U.S. votes against UN resolution on Israel settlements

[chuckd]

The year 2008 saw a dramatic increase in the extent of HAMAS rocket fire and mortar attacks on Israel, with a total of 3,278 rockets and mortar shells landingin Israeli territory (1,750 rockets and 1,528 mortar shells).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm

interesting that you have gone back to 2008 for your figures rather than the 2010 figures that are available:

According to the Israel Security Agency's annual report, Palestinians carried out 150 rocket launches and 215 mortar launches at Israel during the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2010

Hmmm....150 rockets plus 215 mortars equals 365.

Was 2010 a Leap Year?

Does anybody see a trend here?

[Jingthing]

To be fair, there is evidence that those Gazans who don't openly support the corrupt Hamas government often do suffer poor treatment. From fellow Arabs.

[chuckd]

Noticeable how when the US vetos something it is a 'daft' resolution anyway. When another country vetos a resolution then it is THAT country that is labelled daft.

Maybe the Us should fall in line with the majority of the the rest of the world instead of thinking of only itself. If it doesn't like it and thinks the UN is useless anyway then get out of it so that other members can do something constructive.

Hey, we finally agree on something. I would like nothing better than to see the end of the UN...at least from the US side.

Our treasury could certainly use that $5 Billion we annually donate to the lost cause. In addition, the UN Building would make a great place to put up some of our homeless in NY City.

You may have finally come up with a good idea.

[orangezeke]

orangezeke, your link was from 2006. Five years old now. Hamas has been in power for some time now in Gaza.

are you suggesting, five years on, israel no longer uses this as a tactic ? no comment on the implications of the quote ?

in 2010, an israeli human rights group - gisha - won a legal battle which compeled the israeli government to release three important documents which outlined state policy for permitting the transfer of goods into gaza. the documents showed that the state approved “a policy of deliberate reduction” of basic goods, including food and fuel, in the gaza strip.

http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1904&intSiteSN=113

up to date enough ?

[Ulysses G.]

[orangezeke]

so no, they are not starving, they are just made to go hungry

Oh yeah?

please don't crop my posts. i want people to see i sourced the guardian newspaper while you sourced some dude from youtube.

[Ulysses G.]

Is the Palestine Today newspaper more to your liking?

http://paltoday.ps/arabic/News-64161.html

[Steely Dan]

To be fair, there is evidence that those Gazans who don't openly support the corrupt Hamas government often do suffer poor treatment. From fellow Arabs.

Coincident with the last major Israeli incursion into gaza Hamas wasted no time in rounding up whatever fatah leaders it could find and lynched them. Hamas have contempt for all life including their own. As for Israel building settlements I would just say that when surrounded by fanatics Israel is never going to allow porous borders which allow extremists to enter - note that the number of suicide bombers in Israel has also declined as well as the number of incoming missiles.

Perhaps the U.N could turn it's attention to more pressing issues such as a maniac like Ahmadinajad attempting to gain nuclear weapons.

[koheesti]

in 2010, an israeli human rights group - gisha - won a legal battle which compeled the israeli government to release ...

Ironic that the evil Israelis would allow legal battles against their own government then allow themselves to lose! Maybe they should take out of the Hamas handbook and just shoot everyone who speaks out against them?

[coma]

At the end of the day. The United States of America is the minority on this resolution. The only one out of 15 security council nations to vote against in. MINORITY. They need to pull there heads in. It wasn't so long ago other countries exercised their veto powers on the resolution to invade Iraq. Once again thE US snubbed thier noses at these very same powers and the world and paid off countries to form a ' coalition of the willing' which it's endsate was/is to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizen in the hunt for a White Elephant.Pathetic hypocrites.

[Ulysses G.]

Pathetic hypocrites.

You must be referring to all those countries who have allowed their UN vote against Israel to be bought with oil for decades. Pathetic hypocrites indeed.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[orangezeke]

in 2010, an israeli human rights group - gisha - won a legal battle which compeled the israeli government to release ...

Ironic that the evil Israelis would allow legal battles against their own government then allow themselves to lose! Maybe they should take out of the Hamas handbook and just shoot everyone who speaks out against them?

they already do...they are called incursions.

please don't crop my comments. readers should see that no effort was made to address the substantive points in the post. do you have no comment on the rest of the information that was included ? it would be great to have a meaningful discussion as to what the israeli government documents highlighted.

Edited February 21, 2011 by orangezeke

[Ulysses G.]

please don't crop my comments.

It makes it obvious which points are being addressed and the reader can go back two posts to reread the whole post if they wish to.

As far as your points go, is it really a surprise that Israel is trying to make life less pleasant for sworn enemies who are shooting rockets or mortars at civilian areas at least once a day - and much more before the defensive blockade?

Hamas is the one to blame for this and the Palestinian Arabs who voted for them.

[orangezeke]

Pathetic hypocrites.

You must be referring to all those countries who have allowed their UN vote against Israel to be bought with oil for decades. Pathetic hypocrites indeed.

again, you have cropped a users comments to pick out a a pithy throw away line you can use. he made a compelling point, do you have anything to add to it ? or are you just clocking up posting numbers and smileys ?

[geriatrickid]

Ok, so back to the actual resolution and the "voting" logic. Let's look at the motives;

China - Dependent upon arab oil imports and in the midst of negotiating several long term oil supply purchases.

Russia - Doesn't give a dam_n about the plight of anyone in the mideast. This is just a way to gain some support from some UN members on votes it will need on other issues.

France, Germany, UK - large arab and in the case of the UK, pakistani communities as well as a dependency upon doing business in the mideast and oil supply.

Portugal- Oil supply

Columbia - In need of votes to counter resolutions put forward by its arch nemesis venezuala.

Brazil, Bosnia & Herzogovina and South Africa - Politically opposed to Israel.

Nigeria - An angry muslim population

Gabon- African position and votes in return for "aid"

However, one of the main reasons why some countries are comfortable for resolutions that are not in Israel's favour is that they know the USA will vote against, relieving these countries of the need to make a thoughtful decision. Basically, they can play kissie kissie with various political interests and not have to worry about the consequences since the USA will take the heat. Germany, France, Portugal and the UK fdon't really care about the arabs. What they care about are the threats of Libya to unleash a flood of African migrants. If it wasn't for the co-operation of the North African aranb countries, millions of destitute Africans would be floating across the sea landing in Italy, Spain, France and Portugal. India doesn't have any love for muslims, but it has the largest muslim population in the region and cannot afford to upset that population especially as it is in a hostile position with Pakistan and needs arab support to calm Pakistan.

It aint as simple as it is made out to be.

[Wallaby]

please don't crop my comments.

It makes it obvious which points are being addressed and the reader can go back two posts to reread the whole post if they wish to.

As far as your points go, is it really a surprise that Israel is trying to make life less pleasant for sworn enemies who are shooting rockets or mortars at civilian areas at least once a day - and much more before the defensive blockade?

Hamas is the one to blame for this and the Palestinian Arabs who voted for them.

Well you changed your tune. Before you are posting youtube videos alluding to no shortage of food. Now you are saying Israel is trying to make 'life less pleasant'. Wow, what a wonderful spin to put on it 'life less pleasant', how quaintly put.

So which is it to be today........they have plenty of food or their life is just less pleasant (read starving).

Perhaps if the US hadn't put so much pressure on Palestine to have democracy it wouldn't be in such a mess.

Has Israel ever done anything wrong in your eyes?

[Wallaby]

Noticeable how when the US vetos something it is a 'daft' resolution anyway. When another country vetos a resolution then it is THAT country that is labelled daft.

Maybe the Us should fall in line with the majority of the the rest of the world instead of thinking of only itself. If it doesn't like it and thinks the UN is useless anyway then get out of it so that other members can do something constructive.

Hey, we finally agree on something. I would like nothing better than to see the end of the UN...at least from the US side.

Our treasury could certainly use that $5 Billion we annually donate to the lost cause. In addition, the UN Building would make a great place to put up some of our homeless in NY City.

You may have finally come up with a good idea.

The US doesn't seem to worry about any resolutions anyway, they do what they want regardless of world opinion. The only impact it would have for the US is that they could wipe their debt to the UN.

I don't think all the UN should be gone, they do good things as a peacekeeping force.

So you could have 3/4 of the building to house the homeless.

[coma]

please don't crop my comments.

It makes it obvious which points are being addressed and the reader can go back two posts to reread the whole post if they wish to.

As far as your points go, is it really a surprise that Israel is trying to make life less pleasant for sworn enemies who are shooting rockets or mortars at civilian areas at least once a day - and much more before the defensive blockade?

Hamas is the one to blame for this and the Palestinian Arabs who voted for them.

Ulysses. You must be having a laugh.

[orangezeke]

please don't crop my comments.

It makes it obvious which points are being addressed and the reader can go back two posts to reread the whole post if they wish to.

As far as your points go, is it really a surprise that Israel is trying to make life less pleasant for sworn enemies who are shooting rockets or mortars at civilian areas at least once a day - and much more before the defensive blockade?

Hamas is the one to blame for this and the Palestinian Arabs who voted for them.

a few points. what you are talking about is called 'collective punishment'. it is illegal and a war crime. when you suggest 'making life less pleasant' you should remember greater than 50% of the palestinian population is under 18. do you really want to call a group of malnourished kids your sworn enemy ?

i've asked you not to crop my comments as a courtesy. if you feel i'm asking too much we can involve a moderator who will decide if this constitutes editing my posts.

[Ulysses G.]

Well you changed your tune.

No I haven't. I did not say that Gaza is being supplied wih prime rib and caviar. However, there is plenty of food available as you can see with your own eyes in the Palestinian newspaper in the link - besides the videos.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

please don't crop my comments.

From the Forum Netiquette Rules:

"5. Please do not quote multiple nested quotes. Quote only the relevant section that you are discussing. Moderators will snip excessively long nested quotes."

Second sentence applies to cropping.

[Ulysses G.]

Thanks. I was not even going to bother addressing something so obvious again.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

please don't crop my comments.

From the Forum Netiquette Rules:

"5. Please do not quote multiple nested quotes. Quote only the relevant section that you are discussing. Moderators will snip excessively long nested quotes."

Second sentence applies to cropping.

Then again...........

2. Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording. Such posts will be deleted and the user warned.

Emphasis added on wording

Edited February 21, 2011 by flying

[chuckd]

Noticeable how when the US vetos something it is a 'daft' resolution anyway. When another country vetos a resolution then it is THAT country that is labelled daft.

Maybe the Us should fall in line with the majority of the the rest of the world instead of thinking of only itself. If it doesn't like it and thinks the UN is useless anyway then get out of it so that other members can do something constructive.

Hey, we finally agree on something. I would like nothing better than to see the end of the UN...at least from the US side.

Our treasury could certainly use that $5 Billion we annually donate to the lost cause. In addition, the UN Building would make a great place to put up some of our homeless in NY City.

You may have finally come up with a good idea.

The US doesn't seem to worry about any resolutions anyway, they do what they want regardless of world opinion. The only impact it would have for the US is that they could wipe their debt to the UN.

I don't think all the UN should be gone, they do good things as a peacekeeping force.

So you could have 3/4 of the building to house the homeless.

The peacekeeping force is one reason there is dispute on monies owed. The US pays more than 25% of peacekeeping and over 25% of the total UN budget.

That means the rest of the world pays the remaining 75%. Now tell me...does that really seem fair?

I want all of the building for the homeless, and the rest of the world to pay 100% for the useless organization.

Here is a link that seems to set out the truth about the alleged debt. Believing it is up to you.

http://www.mikenew.com/un-debt.html

Edited February 21, 2011 by chuckd

[Ulysses G.]

Emphasis added on wording

No words were changed or modified.

I quoted exactly the statement that I was responding to.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

Emphasis added on wording

No words were changed or modified.

I quoted exactly the statement that I was responding to.

Words is not the same as wording is it?

If words are left out then intent of total post is altered isn't it?

But hey I am no mod....perhaps you folks could ask one?

Edited February 21, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Nope. Having to quote a whole post to respond to one sentence is totally confusing and it is also against the rules to highlight any part of the post to make it understood what one is replying to.

How about sticking to the topic instead of trying to make up new rules? The mods read this forum on a regular basis.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

Well you changed your tune.

No I haven't. I did not say that Gaza is being supplied wih prime rib and caviar. However, there is plenty of food available as you can see with your own eyes in the Palestinian newspaper in the link - besides the videos.

And the answer to my other query in my post?

[Wallaby]

Noticeable how when the US vetos something it is a 'daft' resolution anyway. When another country vetos a resolution then it is THAT country that is labelled daft.

Maybe the Us should fall in line with the majority of the the rest of the world instead of thinking of only itself. If it doesn't like it and thinks the UN is useless anyway then get out of it so that other members can do something constructive.

Hey, we finally agree on something. I would like nothing better than to see the end of the UN...at least from the US side.

Our treasury could certainly use that $5 Billion we annually donate to the lost cause. In addition, the UN Building would make a great place to put up some of our homeless in NY City.

You may have finally come up with a good idea.

The US doesn't seem to worry about any resolutions anyway, they do what they want regardless of world opinion. The only impact it would have for the US is that they could wipe their debt to the UN.

I don't think all the UN should be gone, they do good things as a peacekeeping force.

So you could have 3/4 of the building to house the homeless.

The peacekeeping force is one reason there is dispute on monies owed. The US pays more than 25% of peacekeeping and over 25% of the total UN budget.

That means the rest of the world pays the remaining 75%. Now tell me...does that really seem fair?

I want all of the building for the homeless, and the rest of the world to pay 100% for the useless organization.

Here is a link that seems to set out the truth about the alleged debt. Believing it is up to you.

http://www.mikenew.com/un-debt.html

Chuck, this isn't a rhetorical question. Does the US involve itself in approx 25% of the peacekeeping forces? Does the US disregard approx 25% of the UN resolutions and go it alone then ask for UN assistance in those conflicts? What percentage of UN forces have to go into conflicts the US has entered into?

I don't know, I'm asking. Who has the most amount of troops under the UN etc. If the US has approx 25% in force or causes the UN to use a percentage of forces because of US action then it would be reasonable. What would be the percentage of profit the US would gain from certain conflicts and businesses that could gain if a 'friendly' govt was installed?

I don't know the answer and I'm not going to go through google just to find it. Just wondering. Surely it is worked out by the UN with some formula. Surely the US hasn't agreed to become a member of the UN without agreeing to what is paid/owed.

Why should the rest of the world pay for the homeless in the US? Can't the US look after it's own homeless instead of asking the UN to pay for it?

How about the UN building is just demolished and is made way for a new corporate building? I'm sure that is what would happen. Surely you don't think it would really be used for the benefit of the homeless. That is not the American way.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Wallaby

[Ulysses G.]

And the answer to my other query in my post?

One particularly stupid thing they did was to agree to temporarily stop building in Jerusalem. They have always said that Jerusalem was not on the bargaining table and now that they caved into Obama on this for "just one time", he acts as if it is up for negotiation.

As for asking if they have ever done anything wrong. They have been at war for something like 60 years, so they have done plenty of wrong things. It is pretty much impossible to have a war without doing so.

Unfortunately, they have never had a choice about war as they would be totally destroyed if they tried to avoid it.