Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

New war on Gaza?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
actionjackson



Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So does this mean the ceasefire is over already?
Quote:
One adult has been killed and 10 teenagers wounded as Israeli soldiers, stationed at the border line between Khan Younis and Israel, opened fire on them, medical sources say.

Witnesses told Al Jazeera that the teenagers entered the disputed area of the "buffer zone", which is 300m along all the Gaza-Israel border, south east of the Gaza Strip.

She said they may have had confused information about that buffer zone as there has been lots of information about the easing of travel restrictions as part of the ceasefire agreement brokered on Wednesday night.

This is the second person to be killed since the truce came into effect.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/201211238226924973.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Privateer



Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GENO123 wrote:
Quote:

And what is your opinion?

You seem to be making the argument that if one poster is wrong about Syria's government being bad, then they are also wrong to say Israel's government is bad. That if Hamas is bad, then Israeli actions must be good.

There's plenty of badness to go around. And, regardless of what you think of Hamas, Israel has historically often been the one guilty of breaking ceasefires.


My opinion is that actually I think some posters could care less about good or bad. They pretend that is what they care about but in truth they have something nefarious in mind.


That was already clear. What's your opinion on Gaza?

actionjackson wrote:
So does this mean the ceasefire is over already?
Quote:
One adult has been killed and 10 teenagers wounded as Israeli soldiers, stationed at the border line between Khan Younis and Israel, opened fire on them, medical sources say.

Witnesses told Al Jazeera that the teenagers entered the disputed area of the "buffer zone", which is 300m along all the Gaza-Israel border, south east of the Gaza Strip.

She said they may have had confused information about that buffer zone as there has been lots of information about the easing of travel restrictions as part of the ceasefire agreement brokered on Wednesday night.

This is the second person to be killed since the truce came into effect.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/201211238226924973.html


Let's see if our media report this, or if they will wait until Palestinians start firing rockets before reporting a break in the ceasefire...

[Edit]I see the bbc is on it already.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20461914

CNN has also reported this: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/23/world/meast/gaza-israel-strike/index.html?hpt=hp_t1. Interesting that the headline says 'ceasefire holds despite latest flare-up' though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GENO123



Joined: 28 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That was already clear. What's your opinion on Gaza?


I think Bill Clinton's peace plan (2001) ought to be put into effect. That would cover Gaza. At the very least it would be fairly easy to see which side is the aggressor from that point on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unibrow



Joined: 20 Aug 2012

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GENO123 wrote:
Quote:
That was already clear. What's your opinion on Gaza?


I think Bill Clinton's peace plan (2001) ought to be put into effect. That would cover Gaza. At the very least it would be fairly easy to see which side is the aggressor from that point on.


That plan was rejected by Barak, not the Palestinians.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GENO123



Joined: 28 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unibrow wrote:
GENO123 wrote:
Quote:
That was already clear. What's your opinion on Gaza?


I think Bill Clinton's peace plan (2001) ought to be put into effect. That would cover Gaza. At the very least it would be fairly easy to see which side is the aggressor from that point on.


That plan was rejected by Barak, not the Palestinians.



Ask Bill Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGWWOtGXTTU


Arafat rejects Clinton peace plan

Quote:
Mr Barak has accepted President Clinton's outline for a settlement on condition that the Palestinian leader also agrees.



guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 January 2001 09.09 GMT


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jan/03/israel2


THE PRINCE by Elsa Walsh
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/24/030324fa_fact_walsh

http://www.saudiembassy.net/files/PDF/03-ST-Bandar-0324-NewYorker.pdf

Quote:

When Bandar asked what Bush meant by "desperate," Bush explained: President Clinton had been eager to leave office with a settlement in the Middle East, and Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, needed a deal to survive the next election. Bush said that he didn't think Arafat really wanted to solve the problem. Bandar believed that Arafat's failure to accept the deal in January of 2001 was a tragic mistake - a crime, really. Yet to say so publicly would damage the Palestinian cause, which had been championed by the Saudis, who would then lose any leverage they still had. Bush told Bandar that, unlike Clinton, he did not intend to intervene aggressively.

Bandar left the meeting even more distressed. At the end of the Clinton Presidency, Bandar had received confidential assurances from Colin Powell, the Secretary of State-designate, that he was to relay to Arafat: the Middle East deal made by Clinton that the new Administration endorsed would be enforced. Powell warned that the "peace process" would be different under Bush. Bush would not spend hours on the telephone, and Camp David was not going to become a motel. The message was clear, and until the end Bandar had continued to hope: it appeared that Arafat would get almost everything he wanted, and that Bush's Administration, which Bandar saw as more tough-minded than Clinton's, would stand behind the agreement.

"I still have not recovered, to be honest with you, inside, from the magnitude of the missed opportunity that January," Bandar told me at his home in McLean, Virginia. "Sixteen hundred Palestinians dead so far. And seven hundred Israelis dead. In my judgment, not one life of those Israelis and Palestinians dead is justified."


Quote:

Clinton, who continued to apply his considerable energy to finding a Middle East solution, came to believe, in December of 2000, that he had finally found a formula for peace; he asked once more for Bandar's help. Bandar's first reaction was not to get involved; the Syrian summit had failed, and talks between Barak and Arafat at Camp David, in July, had collapsed. But when Dennis Ross showed Bandar the President's talking papers Bandar recognized that in its newest iteration the peace plan was a remarkable development. It gave Arafat almost everything he wanted, including the return of about ninety-seven per cent of the land of the occupied territories; all of Jerusalem except the Jewish and Armenian quarters, with Jews preserving the right to worship at the Temple Mount; and a thirty-billion-dollar compensation fund.



Quote:

A few months later, Abdullah asked Clinton, who was visiting Saudi Arabia, whether Bandar's description of the offer was correct. Clinton confirmed Bandar's details, and said that the failure of these last negotiations had broken his heart. Later still, the Crown Prince told Bandar he was shocked that Arafat had wasted such an opportunity, and that he had lied to him about the American offer. Bandar told associates that it was an open secret within the Arab world that Arafat was not truthful. But Arafat had them trapped: they couldn't separate the cause from the man, because if you attacked the man you attacked the cause. "Clinton, the bastard, really tried his best," Bandar told me last week when we met at his house in McLean. "And Barak's position was so avant-garde that it was equal to Prime Minister Rabin" - Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated in November, 1995. "It broke my heart that Arafat did not take that offer."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Privateer wrote:


(1) The facts don't fit your claim that Muslim/Arab states are responsible for the UN claim either. Israel and the U.S. are more or less the only ones who deny it.


(2)There is one thing Israel could do, which is to abide by ceasefires itself.


(numbers are mine)

1. See the remarks in bold

Quote:
In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Programme, 6% of United Nations Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. Of note is Resolution 3379 (1975) stating that "Zionism is racism"; it was rescinded in 1991.

These decisions, passed with the support of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. A number of observers have qualified this degree of criticism as excessive. For example, according to the UN Association of the UK, General Assembly resolutions in the period 1990–2003 show clear bias against Israel, with a great deal of explicit condemnation of violence against Palestinians but only occasional and vague discussion of violence against Israelis, including the use of suicide bombers.[3] In addition, the UNHRC was widely criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other human rights abusers besides Israel.


(1)In other words it was the INFLUENCE of the Arab/Muslim states that passed these resolutions. Not only that but it has been noted that this criticism is biased and selective. Hardly decent evidence.

As for being occupied no it is not only disputed by Israel and the U.S. It's also disputed by HAMAS ITSELF.

http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?campaign_id=63111&id=2832097

Quote:
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar confirmed there was no Israeli occupation of the territory in comments reported today by the Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency.









2. So Israel should abide by the ceasefire while Hamas and other groups openly violate it? You are aware that the present conflict was initiated by Palestinian militant groups and not Israel?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
actionjackson



Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
You are aware that the present conflict was initiated by Palestinian militant groups and not Israel?

Wouldn't this depend on where you get your news? A quick google search shows me 2 articles that give the impression Israel started it. I'm not really interested in who started it, as it's probably going to go on until one side finally destroys the other, but more interested in the first question.
Quote:
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8

Following a two-week lull in violence, Israeli soldiers invade Gaza. In the resulting exchange of gunfire with Palestinian fighters, a 12-year-old boy is killed by an Israeli bullet while he plays soccer.

Shortly afterwards, Palestinian fighters blow up a tunnel along the Gaza-Israel frontier, injuring one Israeli soldier.

2012 - On March 9, Israel violates an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire and assassinates the head of the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, sparking another round of violence in which at least two-dozen Palestinians are killed, including at least four civilians, and scores more wounded. As usual, Israel claims it is acting in self-defense, against an imminent attack being planned by the PRC, while providing no evidence to substantiate the allegation.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/two-new-resources-timeline-of-israeli-escalation-in-gaza-and-israels-history-of-breaking-ceasefires.html
Quote:
First, the wave of rockets that provided the immediate context for Israel's assassination of Jabari were launched in retaliation for prior indiscriminate Israeli killings of Gazan civilians, including the November 5 killing of a 23-year-old mentally disabled man who strayed too close to the border fence, and at least one boy killed while playing football five days later. Two other Palestinians who rushed to the latter scene to help the victims were themselves immediately killed by three more shells fired by Israeli forces.

The second factor that undercuts the self-defence rationale is that Jabari was involved in negotiating an Egyptian-brokered comprehensive, long-term cease-fire with Israel when he was assassinated. In a November 17 New York Times op-ed, Israeli academic Gershon Baskin (who was a mediator in these negotiations) declared that Jabari had been given a near-final version of the agreement hours before he was killed. Had he not been killed, Jabari would have been responsible for enforcing the agreement to stop rockets fired by various Palestinian groups from Gaza into Israel.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/11/20121121103831534612.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

actionjackson wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
You are aware that the present conflict was initiated by Palestinian militant groups and not Israel?

Wouldn't this depend on where you get your news? A quick google search shows me 2 articles that give the impression Israel started it.



Well yes. Sources like mondoweiss and Aljazeera are HUGELY biased against Israel so they will give the impression that Israel started it. Note they give the Palestinians every benefit of the doubt while not doing the same for Israel. Also note the inflammatory language used when describing Israel's actions.


I'd go for more mainstream sources that while still biased against Israel at least try to provide BOTH sides of the story. Such as the BBC for example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20328799

Quote:
A little earlier, Lt Col Avital Leibovich, a spokeswoman for the Israeli army gave a briefing on events in Gaza, saying that after a few days of on going rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, the IDF chief of staff had authorised an operation against terror targets in the Gaza strip.


Or the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/world/middleeast/israeli-strike-in-gaza-kills-the-military-leader-of-hamas.html?_r=0


Quote:
JERUSALEM — Israel on Wednesday launched the most ferocious assault on Gaza in four years after persistent Palestinian rocket fire, hitting at least 20 targets in aerial attacks that killed the top military commander of Hamas, damaged Israel’s fragile relations with Egypt and escalated the risks of a new war in the Middle East.


(bolding mine)


Both the BBC and the NYT have written numerous articles in support of the Palestinian cause and overly critical of Israel so if they're saying that it was caused by Palestinian rocket attacks, odds are good that it was.
They are certainly not Israeli cheerleaders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
actionjackson wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
You are aware that the present conflict was initiated by Palestinian militant groups and not Israel?

Wouldn't this depend on where you get your news? A quick google search shows me 2 articles that give the impression Israel started it.



Well yes. Sources like mondoweiss and Aljazeera are HUGELY biased against Israel so they will give the impression that Israel started it. Note they give the Palestinians every benefit of the doubt while not doing the same for Israel. Also note the inflammatory language used when describing Israel's actions.


I'd go for more mainstream sources that while still biased against Israel at least try to provide BOTH sides of the story. Such as the BBC for example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20328799

Quote:
A little earlier, Lt Col Avital Leibovich, a spokeswoman for the Israeli army gave a briefing on events in Gaza, saying that after a few days of on going rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, the IDF chief of staff had authorised an operation against terror targets in the Gaza strip.


Or the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/world/middleeast/israeli-strike-in-gaza-kills-the-military-leader-of-hamas.html?_r=0


Quote:
JERUSALEM — Israel on Wednesday launched the most ferocious assault on Gaza in four years after persistent Palestinian rocket fire, hitting at least 20 targets in aerial attacks that killed the top military commander of Hamas, damaged Israel’s fragile relations with Egypt and escalated the risks of a new war in the Middle East.


(bolding mine)


Both the BBC and the NYT have written numerous articles in support of the Palestinian cause and overly critical of Israel so if they're saying that it was caused by Palestinian rocket attacks, odds are good that it was.
They are certainly not Israeli cheerleaders.


The idea that the conflict was solely caused by one side is hopeless naivety of tunnel vision. It's not like this is a new conflict, just one that goes on and off.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/who-started-the-israel-gaza-conflict/265374/

The Palestinians will say that the IDF started it by killing civilians and children, which is true, and the Israelis will say the Palestinians started it by launching rockets, which is also true. As an aside, all this about whether Gaza is occupied is all semantics, lots of this conflict, at least the recent one, is about the IDF going into Gaza and killing people when groups resist them. If Gaza is free, than it should be able to resist armed incursions from another state, right? If Hamas is in Israel proper, then they will get killed, or attacked at the least, if Israel forces are in Gaza proper, why would they expect any difference?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
[
The idea that the conflict was solely caused by one side is hopeless naivety of tunnel vision. It's not like this is a new conflict, just one that goes on and off.



TheUrbanMyth wrote:

You are aware that the present conflict was initiated by Palestinian militant groups and not Israel?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
[ As an aside, all this about whether Gaza is occupied is all semantics, lots of this conflict, at least the recent one, is about the IDF going into Gaza and killing people when groups resist them. If Gaza is free, than it should be able to resist armed incursions from another state, right? If Hamas is in Israel proper, then they will get killed, or attacked at the least, if Israel forces are in Gaza proper, why would they expect any difference?



To the best of my knowledge Israel is merely launching air strikes not sending its army across the border no?

And Gaza is not a state (at least it is not recognized as such by the international community.)

No...this recent one (as I provided links) was provoked by militants firing rockets into Israel AFTER A CEASEFIRE had been agreed to...see your own link.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Leon wrote:
[ As an aside, all this about whether Gaza is occupied is all semantics, lots of this conflict, at least the recent one, is about the IDF going into Gaza and killing people when groups resist them. If Gaza is free, than it should be able to resist armed incursions from another state, right? If Hamas is in Israel proper, then they will get killed, or attacked at the least, if Israel forces are in Gaza proper, why would they expect any difference?



To the best of my knowledge Israel is merely launching air strikes not sending its army across the border no?

And Gaza is not a state (at least it is not recognized as such by the international community.)

No...this recent one (as I provided links) was provoked by militants firing rockets into Israel AFTER A CEASEFIRE had been agreed to...see your own link.


As to your first reply, you must not have noticed the links description of cross border skirmishes before the conflict, including ones where civilians and children were killed. That's what I was referring to. Also, again with the idea that Hamas solely started the conflict, if you fail to see how killing civilians didn't play a role, or wouldn't cause incitement, then please refer to my previous comment about hopeless naivety and tunnel vision. The idea that there has to be a good guy and a bad guy in every conflict, or that that dichotomy is even common, is absurd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Leon wrote:
[ As an aside, all this about whether Gaza is occupied is all semantics, lots of this conflict, at least the recent one, is about the IDF going into Gaza and killing people when groups resist them. If Gaza is free, than it should be able to resist armed incursions from another state, right? If Hamas is in Israel proper, then they will get killed, or attacked at the least, if Israel forces are in Gaza proper, why would they expect any difference?



To the best of my knowledge Israel is merely launching air strikes not sending its army across the border no?

And Gaza is not a state (at least it is not recognized as such by the international community.)

No...this recent one (as I provided links) was provoked by militants firing rockets into Israel AFTER A CEASEFIRE had been agreed to...see your own link.


As to your first reply, you must not have noticed the links description of cross border skirmishes before the conflict, including ones where civilians and children were killed.



You must have not noticed this part of your link

Quote:
At 9:07 PM, HaAretz reported that "The representatives of Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip announced an agreement to hold their fire on Monday, following days of persistent rocket attacks.... However a matter of minutes later, two rockets [exploded] in open fields near [the southern town of] Sderot. No casualties or damage reported." HaAretz

Tuesday November 13

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh praised Gaza's main militant groups in Gaza for agreeing to the truce: "They showed a high sense of responsibility by saying they would respect calm should the Israeli occupation also abide by it," he said." Reuters

A rocket exploded in an open area in Ashdod. MFA






As I said before a ceasefire was agreed on and then rockets were fired AFTER the ceasefire. If I were Israel and had agreed on a ceasefire and then MORE rockets landed in my territory I'd respond too.

The skirmishes you are referring to took place BEFORE the ceasefire was agreed on.

Nobody said anything about there having to be a bad guy and a good guy...I'm merely pointing out facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Leon wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Leon wrote:
[ As an aside, all this about whether Gaza is occupied is all semantics, lots of this conflict, at least the recent one, is about the IDF going into Gaza and killing people when groups resist them. If Gaza is free, than it should be able to resist armed incursions from another state, right? If Hamas is in Israel proper, then they will get killed, or attacked at the least, if Israel forces are in Gaza proper, why would they expect any difference?



To the best of my knowledge Israel is merely launching air strikes not sending its army across the border no?

And Gaza is not a state (at least it is not recognized as such by the international community.)

No...this recent one (as I provided links) was provoked by militants firing rockets into Israel AFTER A CEASEFIRE had been agreed to...see your own link.


As to your first reply, you must not have noticed the links description of cross border skirmishes before the conflict, including ones where civilians and children were killed.



You must have not noticed this part of your link

Quote:
At 9:07 PM, HaAretz reported that "The representatives of Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip announced an agreement to hold their fire on Monday, following days of persistent rocket attacks.... However a matter of minutes later, two rockets [exploded] in open fields near [the southern town of] Sderot. No casualties or damage reported." HaAretz

Tuesday November 13

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh praised Gaza's main militant groups in Gaza for agreeing to the truce: "They showed a high sense of responsibility by saying they would respect calm should the Israeli occupation also abide by it," he said." Reuters

A rocket exploded in an open area in Ashdod. MFA






As I said before a ceasefire was agreed on and then rockets were fired AFTER the ceasefire. If I were Israel and had agreed on a ceasefire and then MORE rockets landed in my territory I'd respond too.

The skirmishes you are referring to took place BEFORE the ceasefire was agreed on.

Nobody said anything about there having to be a bad guy and a good guy...I'm merely pointing out facts.


You're only talking about what happened after Nov. 13? That seems like kind of an arbitrary starting point. As to the cease fire, the current one was broken by the IDF when they shot a farmer and some teenagers over the border, but luckily the peace has held.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Privateer



Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Privateer wrote:


(1) The facts don't fit your claim that Muslim/Arab states are responsible for the UN claim either. Israel and the U.S. are more or less the only ones who deny it.


(2)There is one thing Israel could do, which is to abide by ceasefires itself.


(numbers are mine)

1. See the remarks in bold

Quote:
In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Programme, 6% of United Nations Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. Of note is Resolution 3379 (1975) stating that "Zionism is racism"; it was rescinded in 1991.

These decisions, passed with the support of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. A number of observers have qualified this degree of criticism as excessive. For example, according to the UN Association of the UK, General Assembly resolutions in the period 1990–2003 show clear bias against Israel, with a great deal of explicit condemnation of violence against Palestinians but only occasional and vague discussion of violence against Israelis, including the use of suicide bombers.[3] In addition, the UNHRC was widely criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other human rights abusers besides Israel.


(1)In other words it was the INFLUENCE of the Arab/Muslim states that passed these resolutions. Not only that but it has been noted that this criticism is biased and selective. Hardly decent evidence.


Just because the OIC supports these resolutions doesn't mean their influence alone got these resolutions passed. Are you saying the Arab states have more influence on the entire rest of the world than the US itself? Why should the entire rest of the world have it in for Israel? You seem to believe the rest of the world is biased and the US alone is impartial, rather than the opposite, which is what I believe. Which seems more credible to you?

Meanwhile, here's a list of UN Security Council Resolutions calling on Israel to cease settlement activities, etc, all blocked by the US veto:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Here's another list of US vetoes of UN resolutions on Israel together with voting figures:

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

Note that the US is usually the single dissenting vote, sometimes with 1 or 2 other countries it manages to persuade to accompany it - occasionally a few more.

Why are the US and Israel so at odds with the entire rest of the world on the issue of the Israel/Palestinian conflict?

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
As for being occupied no it is not only disputed by Israel and the U.S. It's also disputed by HAMAS ITSELF.

http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?campaign_id=63111&id=2832097

Quote:
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar confirmed there was no Israeli occupation of the territory in comments reported today by the Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency.


Fine. They're not occupied. Not the point I was arguing anyway.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
2. So Israel should abide by the ceasefire while Hamas and other groups openly violate it? You are aware that the present conflict was initiated by Palestinian militant groups and not Israel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations


I did not say Israel should abide by the ceasefire *while Hamas and others violate it*. I'm saying it's far from always the case that Hamas is the first one to break the ceasefire, and I posted evidence to show the present conflict was not initiated by Palestinian militants either. See the previously posted links.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International