TheGreatGodPan on 30/6/2006 at 21:44
What would happen if nobody vetoed a U.N resolution? Would they officially wave their finger at a government? "Bad! Very bad! You ought to be ashamed!". This isn't purely rhetorical/joking, I don't know too much about what kind of power the U.N has in the absence of the U.S.
Epos Nix on 30/6/2006 at 21:57
Sanctions. And much waving of fingers. Among other things.
metal dawn on 1/7/2006 at 05:50
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Sanctions
Oh, wait a minute! You don't have an army!"*Sigh*
Why, Chappelle? Why?
Renegen on 1/7/2006 at 05:59
Here' a great idea for a sanction.. drop all of the world's nuclear waste on their turf. Show them that peace can prevail!
Nicker on 1/7/2006 at 08:28
Arguably the fuse for this never ending bloodbath was sparked several thousand years ago when one gang of wandering sheep herders tried to convince another gang of wandering sheep herders that their god was the better of the two. Like all of these religious wars it is always the other guys who started it.
But my vote for the "Person most likely to have thrown gasoline on the dying embers of a fruitless and murderous conflict, for personal political gain” award, would be Ariel Sharon. In a cynical bit of electioneering he (and two hundred policemen) visited the Temple Mount in 2000, a site deeply sacred to both Arabs and Jews. Rather use it as a symbol of conjoined, peaceful interest he declared that Israel would never relinquish control of it. He knew that such a declaration would cause the spilling of blood and he knew that it didn’t matter whether the blood was Jewish or Arabian – that blood would get him elected Prime Minister; and it did.
There have been atrocities aplenty on both sides but this stunt takes the cake for selfish, cold-blooded calculation.
quinch on 1/7/2006 at 14:03
(
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/04/20/apocalypse-please/)
"In the United States, several million people have succumbed to an extraordinary delusion. In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to earth when certain preconditions have been met.(4) The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its “Biblical lands” (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the Antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to earth."
TheGreatGodPan on 1/7/2006 at 19:37
So Sharon can't visit a place? He wasn't even Prime Minister at the time. That seems somewhat reminescent of the Danish cartoon controversy. No free speech when there are crazies about!
Let's reserve the word "atrocities" for actual atrocities, not something people found irritating.
Deep Qantas on 1/7/2006 at 20:18
Dying irritates me.
(Did you even read what he was saying?)
Malygris on 2/7/2006 at 07:51
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
So Sharon can't visit a place? He wasn't even Prime Minister at the time. That seems somewhat reminescent of the Danish cartoon controversy. No free speech when there are crazies about!
Simply visiting the Temple Mount isn't really the problem; it's the fact that he used the event to deliver a giant "FUCK YOU!" to the Palestinians that caused the trouble. His disingenuous behaviour after the fact certainly made the whole thing even more distasteful, but there's absolutely no doubt that he knew exactly what he was doing.
Convict on 2/7/2006 at 12:54
I feel inadequate to comment on the Israel-Palestine situation with any authority, however certain questions must be asked; do we think of the Israeli soldier as a soldier or as a civilian and do we recognise the Palestinian leader because he was democratically elected (my thoughts on democracy in the Middle East simply being a red herring are posted in another thread)?
Quote Posted by TheAustralian
ISRAEL last night threatened to assassinate Palestinian Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh if Hamas militants did not release a captured Israeli soldier unharmed.
(
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19645805-601,00.html) The Australian
Is the death of a soldier, even one so young, to be considered so unjust in what is essentially a national protracted physical conflict? Is it legitimate for Israel to threaten a foreign leader with assassination? If a foreign leader has done wrong, should they not be brought before the Hague?
To my mind, and as I say I am not an expert, this seems like a strong overreaction.
Thoughts?
