We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → You support Israel? I DO
| 879 | 90766 |
I just feel the morals and ethics of the middle east aren't right compared to any western country.
- 879 Replies
That would have to be reduced, given that half of them are from Muslim nations and it would be best to get neutral parties in the UN suits.
Still 50000 troops can be provided as muslim troops can b swaped with non muslims.
But pals will not accept that they will want atleast some one who they trust with enough power to affect the decision.
But pals will not accept that they will want atleast some one who they trust with enough power to affect the decision.
Given that a neutral arbitrator is best, rather than letting say NATO or the Arab League patrol, the UN is the most neutral and middle ground organization you can get that is up to the task. It's the best that can happen. Furthermore, peacekeepers are not supposed to shoot first and ask questions later, they can only open fire if anyone attacks them first, ensuring fairness.
the UN is the most neutral and middle ground organization you can get that is up to the task
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Wait, you are being serious...
The UN is one of the most historically anti-Israel organizations in the world. Out of all resolutions made pertaining to the Middle East, most of them have been against Israel for merely responding to attacks on their country, and the resolutions don't make mention of the actual rocket attacks that started the return fire in the first place.
[I'm on my phone so the format's screwy and I can't quote properly]
@ the argument of "It's our homeland due to ancestry"
Wasn't that part of Hitler's reasoning for taking over most of Europe: to expand the fatherland to its former glory?
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Wait, you are being serious...
The UN is one of the most historically anti-Israel organizations in the world. Out of all resolutions made pertaining to the Middle East, most of them have been against Israel for merely responding to attacks on their country, and the resolutions don't make mention of the actual rocket attacks that started the return fire in the first place.
Yes I am being serious. It has condemned both sides for taking part in attacks, it has condemned Hamas, so why can't it condemn Israel? As the mastermind behind the Partition, it has every right to condemn Israel for consistently bombing civilian areas.
Hence, I resent the fact that you call me a troll, when the UN IS the most neutral organization.
As the mastermind behind the Partition, it has every right to condemn Israel for consistently bombing civilian areas.
Hence, I resent the fact that you call me a troll, when the UN IS the most neutral organization.
First off, I wasn't calling you a troll. That was a laughing sound, you know, like a trilling one.
Second of all...
This article should explain why I don't feel the UN is unbiased against Israel.
This article should explain why I don't feel the UN is unbiased against Israel.
The whole initial two subsections of the article don't even elaborate or give examples of said discrimination, but only give topic sentences that hysterically ring out about anti-Israel rhetoric. Just because the UN, meaning the individual countries feel that Israel is in the wrong, and they have a right to, doesn't mean that it is somehow biased and unfair. Democracy works that way, if you're claiming that everyone who goes against your view is biased, and can't vote the way they feel, then you're twisting the principle of free will. The UN passes such resolutions because the majority of individual countries, feel that way. They are not biased in the sense that they pass bills without consulting anyone or such. Furthermore, when the article states that much time is devoted to passing resolutions on the subject, it is because there are many nations who sponsor such a numerous amount of bills. That is to say, individual countries come up with the bills first, not the UN headquarters or staff. And that isn't so much as bias as speaking up one's opinion.
Furthermore, I don't see how UN peacekeepers won't be neutral; they are bound by the rules of peacekeeping, which is wholly different from peace enforcement. Read up about them. Peace out.
The UN is obsessed with condemning Israel. If the US wasn't their ally, I think that Israel would be beaten into the ground, bombed, and invaded, all in the name of "rotecting human rights." It seems that the UN can't go one week without "imploring" or "condemning" Israel to either follow previous UN Resolutions that have no merit, or telling them to stop firing on militants who launch rockets at their country.
Newton's Third Law states: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." When you bomb or shell a country, you can expect the same in return.
If the US wasn't their ally, I think that Israel would be beaten into the ground, bombed, and invaded, all in the name of "rotecting human rights."
Then that's the fault of the Big 5 since only they can sanction war in the Security Council, the General Assembly can't and can only recommend.
The UN is obsessed with condemning Israel.
Let me correct that again. The individual nations within the UN are obsessed with condemning it since they are after all individual nations with individual views. They have a right to express them, which you term biasness. If you look at the voting records, the majority isn't exactly by a wide margin. That's how democracy works, it never is fun if you're on the minority bench, but it's the fairest system. And let me clarify again, such resolutions do nothing but clarify and condemn, sanctions and war are the decisions are up to the Security Council, which is useless since the US always vetoes it.
Oh, let me now decry how the Security Council is biased because of the US! How unfair it is that even though the majority of nations condemn it, one country blocks it! Down with the UN! Down with this fake democracy!
Really, learn more about the UN before ripping it apart. There are numerous checks and balances to counter biasness. Israel might have been condemned, but no serious actions have been taken on them. Sudan is ignored, because action has taken place, there are peacekeepers there, and the polls are watched. Not to mention they have been sanctioned before. Simple done. Why waste more resolutions on them?
Now in Israel's case......
Before you claim more biasness, read this article.
Newton's Third Law states: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." When you bomb or shell a country, you can expect the same in return.
Given that Israel keeps building illegal settlements, it's not a wonder why some Palestinians keeping bombing them.
Anyway, peace out my Jewish and Muslim friends, time to take a break from the Forums.
Before you claim more biasness, read this article.
I'm not going to accept the words of a person who's made it clear that they don't like Israel. If they cannot watch a few minutes of film to prove that the flotilla raid wasn't Israel's fault, than they don't get my respect.
Given that Israel keeps building illegal settlements
While some of the settlements are illegal, those are torn down over time. Also, many of them are built on private land, owned by the settlers. Whenever Israel tears down a Palestinian building, there are always mass protests, international condemnation, etc. However those buildings are built without permits! If I went to some public land, and then built a house without even getting some form of approval, you can bet that it would be torn down in a heartbeat. I don't care if it is a mosque, church, or synagogue, if you want to build a building, do it legally. Also, this article explains how the settlements are not illegal.
Really, learn more about the UN before ripping it apart. There are numerous checks and balances to counter biasness. Israel might have been condemned, but no serious actions have been taken on them. Sudan is ignored, because action has taken place, there are peacekeepers there, and the polls are watched. Not to mention they have been sanctioned before. Simple done. Why waste more resolutions on them?
I know all about the UN. I pretty much read up on it every day. I know about the checks and balances, but I am saying that the number of pro-Arab/anti-Israeli countries are completely obsessed as a whole with condemning Israel. It has gotten to the point where a new high-rise in Tel Aviv would be called "a hinderance to the peace process." Tell me this, WHAT PEACE PROCESS!? Israel has sat patiently at the table for years, only to have the Palestinians demand that they get all they are asking for before "negotiating." That doesn't sound like Israel is blocking peace, it sounds as if it is the Palestinians.
If the UN is so unfair, why is it ok for the UN to decide if Palestine has rights as a nation, but not to judge Israel?
I'm not going to accept the words of a person who's made it clear that they don't like Israel. If they cannot watch a few minutes of film to prove that the flotilla raid wasn't Israel's fault, than they don't get my respect.
So why should I accept your words on Israel since you're clearly biased against the Palestinians and for Israel? Clearly you're being more than just defensive, but paranoid here since what he does is partially objective - giving out numbers of resolutions against Israel that no nation has actually carried out is as objective as one gets. If one doesn't keep an open mind but points out everything and say it is biased, one might as well be a frog in a well looking at the sky.
However those buildings are built without permits! If I went to some public land, and then built a house without even getting some form of approval, you can bet that it would be torn down in a heartbeat. I don't care if it is a mosque, church, or synagogue, if you want to build a building, do it legally. Also, this article explains how the settlements are not illegal.
but I am saying that the number of pro-Arab/anti-Israeli countries are completely obsessed as a whole with condemning Israel.
Again, is that the UN's fault? No. The UN as an organization is made up of the voices of its members. As an entity by itself, it is not biased, the countries make it so.
Tell me this, WHAT PEACE PROCESS!? Israel has sat patiently at the table for years, only to have the Palestinians demand that they get all they are asking for before "negotiating."
From launching the Six Day War till launching Operation Cast Lead, to keeping on building illegal settlements, to bombing civilian areas just to get at terrorists, and blockading the Gaza Strip, the Israelis have always wanted peace.
While some of the settlements are illegal, those are torn down over time. Also, many of them are built on private land, owned by the settlers.
Which is now private after being taken from the Palestinians in the war. Also, Israel has left over a hundred settlements intact, tearing down less then fifty, with the majority coming from the Sinai which belonged to Egypt, and the Gaza Strip. It still has left a huge number left.
As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 live in settlements in the Golan Heights, that's a significant number given Israel's small population. Oh and yes the fact that Israelis only built settlements which cover 1% of the land in the West Bank. Well yes, BUT the jurisdiction of the Israeli settlements and their regional councils includes 42% percent of the West Bank, although the actual buildings of the settlements cover just 1% of the West Bank, according to B'Tselem (an Israeli NGO), which states that the land was seized from Palestinian owners in violation of an Israeli Supreme Court decision.
I will take out some samples from the article to shoot it down:
Settlements do not block the eventual establishment of a contiguous Palestinian entity. Some critics charge that settlements prevent peace by blocking the potential for a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank, which is proposed in most peace plans. This claim ignores certain basic realities.
They don't, they would just become part of the Palestinian state, if they don't move. Simple as that.
The overwhelming majority of settlers, close to 80 percent, live in communities such as Elkana, Maale Adumim, Betar, and Gush Etzion, located close to, if not contiguous with, pre-1967 Israel, and which can be connected geographically to the "Green Line" without involving Palestinian population centers.
All of these are part of the West Bank, all of which were given to the Palestinians during the 1948 partition. Hence it is illegal to build anything there.
The settlements are not located in "occupied territory." The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was the League of Nations Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.
The West Bank was allocated to Israel under a Jewish home? Load of tosh.
The West Bank and Gaza are disputed, not occupied, with both Israel and the Palestinians exercising legitimate historical claims. There was no Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to 1967. Jews have a deep historic and emotional attachment to the land and, as their legal claims are at least equal to those of Palestinians, it is natural for Jews to build homes in communities in these areas, just as Palestinians build in theirs.
The West Bank was allocated to the Palestinians under the UN Partition.
No. The relevant clause, Article 49, prohibits the "occupying power" from transferring population into the "occupied territory." Aside from the fact that the territory is not occupied, but disputed,
Look at above.
All of these are part of the West Bank, all of which were given to the Palestinians during the 1948 partition.
Again, while it was given to them in the partition plan, they lost it in aggressive wars! You cannot role the dice, lose, than cry about it for 60+ years. If the Palestinians wanted peace, than they would stop launching rockets-Hamas activity was basis for Operation Cast Lead-and go back to the negotiation table without preconditions (except maybe the stopping of settlements). But the stopping of settlements didn't work last time! Israel stopped building for 8 months, and sat patiently at the negotiation table. Then, when the Pals didn't show, they resumed building. If you don't take advantages of opportunities when you have them, you cannot complain about losing them.
As an entity by itself, it is not biased, the countries make it so.
You just reiterated my point! AS A COLLECTIVE GROUP, the UN is biased against Israel! I dare each and every one of those rulers of the respective countries, to live just a year in one of those villages where rockets are launched at.
The West Bank was allocated to the Palestinians under the UN Partition.
Again. Lost in aggressive war. Can't complain.
So why should I accept your words on Israel since you're clearly biased against the Palestinians and for Israel?
I am not biased against them. I listen to supporters' arguments and take them into account. However, when I hear so often that "Israel is the oppressor" and there is no proof that they provide to back it up, I take it as a load of hogwash and side with Israel. Also, whenever I hear the words "It was only a few rockets," I stop listening to them, as they admit that they started the fighting!
Again, while it was given to them in the partition plan, they lost it in aggressive wars! You cannot role the dice, lose, than cry about it for 60+ years.
Has nothing of what I said about international law sank in? Has nothing I mentioned about not punishing the people who are innocent for the sake of crushing the tiny minority sank in? Evidently not.
Again. Lost in aggressive war. Can't complain.
Above. Furthermore, I have argued how the Six Day War is disputed as to who started it.
However, when I hear so often that "Israel is the oppressor" and there is no proof that they provide to back it up, I take it as a load of hogwash and side with Israel.
Israel IS an oppressor. By bombing civilian targets, blockading them, and building ever more settlements, they aren't? Tosh.
If the Palestinians wanted peace, than they would stop launching rockets-Hamas activity was basis for Operation Cast Lead-and go back to the negotiation table without preconditions (except maybe the stopping of settlements).
Both sides need to stop it, not just the Palestinians. Instead of solely blaming the Palestinians, Israel has also got to stop carrying out blockades and attacking civilian centres.
But the stopping of settlements didn't work last time! Israel stopped building for 8 months, and sat patiently at the negotiation table.
Israel might have stopped building them, but they already leave such a a huge number behind that it is pointless to fight for a Palestinian state or call for negotiations with these in place. Almost half of the West Bank is taken in by Israel illegally already.
Also, whenever I hear the words "It was only a few rockets," I stop listening to them, as they admit that they started the fighting!
Never once mentioned that.
You just reiterated my point! AS A COLLECTIVE GROUP, the UN is biased against Israel! I dare each and every one of those rulers of the respective countries, to live just a year in one of those villages where rockets are launched at.
And I dare the entire Israeli government to live in any one of the refugee camps where the people are oppressed both by their own government and by IDF soldiers. Go on.
You must be logged in to post a reply!