Wow, what a long list of anti-semitism from the UN. Apparently, parades are suddenly "deplorable." The UN as a whole should get the biggest Resolution regarding the middle east, not only for playing peanut gallery and Monday-morning Quarterback about the whole thing from their lofty perch on high all the time, but also for being the collective group of idiots that stuck the cobra and mongoose in the same cage to begin with.

Anti-semitism

\An`ti-Sem"i*tism\, n. Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews.

Find me a resolution from that list that's anti-semitic.

If passing resolutions that oppose Israel's actions is anti-semitic, then the US has no answer to accusations of being anti-arabic and anti-muslim.

Don't insult the intelligence of all the people in the UN from across the world by branding them with an inaccurate label. Calling people who criticise Israel's actions anti-semitic is the last resort of the desperate apologist.

[ 06-07-2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Fair enough. These days being anti-Arabic suits me fine.

Condemning a parade is ludicrous. Jerusalem is the holy city of the Jews, and they should be able to celebrate being Jewish there. It's the hallowed ground where they slew Jesus, after all. :D

Let me count the number of peoples and religions I just insulted there in one way or another. *smiles* Must be a personal record.

Come now Timber, that was just before the 1969 war. It seems that blocking such a provocative parade (and a military one - not civilians celebrating, which indeed they have every right to do) given the circumstances is sensible and not ludicrous.

In any case, ludicrous is not anti-semitic.

EDIT:

Also, a point of information: Jerusalem was not part of the original Israeli state. The UN, when partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, declared that Jerusalem and its environs (including Bethlehem) would be an internationally administered enclave in the projected Arab state. Only in the 1967 war, did Israel gain control over all of it.

Their right to parade tanks through it, one year after invading it, seems a little more suspect now...

Any other ones you wish to pick out?

[ 06-07-2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

And i just can't resist quoting one of your comments: "that has to be the dumbest thing i've read all week". ;)

If your anti-arabic stance is representative of your country, or at least your administration, (which when looking at the likes of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld doesn't seem unreasonable), then is it any wonder arabic states feel they need WMD's for their own protection from a rogue superpower?

[ 06-07-2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Just wanted to note this was total sarcasm. Just in case it wasn't clear.

As for the list of charges against Israel, I think some of it is crap and some on-point. But, if it really is so wrong for Israel to take land that was not its own to begin with (which I have said time and again that it is), then this list of censures and reprimands is just funny. Why doesn't the UN get off its collective ass and do something? Well, because it can't -- it's a useless organization.

I do note, that 50 years and 150 more resolutions from now, this is what the litany against Saddam might look like. My country thought that was untenable, that if something really was wrong, it should cease and desist, and took matters into its own hands. Shouldn't the world, or at least some few countries, do that with Israel? Why don't they?

At some point you put up your fisticuffs and have it out, or you slink away with your tail between your legs. What's it gonna be?

Just wanted to note this was total sarcasm. Just in case it wasn't clear.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, it wasn't. I'm never quite sure with you!

EDIT: Incidentally, please don't take offense at this, it was not meant as a personal attack. I do find some of your opinions quite shocking, so I genuinely am not sure sometimes!

Two reasons:

1) US vetoing of 'chapter 7' resolutions (ie ones that are required to be implemented) - i think all of Israel's are watered down to be 'chapter 6' ones.

2) Israel has WMD's. As does Iran and North Korea. None of which get invaded by America. Lets not forget Pakistan of course, which actually delivered the technology to loads of other countries. They're all far bigger security threats to the world than Iraq ever was.

You can see why everybody wants WMD. As international law doesn't protect them from America, they turn to the next best thing, and its worked so well for those countries that have them.

[ 06-08-2004, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

To be sure, nukes are the great equalizer.

But you don't believe that's a dangerous way to live? Wouldn't the world be better if law prevailed instead?

International law only becomes irrelevent once countries decide to act outside it. It needs a determined effort by the US to make it meaningful. Simply blaming the UN on the one hand for not enforcing it, whilst treating international law with such contempt on the other, is shirking the responsibility America has as the system-leader.

[ 06-07-2004, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

The law should prevail. Enforcement of the law is exactly HOW the law prevails.