The Israel America connection? (with poll)

[0roo0roo]

It is so so sad that any that is anti-Israel or anti-zionism is labelled anti-semitism. It really just amounts to censorship and personal insults. I think zionism is wrong but I have jewish friends and am not anti-semetic.

Instead of resorting to name-calling, Israel supporters would be better off addressing the issues head on.

seems you didn't read it. since your not taking issue with anything it brought up other then "antisemitism"

you dispute the extreme anti israeli bias in the un? how equally do the palestinians get condemned for targeting civilians and using other terrorist tactics? did you even read the article? a pattern of behavior over a long period of time where only israel is targeted for such resolutions while others doing far worse are barely given notice.

Since the Oslo accords, 259 Israelis have been killed and 5000 injured by Palestinian terror attacks. During the same period, 34 resolutions deploring Israel were passed at the UN, but not one against the terror attacks.

i'm sure the number is higher now. the un is a place where monsterous states like lybia can judge others on "human rights". it isn't a council of wise elders, don't pretend it is more than it is.

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Amused
The issue here is, "obviously in the wrong" is your opinion. Not fact.

The UN is not "god." They can, and have been very wrong.

Replace "UN" with "US" and I would be inclined to agree.

If you live here, why don't just leave if you find our country so distasteful?

 

[0roo0roo]

Countries Ineligible to Sit on the
United Nations Security Council

Israel


Countries Eligible To Sit on the
United Nations Security Council
Afghanistan Albania Algeria
Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina Armenia Australia
Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas
Bahrain Bhutan Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil
Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso
Burundi Cambodia Cameroon
Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic
Chad Chile China
Colombia Comoro Islands Congo
Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia
Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic
Democratic People's Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark Djibouti Dominica
Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt
El Salvador Equatorial-Guinea Eritrea
Estonia Ethiopia Fiji
Finland France Gabon
Gambia Georgia Germany
Ghana Greece Grenada
Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau
Guyana Haiti Honduras
Hungary Iceland India
Indonesia Iran Iraq
Ireland Italy Jamaica
Japan Jordan Kazakhstan
Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan
Laos Latvia Lebanon
Lesotho Liberia Libya
Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg
Madagascar Malawi Malaysia
Maldives Mali Malta
Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius
Mexico Micronesia Moldova
Monaco Mongolia Morocco
Mozambique Myanmar Namibia
Nepal Netherlands New Zealand
Nicaragua Niger Nigeria
Norway Oman Pakistan
Palau Panama Papua New Guinea
Paraguay Peru Philippines
Poland Portugal Qatar
Republic of Korea Romania Russian Federation
Rwanda St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa San Marino Sao Tome´ and Principe
Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles
Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia
Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia
South Africa Spain Sri Lanka
Sudan Suriname Swaziland
Sweden Syria Tajikistan
Tanzania Thailand The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia Togo Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan
Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom United States Uruguay
Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela
Viet Nam Yemen Yugoslavia
Zambia Zimbabwe

Believe it or not, Israel is the only one of the 185 member countries ineligible to serve on the United Nations Security Council, the key deliberative group of the world body. Even Iraq is eligible. So is Iran. And so, too, are Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Why is it that these seven nations, all cited by the U.S. State Department as sponsors of terrorism, are eligible to serve rotating terms on the Security Council, yet Israel, a democratic nation and member of the UN since May 11, 1949, is not?

To be eligible for election, a country must belong to a regional group. Every UN member state?from the smallest to the largest?is included in one of the five regional groups. By geography, Israel should be part of the Asian bloc but such countries as Iraq and Saudi Arabia have prevented its entry for decades.

As a temporary measure, Israel has sought acceptance in the West European and Others Group (WEOG), which includes not only the democracies of Western Europe but also Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Turkey and the United States.

Here, too, despite the support of several countries, including the U.S., Israel still has not been admitted.

Thus, without membership in a regional group, Israel can never be elected to serve a term on the Security Council or, for that matter, to the other most important bodies of the UN system, such as the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the World Court, UNICEF and the Commission on Human Rights.

The Charter of the United Nations proclaims "the equal rights...of nations large and small." But only Israel, among all the UN members, is denied the right to belong to any regional group.http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/uneligible.html

 

[lozina]

During its November meeting, it took a further step towards making Israel an outlaw state. In a vote of 139 to 3 with 13 abstentions

Yup, what bias! those 139 countries are definitely anti-semitic.

it set in motion the eventual convening of states parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which grew out of the Nazi occupation of Europe. Thus, that Convention will now be employed against the people who were Hitler's victims.

So what's that mean? The victims of a crime should be allowed to commit similar crimes and not be held accountable?

And that's his proof, that the UN is biased. Because countries fairly voted against Israel in some resolution, and wanted to hold Israel accountable to the 4th Geneva Conventions (but didn't)- oh and the UN had special emergency sessions with Israel in question. Hmm... I'm not convinced.

I still need to ask... how was Israel formed? Under this intense bias, surely the UN would not have any part in it...

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Amused
The issue here is, "obviously in the wrong" is your opinion. Not fact.

The UN is not "god." They can, and have been very wrong.

Replace "UN" with "US" and I would be inclined to agree.

If you live here, why don't just leave if you find our country so distasteful?

Why can't he stay here and change things if he finds them so distasteful?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Amused
The issue here is, "obviously in the wrong" is your opinion. Not fact.

The UN is not "god." They can, and have been very wrong.

Replace "UN" with "US" and I would be inclined to agree.

If you live here, why don't just leave if you find our country so distasteful?

Are you joking? If not:

a) you can think a country can be and has been very wrong and yet still appreciate it
b) if someone has distate for a country, it doesn't follow that they should leave
-they might have nowhere else to go
-they might not think anywhere else is any better
-they might think they have a duty to improve the place they're from

 

[0roo0roo]

The UN and Israel
Is the Jewish state getting a fair shake from the world body?




Several years ago, we published one of our clarifying messages under the heading of "The UN and the Middle East." In it, we described how the UN seems to be totally obsessed with Israel. Now, a few years later, it might be time to revisit the topic.


What are the facts?

An outcast: Israel is indeed an outcast in the United Nations and thus, by extension, a pariah in the whole world. Though founded in 1948 ? over fifty years ago and at about the same time as many other countries in the wake of World War II ? its "legitimacy," its "right to exist," are still being questioned and a topic of constant debate in the UN.

Following the 1967 Six-Day War, the hostility of the United Nations against Israel expanded out of all bounds. Between 1967 and 1988, the UN Security Council passed 88 Resolutions against Israel and the UN General Assembly passed more than 400.

In 1974, Yassir Arafat addressed the General Assembly with a holstered pistol on his hip and received a standing ovation by that body. The hostility against Israel reached its peak in 1975, when the General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 declaring "Zionism as a form of racism." This infamous Resolution remained in effect for sixteen years when, under intense pressure from the United States, it was finally repealed. What is the reason for the collective hostility of the UN against Israel? All of this hostility is based on the very structure of the United Nations. In the General Assembly, 130 of the 190 members will always, automatically, vote against Israel. The inner circle of this hatred is the core of twenty Arab nations, which initiates the harshest condemnations of Israel. Those countries are part of the larger 56-member Muslim group, which can reliably be counted on automatically to join the Arab block in their anti-Israel Resolutions. And those countries are almost always joined by the "non-aligned" group, which are essentially the underdeveloped countries of the world. They have little interest in Israel, but they are united in their hatred of the United States and consider Israel its surrogate. Each country in the General Assembly counts the same. The vote of the United States counts the same as that of, say, Rwanda or the Ivory Coast.

The greatest outrage is that of the 190 members of the UN, Israel, not being a full member of any of the "regional groups," is the only country that cannot be a member of the Security Council, the most important body of the UN. Syria, deservedly classified as a terrorist state, has just been elected to a 2-year term on that Council. Such outlaw countries as Libya, Iran, North Korea, and even Saddam Hussein's Iraq are eligible for membership. Israel is not.

The most virulent center of anti-Israel activities within the UN. The Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) has classified Israel as the principal human rights violator in the world today. Since its inception, about 25% of its Resolutions have condemned Israel. Such egregious human rights violations as those of China in Tibet, or of Russia in Chechnya don't even come to the floor for discussion. The genocide in Rwanda, the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, the horrifying "communal strife" in Indonesia's East Timor, the "disappearance" of a few hundred thousand refugees in the Congo, and the ruthless rampage of the Sudanese Muslims against the Christians are not found worthy of the attention of the Human Rights Commission. Such canards as the "blood libel," that Jews use the blood of Muslims and Christians for the baking of their Passover matzos or of the Israeli injecting Arab children with the AIDS virus are earnestly discussed in that forum.

Finally, there is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), established in 1949 to assist the Palestinian "refugees". For more than 50 years, UNRWA has funded and administers the so-called "refugee camps" ? hotbeds of murderous anti-Israel activity, including the notorious camp in Jenin, which is the source of most of the suicide bombers who have so far killed over six hundred Israeli civilians and wounded thousands more. "Instead of condemning and hating Israel, [the underdeveloped countries] should take it as an example of how to build an advanced, prosperous and competent nation."

Obviously, the pressure that the Arabs and other Muslim countries are able to exert because of their disproportionate economic power is the main cause of the anti-Israelism (anti-Semitism) of the UN. But most disturbing is the participation and acquiescence in such activity on the part of many of the European nations which, by their actions or inaction, were complicit in the Holocaust. As to the underdeveloped nations of the world, all of which are represented in the General Assembly, one would hope that they would look to Israel as a country from which they could learn and that they would wish to emulate. Virtually all of the countries created after WWII, most of them in Africa, have regressed socially, politically, economically, and in virtually all other respects since freeing themselves from their colonial condition. Millions and millions have died in fratricidal wars. Millions have died of starvation and millions are condemned to die by famine and by AIDS. Instead of condemning and hating Israel, they should take it as an example of how to build an advanced, prosperous and competent nation.






Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_74.html

 

[0roo0roo]

Israel, the Arabs and Human Rights
How does Israel's record compare with that of the Arab world?




Our government and the people of the United States are fortunately more concerned about human rights than most anybody else. Of late, much of this concern has been focused on the Middle East, where indeed massive human rights violations are every day occurrences. Remarkably, however, virtually all of that concern seems to be directed towards Israel, and hardly any of it to the Arab states in conflict with Israel. In recent years, for instance, nearly 10% of all resolutions passed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have targeted Israel; there was not a single resolution regarding any human rights violations by any of the 21 Arab states. It seems quite out of balance. Is Israel's human rights record really that bad? Is that of the Arabs really that good?

What are the facts?

The Western world compares Israel to the Western democracies and applies to Israel Western standards of behavior, especially in the area of human rights. Israel is, of course, a democracy, in which the liberties that we take for granted are equally available to all citizens ? Jews and Arabs alike. Thus, Israel measures itself and expects others to measure it by such standards. Among the Arab countries, not a single one adheres to even minimal standards of human rights, and the Western world does not expect it from them. While to us in the United States, the behavior and the human rights performance of other countries is mostly a matter of abstraction, it is a daily reality for Israel. It expects to and is expected to adhere to high principles. But the enemies surrounding it, virtually all of them (with the possible exception of Egypt) having Israel's destruction close to the top of their agendas, do not play "by the rules."

For instance, Israel is bitterly denounced and condemned for having deported a handful of Palestinians, who were convicted of crimes against public order and virtually all of whom had previously been imprisoned for violent crimes against the state. Compare that with the routine expulsion of people from the Arab nations, of which hardly anybody takes any notice. The Palestinians, who are residents of most countries of the Middle East, are particularly vulnerable to expulsion, for the most insignificant offenses, or simply because their presence is not deemed to be in the best interest of the host country. The small country of Kuwait, for instance, deported 27,000 (!) people in 1986, many Palestinians among them. In February of 1988, Kuwait expelled many more, in order to quell demonstrations supporting Palestinian rioters in the territories administered by Israel.

Much is made of the loss of life in Israel and in the administered territories since the beginning of the so-called "intifada," the civil disobedience campaign by the Palestinians. Every human life is precious, of course. Israel is very much aware of that. But, in view of how long this has been going on, it is remarkable how few people have died, considering the violence and the hatred on the part of the Arabs. The relatively small number of casualties is testimonial to the restraint of the Israeli military and the Israeli government. Who can doubt that the "intifada" could have been suppressed in a few days, had Israel followed the cruel norms of the area in which it is located. Some Arab states conduct wholesale massacres of political opponents as state policy. In 1982, for instance, Syrian president Hafez Assad ordered the killing of over 20,000 civilians in the city of Hama. Iraq routinely executes so many people even for bizarre "offenses" (such as insulting the president) that Amnesty International has given up counting them. Iraq has also recently reached a new low in human rights abuse by killing more than 5,000 of its own Kurdish citizens by poison gas, because they were not thought to be politically reliable. The Democratic Republic of Yemen has periodic mass executions. Even the so-called "moderates" among the Arab states know how to handle civil disobedience "efficiently." Saudi Arabia, where slaves are still being kept and where public amputations for small offenses are the norm, killed over 400 Muslim pilgrims in one bloody day in Mecca in 1987. Egyptian troops killed over 100 people during public riots in 1986. In April of 1989, Algerian government troops opened fire in the city of Souk Ahras against Algerian citizens who were protesting food prices and corruption. 350 people were killed in less than an hour. These are just a few examples of human right violations by Arab governments. The world seems to expect it and scarcely takes any notice of it.

Effort is expended, much of it successful, in discrediting the human rights record of Israel in its treatment of the Palestinians in the administered territories. In the climate of violence created by the intifada, during which hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by their fellow Arabs, the occasional act of violence by individual Israelis is perhaps to be expected. Every such violation is contrary to explicit laws and standing military orders and is investigated, prosecuted and punished. Certainly, human rights violations against Palestinians are totally contrary to Israeli laws and Israeli policy. Compare that with the human rights violation and the ruthlessness of the Arab states against the Palestinians living in their midst. With the sole exception of Jordan, not a single Arab state has granted citizenship to its Palestinians. Egypt, which administered the Gaza strip for 19 years, never did grant its inhabitants Egyptian citizenship. In fact, Gazans could not attend Egyptian universities and could travel to Egypt itself only in the most exceptional and pressing circumstances. In 1970, during the so-called "Black September" uprising, Jordan killed 3,400 Palestinians in just ten days. In 1976, the Syrian army killed over 23,000 Palestinians. In the three year war of the camps, the death toll of Palestinians reached 3,000. At least that number of Palestinians is reliably reported to languish in Syrian prisons.

Israel is a democratic country, with a freely elected government that is fully responsible to its citizens for its actions. It is the only such country in the entire Middle East. It shares with the Western democracies a fundamental commitment to human rights. If any individual acts of human rights violations occur, they are swiftly prosecuted and punished. Israel is a totally open society, accessible to the media of all countries. Individual human rights violations are promptly put under the microscope of public scrutiny. Virtually all Arab countries are ruled by self-appointed tyrants and are secretive and closed. Their massive and brutal human rights abuses go largely unreported. Journalists and T.V. reporters are allowed in these countries by invitation only. When there, they'd better know what to report and how to report it if they don't wish to be killed, kidnapped or officially executed, as recently happened in Iraq.






Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159

Gerardo Joffe, President

 

[0roo0roo]

The U.N. and the Middle East
Is it a proper forum to sit in judgment?




From following what's happening in the United Nations, it's easy to come to the conclusion that Israel is the source of most of the problems in the world. And that, if Israel were only less "intransigent" and if it would yield the administrated territories of the "West Bank" and Gaza, peace would descend on the Middle East.

What are the facts?

The United Nations seems to be obsessed with Israel. The level of U.N. preoccupation with Israel is totally out of proportion with events in that country and in the Middle East. In the course of the last ten years, the General Assembly has entertained 175 hostile resolutions dealing with Israel and the "Palestinian problem." During that entire time it did not once criticize any of the Arab countries. Every year the General Assembly goes through the charade of considering the expulsion of Israel from the U.N. In 1985, the General Assembly of the U.N. covered itself with everlasting shame by declaring that Zionism is racism. The Security Council has proposed numerous anti-Israel resolutions during the last three years. All of them would have passed unanimously or with lopsided majorities had it not been for vetoes ? most of them by the United States.

Attention of the United Nations was particularly engaged by two incidents in Israel, namely the killing of seven Arab laborers by a demented Israeli solitary gunman, and by the death of 17 Arabs on the Jerusalem Temple Mount. In that incident, a mob of 4,000 Arabs, thrown into a frenzy by their clerics, loosed fusillades of rocks and other missiles on Jewish worshippers gathered for prayers by the Western Wall on the Jewish holiday of Succoth. In both cases, the Security Council dropped all other business, promulgated anti-Israel resolutions and requested that teams of "observers" be sent to Israel, presumably to report on the alleged abuses perpetrated on the "Palestinians" by that country and by its government. One wonders why, regardless of the merits of the anti-Israel accusations, any "observers" at all would be required. Israel, and the territories administered by it, are not some remote region in some outlying area of a dark and unexplored empire. There are more journalists, photographers, television crews, reporters, parliamentary delegations, professional groups, fact finding missions, and human rights activists there than in any other spot on the globe. Never in modern history has there been a spot so microscopically and so meticulously inspected as the small country of Israel. One wonders why a delegation of U.N. observers would be required and what mischievous purposes their observations could possibly serve.

The obsession of the United Nations with Israel and its alleged violations is the more remarkable considering that organization's total disregard of the unspeakable barbarities of so many other nations in the Middle East. For instance, the Security Council meeting that resolved to send a delegation to Israel to investigate "abuses" was inspired by the PLO whose numberless outrages ? including the killing of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, the bombing of tourist buses, old-age homes, synagogues, airports, airliners, and so much more ? have never received the slightest attention by the U.N. Nor have the unspeakable human rights abuses and sickening crimes by the Arab states ever been discussed in that body. These crimes, instigated and supported by Arab governments, include the slaughter in 1982 of over 20,000 Syrian citizens in Hama, at the command of Hafez Assad, that country's president (and our most recent ally!); the poison-gassing of over 5,000 Iraqi Kurdish citizens by Saddam Hussein; over 100,000 Lebanese civilians killed by PLO gunmen and other militias and terrorist groups; Egyptian troops cold-bloodedly killing over 100 rioting police in 1986; the Algerian police indiscriminatingly machine-gunning hundreds of its own citizens in a few days of rioting; the Libyans assassinating untold numbers of their opponents inside the country and outside; hundreds of Iranian pilgrims ruthlessly being gunned down by the Saudis during the pilgrimage to Mecca; the hundreds of thousands being killed in the Sudan in inter-racial massacres, Lebanon's rape by Syria, and so much more. The U.N. did not concern itself with any one of these.

Among the hypocritical accusers of Israel in the U.N. Council are the French and the Soviets, merchants of death who, intent only on maximizing their profits, have supplied Iraq with the weaponry, the materials and the technology to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Without them, the present situation would not have arisen. These same cynics bitterly denounced Israel for destroying the Iraqi nuclear capability in 1981. Had Israel not done that, Iran would now in all likelihood be an atomic wasteland and no U.S. or U.N. presence in the area would now be possible. And such stalwart democrats and practitioners of human rights as Yemen, Cuba, Zaire, and Malaysia also sit on the Security Council and cynically condemn Israel, the only people in the entire Middle East that have a freely elected government and that contributed to the Western legacy the very concepts of justice and of human rights. Is the U.N. a proper forum to sit in judgement about Israel and about the events in the Middle East? The evidence is clear and the answer is obvious.



Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159

 

[lozina]

0roo0roo, is all you can do is spam articles from Israeli propaganda machines? Why not try addressing some of our posts in a more personal manner, or should someone else come in and spam some Palestinian propaganda pieces and the two of you can have a grand 'ol time?

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Amused
The issue here is, "obviously in the wrong" is your opinion. Not fact.

The UN is not "god." They can, and have been very wrong.

Replace "UN" with "US" and I would be inclined to agree.

If you live here, why don't just leave if you find our country so distasteful?

Are you joking? If not:

a) you can think a country can be and has been very wrong and yet still appreciate it
b) if someone has distate for a country, it doesn't follow that they should leave
-they might have nowhere else to go
-they might not think anywhere else is any better
-they might think they have a duty to improve the place they're from

"Replace "UN" with "US" and I would be inclined to agree."

Say no more.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: lozina
0roo0roo, is all you can do is spam articles from Israeli propaganda machines? Why not try addressing some of our posts in a more personal manner, or should someone else come in and spam some Palestinian propaganda pieces and the two of you can have a grand 'ol time?

because you cannot dispute the record of the un. you might call it propaganda if u wish, but what is said of the record, that is fact.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: lozina
0roo0roo, is all you can do is spam articles from Israeli propaganda machines? Why not try addressing some of our posts in a more personal manner, or should someone else come in and spam some Palestinian propaganda pieces and the two of you can have a grand 'ol time?

because you cannot dispute the record of the un. you might call it propaganda if u wish, but what is said of the record, that is fact.

disputing the record of the UN, the body that formed Israel in the first place and calling it biased towards Israel is like a dog chasing his own tail.


What are you so worried about UN resolutions anyway, when we just pick and choose resolutions we like and everything else is ignored. Has Israel honored any of these resolutions? Have they suffered any consequences for not honoring them?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: lozina
0roo0roo, is all you can do is spam articles from Israeli propaganda machines? Why not try addressing some of our posts in a more personal manner, or should someone else come in and spam some Palestinian propaganda pieces and the two of you can have a grand 'ol time?

because you cannot dispute the record of the un. you might call it propaganda if u wish, but what is said of the record, that is fact.

OrrooRoo, your articles are really just partisan garbage. Of course, that doesn't mean they are wrong, but they happen to be wrong too.

Let's take a couple examples,

"Our government and the people of the United States are fortunately more concerned about human rights than most anybody else. " The article offers no proof why this is the case except that the US supports Israel. That is circular reasoning. In light of recent events, the assertion is also laughable.

Yet another example of the flawed reasoning your articles use is that they point out the problems in Arab countries. Two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, whether or not we should condemn certain Arab countries (and this is frequently done anyway), has no bearing on whether we should criticize Israel or not. The actions of the Arabs in other countries are not at issue. The actions of the Israelis are. Of course you can bring up Arab faults, but to try and justify your own faults by pointing to others does nothing.

The other poster was right: you are simply spamming. It would be one thing if the spam had merit, but it doesn't.

 

[0roo0roo]

its the body that also formed the state for the palestinians, so whats your point? its record of behavior since then has been nothing but anti israel. this you cannot deny, so you try to side step the issue.

Yet another example of the flawed reasoning your articles use is that they point out the problems in Arab countries. Two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, whether or not we should condemn certain Arab countries (and this is frequently done anyway), has no bearing on whether we should criticize Israel or not. The actions of the Arabs in other countries are not at issue. The actions of the Israelis are. Of course you can bring up Arab faults, but to try and justify your own faults by pointing to others does nothing.

what logic are you using? its not about two wrongs making a right, its about whether the UN is even handed. if one side gets bashed for everything, and other sides get away with attrocities, its a pattern of bias.

and you are simply picking and choosing, ignoring what you have no ability to dispute.

 

[Infohawk]

what logic are you using? its not about two wrongs making a right, its about whether the UN is even handed. if one side gets bashed for everything, and other sides get away with attrocities, its a pattern of bias.

and you are simply picking and choosing, ignoring what you have no ability to dispute.

There is only one kind of logic.

I had to use examples since you spammed. I also chose the first thing I read, which suggests I'm not picking and choosing. I'm taking a sample of the arguments to show that the whole argument is probably baseless. When you spam people, you have to expect that they will not be able to respond to every single erroneous detail.

"Its about whether the UN is even handed. if one side gets bashed for everything, and other sides get away with attrocities, its a pattern of bias"

First of all, if the issue is whether a given resolution is right concerning israel, you do not challenge the even-handedness of the issuer of the resolution. This basically amounts to ad hominem. A reasonable response would be to explain why the given resolution is wrong.

Moreover, even if we assume that the "evenhandedness" of the UN matters, the article uses circular reasoning. The Un is not evenhanded because it comes out against israel. It comes out against israel because the un is not evenhanded. Your spam is essentially unreasonable garbage. Why not address what the resolutions actually say instead of attacking the UN in a ferocious display of ad hominem?

 

[Bulk Beef]

You should google "logical fallacy"

 

[0roo0roo]

i'd suggest you look up the resolutions, rather easily done. are they worse then the ignored attorocities by the arab states/palestinians(some are listed in the articles above) and others all ignored by the un? for the most part, not even close. its not ad hominem when its simply true. the un is not at all even handed. and yes, you should look up circular logic and "fallacy" for a nice guide on what it is lest you be condemned to forever misusing such terms. your example is wrong. the un is not even handed through the evidence of its actions. not because of circular logic.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i'd suggest you look up the resolutions, rather easily done. are they worse then the ignored attorocities by the arab states/palestinians(some are listed in the articles above) and others all ignored by the un? for the most part, not even close. its not ad hominem when its simply true. the un is not at all even handed.

You have no understanding of what an ad hominem is. Ad hominem is still a logical fallacy EVEN when it's true. I strongly suggest you google for logical fallacies and read up. Also check out circular reasoning explanations.

Why it is hard to explain this to you if you do not have understanding of basic logic, I can try. Whether or not the UN criticizes Israel more than Arab states (which you have failed to prove), it doesn't change the validity of the resolutions against Israel. To attack the resolutions, you must attack their content, not the people making them or other resolutions.

 

[Genx87]

That's a crock of poo. The US blocks Security Council resolutions b/c we are horribly biased in this conflict. Instead of siding with justice we side with Israel. If the US would propose a REAL balanced resolution (condemning the brutal, decades long occupation and expansionist Likud regime while also condemning the immoral attacks on civilians executed by terrorist factions) then there would be overwelming support. But naturally such a resolution should also include a plan of action to "protect" Palestinians from abuse by the occupying power . . .

That is not a crock of poo. The resolutions always condem Israel but never the suicide bombers or the PLA.

This is one of the reasons for the veto. The UN is nothing but a corrupt organization with political agendas.
I am all for it being disbanded.

 

[sandorski]

Those articles *are* garbage. Read them, they assert that the UN prevents Israel from participation on the SC. That's a blatant lie.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i'd suggest you look up the resolutions, rather easily done. are they worse then the ignored attorocities by the arab states/palestinians(some are listed in the articles above) and others all ignored by the un? for the most part, not even close. its not ad hominem when its simply true. the un is not at all even handed.

You have no understanding of what an ad hominem is. Ad hominem is still a logical fallacy EVEN when it's true. I strongly suggest you google for logical fallacies and read up. Also check out circular reasoning explanations.

Why it is hard to explain this to you if you do not have understanding of basic logic, I can try. Whether or not the UN criticizes Israel more than Arab states (which you have failed to prove), it doesn't change the validity of the resolutions against Israel. To attack the resolutions, you must attack their content, not the people making them or other resolutions.

your the one that equates supported claims of bias to "ad hominem". i think you should try looking up some information on critical thinking yourself.

you pretend the un resolutions are brought by impartial bodies when in fact they are brought by the states themselves. you have yet to prove that the un doesn't criticize israel more then arab states and for far less then other nations have done. it goes to the fundamental fairness of an institution. you ignore the record of the un because you must to continue believing as you do.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i'd suggest you look up the resolutions, rather easily done. are they worse then the ignored attorocities by the arab states/palestinians(some are listed in the articles above) and others all ignored by the un? for the most part, not even close. its not ad hominem when its simply true. the un is not at all even handed.

You have no understanding of what an ad hominem is. Ad hominem is still a logical fallacy EVEN when it's true. I strongly suggest you google for logical fallacies and read up. Also check out circular reasoning explanations.

Why it is hard to explain this to you if you do not have understanding of basic logic, I can try. Whether or not the UN criticizes Israel more than Arab states (which you have failed to prove), it doesn't change the validity of the resolutions against Israel. To attack the resolutions, you must attack their content, not the people making them or other resolutions.

your the one that equates supported claims of bias to "ad hominem". i think you should try looking up some information on critical thinking yourself.

you pretend the un resolutions are brought by impartial bodies when in fact they are brought by the states themselves. you have yet to prove that the un doesn't criticize israel more then arab states and for far less then other nations have done. it goes to the fundamental fairness of an institution. you ignore the record of the un because you must to continue believing as you do.

"your the one that equates supported claims of bias to "ad hominem"." (sic)

Yes, when you say that a claim is wrong because the person who made it is biased, that is ad hominem.

"i think you should try looking up some information on critical thinking yourself."
I have and that's how I know what I do. I suggest you do the same since you are struggling with these basic points and are so readily swayed by articles full of fallacious reasoning.

"you pretend the un resolutions are brought by impartial bodies when in fact they are brought by the states themselves."
No, I never said that. What I did do is question your conclusion that the UN is biased. Your article only offers a circular argument in favor of its bias allegation. It could be the UN is biased, it doesn't affect the validity of the resolutions. Again, see ad hominem. You have not shown the UN is biased, but why bother since it will not affect the merit of the resolutions.

"when in fact they are brought by the states themselves."
Yes, and then the entire world votes on them (including all the non-muslim countries).

" you have yet to prove that the un doesn't criticize israel more then arab states and for far less then other nations have done. "
That is irrelevant and not for me to prove. I will try to explain this to you by analogy. Imagine Ron goes out and shoot someone and then Jim goes out and shoots someone. I prosecute Jim but not Ron. Jim, I say, You killed someone you are bad. Jim can say, "but what about ron?" The fact that Ron also killed someone does not negate the fact that Jim did so and killed someone.

"it goes to the fundamental fairness of an institution."
It might, but this would only boslter your ad hominem fallacy. Moreover, YOU have not shown that the institution is unfair (other than relying on fallacious circular reasoning). Since you are making that assertion, you should prove it.

"you ignore the record of the un because you must to continue believing as you do."
That is incorrect. I could still believe the US should not veto resolutions against Israel and believe that the UN is unfair. It would be consistent. You are also suggesting because the UN is unfair in certain areas, it is unfair when it comes to Israel. This too is fallacious. The fact is I could think the UN is unfair on average but fair when it comes to Israel.

If you want to show that the US should not veto UN resolutions condeming Israel, you should argue that the resolutions themselves are flawed.