Originally posted by xsIt isn't but your comment is disingenous.
I could not find the word 'dictate' on that entire page.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said countries that don’t have diplomatic relations with Israel should not be permitted to contribute troops to an international peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon.
You may dance on the head of a pin to find the difference between "dictating" and "not permitting" if you choose to.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt isn't but your comment is disingenous. -ironic
It isn't but your comment is disingenous.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said countries that don’t have diplomatic relations with Israel [b]should not be permitted to contribute troops to an international peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon.
You may dance on the head of a pin to find the difference between "dictating" and "not permitting" if you choose to.[/b]
No doubt Olmert believes Israel has a vested interest in what
countries make up the peacekeeping force.
I don't see expressing "should not be permitted" as "dictating".
Originally posted by xsIsrael thinks that it has a "vested interest" in a lot of things that are beyond the legitimate powers of any State. Who is in a UN peacekeeping force is just another one.
It isn't but your comment is disingenous. -ironic
No doubt Olmert believes Israel has a vested interest in what
countries make up the peacekeeping force.
I don't see expressing "should not be permitted" as "dictating".
Nitpick all you want, but the Israel statements are an attempt to dictate to the UN who can be in the peacekeeping force (or perhaps to sabotage the whole thing as a few Muslim countries have so far been willing to commit more troops than anybody else).
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderBoth Israel and Lebanon have a saying in the decisions which countries will constitute the UN Force in South Libanon. Both have to agree with the proposals regarding this matter. Now stop your one-sided whining.
Israel thinks that it has a "vested interest" in a lot of things that are beyond the legitimate powers of any State. Who is in a UN peacekeeping force is just another one.
Nitpick all you want, but the Israel statements are an attempt to dictate to the UN who can be in the peacekeeping force (or perhaps to sabotage the whole thing as a few Muslim countries have so far been willing to commit more troops than anybody else).
Originally posted by ivanhoePlease A) Provide a cite to some official statement by the UN which says Lebanon and/or Israel have a "say" in what countries provide troops to the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon; and B) Provide a cite showing that Lebanon has objected to ANY nation providing troops to the UN force.
[b]Both Israel and Lebanon have a saying in the decisions which countries will constitute the UN Force in South Libanon. Both have to agree with the proposals regarding this matter. Now stop your one-sided whining.[/b]
Unless you can do both, my statements are hardly "one sided".
Originally posted by no1marauderwhy would you expect Israel to accept in the UN force two countries that refuse to recognize its right to exist?
Israel is now attempting to dictate to the UN what countries can contribute to the UN force in LEBANON. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14434420/
And, of course, continuing to violate Lebanese airspace in northern and eastern Lebanon far from the Israeli-Lebanese border.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIsrael has no power to refuse to "accept" any troops in a UN force; last I checked, the nation of Israel didn't run the UN security Council (at least de jure).
why would you expect Israel to accept in the UN force two countries that refuse to recognize its right to exist?
BTW and though it's not relevant, what nations that have offerred troops refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist? Not having diplomatic relations with a nation is not equal to refuse to recognize the nation's right to exist.
Originally posted by no1marauder"refuse to accept" != "should not be permitted".
Israel has no power to refuse to "accept" any troops in a UN force; last I checked, the nation of Israel didn't run the UN security Council (at least de jure).
BTW and though it's not relevant, what nations that have offerred troops refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist? Not having diplomatic relations with a nation is not equal to refuse to recognize the nation's right to exist.
malaysia and indonesia, from some other article. somewhere.
Originally posted by SeitseIt's true. #1 is my son. He's actually 12 and wants to be
Yeah, kid, that's the best thing about internet, isn't it?
You can be whatever you want. Priceless!!!
an attorney, but he has to work on his debating skills. I try to
teach him, but he's a stubborn learner -- bright, but unwilling to
expand his horizons.
Please, be patient with him, Seitse. He's just a kid. And don't
pay attention when he brings up Locke. FreakyKBH took him to
school on that topic in the Spirituality forum.
I'm going to take him out for ice cream tonight. His favorite is
banana-flavored which appeals to his baser animal nature which
he would like to pretend doesn't exist.
Nemesio 🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵
Originally posted by no1marauderIt becomes a minefield of semantics and the head of that pin is getting smaller. Why should a country which has by and large been under a state of seige by some of its immediate and peripheral neighbours lay itself down to regulation and submit in a civilised fashion when by any stretch of the imagination it has been the object of a very uncivilised campaign against it.
Israel has no power to refuse to "accept" any troops in a UN force; last I checked, the nation of Israel didn't run the UN security Council (at least de jure).
BTW and though it's not relevant, what nations that have offerred troops refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist? Not having diplomatic relations with a nation is not equal to refuse to recognize the nation's right to exist.
If the UN were the supreme power that existed in the world today and if all the nations of the world were not empowered to outmuscle her then I for one would champion the rights of a world run by some form of civil consensus. But in the real world the farce begins and ends with the US having the supreme military, economic and in many significant ways cultural might to constantly undermine that United consensus of Nations due to the requirements of its own empire. This is not a criticism just an observation, much like two vehicles at 80mph in opposite directions create a fatal impact of 160 mph if they collide and the vehicle is not fitted with airbags,rollbars, crumple zones and the occupants were not dumb enough at that speed to still not be wearing their seat belts.
In the US system of law are the juries not selected? If someone shows any animosity against the accused are they not relieved of that duty? I know that people who are too friendly are also sent packing, which hopefully will leave a jury of that persons peers that are neutral to that defendants specifics.
Well in terms of nation states would not neutrality be indicated by at least diplomatic relations. Favoured partnerships, countries that have special trade relationships probably should be barred, but thats not likely to happen, but why would you entertain someone who did not even have the minimum of normalcy in their relationships with you as well as the greater UN community, have an active role in your policing?
Furthermore to argue that if Israel has their buddies backing like the US or any of her allies then Lebanon should be able to propose any of hers be that Syria or Iran, sort of makes a mockery of the principles espoused by those nations and their commitment to support and prop up international institutions like the UN.
The only solution would be to insure that only countries that were diplomatically involved with both countries be able to make the short-list of those that could send troops to the region.
Originally posted by Nemesiotook notes, prudencio, thanks 😉
It's true. #1 is my son. He's actually 12 and wants to be
an attorney, but he has to work on his debating skills. I try to
teach him, but he's a stubborn learner -- bright, but unwilling to
expand his horizons.
Please, be patient with him, Seitse. He's just a kid. And don't
pay attention when he brings up Locke. FreakyKBH took him to
sch ...[text shortened]... re which
he would like to pretend doesn't exist.
Nemesio 🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵🙄😵
3 edits
Originally posted by kmax87The country in a "state of siege" in your fantasy world has aggressively attacked virtually all its neighbors at one time or another plus occupying and oppressing an entire people. That's pretty "uncivilized".
It becomes a minefield of semantics and the head of that pin is getting smaller. Why should a country which has by and large been under a state of seige by some of its immediate and peripheral neighbours lay itself down to regulation and submit in a civilised fashion when by any stretch of the imagination it has been the object of a very uncivilised campaign ...[text shortened]... ith both countries be able to make the short-list of those that could send troops to the region.
It is also in violation of over 60 UN Security Council resolutions. Thus, for it to be dictating to the UN is an odd inversion of what the proper relationship of a single nation state should be vis-a-vis the community of nations. This is particulary true where the UN troops are being deployed to a country that Israel has no business being in in the first place; no troops are being deployed in Israel (it has always refused to allow any UN troops on Israeli controlled territory).
Few, if any, Muslim countries have diplomatic relations with Israel, given its continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. So effectively your stance would ban all Muslim countries from a peacekeeping force in a predominantly Muslim country that Israel attacked because Israel has been occupying and repressing other Muslims. This is an absurd and biased result. Israel is subject to the rules of the community of nations; it is not above the UN Security Council and all international law, though its apologists seem to think so.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have to be an apologist for someone and if given a choice I would choose to apologize for the US and Israel every time.
he country in a "state of siege" in your fantasy world has aggressively attacked virtually all its neighbors at one time or another plus occupying and oppressing an entire people. That's pretty "uncivilized".
Israel is subject to the rules of the community of nations; it is not above the UN Security Council and all international law, though its apologists seem to think so.
With the Arab Israeli conflict where you draw the line to year zero in the start of the cycle of violence is important and short of having been there you also have to exercise judgement in the matter, read between the lines and give your support to a culture that has informed and molded much of our ideas of justice and the right to a freedom of choice.
Thumbnail history: 19th Century sees a reluctance by Britain or France to see the Ottoman empire fall because peace in Europe is understood to be predicated by a balance of powers. The Ottoman Empire borrows from the French Bourse and the LSE and some of that money returns through concessions granted to France over the Suez canal which England also profits by after investing into the French company that controls the canal. Trade routes change forever, sail is out steam is in and the Empires of England and France now star to exert a greater influence in and around the arab peninsula. The grab for Africa is in full swing and noone wants to fall behind and Britain insures itself by carving out a red stripe of land down the backbone of Afrca.
Bismarck goes nuts as does the Kaizer, the result WW1. WW1ends, Sykes Picot agreement sees France mandated a portion of the vast former Ottoman Arab empire today called Lebanon and Syria. England gets a mandate for land east and west of the Jordan called Palestine. The land to the East of the Jordan75% becomes TransJordan later Jordan. The Land West becomes Palestine. Jews had been moving in since the 1880's and by this time were occupying largely crap land that needed draining and work to fix. From the 20's to the 40's the Jews who now live in the reduced Palestinem( remember TransJordan becomes Jordan in 46 constitutes 75% of the original British mandated Palestine) have to contend with a rising Arab nationalism and attempts at removing the Jews with the Hebron massacres of 29 and the Arab revolt during 36-39.
Well the way the Jews tell it, by the time the Brits discover that the Arabian peninsula is on top of a black gold sea and promote a family into a position of royal dynastic rule, until the UN's mandate in 48 the Israeli's form a resistance unit called the Irgun to help keep themselves being wiped off the planet. But thats not all the UN then mandates a partition of Palestine(remember this is Palestine lite the left over 25% ) into a Jewish and Arab Palestine and conflict breaks out with an expectation that not one Jew would be left. Arab Palestinians leave in preparation of a slaughter and when the dust settled the Jews were still there, they had claimed land and the first round of Palestinian refugees were formed.
The UN creates the border between Israel and Syria at the Golan Heights and that becomes the first real bone of contention as land on the Israeli side of the fence is fertile land still occupied by Arabs but which the Israeli's are reticent to bargain over and instead push the Arabs off. Syria tries to negotiate land for peace and after festering for almost 20 years Syrria and Israel engage in a 6day war after Syria shells Israel across the Golan DMZ.
As I say you look at the output of the culture, you make a judgement call and you back a side. From this perspective you interpret conflict and because of your predisposition military actions are either defensive or aggressive. They are either legitimate or belligerent.
Considering how the problems started in the Golan after a particular UN determination on how the land should be divided, can you blame the Israeli mindset for thinking that maybe they would just have to do this alone. Considering the way the British dropped them like a hot potatoe when oil was a plenty down south, makes you wonder which side has been more persuasive with their propoganda, for most people to feel that Israel is the sore aggressive loser.
Ye shall know the truth............