Should the U.S. House Pass the Resolution to Condemn Hezbollah and Hamas?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I have been listening the arguments from both sides of this issue on C-Span. I am fascinated that each side has been very compelling in their arguments. That is why I am turning this question to you guys to see what you think.

I would like to hear everyone's position on whether the passage of this bill instigates Israel to continue the actions of war. Or should they have spent the time to call for a cease fire and request for cooler heads to prevail in asking for a cease fire?

[edit on 19-7-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
But of course!!! And condemn Iran and Syria and N. korea while we're at it.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I agree with the poster above. Condemn them for starting this war, Condemn Syria and Iran for funding and arming Hezbollah and condemn N Korea for their missle testing. Condemn them all and then pass sanctions against them.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
All 3 should be condemned. It won't happen though. AIPAC and the rest would threaten to cut off all political contributions.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
After thinking of this for a little while, I believe that cooler heads should prevail in considering the policy of the Middle East.

Here's why:

1)Both sides should sit down and discuss this out. Hezbollah and Hamas, although considered terrorists, are fighting for a reason. Their concerns should be heard at least when dealing with their animus against Israel. Israel, although probably through with negotiating, should reconsider their tactics of "shock and awe". Both sides should have a neutral place, supplied by the UN to hash this dispute out.

2)The U.S. and their policy in the Middle East is badly mishandled. They should refrain from instigating warfare and instead call for a ceasefire on both sides. They should not go "half-cocked" on beating the war drums because what they have done has already escalated tensions in that region of war.

3)If the bill passes, the U.S. has capitulated to the whims of the long-standing animus and anger coming from both sides. If they are supposedly playing the "world police", they should display the wisdom at least to consider this fact when dealing with this issue. They should deal with this issue intelligently instead of just using the brutal tactics of warfare to solve every problem.

4)The U.S., as members of the international community, should not put their foot down without dealing with the opinions of other heads of state in this matter. They should work pro-actively with others and not ignore what other nations have to say about this matter. I say, as I've said before, they do not represent the world. And the world, does not represent America.

5)Too much has been given to threats and the escalation of warfare. The U.S. House should have at least the vision to see how their actions might provoke greater warfare in the future. No matter how much they see Israel as an ally, they must try the diplomatic route instead of pushing the Israelis to fight the terrorists and destroying the lives of civilians on both sides. They should have the intelligence to know that Israel, through their tactics, can't win the sympathy vote. Even if they do take out Hamas and Hezbollah, what is going to be put in their place? The civilians, angered by what Israel did to their homes and lives, might be persuaded to hate the Israelis even more.

6)Maybe the ICC has to rule on this matter, knowing there was a violation of #1559. The U.S. is not the judge and jury of every tactic happening in the world. But knowing their important position on the world stage, they should act with caution and tact when dealing with the powder keg that is happening in the Middle East. The infractions occurred by the taking of the soldiers happened on foreign soil and should be dealt with by a world body.



[edit on 19-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
ceci2006

If our administration really had a care about the inocent caught in the middle and their reasoning was as good as you are with that last post we will not be in the mess we are now.

But the truth is that is not peace in the middle east, and that is how some interest wants . . . they want to keep the region the way it is so more wars can be generated from it.

Too bad that the middle east people have to come to this type of world rule.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
What does it matter if the US house 'condems' hezbollah?

There's war on the ground, the political bickering is meaningless. Let the politicians entertain themselves with this topic as long as it suits them.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Well, the House and Senate both passed resolutions regarding their "condemnation" of Hezbollah and Hamas. It was to make a statement how they positioned themselves in terms of the conflict between Israel and her enemies.

Personally, Mr. Bush should have said more. But, I suppose what he told Mr. Blair the other day is the only thing he was truly going to say.

The U.S. did not call for a cease fire.

The EU called for one. The Vatican called for one. Even the PM of Lebanon called for one.

Israel does not want a cease fire.

What the U.N. will do is rather questionable.

I agree with Marg on this one. The politicians who have tried to talk with sense about this matter have been quieted down in lieu of those who don't want the hostilities to stop. War mongers run the policy in the Middle East now.


[edit on 20-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
What does it matter if the US house 'condems' hezbollah?

There's war on the ground, the political bickering is meaningless. Let the politicians entertain themselves with this topic as long as it suits them.


I couldnt agree more Nygdan.

Politicians can pass motions and condemn whoever they like but it means precisely F.A. unless they back it up with actions.

Being involved with a political party here is Australia, I see it happen all to often that people pass motions condemning/supporting this or that. They spend so much time working out if they do / do not support something that they miss the opportuniy to actually do something about it!

I agree wholeheartedly - let them entertain themselves and leave us out of it.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
1)Both sides should sit down and discuss this out. Hezbollah and Hamas, although considered terrorists, are fighting for a reason. Their concerns should be heard at least when dealing with their animus against Israel. Israel, although probably through with negotiating, should reconsider their tactics of "shock and awe". Both sides should have a neutral place, supplied by the UN to hash this dispute out.



Hezbollah and Hamas want the destruction of Israel. What is Israel supposed to want in return? Not destruction?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I say condem all three, I was taught to treat people how you want to be treated, and from the press they are getting I would say they want others to treat them how they treat others. Its only far



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
to be perfectly honest, what good would it do?

We claerly support israel, we don't need an official announcement.

It would only be in the form of moral support for Israel.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The passing of the resolution wasnt intended to "do" anything but show to the world OFFICIALLY that we are behind Israel. Not that anyone doubted that anyway...it was just more of an "in your face" move. It passed 410-8. Looks like the Dems and Repubs founf something they could agree on.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Crakeur


Hezbollah and Hamas want the destruction of Israel. What is Israel supposed to want in return? Not destruction?


I am not advocating one side or another. People who commit acts of terrorism on foreign soil, should be prosecuted for war crimes and tried in the Hague. However, for groups who possess a platform and political power within a country should be allowed to negotiate peacefully to stop the fighting. In that way, they should have their concerns heard. Like it or not, both of these groups have political power in terms of seats and a following of civilians to prove it.

As for their stances, here is some more information on Hezbollah and Hamas by virtue of Wikipedia:


Hezbollah
Hezbollah or Hizbollah/Hizbullah or Hezb'Allah[1] (A‎rabic, meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Shia Islamic group and political party, with a military arm and a civilian arm, founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Defense Forces who occupied southern Lebanon until the year 2000. [2] Its leader is Hassan Nasrallah.
[...]
Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.[1] [2] and is a recognized political party in Lebanon, where it has participated in government.[12] The civilian wing participates in the Parliament of Lebanon, taking 18% of the seats (23 out of 128) and the bloc it forms with others, the "Resistance and Development Bloc", 27.3% (see Lebanese general election, 2005). It is a minority partner in the current Cabinet. The civilian wing also runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its Reconstruction Campaign (Jihad al-Bina) is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructural development projects in Lebanon.[13]



Hamas

Hamas (Arabic: Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist organization that currently forms the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union,[1] Israel, and the United States,[2] and is banned in Jordan,[3] while others consider it to be an independence movement.
[...]
Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election and is now the majority party of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its vehemently anti-Israeli rhetoric has found a receptive audience amongst Palestinians, some of whom perceived the preceding Fatah government as corrupt and ineffective. Hamas has also established an extensive network of welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, further adding to its popularity. Since Hamas took control, the Palestinian territories have experienced a period of sharp internal conflicts, known as Fauda, in which many Palestinians were killed in internecine fighting.[2]


If you ignore them or try to disband these groups, the problem only grows bigger because there will be others inspired to take their place and form even more dangerous groups of their own if the conflict continues in the fashion it is going now.





[edit on 21-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
No we shouldn't condemn anybody. The US foreign policy SUCKS especially in the Middle East. As the superpower of the world, people look to the US to solve the problems (such as how Lebanon does to Bush), but it falls on deaf ears.

We cannot just support one and let the other down because that ENRAGES people, thus causing HATRED for the US around the world (like we thought it couldn't get any worse). It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it is bad foreign policy. Conflict mediation. Damn our government needs a class in that. What morons.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   
RetinoidReceptor,

Maybe your post is the way to think about this situation. The U.S. is considered with influence in the international community by virtue of the fact that it is a superpower. America should tell both sides to stop and negotiate instead of taking a side in the first place. But they won't take a neutral stand in this matter. It will hurt them in the long run.


[edit on 21-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Condeming Hamas is truly ironic in that they were elected DEMOCRATICALLY, and that's what the big push in the ME by the US State Dept is all about, bringing democracy to the Arab street.

So what does Condi have to say about it?


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was consulting with leaders and foreign ministers in the region and plans to meet with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan today. On Friday, she is expected to meet with a U.N. team that just returned from the region.

"She'll integrate what she hears into her thinking about the diplomatic way forward," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday.

So far, however, the White House's decision not to step in to halt the escalating battle between Israel and Hezbollah is a sharp departure from six decades of U.S.-Middle East diplomacy.

source



Or better yet, Karen Hughes. Seems to me this is her baby.

Letting Congress pass a resolution is one easy way out, let them do the dirty work this time?



[edit on 21-7-2006 by psyopswatcher]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
That is why "bringing democracy" to other nations is a rather arrogant stance by the U.S. government.

If they can't define the nature of "democracy" objectively what business of it of theirs to push it on other nations?

Let alone "condemn" one side opposed to another.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I agree with the poster above. Condemn them for starting this war, Condemn Syria and Iran for funding and arming Hezbollah and condemn N Korea for their missle testing. Condemn them all and then pass sanctions against them.


The Israeli soldiers were captured inside Lebanon therefore I think it was the Israelis who started the war, and as for killing civillians mostly women and children in a pathetic excuse for trying to get the bogey man terrorists is just wrong. Plus Hezbollah has not got the capability in terms of the range of its missiles to reach Haifa. Don't even bother saying "It's war, people die" because I've heard it all before. If you believe in this racist war then why don't you get up and die for an unjust cause? Plus Israel is clearly acting illegaly here, why can they suddenly get away with not adhereing to the terms of war? It makes my blood boil


[edit on 21-7-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Ceci, I edited my last post (while you were posting) to add a quote and link to this article from yesterday's ContraCosta Times:


U.S. shifts focus on Mideast policy

White House's decision to stay out of Hezbollah, Israel conflict a departure from six decades of U.S.-Middle East diplomacy






top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join