Why did the US and Israel vote AGAINST the int. terrorist resolution of '87?

[Silver Cheetah]

In 1987, the UN general assembly voted 153 to 2 to approve a resolution condemning international terrorism. The two against were America and Israel.

Anyone like to tell me why they think that was? (See my post on Israel - Palestine for some background....)

------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: In 1987, the UN general assembly voted 153 to 2 to approve a resolution condemning international terrorism. The two against were America and Israel. Anyone like to tell me why they think that was? (See my post on Israel - Palestine for some background....)

Waaaaaaaaaaalllllll - maybe Israel was acting like a terrorist itself, so felt threatened? (Like now). And America because they had so many Jews in high positions? (like now). Let's not rock the gravey-boat. Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Maybe I'm just talking rubbish.

------------------

[Silver Cheetah]

And maybe you're not. The resolution asked that all states 'contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms'.

That sounds good to me! So why didn't it sound good to America and Israel then?

The General Assembley also acknowledged that the causes of terrorism 'often lie in misery, frustration, grievance and despair'. There was sympathy here for the victims of occupation and repression.

I repeat, why did Israel and America oppose this resolution? (Well, guess it's pretty obvious really. Israel's continuing expansion in Palestine would have been closely scrutinised, in fact, it would have been stuffed....)

If all states had acted together then, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. Yet again, unilateral action (or as near as makes no matter) on the part of a global superpower. There have been many more recent actions, including Kyota, ABM, and so forth. So it's pretty much business as usual, then......


------------------


[This message has been edited by Silver Cheetah (edited 09-24-2001).]

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Excellent point, SC.

I am reduced to simply being your yes-man

[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 09-24-2001).]

[WOLFGIR]

Because many of the groups US have helped are considered Terrorists by the countries that hunts these groups..

If you declare that you are going to get a worldwide law against Terrorism, we have to agree to help against people that we might see as freedom fighters.. The borders are very thin, and far from straight. Alot of ction and thooughts need to be done before we can sign a treaty like this.. We may catch some bad apples, but if a regim starts to call a group that fights for democracy and freedom for terrorists? Than we either have to agree or go to war that will be unsanctioned..

------------------

Be vevvy qwiet..I´m hunting wabbits...
Wolfgirs lair
once-upon-a-paper

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Excellent point, SC. I am reduced to simply being your yes-man [This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 09-24-2001).]

yeah, right......I don't think!!

(You wonderful and stunning intelligent person!! - don't forget our MAS!!! Keep up morale, dontcha know)



------------------

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by WOLFGIR: Because many of the groups US have helped are considered Terrorists by the countries that hunts these groups.. If you declare that you are going to get a worldwide law against Terrorism, we have to agree to help against people that we might see as freedom fighters.. The borders are very thin, and far from straight. Alot of ction and thooughts need to be done before we can sign a treaty like this.. We may catch some bad apples, but if a regim starts to call a group that fights for democracy and freedom for terrorists? Than we either have to agree or go to war that will be unsanctioned..

The point you make - well, one person's terrorist is always going to be another person's freedom fighter, and vice versa. A terrorist IS a freedom fighter, although you're only going to see it that way if its your freedom he's fighting for, or if you have some other sort of vested interest.

153 countries signed it. Only the US and Israel didn't, plus there was one abstainer.... (must have been you, Wolfgir!! )

Who is the 'we' that you mention in your post? I don't know if Sweden signed it - I don't have a list of nations that signed, only the names of the two that didn't.....

------------------

[Moridin]

Silver Cheetah you let me down

Yet another America bashing thread...why doesn't everyone kick us while we are down!

Did you do any homework on this yourself, or did you just stumble across something on the internet that said the US and Isreal didn't sign a resolution condemning internation terrorism? Does it matter now, 14 years and three presidents later, why we didn't sign it? Before you insinuate something by posting a question like this, please research it a bit yourself first.

------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[250]

because... they were on drug? weed is a powerful thing you know...


[This message has been edited by 250 (edited 09-24-2001).]