Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 18, 2012, 01:17 PM   #101
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
...Hamas is their government.

...
only in Gaza though. There's a totally different government in the West Bank.......so given the split, it's really a mistake to lump them together.
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 01:21 PM   #102
Fazzy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: check the tracking device
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
It's obvious that Israel doesn't indiscriminately bomb civilians. So the question is, are militants (as usual) hiding behind civilians while launching attacks as the Israeli civilians?
You're taking a very liberal interpretation of 'indiscriminately'. The Gaza strip is the most densely populated area you could find, so any drone strikes (I believe they've dropped circa 1000 in the past few days) will no doubt have disastrous consequences. How can you not expect civilian casualties? They've nowhere to go. The israeli military are being very reckless to say the least, if not extremely disproportionate as stated in a previous post.
__________________
PICK ME PICK ME PICK ME PICK MEPICK MEPICK ME PICK ME
Fazzy is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 01:32 PM   #103
eric/
Thread Starter
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazzy View Post
You're taking a very liberal interpretation of 'indiscriminately'. The Gaza strip is the most densely populated area you could find, so any drone strikes (I believe they've dropped circa 1000 in the past few days) will no doubt have disastrous consequences. How can you not expect civilian casualties? They've nowhere to go. The israeli military are being very reckless to say the least, if not extremely disproportionate as stated in a previous post.
I disagree, especially considering the nature of their opponent.

You don't get to fire rockets from densely populated areas, then complain when you get bombed and civilians die. Just doesn't work that way.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 01:37 PM   #104
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
First off this round of hostilities all started because the Israeli PM is facing re-election, at a time when the economy is down the toilet.

One thing that has changed, whereas twenty years ago all news outlets would have been 100% behind any Israeli action, there is now a far more critical approach. All day here the news broadcasts have shown only women and children being dug out of the ruins in Gaza. The old standby if you disagree with Israeli's policies you are automatically anti semitic, just does not work like it used to. For the majority of the people under forty here in Europe, Israel is seen as the bully boy of the Middle East.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 01:44 PM   #105
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
How do you know it's Hamas firing the rockets? .....
probably because Hamas says they're firing rockets at israel......so unless you believe Hamas is lying, it seems reasonable to believe them
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 01:47 PM   #106
Fazzy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: check the tracking device
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I disagree, especially considering the nature of their opponent.

You don't get to fire rockets from densely populated areas, then complain when you get bombed and civilians die. Just doesn't work that way.
In other words, you're justifying the murder of civilians. Smooth.
__________________
PICK ME PICK ME PICK ME PICK MEPICK MEPICK ME PICK ME
Fazzy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 01:57 PM   #107
eric/
Thread Starter
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazzy View Post
In other words, you're justifying the murder of civilians. Smooth.
no.

don't bother saying that again
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:10 PM   #108
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazzy View Post
In other words, you're justifying the murder of civilians. Smooth.
I find it so difficult to pick sides in this situation.

On one side, you have a group of people who's stated goal is nothing short of a second holocaust, who happily snipes at children on playgrounds, and who launches attacks against civilian population centers in an attempt to kill as many people as they can.

...then in a rather brilliant propaganda play, turns around and happily shows us pictures and videos of Palestinian women and children who have died in Isreali attacks in a blatant ploy of heartstring tugging. "Look at what they do to us. We can have no peace with these Jew Demons". Cue someone on the internet crying.

On the other side, you have a gigantic, well organized, nigh unstoppable military might who's reaction to every slight against them is invariably HULK SMASH NOW WORRY ABOUT CONSEQUENCES LATER. It doesn't matter if a bunch of Palestinian kids push over an Isreali fruit stand, or if a suicide bomber hits yet another discotheque, killing hundreds, the response is always the same. ROCKETS! BULLDOZERS! INDISCRIMINATE DESTRUCTION! YET MORE DEAD! To quote someone I once read on another messageboard, the general Isreali response is akin to stomping a kid's head in with your steel toed boot because he flicked you in the dick with a Tonka truck.

How can you expect peace between the two when both sides are too hate filled to ever see eye to eye on any situation? How can you, who aren't directly involved, prefer one over the other?
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:12 PM   #109
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
The very bottom line is that neither side is willing to compromise going forward in order to achieve peace. Now the debate comes to whether the world is better off with an Israeli democracy, or Palestinian rule.

As much as I'm against war and destruction, this has gone far past the point of peaceful resolve. I think Israel is in the wrong for the ruthlessness of their methods of proclaimed self defense, yet radical Palestinians fail to realize that continuation of their offensive trends will lead to an eminent eradication of Palestinian control. It's sad to say, but this is a world where if you're being threatened, you do whatever it takes to be successful over the opposition, and with Israel's previous calls for negotiation, and Palestinian refusal of requested peaceful negotiation, there is but one solution to this problem, that being the total eradication of enemy forces. Sadly enough, this cannot be done without civilian casualties on both sides.

I believe that Israel might be able to offer a safe haven for Palestinian civilian refugees and defend that refugee camp from harm, allowing for specific targeting of only militant radicals attempting to destroy Israel. That would, in my opinion, be the final effort at negotiation on Israel's part before they have no choice but to carry out an offensive on Palestinian territories.

Under no circumstances should there be targeting of non militant areas such as the broadcasting areas or civilian villages. No humans life should be worth more than any other, but a refusal to negotiate is an open invitation for destruction. I just wish the radical Palestinian organizations would be able to understand this because I hate to see any more people die.

*Both sides are fighting for what they believe is right*, and I can respect that. Sadly, we can only pretend to be civil for a little longer before violence becomes the dominant tactic in this everlasting struggle.

Truly sad that two deeply rich cultures native to the same land are unable to resolve peacefully. Best wishes to everyone in the Middle East. Lets hope for the most peaceful resolution possible.
__________________
YouTube tech reviews, unboxings, and giveaways:www.YouTube.com/user/TheJemteck

It's like dropping a baby. It'll seem fine but get demented as time progresses. - Alienworkshoper
mfuchs88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:14 PM   #110
The.316
macrumors 65816
 
The.316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazzy View Post
In other words, you're justifying the murder of civilians. Smooth.
Im curious, if a group is densely populated area, is firing rockets at you, you wouldnt respond and protect yourself because your targets are in a densely populated area? Obviously you dont want to see civilians killed, but casualties are a part of war, and certain decisions have to be made at critical times. That is what eric/ is getting at, which you are obviously missing.

Question...if you had one shot at Bin Laden, but killing him would also mean the death of X amount of Pakistanis, would you authorize the bombing?
__________________
27" iMac i7 13" MPB
16gb iPhone 5 32gb iPad Air
Apple TV 3
The.316 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:16 PM   #111
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
The very bottom line is that neither side is willing to compromise going forward in order to achieve peace.
********, the Arabs, Fatah and Hamas have made compromises. Israel is the main unreasonable one these days
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:17 PM   #112
Fazzy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: check the tracking device
Quote:
Originally Posted by The.316 View Post
Im curious, if a group is densely populated area, is firing rockets at you, you wouldnt respond and protect yourself because your targets are in a densely populated area? Obviously you dont want to see civilians killed, but casualties are a part of war, and certain decisions have to be made at critical times. That is what eric/ is getting at, which you are obviously missing.

Question...if you had one shot at Bin Laden, but killing him would also mean the death of X amount of Pakistanis, would you authorize the bombing?
Nope.
__________________
PICK ME PICK ME PICK ME PICK MEPICK MEPICK ME PICK ME
Fazzy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:26 PM   #113
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
********, the Arabs, Fatah and Hamas have made compromises. Israel is the main unreasonable one these days
I didn't see Hamas fighting for control of Israel during WWII. They didn't establish the safe haven Israel was designed to be. The radical Palestinians sat by during wars, waited for Israel to become established and thriving, and now expect a cut of the success and land. Bottom line is neither side will compromise to meet the demands of the other, and military power will be the deciding factor. Israel is in the wrong in their defense methods and Gaza militants are in the wrong as well. Understand though that this entire dispute is primarily between Israeli government and Palestinian radicals. It's wrong to clump all of Israel and Palestine into this. Civilians on both sides only want this dispute to end as quickly as possible. It's a horrible situation.
__________________
YouTube tech reviews, unboxings, and giveaways:www.YouTube.com/user/TheJemteck

It's like dropping a baby. It'll seem fine but get demented as time progresses. - Alienworkshoper
mfuchs88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:29 PM   #114
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
********, the Arabs, Fatah and Hamas have made compromises...
certainly Fatah has....perhaps you could give some sources showing compromises that Hamas has made?
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:36 PM   #115
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
The radical Palestinians sat by during wars, waited for Israel to become established and thriving, and now expect a cut of the success and land.
You can easily spot the difference, when you use Google Maps, satellite view, to look at Gaza and Israel.
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 02:50 PM   #116
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
I didn't see Hamas fighting for control of Israel during WWII. They didn't establish the safe haven Israel was designed to be.
They also weren't being persecuted at that time.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:01 PM   #117
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
They also weren't being persecuted at that time.
So because they didn't have to overcome any obstacles, they should get special benefits?
__________________
YouTube tech reviews, unboxings, and giveaways:www.YouTube.com/user/TheJemteck

It's like dropping a baby. It'll seem fine but get demented as time progresses. - Alienworkshoper
mfuchs88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:02 PM   #118
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
So because they didn't have to overcome any obstacles, they should get special benefits?
I have no idea what "special benefits" you think they should/might get, beyond the right to a sovereign state as per the 1949 UN agreement.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:14 PM   #119
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
So because they didn't have to overcome any obstacles, they should get special benefits?
Well you certainly got my interest piqued, what are these special benefits?
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:16 PM   #120
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
certainly Fatah has....perhaps you could give some sources showing compromises that Hamas has made?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...64T2AM20100530

Quote:
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has stated explicitly that the Palestinian Islamist group will end its armed struggle against Israel if the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War
http://www.usip.org/publications/hamas

Quote:
Experience with intractable conflicts in Northern Ireland, Aceh, and elsewhere suggests that ideologically rigid movements can change over time and that a peace process itself can play a critical role in shaping such an evolution.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...hance-1.359836

Quote:
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal on Wednesday challenged Israel to peace, offering to work with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egypt on a new strategy to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:18 PM   #121
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Ok well that wasn't the right way to phrase it. Rather, why should the radicals reap the benefits of Israel's success if radical Palestinians have only ever posed an obstacle to progress? I'm all for integration, but with the goal of complete eradication of Israel, how can the radicals expect peaceful compliance? I'm still not happy with my wording on this post, but I can't figure put how to post what I'm thinking.
__________________
YouTube tech reviews, unboxings, and giveaways:www.YouTube.com/user/TheJemteck

It's like dropping a baby. It'll seem fine but get demented as time progresses. - Alienworkshoper
mfuchs88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:20 PM   #122
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
Ok well that wasn't the right way to phrase it. Rather, why should the radicals reap the benefits of Israel's success
What benefits would they be reaping?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
if radical Palestinians have only ever posed an obstacle to progress
See post #120.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:26 PM   #123
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
Ok well that wasn't the right way to phrase it. Rather, why should the radicals reap the benefits of Israel's success if radical Palestinians have only ever posed an obstacle to progress? I'm all for integration, but with the goal of complete eradication of Israel, how can the radicals expect peaceful compliance? I'm still not happy with my wording on this post, but I can't figure put how to post what I'm thinking.
I read this twice, and I'm sorry but I still cannot see what you are trying to say in this discussion.
I also cannot see any explanation for what these 'special benefits' are meant to be.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:27 PM   #124
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
What benefits would they be reaping?



See post #120.
The established land. I agree on the point that Israel should allow Palestinian occupancy of specific areas, even better would be full integration in all areas, but when radicals act as a counter force towards Israeli advancement, I find it hard to justify the argument that the radicals are entitled to more land from within Israel's boundaries. The path towards acquisition of more territory is not going to be accomplished through anti-Israel violence, but rather proper legal action, as the Palestinians should be able to make enough of a case.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
I read this twice, and I'm sorry but I still cannot see what you are trying to say in this discussion.
I also cannot see any explanation for what these 'special benefits' are meant to be.
I already said that special benefits was the wrong way to phrase it. I've gotta go get my dog from the kennel, but I'll try and clarify when I'm back. You have a solid argument.
__________________
YouTube tech reviews, unboxings, and giveaways:www.YouTube.com/user/TheJemteck

It's like dropping a baby. It'll seem fine but get demented as time progresses. - Alienworkshoper
mfuchs88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:30 PM   #125
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
The established land. I agree on the point that Israel should allow Palestinian occupancy of specific areas, even better would be full integration in all areas, but when radicals act as a counter force towards Israeli advancement, I find it hard to justify the argument that the radicals are entitled to more land from within Israel's boundaries. The path towards acquisition of more territory is not going to be accomplished through anti-Israel violence, but rather proper legal action, as the Palestinians should be able to make enough of a case.

----------



I already said that special benefits was the wrong way to phrase it. I've gotta go get my dog from the kennel, but I'll try and clarify when I'm back. You have a solid argument.
This has been proposed through the UN on numerous occasions, but was alway blocked by Israel and the USA.
These are just some of the United Nations Security Council resolutions

See also: United Nations Security Council Resolution
Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes "increasing violence and disorder in Palestine" and requests that representatives of "the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee" arrange, with the Security Council, "a truce between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine...Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence immediately."
Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, "it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Palestine." The Resolutions also "Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine" to stop importing "armed bands and fighting personnel...whatever their origin;...weapons and war materials;...Refrain, pending the future government of Palestine...from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;...refrain from any action which will endanger the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine."
Resolution 48: April 23, 1948, calls on all concerned parties to comply with UNSC Resolution 46 and establishes a Truce Commission for Palestine to assist the SC in implementing the truce. Approved 8-0, abstentions from Colombia, Ukrainian SSR and USSR.
Resolution 49: May 22, 1948 issues a cease-fire order to come into effect at noon, May 24, 1948, New York time. Orders the Truce Commission for Palestine previously set up to report on compliance. Adopted by 8-0, abstentions from Ukrainian SSR, USSR and Syria.
Resolution 50: May 29, 1948, calls for a four week ceasefire covering Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan and Yemen. Urges all to protect the Holy Places and Jerusalem. Offers the UN Mediator as many military observers as necessary. Further violations and the Council would consider action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Adopted in parts; no voting on the resolution as a whole.
Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
Resolution 89 (17 November 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and "transfer of persons".
Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid.
Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 March)
Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 September)
Resolution 111: The Palestine Question (January 19, 1956) " ... 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 113: The Palestine Question (4 April)
Resolution 114: The Palestine Question (4 June)
Resolution 127: The Palestine Question (January 22, 1958) " ... 'recommends' Israel suspends its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 138: (June 23, 1960) Question relating to the case of Israel's capture of Adolf Eichmann, concerning Argentina's complaint that Israel breached its sovereignty.
Resolution 162: The Palestine Question (April 11, 1961) " ... 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: The Palestine Question (April 9, 1962) " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: The Palestine Question (November 25, 1966) " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 233 Six Day War (June 6, 1967)
Resolution 234 Six Day War (June 7, 1967)
Resolution 235 Six Day War (June 9, 1967)
Resolution 236 Six Day War (June 11, 1967)
Resolution 237: Six Day War June 14, 1967) " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". and called on Israel to ensure the safety and welfare of inhabitants of areas where fighting had taken place.
Resolution 240 (October 25, 1967): concerning violations of the cease-fire
Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
Resolution 248: (March 24, 1968) " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: (April 27) " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: (May 2) " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: (May 21) " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: (August 16) " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 258: (September 18) ... expressed 'concern' with the welfare of the inhabitants of the Israeli-occupied territories, and requested a special representative to be sent to report on the implementation of Resolution 237, and that Israel cooperate.
Resolution 259: (September 27) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: (December 31) " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: (April 1, 1969) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on Salt".
Resolution 267: (July 3) " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: (August 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: (September 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: (May 12, 1970) "Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory."(full text)
Resolution 280: (May 19) " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: (September 5) " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon".
Resolution 298: (September 25, 1971) " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: (February 28, 1972) " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: (June 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: (July 21) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 331: (April 20, 1973)
Resolution 332: (April 21) " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: (August 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon's air space".
Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): " ...'calls' for a cease fire" in Yom Kippur War and "the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts", and "Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."
Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
Resolution 340 (25 October): "Demands that immediate and complete cease-fire be observed, per 338 and 339, and requests to increase the number of United Nations military observers
Resolution 341 (27 October): "Approves the report on the implementation resolution 340
Resolution 344 (15 December)
Resolution 346 (April 8, 1974)
Resolution 347: (April 24)" ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
Resolution 362 (October 23) decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for another six months
Resolution 363 (November 29)
Resolution 368 (April 17, 1975), called on the parties involved in the prevailing state of tension in the Middle East to immediately implement Resolution 338.
Resolution 369 (May 28, 1975), expressed concern over the prevailing state of tension in the Middle East, reaffirmed that the two previous agreements were only a step towards the implementation of Resolution 338 and called on the parties to implement it, and extended the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 371, expressed concern at a lack of progress towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.
Resolution 378, called for the implementation of Resolution 338 and extended the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force.
Resolution 381, expressed concern over continued tensions, extended the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force, and scheduled a later meeting to continue the debate on the Middle East.
Resolution 390, considered a report regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and extended its mandate, noted the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East, but expressed concern over the prevailing state of tensions, and called for the implementation of Resolution 338.
Resolution 396
Resolution 408
Resolution 416
Resolution 420, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 425 (1978): " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed by 16 June 2000.
Resolution 426, established the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon".
Resolution 429
Resolution 434, renewed the mandate of UNIFIL and called upon Israel and Lebanon to implement prior resolutions.
Resolution 438
Resolution 441
Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 449, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 456, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 459, regarding UNIFIL.
Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " ... 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 470, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 471: " ... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 474, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 476: " ... 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.
Resolution 481, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 483, noted the continuing need for UNIFIL given the situation between Israel and Lebanon, and extended its mandate.
Resolution 484: " ... 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 485, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 487: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 488, regarding UNIFIL.
Resolution 493, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 497 (17 December 1981), decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 506, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
Resolution 508: demanded an end to hostilities between Israel and the PLO taking place in Lebanon, and called for a cease-fire.
Resolution 509: " ... 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 511, extended the mandate of UNIFIL.
Resolution 515: " ... 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 516, demanded an immediate cessation of military activities in Lebanon, noting violations of the cease-fire in Beirut.
Resolution 517: " ... 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " ... 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 519, extended the mandate of UNIFIL, and authorized it to carry out humanitarian tasks.
Resolution 520: " ... 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 523
Resolution 524
Resolution 529
Resolution 531
Resolution 536
Resolution 538
Resolution 543
Resolution 549
Resolution 551
Resolution 555
Resolution 557
Resolution 561
Resolution 563
Resolution 573: " ... 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 575
Resolution 576
Resolution 583
Resolution 584
Resolution 586
Resolution 587 " ... 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 590
Resolution 592: " ... 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Birzeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 594
Resolution 596
Resolution 599
Resolution 603
Resolution 605: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " ... 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " ... 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 609
Resolution 611: "... condemned Israel's assassination of Khalil al-Wazir as a 'flagrant violation of the Charter'
Resolution 613
Resolution 617
Resolution 624
Resolution 630
Resolution 633
Resolution 636: " ... 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 639 (31 Jul 1989)
Resolution 641 (30 Aug 1989): " ... 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 645 (29 Nov 1989)
Resolution 648 (31 Jan 1990)[1] The Security Council extends the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon until July 31, 1990.
Resolution 655 (31 May 1990)
Resolution 659 (31 Jul 1990)
Resolution 672 (12 Oct 1990): " ... 'condemns' Israel for "violence against Palestinians" at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673 (24 Oct 1990): " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 679 (30 Nov 1990)
Resolution 681 (20 Dec 1990): " ... 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 684 (30 Jan 1991)
Resolution 694 (24 May 1991): " ... 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 695 (30 May 1991)
Resolution 701 (31 Jul 1991)
Resolution 722 (29 Nov 1991)
Resolution 726 (06 Jan 1992): " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 734 (29 Jan 1992)
Resolution 756 (29 May 1992)
Resolution 768 (30 Jul 1992)
Resolution 790 (25 Nov 1992)
Resolution 799 (18 Dec 1992): ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Resolution 803 (28 Jan 1993)
Resolution 830 (26 May 1993)
Resolution 852 (28 Jul 1993)
Resolution 887 (29 Nov 1993)
Resolution 895 (28 Jan 1994)
Resolution 904 (18 Mar 1994): Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.
Resolution 938 (28 Jul 1994): extends mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon until January 31, 1995.
Resolution 1039 (29 Jan 1996)
Resolution 1052 (18 Apr 1996)
Resolution 1057 (30 May 1996)
Resolution 1068 (30 Jul 1996)
Resolution 1073 (28 Sep 1996)
Resolution 1081 (27 Nov 1996)
Resolution 1095 (28 Jan 1997)
Resolution 1109 (28 May 1997)
Resolution 1122 (29 Jul 1997)
Resolution 1139 (21 Nov 1997)
Resolution 1151 (30 Jan 1998)
Resolution 1169 (27 May 1998)
Resolution 1188 (30 Jul 1998)
Resolution 1211 (25 Nov 1998)
Resolution 1223 (28 Jan 1999)
Resolution 1243 (27 May 1999)
Resolution 1254 (30 Jul 1999)
Resolution 1276 (24 Nov 1999)
Resolution 1288 (31 Jan 2000)
Resolution 1300 (31 May 2000)
Resolution 1310 (27 Jul 2000)
Resolution 1322 (07 Oct 2000) deplored Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount and the violence that followed
Resolution 1328 (27 Nov 2000)
Resolution 1337 (30 Jan 2001)
Resolution 1351 (30 May 2001)
Resolution 1397 (12 Mar 2002) the first resolution to explicitly call for a two-state solution.
Resolution 1435 (24 Sep 2002) demanded an end to Israeli measures in and around Ramallah, and an Israeli withdrawal to positions held before September 2000.
Resolution 1559 (2 September 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that "the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel's withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005)
Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.
Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas.

Now not every one is anti Israeli, some are very anti Palestinian.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'

Last edited by Happybunny; Nov 18, 2012 at 03:39 PM.
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carrier: Verizon iPhone 5 use in Israel Zmanbaseball2 iPhone 3 Mar 24, 2014 07:00 AM
Activating Sprint iPhone 5 in Israel IphoneIsrael iPhone Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 0 Apr 13, 2013 06:51 AM
iP5 USA -> Israel lego8 iPhone 1 Sep 21, 2012 06:40 PM
iPhone 5 makes appearance in Israel Technarchy iPhone 23 Sep 2, 2012 03:52 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC