US Vetoes UN Resolution

[Theophylact]

demanding that Israel neither kill nor expel Yasser Arafat.

I mean, it's not as though anybody outside the Likud government thinks it would be a good idea. Bush can't even get Tony Blair to take the bullet for him on this one (Britain abstained). That we can't even abstain on a vote that tells Israel not to something stupid, illegal, and counterproductive, but actually have to veto it, sends a very unfortunate message to the world: You're with us, so you can do no wrong; or you're against us, so we have the right to do to you whatever we want.

[shahani]

So what else is new?

[wallie_x]

In my opinion, getting rid of Arafat (by any means) would help the peace process, not hinder it. Arafat's support of terrorists (who, by the way, would have no problem killing either you or me, or our children, in the name of God) is one of the BIG road blocks to peace.

[MTAtech]

Arafat is an impediment to peace. However, expelling is tactically wrong.

BTW, why is it when the U.S. vetoes a U.N. resolution they don't rename American cheese 'freedom cheese.'

[osprey4]

The following is a list of UN Resolutions that have actually helped promote peace in the middle east:












Any questions?

[ClubMed]

If Arafat were a real obstacle to peace and a real threat to Israel he would have been assassinated by Mossad years ago. The fact that he is still alive is proof of his weakness. The Mossad is busy killing leaders of the resistance.

Arafat and threats to send him away are simply public propaganda statements, just a little show biz.

The resistance organisations have, and still do act regardless of what Arafat says and does. According to these organisations, if he happens to agree with them on something then it's fine by them, if he disagrees however it's his problem.

He is a sick old man, his days of activity are over, his power today is only symbolic and rests on his history which grows greyer each day.

[shahani]

In my opinion, getting rid of the terrorist Sharon (by any means) would help the peace process, not hinder it. Sharon's support of Israeli Goon Squads (who, by the way, would have no problem killing either you or me, or our children, in the name of God) is the only BIG road block to peace.

(Apology to wallie_x for paraphrasing.)

[Theophylact]

Jeff Danziger's take:

[wallie_x]

I think both sides need to stand back. But as I remember the most recent wave of violence was not started by Israel. I do abhor the second-class citizenry attitude in which many Israelis have treated the Palestinians. We in the US do likewise with the people from Mexico. However, that seems the legacy of capitalism (in my estimation). It creates and enforces a stratification of society somewhat like a caste system. Many Israelis treated the Palestinians like their work dogs who were dependent on them to make a living. This is wholly wrong, and probably could not be more insulting to an Arab.
The odd thing is that the one thing that could speed the process would be for some of the Palestinian’s 'Arab Brothers' to donate a few measly kilometers of land from Syria and Egypt to help make a Palestinian homeland; but I don't see this. Rather a very small nation is being asked to voluntarily make itself even smaller. That is one of the major issues and should be given consideration by those Arab nations who truly want peace.

[M_Six]

Donating land is not the issue. The Palestinians want their own homeland back. They don't want someone else's land. The land in question has intense religious and cultural significance to the Palestinians as well as the Israelis. Asking them to move elsewhere is no better than what the U.S. did to the North American Indian.