Is Israel finally about to be stopped?

"Operation Rainbow" (the operation where Israel is "securing" the Israel-Egypt border by tearing down Palestinian settlements in the Gazah-strip) looks like it's finally about to backfire on Israel.
After more than 50 Palestinians got killed in the last couple of days, the UN proposed a resolution against Operation Rainbow, calling it an illegal act of war (the Gazah strip is Palestinian, not Israelian), but the US vetoed the resolution (it's US policy to always veto resolutions against their allies).
That may finally turn, though... a UN resolution now finally condemns the recent violence (if memory serves, this is the first resolution against Israel... numerous other ones always got vetoed by the US): the US didn't veto the resolution (they didn't vote).
Did someone finally get rid of the blindfolds?
Any thoughts? :D

Ithink the US may finaly be getting sick of the israllies makeing us the targets....

"making us the targets"... you aren't Palestinian by any chance, are you?

Nope, but the israle attacks on the palistinians make the US a traget as we are rightly seen as a major supporter of isrial in the world.

I think it may be more to avoid the extra attention that it would bring. As soon as the Iraqi prisoner scandle blows over I am sure that US will go back to using it Veto to support Isreal. Then again I may be wrong.

What group is targeting us because of our support for Isreal? Ever listened to a speech made by Al Quida? Or Organization of the Opressed earth, or Islamic Jihad : Hassan Izz-al-Din, West German Red Army faction, French Direct Action, Abu Nidal Organization, Ezzedine Kassam, Islamic Movement for Change, Combatant Partisans of God, Tigers of the Gulf, etc.

Hezbollah and the Palestine Liberation Organization (of which the revered and victimized Arafat is known) have attacked Americans. Perhaps because of Isreal, or perhaps because Americans make their mark, in that when an American gets killed the coverage they desire is mulitplied. Another famous American Palestine attack is Pan Am. Was it about Isreal when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine blew up Flight 103 over Scotland? Perhaps indirectly, this one was because the US shot down a passenger jet thought to be a military plane. It was a "revenge"attack. Non of the rest to my knowledge are related to the Palestein conflict. Except to mention it in passing once in a while to drum up anti isreal support in US politics. They play with your head. Make you think "If we just stop supporting Isreal and let the Arabs enslave them. We will be safe" Their cause is not generally related to Isreal at all. But take in what you will.

//edit

Almost forgot, I want to say something that is obvious by the postings I see here. Many of these groups who get warmed up to by liberal Americans are there to STOP peace between Isreal and Palestine. Take Hezballah for example. They are an ally of Iran, where their orders come from. Goal: interupt negotiations between Isreal and Palestine. They want Isreal eliminated, peace is not and option. Praise Allah?

And Israel began respecting UN resolutions....when?

Wasn't the Lockerbie bombing the work of Libyans? I know at one point the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was a suspect, but I think they got cleared...
The aircraft shot down by the US was Iranian (the US were providing Iraq with military support in their ongoing war with Iran... lol).

Never mind... interesting read...

I remember it backwards. It was Libyans that were first accused but they were traced to the Palestine’s. Kadafi held them up in Libya until the Late 1990s (1999) when he released them. I can do some more research though. The problem with the planes getting shot down is: the whole area was in chaos and that wasn’t the only mishap. Sad but true.

//edit Saw the "never mind" later.

Last I hear the US State Dept. was saying it was a Palestine plane, maybe it was registered to Iran, but the Palestine’s did bomb Pan Am because of it, so I guess it was full of Palestine’s?

Funny you should mention the article I read it and was reminded that Semtex was used and it was the Czechoslovakian old regime who gave Kadafi 1000 tons of the barely traceable stuff. Tons!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
Ithink the US may finaly be getting sick of the israllies makeing us the targets....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
Nope, but the israle attacks on the palistinians make the US a traget as we are rightly seen as a major supporter of isrial in the world.

---

Major, try ...................
1949-2004 Total

*
Military Assistance
$64.4 Billion
*
Economic Assistance
$35.6 Billion
*
Total Assistance
$100 Billion

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/p...ssistance.html

Quote:

---

Nope, but the israle attacks on the palistinians make the US a traget as we are rightly seen as a major supporter of isrial in the world.

---

A bit off topic, but right on idea. Who gave israel nukes anyway?

Israel got nukes?

Yups...

am I like the only guy in the neighborhood without nukes....****ing christ...sux donkey balls seeing volatile countries carrying nukes. India and Pakistan shouldnt' be havin any nukes neither.

Why shouldn't they have nukes and the U.S. can? Nobody should have nukes, full stop.

I think it is time the U.S. stopped allowing Israel to illegally occupy Palestinian land, it is also a positive that the U.S. did not veto the U.N. resolution, hopefully that policy will start to end or at least not be as common.

I agree with Ennis, I think no one should have nuke's. Just cause's more problem's than the one's that come with having an atom bomb alone. The world would be alot better without them, IMO.

Quote:

---

India and Pakistan shouldnt' be havin any nukes neither.

---

And what do you suggest we do to stop them and similar other countries like

• North Korea
• Israel
• Iran
• Libya
• Algeria
• Argentina
• Belarus
• Brazil
• Kazakhstan
• South Africa
• Ukraine

Attack them all well not fesible. Economic Sanctions Well Didn't work against India they hurt US more than they Did to India.

and how can you blame India on having Nukes when it's Neighbour China has : About 300 strategic warheads .. and China is not too Friendly towardsd India Either... And Pakistan When India Becomes Nucklear How can they be left behind . Everybody has he right to protect itself. It has to stop from the begning where it all began... US. all the Countries who have Nuclear Capability are because of US help one way or the another. So can't blame them....

Well it has to end then it had to be Countries like USA and Russia to take the initative not like those Biased Nuclear Non- Prolifiration Treties.. which says i can have it but you don't welll nobody will take such a thing... It is just utter nonsense to say that only five countries have rights to perform nuclear tests, because they already have them. That isn't the reason,

Besides, what makes us believe that we are the world's "police." What gives us the right to tell another country what they can and can not do? India never signed that "stupid" law so why should they obey it.

let India do what India wants, its their country, not ours. Sure, if they launch one on the us ., we should use them against them . Having them for security reasons is defensive, not an offensive strategy. And bacailly no wise person would dare think about using them , no body can they are just for the display purpose in my IMHO. India said they Would not use them first on anybody and even after attacked by someother country they will consider using them. I mean no sensible person can even think about using them yet they spend billion of dollers building them just for the show. because you neighbour got one.

Yes i have my Concerns about North Korea and Pakistan having them .. India well they are a democracy and i have my faith in democracy. the world would be a better place without them definately but i don't see them going anytime Soon..... :(

Arms Control Association : The State of Nuclear Proliferation

These countries have nukes because you do, how can you expect other countries not to get nukes when their enemies have them to? It's a mess from the cold war.

I would be more worried about biological weapons than nukes. They are harder to trace, easier to deliver and not too hard to developpe (compared to nuclaire weapons).
Then again it is the offical policy of most countries to answer any biological attack as if it was a nuclaire attack. I suppose that Iraq was lucky that there wasnt a flu epedemic in the states just before the war otherwise Bush might have used it to justify using some nukes.

Where does this line of thinking that outer countries have nukes because the US does? They have nukes because they want power and control over their own local foreign policy. We (the USA) have nukes because of Hitler, Japan and the Soviet Union. People born in the 80s of course, don't have a clue about Lenin, Krushchev etc. The issue no one gets, time after time is this... it's not about a group of people having nukes to defend themselves. It's about unstable and volatile governments having the controls and then delivering the ability to hit a target, say Brussels, Belgium from Africa or the Middle East. At the height of soviet supremacy, their one doctrine was to control the world and force us all to "see" their socialist corrupt wisdom.

Right or wrong, we (the USA) have so many nukes because the Soviets had theirs pointed at all major cities in Europe and the United states via the North Pole route through Canada. To say that, since the USA has nukes every other country that has a new coup de tat every 3 years is entitled; isn't just. If the United States hadn't of developed the tech, then Germany or Japan would have, perhaps even the U.S.S.R. But as it turns out, fate or luck was on our side.

Israel has had nukes for decades, they even said "If Sadam uses chemicals against us; we WILL retaliate with Nuclear Weapons." That was in the early 90s. Like I have stated in other threads, as much as they have been attacked since the end of WWI, I admire their restraint in using them, or to clear the point… NOT using them.

The United States has used nukes TWICE in its entire history. They were more test items than real nukes by today’s standards. We've seen a lot of shitty wars since then and still have never used them, even in a state of embarrassment at things such as the renaming of Saigon to Ho Chi Mihn City, as it fell to a new occupant (to the delight of liberal America). Bush wouldn’t use them in any circumstance and if he did the world would be once again at the brink of destruction and enslavement. It will come again. We are human.

While the left in the USA downplays the threat of biological weapons due to their stance on Bush, Muracu is right on the point, they are much more dangerous, assuming the country has no way of delivering nukes via long range rockets by developing computer platforms to model flight trajectories and obtain the electronics necessary to fly the things.

Wouldn't it be nice to have everyone disarm.

Since that will not happen, some kind of non proliferation is in order.