well, the enlarged left side of that map definitely looks topo, imo, while the top-right part of it looks political.

 

all that really tells me is that the map is as old as dirt.

Im an idiot for not catching that the map was topographical.

 

 

 

But I still dont see how the top right portion is somehow a partitionment meant to leave Israel out. That could be a map of anything, not just the supposed Palestinian state. It seems like that is being inferred because the Palestinian map is there along a large topographical one.

Putting borders aside...

 

If it was meant to be only regarding people in the Disputed Territories, then it would have been demarcated as such. But it isn't.

 

 

Also, you mean the same Annan who couldn't give a rat's ass for the Tutsi population of Rwanda or the Bosnian Muslims at Srebenica? Yeah, look it up, he's responsible for both of those messes.

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

Putting borders aside...

 

If it was meant to be only regarding people in the Disputed Territories, then it would have been demarcated as such. But it isn't.

 

 

 

 

The map is topographical for pete's sake. I dont think any of us know what the heck it was doing there or what message it conveys. You guys are the ones that came up with this far-fetched conclusion that it means the UN hates Israel and wants Israel dead. It's about as valid a conclusion as saying the UN still thinks its 1940 and refuses to buy a new map because they are cheap.

 

 

Also, you mean the same Annan who couldn't give a rat's ass for the Tutsi population of Rwanda or the Bosnian Muslims at Srebenica? Yeah, look it up, he's responsible for both of those messes.

What does that have to do with the UN hating Israel? At best you can say Annan is incompetent. But that proves no hate for Israel.

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

Putting borders aside...

 

If it was meant to be only regarding people in the Disputed Territories, then it would have been demarcated as such. But it isn't.

 

 

Also, you mean the same Annan who couldn't give a rat's ass for the Tutsi population of Rwanda or the Bosnian Muslims at Srebenica? Yeah, look it up, he's responsible for both of those messes.

 

 

So Annan is responsible for the massacre in Rwanda and of the Bosnian Muslims? The UN may not have reacted the way they should have, but to say they are responsible...

 

I think that statement that you made shows that you like to exagerate things.

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

 

 

and that has been the cause of so many problems since then...hence Israel has nobody to blame but themselves.

Obviously the U.N. has declared jihad on Israel and all Jewry.

 

I don't think the U.N. actively hates Israel but they definitely do side with Palestinians just like the U.S. sides with Israel. That doesn't mean the U.S. hates Palestinians and Arabs.

who cares what the UN has to say about anything even if they wanted to get rid of Israel how would they do it ? debate for 100 years than pass a meaningless resolution...UN is a corrupt institution run by 3rd world dictators , thank God they have no credibility in this country :notworthy

 

 

no credibility cause Bush gave the big middle finger to the entire international world a couple years ago, thus going a long way to fracture international relations.

 

NO, the UN has no credibility because of their corrupt and inept actions. The one thing Bush has done right is ignore the UN. I am sure the people of Rwanda as they were getting hacked up by the 1000's appreciated the neutral generic resolution advocating that there be no violence. Or perhaps the people if Iraq valued the way the Oil for Food program was ran where Kofi Annan's son Kojo was part of a company that recieved bribes and oil , or the millions of dollars recieved by Saddam that he did not use for food or medicine but was able to do so through bribing UN officials . The UN is corrupt and even the few things they get right they have no power to achieve their goals.

I'd love for Clinton to get in charge of the UN. That would be something that could really re-vitalize that organization, something really needed, and with Clinton still being so popular, would force the USA to stop utterly ignoring the pacts the UN makes, you know the organization we actually are a member of and should be working with the UN not against it. Furthermore, its not about turning you back on an organization that is failing such as the UN, its about working to eradicate the problems and working toward doing what the UN should be doing, but then again Bush doesnt care about anyone but himself and his inner circle.

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

 

 

and that has been the cause of so many problems since then...hence Israel has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

There were problems long before 1967.

I'd love for Clinton to get in charge of the UN.

For everything you need to know about how well Clinton would do as leader of the UN all you have to do is go back to how he handled Resolution 1154 while he was in office. Here is some information on Scott Ritter - the man who was in charge of the weapons inspection teams.

 

In January of 1998, his inspection team into Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials, Ritter was accused of being a spy, and was expelled from Iraq by its government. When the United States failed to do anything about this breach of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1154, Ritter resigned from UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) on August 26, 1998. [1]

 

In his letter of resignation, Ritter said the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work. Ritter later said, in an interview, that he resigned from his role as a United Nations weapons inspector over inconsistencies between Resolution 1154 and how it was implemented.

 

The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with." [2]

 

After Ritter was expelled from Iraq in August 1998, before UNSCOM was withdrawn, he spoke on the PBS show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

 

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program

 

You had this [aggressive] statement on the one hand, but on the other hand, this administration's saying, wait a minute, we can't go forward with aggressive inspections because they will lead to a confrontation with Iraq, but let's understand the confrontation is because Iraq will not comply with the law passed by the Security Council. So we weren't allowed to do our job out of fear of a confrontation in which the United States would not be able to muster the required support of the Security Council to respond effectively or to respond in a manner which they had said they would respond in Resolution 1154. .[3]

 

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations on U.S. policy and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

 

Source:

Wikkipedia

Oh, you mean the same Scott Ritter that the Bush administration and the hawks activley tried to descredit after he basically came out against Iraq's threat capability?

 

Im assuming you would also agree that, since Clinton shouldnt run the UN after the 1998 Ritter incedent, Bush shouldnt be running the United States after going to war with baseless justification

 

From the same wikipedia article:

 

Some commentators have alleged that after Ritter had resigned his position as weapons inspector, the he did a "turnaround" and changed from being a 'hawk' to a 'dove'. Ritter, however, maintains that his position has remained consistent. He simply demands strict adherence to the law and to the facts at issue, whether the issue be Iraq's inspection compliance to which it agreed, the United Nations implementing the consequences of Resolution 1154, or the Bush administration giving an accurate assessment of the danger Iraq posed before starting a war.

 

However, Ritter's comments do not explain why he changed his view that Saddam could reconstitute his WMD capability in a matter of months (the view he held while a weapons inspector). After resigning as a weapons inspector, Ritter claimed Saddam was disarmed an no longer a threat

 

 

 

In his own words:

 

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

 

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

 

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

 

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

 

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

 

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln.

 

War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation's founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute.

 

Critical hearings should be convened by Congress that will ask the Bush administration tough questions about the true nature of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq. Congress should reject speculation and demand substantive answers. The logical forum for such a hearing would be the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

 

Unfortunately, the senators entrusted with such critical oversight responsibilities shy away from this task. This includes Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who should understand the realities and consequences of war and the absolute requirement for certainty before committing to a course of conflict.

 

The apparent unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate of oversight, especially with regard to matters of war, represents a serious blow to American democracy. By allowing the Bush administration, in its rush toward conflict with Iraq, to circumvent the concepts of democratic accountability, Congress is failing those to whom they are ultimately responsible - the American people.

 

 

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

 

 

and that has been the cause of so many problems since then...hence Israel has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

There were problems long before 1967.

 

 

I forgot. Israel is innocent all the time. My mistake.

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

 

 

and that has been the cause of so many problems since then...hence Israel has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

There were problems long before 1967.

 

 

I forgot. Israel is innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

I forgot. The Arabs are innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

Hey, see what I did there? I changed the subject. Don't change the subject because you can't answer to what I said. I never said Israel held no responsibility to it, but the Israeli recapture of the Old City didn't START anything. Did it inflame it? Sure. But the day Israel was formed every Middle Eastern country attacked it. There have always been riots and the sort, even before 1967.

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

 

 

and that has been the cause of so many problems since then...hence Israel has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

There were problems long before 1967.

 

 

I forgot. Israel is innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

I forgot. The Arabs are innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

Hey, see what I did there? I changed the subject. Don't change the subject because you can't answer to what I said. I never said Israel held no responsibility to it, but the Israeli recapture of the Old City didn't START anything. Did it inflame it? Sure. But the day Israel was formed every Middle Eastern country attacked it. There have always been riots and the sort, even before 1967.

 

well we are still waiting on the answer for why the cross and cresent are such unholy symbols that just bring about sorrow and anger every time they are seen...

 

ya i know the israeli recapture of Jerusalem didnt START anything genius. I blame the UN for not having the gall to actually keep Jerusalem hands off like it should have been to start with and I hope they ultimately grow a set of testicles on this matter and do the right thing and take it back and keep it in non religious hands, you know cause its a very important holy city for 3 major religions.

 

I mean ya, Jerusalem probably has the most significane for Jews...so? Its the same with Christianity and Islam as their roots are actually in Judaism.

 

Now go back and answer the question posed to yall a couple of days ago and I'll start directly answering your damn indirect questions.

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

 

 

and that has been the cause of so many problems since then...hence Israel has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

There were problems long before 1967.

 

 

I forgot. Israel is innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

I forgot. The Arabs are innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

Hey, see what I did there? I changed the subject. Don't change the subject because you can't answer to what I said. I never said Israel held no responsibility to it, but the Israeli recapture of the Old City didn't START anything. Did it inflame it? Sure. But the day Israel was formed every Middle Eastern country attacked it. There have always been riots and the sort, even before 1967.

 

well we are still waiting on the answer for why the cross and cresent are such unholy symbols that just bring about sorrow and anger every time they are seen...

 

ya i know the israeli recapture of Jerusalem didnt START anything genius. I blame the UN for not having the gall to actually keep Jerusalem hands off like it should have been to start with and I hope they ultimately grow a set of testicles on this matter and do the right thing and take it back and keep it in non religious hands, you know cause its a very important holy city for 3 major religions.

 

I mean ya, Jerusalem probably has the most significane for Jews...so? Its the same with Christianity and Islam as their roots are actually in Judaism.

 

Now go back and answer the question posed to yall a couple of days ago and I'll start directly answering your damn indirect questions.

 

I have no problem with a cross or a crescent. I do have a problem with the Red Cross/Red Crescent never allowing the Magen Dovid Adom (Red Star of David) into the organization, but that's been taken care of now, hopefully. Obviously the cross and crescent are holy symbols.

 

Yes, the city should be open to all three religions. Guess what? It is. Under Israeli rule no Arab has ever been denied the right to pray at or go to the Al Aqsa Mosque or Dome of the Rock, even though under Jordanian rule the Jews were prohibited from going to the Western Wall.

 

And what's the question you posed?

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

 

 

and that has been the cause of so many problems since then...hence Israel has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

There were problems long before 1967.

 

 

I forgot. Israel is innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

I forgot. The Arabs are innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

Hey, see what I did there? I changed the subject. Don't change the subject because you can't answer to what I said. I never said Israel held no responsibility to it, but the Israeli recapture of the Old City didn't START anything. Did it inflame it? Sure. But the day Israel was formed every Middle Eastern country attacked it. There have always been riots and the sort, even before 1967.

 

well we are still waiting on the answer for why the cross and cresent are such unholy symbols that just bring about sorrow and anger every time they are seen...

 

ya i know the israeli recapture of Jerusalem didnt START anything genius. I blame the UN for not having the gall to actually keep Jerusalem hands off like it should have been to start with and I hope they ultimately grow a set of testicles on this matter and do the right thing and take it back and keep it in non religious hands, you know cause its a very important holy city for 3 major religions.

 

I mean ya, Jerusalem probably has the most significane for Jews...so? Its the same with Christianity and Islam as their roots are actually in Judaism.

 

Now go back and answer the question posed to yall a couple of days ago and I'll start directly answering your damn indirect questions.

 

I have no problem with a cross or a crescent. I do have a problem with the Red Cross/Red Crescent never allowing the Magen Dovid Adom (Red Star of David) into the organization, but that's been taken care of now, hopefully. Obviously the cross and crescent are holy symbols.

 

Yes, the city should be open to all three religions. Guess what? It is. Under Israeli rule no Arab has ever been denied the right to pray at or go to the Al Aqsa Mosque or Dome of the Rock, even though under Jordanian rule the Jews were prohibited from going to the Western Wall.

 

And what's the question you posed?

 

Why does Israel get to have its Red Star of David symbol but other countries like India, whose Hindu population is way larger than the Jewish world population, don't? Why does Israel consider it primarily motivated by anti Jewish feelings from the red cross when the red cross has rejected many other religions in their requests?

It also means he's being played like a fiddle.

 

i love how the israelis who claim innocence are the ones who made the situtation probably as bad as it is now, by going in and taking over all of jerusalem.

 

 

but they are the holy land so all they do is right

 

 

:plain

 

Oh, so now it's OUR fault. My chin. For one thing, if you look at that partition map, you could see that Jerusalem would have been an ENCLAVE! Obviously the Haganah had to go in to protect their brethren. Meanwhile the Jordanians ransacked everything Jewish they could find in the Old City, including the tombstones being turned into latrines. So you want to play that game? You'll lose every time.

 

 

ya jersualem was supposed to be controlled by the UN and not Israel or Palestine. But the Israeli government decided it was their 'right' to go in and take over Jerualem.

 

Have a nice day.

 

They didn't. It never started out as planned. Israel got the new city, Jordan got the Old City. As long as it wasn't UN controlled, yes, then Israel felt they had the right to go in and take over Jerusalem, the only holy city for the Jewish people.

 

 

and that has been the cause of so many problems since then...hence Israel has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

There were problems long before 1967.

 

I forgot. Israel is innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

I forgot. The Arabs are innocent all the time. My mistake.

 

Hey, see what I did there? I changed the subject. Don't change the subject because you can't answer to what I said. I never said Israel held no responsibility to it, but the Israeli recapture of the Old City didn't START anything. Did it inflame it? Sure. But the day Israel was formed every Middle Eastern country attacked it. There have always been riots and the sort, even before 1967.

 

well we are still waiting on the answer for why the cross and cresent are such unholy symbols that just bring about sorrow and anger every time they are seen...

 

ya i know the israeli recapture of Jerusalem didnt START anything genius. I blame the UN for not having the gall to actually keep Jerusalem hands off like it should have been to start with and I hope they ultimately grow a set of testicles on this matter and do the right thing and take it back and keep it in non religious hands, you know cause its a very important holy city for 3 major religions.

 

I mean ya, Jerusalem probably has the most significane for Jews...so? Its the same with Christianity and Islam as their roots are actually in Judaism.

 

Now go back and answer the question posed to yall a couple of days ago and I'll start directly answering your damn indirect questions.

 

I have no problem with a cross or a crescent. I do have a problem with the Red Cross/Red Crescent never allowing the Magen Dovid Adom (Red Star of David) into the organization, but that's been taken care of now, hopefully. Obviously the cross and crescent are holy symbols.

 

Yes, the city should be open to all three religions. Guess what? It is. Under Israeli rule no Arab has ever been denied the right to pray at or go to the Al Aqsa Mosque or Dome of the Rock, even though under Jordanian rule the Jews were prohibited from going to the Western Wall.

 

And what's the question you posed?

 

Why does Israel get to have its Red Star of David symbol but other countries like India, whose Hindu population is way larger than the Jewish world population, don't? Why does Israel consider it primarily motivated by anti Jewish feelings from the red cross when the red cross has rejected many other religions in their requests?

 

 

India uses the Red Cross. They don't have their own symbol.

Also, how do you reconcile the UN wanting Israel "off the map" but at the same time saying that Israel should live in harmony with Palestine and that Israel has a strong interest in its safety? And what leads you to conclude, based on that map, that the UN wants to eradicate Israel?

 

 

 

India uses the Red Cross. They don't have their own symbol.

 

 

Once they entered the red cross/red crecent society, they had to adopt the red cross and red crecent despite the fact that they wanted their symbol via their religion-or at least proposed to have another symbol added like other religions did. It never happend and they didnt complain of religious intolerance. Why cant Israel adopt the red cross/red cresent the way India had to?

Also, how do you reconcile the UN wanting Israel "off the map" but at the same time saying that Israel should live in harmony with Palestine and that Israel has a strong interest in its safety? And what leads you to conclude, based on that map, that the UN wants to eradicate Israel?

 

 

I never said they wanted to eradicate Israel, just that they hated them. Through EVERYTHING over the years, you can clearly see a bias toward "Palestine" if you look at it from an unobstructed viewpoint. Kofi Annan says he's "shocked" at what the Iranian president said about Israel, but if Israel's prime minister ever said "Yo, Iran should be wiped off the face of the earth" you'd better believe there'd be sanctions and resolutions calling Israel a terrorist state (not that those resolutions haven't ever been there before) and the whole world would be up in arms.

Also, how do you reconcile the UN wanting Israel "off the map" but at the same time saying that Israel should live in harmony with Palestine and that Israel has a strong interest in its safety? And what leads you to conclude, based on that map, that the UN wants to eradicate Israel?

 

 

I never said they wanted to eradicate Israel, just that they hated them. Through EVERYTHING over the years, you can clearly see a bias toward "Palestine" if you look at it from an unobstructed viewpoint. Kofi Annan says he's "shocked" at what the Iranian president said about Israel, but if Israel's prime minister ever said "Yo, Iran should be wiped off the face of the earth" you'd better believe there'd be sanctions and resolutions calling Israel a terrorist state (not that those resolutions haven't ever been there before) and the whole world would be up in arms.

 

so now we are dealing with what we think would be handed down when in fact it has never happened and this has never been done.

 

great.