure to not produce nuclear weapons (eg iran)10) in whats left of palestine the israeli army enjoys shooting small children, buldozing farms and houses to the ground, firering missles and tank shells into the refugee camps especially when large crowds are present, have military check points everywhere.11) in 1947 the area allocated to the jews by the UN had a jewish population of 520,000. there are now over 4 million palestinian refugees at the present day.who do u think got a raw deal?1.never entitled to the Land?- So YOU'RE the authority on this metter?....2.At What time exactly?-There was no fire untill Israel was atacked ....The closest time any side rejected a peace treaty, was the Last Camp david atempt when Arafat was granted 97% of the demand and declined.3.Is this a joke?! Israel's original territory when the arab nations atacked was minimal, The only reason it was atacked was cause Egypt and Syria had long term egagement plans, to which a possible Jewish state in the middle was an obstacle....4.yea, That's why all this time we've had Arabs that have been considered Israeli Citizents and had a great amount of support among them towards millitant groups in the authority, and to think these guys even have representation in our Parlament(the Kneset)....5.And?- We were even bigger when we had the Sinai peninsula, and south lebanon-and we gave it up(for peace), how many territories of the same size of the Palestinian territories could feat in there?6. oh really?!!....read this again^^^7.As far as Palestinians go> possible, never counted, not sure u have, don't forget their natural reproduction figures are also much higher, and so is the amount of hostillity, add that up, I think it makes sence. 8.Really, you could say the same as for the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab Nations, throughout these 56 years. Since the primary decision was to grant Israel with a state and they have nagated it's existance throughout this time, Plus, I wasn't aware that supporting terrorism is one of the UN's newest resolutions. And how come u care for UN's resolutions suddenly, you disagree with the UN's decision just as much, I quote u:"1) jews were not entitled to the land"9. So does the USA...And Israel expects nothing, we can only hope, it's a question of hostillity.10. ENJOY'S?!!...yea, sure, that's our main mission to kill as many incocents as possible, we're the ones who proclaimed Jihad, And preached for KILLING and SLAUTERING as many people as possible cause it should prolly get us to heaven, so we coculd chill with 70 sumthin virgins....11.And they could have a state already, if that was what their leadership really wanted.... A RAW DEAL?!...If they did get a raw deal it's only cause their own leadership was dealing....
israeli propergander. please don't post in these threads if u can't think for youself, all you do is follow the republican line which is very generous to israelis and not a good mediator of peace in the current administration.
Home
Help
Login
Register
Print
