Logic or Lunatic - Fairness or Un-reasonable - Right or Wrong -Defend or Lay Down and

Poke · Jul 29, 2006

IisJustMe said:
So, those rockets falling all over northern Israel are figments of their imagination? Or maybe they contain flower seeds and plants that will flourish and grow, and the rockets are just a convenient delivery system?

Israel isn't reacting to rockets. They started a war over the imprisonment of two border-violating Isreali troops captured in Lebanon. It's most dishonest of you to conflate the war with what started the war.

IisJustMe · Jul 29, 2006

zerocipher said:
The part that you leave off of this is that to truly make it accurate, you would have to be in my house. I am shooting up my own house, which you have taken from me. Puts a whole different spin on things now doesnt it?

... if it were true. But it isn't. Nothing was taken from the Palestinians. People speak of the "theft of the Palestinian homeland" as if they had a government, a social structure, and a culture. There is no such "people" as the Palestinians. Palestine is a name created by ancient Rome to rob Israel of its identity. For nearly 1900 years, no government sat in the land, no one governed the area except in abstensia. Finally, having been ceded the land by the Ottoman Empire, the British began allowing the Jews to move back into the land.

They paid for their land, and the people living there got a fair price. Most of them were fugitives, or the descendents of fugitives, men who had fled the other surrounding Arab nations to avoid punishment for crimes ranging from theft to murder. They had no interest in forming a government, they had no interest in forming a society. They were as distrustful of each other (and still are) as they were of the Turks, the British, and the Jews.

So don't try to make it sound like Israel "stole" anything. They paid their way, and they have a rightful claim to the land from God, whether you accept that or not.

zerocipher said:
They destroyed apartments buildings in southern Beirut because Hezbollah leaders supposedly lived there. LIVED. Which would mean families and everything else. Dont the Generals of the IDF live with their families too? Double standards dont work.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They hide like cowards among civilians. The Israeli military doesn't hide. The brunt of their attack is being waged from a wheat field on the Israeli-Lebanese border. If Hezbollah wants to be a legitimate military organization, why not put on a uniform and attack Israel directly? But that might mean Hezbollah leaders die, and they're too fat and happy taking Iran's and Syria's money and pretending to be benevolent benefactors of the Lebanese people to risk something so dangerous as actually joining the attack, preferring instead to recruit young, poor, hopeless young men to do the bidding of the "great spiritual leader."

To revive an 80's euphemism: Gag me with a spoon!

Poke · Jul 29, 2006

IisJustMe said:
They weren't on Lebanese territory.

Why do you make up stuff? It wasn't Israeli land.

They didn't attack the country, they attacked the terrorists.

Why do you make up stuff? Israel has blasted the Lebanese infrastructure to pieces. Israel is bombing Lebanese rescue workers, government buildings, etc.

Hezbollah is "so brave" it hides among the innocents,

Why do you make up stuff? Hezbollah doesn't hide among innocents. It's actually bad strategy, and all the worse when you're dealing with a beast like Israel that freely kills innocent people.

so that Israel has only two bad choices: Allow the attacks to continue from the enclaves of innocent people sheltering Hezbollah terrorists, or kill everyone in the enclave.

So, Israel, being Hell spawn, naturally chooses to start blasting innocent people?

Honestly, how "innocent" can those sheltering terrorists really be?

Good point. The US sheltered the late Al Zaqwari and his terrorist camp from Saddam, in northertn Iraq.

You twist the truth to claim that Israel has occupied Syrian and Lebanese land for years (which are outright lies, by the way)

I know in your zionist world, whateve Israel wants belongs to Israel.

I might add) who still has not been returned.

Good point. Israel has not returned the thousands of political prisoners they hold.

You apologize for Hezbollah by claiming it was only responding to provocation by Israel,

You apologize for Israel, a nation that openly rejects Christ, is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any other country, and which regularly bites the US hand that feeds it..

Yeah, sure they are, for about 30 seconds between launch and

Do you think Hezbellah's bottle rockets travel 10 times the speed of sound? Oops, you're making up stuff again.

Hezbollah has only killed about 18 Israel civilians. Israel has killed over 400 Lebanese citizens. And, no civilians on either side would be dead if Israel didn't decide to make a war out of the situation.

Key · Jul 29, 2006

Poke said:
Hezbollah (by supporting the Palestinians) gave Israel an excuse to start a war when Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers who had crossed the border (in case that's not clear to you, it was Israeli soldiers, not Hezbollah, who crossed the boarder). Israel has not attacked Hezbollah, but has attacked Lebanon. Israel has killed hundreds of innocent lebanese citizens. So, I don't know how you figure that Israel hasn't murdered anyone. Nor do I know how you think deliberately attacking innocent people is legitimate self-defense.

Wondering.. did you vote for Bush?

God Bless

Key

regeneratedheart · Jul 29, 2006

Poke, You need prayer my friend. If you knew anything at all about Islamic extremists you certainly don't show it. Maybe you should try watching the news and reading the newspapers. I bet you are just making this up to cause a riff. Ha Ha. You Funny Guy

Easystreet · Jul 29, 2006

This post is address to POKE

POKE,

You would honor me greatly if you would go back and read the first post I made in this thread. After reading it forget all that is going on in Israel and answer the hypothetical illustration. Don't bring into the discussion any real situation past or present, just answer the dilemma. How would you personally act with in the illustration. Try to refrain from reference to history and groups. Just give all of us your individual and personal position if you were to find yourself in such a "real" situation.

Thanks
Gordon

Love Always Finds A Way

BrokenGhost · Jul 29, 2006

IisJustMe said:
... if it were true. But it isn't. Nothing was taken from the Palestinians. People speak of the "theft of the Palestinian homeland" as if they had a government, a social structure, and a culture. There is no such "people" as the Palestinians. Palestine is a name created by ancient Rome to rob Israel of its identity. For nearly 1900 years, no government sat in the land, no one governed the area except in abstensia. Finally, having been ceded the land by the Ottoman Empire, the British began allowing the Jews to move back into the land.

They paid for their land, and the people living there got a fair price. Most of them were fugitives, or the descendents of fugitives, men who had fled the other surrounding Arab nations to avoid punishment for crimes ranging from theft to murder. They had no interest in forming a government, they had no interest in forming a society. They were as distrustful of each other (and still are) as they were of the Turks, the British, and the Jews.

Spoken like a true, pompous, american that knows NOTHING of what goes on outside our horrid lazy country. If you ever bothered to look at the links I had posted to you in another thread as you had asked for, even THOUSANDS of Jews do not like the modern state of Israel. To call most of the people that were living there before
the Zionist immigration started criminals, is criminal in itself. You obviously look at nothing that has to do with history, or you would know that Israel to this day still occupies land that belongs to Lebanon and Syria from the war all those years ago. The Shabba(sp?) farms and the Golan heights....those are NOT parts od Israel, that is occupied land.

To me the saddest part about this thread, is that people unfortunately do not understand that being against Israel's actions does not mean we condone those of hezbollah.

IisJustMe · Jul 29, 2006

zerocipher said:
Spoken like a true, pompous, american that knows NOTHING of what goes on outside our horrid lazy country. If you ever bothered to look at the links I had posted to you in another thread as you had asked for, even THOUSANDS of Jews do not like the modern state of Israel.

... I would expect them to speak the party line you describe, and they did. Anyone can put lies up on the web. Just because they are accessible worldwide doesn't make them any less lies.

zerocipher said:
To call most of the people that were living there before the Zionist immigration started criminals, is criminal in itself.

No, actually, its fact. There's nothing wrong with being an ex-criminal. I am one. Read my profile for yourself. The difference is, I paid the price for my crimes. They didn't. They were hiding and staying low-key. Nothing wrong with that, either, if you don't mind people not paying their debt to society. My point is, they had no interest in the land you call "Palestine" -- it was a place to hide from the law. The Jews paid them for any lands they wanted, and if the people wouldn't sell, so be it. No one took anything.

zerocipher said:
You obviously look at nothing that has to do with history ...

No revisionist history, no. I prefer actual facts to fairy tales dreamed up by the propagandists.

zerocipher said:
or you would know that Israel to this day still occupies land that belongs to Lebanon and Syria from the war all those years ago.

Are you aware that the land was ceded to Israel by the UN, and Egypt, Syria and Lebanon held the land illegally from 1956 to 1967? Israel has a much better claim to the territory, and therefore kept it after the Six-day War. They could have also captured the Temple Mount, but that was not part of the UN ceded territories, so they surrendered it back to the Palestinians. Interesting isn't it? If they illegally hold Syrian and Lebanese territory, which is only of value to them strategically, I wonder why they didn't hold onto the most holy ground ever given Israel by God?

zerocipher said:
The Shabba(sp?) farms and the Golan heights....those are NOT parts od Israel, that is occupied land.

Again, incorrect. Please refer to Israel's UN charter.

zerocipher said:
To me the saddest part about this thread, is that people unfortunately do not understand that being against Israel's actions does not mean we condone those of hezbollah.

But does Hezbollah know that? Doubtful. They take the protests against Israel as support for their cause. They are not reasonable enough to understand that someone can oppose both.

BrokenGhost · Jul 29, 2006

You are so correct. Obviously none of that land is anyones but Israels. And evidently the UN and Israel themself agree with you.

The Golan Heights

The Golan Heights were captured from Syria near the end of the Six Day War, after the cease fire with Egypt and Jordan had been agreed upon. The status of the Golan Heights, and of the Israeli settlements established there, is seen as one of the issues preventing the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Syria.

Israel passed the "Golan Heights Law" in 1981, extending its laws and jurisdicions to the territory and according Israeli citizenship to the resident population. Israel has, however, avoided using the term "annexation" to this action. The UN Security Council rejected the provisions of this law with Resolution 497.

Israeli governments have been reluctant to discuss returning the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a peace deal. Many of the headwaters of the Jordan River, from which Israel draws much of its fresh water resources, lie in the Golan Heights. Also, possession of the Golan Heights is considered strategically important to Israel in terms of defense from Syrian harassment or invasion, particularly given that the Heights had been used to shell the territory below prior to the Six-Day War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

UN Security Council Resolution 497
United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 calls on Israel to withdraw from Golan Heights.
Full text

Resolution 497 (1981) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2319th meeting 17 December 1981

The Security Council,

Having considered the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic contained in document S/14791,

Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions,

1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;

3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution within two weeks and decides that in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Security Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_497

The Legal Status of the Shabaa Farms

(Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson)
April 8, 2002

The Shabaa Farms area is not, and should not be, considered disputed territory - its status was clarified by a number of United Nations statements following the withdrawal of Israel forces from Lebanon in May 2000.

The United Nations views the Shabaa Farms area as Syrian territory. Therefore, UN Security Council Resolution 425 - which concerns Lebanon - does not require Israel to withdraw from this area.

In 1974, the United Nations drew up disengagement lines between Israeli and Syrian controlled territories to provide for areas to be patrolled by the UNDOF force. These lines marked Syrian territories, held by Israel since the 1967 and 1973 wars.

According to a report of the Secretary General of the United Nations dated 22 May 2000:

"...On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic.

On the basis of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian forces of 31 May 1974 and its Protocol concerning the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which included maps initialed by Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, the Shab'a farmlands fall within the scope of the area of operations of UNDOF. The area coming under the mandate of UNDOF has remained unchanged until the present time. It follows that in adopting resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), the Security Council could not have included as part of the UNIFIL area of operations an area which had already formed part of the UNDOF area of operations..." (UN Document S/2000/460)

This report, which was endorsed by the UN Security Council on 18 June 2000, affirms that Israel had fully withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425.

In its 18 June statement, the Security Council also noted that Israel and Lebanon had confirmed, to the Secretary General, that identification of the withdrawal line was solely the responsibility of the United Nations and that both sides would respect the line as identified. Moreover, the Security Council took notice, "with serious concern", of reports of violations - by Hizbullah - that had occurred since 16 June 2000 and called upon the parties to respect the line drawn by the United Nations.

Israel has emphasized this issue in the United Nations on a number of occasion during the nearly two years since the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon. For example, on 18 April 2001, the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations wrote to the Secretary General:

"...The territory referred to as Shabaa farms, which the Government of Lebanon now claims as Lebanese territory, was confirmed by the Security Council not to be on the Lebanese side of the Blue Line. The reasons for this are clearly set out in the report of the Secretary General dated 22 May 2000, a report which was subsequently endorsed by the Security Council on 18 June 2000."

Clearly, there is no question that the Shabaa farms area is recognized by the international community as not part of Lebanon. The status of these territories can ultimately be finalized in direct peace negotiations between Israel and Syria.

http://tinyurl.com/z6xgt

Easystreet · Jul 29, 2006

IisJustMe said:
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GordonSlocum again." -- CF message

Don't understand what is going on. Some one please explane this post.

Easystreet · Jul 29, 2006

wildthing said:
Interseting point but! I think we need to study the mean of words a little closer. It's ture Jesus said to turn the other cheek. It is consider an insult to hit a person in the face. In Mathew5:39Jesus menions the rightside. If I hit you on your right cheek I would need to use the backside of my hand. Because most people are right handed, actually I'm not, just a side point. Could this be expression of a Jewish idiom that describes an insult?

I believe the prinicples taught in the Sermon on the Mount is that a christian should not retaliate when insulted or slandered. Being slandered or insulted doesn't threaten your safety But defending yourself from a killer or a rapist is another story.

In Bible, In the old testement God is shown to be the Warrior-Leader of Isrealites. God rasied up warriors among His choosen people. Samson, Deborah, Gideon. all were given the blessing to wage war. In the New Testement it commends these people for what for their military acts of faith (Hebrews 11:30-40). Look even when given a chance none of the saints, not even Jesus, are seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew8:5-14 and Luke3:14)

In Luke 22 Jesus encorage them to have a sword in this case it was a short sword or a dagger that belonged to a traverler. This was used for protection against robbers and wild animals. So Jesus did believe in self defense.

Self defense may actually result in one the greatest examples of human love. Jesus said(john15:14) "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends". When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

I say this to permit muderer when one could have prevented is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without try to intervene is inexcusable. In short not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of comission, Any person who refuses to protect their spouse and children against violent intruder fails them morally.

I totally agree.

When we bring self defense close i.e. into our own home and family it makes the larger picture, hopefully, easer to comprehend.

I am in my house, a person arrives and announces he is going to kill me, (in this case it is murder). What do I do? The person says I am going to torture your daughter in the most hideous way. He sets out to do so and says if anyone interferes he will kill them and he can because he has a gun.

However, you have at your disposal a gun that he does not know of. You can get it and shoot him as soon as he turns his back? Will you? or Will you turn the other cheek?

Was Jesus talking about this kind of wrong or was it something different?

I believe it was something different.

Clearly defining the line can be difficult and troubling for all of us, but some how some way we have got to make a decision on what to do.

I will shot the person with out a thought and it will not be out of hate but from defense and protection of my family. I doubt seriously I will regret it either. I will fill sorry for the dead person but that person too is a free moral agent who chose to violate the boundaries that cost him his life. If I let the act of killing in self defense turn to hate them I have in my heart murdered. Not in the same way however as if I intended to murder from the start and innocent life. Self Defense in real life is not murder. Hate is always murder.

God Bless

Love Always Finds A Way

IisJustMe · Jul 29, 2006

GordonSlocum said:
Don't understand what is going on. Some one please explane this post.

The system wouldn't let me do it again until I gave good reps to others. It was a compliment.

IisJustMe · Jul 29, 2006

zerocipher said:
You are so correct. Obviously none of that land is anyones but Israels. And evidently the UN and Israel themself agree with you.

You could hurt yourself, shoving your tongue so far back in your cheek. You should be more careful.

The partition of what was euphemistically known as Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states was provided in 1947, after over a year's worth of work that was done by United Nations Committee on Palestine. As shown from this link ...

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/israelchrono.htm

... President Truman was unconvinced of the UN's ability to reach a concensus on establishing a trusteeship over Palestine. The people living there and calling themselves "Palestinians" were still, with all the notice they had received, unable to organize themselves as a nation! Truman indicated to the Jewish people that, since the UN couldn't manage to figure out how to govern Palestine, that was no reason for the rest of the world to withhold recongition of Israel. Truman promised immediate recognition when a resolution was passed in the UN providing for the establishment of the two states, Arab and Jewish. Seems the UN even then was a disorganized mishmash of sycophants pretending to be diplomats.

This link ...

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/unres181.htm

... will clarify the obvious confusion you are having regarding the original partition plan, and what was supposed to belong to whom. All efforts to renege on this partition plan have been voted down by the UN membership, despite efforts in the last 20 years by the sycophants to try to undo what was done nearly 60 years ago. Quite clearly, if you click on the map link in the "Boundaries" area of the resolution, you will see that the Golan Heights and the farmland you claim is in dispute was, in fact, established as part of Israel from its inception.

Revisionists never seem to get it: Israel is the victim, not the aggressor. They want to rewrite history, and in their minds, they have already done so, blithely ignoring that other people know what happened, and will haul them up short every time they try to lie yet again.

In short, your mini-novel post is busted. Nice try. No cigar.

Poke · Jul 29, 2006

IisJustMe said:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/unres181.htm

... Quite clearly, if you click on the map link in the "Boundaries" area of the resolution, you will see that the Golan Heights and the farmland you claim is in dispute was, in fact, established as part of Israel from its inception.

Quite clearly, you need to look at that map again. Your map shows Shebaa Farms to be in Syria.

BrokenGhost · Jul 30, 2006

IisJustMe said:
You could hurt yourself, shoving your tongue so far back in your cheek. You should be more careful.

The partition of what was euphemistically known as Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states was provided in 1947, after over a year's worth of work that was done by United Nations Committee on Palestine. As shown from this link ...

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/israelchrono.htm

... President Truman was unconvinced of the UN's ability to reach a concensus on establishing a trusteeship over Palestine. The people living there and calling themselves "Palestinians" were still, with all the notice they had received, unable to organize themselves as a nation! Truman indicated to the Jewish people that, since the UN couldn't manage to figure out how to govern Palestine, that was no reason for the rest of the world to withhold recongition of Israel. Truman promised immediate recognition when a resolution was passed in the UN providing for the establishment of the two states, Arab and Jewish. Seems the UN even then was a disorganized mishmash of sycophants pretending to be diplomats.

This link ...

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/unres181.htm

... will clarify the obvious confusion you are having regarding the original partition plan, and what was supposed to belong to whom. All efforts to renege on this partition plan have been voted down by the UN membership, despite efforts in the last 20 years by the sycophants to try to undo what was done nearly 60 years ago. Quite clearly, if you click on the map link in the "Boundaries" area of the resolution, you will see that the Golan Heights and the farmland you claim is in dispute was, in fact, established as part of Israel from its inception.

Revisionists never seem to get it: Israel is the victim, not the aggressor. They want to rewrite history, and in their minds, they have already done so, blithely ignoring that other people know what happened, and will haul them up short every time they try to lie yet again.

In short, your mini-novel post is busted. Nice try. No cigar.

Do you bother to read?????????? ISRAEL SAYS IT IS SYRIAN LAND!!!!!!!!! The country you are trying to bash everybody over, says YOU ARE WRONG. I gave you a link directly to an Israeli governement agencies website discussing these things, and yet you still say that I am wrong. Then please write to Israel and tell them that they are wrong that is their land. Do the bliders cover that much that you cant read what is put in plain black and white??

IisJustMe · Jul 30, 2006

... too great for some to go to "prove" they are right.

zerocipher said:
Do you bother to read?????????? ISRAEL SAYS IT IS SYRIAN LAND!!!!!!!!! The country you are trying to bash everybody over, says YOU ARE WRONG.

If they said it was Syrian land, there would be no argument. I gave you the gist of UN Resolution 181 from the Truman Library archives, proving the disputed territories were within the original boundaries of Israel. In the 1956 Egyptian-instigated Suez Crisis, Syria captured the Golan, but Israel retook it in 1967.

You need to research UN Resolution 242, a document over which there was a great deal of debate over the word "the." The Arabs wanted it included in a phrase that wound up calling for ...

" ... withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."

Note what a difference would be made by including "the" before "territories." The UN refused to include the phrase, knowing that its inclusion would force Israel to give back the territory of the Golan Heights, part of Gaza, and part of southern Lebanon that the UN had originally ceded to Israel in 1947. Israel, naturally, appreciated the absence of "the", and also the other key phrase in Resolution 242, which demanded:

"... acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.... "

In other words, Israel has UN sanctioning against its neighbors to make war on the Jewish nation.

Another amazing fact about the original war in 1948, which the Arab neighbors of Israel started on the first full day of its existence: Through a 1949 agreement called the Rhodes Armistice, the war ended, but not before some 700,000 Palestinians had left their homes, most moving into the area now known as the West Bank and creating the refugee crisis that still exists. At the same time, a similar number of Jewish refugees fled their homes in neighboring areas and other Arab countries because of the turmoil.

U.N. Resolution 194, passed in December 1948, endorsed the right of refugees "wanting to live at peace with their neighbors" to return to their homes or receive compensation for lost land and property. Palestinian refugees were neither compensated by their native Arab nations, nor allowed to return to their homes. Fear of having enemies living among them caused Israel to take the same stance. Arab countries, with the exception of Jordan, refused to absorb them, preferring to maintain the refugee camps for more than half a century as a way of keeping the issue from fading away.

The Israel-haters of today love to blame Israel for the refugee situation, but the stunning fact is, the Arab nations refused to take in their brothers of Islam in favor of using them as a propaganda campaign that terrorist sympathizers still naively swallow hook, line and sinker.

Easystreet · Jul 31, 2006

thanks

BrokenGhost · Jul 31, 2006

IisJustMe said:
If they said it was Syrian land, there would be no argument.

Then read this and stop arguing.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/about the...legal status of the shabaa farms - 8-apr-2002

IisJustMe · Jul 31, 2006

zerocipher said:
Then read this and stop arguing.

Nowhere in the document (posted on an Illinois government web site? someone will have to explain that one for me) does Israel acknowledge the farms belong to Syria. They simply agree with the UN that they don't belong to Lebonan. In fact, the concluding paragraph of the document states:

"Clearly, there is no question that the Shabaa farms area is recognized by the international community as not part of Lebanon. The status of these territories can ultimately be finalized in direct peace negotiations between Israel and Syria."

Hmmm ... "The status of these territories can ultimately be finalized in direct peace negottiations between Israel and Syria." I added the emphasis just in case you missed it. Now does that sound to you like Israel admits the farmland is part of Syria? Not to me it doesn't. And I'll bet you never even bothered to look up, from my original post, what the original UN resolution said about this land, which was that it was Israel's, along with the rest of the Golan Heights. Check the map out for yourself.

That doesn't keep Kofi and his corrupt cronies from trying to change the original UN intent, though. In replying to then-Sec'y of State Colin Powell regarding the UN's position on the Sheba'a farms, Kofi tried to pretend Israel was "occupying" the Golan:

"....With reference to the disturbances along the Blue Line emanating from Lebanese territory, I call on the Government of Lebanon and all relevant parties to condemn and prevent such violations. The Security Council itself confirmed in June 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from southern Lebanon in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 425 and 426. Attacks at any point along the Blue Line, including in the Sheba'a Farms area in the occupied Golan Heights, are violations of Security Council resolutions. Respect for decisions of the Security Council is the most basic requirement of international legitimacy...."

Kofi's a good liar. He thinks he slipped that one by everyone, I'm sure, but the truth is, the UN awarded the Golan Heights -- and the Sheba'a farms -- to Israel in 1947.

Again, nice try, but no cigar. Maybe you thought I wouldn't actually read the link.

Driver · Jul 31, 2006

IisJustMe said:
Nowhere in the document (posted on an Illinois government web site? someone will have to explain that one for me)

Illinois? Or Israel?

I didn't realize that Illinois had a Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa

Logic or Lunatic - Fairness or Un-reasonable - Right or Wrong -Defend or Lay Down and

Poke

Guest

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Poke

Guest

The Opener of Locks

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Gospel Centered

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Gospel Centered

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Poke

Guest

Gospel Centered

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Well-Known Member

Gospel Centered

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Driver

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency