US gives Israel a loaded gun

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

If international bodies give members a veto, they must be prepared for them to be used at inconvenient times.

The motion was a one way deal, so in a sense, you can understand the US position. Maybe they would have ratified a motion which included a reciprocal agreement on behalf of Mr Arafat to clamp down on Hammas, and other terrorist/paramilitary groupings. If he isn't prepared to do that, you have to question his commitment to "peace in the middle east".

It might have been best for the US to reject the Syrian motion whilst simultaneously tabling an amended one with bits asking Arafat to clamp down on the terrorist groups like Hammas.

Of course, even if the US had ratified the Syrian motion, would it have been worth the paper it was written on? I'm sure the Israelis could find a way to get the wet work done in such a way that they could deny sanctioning it, or responsibility for it.

Its like the situation with the IRA in Ireland I suppose. Until they disarm, their commitment to democracy and peace is always going to be questionable. I guess their fear is that if they do disarm, no one will take them seriously any more.
 
Thuringwethil said:
If international bodies give members a veto, they must be prepared for them to be used at inconvenient times.
Click to expand...
Like the French did? Its blatent US hypocrisy again...

Thuringwethil said:
The motion was a one way deal, so in a sense, you can understand the US position. Maybe they would have ratified a motion which included a reciprocal agreement on behalf of Mr Arafat to clamp down on Hammas, and other terrorist/paramilitary groupings.
Click to expand...
Yes the motion was a 1 way deal...to try and stop Israel murdering the Palastinian leader or illegally deporting him from his own country. The connection with Hamas is neither here nor there...plus the rest of the World can see that doing either of those things will see a dramatic esculation of violence...and in such a powderkeg part of the World we should all realise where that could lead. Americas action has just opened up this possibility.

Thuringwethil said:
Until they disarm, their commitment to democracy and peace is always going to be questionable. I guess their fear is that if they do disarm, no one will take them seriously any more.
Click to expand...
This sentence could apply to the Israelis just as much as the paramilitaries. Have u seen the Israeli sniper towers in Gaza taking potshots at the locals as they go about their daily business...
 
Alf Roberts said:
Like the French did? Its blatent US hypocrisy again...
Click to expand...

Plenty of recent examples of French "brinkmanship" diplomacy. The Iraq War, European Stability & Growth Pact, Nuclear Testing in the Pacific in violation of International Treaties and Protocols...

You can't hold the US up as the sole example of hypocrisy.

Alf Roberts said:
Yes the motion was a 1 way deal...to try and stop Israel murdering the Palastinian leader or illegally deporting him from his own country. The connection with Hamas is neither here nor there...plus the rest of the World can see that doing either of those things will see a dramatic esculation of violence...and in such a powderkeg part of the World we should all realise where that could lead. Americas action has just opened up this possibility.
Click to expand...

No, because as I see it, if the Israelis really wanted to get rid of Arafat, they would do it regardless. But I think even they realise that if he was killed, suspicion would immediately centre on them and they would reap the whirlwind of repercussions.

The Hammas point is entirely relevant, as is anything to do with the PLO. If Arafat is claiming responsibility and leadership for Palestine, and political legitimacy, then it follows that Hammas are a non-sanctioned body and are just terrorists. If Arafat can't or won't clamp down on them, he is either not in charge of his own country, or is willfully refusing to do anything about them. And this means that as long as Hammas suicide bomb schoolchildren on buses, the Israelis will continue to retaliate in kind.


Alf Roberts said:
This sentence could apply to the Israelis just as much as the paramilitaries. Have u seen the Israeli sniper towers in Gaza taking potshots at the locals as they go about their daily business...
Click to expand...

I never denied that. But the most recent thing I saw was some suicide bomber blew up a bus full of schoolkids. The Israelis then responded by attempting the surgical strike on the leader of the terrorist body who organised the attack. The Israelis were condemned for this. So what does that tell them? Bombing their Kids is OK, but killing the warrior who did it isn't? How messed up is that?
 
this has been going for aaaaaages, but the problem is that not arafat is the BIG leader "anymore" there are like 100 organisations who make a bomb and then fuck up whole jerusalem. so i dont think he stands in the way.

and i dont think this will be over in a year or so...
 
Thuringwethil said:
You can't hold the US up as the sole example of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Pact in the `spin' Thuring...Who said it was? Certainly not me...but i can claim the US as being the Kings of the veto regarding the UN. U know it & i know it.

Thuringwethil said:
The Hammas point is entirely relevant.
Click to expand...
No Thuring sorry but i strongly disagree. U may want to link Hamas to the resolution just like the Americans & Israelis do but it wasnt about that. As ive already stated the resolution was called to try and stop the Isrealis murdering or illegally deporting an important member of their society. Like it or not thats what he is. There were no strings attached to it however much u wish there were...

Its so typical of the US tho...rather than work for a solution with the ppl's chosen leader they'd rather go for `regime change'. Theyve just got the right hump cos their puppet Abbas was transparent and weightless.

Thuringwethil said:
But the most recent thing I saw was some suicide bomber blew up a bus full of schoolkids. The Israelis then responded by attempting the surgical strike on the leader of the terrorist body who organised the attack. The Israelis were condemned for this. So what does that tell them? Bombing their Kids is OK, but killing the warrior who did it isn't? How messed up is that?
Click to expand...
Well i know what ur trying to do here so lets get it straight. Suicide bombing of civilians is wrong.

Now as for `surgical strike'...well i think ull find that very few surgical strikes are successful as in they get ONLY the desired target....and i also think ull find that it breaks the rules of the last ceasefire that the Israelis agreed to. The Hamas bombings, dispicable tho they are, are retalitary. No surgical strikes against its leaders, no bulldozing of Palastinian homes, no constant breaking of ceasefire agreements and there wouldnt be any suicide bombings.
 
most funny thing is that usa need the help of the uno in iraq... and ofc they are not actualy in a good position after that stuff be4... with this veto they wont make it easier... well all comes back to u, thats how things go...

P.S. the hamas was founded as a counterpart to the plo cos some ppl didnt beleave in a diplomatic solution ... they are not actulay verry keen on each other so..
 
Last edited:
erhm saw an other thing... that killing of the hamas leader... an israelian commander said recently that it was not nessesarily the organisator but the only leader they found when planing a counterstrike ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back