Jews, Christians, Strange Alliance

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533028' date='Aug 24 2007, 05:56 PM']Jamie_B,

[i]As did these [/i][url="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1994/index.html"]three[/url].

[i]I am saying, Bung, you, I and others want peace also.However sincere he is in his endeavors, I don't know what level of understanding with the situation Tutu has. Yes, there are terrible conditions that exist and what we are discussing is 'The Why"?

When I posted that Israel was not the problem; I knew technically I was wrong, their mere existence is the problem. Yes, also there are groups within Israel that contribute to the conflict like the Kahane group ( which Christian Amanpour pointed to in her piece), butI am focused on the World players.

As for you girl, yes she has credentials. I did a little digging before I went to bed, but I wanted to wait until I could spend a little more time on it. But, there are things she has left out.

She is a research affiliate at the Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University as well as a research fellow at the Trans Arab Research Institute TARI. Dr. Elaine C. Hagopian was the Founder of TARI.

She now sits on a commission sponsored by Not In Our Name. Here is the site: [/i]

[url="http://www.bushcommission.org/?q=node/21"]http://www.bushcommission.org/?q=node/21[/url]

[i]Here Jamie_B, I love you man and I offer this in good faith.[/i]

[url="http://jewishworldreview.com/0806/prager080106.php3"]http://jewishworldreview.com/0806/prager080106.php3[/url]

[i]Time to move on and 'defend the faith'. Was that an album cover or something[/i] [/quote]


Your just reinforcing my point my friend, she is palastinan and the dismissal of her pov based on who she is and what she works with is a dismisal of her bias. I have no issue if you want to dismiss it because of that, thats exactly what Im doing with Jewish Virtual Library, thats why I posted her piece so that you would do just that and show why the dismissial of the Jewish Virtual Library by me was done with good reason. As BJ said in his inital post about it, and we can include her. Both have a horse in the race, but may not be completely honest at worst or have a bias slanted at best. Thats why I posted the IARC stuff, but they arent the only international orginization to bring this stuff up. You can find things discussed by Animisty International if you search as well.

If you want to get into the why, lets. Short version..

Post WW2 there was a anti-semetism and the Zionist Jews were looking for a homeland. The british had control over palastine but gave it up to the for the UN to decide what to do with it, the UN in 1947 drew up and approved the partiton plan. In '48 Israel declared independance and war broke out. (I guess the Arabs were upset because Israel had a flag...even though they had already been living on the land...but no flag, no country... and Isreal had the gun supplied to them by the NRA. ) ... So this fight has been about the existance of isreal on what many view as arab land.

Ok fine fast foward and look at where we are at. Can there be peace? I would say its going to take the existance of strong leadership on both sides and that there is a desire for it from the people on both sides. However it must be fair with reguards to what each side gets. The Palastinans must stop the bombings and isreal has to allow for the palastinan economy to become viable, and abaide by the '68 borders. (that is not happening today).

You spoke of UN 242,

Here is the text of 242.

[quote]The Security Council;

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii)Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
a. For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
b. For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
c. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.[/quote]

and that is what the '68 borders we keep hearing about deal with. But we are not there. Isreal's position can be said to be a valid one if they are going to give back the land then palastians must stop the bombings, that was part of the deal. But nowhere in this have I seen they arent required to give it all back in relation to the green line. In fact they have built a wall that crosses the green line and goes into territory that is supposed to be palastinan.

Ask what the UN World Court thinks about the Wall Isreal has put up. It crosses this green line.
[url="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-12.htm"]http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-12.htm[/url]


Now I dont know what you want me to tell you about 'defending the faith'. Am I as a christian supposed to be supportive of the human rights issues that are problems, just because of the biblical prophicies concerning this land? If so then explain to me why. Do you realize there is a significant portion of Christian Palastinians? They are suffering the same as the Muslim ones. So IMO in defending the PEOPLE of palastine, to include both christian and muslim, I defend the faith vigoursly. Remember "love thy neighbor" and "Blessed are the Peacemakers".

[Lawman]

[quote]Your just reinforcing my point my friend, she is palastinan and the dismissal of her pov based on who she is and what she works with is a dismisal of her bias. I have no issue if you want to dismiss it because of that, [b]thats exactly what Im doing with Jewish Virtual Library[/b], thats why I posted her piece so that you would do just that and show why the dismissial of the Jewish Virtual Library by me was done with good reason.[/quote]

[i]I knew it, knew it, I knew you would bring that up. I said the Jewish Library's information can be readily
identified and validated or re-futed[/i].

[i]Let's look at here piece again[/i]:


[color="#000080"]BISHOP DESMOND TUTU, the South African Nobel Prize winner, described how he saw on his visit to Israel "much like what happened to us black people in South Africa. [b]I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about[/b]" (1). Comparisons between apartheid South Africa and Israel/Palestine have often been made, but not always clearly explained. Many factors have made the comparison attractive.[/color]

TUTU is talking about Checkpoints an the imact they have on movement of the Palestinians. Does the reason for the checkpoints need to be explained? I hope not!

[color="#000080"]The first, perhaps most important, is the historical colonialist foundation of the two conflicts. White settlers in South Africa, like Zionist pioneers, colonised a land already inhabited. As in South Africa, the settlers in Palestine expelled the indigenous population, some two-thirds of the Palestinians in the land that became Israel in 1948, took possession of their properties and legally segregated those who remained.[/color]

[i]What has been ommitted is the fact that the land was inhabited by Arabs and Jews alike.[/i]

[b]From the Jewish Virtiual Library[/b]

[color="#000080"]Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is that from the beginning of World War I, [b]part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut[/b]. [u]About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins. [/u]

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” Ben-Gurion said “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors.[b] “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”[/b] [/color]

[i]Land was bought and payed for like what King David did.[/i]

[color="#000080"]However, [b]admitting that Israel’s foundation was colonialist does not mean that it is compar able to apartheid South Africa[/b]. As Gershon Shafir, a leading Israeli sociologist, has noted, while both conflicts were about control of the land, they took place in different historical and economic conditions that had an impact on their evolution and their relation to the natives

White South Africans and Israelis dealt differently with the indigenous demographic reality. In Palestine the Zionist project wanted to negate the idea of a native non-Jewish population, coining the phrase "people without a land for a land without a people". It sought to establish Jewish demographic dominance by expelling Palestin ians and preventing structural dependence on the Palestinian economy, particularly on its labour. [b]Before 1948 fewer than a third of the workers in the Jewish sector were Palestinian. From 1948-67, the remaining Palestinian Arabs supplied no more than 15% of the labour force[/b].[/color]

[i]What is she saying? FEWER THAN A THIRD = 33.3%-30%-25% the she says NO MORE THAN 15%.
Doing the math she is actually only talking between 10-15% lost of labour force, but the way she makes it sound the numbers are astronomical. But, that's not all.

Homer offered this:[/i]

[quote]"The Palestinians already have a state. It's called Jordan."[/quote] [i]This was actual said by Aerial Sharon. You must research the British Mandate to understand what Sharon was talking about and read the Peel Commission Report to understand what I am talking about. [/i]

Jamie_B, I'm done on this subject dealing with Leila Farsakh vs The Jewish Virtual Library. I say we hold the gentlemans agreement to viewe each others sources with some reservation.

Le Monde diplomatique

[Lawman]

[i]From the Jewish Virtual Library[/i]

[color="#000080"]In his memoirs, Transjordan’s King Abdullah wrote:

It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original)

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.”

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As’ad el­Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews. [/color]

[|BlackJesus|]

[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b] LAWMAN - the Aparthied of Israel does not exist in Israel ... but does exist in the OCCUPIED WEST BANK.


Hence Jimmy Carter - who more than any other living American is familiar with the situation ... cites the West Bank as APARTHEID .... but not the greater state of Israel.


You keep giving me facts on Israel .... I am interested in the Apartheid of the OCCUPIED WEST BANK ! The occupied area that should make up the state of PALESTINE. [/b][/size][/font]


[center][img]http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/HaCohen_Apartheid-Wall_files/image005.gif[/img][/center]

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='532514' date='Aug 23 2007, 06:24 PM']Yes it was, Everythinhg italicized I wrote with the information researched. What I took verbatim was bolded.[/quote]
[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Here is a whacky idea I know ... but how about using the [color="#800080"]QUOTE OPTION ?[/color] [/b][/size][/font]






[quote name='Lawman' post='532525' date='Aug 23 2007, 06:44 PM'][i]To my knowledge, the Israeli's have evacuated Gaza. Meaning it is no longer occupied[/i] [/quote]
[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Israel pulled out the 9,000 settlers that lived there yes ... and their army in 2005 .... however to this day Israel continues to attack and make invasions into Gaza.

Also note that Gaza is occupied in the sense that they do not have control of their 1) Airspace or abuility to fly out or in freely 2) access to the Med Sea or coast 3) Access to move freely between Egypt and Gaza. They are militarily surrounded and controlled by Israel. [/b][/size][/font]





[quote name='Lawman' post='532571' date='Aug 23 2007, 07:34 PM']I am not try to be curt here but think about it this way; if so many Arab countries are concerned with the Palestinian plight, why do they not invite them into their respective countries?[/quote]
[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b] What a steaming pile of horse shit.

1) So the neighboring countries are just supposed to let Israel off the hook and support the Palestinian people that Israel unlawfully evicts or oppresses in the West Bank ?

2) Most of the Paletsinians don't want to leave ... they want to live in their homeland of Palestine. They stay on principle and suffer from it as well because of occupation. [/b][/size][/font]






[quote name='Lawman' post='532608' date='Aug 23 2007, 08:32 PM']when the palestinian's (which is a misnomer because that weren't called Palestians in 1947) so, the Arabs left their homes because of the outbreak of War, Israel repatriated them.[/i][/quote]
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]

[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]1) There were not ISRAELIS in 1947 either !!!

2) Palestinians do not call themselves that any way ... they refer to themselves as "Falastin's" - viewing themselves as the descendants of the Philistines. Note Goliath in the bible was one who fought David (Jew).

3) "Left there homes" [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] .... Damn you are gulping the kosher kool aid aren't you ... stop making us Goyim look like idiots. Damn no wonder many Jews see themselves as more intelligent ... they see how easy it is to dupe wide eyed goy like yourself. [/b][/size][/font]






[quote name='Lawman' post='532610' date='Aug 23 2007, 08:39 PM']When was Palestine ever a Nation? Of course the answer is never.[/quote]
[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Just as the Jews claim Biblical israel ... Palestinians (Falastin's) claim "Philistia" and the Philistine city states as showing their roots to part of the area.

Also there was never a nation of "Israel" before 1946 either ... so should that have been an argument not to create one? [/b][/size][/font]

[Lawman]

[quote]Black Jesus
Here is a whacky idea I know ... but how about using the QUOTE OPTION ?[/quote]

[i]To my understanding, the quote option is used to address/respond someoneelse's post, as I have done here.[/i]

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533581' date='Aug 26 2007, 10:26 AM'][i]To my understanding, the quote option is used to address/respond someoneelse's post, as I have done here.[/i] [/quote]


[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Ah I see .... now it makes sense. You don't even understand the quote option ... [i](no wonder the Mid East is a sticky situation to grasp for ya)[/i] ...


[u]Actually the Quote option is for both[/u] ... for instance when quoting CARM ... you would just put it in quotes like you did prior .... however when quoting a poster you would hit reply to their post and then the top of the quote box will see the persons name and time of that particular posting (Like you will see in your quoted line up top).

- you can also quote numerous people or posts ... by hitting the Quote button of their post and then hitting reply after hitting all of the quote buttons for people you want.


Got it ?

if not I can further explain it ... [/b][/size][/font]

[Lawman]

[quote]BlackJesus
LAWMAN - the Aparthied of Israel does not exist in Israel ... but does exist in the OCCUPIED WEST BANK[/quote]

[quote]BlackJesus
You keep giving me facts on Israel .... I am interested in the Apartheid of the OCCUPIED WEST BANK ! The occupied area that should make up the state of PALESTINE.[/quote]

[color="#000080"]“Israeli hospitals extend humanitarian treatment to Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and West Bank. These efforts continued when all other cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis came to a halt during the most recent intifada.” [/color]

[color="#000080"]— Palestinian obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, Jerusalem Post June 24, 2005[/color]

[i]Fair enough. Just to be clear, when one claims Israel practices apartheid they are speaking specifically to the West Bank.[/i]

[i]The area in question is known as the West Bank; a brief history fro Wiki[/i]:

[color="#000080"] From 1948 until 1967, the area was under Jordanian rule, though Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to the area until 1988.[b] It was captured by Israel during the Six-Day War[/b]. With the exception of East Jerusalem it was not annexed by Israel, although most of the West Bank remains under Israeli military occupation. Large numbers of Israeli settlements have also been built in the region.[/color]

[b]Judea and Samaria[/b]
[color="#000080"]Prior to this usage of the name "West Bank", the region was commonly referred to as Judea and Samaria, its long-standing name. For example, U.N. Resolution 181, the 1947 partition plan, explicitly refers to the central section of the Arab State as "the hill country of Samaria and Judea". For region boundaries set forth in the resolution see the text here.[/color]

[quote]Black Jesus
1) There were not ISRAELIS in 1947 either !!![/quote]

[color="#000080"]Israelis refer to the region either as a unit: "The West Bank" (Hebrew: "ha-Gada ha-Ma'aravit" "הגדה המערבית"), or as two units: Judea (Hebrew: "Yehuda" "יהודה") and Samaria (Hebrew: "Shomron" "שומרון"), after the two biblical kingdoms (the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel — the capital of which was, for a time, in the town of Samaria). The border between Judea and Samaria is a belt of territory immediately north of (and historically traditionally including) Jerusalem sometimes called the "land of Benjamin". The name Judea and Samaria has been in continual use by Jews as well as various others since biblical times. This name carries an emotional meaning to many Jews as the cradle of Jewish Nation is derived from the time of King David in the region, the main religious sites and tombs are present there, [b]and continuous Jewish communities were concentrated in the area throughout the years[/b].[/color]

[color="#000080"]In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."[/color]

[i]Well that was nice of them.[/i]

[i]The crux of the argument lies in what is known as the [/i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Semantic_dispute"]Semantic_dispute[/url]

[color="#000080"]U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and one of the drafters of the resolution, draws attention to the fact that the text proposed by the British had succeeded ahead of alternatives (in particular, a more explicit text proposed by the Soviet Union):

... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council.
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... [b]rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949[/b].

He also points out that [u]attempts to explicitly widen the motion to include "the" or "all" territories were explicitly rejected[/u]

[b]Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from ‘the’ territories or ‘all the territories’ occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council[/b].[/color]

[Lawman]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='533587' date='Aug 26 2007, 10:53 AM'][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Ah I see .... now it makes sense. You don't even understand the quote option ... [i](no wonder the Mid East is a sticky situation to grasp for ya)[/i] ...
[u]Actually the Quote option is for both[/u] ... for instance when quoting CARM ... you would just put it in quotes like you did prior .... however when quoting a poster you would hit reply to their post and then the top of the quote box will see the persons name and time of that particular posting (Like you will see in your quoted line up top).

- you can also quote numerous people or posts ... by hitting the Quote button of their post and then hitting reply after hitting all of the quote buttons for people you want.
Got it ?

if not I can further explain it ... [/b][/size][/font][/quote]

[i]What I write[/i]

[i]What you wrote:[/i]

[quote]BlakJesus,
Ah I see .... now it makes sense. You don't even understand the quote option ...[/quote]

[i]What is taken from reference:[/i]

[color="#000080"]"The passing of the resolution on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy with its annexed Plan of Action by 192 Member States represents a common testament that we, the United Nations, will face terrorism head on and that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, must be condemned and shall not be tolerated.”

Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, President of the 61st session of the General Assembly Launching the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy on 19 September 2006[/color]

[i]What's wrong with that?[/i]

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533601' date='Aug 26 2007, 11:26 AM']Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from ‘the’ territories or ‘all the territories’ occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. [b]They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council[/b][/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]


[color="#000080"][font="Arial Black"][b][size=4] By US VETO [/size][/b][/font][/color]





[size=4][u][quote][b]An Updated List of Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council [/b]
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
By Donald Neff
May/June 2005
page 14 [/u][/size]



[i]Prior to the Nixon administration, the United States had never employed its veto power in the U.N. Security Council. It was first used March 17, 1970 over Southern Rhodesia. The second U.S. veto came two years later, when Washington sought to protect Israel from a resolution condemning Israel for one of its attacks on its neighbors. [b]Since then, the United States has cast its veto a total of 39 times to shield Israel from Security Council draft resolutions that condemned, deplored, denounced, demanded, affirmed, endorsed, called on and urged Israel to obey the world body.[/i][/b]



Sept. 10, 1972—Condemned Israel’s attacks against Southern Lebanon and Syria; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention

July 26, 1973—Affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections; vote: 13 to 1, with China absent.

Dec. 8, 1975—Condemned Israel’s air strikes and attacks in Southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.

Jan. 26, 1976—Called for self-determination of Palestinian people; vote: 9 to 1, with 3 abstentions.

March 25, 1976—Deplored Israel’s altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city, by most world nations and the United Nation’s; vote: 14 to 1.

June 29, 1976—Affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.

April 30, 1980—Endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.

Jan. 20, 1982—Demanded Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights; vote: 9 to 1, with 4 abstentions.

April 2, 1982—Condemned Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention protocols of civilized nations; vote: 14 to 1.

April 20, 1982—Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers on the Temple Mount of the Haram al-Sharaf near the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem; vote: 14 to 1.

June 8, 1982—Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.

June 26, 1982—Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.

Aug. 6, 1982—Urged cut-off of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.

Aug. 2, 1983—Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.

Sept. 6, 1984—Deplored Israel’s brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal; vote: 14 to 1.

March 12, 1985—Condemned Israeli brutality in Southern Lebanon and denounced Israel’s “Iron Fist” policy of repression; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.

Sept. 13, 1985—Denounced Israel’s violation of human rights in the occupied territories; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.

Jan. 17, 1986—Deplored Israel’s violence in Southern Lebanon; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.

Jan. 30, 1986—Deplored Israel’s activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem which threaten the sanctity of Muslim holy sites; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.

Feb. 6, 1986—Condemned Israel’s hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane on Feb. 4; vote: 10 to 1, with 1 abstention.

Jan. 18, 1988—Deplored Israeli attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon; vote: 13 to 1, with Britain abstaining.

Feb. 1, 1988—Called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian uprising that violate the rights of occupied Palestinians, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations; vote: 14 to 1.

April 15, 1988—Urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel’s shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and called for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices; vote: 14 to 1.

May 10, 1988—Condemned Israel’s May 2 incursion into Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.

Dec. 14, 1988—Deplored Israel’s Dec. 9 commando raids on Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.

Feb. 17, 1989—Deplored Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians; vote: 14 to 1.

June 9, 1989—Deplored Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians; vote: 14 to 1.

Nov. 7, 1989—Demanded Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s crackdown on the Palestinian uprising; vote: 14 to 1.

May 31, 1990—Called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands; vote: 14 to 1.

May 17, 1995—Declared invalid Israel’s expropriation of land in East Jerusalem and in violation of Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva convention; vote: 14 to 1.

March 7, 1997—Called on Israel to refrain from settlement activity and all other actions in the occupied territories; vote:14 to 1.

March 21, 1997—Demanded Israel cease construction of the settlement Har Homa (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians) in East Jerusalem and cease all other settlement activity in the occupied territories; vote: 13 to 1, with one abstention.

March 26, 2001—Called for the deployment of a U.N. observer force in the West Bank and Gaza; vote: 9 to 1, with 4 abstentions.

Dec. 14, 2001—Condemned all acts of terror, the use of excessive force and destruction of properties and encouraged establishment of a monitoring apparatus; vote: 12-1, with 2 abstentions.

Dec. 19, 2002—Expressed deep concern over Israel’s killing of U.N. employees and Israel’s destruction of the U.N. World Food Program warehouse in Beit Lahiya and demanded that Israel refrain from the excessive and disproportionate use of force in the occupied territories; vote: 12 to 1, with 2 abstentions.

Sept. 16, 2003—Reaffirmed the illegality of deportation of any Palestinian and expressed concern about the possible deportation of Yasser Arafat; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.

Oct. 14, 2003—Raised concerns about Israel’s building of a securiy fence through the occupied West Bank; vote 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.

March 25, 2004—Condemned Israel for killing Palestinian spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in a missile attack in Gaza; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.

Oct. 5, 2004—Condemned Israel’s military incursion in Gaza, causing many civilian deaths and extensive damage to property; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.[/quote]



[url="http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2005/0505014.html"]http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2005/0505014.html[/url]

[Lawman]

[quote]BlackJesus
By US VETO[/quote]

[i]... and the Treaty of Versaille was never ratified by the US for a reason.[/i]


[url="http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267"]http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=...;x_article=1267[/url]

January 15, 2007

[b]Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters[/b]

[color="#000080"][u]After the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel prevented an attempt by surrounding Arab nations to destroy it militarily, the United Nations Security Council prepared a carefully-worded resolution to guide the parties.[/u] Since then, U.N. Resolution 242 has been invoked as the centerpiece for negotiation efforts, including the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords and the Road Map peace plan.

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

Sometimes, the misrepresentations are redressed, as was the case when the New York Times and others corrected errors about the resolution. [b]In other cases, inaccurate characterizations still await formal correction, as is the case with Jimmy Carter’s repeated distortion of the resolution in his book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. [/b]

Below are statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 – Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown – as well as others, in which the meaning and history of Resolution 242 are explained.[/color]

[quote]BlackJesus
Hence Jimmy Carter - [b]who more than any other living American is familiar with the situation [/b]... cites the West Bank as APARTHEID .... but not the greater state of Israel.[/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

[Lawman]

[quote]BlackJesus
Also there was never a nation of "Israel" before 1946 either ... so should that have been an argument not to create one?[/quote]

[i]At what point in history for you starts and everything else before that never exist.[/i]

[|BlackJesus|]

[center][quote name='Lawman' post='533623' date='Aug 26 2007, 12:43 PM'][i]At what point in history for you starts and everything else before that never exist.[/i] [/quote]
[img]http://dennisjudd.com/albums/funpics/stupidchart.jpg[/img][/center]


[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]- I don't even know what in the fuck this means [/b][/size][/font]

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533622' date='Aug 26 2007, 12:41 PM'][img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img][/quote]

[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]1) Would you like to give me an American who has worked more with the Israeli peace process than Jimmy Carter and who in your mind would be more familiar with it ?



2) Here is a Q also ... who is the only US politician EVER ... to get an Arab Islamic country to recognize and make peace with Israel ? [/b][/size][/font]

[Lawman]

[i]A good piece explaining Apartheid whichprovides some ommissions some have conviently avoided in discussions[/i]

[url="http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/Apartheid.html"]http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/Apartheid.html[/url]


[b]Apartheid
by Thomas W. Hazlett [/b]

[color="#000080"]The apartheid system of South Africa presents one of the most fascinating instances of interest group competition for political advantage. In light of the extreme human rights abuses stemming from apartheid, it is remarkable that so little attention has been paid to the economic foundations of that torturous social structure. The conventional view is that apartheid was devised by affluent whites to suppress poor blacks. In fact, the system sprang from class warfare and was largely the creation of white workers struggling against both the black majority and white capitalists. [u]Apartheid was born in the political victory of radical white trade unions over both their rivals.[/u] [b]In short, this cruelly oppressive economic system was socialism with a racist face.[/b] [/color]

The Roots of Conflict ......

[Lawman]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='533624' date='Aug 26 2007, 12:47 PM'][center]
[img]http://dennisjudd.com/albums/funpics/stupidchart.jpg[/img][/center]
[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]- I don't even know what in the fuck this means [/b][/size][/font][/quote]

[i]Who constantly fail to recognize Israels existence during the Roman periods and time before that.[/i]

[i]So where are you on your scale today smartass. Read this post.[/i]

[Lawman]

[quote]Would you like to give me an American who has [b]worked[/b] more with the Israeli peace process than Jimmy Carter and who in your mind would be more familiar with it ?[/quote]

[b]Worked[/b] is one thing, [b]success[/b] is whole different subject.

[|BlackJesus|]

[center][quote name='Lawman' post='533627' date='Aug 26 2007, 12:52 PM'][u]Apartheid was born in the political victory of radical white trade unions over both their rivals.[/u] [b]In short, this cruelly oppressive [size=4]economic system was socialism [/size]with a racist face.[/b][/quote]
[size=7] = [/size] [/center]




[color="#2E8B57"][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]If I didn't know any better ... I would think you were lampooning the idiotic ideas of the right ... however what is scary is you are serious.

I am constantly amazed at the outright lunacy of the shit you copy and paste. [/b][/size][/font][/color]

[|BlackJesus|]

[center][quote name='Lawman' post='533631' date='Aug 26 2007, 12:58 PM'][b]Worked[/b] is one thing, [b]success[/b] is whole different subject.[/quote]
[img]http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/dumb_and_dumber/_group_photos/jeff_daniels3.jpg[/img][/center]




[color="#2F4F4F"][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]... So yeah are you going to answer either of my 2 questions [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img] [/b][/size][/font][/color]

[Jamie_B]

2 things, as Im at work today (unfortunatly) and have a brief time during lunch before I have to go to our lab.

1. Carter's book is good, it is only laughable to those who dont agree with his politics. Also I would define his success from the standpoint that Israel and Egypt are not killing each other any more.

2. Any cliam to the land that has to do with the fact that many many many years ago your fore fathers lived there is now null in void IMO, if you stayed and didnt leave and are now as a group trying to proclaim your rights to the land that would be one thing, but that isnt the case.



Now 242 is were we are at and even with oslo the agreements both sides are to abide by 242 and the 68 borders. Isreal's claim is that they dont have to give up the land untill there is peace as per 242 and oslo. Weak argument, you might have peace if you just leave, build your wall along the green line, and be done with it. The fact that they havent done that and havent built the wall along the green line gives me the impression they arent interested in abiding by 242.

[Lawman]

[url="http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1273"]A comprehensive collection of Jimmy Carter's error.[/url]

[url="http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1238"]Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book[/url]

[i]Another from the worst President in US History. A good man, but bad president.[/i]

[url="http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1247"][i]Carter Admits to Ignoring Key Source[/i][/url]

[quote]BlackJesus
Would you like to give me an American who has worked more with the Israeli peace process than Jimmy Carter and who in your mind would be more familiar with it ?[/quote]

[i]How about this guy:[/i]

[color="#000080"]As chief Middle East peace negotiator under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Ambassador Ross knows perhaps more than anyone else the details of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at the end of 2000—a topic discussed by Carter in recent interviews and his new book. The Missing Peace is described by Bill Clinton as "the definitive" account of those complicated negotiations, and has garnered praise from four past US secretaries of state.

In other words, Ross' book is required reading for anyone who wants to understand—let alone write a credible book about—the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations of late 2000.[/color]

[|BlackJesus|]

[center][quote name='Lawman' post='533640' date='Aug 26 2007, 01:18 PM'][i]Another from the worst President in US History.[/i][/quote]
[size=3][color="#FF0000"][b]Lawman ...[/b][/color][/size] [img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/images/idiotOfYear_228.jpg[/img][/center]

[Lawman]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='533638' date='Aug 26 2007, 01:15 PM']2 things, as Im at work today (unfortunatly) and have a brief time during lunch before I have to go to our lab.

1. Carter's book is good, it is only laughable to those who dont agree with his politics. Also I would define his success from the standpoint that Israel and Egypt are not killing each other any more.

2. Any cliam to the land that has to do with the fact that many many many years ago your fore fathers lived there is now null in void IMO, if you stayed and didnt leave and are now as a group trying to proclaim your rights to the land that would be one thing, but that isnt the case.
Now 242 is were we are at and even with oslo the agreements both sides are to abide by 242 and the 68 borders. Isreal's claim is that they dont have to give up the land untill there is peace as per 242 and oslo. Weak argument, you might have peace if you just leave, build your wall along the green line, and be done with it. The fact that they havent done that and havent built the wall along the green line gives me the impression they arent interested in abiding by 242.[/quote]

[i]Too bad you posted this before I had my last post.[/i]

[i]Carter admitted to ignoring or consulting with Dennis Ross.[/i]

[color="#000080"]On the Dec. 8 episode of CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Ross directly refuted Carter's claims:

BLITZER: Who is right, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton on this question which is so relevant as to whether or not the Israelis at Camp David at the end of the Bill Clinton administration accepted the proposals the U.S. put forward?

ROSS: The answer is President Clinton. The Israelis said yes to this twice, first at Camp David, there were a set of proposals that were put on the table that they accepted. And then were the Clinton parameters, the Clinton ideas which were presented in December, their government, meaning the cabinet actually voted it. You can go back and check it, December 27th the year 2000, the cabinet voted to approve the Clinton proposal, the Clinton ideas. So this is -- this is a matter of record. This is not a matter of interpretation.

BLITZER: So you're saying Jimmy Carter is flat wrong.

ROSS: On this issue, he's wrong.

Not only did Carter ignore the authoritative source on what transpired at the Camp David negotiations, he apparently also didn't bother to consult news reports from the era. On Dec. 28, 2000, the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune and others all reported on the Israeli cabinet's acceptance of Clinton's parameters as a basis for discussion.[/color]

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533640' date='Aug 26 2007, 01:18 PM'][url="http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1273"]A comprehensive collection of Jimmy Carter's error.[/url][/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]


[quote]The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a powerful Boston-based lobby group that tries to curb criticism of Israel in US media.[/quote]


[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CAMERA"]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CAMERA[/url]

[Lawman]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='533642' date='Aug 26 2007, 01:20 PM'][center]
[size=3][color="#FF0000"][b]Lawman ...[/b][/color][/size] [img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/images/idiotOfYear_228.jpg[/img][/center][/quote]


[i]I love it when you resort to such tactics, it only confirms to me that I am winning the argument.[/i]