Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:33 PM   #126
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
I find it hard to justify the argument that the radicals are entitled to more land from within Israel's boundaries.
The only reason they'd get land from within the 1967 borders is because Israel doesn't want to give back all the land outside that line.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:40 PM   #127
Peterkro
macrumors 68020
 
Peterkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Communard de Londres
If we are going to talk honestly and openly about this we need to drop a lot of the skewed terminology,why for example are the terms "radical" and "terrorists" applied to the Palestinians when quite clearly both terms more accurately portray the Israeli state.( I should be clear here I'm not talking about the Israeli population many of whom are as outraged as the rest of us).

By the way as far as I know the only western governments to condemn Israeli actions are Iceland (a NATO member) and Scotland.
Peterkro is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:46 PM   #128
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
This has been proposed through the UN on numerous occasions, but was alway blocked by Israel and the USA......
and of course many of those have also been rejected by the Palestinians and by Arab states too

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterkro View Post
If we are going to talk honestly and openly about this we need to drop a lot of the skewed terminology,why for example are the terms "radical" and "terrorists" applied to the Palestinians when quite clearly both terms more accurately portray the Israeli state......
yes, well it seems you're quite content to continue using the "skewed terminology" as long as it's used to describe who you want and not used to describe your favored side
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:51 PM   #129
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterkro View Post
If we are going to talk honestly and openly about this we need to drop a lot of the skewed terminology,why for example are the terms "radical" and "terrorists" applied to the Palestinians when quite clearly both terms more accurately portray the Israeli state.( I should be clear here I'm not talking about the Israeli population many of whom are as outraged as the rest of us).

By the way as far as I know the only western governments to condemn Israeli actions are Iceland (a NATO member) and Scotland.
The terms "radical" and "terrorists" are only applied to Hamas. The citizens of the Gaza Strip aren't "radical" and "terrorists".

Hamas is well known to want to wipe Israel off the map. Until they change that view this stuff will go on and on and on.
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:56 PM   #130
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
and of course many of those have also been rejected by the Palestinians and by Arab states too
Sure, back in the 1970's. Since then the position has changed.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Hamas is well known to want to wipe Israel off the map. Until they change that view this stuff
Fortunately they have changed their view to the 1967 borders, see post 120.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:56 PM   #131
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Sure, back in the 1970's. Since then the position has changed.
yes, some positions have changed, but very slowly.......even Netanyahu says he supports a two state solution
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 03:57 PM   #132
eric/
Thread Starter
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
The night had not passed peacefully in Gaza, however. Israeli warplanes bombed rocket launch-sites and other Hamas targets. Palestinian medical sources reported at least two deaths and many injuries. Overall Gaza deaths stand at around 50, half of them non-combatants. (Update: By Sunday afternoon that figure had risen to nearly 70; among the day's fatalities were four young children, all brothers, and five women, all members of one family killed in a bombing attack aimed at a Hamas military commander.)

The near-silence on the Israeli side was shattered at breakfast time with a multiple-rocket attack on the southern town of Ashkelon. Two missiles penetrated the "Iron Dome" defence system and fell in the town, causing minor injuries and extensive damage. In mid-morning, for the third day running, a missile was fired from Gaza toward Tel Aviv. It was brought down by Iron Dome; a piece of burning shrapnel fell onto a car and destroyed it.

Link
Hm. Israel targeting military commanders.

Hamas targeting civilians.

It's kind of hard to take either side, when Israel is killing civilians on accident, and Hamas is trying to do it intentionally.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 04:04 PM   #133
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazzy View Post
In other words, you're justifying the murder of civilians. Smooth.
That is absolutely not what he said whatsoever. His point was that there are two sides to this sword and that each side is committing acts of violence, and so the 'cries' that are being made need to be viewed in context. Justifying the murder of civilians? Absolutely not, but war ALWAYS means civilian casualties. That's one of the reasons why it is such an awful thing. If you fire a rocket on someone, there will be a response and this signals civilians will likely die on both sides. But if you are firing rockets at someone, it makes it hard to be the 'victim' in full.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in ENGLISH, thank a Veteran.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 04:17 PM   #134
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
That is absolutely not what he said whatsoever. His point was that there are two sides to this sword and that each side is committing acts of violence,
Well not really, Hamas is throwing stones and Israel is using tanks.

And Israel started it this time by assassinating Hamas' leader.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
yes, some positions have changed, but very slowly.......even Netanyahu says he supports a two state solution
I think the Arab position has a lot more credibility to it - Israel refuses to even talk to Hamas directly.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 04:33 PM   #135
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Ok so here's what I think I was trying to say. The radical Palestinians have made it extremely clear that there will be no stop to their military offensives until the entire state of Israel is destroyed, or controlled by the Palestinians. They have no plans of stopping under any conditions. Israel has designated land to the Palestinians and the Israeli government has made it clear that they are not attempting to advance or expand their boundaries, but rather defend the existing land that comprises the state of Israel. They are not opposed to integration of the two parties and are not stopping Palestinian residency in Israel. What other option is Israel given other than to take military action when their enemies are not willing to stop under any condition. Nobody says Palestinians can't live in Israel. It is a choice that they feel they must gain military control of all of current Israel before they will stop. Now explain to me how this is a reasonable request. Both parties are dealing with the unfortunate situation in detrimental fashions, there is no denying that. I am not taking sides here, rather explaining that the Palestinians have been given the chance at peaceful existence and integration, but they refuse. What can Israel do other than match the radicals actions and act on the offensive? Israel should not be penalized for having well established defense forces. That's equivalent to a midget actively engaging in a mutual fight with a giant, and then expecting that the giant stands on its knees and only uses one hand. Taking responsibility for military acts against Israel is an open invitation for retaliation. Israel defends their citizens better and therefore has lower casualty rates. Again, why should the giant fight from its knees when both parties know what they're getting into? I wish this would end peacefully. I wish everybody could live together and end fighting. I wish these military forces could join to defend their common land but that's just not possible under current conditions.
__________________
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, 04:36 PM   #136
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
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.
This will only work if Palestinian radicals agree to the same mutual terms as Israel has proposed, though. That has not happened. Therefore they have no legal grounds currently. They would need to arrange ceasefire to attain legal grounds.
__________________
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, 04:49 PM   #137
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Well not really, Hamas is throwing stones and Israel is using tanks.
Why is Israel in the wrong because their defense forces are stronger? If you see a tank coming at you, then it would be wise to stop throwing stones. Israel didn't initiate this situation. They are using military force as a means of defending their citizens and if that means killing enemy leaders, then that's what must be done, even if it unfortunately leads to civilian death. Hamas tries their best to kill any and all opposition to their goals. They are unprofessional and unsuccessful. Israel on the other hand is well coordinated and is therefore successful. Who's fault is it that Israel is stronger, yet Hamas continues. Is all of this morally right? No, but this is real life and we can't all live happily ever after. A mouse doesn't try to sleep in an eagle's nest and expect not to get eaten, no matter who slept in the nest in the past.
__________________
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, 04:52 PM   #138
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Well not really, Hamas is throwing stones and Israel is using tanks.

And Israel started it this time by assassinating Hamas' leader.
It amazes me how people take sides on this as they do. Hamas is not throwing stones unless rockets are the new stones. This has to be taken at face value. I look at it as both sides being wrong and both sides having played the role of the one starting violence at different points in time. It amazes me how after all these years that "stones" and tanks still need to be used.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in ENGLISH, thank a Veteran.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 05:03 PM   #139
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
....I think the Arab position has a lot more credibility to it - Israel refuses to even talk to Hamas directly.
Do you have a link that shows that Hamas has offered to talk directly with israel?

As one of your links says;

Quote:
Although Hamas would not directly participate in peace negotiations with Israel, Hamas has indicated that it would be willing to be part of a Palestinian coalition government with Fatah under which Fatah would negotiate the actual treaty.
while another of your links says

Quote:
Hamas has opposed Abbas' peace efforts with Israel.
If israel's refusal to talk directly with hamas somehow proves that israel isn't credible about peace, then is Hamas really any more credible if it isn't willing to talk directly with israel either?
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 06:54 PM   #140
kavika411
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alabama
The key is to find Ivory Tower words and phrases that that justify terrorism.

It appears that "disproportional" is the new pink.
kavika411 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 07:25 PM   #141
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavika411 View Post
The key is to find Ivory Tower words and phrases that that justify terrorism.

It appears that "disproportional" is the new pink.
I can't think of one case where overwhelming force has done anything but escalate violence from groups such as Hamas.

Meanwhile Israeli leaders have said they hope to bomb gaza back into the Stone Age (same rhetoric used in Iraq). I'm glad they have such a nuanced view to separate Gaza from Hamas.

Nothing good can come from this.
NT1440 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 07:29 PM   #142
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
Nothing good can come from this.
Indeed. It will simply breed more violence like it has done for 50 years.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 09:06 PM   #143
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Some background...

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/15/i...harm-civilians

Quote:
The current round of fighting began on November 8, during an incursion by Israeli forces into southern Gaza, east of Khan Yunis. The Popular Resistance Committees, an armed group, said it fired at Israeli tanks and bulldozers near Khuza’a and detonated an explosive device in a tunnel in the area, according to Ma’an, an independent Palestinian news site. An Israeli military spokesperson said an Israeli soldier had been lightly injured, Ma’an reported. Residents told the The New York Times that Israeli tanks and helicopters opened fire during the clash. Palestinian rights groups, the Gaza Health Ministry, and photojournalist Anne Paq, working for the Israeli-Palestinian ActiveStills media group, reported that a bullet from Israeli machinegun fire fatally struck Hamid Abu Daqqa, 13, in the abdomen as he was playing near his home in ‘Abasan al Kabira, hundreds of meters from the fighting.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 12:16 AM   #144
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
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.
Why not? Why not acknowledge that for those living in Gaza, there's nowhere to go? They can't leave to Egypt. They can't get relief in Israel or Jordan, they are literally trapped within a dense thicket of buildings and complexes from within a few members are launching rockets at Israel. Israel responds with modern military might, meaning they often kill not just the person launching the rocket, but the building next to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kavika411 View Post
The key is to find Ivory Tower words and phrases that that justify terrorism.

It appears that "disproportional" is the new pink.
I agree, "disproportional" assumes that some 'tit-for-tat' exchange would be moral and it's not. Hamas isn't moral for aimlessly chucking Iranian rockets at Israel and the Israelis don't get to claim moral high-ground when they send a fully-laden F-16 into Gaza.

From a piece by "War Nerd" Gary Brechner:

Quote:
...Now you’re seeing the IDF doing its usual mix of Heavy + Cautious: launching 300 air strikes but not doing anything decisive. No matter what Israel does in the next few days, there’ll still be 1.7 million pissed-off people jammed into Gaza. It’s like kicking aimlessly at somebody tied up at your feet: they won’t stop trying to get loose, and when they do, you’re not going to be happy. Logically, in classical military terms, it’s simple: you’d massacre or expel the whole population. Israel doesn’t quite have the ruthlessness to do that, but they have enough to keep hitting Gaza, killing some of the people they want dead and, since it’s a crowded slum with a huge birthrate, a lot of women and kids who are just hunkering down trying to survive...
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 02:21 AM   #145
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
Ok so here's what I think I was trying to say. The radical Palestinians have made it extremely clear that there will be no stop to their military offensives until the entire state of Israel is destroyed, or controlled by the Palestinians.
Complete rubbish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfuchs88 View Post
Why is Israel in the wrong because their defense forces are stronger?
Because they are using disproportionate force.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Hamas is not throwing stones unless rockets are the new stones.
Given how much damage the rockets actually do they are essentially the new stones, you can't use lethal force against a stone thrower.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
Do you have a link that shows that Hamas has offered to talk directly with israel?
Do you have any links which show that Hamas point blank refuses to talk directly to Israel under any circumstance or with absurd conditions?

Israel will not talk to Hamas until they change their constitution and they have made that publicly clear, that seems more than a little far fetched.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 02:47 AM   #146
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
It amazes me how people take sides on this as they do
When one side is clearly being vastly more aggressive than the other why shouldn't I take sides?

Albeit there were bad things done by the British (e.g. Bloody Sunday), but it isn't as if the British RAF dropped bombs on catholic housing areas in Northern Ireland to kill IRA members now is it? And it also isn't as if the British insisted that the IRA give up their pledge for a united Ireland before talk started?

It is very sad how the Jews were treated in World War 2, it doesn't give the Israelis an excuse to behave as badly as they do now.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 02:55 AM   #147
Happybunny
macrumors 68000
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
The longer this madness goes on, the more I'm convinced that Israel will not celebrate it's one hundred year existence.
If you drive a people to desperate measures by giving them no hope, then they will take desperate measures.
If Syria falls to the opposition it will release military grade weapons into the hands of the militants.
And if all else fails One day there will be a suicide bomber with a nuclear device. .
With the idea if I can't have a country of my own, neither will you.

I read some where that Israel is the country with the highest number of citizens with a second nationality. Up to 60% keep their second passport up to date, they are always looking for a quick way out if it goes terribly wrong.

The Palestinians don't have that choice.

This might sound far fetched, but so did the idea of 19 hijackers flying planes into buildings, in one of the worlds super powers.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 05:39 AM   #148
mfuchs88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
When one side is clearly being vastly more aggressive than the other why shouldn't I take sides?

Albeit there were bad things done by the British (e.g. Bloody Sunday), but it isn't as if the British RAF dropped bombs on catholic housing areas in Northern Ireland to kill IRA members now is it? And it also isn't as if the British insisted that the IRA give up their pledge for a united Ireland before talk started?

It is very sad how the Jews were treated in World War 2, it doesn't give the Israelis an excuse to behave as badly as they do now.
It's also not as if the IRA launched hundreds of missiles each year for over 20 years. You can't compare these two situations, they're completely different and the militant parties had completely different goals.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
With the idea if I can't have a country of my own, neither will you.
.
Wow..

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
The longer this madness goes on, the more I'm convinced that Israel will not celebrate it's one hundred year existence.
If you drive a people to desperate measures by giving them no hope, then they will take desperate measures.
If Syria falls to the opposition it will release military grade weapons into the hands of the militants.
And if all else fails One day there will be a suicide bomber with a nuclear device. .
With the idea if I can't have a country of my own, neither will you.

I read some where that Israel is the country with the highest number of citizens with a second nationality. Up to 60% keep their second passport up to date, they are always looking for a quick way out if it goes terribly wrong.

The Palestinians don't have that choice.

This might sound far fetched, but so did the idea of 19 hijackers flying planes into buildings, in one of the worlds super powers.
The problem with your argument is that Israel has called for peace and a cease fire time and time again, yet the Palestinian organizations refuse. Who's fault is that? If they refuse peace and can't accept the land given to them, then I don't know what to say. Sadly, violence is what it must come to. I hate to see civilians die but if the Palestinian radicals truly cared about their civilians, they would accept the loss, because clearly Israel is not in a position to, nor are they willing, to surrender.
__________________
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 19, 2012, 05:40 AM   #149
0dev
macrumors 68040
 
0dev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
Indeed. It will simply breed more violence like it has done for 50 years.
Yup.

I don't have much to say in the way of politics and I do apologise if this post is kinda pointless but to quote Borgore (Israeli dubstep producer): "Israel, war zone level 8. Hopefully both sides will realize that all it takes to make peace is to stop shooting at each other. Been home for 3 hours. 2 missiles fired at my city. Make love not war. Drop bass not bombs. ♥"

IDK, I see this **** on the news all the time, but I listen to that guy's music a lot and seeing him talk about it kinda made it more real in my eyes, as stupid as I'm sure that sounds. I do hope both sides stop killing people.
__________________
"What kind of arrogant ass would quote themselves in their signature?" -0dev
0dev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 07:04 AM   #150
SporkLover
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Too many people in the world do not take the time to understand to the history of the region that got us to where we are today. All too willing to chalk up to the Palestinean population as being the radicals and the Israelis as being the nation under fire. Britain mismanaged the area whilst it was under their imperialist control and allowed a movement whose sole purpose was not repatriation and reintegration into a region, but displacement of an indigenous population.
SporkLover is offline   2 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 11:37 PM.

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

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