Announcement

**Urban Ranger** · December 1, 2003, 02:41

Re: Re: Re: Yet more Arab Hypocracy.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Poison pill ammendments are routine ways to kill resolutions, laws, etc. you don't like. But I'd have to see the Arab resolution differed from the Israeli one before I made any real judgements

I like to see them too

Originally posted by DinoDoc
...but it seems hypocritical to support one resolution regarding Palestinian children and then gut one supporting Israeli children. Won't someone please think of the children.

The Beeb quoted that the Arabs wanted to change the reference to just "Israeli children" to "all childen" which seems reasonable to me, unless somehow the context makes it otherwise.

**Dinner** · December 1, 2003, 02:46

They also added references to Israeli "military assaults" and "excessive use of force".

In other words they tried to take a bill designed to protect children and turn it into a political foot ball with which to bash Israel.

Personally, I find an Arab terrorist blowing up a school bus full of children to be far more of an "excessive use of force" then for the IDF to have a shoot out with a terrorist mastermind in the apartment complex he's hiding in.

**DinoDoc** · December 1, 2003, 02:50

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet more Arab Hypocracy.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The Beeb quoted that the Arabs wanted to change the reference to just "Israeli children" to "all childen" which seems reasonable to me, unless somehow the context makes it otherwise.

Why make a resolution about Palestinian children if you want to turn around and make a resolution put forth to protect Israeli children about all children? Why tack on irrelevent passages about military assaults?

**Bereta_Eder** · December 1, 2003, 02:50

Originally posted by Oerdin

In other words they tried to take a bill designed to protect children and turn it into a political foot ball with which to bash Israel.

Isn't that what Israel tried to do too? Besides all I see is the will to condemn the loss of young lives independendly from which nation. That can only be applauded no matter how jaded the nations in the UN are. In the end it comes down to inocent lives being wasted one way or another for whatever reason. The fact that they wanted excessive use of Israel to be included too, seeing the results of it too, actually does what the bill says or should say: the protection of all young lives. I wonder what its practicallity is though anyway.

**Mr. Harley** · December 1, 2003, 02:52

Comments on various thoughts presented here:

Excuse me, but the fanatics on both sides of the conflict don't give a d*mn about the children, but only on their narrow intolerant views. They don't care if they kill someone else's children, and are often ready to sacrifice their own on the altar of intolerance and ambition.

Zionism and Judaism have become inexorably linked in the minds of many. Unfortunately.

Most people, unfortunately, really only care about their kids, not somebody else's (though most pay lip service to the comment "children come first"). I wish everyone, from the politicians down to the lowliest soldier or voter, involved with or in favor of war, had to watch Hotaru no haka (Grave of the Fireflies) (1988) directed by Isao Takahata. Go to www.imdb.com to get some viewer spin on it. Hopefully it would make the people involved think twice. (I've already started a thread on it once). It looks at war from the viewpoint of the children, very well I might add.

**CharlesBHoff** · December 1, 2003, 03:03

Re: Yet more Arab Hypocracy.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Last month Arab states in the UN General Assembly got passed a nonbonding bill which demanded that Israel do more to protect Palestinian children during its raids on terrorist bases in the Palestinian territories. Israel accepted the bill and says they are currently working on ways to further lessen the impact their counter terrorism actions have upon the civilian population.

Attempting to build on this "save the children" movement the Israeli government introduced its first UN bill in 30 years which called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism. A funny thing happened though; the Arab diplomats who just weeks before were loudly stating how all children need to be protected against violence have viciously attacked the Israeli bill and have formed a voting block against it. So why are these hypocrites so against passing a bill which protects Israeli children but so for a bill which demands Israel do more to protect Palestinian children? Could it be these Arab partisans don't really care about any children and are instead just interested in continuing their pattern of hate and anti-Semitism?

That Israel would listen and take action upon the concerns of people who profess to be Israel’s sworn enemies shows how open minded Israel is being. How can Arab diplomats demand all children be protected against violence yet block a bill which would condemn terrorist attacks upon school buses? I can only surmise that the Arab diplomats are liars who don’t care one bit about children and instead are just looking for propaganda attacks against Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3241884.stm

What is your point. Israel is just play game none of these amendment didnot kill the draft, Israel did when it knew it your going to pass. Military assualt in America did more harm to people than the criminal ever did Like the Mayor of than city drop than fire bomb which burn two city block just
to evict some people from than department, WACRO TEXAS, RUDY RIDGE, WOUND KNEE and etc.

**Urban Ranger** · December 1, 2003, 03:05

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet more Arab Hypocracy.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why make a resolution about Palestinian children if you want to turn around and make a resolution put forth to protect Israeli children about all children?

Looks like you have the timing sequence backwards.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why tack on irrelevent passages about military assaults?

We do not know if these are irrelevant.

**DinoDoc** · December 1, 2003, 03:08

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet more Arab Hypocracy.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Looks like you have the timing sequence backwards.

No I don't.

The Israeli draft, which called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, mirrored one on Palestinian children passed earlier this month.

You'll notice if you had actually read the article on which the thread is based that the timing matches what I said exactly.

**Urban Ranger** · December 1, 2003, 03:11

You got it backwards because the Pal resolution was passed first. Hence I don't think they knew back then the Israelis would introduce their own mirror resolution.

**DinoDoc** · December 1, 2003, 03:14

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You got it backwards because the Pal resolution was passed first. Hence I don't think they knew back then the Israelis would introduce their own mirror resolution.

That changes what exactly? Is it suposed to make people any less suspicious about the motives about the people involved?

**Dinner** · December 1, 2003, 03:23

The Egyptian sponsored bill to protect Palestinian children passed without a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo being added on to it. Yet, the Arab block tried to erase ALL refrence to the nation of Israel in a bill that was supposed to be about Israeli children and then the Arabs stuck in a bunch of crap saying Israeli was basically at fault and deserved to be terrorized. I.E. claiming the Jews used excessive force etc.

As I pointed out previously there is nothing more excessive then intentially trying to kill women and children; which is the primary modus oporandi of Arab terrorists. Those cowards are afraid to attack people who have the ability to fight back so they seek out unarmed civilians and children on school buses.

**Mr. Harley** · December 1, 2003, 03:43

Oerdin, you have your social dynamics a bit wrong. 70% of the Palestinian people support the suicide bombers. You could argue that they are all monsters, or you can ask how can a people be so terribly treated and feel so hopeless that this happens.

Much of the support for the suicide bombers comes from the constant "collateral" deaths of Palestinian civilians during Israeli military ops on the West Bank. The Israeli military is treating the West Bank as a war zone, when it is in fact an occupied territory. Under the rules of war you are not supposed to shoot missles into apartement buildings to conduct the assassination of suspected (usually quite strongly with sound evidence) terrorist leaders, you are supposed to go in and arrest them. Like in Northern Ireland.

The Israelis are willing to kill Palestinian non-combatants, INCLUDING CHILDREN, to spare their troops. Then they get upset and righteous over the resulting backlash. They engage in retaliation against family members of terrorists, bulldozing homes of people who often had no involvement, again in violation of the Geneva conventions . Every house they bulldoze adds to the the reservior of recruits for Hamas. They are seizing Palatinian property for the benefit of the Israeli so-called settlers, and have stolen the water from the Palestinian people. (you get to keep the land, I get your water - in a desert country, what a deal) If you don't believe me, google "Water Rights" "West Bank" and go to the non-Arab sources.

None of this excuses the terrorism! But it makes it understandable, as a people without hope lash out in the only way that has seen any success. As far as I am concerned, I wish the USA had kept largely out of it, and let other people become the target of the Moslem fanatics. Look at Northern Ireland. They have been killing each other over religion, dominance, and intolerance for close to four centuries. I expect to be hearing about deaths in the Holy Land while I listen to BBC world news in a retirement home

.

**Bereta_Eder** · December 1, 2003, 03:52

I agree with shawnmmcc (difficult name!) except for his last sentence maybe because I'm optimistic. I also have to wonder who's really benefitting from all this. And don't think on a "national" level only.

**DaShi** · December 1, 2003, 03:53

MarkG?

**Bereta_Eder** · December 1, 2003, 03:55

That's one for sure! And plenty of ISPs too no doubt.