• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UN and six EU countries pass resolution supporting Palestinian violence

glenn1

glenn1

Lifer
Europe is living up to its shameful past with a new shame for the present.

Story Link

UNITED NATIONS - Six European Union countries yesterday endorsed a United Nations document that condones violence as a way to achieve Palestinian statehood.

They were voting as members of the UN Human Rights Commission on a resolution that accuses Israel of a long list of human rights violations, but makes no mention of suicide bombings of Israeli civilians.

Canada and two EU countries -- Britain and Germany -- opposed the measure, which supports the use of "all available means, including armed struggle" to establish a Palestinian state. Guatemala and the Czech Republic joined the opposing voices, but with 40 countries of the 53-member commission voting yes and seven abstaining, the resolution is now part of the international record.

"The text contains formulations that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence," said Walter Lewalter, the German ambassador to the commission. "There is no condemnation whatsoever of terrorism."

Alfred Moses, a former United States ambassador to the commission and now chairman of UN Watch, a monitoring group, was more blunt.

"A vote in favour of this resolution is a vote for Palestinian terrorism," he said. "An abstention suggests ambivalence toward terror. Any country that condones -- or is indifferent to -- the murder of Israeli civilians in markets, on buses and in cafés has lost any moral standing to criticize Israel's human rights record."



 
Despite efforts to the contrary, the world is quickly dividing itself up into two parts - Pro-palestinian and pro Israeli. If this latest peace effort fails or if Arafat turns down another agreement it may be time to pick a side and try to settle it using "all available means, including armed struggle". Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
 


<< "The text contains formulations that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence," said Walter Lewalter, the German ambassador to the commission. "There is no condemnation whatsoever of terrorism." >>


🙁

Maybe if we ignore suicide bombing, then it doesn't exist
 
Whoa. I never knew it was that bad, but then again, it isn?t shocking. Just sad 🙁 I think we need to get Arafat out of office, since there ARE Arabs who want to make peace with Israel. Look at King Hussein and Anwar Sadat(both some of the most heroic men in modern Middle Eastern history) . Both had a war with Israel but later, they knew that peace was the right thing to do and both sides cooperated. So hopefully we can get someone who actually wants peace in to talk to.
 
The "last man standing" will not include any of the signing countries. The weak supporting the weak.
 


<< Whoa. I never knew it was that bad, but then again, it isn?t shocking. Just sad 🙁 I think we need to get Arafat out of office, since there ARE Arabs who want to make peace with Israel. Look at King Hussein and Anwar Sadat(both some of the most heroic men in modern Middle Eastern history) . Both had a war with Israel but later, they knew that peace was the right thing to do and both sides cooperated. So hopefully we can get someone who actually wants peace in to talk to. >>


He's gonna have to be a true badass though. Hussein got lots of sh*t for what he did and Sadat got killed for it...
 
Thats's sick. :frown:

EDIT: So basically they're saying that it would be justified if my aunt (or any of my other relatives) get blown to pieces. Just wonderful.
 


<< The United States is among the few stalwart friends Israel has at the UN, but it found itself ejected from the commission last year while several countries with poor human rights records were welcomed aboard or retained their seats. >>



And the wicked shall always justify their actions. Aesop
In a 1982 interview being shown in a CNN biography of Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian leader cites the General Assembly and the words "all available means" as justification for terrorist acts.

France's ambassador said yesterday his country could not accept the use of violence even though France had approved the measure.
Austria's ambassador said his country did not subscribe to several paragraphs, including the one that referred to resistance through violence.
Sweden's ambassador said his country had supported the resolution "without joy," but that "the sponsors did not want to accept further improvements to the resolution."
The ambassador of Portugal said his country's support "did not imply total support for some of the formulations of the text."
Belgium's ambassador said the resolution "could be seen as a call for peace."
The OIC returns year after year to the commission with resolutions that are heavily critical of Israel, but many diplomats said this was the first time they could remember violence being endorsed as a way of furthering human rights.
The 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) drew up the Human Rights Commission resolution, backed by co-sponsors China, Cuba and Vietnam.
 
just by the way, that news story isnt exactly showing the right picture of the meeting

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020415/ap_to_po/un_mideast_rights_26
This is the AP story

What this resolution is about is condamning Israel for human rights violations, not about supporting the palestinian terrorism



<< "The text contains formulations that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence. There is no condemnation whatsoever of terrorism," German Ambassador Walter Lewalter told the meeting. >>




and in the end


<< The commission passes a resolution criticizing Israel every year, but this was considered to be stronger than in the past. >>

 


<< just by the way, that news story isnt exactly showing the right picture of the meeting >>


It is showing EXACTLY the right picture of the meeting. They were only condemming Israel NOT Palestine. Typical of them, typical of you.
 


<< What this resolution is about is condamning Israel for human rights violations, not about supporting the palestinian terrorism >>



So Czar joins the fray, choosing the way of France and not condemning the resolution, but making excuses for it. Of course, i can't say i'm honestly surprised.


 
As i clearly pointed out, this is a resolution passed each year, its a resolution about Israel, it is not about Palestine. Is that hard to understand?
 


<<

<< just by the way, that news story isnt exactly showing the right picture of the meeting >>


It is showing EXACTLY the right picture of the meeting. They were only condemming Israel NOT Palestine. Typical of them, typical of you. >>



Typically for you for blindly following one side, sheep. Both sides have committed atrocities
 
>They were voting as members of the UN Human Rights Commission on a resolution that accuses Israel of a long list of human rights violations, but makes no mention of suicide bombings of Israeli civilians>>

`Perhaps they are right about Israel and the human rights violations but that doesnt mean the countries approve palestinian
terror!And the Israel soldiers are reported shooting at a Swedish tv-team when they were in an by Israel controlled area,just
dont make thing easy say those countries are pro plo.
 


<<

<<

<< just by the way, that news story isnt exactly showing the right picture of the meeting >>


It is showing EXACTLY the right picture of the meeting. They were only condemming Israel NOT Palestine. Typical of them, typical of you. >>

Typically for you for blindly following one side, sheep. Both sides have committed atrocities >>


Shouldn't there be a resolution condemning the acts of both sides then?

And let's not get started about blindly following one side 😉

(Not you, but there's people who are just as blind on the other side)
 
As i clearly pointed out, this is a resolution passed each year, its a resolution about Israel, it is not about Palestine. Is that hard to understand?
The resolution yesterday reaffirms support for a Palestinian armed struggle by "recalling" a 1982 General Assembly resolution that slammed both Israel and the white-run government of South Africa.
Sorry czar, you need to read it again.

Restating past goals by referring to former documents is common diplomatic practice.
The 1982 General Assembly resolution "reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.?

Instead of talking of Israeli "state terrorism," the resolution now refers to Israeli "mass killings." It substitutes "1,200 killed" since the second intifada began in September 2000, for "1,200 martyrs."
It "strongly condemns the setting on fire of the Church of the Nativity ... in Bethlehem," for example.
"You just have to turn on CNN to see that the church is not on fire," said Mr. Srulevitch.
The text also says Israeli military checkpoints are "used as a trap to kill Palestinians." The Israelis say the roadblocks aim to prevent the passage of terrorists.
 


<< Typically for you for blindly following one side, sheep. Both sides have committed atrocities >>


Who says I'm blindly following anyone dickhead. You? I don't think so. Read the resolution, read my post and try again. Get help with the reading part if you need it. I hear hooked on phonics works. Try it.
 
Jimbo,


<< The resolution yesterday reaffirms support for a Palestinian armed struggle by "recalling" a 1982 General Assembly resolution that slammed both Israel and the white-run government of South Africa.
Sorry czar, you need to read it again. >>


I read it again, and are you saying that a country that is occupied doesnt have the right to resist? isnt that the main goal of one part in the US constitution, that people should own guns?
 
If anyone has a link to the resolution then please post it, I tried searching the un site but found nothing.
 
DaveSohmer: Settle down. If you can't debate maturely maybe this thread isn't right for you.

Czar: Thanks for the AP story 🙂

And yes, both sides have so much blood on their hands that neither is right nor wrong in what they have done (in general, not talking about specific incidents).
 
i say we send the israelis and the palestines to their separate corners. one to the north pole and the other to the south pole. They need to be as far apart as possible. Watch even having them at opposite end of the poles, they will find a way to kill each other. they will just dig a tunnel thru the earth's crust and fight there. that's good, cuz we won't hear a thing besides experiencing mild earthquakes from now and then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top