Morch

I was referring to comments made (or rather, not made) by various UN bodies and officials. Spins aside, there was (cannot be sustained now) silence regarding some of the horrific elements of the Hamas attack, while no shortage of condemnation and strong rhetoric when it comes to Israel's actions.

@thaibeachlovers Oh well...if you heard it on AJ than it must be true. Not that you'd bother providing a link so all could see, of course.

@thaibeachlovers Who are you to say what's enough? Did you have that much issue with such ratios when Hamas insisted on a way higher one when conducting prisoner exchanges in the past? Did you have any issue with Hamas leaders initiating this war knowing full well the consequences? Problems with their calls on Gazans to stay put and face the music? Reservations about referring to Gazan deaths as 'necessary sacrifices for the cause'? As for the population being 'defenseless' - how about urging Hamas to affording them the safety of them tunnels? I think shame on you for being that far gone that you can't address these issues.

Nonsense.

Considering that yesterday you were claiming there are only 'a few' Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip, your take on things seems a bit dodgy.

There was no Israeli attempt, in 1948, to conquer all the land in question. The 1949 lines were not that different from the 1947 partition lines. If you deny and reject the 1947 UN partition plan and vote then you effectively reject the basis for Palestinian nationhood as well. The UN did not 'effectively' help in the manner you imply. Israel does not seem to be invested in taking over the Gaza Strip - that's something you claim.

@thaibeachlovers Coming from someone with an extensive 'ignore' list, thus (supposedly...you obviously cheat) not reading a whole lot of comments, how would you know? Also, since one of your 'trademarks' is announcing you put people on 'ignore' when they counter your nonsense - the comment above must have been tongue in cheek.

No, it is very clear what you are. There aren't many instances where one runs into this anachronistic, convulsed rhetoric about 'Zionists'. This is usually taken up by the Hamas (and other Palestinian terrorist organizations), Iran (and various proxies), North Korea or antisemitic movements/websites. Your nonsense word games are meaningless - the roots of the term are clear, and so is its normal application. Insisting on this is, again, something that can be expected from those on the list above. The Palestinians 'regaining their homeland' essentially implies the destruction of Israel.

Another bit of nonsense which was already done to death on previous topics. Spin it as you may - the popular application and usage are nothing like the kumbaya version. Give it a rest.

Where did you get this 'wants to thin your population' bit? I rather think Israel would be happier is the Hamas would come out in the open. It's Hamas's choice to use the Gazans as human shields, call on them to face Israeli attacks and refer to their deaths as 'necessary sacrifices for the cause'. I get it that your agenda requires that the role of Hamas be minimized, but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with reality - Hamas is a popular movement, not a few cells of terrorists. They are/were the government in the Gaza Strip for over a decade now.

Another deflection from you. My comment wasn't about you 'condemning' Hamas - but with you making a fuss over people placing emoticons reactions to posts where Palestinian casualties are mentioned - and not expressing such faux outrage when the same is applied to posts mentioning Israeli casualties.

Of course, of course. The minute that someone mentions death it adds a certain gravitas. And it automatically makes the post worthy of serious consideration. Then again, don't recall you having issues with such things when Israeli deaths were referenced.

You do realize that the post contained a bit more than that, right? So trying for the spin as if people were laughing (or rather, placing an emoticon) about it specifically would be kinda lame.

As I understand it the 15,000 figure (regardless if one accepts it or not) includes the 6000 children (same comment). Not 'and'. Getting triggered by emoticons....that's bizarre.

Or it might tell you that the UN is disproportionately invested in things Israel.

What is evident is that you either failed to understand the context in which that part of my comment was posted, or worse, that you did get it but decided to go on with the twist attempt anyhow. This was not about my priorities, but on how I see things panning out. All that bucket list you posted is not something that's going to happen in the near future. Sad as it may be, that's reality - not my choice. Not my agenda, even. There won't be some instant peace process, a deus ex machina agreement. As for your bold words, and hot air - you do not actually offer any realistic analysis of what may happen. You just do the mud slinging bit without adding much to the discussion. Lame as he might be, Abbas is currently the go to guy - not because he's anyone's favorite choice, but because the options are limited. As for Palestinian 'not accepting', or 'not allowing' - I don't know what you base that on. He's not popular, but not quite popular uprising material either. Dahlan is despised by many (especially among the wannabe Abbas successors), but he's got good connections in the Gaza Strip, and can talk with Hamas - again, not a good choice as such, but one which comes up every now and then. You can go on with your dire predictions, but expecting that all will be solved just post war is about as unrealistic as it gets. Not with the current leadership on either side. Not with the wounds still fresh.

No, more like you are only sort of informed on things at hand. Funny how you post links without apparently bothering to read them or try to comprehend their meaning. If the investigation was opened in 2021, and we're in 2024 - what was accomplished to date? And given the replacements at the top, and the current situation in the Gaza Strip - what would that imply with regard to the previous investigation? Sort of as in this is how ICC investigations usually go. Takes years. Then there may or may not be a case to prosecute. The a decision on whether to go ahead and prosecute. Then a whole lot of other proceedings presenting the prosecutions and so on. Again, this is not some secret knowledge, kinda like basics in this context.

Oh dear....previous investigations and proceedings by the same office, vs. Israel on similar past cases - don't tell me you didn't get that. If you're still not interested, but prefer to dig in and post about an investigation that is (sort of) ongoing, that's up to you.

If it was an Israeli representative, I'm more than sure the usual suspects here would be up in arms.

You are constantly 'projecting' a whole lot of stuff at posters not seeing things your way. Guess it's totally different when you do it, eh?

I didn't get any paywall message, but just in case you're not trolling: https://news.yahoo.com/us-west-condemn-un-allowing-192928015.html As for the expected cop out....expected.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with previous investigations. Most started with a whole load of accusations, evidence. hot words and whatnot. When the legal smoke clears, there's much less left on the actual list.

Again, you treat 'evidence' as if it's a done deal. It is not. Evidence is brought under legal consideration, debated, challenged and so on. The may submit it to the ICC as supportive evidence for some cases, and it's up to the ICC whether it's accepted and used. You seem to conflate evidence and verdict.

My experience on this forum is that they more often help to confuse, obfuscate and ultimately lead to futile debates about examples that have nothing to do with the actual circumstances discussed. Guess that's right up your alley.

No, the poster I replied to have a history of commenting in the same manner on a whole range of topics. Me, I know my limits. Some things I'm very clued on, some not so much. I tend to post accordingly. Really not the same, Jeff - you better get to know the crowd before commenting on such. As for the ICC investigation you mentioned, this too was already discussed - so to recap, it's still an ongoing investigation, and it does not necessarily relate to current events. Further, it was started by the previous holder of office, which was seen as very biased. The current guy seems more even-handed, if not the man he appointed to directly deal with this (maybe that was intentional). Same advice as directed at the other poster - learn the difference between things that might be and things that are.