(Original post by thisisnew)
What are you talking about "my opinion"? I'm echoing the opinions of distinguished experts on law and lawyers. Believe it or not the legal matters in this conflict are incredibly complex. It's laughable for someone to claim that UN 'evidence' is "conclusive". Are you aware that it was your coveted and infallible UN with their conclusive evidence that established ISAF?
And as I have already stated the UN has no actual power. Any notion indicating that they have some sort of universal jurisdiction is nothing but conceptual and completely ridiculous. A country is well within their right to ignore a UN resolution if it compromises their security and national interests for example the resolution regarding the "apartheid wall" which has proven to have reduced terrorism by an incredible amount. What if the resolution had have blocked this wall?
The Americans vetoed whilst suggesting "an alternate draft that would have called on all parties in the Middle East struggle to dismantle terrorist groups. " This would have been fairer because it involved everyone and not the ignorant and unilateral condemnation of one party in the conflict.
The fact that a conflict which pales in comparison to recent ones receives such an extremely disproportionate amount of resolutions
is enough to deduct that the UN has political motivations. If it didn't then where are the resolutions against China? Why hasn't it done anything about China ignoring Iran sanctions? Why so comparatively few resolutions against Burma and NK? Why do countries with shocking human rights records receive little to no attention in comparison? If the UN made resolutions purely in the name of justice supported by "conclusive evidence" then why isn't there an equal/greater number of resolutions against Iran, China, Sudan, Burma, West Papua, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Zimbabwe? I hope you're not going to sit their with a straight face and tell me that these countries are deserving of the relatively few resolutions/zero they are faced with.
There's clear evidence of bias coming from the UN. How about the Arab League & allies usually being included by the security council and not Israel, which subsequently condemns the Jewish state? Didn't see that coming.
And here's an in depth look at UN/Israeli relations: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...israel_un.html
And lastly I can accept that Israel has done some terrible things. What I can't accept is holocaust denying morons who believe that Israel is a Nazi, genocidal and apartheid state which massacres thousands daily whilst violating every possible international law. The bottom line is that the Arab-Israeli & in particular the Palestine-Israeli conflict is incredibly conflict both morally and legally, with no real precedent to judge it by. If you bothered to research the conflict impartially instead of pandering to propaganda and placing emotion above fact
then you'd see how ridiculous, unfair and detrimental the attention directed towards Israel actually is.
And I mean it this time I can't be bothered discussing this with you so don't expect a reply.