lowing wrote:
the UN "observers" that were killed were in a war zone, ain't the first time some got killed that wasn't supposed t oin a war. Besides, how do we know that Israel didn't have intel saying these observers were reporting troop movements and such to the UN, ( which is anti-Semetic ) and those reports filtered down to hazbollah. I have no proof, just a thought.
By the way, it is 2 pages later and not one of you has shown a link that supports the notion that the UN has been fair in its dealings with Israel, as a matter of fact,except for a map, you have totally ignored the challenge. I knowwwwwwww you searched tyhe interent over trying to find a link to shove in my face, so I am still waiting, and noticing.
Maybe the significance of the maps is not obvious, so let's be more clear about that. On the left, we have a map of Jewish settlements in Palestine in 1947, in orange. And on the right, we have the 1947
UN partition plan for a Jewish state, again in orange, and an Arab state in yellow.
Who got the better of that deal
by far? The Arabs? Wrong answer. They got what's commonly referred to as "the shaft" from the UN. Look at the maps again. And you're calling the UN anti-Semitic? Give me a fucking break.
It's easy, with hindsight, to say the Arabs probably should have accepted the UN deal, despite how shitty their end of it was. Of course, I'm not an Arab, a time traveller, or a time-travelling Arab, so it's especially easy for
me to say. Regardless, the fact many did not accept the deal is not surprising. Look at it from their point of view -- Israel was carved out of their land and they were forced to either leave or die. That's pretty brutal.
Here's more or less what Israel has expanded to now...
Here's the problem: Israel wants to be a Jewish state, but it also wants to be "democratic". That means they had to forcibly expel non-Jews both in the beginning, and on an ongoing basis as they expanded. Otherwise they would be looking at a non-Jewish majority. I don't have to tell you what a cynical view of democracy that is.
(South Africa had a similar "problem" during their
apartheid years. There are more similarities than differences, but I'll grant there are differences. The most obvious difference is that calling apartheid's critics "anti-white" tended to be a pretty ineffective diversionary tactic.)
Calling somebody anti-Semitic is a serious accusation, lowing. And if you think what you posted is good evidence of the UN's so-called anti-Semitism, then you must think a career criminal's long rapsheet
proves that cops just like to pick on him. If that's your idea of "proof", do your fellow Americans a favour and make sure you give jury duty a miss when the call comes.
Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-07-27 05:37:23)
