International Kangaroo Court

[ethics]

The International Kangaroo Court is in session, and the rhetoric coming from Arab groups is unusually twisted, arguing that Israel is “wrecking chances of peace (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=1312&e=2&u=/afp/20040223/ts_afp/mideast_barrier_icj_040223152910)” by building a protective barrier to stop Arab murderers from doing things like this (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1077423451861).

The European Union is spineless as always, preferring to wash their hands of blame while their Palestinian proxies do the dirty work:

In an attempt to straddle the divide, the European Union reiterated its view that the barrier was “unlawful” and counterproductive for peace, but said it was opposed to legal action before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) since Israel had rejected the court’s jurisdiction.

“Unlawful?” What’s unlawful is this sad mockery of justice, turning human decency and common sense upside down by condemning victims of horrific violence for attempting to protect themselves with a non-violent measure?

[Sir Joseph]

All one has to do is take a look at the countries participating.
What I want to know is why Arab groups were allowed to participate even though they're not a country, while Jewish groups were denied the right to participate.

[ethics]

The answer should be obvious, SJ.

[Sir Joseph]

Of course.
Another interesting thing is that Saudi Arabia and Yemen were both against the fence at the ICJ. I wonder if Yemen can then take Saudi Arabia to the ICJ for the fence between their countries and use SA's testimony against SA?
Of course we all know the outcome of this court procedings and we all know that it won't mean a thing.

[Violet1966]

Ok now question. This is supposedly all about property and the lack of an agreement. Well allegedly, Israel had built this wall on areas that were designated for the Palestinians. While it's no justification for murder, is there any validity in these allegations? What is all the fuss about if it's over land that belongs to the Israelis?

[ethics]

1. West Bank Arabs never were, are not now, nor ever will be Palestinians. They are Jordanians.

2. Jordan, which was one of the attacking Arab armies in the war of 1967, LOST the West Bank during the war.

The Israelis have the claim to the West Bank anytime and as much as they want.

[Violet1966]

1. West Bank Arabs never were, are not now, nor ever will be Palestinians. They are Jordanians.

2. Jordan, which was one of the attacking Arab armies in the war of 1967, LOST the West Bank during the war.

The Israelis have the claim to the West Bank anytime and as much as they want.

Ok so now why isn't this an open and closed case then? I can't understand why the un doesn't see this? I can understand bios while not agreeing with it, based on the make up and their predjudices. What I can't understand is that no one is doing anything about this un we have in place???? If it's all that cut and dry...what the frig is the problem? Something needs to be done with this un we have in place huh? :rolleyes:

[ethics]

Basically, we have the whining, Jew bashing Euros who, probably in their need to find the Jew as a bad guy (so they feel a little bit better with their own history in relations to Jews) and the UN who was the organization that created Israel in the first place. These are the terrorist huggers that are bringing this whole issue in to the forefront.

[Violet1966]

Basically, we have the whining, Jew bashing Euros who, probably in their need to find the Jew as a bad guy (so they feel a little bit better with their own history in relations to Jews) and the UN who was the organization that created Israel in the first place. These are the terrorist huggers that are bringing this whole issue in to the forefront.

See that's what I don't understand. Why even bother creating Israel, if they didn't want it to succeed in the first place? If they weren't going to acknowledge the battles won in that area, and credit the Israelis for their victories when challenged? Or were these tensions not really anticipated in the first place, and now they just don't know how to handle it? I cannot believe that so many nations, just sit back and don't do anything to challenge the UN on it's decisions. I can see an end if they were on the up and up and it was a universal thing. Or are they afraid of another world war and this one on their own hands?

[ethics]

See that's what I don't understand. Why even bother creating Israel, if they didn't want it to succeed in the first place?
Because UN back then was run by honorable men and women who actually cared.

[ethics]

See that's what I don't understand. Why even bother creating Israel, if they didn't want it to succeed in the first place? If they weren't going to acknowledge the battles won in that area, and credit the Israelis for their victories when challenged?
A better explanation by Commentary Magazine (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11702044_1) has been provided to answer your question, Violet.

It gives you the historical background and how UN has become the corrupt beast that it is. I realize there much dismaying facts to choose from, but to me, this says it all:


The UN Counter Terrorism Committee, set up by the Security Council in the wake of 9/11, has yet to identify publicly a single terrorist organization or state sponsor of terrorism.

I am sure placing the Libyans, Syrians or Sudanese on the UN Human Rights Committee was a great decision. :rolleyes:

I know so many otherwise-intelligent people who still speak of the UN as if it were this wonderful, higher conscience of mankind. (Sorry, Mr. Harris.)

[Violet1966]

A better explanation by Commentary Magazine (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11702044_1) has been provided to answer your question, Violet.

It gives you the historical background and how UN has become the corrupt beast that it is. I realize there much dismaying facts to choose from, but to me, this says it all:


The UN Counter Terrorism Committee, set up by the Security Council in the wake of 9/11, has yet to identify publicly a single terrorist organization or state sponsor of terrorism.

I am sure placing the Libyans, Syrians or Sudanese on the UN Human Rights Committee was a great decision. :rolleyes:

I know so many otherwise-intelligent people who still speak of the UN as if it were this wonderful, higher conscience of mankind. (Sorry, Mr. Harris.)

Thank you Leon. Will read :)