Damien
Emperor
It was in french so i DIDN'T misunderstand.
About the vote Vote for Israel in the UN
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
It was in french so i DIDN'T misunderstand.
G-Man
A One Man's War
I didn't mean that you didn't understand the language but it's possible they presented it as a theory and you thought it was facts. Either way I would suggest you not to present this rediculeous theory as truth.
Damien
Emperor
No, i didn't misunderstand.
It was a doc and there was no place for theories.There were interviews about the vote too.
Did you know that the Israeli air force prevented 2 syrian fighters from killing the king Hussein of Jordan in his plane?
The Israeli secret services and Hussein met many times on the shores of the Dead Sea...Hussein explained that he could do nothing,that if he made peace with Israel,he'd be dead,that peace was to be negociated with Saudi Arabia or Egypt,but not with a small country like Jordan.
It was a doc and there was no place for theories.There were interviews about the vote too.
Did you know that the Israeli air force prevented 2 syrian fighters from killing the king Hussein of Jordan in his plane?
The Israeli secret services and Hussein met many times on the shores of the Dead Sea...Hussein explained that he could do nothing,that if he made peace with Israel,he'd be dead,that peace was to be negociated with Saudi Arabia or Egypt,but not with a small country like Jordan.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Anyway this documentary was wrong. It's also not very likely that Hussein himself would go to the banks of the dead sea (which as you know was the border and was under the watchful eye of both sides).
Leglaen
Ajacied
It's sobering to think that one day's Arab oil revenues in 1949 would have sufficed to solve the entire Arab refugee problem. Instead the Arabs did nothing and indeed used the refugees as political hostages.
An interesting note about the UN is that whenever the Israelis were about to totally defeat the Arabs, the UN always quickly put pressure on both sides to come to an agreement, but when the Arabs were winning, the UN moved very slowly and put little pressure on the sides. Interesting to see how money affects the UN, no?
An interesting note about the UN is that whenever the Israelis were about to totally defeat the Arabs, the UN always quickly put pressure on both sides to come to an agreement, but when the Arabs were winning, the UN moved very slowly and put little pressure on the sides. Interesting to see how money affects the UN, no?
Your completely correct, there is a clear bias in the UN. not only is the UN bias because of the 'oil factor' but there is also a majority of Arab states in the UN and they ALWAYS vote against Israel on any issue. they seem to have a deep rooted hatred towards us.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Do we really need the UN votes to know that 
Leglaen
Ajacied
and also during the Cold War the Soviets used their veto power to completely hinder UN action.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Because we all know America never used ITS veto power to hinder any pro-arab vote *chuckle*
G-Man
A One Man's War
Many pro arab decisions - including decisions that border racsim - were done in the general assembly where the US doesn't have a veto power and the muslim countries are the largest group.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
*rolls eyes*
Many such were voted by the UN general assembly, yes, but nearly every anti-Israel proposal get vetoed at security council level by the US of A..
I never said I supported all the pro-arab stuff they're putting out (a quite sizeable of it IS bs) - but Israel is hardly the "poor martyrized child that nobody love."
No white, no black, only loads of disgusting gray on both sides. Bleh.
Many such were voted by the UN general assembly, yes, but nearly every anti-Israel proposal get vetoed at security council level by the US of A..
I never said I supported all the pro-arab stuff they're putting out (a quite sizeable of it IS bs) - but Israel is hardly the "poor martyrized child that nobody love."
No white, no black, only loads of disgusting gray on both sides. Bleh.
i guess thats reasonable................however we are victims of anti-semitism and anti-zionism. i think many countries in the UN think we should even have a state of our own. thats why(for the most part) the USA VETO some anti-Israel proposals because they are totally bias and unreasonable. but i see what your saying anyway.
G-Man
A One Man's War
I guess you can tell about other countries that the UN has declared it is illigal to support - even for their own citizens? And when the US is in the middle of a war against terrorism do you expect them to support pro-terrorist decisions and to accept anything a terror supporting country suggests?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
*rolls eyes again*
The US vetoing many anti-Israel resolution as it happens predates the war on terrorism.
And no, no one has declared it is illegal to support Israel.
Oh, and just because something is anti-Israel (IE, "Israel has no business controlling the west bank") doesn't mean it's pro-terrorist.
As I said, stop playing the "We're white and pure and nice and innocent" game. Israel is no such thing, and neither is Palestine. All I see is a lot of ugly gray spawned by human stupidity on all sides first and foremost.
The US vetoing many anti-Israel resolution as it happens predates the war on terrorism.
And no, no one has declared it is illegal to support Israel.
Oh, and just because something is anti-Israel (IE, "Israel has no business controlling the west bank") doesn't mean it's pro-terrorist.
As I said, stop playing the "We're white and pure and nice and innocent" game. Israel is no such thing, and neither is Palestine. All I see is a lot of ugly gray spawned by human stupidity on all sides first and foremost.
Leglaen
Ajacied
Do you mean human stupidity such as that of the Meccan merchants who forced Muhammed to leave Mecca instead of killing him? Or that of the present-day Arabs who continue to support the Palestinians because in doing so they support their policy of driving Israel into the sea?
Perhaps you mean human stupidity such as that of the Dutch and Poles, who foolishly allowed the Jews freedom of religion?
Perhaps you mean human stupidity such as that of the Israelis who bombed the USS Liberty in 1967. You are correct in that both sides have had their moments of stupidity. The question is: which side's stupidity is worse?
Perhaps you mean human stupidity such as that of the Dutch and Poles, who foolishly allowed the Jews freedom of religion?
Perhaps you mean human stupidity such as that of the Israelis who bombed the USS Liberty in 1967. You are correct in that both sides have had their moments of stupidity. The question is: which side's stupidity is worse?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Leglaen - FIRST, not killing Muhammed in no way shows human stupidity. The faith MUAHMMED preached is in itself no better nor worse than any other . The faith that Bin Laden has twisted for his own use is something else entirely.
Foolishly allowing the jews freedom of religion? OH, like Arabic spain you mean! No, not foolish at all. Don't play on the "Freedom of religion" score - the Christians country until the last few centuries have VERY LITTLE GROUND on which to claim to be better than the Arab ones on this. The ARABS tended to be MUCH more open to other religions on average throughout history.
I mean stupidity such as the Israeli invasion and maintained occupation of the West Bank when any doofus can make the maths and realize it's not going to help put any fighting or hatred to an end.
And stupidity like the Hamas and co constantly going to blow up Israeli - that's extreme stupidity.
And I mean stupidity like that cretinous Sharon going out of his way to make sure to hand the less peaceful elements of Palestine a golden pretext for the second Intifada with his little tour at the wall of laments. Any imbecile could see this would start a second intifada, he did it anyway.
And I mean stupidity like the Arabs (far from ALL of them, contrary to your out of place opnion) who wants to throw Israel off.
And I mean stupidity like the Israeli colons who state "No, the west bank is part of the promised land, we will never move away."
And I mean stupidity like GWB who state that there should never be a palestinian state unless they have free elections - and Arafat is not their leader. Why, that's fine democracy! He wants free elections, but then he tell them who they can't elect if they ever want to have a chance at statehood. Then again, considering how he got power in the first place, democracy might be a slightly foreign term to him.
Interesting side note : the most populous Muslim country is Indonesia, which isn't even an Arab country. Why, there goes the whole "Muslim = bad" notion you have been showing off with that first statement of yours.
Foolishly allowing the jews freedom of religion? OH, like Arabic spain you mean! No, not foolish at all. Don't play on the "Freedom of religion" score - the Christians country until the last few centuries have VERY LITTLE GROUND on which to claim to be better than the Arab ones on this. The ARABS tended to be MUCH more open to other religions on average throughout history.
I mean stupidity such as the Israeli invasion and maintained occupation of the West Bank when any doofus can make the maths and realize it's not going to help put any fighting or hatred to an end.
And stupidity like the Hamas and co constantly going to blow up Israeli - that's extreme stupidity.
And I mean stupidity like that cretinous Sharon going out of his way to make sure to hand the less peaceful elements of Palestine a golden pretext for the second Intifada with his little tour at the wall of laments. Any imbecile could see this would start a second intifada, he did it anyway.
And I mean stupidity like the Arabs (far from ALL of them, contrary to your out of place opnion) who wants to throw Israel off.
And I mean stupidity like the Israeli colons who state "No, the west bank is part of the promised land, we will never move away."
And I mean stupidity like GWB who state that there should never be a palestinian state unless they have free elections - and Arafat is not their leader. Why, that's fine democracy! He wants free elections, but then he tell them who they can't elect if they ever want to have a chance at statehood. Then again, considering how he got power in the first place, democracy might be a slightly foreign term to him.
Interesting side note : the most populous Muslim country is Indonesia, which isn't even an Arab country. Why, there goes the whole "Muslim = bad" notion you have been showing off with that first statement of yours.
The Invasion was part of the 1967 war.
It was not planned, as a matter of fact Israel tried to convince Jordan to stay out of the war.
Jordan, on the other hand, received false announcements that the Egyptians are victorious on Sinai when the opposit was true, and that motivated Jordan to join the War to wash the Jews into the sea.
That cost Jordan the West Bank.
The continous stay is indeed foolish, but at the time of the beginning of the occupation no one really cared for the Palestinians. The Israeli nation was thrilled with the victory in the 6 Day war and the lands that war brought to it - "The Palestinian Problem" as it is called only received attention after the first Palestinain intifada.
Amazingly, after the intifada and the peace process, including Oslo, Israel only doubled and doubled the size of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Nothing could be more foolish.
There is a good book called Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East.
That book is a result of thorough research on the Six days war and it sheds a lot of light on the Arab position, the Israeli position, the effect the Cold war had on that certain war and how the war affected the making of the modern middle east.
It was a war that was a result of lies, intentional fabrications and missed opportunities.
The Sharon visit to the Temple Mount, the holiest place to Jews, was nothing more than a springboard for the Al Akza Intifada.
First I reffer you to the Mitchell Report about the origins of the Al Akza Intifada.
The Mitchell report is very thorough, but with a few caveats:
First of all, the report says:
That makes it obvious that it won't judge the guilt of either side.
Moreover, it lacks evidence that was revealed after the publication of the report, I'll show which afterwards.
But the report makes it clear:
Followed by caveats mentioning that it was poorly timed. Indeed, anything that might had the slightest chance of inciting the Palestinians, even when it shouldn't, could be defined as poorly timed if it is used as a springboard to start a new Intifada.
If not Sharon's visit, they would have found something else.
Some Key evidence that was later revealed is lacking from the report, such as:
Source.
Most of the settlers live in settlements because of the amount of land you can get for a cheap price.
The Messianic settlers are also not to blame - if colonizing foreign land was not a policy of Israel, they would've never done it.
It's about time someone told the Palestinians some truth.
Arafat was a terrorist to begin with, incharge of the deaths of hundreds if not more than a thousand Jews.
There's even a recorded conversation he made with the members of Black September ordering those to massacre the 3 statesman they kidnapped in 1972 (Or 73.. can't remember).
Arafat missed a golden oppurtunity in Camp David II, and then jumped behind a canard, according to Dennis Ross' own words, of Bantustans.
The bantustans were never offered, the Palestinians were offered 95% of continuous land including a bridge to Gaza Strip.
You can read about it in the Article I posted on the Off-topic forum, written by Dennis Ross himself, and if necessary I can bring a quote of Barak himself that the Bantustans canard is nothing but pure unadulterated lie invented by Arafat so he won't lose power among his own people for declining what might have been their best chance to receive a fully functional, economically supported, continuous, state!
JoeM
Imperator
I know everyone considers this purely a Religious conflict, but can anyone tell me what, if any, economic benefits are gained through control of the occupied territories(whatever you want to call them)?
If there even any fertile land?
If there even any fertile land?
G-Man
A One Man's War
There are some fertile lands in the Jordan valley. Very little even for Israeli scales
Aside from that I don't think there's anything particularly profitable there.
redtom
Proudhonist
I got this game of the www.the-underdogs.org freeware/abandonware/shareware site.
Its pretty addictive game. Your basically the Israeli Primeminister having to cause chaos in the Mid-East for your advantage, invade, overthrow regimes etc. etc.
[To the mods - if this annoys you with a non-civ related file than just take it off don't take me off]
Its v. realistic, though don't try annoy Egypt to much, they tend to invade and capture you!
p.s. I can't remember the actual name of the game, its something like Conflict: Middle East.
Its pretty addictive game. Your basically the Israeli Primeminister having to cause chaos in the Mid-East for your advantage, invade, overthrow regimes etc. etc.
[To the mods - if this annoys you with a non-civ related file than just take it off don't take me off]
Its v. realistic, though don't try annoy Egypt to much, they tend to invade and capture you!
p.s. I can't remember the actual name of the game, its something like Conflict: Middle East.
