On November 02 2011 01:17 B00ts wrote: I'd just like to point out... The fact that Israel is backed by the US is not the main reason they have won every war they have been a part of. They have the most highly trained armed forces in the world, the second "most deadliest" martial art in the world (second only to shaolin kung-fu), have mandatory military service(is this still true?.. Might not be anymore), and the terrain heavily favors defending it.
In fact that last time Israel was in a major conflict, the western powers had to figuratively beg them not to push into Egypt and Syria and take their capitols. (It actually might not have been the 'last' conflict... But one of the wars with egypt/syria.
In the first war, only miscommunication between the Arab forces prevented them from achieving victory. Later, the US provided cutting edge technology to Israel, which gave it a huge edge over it's enemies. One of the deciding advantages Israel possesses is its airforce, which alone allowed it to win many of its wars.
Technology wins wars. An unrivaled airforce is a huge deterrent. It's very demoralizing to fight against something that attacks out of the nowhere without a chance to retaliate.
Ok, Israel started the war with a larger standing force than all of its enemies combined. Not to mention the alliance had terrible cooperation, and general mistrust between each other.
Israel didn't start the war, they were the ones who were attacked, not the agressors.
Replace the word started with began and you would have read his post as he intended it . He ment that at the start of the conflict they etc etc.
What he said was still nonsense... The Iraqi army alone had over 21,000 men in 1948, only 6000 short of Israel, and thats not counting Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan..... He's just making stuff up as he goes and contributing nothing.
The arab forces obviously had room to increase their forces, and did so, meaning that before the war was over the arab forces outnumbered the IDF.
Israeli forces: 29,677 initially rising to 115,000 by March 1949. This includes the entire military personnel count—both combat units and logistical units.
115,000 military personnel. Also, 18,000 is quite short of the 21,000 you posted earlier.
Israel is free to increase their military commitment as well.
Read that excerpt again... The expeditionary******* force peaked at 18,000... Their army was larger.
And if you read my original post, it was that teh IDF was a beast, and was ABLE to grow from 28,000ish to over 100,000 in such a short time, and that they weren't just conscripts, but highly trained individuals. But thatnks for tieing that all together for me
EDIT: I think we've gotten far off topic here, so Imma stop with this. You may have last word. Good day ya'll!
On November 02 2011 02:09 Niall wrote: The UN is anti-Israeli and anti-American? That, sir, is a claim I would like to see backed up.
The UN Human Rights Council, which comprises esteemed pillars of progressive society like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, and very nearly Syria, has used fully half of its total resolutions since inception to condemn Israel. Granted, the positions of the UNHRC are often more extreme than the UN general assembly, but it could be argued that that is simply because there are vetoes in the general assembly.
On November 02 2011 02:05 Batdad wrote: Props to the very few western countries with the balls to stand up for Israel when the Palestinian "government" tries to bypass bilateral negotiations by running to the UN. There is no possible solution that can come from a leadership that financially and operationally supports terrorism appealing to an anti-Israeli, anti-American body for a ruling completely on their terms.
The OP's spoiler was pretty whiny and resorted to the typical name calling and immaturity associated with hipster anti-Americanism. Along with calling (Canadian PM) Harper a dog, complaining that the US has influence on global organizations was pretty funny. It's a good thing they do have influence, otherwise these organizations would either be completely irrelevant, or worse, would be allowed to implement their anti-western agendas unchecked.
The UN is anti-Israeli and anti-American? That, sir, is a claim I would like to see backed up.
A more accurate statement would be that the US and Israel don't share the opinion that the rest of the world shares. US and Israel opinion are a tiny minority. They still get away with blocking almost everything thrown against them since the US has veto power. It is not uncommon that a resolution is blocked with the entire world on one side and US+Israel on the other. If anything, the UN is very pro USA/Israel compared to world opinion because of US veto power.
On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote: uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis?
It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly.
sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious.
The super abridged version?
Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite.
Check out this picture
Make sense?
holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades?
Um, there have been several wars over it ever since the formation of Israel, and a ton of political discussion particularly over the last 25 years.
On November 02 2011 02:09 Niall wrote: The UN is anti-Israeli and anti-American? That, sir, is a claim I would like to see backed up.
The UN Human Rights Council, which comprises esteemed pillars of progressive society like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, and very nearly Syria, has used fully half of its total resolutions since inception to condemn Israel. Granted, the positions of the UNHRC are often more extreme than the UN general assembly, but it could be argued that that is simply because there are vetoes in the general assembly.
I accept that some of the members of the UNHRC are being hypocritical when they complain about Israel's human rights abuses but that doesn't change the fact that Israel have committed abuses. Although, obviously, they should try to solve human rights issues in other regimes also.
However, one council does not comprise the entire UN.
On November 02 2011 02:05 Batdad wrote: Props to the very few western countries with the balls to stand up for Israel when the Palestinian "government" tries to bypass bilateral negotiations by running to the UN. There is no possible solution that can come from a leadership that financially and operationally supports terrorism appealing to an anti-Israeli, anti-American body for a ruling completely on their terms.
The OP's spoiler was pretty whiny and resorted to the typical name calling and immaturity associated with hipster anti-Americanism. Along with calling (Canadian PM) Harper a dog, complaining that the US has influence on global organizations was pretty funny. It's a good thing they do have influence, otherwise these organizations would either be completely irrelevant, or worse, would be allowed to implement their anti-western agendas unchecked.
LOL I see, do you support democracy? If you do, you'll support this vote, which was UNILATERALLY in favor of Palestine. Why should the UN be pro-west? The population of the world living in western countries only amount to maybe a little more than 1 billion, or 1/6 of the world's population. Good thing UNESCO respects democracy.
In case you fail to see past the propaganda, if you remove the source of terrorism, terrorism will die out. What is the source of terrorism? Desperation caused by mistreatment.
...Well, maybe because without the west there will be no modern medicine, technology, cars, industry, there will be even less food for poverty struck countries, there will be more wars etc etc etc etc.
That is, until China gets really strong and just goes and conqueres the world.
Without China, there would be no printing press, no paper money, no gunpowder, no compass. What's your point? You can spout could haves, would haves all you want, does not mean it would be that way. Also, the west is built upon democracy, when 88% of the world votes in favor of this motion, you sure as hell can't deny it. Unless you're a hypocrite of course.
Err... yeah, without China of 2,000 years ago, not today's China. And jsut to be clear, when I talked about the west I also considered China, South Korea, Japan etc etc as a part of it. And I wasn't talking about the invention of such things, but the actual ability to understand how these inventions function on a grand scale. There's a reason South Korea and Singapore grew so much from being nearly nothing, it was their culture, a culture that "non-western" countries just don't have.
On November 02 2011 02:09 Niall wrote: The UN is anti-Israeli and anti-American? That, sir, is a claim I would like to see backed up.
The UN Human Rights Council, which comprises esteemed pillars of progressive society like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, and very nearly Syria, has used fully half of its total resolutions since inception to condemn Israel. Granted, the positions of the UNHRC are often more extreme than the UN general assembly, but it could be argued that that is simply because there are vetoes in the general assembly.
What's wrong with condemning Israel?
Because compared to stuff like Iran executing gay pepole, north korea and china killing innocent pepole, and you know... Syria massacering 3,000 of it's own citizens, while not getting a single real condemnation.
In the first war, only miscommunication between the Arab forces prevented them from achieving victory. Later, the US provided cutting edge technology to Israel, which gave it a huge edge over it's enemies. One of the deciding advantages Israel possesses is its airforce, which alone allowed it to win many of its wars.
Technology wins wars. An unrivaled airforce is a huge deterrent. It's very demoralizing to fight against something that attacks out of the nowhere without a chance to retaliate.
Ok, Israel started the war with a larger standing force than all of its enemies combined. Not to mention the alliance had terrible cooperation, and general mistrust between each other.
Israel didn't start the war, they were the ones who were attacked, not the agressors.
Replace the word started with began and you would have read his post as he intended it . He ment that at the start of the conflict they etc etc.
What he said was still nonsense... The Iraqi army alone had over 21,000 men in 1948, only 6000 short of Israel, and thats not counting Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan..... He's just making stuff up as he goes and contributing nothing.
The arab forces obviously had room to increase their forces, and did so, meaning that before the war was over the arab forces outnumbered the IDF.
Israeli forces: 29,677 initially rising to 115,000 by March 1949. This includes the entire military personnel count—both combat units and logistical units.
115,000 military personnel. Also, 18,000 is quite short of the 21,000 you posted earlier.
Israel is free to increase their military commitment as well.
Read that excerpt again... The expeditionary******* force peaked at 18,000... Their army was larger.
And if you read my original post, it was that teh IDF was a beast, and was ABLE to grow from 28,000ish to over 100,000 in such a short time, and that they weren't just conscripts, but highly trained individuals. But thatnks for tieing that all together for me
Ok, army size doesn't matter, since none of the countries in the alliance was willing to commit heavily to the offense. None of the countries in the alliance had obligations to Palestine. The IDF grew from 28,000 to over 100,000 because they HAD to. If they did not, they would be extinguished.
Anyways, either way you are still wrong. The alliance began with less forces, and ended with less forces.
Also, thanks for calling me out for spouting bullshit when you didn't read your own source.
I would just like to point out the reason why US is in bed with Israel, because it isn't some crazy Jew gold conspiracy, nor is it an anti-middle east thing.
The US has essentially had a monopoly on military throughout the world since the cold war ended. We use this to leverage other nations to our bidding. It works as such: The US has military bases all throughout Germany. Germany, then doesn't have to spend near as much resources on its own defense. I mean, after all, the US is right there just in case Poland gets greedy or anything (hah!). This is why we ARE world peace keepers, its our country's job. We invest heavily in military tech, and as such, release the rest of the world of that burden.
Israel fits into this dynamic a different way. They have absolutely no military ties to the US. They continue to spend a very large amount of resources on their own military. This started as the cold war was starting, and the US was beginning to ramp up its own military, but Israel needed defense right then.
With this configuration of power, neither country has leverage over the other. In fact, Israel has leverage over the US by acting as a local peacekeeping force for their area. Some evidence for this is the fact that the US has military interests in Saudi Arabia, and somewhat recently, Egypt. Saudi Arabia has yet to attack Israel directly, and even helped Israel attack Iran during 2009 by giving them air space to execute their air strike missions. Egypt, who used to be the largest enemy of Israel, after receiving the Sinai Peninsula back in a treaty, made peace with Israel. As soon as this happened, the US started providing military protection to Egypt. People consider this treaty as the start Egypt's rise out of the old world.
As I understand it Obama could have been impeached for not following US law if funding was not cut. I believe is was some 1st bush and Clinton era policies that forced it to be cut.
On November 02 2011 02:09 Niall wrote: The UN is anti-Israeli and anti-American? That, sir, is a claim I would like to see backed up.
The UN Human Rights Council, which comprises esteemed pillars of progressive society like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, and very nearly Syria, has used fully half of its total resolutions since inception to condemn Israel. Granted, the positions of the UNHRC are often more extreme than the UN general assembly, but it could be argued that that is simply because there are vetoes in the general assembly.
What's wrong with condemning Israel?
Because compared to stuff like Iran executing gay pepole, north korea and china killing innocent pepole, and you know... Syria massacering 3,000 of it's own citizens, while not getting a single real condemnation.
Israel is getting way too much flak.
Well, why aren't the western countries acting against Iran, NK, Syria?
On November 02 2011 01:17 B00ts wrote: I'd just like to point out... The fact that Israel is backed by the US is not the main reason they have won every war they have been a part of. They have the most highly trained armed forces in the world, the second "most deadliest" martial art in the world (second only to shaolin kung-fu), have mandatory military service(is this still true?.. Might not be anymore), and the terrain heavily favors defending it.
In fact that last time Israel was in a major conflict, the western powers had to figuratively beg them not to push into Egypt and Syria and take their capitols. (It actually might not have been the 'last' conflict... But one of the wars with egypt/syria.
And the fact that their entire military is backed by the US and all their funding is from the US and all their military development is funded by the US so yeah they only won because they're backed by the US. Nor do they have the most highly trained in the world by any measure, though this depends on what you mean.
On November 02 2011 01:32 RageBot wrote:
On November 02 2011 01:11 Deja Thoris wrote:
On November 02 2011 01:07 KasdaTheEmperor wrote:
On November 02 2011 01:06 Nash wrote: Yay another anti-semitic thread on TL. Let the jew-bashing proceed!
Dont be childish. No one is bashing Jews, people are just discussing what happened (Both in the last weeks and last century)
This.
Also, the US policies baffle me sometimes (a lot if I'm honest)
On November 02 2011 01:11 RageBot wrote: Now, I don't think that the governmant should keep most of the territory conquered, however, we just can't risk having terrorists getting even closer to our cities.
Catch-22 isn't it? Would the "terrorists" exist if they didn't perceive Israel to be stealing their land? Its a touchy and emotive subject. In South Africa years ago, the ANC were considered terrorists even though they were fighting for their rights as oppressed people. What makes what the Palestinians are doing different? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I don't say this out of any disrespect to people who have had losses of those near and dear to them, merely to point out the other side of the story.
Yes, they will exist. Or do you think that every other terrorist attack in history was because of Israel? Or things like what happened in Denmark/France after that cartoonist drew Mohammad?
They are not Freedom Fighters, they run from the military and aim solely for citizen targets, they are the exact opposits of Freedom Fighters. Not to mention that most of the money that Hamas gets for it's citizens is spent on military weapons and ammunition.
Stop bending reality, Israel zionists were the first to use suicide bombers against the british when they ruled palestine. There is no "good" and "evil" side here.
No, it wasn't "Israel Zionists", it was "The Irgun", and they weren't "suicide bombers", they were just "terrorists", and, unlike terrorists among the Palestinians, they were hunted by the majority of the Jewish forces before Israel existed, and were outlawed and dismantled by the IDF. Now, the way Hamas and the Palestinians treat their Terrorists is completely different, did you see the parties thay had after Israel released their captives? Terrorists who killed old men, women and little children? Men who only fight for Allah to be Shahids, and don't care about their pepole? TV shows in which they teach children to kill Jews?
Are you aware that one of the reasons there are so many Palestinian casualties during war is because Hamas uses them as meat shields?
I also didn't "bend reality", what I said is 100% true.
What about the other side of the coin? For every Israeli casualties there are hundreds of palestinian ones. It is easy to cover your eyes and not accept the truth. I can link you a lot of videos and documentaries showing the humiliation Palestinians face everyday. I am not for the things Palestinians teach their children, but we get to the same point again: while someone looks at the recent conflict I am sure that Palestine didn't forget what happened to it in the last 60 years.
Your writing has a lot of hate in it and that is never good.
Hate? For whom? I didn't write anything about anyone who isn't a fundemental muslim. Also, consider this - Let's take the Gilad Shalit situation: Hamas took an Israeli soldier captive, they held him for five years, no one saw him, he didn't get any sort of visits from the Red Cross, no one saw how healthy he is, and no one knew anything about him. The guy's only crime was guarding Israel's borders. On the other hand, when Israel takes a Palestinian terrorist as a captive, they are usually men who have already managed to murder some Israeli citizens, yet they can constantly see their families, they get good healthcare, okay food, the red cresent can see them etc etc etc. Now, when Shalit was released, it was for the price of 1,027 Palestinian terrorists.
Hamas are the ones who set the precendant that the life of one Israeli citizen is worth the lives of 1,000 Palestinian.
Now for my real point - when one side is terrorizing another, even though they don't cause a lot of casualties, and are relatively weak, a country can't just let it's citizens get bombarded without doing anything, just because it's strong. So Israel gets to a boiling point, and than uses it's superior military weapons against a way more condense population, who also forcefully uses it's innocents as meat shields.
No point in pointing finger at the other side and say: ''They started first''. While the exchange which happened was very beneficial for Palestinians and Israel really showed their good will, you have to come up with some neutral sources about Palestinian prisoners getting all those privileges. Do all of them get?
The two states are constantly at war and Shalit was a soldier. I recognize the right of Israel to defend themselves, but saying that because of homemade rockets fired, they have a justification to start an all out military operation. Isn't that a bit excessive? In the last 11 years, because of the conflict there have been 1084 Israeli and 6430 Palestinian deaths.
I mean, seriously, post some neutral sources about Palestinians using children as shields. I don't deny it and im sure that there have been situations like that, but that doesn't mean that they do it all the time or that they use it as a way to fight Israel.
Now explain me what fundamental muslim means. As far as I know fundamentalism is a strict adherence to some belief. So does that mean that fundamental muslims are those muslims who strictly follow their religion?
On November 02 2011 01:35 andycz wrote: lol antisemitists. you guys are cute, especially the fact that you don't know shit about the situation.
Please remind me to convert to judaism, next time I go rob a bank if the police tries to arrest me I'll just yell at them that they are antisemists and get away free.
How about the idea that we accept Israel and Judaism are separate things?
To dislike one is not to dislike the other. It would be like hating the USA because you hated Christianity.
To be clear I do not hate one or the other, I regard all religions as equally bad. And even if the conflict is on a lot more levels now then purely religious ones, you can't deny it played a role in it.
On November 02 2011 02:09 Niall wrote: The UN is anti-Israeli and anti-American? That, sir, is a claim I would like to see backed up.
The UN Human Rights Council, which comprises esteemed pillars of progressive society like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, and very nearly Syria, has used fully half of its total resolutions since inception to condemn Israel. Granted, the positions of the UNHRC are often more extreme than the UN general assembly, but it could be argued that that is simply because there are vetoes in the general assembly.
What's wrong with condemning Israel?
Because compared to stuff like Iran executing gay pepole, north korea and china killing innocent pepole, and you know... Syria massacering 3,000 of it's own citizens, while not getting a single real condemnation.
Israel is getting way too much flak.
UN and Arab League not significant enough for you?
On November 02 2011 01:35 andycz wrote: lol antisemitists. you guys are cute, especially the fact that you don't know shit about the situation.
Please remind me to convert to judaism, next time I go rob a bank if the police tries to arrest me I'll just yell at them that they are antisemists and get away free.
How about the idea that we accept Israel and Judaism are separate things?
To dislike one is not to dislike the other. It would be like hating the USA because you hated Christianity.
To be clear I do not hate one or the other, I regard all religions as equally bad.
I would argue that Bhuddism does not deserve the brush with which most other religions should be tarnished.
On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote: uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis?
It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly.
sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious.
Israel has quite the lobby power in the US. As a result, the US administration is generally pro-Israel. The US stood behind Israel pretty much from its inception. There's a reason why the neighboring Arab states have been unable to destroy Israel.
Outside of the potential of the US going to war to defend Israel (which to date has never happened in the Israeli-Arab wars) the US has nothing do with why the neighboring Arab states haven't been able to destroy Israel.
Israel is pretty reputable for their military innovation, especially in the development of weaponry and military technology, and historically that has always been shared with the US.
This may relate in some part to the 1973 Oil Crisis, when the OAPEC members decalred an Oil Embargo on the US for helping the resupply effort during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. (edit: the correlation to why the law was made in the first place. Kind of a "you fuck with us, we fuck with you" mentality perhaps?)
On November 02 2011 01:17 B00ts wrote: I'd just like to point out... The fact that Israel is backed by the US is not the main reason they have won every war they have been a part of. They have the most highly trained armed forces in the world, the second "most deadliest" martial art in the world (second only to shaolin kung-fu), have mandatory military service(is this still true?.. Might not be anymore), and the terrain heavily favors defending it.
In fact that last time Israel was in a major conflict, the western powers had to figuratively beg them not to push into Egypt and Syria and take their capitols. (It actually might not have been the 'last' conflict... But one of the wars with egypt/syria.
And the fact that their entire military is backed by the US and all their funding is from the US and all their military development is funded by the US so yeah they only won because they're backed by the US. Nor do they have the most highly trained in the world by any measure, though this depends on what you mean.
On November 02 2011 01:32 RageBot wrote:
On November 02 2011 01:11 Deja Thoris wrote:
On November 02 2011 01:07 KasdaTheEmperor wrote:
On November 02 2011 01:06 Nash wrote: Yay another anti-semitic thread on TL. Let the jew-bashing proceed!
Dont be childish. No one is bashing Jews, people are just discussing what happened (Both in the last weeks and last century)
This.
Also, the US policies baffle me sometimes (a lot if I'm honest)
On November 02 2011 01:11 RageBot wrote: Now, I don't think that the governmant should keep most of the territory conquered, however, we just can't risk having terrorists getting even closer to our cities.
Catch-22 isn't it? Would the "terrorists" exist if they didn't perceive Israel to be stealing their land? Its a touchy and emotive subject. In South Africa years ago, the ANC were considered terrorists even though they were fighting for their rights as oppressed people. What makes what the Palestinians are doing different? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I don't say this out of any disrespect to people who have had losses of those near and dear to them, merely to point out the other side of the story.
Yes, they will exist. Or do you think that every other terrorist attack in history was because of Israel? Or things like what happened in Denmark/France after that cartoonist drew Mohammad?
They are not Freedom Fighters, they run from the military and aim solely for citizen targets, they are the exact opposits of Freedom Fighters. Not to mention that most of the money that Hamas gets for it's citizens is spent on military weapons and ammunition.
Stop bending reality, Israel zionists were the first to use suicide bombers against the british when they ruled palestine. There is no "good" and "evil" side here.
I also didn't "bend reality", what I said is 100% true.
What about the other side of the coin? For every Israeli casualties there are hundreds of palestinian ones. It is easy to cover your eyes and not accept the truth. I can link you a lot of videos and documentaries showing the humiliation Palestinians face everyday. I am not for the things Palestinians teach their children, but we get to the same point again: while someone looks at the recent conflict I am sure that Palestine didn't forget what happened to it in the last 60 years.
Your writing has a lot of hate in it and that is never good.
Hate? For whom? I didn't write anything about anyone who isn't a fundemental muslim. Also, consider this - Let's take the Gilad Shalit situation: Hamas took an Israeli soldier captive, they held him for five years, no one saw him, he didn't get any sort of visits from the Red Cross, no one saw how healthy he is, and no one knew anything about him. The guy's only crime was guarding Israel's borders. On the other hand, when Israel takes a Palestinian terrorist as a captive, they are usually men who have already managed to murder some Israeli citizens, yet they can constantly see their families, they get good healthcare, okay food, the red cresent can see them etc etc etc. Now, when Shalit was released, it was for the price of 1,027 Palestinian terrorists.
Hamas are the ones who set the precendant that the life of one Israeli citizen is worth the lives of 1,000 Palestinian.
Now for my real point - when one side is terrorizing another, even though they don't cause a lot of casualties, and are relatively weak, a country can't just let it's citizens get bombarded without doing anything, just because it's strong. So Israel gets to a boiling point, and than uses it's superior military weapons against a way more condense population, who also forcefully uses it's innocents as meat shields.
No point in pointing finger at the other side and say: ''They started first''. While the exchange which happened was very beneficial for Palestinians and Israel really showed their good will, you have to come up with some neutral sources about Palestinian prisoners getting all those privileges. Do all of them get?
The two states are constantly at war and Shalit was a soldier. I recognize the right of Israel to defend themselves, but saying that because of homemade rockets fired, they have a justification to start an all out military operation. Isn't that a bit excessive? In the last 11 years, because of the conflict there have been 1084 Israeli and 6430 Palestinian deaths.
I mean, seriously, post some neutral sources about Palestinians using children as shields. I don't deny it and im sure that there have been situations like that, but that doesn't mean that they do it all the time or that they use it as a way to fight Israel.
Now explain me what fundamental muslim means. As far as I know fundamentalism is a strict adherence to some belief. So does that mean that fundamental muslims are those muslims who strictly follow their religion?
I've been in the Israeli city of Ashkalon during some of those "home made rocket" firings. Those weren't high end bottle rockets, and it's ignorant to make light of that. Terrorism, regardless if it's home made rockets or airplanes, should not be tolerated or sympathized with.
At the end of the day, Israel has an obligation to protect their people. If Palestine is to be recognized as it's own country, they have an obligation to police their people from engaging in violent acts with their neighbours. If they do not, I believe Israel has every right to defend themselves.
On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote: uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis?
A lot of rich and powerful jews I guess. (I hope it doesn't sound like I'm a racist, but I think this is the case, I read about it a few years ago)
Well, this is partially true and partially a stereotype.
A major part of the U.S. support for Israel is related to having a military presence in the Middle East. In other words, the alliance between Israel and the U.S. has much less to do, imo, with powerful Jews in the U.S. ( a common trope of conspiracy theorists) and much more to do with Israel as a military buffer zone for the U.S.
People often argue that the UN doesn't matter..that it is all talk. I dislike the logic of that argument. First of all, talk is a form of action. And in this case, we see much more than talk: we see a gesture that might undergird the formation of a real Palestinian State to the extent that Palestinians lobby for and receive increased recognition from other areas of the UN.
I'm in between Israel and the Palestinians on this issue as I think they both have legitimate claims to land. However, with regard to a Palestinian state, I am all for it and I fully support UN recognition.
On November 02 2011 02:31 Egyptian_Head wrote: As I understand it Obama could have been impeached for not following US law if funding was not cut. I believe is was some 1st bush and Clinton era policies that forced it to be cut.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pEfVJ93Cwa8/TDjQIyH5mGI/AAAAAAAAGmk/EA9TbmokMRE/s1600/israel-palestine-map.jpg)
