Wednesday, July 26, 2006

[middle-east] three views of the UN

These were recently posted on a forum at the Melbourne Age:

For the UN to even be relevant two member states must be involved in conflict. I am having trouble finding the second state. Certainly Israel is a legitimate state but Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation not a state.

Lebanon has brought this upon itself. It had 20 years to remove Hezbollah. It did not have the balls to do so. It then blames Israel for protecting itself and doing what it should have done in the last 20 years - remove the terrorists from Lebanon. Supporters of terrorists are just as bad as the terrorist themselves.

There also seem to be a few brain dead people who continue to write in this forum. Hezbollah are pawns of Syria and Iran. They are being used to divert attention from their own problems. Iran is the country that will (if it ever get them) provide terrorists with nuclear weapons. And these weapons may find their way onto your doorstep.

Read more here:

1 comment:

Steve said...

Welcome. You don't ask easy questions do you?

Given its geostrategic position, it is difficult to see how Israel's aim can be any more than secure borders. That is entirely consistent with its actions over many years. Hezbollah's stated aim amounts to genocide. Many people, including Kofi Annan with his absurd reported comments on proportionate response, seem to think these aims are, at best, of equivalent worth. I wish there was some way to make the UN work. At the moment it is like some corrupt parish council, only with global rather than local enmities.