user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
smile bank:
|
similiar ballots:
45330. If the United States stopped it's unconditional military and financial support for Israel, would there be less terrorism directed at the United States
17432. How can the United States break the zionist control of it's government and stop funding the terrorist state of Israel?
51744. AMERICANS: "All for the United States, nothing outside the United States and no one against the United States." Agree/disagree?
92742. United States citizens can claim islands for the United States government.
13096. Did you know Israel is in violation of 68 UN security council resolutions?
67808. Should the United States conquer Canada, Mexico... and all of South/Latin America to form the Super United States of America?
59763. Why is the western world in an uproar over Iran obtaining nuclear weapons when Israel (70 UN resolutions against it) has a stockade of nukes?
92467. Which of these do you think is most responsible for world: United States, United Kingdom, European Union, G8, G8+5, OPEC, oil nations or none of them?
95508. United Nations angry ath the US for its free press: Should the United States censor views in the media that are anti-UN?
50687. Actually, which country makes better TV: United States or United Kingdom?
|
COMMENTS:
I get frustrated when the United States focuses on any country but its own, but I don't know enough about the topic to comment.
Sometimes real friends have to be critical in order to help one another.
Yes it makes no sence to me.
by ABC on Tue Oct 05, 04 6:30pm
[+]
Not really. Whenever israel does anything the UN will immediately draw up a resolution condemning it (I think they have them already filled out with the reason left blank). They condemn israels construction of a wall, how innocuous is that? And yet how often do they come out against the palistinians? Next time it happens would be the first.
Well the wall cuts into Palestinian territory and will only leave the Palestinians with only 40% of their agricultural land. Just another way to ethnicly clean the people with someones help but i guess some people think that all Palestinians are terrorist's.
by isay on Tue Oct 05, 04 9:28pm
[+]
Wow, I knew Herzog was partisan, I never realised how much until I read the statement he just made.
Israel conduct state terrorism against the minority in their country, yet when the Palestinians retaliate, they are the only culprits.
Im sorry, but as much as I find Herzogs extremist views unsettling, this really takes the biscuit.
Steelhamster, you've got it backwards. It's the Israelis who retaliate against the Palestinians.
Is that so... well then that MUST be true.
Israel has as much a right to exist as Palestine. Over half of Israelis WANT there to be a Palestine (I believe somewhere around 70% give or take). So why no Palestine yet? Answer is QUITE simple. Palestinians are too busy trying to take ALL of Israel to get a foothold in the area. We will see continued violence indefinitely.
Israel has nukes. They WON'T hesitate to use them the next time a foreign aggressor tries to "liberate" their land. Egypt has been at bay for more than 30 years. Why? Nukes. I hope Israel can solve the problem, and I hope those imbecilic Palestinians get a place they can call home without crying injustice. But I don't see it happening.
I get frustrated with the continous patern of those UN resolutions, which condemn the Israeli side exclusively, while disregarding to the cause of the Israeli actions - which is the Palestinian terror. The US declared it'll veto any one sided resolution against Israel, but the UN hasn't got the message yet. No resolution that condemns Palestinian terror or lack of action against it has passed during the current Intifada (and I think that never).
Isay, the current path of the wall leaves practically 100 percent of Palestinian agricultural land in the Palestinian side, as the Israeli supreme court acknowledged the right of Palestinians to sue for change in the path, if it can harm their living.
by Yosi on Wed Oct 06, 04 4:33am
[+]
Israeli's have a right to defend themselves but at what expence, That wall breaks international law and human rights it wasn't passed for no reason as it cuts into palestinian land. All in all it's just a big land grab and to circle Palestinian territory, also Israel's agriculture minister is expanding Jewish settlements, stealing 8,000 acres of land off the palestinian civilians in the past month as well as the rest but i guess he and others thinks they're all terrorists as well.
by isay on Wed Oct 06, 04 6:26pm
[+]
Isay, can you think of other solution for the suicide bombers threat that will be both effective and won't break any laws?
I can think of one solution - annexing all the territories in the WB, that are inside the Israeli side of the wall, but the world won't approve that for political reasons.
Every move a country makes to defend itself will end up in violating some human rights, and you can't let the enemy, which is, in that case a terrorist for whom human rights have no meaning, use that as a mean to cuff the hands of the country whose citinzens they attacked and terrorized. Nobody claimed that the US shouldn't fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban because such moves will harm the human rights of the afghan people, or even the terrorists' human rights.
About the land grab, Israel doesn't expand its settlements currently so it's not true. As a rule, Israel can't just cancel ownership of a Palestinian over a land without proper compensation and satisfactory reason. Such thing can stand in court, and every Palestinian can adress Israeli court, in such cases, and I don't believe that any court will rule against him. The situation on the ground, is often that a certain hill, which a settlement is built on, has no legal owner or the owner agrees to sell his cheap agricultural / rural land, and make it more expensive land, which is planned for construction and settlement.
by Yosi on Wed Oct 06, 04 7:10pm
[+]
"and you can't let the enemy, which is, in that case a terrorist for whom human rights have no meaning," aha yosi, human rights have a lot of meaning to the israeli state which kills inocent civilians and children in almost every operation, or sorry is that self defense...or no, sorry, they all must be accidents.
by lolo on Thu Oct 07, 04 1:01pm
[+]
To be honest I think you might hear more about this than we do. But yes the US does protect Israel beyond what could be considered fair or just.
|
|
