Monday, August 07, 2006

MideasT: UN Resolution UnFair?

OK.
Let's see.

A Known terrorist organization (according to world {and UN} definitions)
attacks a soverign country. {lets call them T1 Terrorist1)

These terrorists target Civilians in Country2 (C2). They also place entire Cities (99% civilians) at risk of attack.

The target country decides to hit back to the location where the terrorists are located (in Coun try1 (C1).

They (C2's military) carefuly targets where the missles have come from, and attempt to protect the other sides' civilians, by calling them, sending flyers, and telling them to get lost.

C2 responds by hitting the locations where missles from T1 are launched from.
T1 has DELIBERATELY set up ALL oif its operations inside Country 1's CIVILIAN populations.

C2 winds up killing innocent civilians in Country 1. Why?
Because group T1 does the FOLLOWING:
  • Refuses to let civilians OUT of its area
  • fires missles at C2 from roofs of innocent local citizens
  • Sets up defensive positions inside of neutral sites like day care centers, etc.
  • Deliberately sets up weapons caches inside of civilian buildings.
SO.
Let's talk now about the UN resolution.
It calls for a ceasefire.

Is it fair? Is it unfair?

Let's go back. Let's take the UN resolution for a two state solution.
Both sides agree (now) that a two state solution is the solution for ending the Palestinian crisis.
Why are we going to take the 1967 borders to start?
I say lets go to the ORIGINAL 1948 declaration. Use the 1948 UN two state solution as the answer..

Markbnj

1 comment:

Fares said...

Markbnj,

check out the arab perspective on what you say
Israel, a Peace Loving Nation???

Peace and I admire your courage, we have a common disdain for Bush and his disastrous policies