Big bike forced off road by car on Bangkok highway - video

[geriatrickid]

13 hours ago, BuaBS said:

What a surprise !

That someone stood up against the double standard? On the same day that the UN was taking this vote, more  muslims were died in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan than have died  during the Gazan attacks on Israel. The UN isn't condemning Iran for its support of the group who blew up a school in Yemen this month is it? How about the group who attacked the  kids in Afghanistan last week?

[bristolboy]

Well before there was such a thing as Hamas the israelis did their best to undermine the Gaza economy in the wake of the 67 war:

 

"Gaza's agricultural sector was adversely affected as one-third of the Strip was appropriated by Israel, competition for scarce water resources stiffened, and the lucrative cultivation of citrus declined with the advent of Israeli policies, such as prohibitions on planting new trees and taxation that gave breaks to Israeli producers, factors which militated against growth. Gaza's direct exports of these products to Western markets, as opposed to Arab markets, was prohibited except through Israeli marketing vehicles, in order to assist Israeli citrus exports to the same markets. The overall result was that large numbers of farmers were forced out of the agricultural sector. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#1967_Israeli_occupation

Because of Fair Use rules I could quote no more. But it does go on to say that a quota was imposed by Israel on all good coming from Gaza into Israel, whilst allowing unlimited Israeli exports into Gaza. These are only a few of the many policies designed by Israel to deliberately impoverish the Palestinians. So it's not surprising that that a badly mistreated people makes choices out of anger and vengefulness that are unwise.. But for the Israelis, this isn't a bug, it's a feature.

 

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[bristolboy]

And there's this, from Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times:

"I’d inherited, without really thinking about it, a set of default liberal Zionist beliefs about Israel as the good guy in its confrontation with the Palestinians, whose hostility I understood to be atavistic and irrational. This view collapsed the first time I walked down Shuhada Street in Hebron, in a part of the city where more than 30,000 Palestinians live under Israeli military control for the benefit of 1,000 or so Israeli settlers. Palestinians whose homes are on Shuhada Street aren’t allowed to walk out their own front doors, because the street, constantly patrolled by Israeli troops, is reserved for Jews."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/opinion/intellectual-dark-web-red-pilled.html

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Non member states can be indicted too

I didn't state otherwise. My previous statement recounted Palestine Authority's criminal referral to the ICC against Israel who is not a member state.

I simply stated that not being a member state in ICC, Israel cannot, because it has no legal standing, make a referral to ICC to investigate crimes by Palestine. Nor can the US as it too is not a member state in ICC.

[notmyself]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I believe both sides do want "peace". Just that each got a different idea of what this stands for. Add to this that views on either sides are not uniform, and you get an even more complex situation.

 

People believe all manner of things but in the interest of community cohesion let's say you are correct in that both sides desire peace.... That does not change 'Say that about Palestinians and nada but say it about Israel and it's veto city. '

[Morch]

Much as some posters would like it to be, the topic ain't about the ICC. And even if it was, the issues previously raised (and, unsurprisingly, remained unanswered) stand. There is an illusion, among some, that this somehow bypasses all other venues and that it, if successful, would imply something meaningful for the Palestinian cause. Not much by way of explaining what will be achieved or how.

 

The OP is about the vetoed UNSC resolution. That posters imagine there's an effective way to "bypass" it, is nonsense.

 

Similarly posting opinion columns or linking to semi-relevant Wikipedia pages does not actually deal with the OP.

 

Posters may want to consider that  there's some history of international monitoring presence relevant to the Gaza Strip. In fact, the EU monitoring mission is still funded (and been so for a decade, about 1-2 million Euros annually), and monitors keep their offices in Israel. 

 

Even if this resolution would have been somehow accepted, it is very doubtful that it would have amounted to UN troops (actually, troops of member countries) being deployed without Israel's agreement. Such is life.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

People believe all manner of things but in the interest of community cohesion let's say you are correct in that both sides desire peace.... That does not change 'Say that about Palestinians and nada but say it about Israel and it's veto city. '

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well before there was such a thing as Hamas the israelis did their best to undermine the Gaza economy in the wake of the 67 war:

 

"Gaza's agricultural sector was adversely affected as one-third of the Strip was appropriated by Israel, competition for scarce water resources stiffened, and the lucrative cultivation of citrus declined with the advent of Israeli policies, such as prohibitions on planting new trees and taxation that gave breaks to Israeli producers, factors which militated against growth. Gaza's direct exports of these products to Western markets, as opposed to Arab markets, was prohibited except through Israeli marketing vehicles, in order to assist Israeli citrus exports to the same markets. The overall result was that large numbers of farmers were forced out of the agricultural sector. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#1967_Israeli_occupation

Because of Fair Use rules I could quote no more. But it does go on to say that a quota was imposed by Israel on all good coming from Gaza into Israel, whilst allowing unlimited Israeli exports into Gaza. These are only a few of the many policies designed by Israel to deliberately impoverish the Palestinians. So it's not surprising that that a badly mistreated people makes choices out of anger and vengefulness that are unwise.. But for the Israelis, this isn't a bug, it's a feature.

 

 

 

 

Great quoting skills, the sentence starting the paragraph you chose is

 

Quote

The economic growth rate from 1967 to 1982 averaged roughly 9.7 percent per annum, due in good part to expanded income from work opportunities inside Israel, which had a major utility for the latter by supplying the country with a large reserve of unskilled and semi-skilled manpower.

 

Guess you just dropped it by mistake.

 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Great quoting skills, the sentence starting the paragraph you chose is

 

 

Guess you just dropped it by mistake.

 

I was hoping you would do that, In fact I was counting on it. And where did many of those unskilled laborers come from? Farmers who lost their livelihood because of the Israelis and instead of being independent now depended on the Israeli economy for their livelihood. Great source of cheap labor for Israel, too.

We don't know how Gaza might have prospered had Israel let the Gazan economy function without hindrance and without imposing a predatory kind of mercantilism upon it. It also doesn't say how much of the growth in Gaza was due to subsidized Israel settlements there. So saying that Gaza grew by 9.7 percent without reference to either what might have been had the Gazans been treated with economic justice or how much less it might have grown without subsidies to Israeli settlers is meaningless. 

But we do know for a fact is that Israel imposed economic policies designed to hobble the local Gazan economy and its development. 

 

And your take on the facts about the economic warfare that Israel waged on Gaza?That seems to have gone missing. Convenient omission. 

 

[notmyself]

13 minutes ago, dexterm said:

USA and Israel said original UN resolution was biased, so vetoed. 

 

A one off perhaps.

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

 

[observer90210]

One must admit that US Ambassador, Nicky something is really a hottie !.Not really pretty, but she has something that hardens things up !! ......She should present the resolutions in a skinny clad bikini....no one will then bother on what resolution she would be attempting to pass on.

 

I wonder if the Donald has boom-boomed her is yet ? ?

Edited June 2, 2018 by observer90210

[notmyself]

It's interesting to note that to a large extent the Jewish community in the U.S. do not agree with the actions of Israel and the U.S. government. The vast majority of the U.S. support comes from the Evangelical community which is a very powerful bloc.

[KevinCorr]

Israel is a military outpost of the US Empire. An American base essentially.

[sirineou]

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

As Israel is not a member state in ICC, wouldn't it lack standing to bring a complaint to ICC?

"I said: "Israel should have no problem having the case taken to ICC"   it does not need to take it it's self.

[sirineou]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What are you on about?

 

The poster claimed there were war crimes committed. I stated it is not a fact.

 

The "reasoning" of your post doesn't follow, it's just a lame attempt at baiting.

 

Notice that this topic isn't even about the ICC - that was a bogus angle raised by the poster replied to.

I am afraid you are confusing opinions and facts.

and though you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts. 

Both parties appear before an impartial body , they present their case and a determination is made of who is wrong and who is right.The UN is not an impartial body, the UN is is a jock and a tool of the five permanent members.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

Indeed. From [: )] to U+1fxxx to the coffee drinking emoji representing actions taken by the UN.

 

This would imply the UN being obligated or expected to "take action". The UN doesn't "take action" or even strongly object to far worse. Don't see a whole lot of posters in arms over that many issues the UN fails to "take action" on.

 

The UN is a politicized body, governed by interests and bloc voting. It is not a world government, and it does not command a world army. Posters seem to be selective with regard to the related issues whined about.

[PhonThong]

19 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Do you really think they wanted to " invade " Israel ?

I think they knew that they would not survive this ... they went there to protest and the response was violent which led to more violence ...

They did not all want to become " martyrs "

Would you still proceed?  Even though you are claiming not to be a martyr? 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

This would imply the UN being obligated or expected to "take action". The UN doesn't "take action" or even strongly object to far worse. Don't see a whole lot of posters in arms over that many issues the UN fails to "take action" on.

The UN taking "action" in general is conceivable but for certain missions most difficult if not impossible.

 

With unanimous consent (abstentions allowed) by the five members of the Permanent Security Council and majority vote by the General Assembly, the UN can appoint a UN Commander to direct and manage armed forces contributed by UN members for armed peacekeeping missions (ie., UN Commander Major General Carlos Alberto Dos Santos Cruz of Brazil in Haiti's elections) and for offensive military actions (ie., UN Commander General Douglas MacArthur in the Korean "Action" ).

 

With regard to activating a UN peacekeeping mission in Palestine, POTUS Trump would obviously veto such a resolution. What might be more conceivable (although unlikely given some members alliance or trade relations with the US) is the Arab League mounting a deterrent military force in Palestine as it did in Lebanon in 1976. I also doubt that Hamas would welcome presence of the Arab League who would likely suppress any Hamas armed hostilities.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

The UN taking "action" in general is conceivable but for certain missions most difficult if not impossible.

 

With unanimous consent (abstentions allowed) by the five members of the Permanent Security Council and majority vote by the General Assembly, the UN can appoint a UN Commander to direct and manage armed forces contributed by UN members for armed peacekeeping missions (ie., UN Commander Major General Carlos Alberto Dos Santos Cruz of Brazil in Haiti's elections) and for offensive military actions (ie., UN Commander General Douglas MacArthur in the Korean "Action" ).

 

With regard to activating a UN peacekeeping mission in Palestine, POTUS Trump would obviously veto such a resolution. What might be more conceivable (although unlikely given some members alliance or trade relations with the US) is the Arab League mounting a deterrent military force in Palestine as it did in Lebanon in 1976. I also doubt that Hamas would welcome presence of the Arab League who would likely suppress any Hamas armed hostilities.

 

As said, I don't see either happening anytime soon, and there is no real reason to expect otherwise. Those doing so simply sow false notions and hopes. With regard to your last bit - I seriously doubt the Arab League would go this way, without Israel's consent. Pretty much like the ICC nonsense, these sort of ideas are illusions. Neither will advance the Palestinian national aspirations.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed. 

[jcsmith]

Veto power at the UN is a joke. It's routinely abused. 

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Veto power at the UN is a joke. It's routinely abused. 

 

And if there wouldn't be a veto power, do you imagine the US, China or Russia simply going along with whatever resolution was on offer? Even those not in line with their interests?

 

The UN is not a world government, and it doesn't have a world army. If it was, and if it did - posters would complain about loss of national sovereignty or something.

 

The veto system may be flawed, and the UN perhaps not living up to the ideals imagined - but it's still a ways better than not having any such global institution in place.

[sirineou]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And if there wouldn't be a veto power, do you imagine the US, China or Russia simply going along with whatever resolution was on offer? Even those not in line with their interests?

 

The UN is not a world government, and it doesn't have a world army. If it was, and if it did - posters would complain about loss of national sovereignty or something.

 

The veto system may be flawed, and the UN perhaps not living up to the ideals imagined - but it's still a ways better than not having any such global institution in place.

I agree but (5555 there's always a but) If it can't address such important issues as the one at hand, then what good is it?? other than a meeting place for diplomats.  By the way there is no such thing as a Veto, there simply needs to be unanimity among the five permanent members. so a vore in disagreement by any permanent member is a de facto veto.  IMO a bankrupted institution designed to maintain the status quo , and an impediment to global progress unless one believes that the status quo is desirable..

IMO  Its elimination would not be a negative thing , it will simply be replaced by a more viable institution or mechanism.

Edited June 3, 2018 by sirineou

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I agree but (5555 there's always a but) If it can't address such important issues as the one at hand, then what good is it?? other than a meeting place for diplomats.  By the way there is no such thing as a Veto, there simply needs to be unanimity among the five permanent members.  IMO a bankrupted institution designed to maintain the status quo , and an impediment to global progress unless one believes that the status quo is desirable..

IMO  Its elimination would not be a negative thing , it will simply be replaced by a more viable institution or mechanism.

 

I think we can also agree that votes in the UN (or the UNSC etc) often exhibit bloc voting or countries voting according to other interests other than the matter at hand. If so - then a veto power may also serve to block resolutions which may be dangerous, irresponsible or impractical. In other words, it acts as a balancing tool, and it helps preventing stronger countries from getting into conflicts among themselves.

 

I've no idea why you think that there is no such thing as a veto - there doesn't have to be a unanimity of opinion among the five permanent members. Some resolutions are passed despite objections, it's not like the veto power is exercised in each and every instance.

 

You can rile against the "status quo" (whatever that means), but offering to eliminate the current system, without a clear notion of what "more viable institution or mechanism" would replace it is folly. Interestingly enough, this echos quite a bit of Trump's decisions and statements...

[sirineou]

52 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think we can also agree that votes in the UN (or the UNSC etc) often exhibit bloc voting or countries voting according to other interests other than the matter at hand. If so - then a veto power may also serve to block resolutions which may be dangerous, irresponsible or impractical. In other words, it acts as a balancing tool, and it helps preventing stronger countries from getting into conflicts among themselves.

 

I've no idea why you think that there is no such thing as a veto - there doesn't have to be a unanimity of opinion among the five permanent members. Some resolutions are passed despite objections, it's not like the veto power is exercised in each and every instance.

 

You can rile against the "status quo" (whatever that means), but offering to eliminate the current system, without a clear notion of what "more viable institution or mechanism" would replace it is folly. Interestingly enough, this echos quite a bit of Trump's decisions and statements...

 The word "veto" is nowhere to be found in the U.N. Charter. the charter requires "  a rule known as "great power unanimity."" So, if permanent members China, Russia, France, Great Britain, and the United States aren't unanimous in supporting a resolution, the measure dies.

There is a seldom used measure to get around the de facto veto  that if a case can be made that the issue threatens global peace the issue can be taken up by the General Assembly  

The Status Quo I refer to is the preservation of the current power structure. 

If the UN did not exist I am sure another structure  would be created to help countries deal with each other. Now it is possible that what comes next would be worst , though I fail to see how.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 The word "veto" is nowhere to be found in the U.N. Charter. the charter requires "  a rule known as "great power unanimity."" So, if permanent members China, Russia, France, Great Britain, and the United States aren't unanimous in supporting a resolution, the measure dies.

There is a seldom used measure to get around the de facto veto  that if a case can be made that the issue threatens global peace the issue can be taken up by the General Assembly  

The Status Quo I refer to is the preservation of the current power structure. 

If the UN did not exist I am sure another structure  would be created to help countries deal with each other. Now it is possible that what comes next would be worst , though I fail to see how.

 

Countries may abstain or be absent from a vote, and it would still pass. Whatever. Most times members would try to avoid going there, by engaging in political maneuvers resulting in resolutions being withdrawn or "killed" due to not enough support anyway.

 

Once again, no clear explanation of what the "status quo" is. The "current power structure" is just another label. And while you may be "sure" another structure would have existed or will emerge, that doesn't make it so. It is quite possible to imagine chaos, or countries grouping along blocs, or an even more restrictive system replacing the existing one. Imagining how things could get worse is easy. Coming up with viable alternatives is much harder. Which is why most people stick to "I'm sure" and "it couldn't get worse" etc.

 

There is no particular reason to imagine that countries, especially stronger ones, would willingly adopt and support a system which ignores their advantage. Looking at relevant world leaders its hard to imagine what this hope is based upon.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Countries may abstain or be absent from a vote, and it would still pass. Whatever. Most times members would try to avoid going there, by engaging in political maneuvers resulting in resolutions being withdrawn or "killed" due to not enough support anyway.

 

Once again, no clear explanation of what the "status quo" is. The "current power structure" is just another label. And while you may be "sure" another structure would have existed or will emerge, that doesn't make it so. It is quite possible to imagine chaos, or countries grouping along blocs, or an even more restrictive system replacing the existing one. Imagining how things could get worse is easy. Coming up with viable alternatives is much harder. Which is why most people stick to "I'm sure" and "it couldn't get worse" etc.

 

There is no particular reason to imagine that countries, especially stronger ones, would willingly adopt and support a system which ignores their advantage. Looking at relevant world leaders its hard to imagine what this hope is based upon.

Sure , there are dangers to leaving the safety of your bed, but the are also great rewards.

I don't know how more plain I can be, I hope we all know what "Status Quo means , or know what the ":current power structure " is.If not then we are trying to discuss the number 12 without being familiar with the numbers  1 0r 2.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Sure , there are dangers to leaving the safety of your bed, but the are also great rewards.

I don't know how more plain I can be, I hope we all know what "Status Quo means , or know what the ":current power structure " is.If not then we are trying to discuss the number 12 without being familiar with the numbers  1 0r 2.

 

As posted on another topic, it becomes obvious that the current accepted mode of discussion leans to the populist. If you wish to over-simply things to the "leaving the safety of your bed" level, go right ahead. Still not a single word about what them supposed "great rewards" are.

 

You can't be plain when discussing what "status quo" means. Or what the "current power structure" means. You assume that they have some objective, generally accepted meaning. In effect - these are labels, often applied to various aspects of economic, social and political issues (shortlisting here). The nonsense 12 vs 1,2 thing is just a nothing argument.

 

When Trump supporters talk about "status quo", they mean one thing (well, not true - even then it can have various meaning). When third world (or small) countries go about "status quo" it can carry other meanings. Rock (I use this in a loose sense) fans might have another thing in mind.

 

A whole lot of people want change. What they want changed may vary. How they want "it" to change is often unclear. Many a times, what they rile against and what they want changed aren't even factual or real issues. And this relates directly to the first line - regarding the present prevalence of populist "discourse"