Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JERUSALEM (AFP) – US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.

"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the three-week-old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza where hundreds have been killed.

Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas.

The United States, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention.

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said.

"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."

Bush has consistently placed the blame for the conflict on Hamas, telling reporters on Monday that while he wanted to see a "sustainable ceasefire" in Gaza, it was up to Hamas to choose to end its rocket fire on Israel.

But a US State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, denied Olmert's claim.

"Mr. Olmert is wrong," the official said.

Even if everything had gone according to plan, "she would have abstained. That was the plan," said the official. "The government of Israel does not make US policy."

Yes, because god forbid Israel ever has to stand on it's own two feet without big Uncle Sam's constant backing...

I hear investigation into War Crimes is in the offing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes, because god forbid Israel ever has to stand on it's own two feet without big Uncle Sam's constant backing...

I hear investigation into War Crimes is in the offing.

Good. Its about time the war crimes commission came down hard on Hamas and its terrorists.

Slight problem, despite being a democratically elected body, Hamas are barely recognised in the West. You cannot try someone incapable of declaring War for a War Crime. See Guantanamo Bay.

And how about the report of Israel herding people into a house, and then bombing it the very next day.

Got to say I am extremely suspicious of their total media black out. No reporters allowed into Gaza. Why? What are they hiding? Or are they just worried they'll gun down another Journalist, holding a White Flag, with the word JOURNALIST emblazoned on his Flak jacket?

To clarify : Mamzel Rice (or whoever) has to follow the orders/s of the President in situations like this right ?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes, because god forbid Israel ever has to stand on it's own two feet without big Uncle Sam's constant backing...

I hear investigation into War Crimes is in the offing.

Good. Its about time the war crimes commission came down hard on Hamas and its terrorists.

Why Hamas and not Israel? I am sure phosphrous rounds and hellfire missiles are more "war crime" weapons than gakky Qussam rockets.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Slight problem, despite being a democratically elected body, Hamas are barely recognised in the West. You cannot try someone incapable of declaring War for a War Crime. See Guantanamo Bay.

And how about the report of Israel herding people into a house, and then bombing it the very next day.

Got to say I am extremely suspicious of their total media black out. No reporters allowed into Gaza. Why? What are they hiding? Or are they just worried they'll gun down another Journalist, holding a White Flag, with the word JOURNALIST emblazoned on his Flak jacket?

Even worse is that the fact all the other "non death" related sadistic and insulting gak in the West Bank never gets reported at all. If it weren't for Hamas Palestine won't even get into the headlines again under the "moderate rule" of Abbas.

This subject always seems to bring people down on one side or the other very firmly with accusations of 'terrorist sympathiser', 'anti semite' or 'zionist' being thrown about with gay abandon.

Technically Israel has a right to exist, no argument here, however its actions have not always been fair or appropriate. For eaxmple this recent series of actions have caused casualties that have run into the thousands unless im very much mistaken. This was in retalisation to rocket attacks that over the cause over several years casulties that have bearly entered double figures?

So yes it was correct to take action, it was not however correct to take action on this scale. I don’t see how this threat could not have been delbt with far more cleanly via the use if small scale surgical strikes and the use of special forces, all of which could have kept civilian casualties to a minimum.

Oh and for the recond critism of Israels defence policy is no more anti semitic than critics of Americas defence policy is anti Americanism and a troubled past does not give you carte blanche to behave how you like now.

Hamas are a despicable group of Islamic fundamentalists, however they are democrcically elected so there is little the west can do about it. I however am sure they can be controlled without resorting to actions that would result in mass civilian casualties.

Quite frankly I think both sides could do with being taken down a peg or two!

How this plays out as a matter of war crime will depend heavily on Israel's intent with respect to the territory it is currently bombarding/policing.

If they pull out, and return to the kind prison-state lock down that has been in place since the withdrawal expect mention of war crimes.

If they stay put, and return to the OT detention centers of the 70's expect mention of war crimes.

If they make a real effort to incorporate Gaza as sovereign territory, and its Palestinian residents as citizens, expect happiness.

I knew this would come up in discussion eventually. I'd like to see how it unfolds before I add too much...

Everyone ought to do some research back at least 35 years before commenting here, though. The conflict over there isn't a new development or anything. Let's just say it primarily involves a stupid decision on the behalf of the the British, and has resulted in the rather grim/dark present we're seeing today.

Rather than just commenting on your news-report-induced feelings, and delusions of national pride, try actually educating yourself. Since this is so removed from the Western 'problems' we typically deal with, try looking at this from more than one perspective. It's good training for when these sorts of problems actually begin to affect your quality of life.

dogma wrote:How this plays out as a matter of war crime will depend heavily on Israel's intent with respect to the territory it is currently bombarding/policing.

If they pull out, and return to the kind prison-state lock down that has been in place since the withdrawal expect mention of war crimes.

If they stay put, and return to the OT detention centers of the 70's expect mention of war crimes.

If they make a real effort to incorporate Gaza as sovereign territory, and its Palestinian residents as citizens, expect happiness.

Which they won't. Several times, Gaza has been compared to Concentration Camps. I remember at one point, the Israeli authorities, shortly after bulldozing settlements (yes, thats right...just run a bulldozer through peoples homes!) then took to tattooing ID numbers on Palestinian men. Remind you of anything?

Now nobody can deny Israel has a right, and indeed obligation to protect it's citizens but it always does so heavy handedly. And then of course they wonder why Hamas and it's members are so pissed off?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which they won't. Several times, Gaza has been compared to Concentration Camps. I remember at one point, the Israeli authorities, shortly after bulldozing settlements (yes, thats right...just run a bulldozer through peoples homes!) then took to tattooing ID numbers on Palestinian men. Remind you of anything?

A lot rests on the upcoming election. Unfortunately military action tends to precede a Likud consortium victory, which does not body well for peace prospects. That said, if this action is seen as a willingness on the part of Kadima to use force it will go a long way to the establishment of the consortium that Livni was not able to initially pull together.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now nobody can deny Israel has a right, and indeed obligation to protect it's citizens but it always does so heavy handedly. And then of course they wonder why Hamas and it's members are so pissed off?

The problem is a divergence with respect to what a legitimate citizen of Israel entails. I don't have time to do the debate justice right at the moment, but I will say that its worth looking into the history of Likud, and revisionist Zionism, if you want some greater perspective on the matter.

Israel's "right to protect it'self" is the universal "right" to protect one's self. Such as if you found a thief in your house and you want to kill him, he has the right to protect himself.

The media always try to make Hamas out as the usual "evil bastards you can't reason with". Funny thing is that Israel used to call Fatah "terrorists that can't be negotiated with" and now they are the moderates. Clearly when Hamas stopped suicide bombing it means nothing, Hamas winning a popular election it means nothing, Hamas has clear conditions for negotation (which is fair enough since it's called negotiation) which Israel failed on the most basic request of lifting the siege.

I think it depends largely on where you live.

In the UK, there is no love for Hamas in the media, but it is extremely critical of Israels tactics and intentions...

Neither side has clean hands, if truth be told.

But then the Israeli Forces are causing ridiculous levels of civilian casualties (this is not collateral damage...collateral damage is an abomination of a term which I see as having been invented to excuse carpet bombing and other atrocities which simply are not necessary, but are cheaper)

Though it does make me wonder how sympathetic the Obama administration will be toward Israel. I mean, this is not the first time they have ignored UN Resolutions....Iraq did that and got invaded (illegaly)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it depends largely on where you live.

In the UK, there is no love for Hamas in the media, but it is extremely critical of Israels tactics and intentions...

Israel is always getting big hugs and lots of kisses from the American media. Our government does the same. It has something to do with Jesus or some such.

Personally I hope the American government tries not to think about it. Lest they'd charge off screaming "FOR GOD!" while the American people look around dumb founded.

Well, quite why America is so fond of Israel I don't want to go into.

I'm sure dear Reader you will have noted that thus far, the thread has made little to no reference to the various Faiths of the World, and I think it's best kept that way, lest a crock of bizarre conspiracy theories and racist diatribe drown us all in a sea of pointlessness...

Typeline wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it depends largely on where you live.

In the UK, there is no love for Hamas in the media, but it is extremely critical of Israels tactics and intentions...

Israel is always getting big hugs and lots of kisses from the American media. Our government does the same. It has something to do with Jesus or some such.

Personally I hope the American government tries not to think about it. Lest they'd charge off screaming "FOR GOD!" while the American people look around dumb founded.

Well it's no coincidence that America, the worlds second largest Jewish population, is sticking up for the world's only jewish state. And btw before you blast me for being anti semitic, i'm jewish by my mother myself, I'm not going to air my views on israel as that's going to cause endless headaches.

In terms of Religion, and specifically the majority religion of Israel, more practictioners of said faith live in the US than Israel....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But then the Israeli Forces are causing ridiculous levels of civilian casualties (this is not collateral damage...collateral damage is an abomination of a term which I see as having been invented to excuse carpet bombing and other atrocities which simply are not necessary, but are cheaper)

Yeah Israel is causing a lot more damage, and if you look at the relative bodycounts over history it's somewhere in the realms of 100 Palestinian casualties for every Israeli. But that doesn't have anything to do Palestine being more restrained, just that Israel has a professional military backed by helicopter gunships, and Hamas has homemade rockets and kids with rocks.

I have the absolute sympathy for the people caught up in this, on both sides. I have absolute contempt for both governments.

Though it does make me wonder how sympathetic the Obama administration will be toward Israel. I mean, this is not the first time they have ignored UN Resolutions....Iraq did that and got invaded (illegaly)

People who wanted to invade pretended a breach of UN treaty was casus belli for about a year. It was transparent and ridiculous, and quickly forgotten. Bringing it up again will help score some points in debate, but it'll never get anyone to think that breaching a treat justifies a war by itself.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:In terms of Religion, and specifically the majority religion of Israel, more practictioners of said faith live in the US than Israel....

Yeh ok, now I think about it your probably right. Which only serves my point even further.

sebster wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But then the Israeli Forces are causing ridiculous levels of civilian casualties (this is not collateral damage...collateral damage is an abomination of a term which I see as having been invented to excuse carpet bombing and other atrocities which simply are not necessary, but are cheaper)

Yeah Israel is causing a lot more damage, and if you look at the relative bodycounts over history it's somewhere in the realms of 100 Palestinian casualties for every Israeli. But that doesn't have anything to do Palestine being more restrained, just that Israel has a professional military backed by helicopter gunships, and Hamas has homemade rockets and kids with rocks.

I have the absolute sympathy for the people caught up in this, on both sides. I have absolute contempt for both governments.

Though it does make me wonder how sympathetic the Obama administration will be toward Israel. I mean, this is not the first time they have ignored UN Resolutions....Iraq did that and got invaded (illegaly)

People who wanted to invade pretended a breach of UN treaty was casus belli for about a year. It was transparent and ridiculous, and quickly forgotten. Bringing it up again will help score some points in debate, but it'll never get anyone to think that breaching a treat justifies a war by itself.

I really do wonder just how long the rest of the Arab states are going to stay non-aggresive toward Israel. Surely at some point, a decision is going to made? I mean, all I'm saying is that key to a happy and peaceful life is to not piss off ones neighbours. Thankfully my neighbours seem to agree...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I really do wonder just how long the rest of the Arab states are going to stay non-aggresive toward Israel. Surely at some point, a decision is going to made? I mean, all I'm saying is that key to a happy and peaceful life is to not piss off ones neighbours. Thankfully my neighbours seem to agree...

Over Palestine? I gotta say its unlikely. Palestine and the Palestinians were never that popular among the Arab nations. While they've always condemned Israel for what they've done to the Palestinians, they were always more interested in condemning Israel than they were in the welfare of Palestinians, if you get my meaning. Relations have improved in the region over time as well, Israel even has trade with Egypt and Jordan, and the only two nations that really seem to care any more are Iran and Syria. Syria couldn't do anything if it wanted to, beyond supporting terrorist proxies like it already does. Iran... well that's that whole other thing.

But could Israel piss off the rest of the region over something else? It's a lot more likely. Earlier this year Israel was trying to get Bush to strike at nuclear facilities in Iran, Bush refused. Somewhere down the line, who knows what Israel might do.

Strike at them themselves, which is incredibly foolish. Such things are for the UN to sort out, not individual countries (remember Iraq?)

Honestly, I think Israel lacks the balls to attack Iran. It's been far too used to just using Bully Boy tactics on the weak and infirm. I think most of their soldiers would befoul themselves if caught in a proper war where the enemy had Tanks and Missiles as well....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Strike at them themselves, which is incredibly foolish. Such things are for the UN to sort out, not individual countries (remember Iraq?)

Honestly, I think Israel lacks the balls to attack Iran. It's been far too used to just using Bully Boy tactics on the weak and infirm. I think most of their soldiers would befoul themselves if caught in a proper war where the enemy had Tanks and Missiles as well....

I think your underestimating the quality of Israeli soldiers. Like, a lot.

two words...operation thunderbolt.

I don't. At all.

See my earlier comment about a Man, non-Arab, wielding a White Flag with JOURNALIST on his UN-Issue Flak Jack, being gunned down in the street whilst unarmed.

They have never been in a proper battle. Taking on a bunch of Terrorist arsholes who are poorly trained and equipped, is different to fighting a proper war against a Military Power....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I don't. At all.

See my earlier comment about a Man, non-Arab, wielding a White Flag with JOURNALIST on his UN-Issue Flak Jack, being gunned down in the street whilst unarmed.

They have never been in a proper battle. Taking on a bunch of Terrorist arsholes who are poorly trained and equipped, is different to fighting a proper war against a Military Power....

Wow how ignorant. This is not an argument I want to take further.

32 years ago.

Thats right. 32 years ago was a notable exception, for the simple fact they *might* have run into the Ugandan army....

Ever since then, they've largely been attacking refugee camps to take out poorly trained and equipped Terrorists. My point is that they have little practical experience of taking on enemy armour, airforce etc.

whatwhat wrote:Wow how ignorant. This is not an argument I want to take further.