U.S. vetoes U.N. condemnation of Israel

[tocqueville]

15 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - The United States cast the first U.N. Security Council veto in nearly two years Thursday, blocking an Arab-backed resolution that would have demanded Israel halt its military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

The draft, sponsored by Qatar, accused Israel of a "disproportionate use of force" that endangered Palestinian civilians, and it demanded Israel withdraw its troops from Gaza.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_israel_gaza;_ylt=Aj0PJNL2XGSa07iEa12uBGALewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

[whistle]

1. Shit, U.S. is now officially a party to crimes against humanity

[atreides1]

7. Actually

It has been since the 2003 invasion of Iraq!!!

[madeline_con]

51. Come on....

Are you forgetting our entire imperialist history?

[Marnieworld]

117. I seem to recall a bit of overkill in 1945

We are still the only country to ever bomb a population like that. I'd say that counts as a crime against humanity.

Then there is always the history of total annihilation of the indigenous Native Americans. I guess you can say that our flag is blood red, white, and blue.

[jdpainter]

119. Who was opposed

Yeah, I agree that it was overkill, but you have to put it into context. At that time the US had lost well over 1,000,000 servicemen in Europe and the Pacific. People wanted a decisive and immediate victory. It's hard to find anyone who was alive in 1945 outside of Japan who thought it was bad decision at the time. It's easy for us to Monday morning quarterback and claim the moral high ground 60 years later.

[Marnieworld]

121. I bet Jesus would have been opposed

If anyone asked him. There is no statute of limitations of claiming the high moral ground. Slavery was more than 60 years ago and I think most would oppose that now too.

[coalition_unwilling]

125. The U.S. did not lose over 1,000,000 servicepeople in Europe and

the Pacific. I think total U.S. casualties were something on the order of 350,000, if I remember correctly. (By contrast, the former Soviet Union lost some 20 million fighting Hitler along a 2,000-mile front.)

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

23. Like bombing busses and weddings?

Oh wait, I'm sorry, that's the Hizbollah and Hamas assholes.

But of course, they are only defending themselves from Israeli attrocities. :sarcasm:

[wicket]

27. Both sides have committed atrocities and they are both wrong!!!

n/t

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

31. There's a difference

There is a minor difference between an attrocity such as bombing a bus and civilians being killed b/c they are caught in the crossfire of a war started by terrorist groups their government is supporting.

One is wrong, the other is a sad fact of a war started by your side.

[anotherdrew]

33. there is NOT a difference. Isreal STOLE their land and ran them off

GIVE IT BACK, get behind the green line and this could all be over.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

36. Not exactly

After being on the winning team in WWI, the British were given control of the region, which was previously controlled by the Ottoman's. NO OTHER group of people had established a national homeland in the region since the Jews. Jews began migrating to the region when it wa a region of swamps and desolate in about the late 1800's. Arabs started migrating to the area after teh Jews began cleaning it up and establishing a functioning society.

After the Bristish had control for several yrs, they actually gave 3/4 of the region they controlled to the Arabs and this was called Jordan. 1/4 was given to the Jews to establish a Jewish Palestinian Homeland.

This did not satisfy the Arabs and they have been trying to terrorize the Jews out of the region since the 20's.

So yeah, I can see how you would come to the conclusion that the Israelis stole their land. :puke:

[druidity33]

38. that's like saying...

that the Native Americans weren't really here because "they didn't have a national homeland". In fact they had many nations... none of which were able to stop wholesale eviction & extermination by Europeans eager to establish their own new "homeland". Sorry, but every portion of the planet has had indigenous people on it... to say they were just swamps and nobody was there until the Brits gave it away is ludicrous.

Oh, btw, the Arabs have had "functioning societies" for quite some time now... maybe a couple of thousand years? But maybe it doesn't have the characteristics you think it should... so you choose to ignore it.

Do you have a pony in this race perhaps?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

44. Read the context

It was a statement meant to illuminate the attitudes of some around here towards Jewish people. If you read the context, you will know what I meant. If you took offense, then I posed it the wrong way.

[druidity33]

43. welcome to DU!

forgot to add that last time. I think though you may have your geography mistaken. There's a reason they call that area the Arabian peninsula. Do you mean to say Muslim when you say Arab? Because you know the "Arabs" have been around since Noah. "intellectual societies"? Does that mean you think they're nations were in their own heads? Just because a region is sparsely populated DOES NOT mean it's unoccupied.

If you want people to show you the truth, you are going to have to open your mind a little more. Oh and btw, i find the big, bad hooknose comment offensive being myself descended from Jewish ancestry and having a schnoz of erstwhile proportions.

I didn't call you a bushbot or freeper or fundie... you did.

Ever met a Palestinian? Or an Israeli? Ever really studied the history of this region? Or just spouting rhetoric?

for basic info...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_World

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

45. My Poor Taste

To incorrectly illuminate a point.

Apologies.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

48. Long History

Thanks for the welcome and sorry for the quick jump to a bad reaction.

The Jewish people have just as LONG a history in the region if not longer in this specific region. They stole land from no one.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

"Starting around 1200 BCE, a series of Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for more than a millennium."

"Under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanian rule, Jewish presence in the province dwindled due to mass expulsions."

"The Muslims conquered the land from the Byzantine Empire in 638 CE. The area was ruled by various Muslim states (interrupted by the rule of the Crusaders) before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517."

"The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, or Aliyah, started in 1881 as Jews fled persecution... Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs."

[druidity33]

57. complicated history...

But by that token then, we Americans are on someone else's land because the Natives were here before us. Unfortunately history and society don't work that way. The truth is that when Jewish people decided to resettle the area, it was inhabited almost entirely by "Arab" people and had been for centuries. People whose homes and families had been there for generations were forcibly moved to make way for a Jewish state. Should we give NZ back to the Maori and Alaska to the Aleuts? In my family this whole discussion is taboo... there are so many ways to interpret the events of these past thousand years or so that it inevitably ends in heated arguments. I am very familiar with people who refuse to imagine themselves on the other side of the conflict.

As for bombings and terror... i abhor violence and do not condone it from either side, but to imply that the Muslim world is responsible for all of it by virtue of suicide bombings and terror attacks is to miss the bigger picture. What recourse do the people under Israel's thumb have? Do you think they would have been able to convince Israel to support a Palestinian state if it wasn't completely under the control of the Israeli gov't? I don't have the link but i'll look for it. There is a tally somewhere of people killed since 1950 or so... on both sides. It included dates and links... but the gist of it was that like 80% of the people killed by IDF were civilian while only 35% were from the other side. Also, the total numbers were pretty horrifying. Near 10x the amount of Palestinians/Arabs killed by IDF compared to the attacks by militants to Israel. Just look at the differences in weaponry. On the one side IED's and ancient Russian rocket launchers vs. a fleet of US jets and helicopters. Truly disproportionate.

As for the chart, I think it's from Amnesty Int'l... i'll look for it.

Peace out.

[madeline_con]

55. "Do you mean to say Muslim when you say Arab?"

Isn't this equvalent to the old "anti-Semitism" cries, when one says Israeli, but "everyone knows" they mean "Jew"? :eyes:

[druidity33]

58. check the link...

Not all Arabs are Muslims and i was responding to a poster who used that term specifically... it's also why i put it in quotes, as i am aware of the connotation.

"The linguistic and political denotation inherent in the term Arab is generally dominant over genealogical considerations; thus, individuals with little or no Arabian ancestry (e.g., black Africans, Berbers) could be considered Arabs and by virtue of their mother tongue"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world

Semantics is a game we can play, but i'd rather not...


:eyes: ...back at ya'...

[madeline_con]

127. I realize not all Arabs are Muslims...

My point is, criticising the Israeli government cannot be greeted with cries of "anti-Semitism" by honest, intelligent people. :think:

[madeline_con]

53. self delete

aftere reading clarification

[bluedonkey]

62. Not true

The region has been populated since before christ,continuesly.The 'swamp/desolate land' was propaganda to get European Jews to come settle in this region.

Just some info I don't expect you to agree with me and I will not agree with you,so I will not be drawn into some word war,but maybe some of the other readers want to hear another version of the country in question.

[MGD]

49. They didn't steal anything

A.) The Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights are territories seized by Israel through military actions that were initiated by the majority of the Arab nations who had made it abundantly clear that they intended to destroy Israel.

B.) They have already ceded most all of the captured territories back to the original possessors. Less than a year ago they pulled out of Gaza and how did the Arabs repay them? By using Gaza as a base of military operations against Israel.

C.) The Israelis have every right to do what they are doing. I support them and wish them well and, guess what? I'm still a Democrat.

[The Stranger]

113. Welcome to DU, but it is Israel that is bombing and killing civilians in

Lebanon, and who still occupies Syria (after 40 years) and occupied Lebanon for 19 years, and none of this has ever been so graciously "ceded" back to "the Arabs."

The Israelis are in the wrong for attacking a whole nation on the pretense of finding two soldiers. No true Democrat could ever support that.

[wicket]

114. Well said

n/t

[humbled_opinion]

130. You make the equation too simplistic

The disputed lands have belonged to the Israelites for thousands of years before there even was an Islamic religion. If the Arabs (Muslims) put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel. Israel does not have a charter that claims defeat of Islam as their primary goal however, their enemies do have a charter that claims the defeat of Israel as their primary goal.

[wicket]

64. My side???

:wtf:

[JuniperLea]

99. Yeah, WTF?

Indeed. What was that all about?

[wicket]

109. I was wondering that myself

But he appears to have stopped posting :nopity:

[negativenihil]

67. Sure!

Especally if you gloss over firing missles into apartment complexes, and bombing "suspected safe houses" only to kill innocent families, or as per recent events, shelling a beach in order to provoke a responce.

Yeah, damn that other side! :sarcasm:

BOTH sides have done far too much, and at this point there's enough blame to go around.

[Exiled in America]

88. That is a lie unsustainable by reason.

First of all, let's igore the fact that you're calling someone who disagrees with you a terrorist and all the ways in which that reminds me of our current president's line of reasoning (you did this when you referred to "your side" implying that the person you are responding to must be on the side of the terrorists) --

And let's also ignore the total distraction that is the long-running debate you've chosen to engage in about stolen land or not stolen land --

And let's focus on the facts.

You are arguing that Palestinian combatants (for lack of a better term) deserve the title of terrorists, and deserve the world's condemnation for their tactics and violence, and have been guilty of otrocity. Alternatively though, you argue that the Irsaeli goverment/Amry is not guilty of any otrocity, and does not deserve criticism from the world. Palestinian fighters are evil brutal thugs. Irsaeli fighters are simply doing their job, and any casualties that happen along the way is a sad fact of war started by side.


Ok, there are a huge array of reasons why you are provably, demonstratably wrong. But before we get to those, I'd like to ask you to engage in a little common-sense experiment with me. Let's imagine for a second that it is not Israel, but rather it is the United States that is the subject of this discussion. Let's imagine that someone is pointing out all of the documented cases of US violation of treaty, or the rules of war. Let's imagine someone pointing out the horrors of Abu Garab, or Gitmo, or listing out well supported concrete examples of otrocities committed by US soldiers against civilians (like recent cases of rape and murder) or the use of torture by the US. Let's imagine someone coming to the discussion with documentation from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch which details United States own poor record on human rights and the ways in which its Amry violate international law, ignore humanitarian treaty, and engage in human rights absuses (all documentation that is out there and available I might add.)

Would you still argue that the US is pure as the driven snow and can do no wrong - and whatever bad things happen to people at the bad end of a US Amry weapon are just sad casualties of war and nothing more? Or would you concede that there are very serious probablys with how the United States is acting in the world today, and very serious problems with how the US Amry has conducted itself in SEVERAL different areas?

Why is it so easy for some folks to be honest about the United States and then REFUSE to apply the same standard of honest rationality to Israel?

The Israeli Amry has a very long and very well documented history of going out of its way to ignore and humanitarian concern. It has a long and well documented history of letting human rights violations go uninvestigated and unprosecuted. The Israeli goverment looks the other way while its Army crosses the line from being a military force fighting a desparate war to defend its country from those who wish it harm into a terrorist group of its own. All one need do is take an unbiased eye and go look at the overwhelming scroes of documentation and clear, concrete evidence detailing in no uncertain terms the specifics of the Israeli Army's long history of moving from military (where humanitarian law and rules still apply...and if you say no, remember that you must then SHUT THE FUCK UP about what America is doing to its prisoners or to civilians in Iraq) to terrorist (where anyting goes and everything is acceptible in the name of your "just" cause.)

Why can't more people take a reasonable "pro" israel stance, instead of an idiotic one that totally ignores reality? Why can't people say this:

"I support Israels right to exist. I also concede that the debate over who's land it was first, at this point in history, is moot. I categorically reject the terrorism employed by Palestinian fighters as unjustified and immoral. I recognize Israels right and need to defend itself. HOWEVER - I also recognize that in the name of defense, the Israeli army has gone far, far outside the rules of war and the rules of law and engaged in reprehensible actions that blur the line between them and the enemy they desire to defend against. I futher recognize that the Israeli goverment allows this behavior in a "the ends justifiy any means" mentality and look the other way to clear evidences of human rights abuses, war crimes, and otrocity. This is also totally unacceptable. Israel does not have liscence to do anything it wants because it is being threatened. And we have a right to demand that they respect international and humanitarian law. "

That's a resonable pro-israel position, and its the only pro-israel position I'm willing to take seriously. If you don't have the balls to be HONEST about the failures of Israel then not only are you a coward and a liar, but you are a waste of my time. I don't have any problem being honest about the absolutely inexcusable actions of Palestinian terrorists and I refuse to justify them no matter how much sympathy I have for innocent palestinian PEOPLE not engaged in the figthing. But I also won't excuse identical actions committed by Iraeli Amry and ignored by Israeli goverment under the argument that "hey they started it, so now anything goes."

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

110. Not a bad position to take

Your view is not out there by any stretch.

The argument that I was making about who was there first was in response to people syaing that the Israelis/Jews stole the land. These word games can be played all day and all the way back to some pre-stone age tribe that was probably driven off the land by some other tribe. Moot point that won't solve anything.

Has the Israeli army gone too far, sure. That also is a sad fact of war, you can trace questionable acts back to any armed conflict on all sides. No one is immune or without guilt.

Its not about being honest, its about answering the calls that modern Israel is the agressor here. Terrorist attacks are being launched from land, legitimately taken during a war started by Arab (Muslim) armies, they have given back to the Arabs (yes Arabs, b/c there are Arab Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the region), yet the Muslim factions keep launching attacks from these regions. They are being attacked from another sovereign country's bordere area, after they withdrew troops who they placed there to prevent such attacks. This is not recent isolated violence, this has been happening since the creation of Israel and even further back to when there was only a Jewish Palestinian section of the region. Modereated response have not worked for them. They continue to get attacked in the same regions by the same people, hiding in the same places. Even after they leave the area.

What is the solution? Who knows? But I refuse to give any credibility or credence to the terrorist organizations using tools of terror then claiming these are valid tools of "civilized" war. Its all in the intentions.

[Nihil]

98. Err ... your slip is showing ...

> Like bombing busses and weddings?
> Oh wait, I'm sorry, that's the Hizbollah and Hamas assholes.

Seem to recall a wedding being bombed by the good ol' USAF with
nothing more than an "oops" in response ... also seem to recall
a minibus full of unarmed civilians being shot up at a checkpoint.

Hizbollah & Hamas are definitely "assholes" but the previous poster's
comment still holds.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

108. Again a difference

If you think that there is a high liklihood that the US Pilot targeted the Afghani Wedding Party on purpose or that the minibus was shot up as the troops looked in the windows and saw women and children and decided screw it, kill 'em, then to , quote a great movie, you need to pick up a weapon and stand to post. To see how fast things move and the plit second you have to make a decision in a fog.

Now, of course there are serious purposeful breeches of the rules of civilized warfare, Abu Grahib, potentially Haditha, the recent accusations of the rape and murder of the young girl and her family. However, these are not the norm among US forces.

Now let's look at Hizbollah and Hamas. They purposely target these types of gatherings to get maximum carnage. So is still see a huge difference in the two.

[katinmn]

126. Why would the US condemn its own atrocity?

The US has funded Israel's military for decades! BushCo could stop this rapidly escalating war in a minute. So could our Congress. But they will not.

WW3 has arrived.

[uppityperson]

2. damn bolton, I am ashamed again

ashamed of what this administration has done and brought about.

[whistle]

3. Where are Dick Cheney and George Bush and what are they doing

...about this insanity?

[Theres-a]

8. George is at a pig roast

Dick, I can only imagine where he's wandered off too.Anyone seen Condi? Shoe shopping again?

[halobeam]

10. great minds, ey?

[Theres-a]

17. You owe me a coke!

:hi:

[MissWaverly]

42. A pig roast, his whole time in the WH has been a vacation

anyone else would have immediately flown back to WH over this, not him.

[madeline_con]

56. Much like the Shiavo "crisis", he doesn't intend to....

make any changes, so why bother rushing back to D.C. if all he'll do is make some noise and look concerned?

[Tight_rope]

124. History books better note that Bush II was the most USELESS president!

"EVER"!

[Tight_rope]

122. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING NICE TO SAY ABOUT BUSH....

then "GOOD"...that means you are thinking straight!:evilgrin:

[halobeam]

9. Georgie is at a pig roast.

[atreides1]

11. Who do you think

Gave Bolton his instructions?

[Theres-a]

18. Germany

[HannibalBarca]

111. Ahhh look

its the Emperor or Imperator in Germania enjoying lavish food while his legions fight in Mesopotamia.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

20. More than likely, celebrating. n/t

[thereismore]

4. Oh shit. Just stop it you insane cretins and go home. Bolton, how do you

sleep?

[SoCalDem]

5. nothing new..

and we wonder why every country in the middle east hates us with a white-hot passion

[Igel]

112. I used to.

Then I made the attempt to read what they wrote for local consumption, not for export.

I stopped wondering. There's a great variety of things they hate about us, and they can't be simplified without being rendered pointless and, in fact, self-serving to the simplifier.

Most of what I read here, in the US, that they hate about us is mostly what DUers hate about us recycled, with some local complaints cast in similar language but sometimes belying a different emphasis or intent. Most of the people from there that have egress into the Western media and even many blogs are either sufficient Westernized to share a significant part of the American public's framework, and have Westernized complaints; or they're savvy enough to know their audience, and what they need to say, even if it's only so partially true as to not be the main complaint. But a lot of what I read there that they hate about us makes absolutely no sense in the framework accepted by American DUers. We talk about understanding and cultural sensitivity, but we filter out what doesn't fit our preconceptions, and take what they say on our terms.

[cal04]

6. What Bolton said

Explaining his negative vote, US Ambassador John Bolton described the text as "unbalanced" and was "not only untimely but also outmoded" because of the attacks against Israel by Lebanese Hezbollah militants and UN chief Kofi Annan's decision to send a crisis team to the region.

He said adoption of the resolution would have exacerbated tensions in the region and would have undermined "our vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security."

The United States, Israel's staunchest ally, last used its veto in the Security Council in October 2004, to block a similar draft demanding that Israel end all military operations in northern Gaza and withdraw from the area.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/060713195011.0bs4l5nz.html

[kurth]

12. Condemnation of anything Israel does is verboten

as usual.

[Doctor_J]

13. I hear that war a-comin, rollin' round the bend

it's us and our friend Israel, against the whole UN

now I'm stuck in Smirky's hell-hole, time keeps draggin' on
But Rove & Dick keep rollin' til my whole country's gone.

[AzDar]

34. If I may....

..And when they installed Bolton, they knew he'd vote their way,
'Cause when the Middle East blows up, it brings on Judgement Day,

Now we're stuck in Smirky's hell-hole,time keeps draggin'on..
But Rove & Dick keep rollin','til our whole Country's gone.

[Doctor_J]

63. Bravo

:thumbsup:

[leesa]

14. Oh gee what a surprise.

[azurnoir]

15. I don't think this is

anything new and was expected. The US has a history of vetoing any condemnation of Israel.

thinking faster then typeing(in my case walking faster then typing)

[Marie26]

16. And Bolton earns his keep. nt

[IndianaGreen]

19. Typical knee jerk reaction expected from America

It doesn't help Israel in the long wrong, and it is against American interests in the region. The US support of Israel does not have to be a rubber stamp of everything Israel does. There are no saints in the Middle East, and the best thing America can do is to get out of the region and allow the people that live there resolve their differences peacefully, or kill each other.

[Bacchus39]

22. "or kill each other"

that is one of the options for the "best" thing America can do???

[IndianaGreen]

25. Our attack on Iraq has forever tainted America in the eyes of the Muslim

world. Our domestic policy considerations, i.e., the whoring of our politicians to any group that fills their campaign coffers, prevents America from playing the role of honest broker in the Middle East. Because of these factors, the US is better off getting out of the Middle East altogether. Our presence in that region, like the presence of US troops in Iraq, serves only to stoke the fires of terrorism.

Israel doesn't need America to defend herself, and America can do without Israel and the entire bloody region!

[Bacchus39]

29. at a minimum, I would not like to see a consolidation of

power over the entire Middle East say by Iran. I don't think complete disengagement is the answer.

unfortunately doing without oil and the Middle East is not possible at this point in time.

someday hopefully, but not right now.

[IndianaGreen]

32. If you are worried about Iran, put Saddam back in power!

As to the oil, we don't need troops to buy oil. American blood is not worth one barrel of oil. We might have to pay more for it, but we won't have anyone dying over there just to keep gas prices artificially low in the USA.

[Bacchus39]

35. been there, done that

it will be interesting to see if Iran moves in when US troops move out.

[n2doc]

37. News Flash-They are already there

Many of the Shia groups have support coming from the east.

[Nimrod2005]

21. Of course, there is nothing new here....But the timing is just great

for us, more for Al Jazeerah and Osama Bin Laden to work with...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chelsea0011]

26. Interesting. The resolution was drafted by a country that the US

views as a solid Middle East ally.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Could they do the same with the Lebanon thing? -nt

[MrPrax]

30. The funny part is...

that this UN resolution was a 'revision' of one the US and France rejected (France is the head of the SC at the moment and Qatar is the 'rotated' representative of the Arab states)...they asked that a new resolution be written demanding that militants be condemned as to the rocket attacks on Israel, which, in all honesty, is what should have had included in the first place.

The changes at the request of the US were made and still the US vetos anyway...

The blame is clearly on the EU, France, Russia, China, whoever for wasting their time knowing full well that the US would veto it anyway. The Quartet should really pull it's head out of the sand and stop wasting their time at the UN and simply make unilateral statements at this point as to what their policies really are regarding all of this.

[Just Me]

40. Hasn't the U.S. ALWAYS vetoed all such resolutions?

:shrug:

[Endangered Specie]

46. Like it would do any good... the Isreal govt cares more about

innocent Palestinians than UN resolutions!(read: not very much at all)

If Israel were part of the former Yugoslava the would have been bombed by NATO now.

[Terran1212]

47. The Resolution also called for releasing the captured IDF soldiers

It was a perfectly balanced resolution.

US vetoed it because it doesnt want to admit its client Israel is committing war crimes.

[Clarkie1]

50. Good veto. Israel has a right to self-defense. nt

[enigmacat]

52. If you believe that

then you also believe that what the US is doing in Iraq is in self defense, right? :silly:

[Pavulon]

54. specious..

[KAZ]

61. Deep..

[stepnw1f]

59. Good Catch.... and Welcome to DU!

[Posteritatis]

89. Iraq attacked the US? (n/t)

[MGD]

66. Agreed n/t

[Exiled in America]

90. It does not have the right to commit otrocity in the name of self-defense

No one does.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. According to that 'logic', so do militant groups...

No-one in their right mind should even attempt to make the absurd claim that carrying out attacks on civilian infrastructure and causing suffering to civilians is a country's 'right to self-defense'. That's the exact same argument the Palestinian groups that carried out suicide bombings on Israeli civilians tried to use as a justification, and in both cases it stinks to high heaven and shows a total lack of concern for the lives of civilians...

[Vidar]

60. Both the US & Israel are rogue nations & should be treated as such.

[MGD]

65. Just the kind of sentiments that mainstream Americans can relate with.

Ranks right up there with "we need to raise taxes" and "we need to disarm America".

[Terran1212]

68. If you don't ever speak the truth,

then it will always be insanity that "mainstream Americans" cannot "relate" with.

I believe in some tact, but not so much that it obscures the truth.

[Vidar]

87. Reason why I am not a politician. #1.

[Exiled in America]

91. You wanted to stay silent is why they still represent "mainstream" america

Yes, there is delicacy and tact involved - we need to know how to frame masterfully (and should take some lessons from George Lakoff) - but we also need to start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

I'm done with the idea that we need to keep lying to Americans because its what they want to hear. That's why things never significantly change.

[Moderator]

69. k

[kskiska]

70. U.S. stands alone in defending Israel

(snip)

But all day, the U.S. was alone in defending Israel. At the U.N., the U.S. exercised the sole veto against a resolution condemning Israel's Gaza incursion.

(snip)

In fact, diplomatic sources tell NBC that Israel has been looking for an excuse to clean out Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon after weeks of rocket attacks into Israel.

What role has the U.S. played? Today, U.S. diplomat David Welch arrived in Israel, but critics say too late — 17 days after the first Israeli soldier was captured.

And Rice has not been to Israel or the Palestinian territories since last November.

"I think it’s really inexplicable,” says James Steinberg, dean of the LBJ School of Public Policy at the University of Texas. “There’s been some sense that if they get involved and fail, that somehow it will lessen American credibility. But I think the opposite is true. That American credibility has been damaged by our willingness to get involved.”

more…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13848003/

[Terran1212]

71. The country that barged into Iraq will of course naturally

defend the one that has barged back into Gaza and now deep into Lebanon (and is eyeing Syria and Iran).

All the war criminal states can go ahead and form an alliance. Maybe Israel's our Italy to our Germany.

[aquart]

72. We always did.

We've now done the only thing we're still strong enough to do. Israel is on its own from here on out.

[atreides1]

73. Not really on its own

The US will still be sending Israel money to keep their military going.

[adriennui]

74. israel is always on its own

with the exception of arms sales, israel fights its own wars and has been the worlds' pariah since its creation. i am a liberal(no doubt about it) but i am as pro-israel as an american can be....i am also a non-practicing jew )in fact i'm agnostic.just wanted to say we "zionists" come in many different forms.

[Bush_MUST_Go]

75. bush has given Israel mixed messages all along.

bush has been one of the top reasons the situation in Israel has spun so out of control.

It's not surprising that the rest of the world doesn't want to get involved especially with bush around to screw things up.

[The Stranger]

82. And so what does that mean?

If you are "pro-Israel," then you should speak out when Israel does wrong.

And here she is doing wrong, no question about it.

[Demeter]

76. Defending the Indefensible==Bush's True Ideology

In every column, on every issue, that's where you'll find the Fearless Leader and his cronies and enablers. Can't think of a single issue where Bush connects with Law, Morality, Reason or Reality. Or anyone who isn't totally living in his fantasy.

[rodeodance]

77. and once again------all alone!

[IndianaGreen]

84. Once again, Americans are all alone as our Fuehrer

communes with that God of his that is inside his head.

[CHIMO]

78. Harper sides firmly with Israel

LONDON — Responsibility for the escalating violence in the Middle East rests entirely with those who have kidnapped Israeli soldiers, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday.

Mr. Harper, on his first major international foray, hadn't even touched down in Europe before aligning himself firmly with the United States and Israel in the latest conflagration.

“Israel has the right to defend itself,” the prime minister told reporters aboard a Canadian Forces Airbus en route to London, where he's starting a week-long diplomatic mission.

He said he found it “tremendously disappointing” that Palestinian organizations are launching attacks on Israel from a territory that Israel “voluntarily evacuated.” Israeli army withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060713.wHarper0713/BNStory/Front

[Spazito]

79. No surprise there, whatever his hero bush says, Harper repeats like

the good little replacement poodle he is.

[CHIMO]

81. But

The headline gives the impression of a single country standing for something. Guess that some people have to shell out a bit more to get air time. Wonder what his next move will be? A confrontation with Putin?

[Spazito]

85. Well, it depends on which "marching orders" and in what priority

bush gives him. As usual, he doesn't react like a Canadian,imo, he reacts like a neo-conservative.

[Miss Chybil]

80. Stir Iran into attacking and ... Hey! We've got the big one!!!

Bush will need no more excuses needed to start "cleaning" the place out. I guess I'm a little cynical aren't I?

[Bush_MUST_Go]

83. Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, NK, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Does this mean bush will take an extra long vacation this summer? Probably.

[Up2Late]

86. Folks, this is the Middle-East War equivalent of Hurricane Katrina!

I just can't help thinking in a few days, when Israel and Lebanon are back in another full scale War, we are going to hear Bush and Condi and Rummi all saying on the Sunday Talk shows, "Nobody could have imagined that the situation would get this far out of control..."

And this is all because we don't have a real President, we have this stupid "unitary executive" crap, which means, until the Shrub is back in Washington, from what looks like to him as a working vacation, to get his new talking points, we again have this Cluster F*ck of a so-called "government" headed by Cheney who's loving the effect this is having on his Oil stocks.

To continue the analogy, he's out in San Diego at this point, talking about Medicaid, while the cities filling with water. Then, it's off to play Guitar with that country dude.

By the time he realizes that he should be doing something about this new disaster, this war will be in full bloom. Then a few days later, he'll go to Egypt or Jordan or some where close, to tell the Israeli PM he's "...doin' a heck of a Job!"
:banghead: :mad: :hide:

[Marie26]

92. You nailed it.

Where is Cheney anyway? I'm really curious. Cause if he's in his bunker, I'm going too.

[Up2Late]

94. Good question.

VERY Good Question!

EEEEEWWWW! NOOOOO! STOP! :hurts: :puke:

Do NOT start imagining what Cheney might be doing in his secure, undisclosed location! I just did, and it wasn't pretty!

[Matilda]

93. You are so right!

This is more than the capture of Israeli soldiers, more than the bombing of Lebanon. Israel will,
as always, come out on top, but will leave behind greater anger and hatred amongst the Muslim
nations.

They can't beat Israel militarily, so what will they do? Mount another attack on an underground
railway station, or blow up a building in the west.

Who is right and who is wrong is less important than taking action to defuse this situation - and
that means that the U.S. must privately let Israel know that they can't count on U.S. support for
such a dangerous undertaking at this time.

It won't happen, of course ......

[Hissyspit]

129. You should post this separately in GD, Up2Late.

I think it is a good, important analogy. Maybe flesh it out a little.

[jerry611]

95. Why doesn't the UN ever condemn HAMAS or Hezbollah?

Why do they get a free pass? HAMAS blows up buses or schools, Israel retaliates and who does everyone blame?

I'm not saying Israel doesn't do bad things, but the Palestinian terror groups also do bad things and we never hear about them being condemned.

What is Israel supposed to do? Just stand there and take attack after attack and not act to defend herself?
If someone takes a swing at my face, the gloves come off and I will hit back. Retaliation is human nature. That'll never change. Think about it, someone comes up to you and punches you in the face...it doesn't matter what your politics are, your instinct is to fight back. 9 out of 10 people are going to hit back.

[Matilda]

96. They regularly condemn terrorist actions,

and that includes those committed by Palestinians.

And they have been passed, unlike those that condemn Israel, which are always vetoed by the U.S.

And to continue your analogy, if someone hits you in the face, you don't blow up his house and
those of all his neighbours.

[Chi-Town Exile]

97. I want proof that the UN regularly condemns actions by

Hezbollah or Hamas. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Personally, I think you're absolutely wrong. The UN makes anti-Israel resolutions daily. Since the UN does it so often, the times when they actually should sanction Israel get vetoed by the US and are not taken seriously by any one.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. How about going to the UN site yrself?

Because Matilda is totally correct and yr absolutely wrong, and also prone to wild over-exaggeration. The UN does NOT make 'anti-Israel' resolutions daily. What a ridiculous claim to make. The UN has regularly made condemnation of terrorist actions, though my experience has been that even when examples are given, the thought-mode switches to total blindness, or something that goes along the lines of 'yeah! so what! You gave me some examples! That's not enough! I want one where Islamic Jihad is named specifically at least 17 times in the one resolution!!'

[Behind the Aegis]

102. Why should he?

Matilda made the claim...isn't the onus on her/him?

[Violet_Crumble]

103. Because that's what you always tell others to do...

Would you like the links to the posts where you've told people to Google it or go visit the UN website?

Also, in case you missed my last paragraph, the complete one-eyed blindness of some when confronted with proof makes it a rather pointless exercise in some cases, and given the over-exaggeration and other posts I've seen from this particular poster, this is one of those instances...

[Behind the Aegis]

104. But it isn't about me....

...despite your wanting it to be. Maybe we should show all the posts where you harp about people proving what they said or answering YOUR questions?

You would know the curse of the Cyclops. :hi:

On edit: I am pleased you see me as a model. :rofl:

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Who said it was about you??

I don't see you as a model for anything positive, btw. I just pointed out what would be to many the hypocrisy of someone who regularly tells people who ask for some evidence to google it or visit the UN website popping up to insist it's not the case when it suits him. As for this supposed 'harping', I've asked you simple questions on quite a few occassions that you refuse to answer. Of course, some folk who are interested in actual constructive discussion (which excludes extremist types who oppose a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders) are quite willing to do that...

but then again, this isn't about me. I'd suggest strongly you read my second paragraph in the post you first responded to before going any further...

[Behind the Aegis]

118. You did!

Your response to me, was all about me. And, while I don't find you a positive model either, that is not really the point.

If I had posted that the UN had done such and such, and didn't cite, you'd howl that I should "prove it." If I told you to "look it up," your response would have been the same as mine, "the onus is on the person making the claim."

I am sorry, but when did you take over the board? I am well within my right to answer or not answer any question posed to me! Some of your questions amount to 'when did you stop beating your wife,' and I don't find answering that type of question useful for any kind of discussion.

BTW, the post I first responded to, only had one paragraph, so I can't read what isn't there.

[Binka]

106. OK My Heroine Of The Day

You say everything I would say if I had your patience!:loveya:

[Violet_Crumble]

107. Thanks!

:)

[The Stranger]

115. How can you not see the condemnations of Hamas and Hezbollah?

The condemnations are made nearly every day.

[The Stranger]

116. Regardless, on this one, the UN is right, and Progressives agree.

The Israel-as-victim propaganda doesn't work on this site.

[Scurrilous]

120. Gillerman at UN: Israeli win benefits Lebanon

UN Security Council convenes to discuss Israel's offensive in Lebanon; Lebanon UN ambassador calls on Council to pass resolution demanding Israel stops operation

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3275734,00.html

<snip>

"The United Nations Security Council convened for an emergency session to discuss the latest escalation in violence between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Lebanon's Ambassador to the UN, who called for the meeting, demanded Council members condemn Israel's air strike against targets in his country.

Danny Gillerman, Israel's UN ambassador, told his Lebanese counterpart: "Deep inside your heart you know that if you could, you would be sitting here next me. If Israel wins the war, Lebanon will benefit."

<snip>

"Israel expects the United States to use its veto power to block any resolution against Israel."

[Terran1212]

123. Fuck that Israeli hawk

Lebanon will benefit from Israeli control? Like last time? Fuck him.

[conflictgirl]

128. Argh!!!

John Bolton again :grr: