> >Yes, they are an ally, and yes, I wish them to remain an ally, but I also find them to have not just shirked their responsibilities but actively disbanded them. The United States is currently saving the United Nations Security Council from themselves, as they have chosen not to enforce their own resolutions even after 12 years, thereby practically broadcasting their irrelevance to international relations, all largely due to France.
>
> I feel at this point that I should point out one little thing...Israel is currently in breach of 44 UN resolutions, I believe. Is inactivity on the Security Council's part further proof of "irrelevance"? If so, maybe the US should take a stand in helping to enforce the resolutions.
>
> Si-"Sorry if this offends anyone - I'm used to posting on newsgroups"-gi




''Unfortunately, in apparently seeking to soothe Arab wrath as Washington and London prepare to attack Iraq, Blair helped nurture one of the most manipulative anti-Israeli propaganda ploys, namely that in the Mideast conflict, Israel is the one who habitually violates U.N. resolutions,'' the editorial said.

''The fact is that most anti-Israeli U.N. resolutions are passed by its General Assembly, which comprises delegates from every country in the world, and whose decisions are not binding. The U.N.'s binding resolutions are those passed by the Security Council, which has only five permanent members,'' the paper added.

Even in that forum, most Israel-related resolutions are passed under the U.N. charter's non-binding chapter six, while those passed on Iraq since 1991 were under the charter's chapter 7, which deals with conflicts that threaten international security, said the Post."
-http://www.proutworld.org/news/en/2002/oct/20021011def.htm

See also: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php

And: http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/unisrael.html


That is to say, I don't think many, if any, of the Israel-related resolutions actually carry any weight, in every sense of the term. They are not binding. They are not passed under the same terms of the Iraqi resolutions. That is: you're essentially comparing apples to oranges.

And it is felt by myself and pretty much anybody else who supports Israel that there is a virulently anti-Israel opinion in the world. This is the same U.N. where you have quite a few member nations who would like nothing better than to see Israel destroyed, and who don't have much of a problem proclaiming this. Conversely, I don't see many nations professing that they would love to see the Arab world destroyed. Israel is constantly getting the short end of the stick, and were it not for American support and protection, would no longer exist, nor would probably any of its citizens. These anti-Israel resolutions are bogus, and there is good reason why they aren't passed in such a way as to actually mean anything.

The Other "Wait, wait, wait. Lemme guess: that all makes me part of the worldwide Zionist conspiracy, right?" Matthew