2 banned Al Samoud missiles found

[mrskippy]

Israel is technically still at war with:

Syria
Lebanon
the Palestinians

and most of the Arab world. A few Gulf states have limited diplomatic and trade relations with Israel.

Lebanon/Syria uses Hezbollah in its war on Israel. The Palestinians are backed by Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Suicide bombings are considered an act of war. And the Palestinians do have a military that has been aggressive towards Israel.

The Oslo Accords were ... a joke. The Koran forbids the Arabs from allowing the Jews to have control of any portion of Jersualem. If the Muslims lose Jerusalem, the religion would be doomed. It's the third holiest site.

Arafat says he'll protect the holy shrines in Jerusalem ... but only the Muslim and Christian ones. Never does the PA recognize any Jewish connection with Jerusalem.

The PA still calls for the destruction of Israel and to push the Jews into the Med.

Israel has every right to defend itself from Palestinians aggressors who have declared war on the Jewish state.

The reason Israel hasn't signed the Geneva Conventions, the Nuclear Prolif. Treaty, etc., is that it would be suicide. Israel would have no trump card and would be crushed instantly.

[clintl]

There is little doubt that Israel is at least in violation of Resolution 242, passed in 1967, which the U.S. not only voted for, but helped author.

[John Galt]

Skippy, I knew it was pointless to enter another discussion with you since you are debating with a whole separate notion of "facts." My question, though, is where do you get your "facts?" I mean are they from your head or do you actually find someone crazy enough to cite for all your stuff?

[mrskippy]

Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967



The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment 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:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by John Galt
Skippy, I knew it was pointless to enter another discussion with you since you are debating with a whole separate notion of "facts." My question, though, is where do you get your "facts?" I mean are they from your head or do you actually find someone crazy enough to cite for all your stuff?

Fact: Syria and Lebanon are still technically at war with Israel. Do you deny that?

Hezbollah is supported by the Syria and Lebanon (Syria actually has de facto rule in Lebanon).

Fact: North and South Korea are still technically at war with each other. Do you deny that?

Fact: Between the end of Gulf War I and Gulf War II, US and Iraq technically were at war. Do you deny that?

In the latter two, a cease fire isn't a peace treaty. It is only a break in hostilities.

I've studied the Middle East, especially Modern Israel, quite extensively.

UN 242 also said that someone would help establish peace between the parties.

However ... it must be noted that at the time 242 was passed ...

The West Bank was Jordan; Sinai was Egypt and Golan was Syria.

Israel gave Sinai back in its treaty with Egypt. The West Bank belongs(ed) to Jordan. They didn't want it back, so technically it could be considered no-man's land, a frontier.

Palestine isn't a state. Until 1917 it was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. From 1917-1948 it was part of the British Commonwealth. There was no independent Palestinian state, ever.

The Palestinians only wanted a state of their own after they realized the Jews would get a state of their own.

As for Golan, it's status hinges on peace with Syria.

[clintl]

If you are going to talk history, perhaps you should consider the fact that there were very few Jews in Israel/Palestine in 1900, and the vast majority of the population consisted of Muslim and Christian Arabs. I'm not saying the Jewish people don't deserve their own homeland and country, but the Palestinians do have some legitimate historical grievances over how the world handled this situation.

You might also want to consider that prior to WWI, almost all of the Arab world was ruled by the Ottoman Turks, and from WWI to WWII, a lot of it was ruled by the British. So the fact that there was no Palestinian state doesn't mean a hell of a lot. There were a whole bunch of countries in the region that didn't exist until recently.

[mrskippy]

Israel has existed before.

[astralhaze]

Ahem...technicaly the U.S. has never been at war with Iraq.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
You might also want to consider that prior to WWI, almost all of the Arab world was ruled by the Ottoman Turks, and from WWI to WWII, a lot of it was ruled by the British. So the fact that there was no Palestinian state doesn't mean a hell of a lot. There were a whole bunch of countries in the region that didn't exist until recently.

Not exactly on topic, but Clint suggests the true seeds of discontent in much of the post-colonial world. These "New" countries are the result of short sighted political manufacture and have not had a chance to adjust their borders to fit their people groups and cultures. Unfortunately, their "independence" happened to coincide with cheap arms, easy technology, and population explosion.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Ahem...technicaly the U.S. has never been at war with Iraq.

War is war!!!

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Israel has existed before.

Not since 63 B.C. Hardly a strong claim that they have more of a right to a state than the Palestinians.

[Bee]

Originally posted by mrskippy
War is war!!!

Technically, you've stated above that a cease fire is war.

[mrskippy]

Cease fire only stops hostilities. It is not a peace treaty.

N and S Korea had a cease fire ... but, I believe they are still at war ... at least that's what most military experts will tell you.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
Not since 63 B.C. Hardly a strong claim that they have more of a right to a state than the Palestinians.

A.D.

The reason the Arabs won't let the Jews excavate under the Temple Mount is that they're afraid something would be found to substantiate the claim to the property.

My personal belief is that the Ark of the Covenant is still buried under the rebel of the Temple Mount and has simply been built over. If that was ever found, I don't think anyone could deny the Jews right to the property. But that's just a personal belief.

[clintl]

63 B.C. That's when Pompey the Great conquered Israel for Rome. After that, it was a Roman province. You might be thinking of the failed revolts from 66-73 A.D.

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Cease fire only stops hostilities. It is not a peace treaty.

N and S Korea had a cease fire ... but, I believe they are still at war ... at least that's what most military experts will tell you.

I suppose that means that since we have not declared war since WWII, it means that we are not presently at war.

[Bee]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Cease fire only stops hostilities. It is not a peace treaty.

N and S Korea had a cease fire ... but, I believe they are still at war ... at least that's what most military experts will tell you.

cease fire = war
cease fire = stopping hostilities

war = stopping hostilities

Damn...war is peace.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
I suppose that means that since we have not declared war since WWII, it means that we are not presently at war.

Unless congress failed to ratify a peace treat following one of our wars.

[mrskippy]

We're not at war? Hahahahahahahahhahahaa

Just because you don't declare war, doesn't mean your not at war. I think war is being used rather openly to describe the current Iraqi situation.

I think Bush also has called the war on terror ... a war.

Go ask a military expert to see if N. and S. Korea legally are still at war.

Any shots fired ... it's called breaking the cease fire.

When we bombed Hussein almost two weeks ago ... we broke the cease fire from Gulf War I.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Go ask a military expert to see if N. and S. Korea legally are still at war.

When did they legally go to war?

[clintl]

If you don't need a formal declaration of war to have a war, I don't see why you need a formal peace treaty to have peace. As far as I'm concerned, if there haven't been hostilities between two countries for 50 years, that's peace, whether the two countries ever signed a peace treaty or not.

[mrskippy]

Doesn't matter ...

But there never was a peace treaty, just a cease fire.

[clintl]

You don't get it, do you, mrskippy? I am discussing reality, and you are discussing bureaucratic technicalities.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
If you don't need a formal declaration of war to have a war, I don't see why you need a formal peace treaty to have peace. As far as I'm concerned, if there haven't been hostilities between two countries for 50 years, that's peace, whether the two countries ever signed a peace treaty or not.

Peace between North and South Korea. Hahahhahahahahahhaa!!!

A formal peace treaty would deal with issues such as borders, eliminate a need for a DMZ, leave troops to redeploy, etc. None of that has happened since the Korean War.

Also, anybody who has served in the Persian Gulf since the first Gulf War is considered a Gulf War Veteran. Even if you were aboard a ship in the Gulf in 1998, you qualify for Gulf War Veteran status.

The reasoning is that the first Gulf War was only in a cease fire. Technically you could still call this Gulf War I.

In Iraq there was a DMZ, troops remained stationed throughout the Gulf region, etc.

The no-fly zone went away, because the United States broke the cease fire and the terms of that cease fire. Iraq can now fly their planes over Northern and Southern Iraq and not be in violation of the no-fly zone.

[John Galt]

See if you type Hahahahahahahaha after you say something, it means you are right.

clintl, the key to this discussion with skippy is that he supports technical definitions when they support his argument (Iraq with missiles, Israel at war, etc.), but doesn't when they hurt his argument (Israel in violation of UN resolutions, Saudi Arabia in violation of international human rights conventions, Israel in violation of international human rights accords and treaties, etc.). skippy just babbles until he is so far off subject that he thinks he is right.

[mrskippy]

Why is Israel in violation of UN Resolutions. Read the entire text of UN Resolution 242. Other countries are expected to participate and live up to the bargain. And ALL parties (meaning the Palestinians are expected to cooperate).

Also, at the time the West Bank was part of Jordan. Jordan has ceded that to the Palestinians, which I think is open to debate, given the circumstances.

Most other UN resolutions against Israel weren't even endorsed by the United States. Several of those were vetoed. Others I believe were inthe General Assembly.

Also, only resolutions passed by the UN Security Council are considered binding. The reason I say this is because the Arabs are considering introducing a resolution to the General Assembly denouncing the United States -- since we could essentially veto any resolution against us in the Security Council. However, a General Assembly resolution isn't binding.

As for Saudi Arabia, while their laws are rough, I don' t think the argument against Saudi is fair. The violations deal mainly with woman and punishment for crimes. You must remember they follow strict Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. It is a 100 percent Muslim country. Christianity and Judaism are outlawed.

And there's something to be said about a country with a low crime rate.

It's not as if Saudis are forced to stay. The country does have open borders.

[mrskippy]

Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbours 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
The violations deal mainly with woman and punishment for crimes.

I was watching 60 Minutes a few weeks ago when they did a story on Qatar, and I can tell you this - the predominant attitude of the Qatari girls that were interviewed seemed to be, "Thank Allah we weren't born Saudi."

[mrskippy]

Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):
"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."

Here's the linkage to the entire thing. Most agree that the borders are open to interpretation. So essentially Israel could carve out Jewish sections as it has, where it wants and work around it accordingly.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cyv0

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
As for Saudi Arabia, while their laws are rough, I don' t think the argument against Saudi is fair. The violations deal mainly with woman and punishment for crimes. You must remember they follow strict Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. It is a 100 percent Muslim country. Christianity and Judaism are outlawed.

And there's something to be said about a country with a low crime rate.

It's not as if Saudis are forced to stay. The country does have open borders.

So, in your world it is okay to abuse human rights as long as you limit it to women. Even better, you can abuse women if you have a low crime rate. This makes sense out of your comments about the dead women and children - it doesn't matter if women and children die.

[mrskippy]

The following is a very good read on 242 and I think explains my view on it in a nutshell.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by John Galt
So, in your world it is okay to abuse human rights as long as you limit it to women. Even better, you can abuse women if you have a low crime rate. This makes sense out of your comments about the dead women and children - it doesn't matter if women and children die.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.

Islamic Law applies to men as well. Saudi Arabia has laws for:

1 - Homosexulaity (death)
2 - Adultery (death)
3 - Sex out of wedlock (death)
4 - Christian missionaries can be jailed or executed.

These relate EQUALLY to men and women.

True women are treated as second class citizens. Lest you forget it wasn't long ago that women were treated as second class citizens in this country and in some cases still are.

I think most people have trouble with the penalties more than anything.

Do I agree with the penalties? No. But they have the right to have those penalties, don't they?

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
I was watching 60 Minutes a few weeks ago when they did a story on Qatar, and I can tell you this - the predominant attitude of the Qatari girls that were interviewed seemed to be, "Thank Allah we weren't born Saudi."

Qatar also would be considered a westernized, secular Arab country. Yes, it's mostly Islamic. But this also is a country that has established limited ties with Israel and has allowed the Coalition to headquarter its Central Command there.

There's a difference between a religious Islamic state (Saudi, Iran) and a secular Islamic state (Iraq, Qatar). Some states are in between (Kuwait).

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
True women are treated as second class citizens.

What about fake women?

[mrskippy]

True, women ...

You know what I meant!!!

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Qatar also would be considered a westernized, secular Arab country. Yes, it's mostly Islamic. But this also is a country that has established limited ties with Israel and has allowed the Coalition to headquarter its Central Command there.

There's a difference between a religious Islamic state (Saudi, Iran) and a secular Islamic state (Iraq, Qatar). Some states are in between (Kuwait).

What's your point? That's it's OK for a religious Islamic state to treat women like crap? FWIW, Qatar's transformation is recent, and still in process. These school girls are the first generation of Qatari women to have these kinds of opportunities.

[KWhit]

So it's okay for Saudi Arabia to have human rights abuses as long as they have a good, religious reason for them?

I'm confused.

[clintl]

The funniest thing about this is that mrskippy is now defending Islam.

[mrskippy]

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_242.php

[mrskippy]

I have nothing against Islam. And my prayer is that one day Saudi Arabia will be free too.

My biggest hope is that my Israeli stamp in my passport won't be a blocking point to my entry to these great nations.

FWIW Saudi is in the process of transforming itself. That transformation is expected when the younger monarchs take over for King Faad.

[astralhaze]

You are right skippy, there is an argument, an incorect one IMO, that Israel is not violating U.N. 242. This argument is dismissed outside of the U.S. and Israel, but at least there is an argument out there. However, 242 is far from the only resolution regarding Israel.

From http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return.

[mrskippy]

Note that most of those simply say "deplore" "strongly condemns" "deeply regrets" etc.

That's not much different than the City Council passing an anti-war resolution.

Very few actually give Israel an order and of those, I'm sure many were objected by the US and/or had clauses that had to be met.

And what is incorrect about Resolution 242 not being met. Israel isn't required to pull out of "all" the West Bank, Gaza, Sanai, Golan.

How much territory Israel returns is to be determined in peace talks. Egypt got all Sinai back already. Jordan got nothing back at all, because they basically reliniquished the West Bank. And Syria basically balks at ever making peace with Israel and because of that Israel has the right to keep it.

Israel has a fundamental right to keep land won in a war such as the Six-Day War. It is not expected (and the resolution essentially allows for this) to return to the pre-1967 war borders. That is the argument for keeping settlements and ALL of Jerusalem. It is the reason why talks have stalled. Both sides have to agree to new borders. The Arabs want to revert back to pre-1967 and actually to pre-1948.

Also should be noted that the pre-1967 borders are different than the pre-1948 borders. Israel won land from the Arabs in the War for Independence. And that was pretty much a fair victory there.

But the Arabs want to go back to pre-1948 and create the state of Palestine, to include all of Israel proper.

[mrskippy]

* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

BTW ... why haven't the Palestinians been condemned? They've been known to throw stones from the Temple Mount onto those praying at the Western Wall.

I don't think I've ever seen any resolutions against the Palestinians.

[Easy Mac]

Thats the same wording that is used in the Iraqi resolutions

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Fact: North and South Korea are still technically at war with Israel. Do you deny that?

[Using my best Jon Stewart impression] Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? Might want to go back and edit that one.

For your more recent arguments regarding Saudi Arabia, I think either you are more concerned with proving JohnGalt wrong or you are an idiot. The only transforming that will be done there is the Islamic theocracy that will take over once US troops move to bases elsewhere and the al-Saud's stop buying them off by paying for the spread of Wahhabism.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Thats the same wording that is used in the Iraqi resolutions

OK OK But don't the one's against Iraq actually have orders to do certain things or face punishment. I don't think the one's against Israel ever did and the ones that were voted on were vetoed by the US ... Than again maybe this just shows how worthless the UN is.

But you failed to answer my other question ... what about resolutions against the Palestinians for violence against Israel?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by mrskippy
BTW ... why haven't the Palestinians been condemned? They've been known to throw stones from the Temple Mount onto those praying at the Western Wall.

I don't think I've ever seen any resolutions against the Palestinians.

Probably because it is not a state. It is not a state because Israel, in defiance of the world consensus, again, outside of the U.S. and Israel, refuses to adhere to 242 and all other relevent resolutions. Who would the U.N. condemn? They have no representation and no government.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
[Using my best Jon Stewart impression] Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? Might want to go back and edit that one.

Nice catch. Fixed. Should've been "each other."

For your more recent arguments regarding Saudi Arabia, I think either you are more concerned with proving JohnGalt wrong or you are an idiot. The only transforming that will be done there is the Islamic theocracy that will take over once US troops move to bases elsewhere and the al-Saud's stop buying them off by paying for the spread of Wahhabism.

There are some who believe that the younger sons of King Faad will indeed make significant changes towards Westernization. The one Saudi prince that died, who owned races horses, he was a Westernized dude.

Saudi already has some Western-style resorts along the Gulf and Red Sea. It also is starting to adopt the Internet and I believe has some Internet cafes. It's all downhill from there really.

Egypt and Jordan reaped big time by Westernizing. Jordan's peace treaty with Israel helped spur Jordanian tourism, especially to one of the most gorgeous sites in the Middle East - Petra.

My guess is that Saudi will follow eventually.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Note that most of those simply say "deplore" "strongly condemns" "deeply regrets" etc.

That's not much different than the City Council passing an anti-war resolution.

It sure as hell is different. U.N. resolutions do not make law, they are more akin to the Supreme Court interpreting existing laws. When they say "deplore", etc, what that is saying is that Israel or Iraq or whoever is already violating the law and they are calling on them to obey it. Huge difference.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Probably because it is not a state. It is not a state because Israel, in defiance of the world consensus, again, outside of the U.S. and Israel, refuses to adhere to 242 and all other relevent resolutions. Who would the U.N. condemn? They have no representation and no government.

Ahem, they have a government!!! The Palestinian Authority. The leader is Yasser Arafat. They also have a new prime minister. They have different ministers (cabinet members).

Read 242 again. And read the words very carefully. The Arabs wanted certain words in there. US vetoed. Words removed. Resolution passed.

Do they have a state? Sort of. They have autonomous areas under their control.

Should also be noted that when 242 was written, the West Bank was Jordan. Israel had captured it from Jordan. That's key. That's everything. Israel was required to negotiate with Jordan. They did.

Jordan reqlinquished the West Bank to the Palestinian people and one could question the legality of that, since at the time Israel had the land and its status hadn't been determined between both parties (Jordan relinquished the West Bank prior to its peace treaty with Israel).