United Nations condemns excessive Israeli force against Palestinians

[ChidlomDweller]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your previous posts do not exactly inspire confidence that your take is indeed informed. I have said nothing about commenters being foreigners or not, that's just something you tossed in. My post addressed the way you presented things - first claiming the issue to be complex, then offering a simplistic take.

Whatever, it's not about me qualifying myself to you.  I've been a news junkie since my teenage years, but that's not even necessary.  This has been a news item for many decades now.  Anyone who observes the news knows the big picture here.  Your argument strikes me as a deflection.  

[nobodysfriend]

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That you assert they are "just provocations" doesn't make it a fact. In the context of the current mass protests - would a mass breaching of the border fence and the assured ensuing mayhem be considered "just a provocation" as well?

 

I'm not claiming Israel's response was "clever", or that it didn't play into Hamas's hands. My point is that sometimes there are no great options.

 

As for your last bit of nonsense - are you for real? Sudan, Syria, Myanmar, and Tibet "cannot be compared" to this one? Pray tell why. 

 " As for your last bit of nonsense " ... Here you show who you really are ! Use your brain , the answer is obvious .

 

[nobodysfriend]

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

I'm not claiming Israel's response was "clever", or that it didn't play into Hamas's hands. My point is that sometimes there are no great options.

Wait a minute --- Are you really saying that Israel had no other option but to kill more than 120 people on the border , medics , kids and old people ... no other option ...?

If that is a joke , it is a very bad one , but I think you really mean it , right ?

Enough , I will not waste my time anymore with you ... welcome to my ignore list .

[Morch]

A couple of observations:

 

The resolution did pass, and with a formidable majority. Many abstentions, though - and quite a bit of the so called "civilized world" (such as Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea, and the UK). The vote was preceded by a US attempt to modify the resolution, so that it will include a few lines condemning the Hamas as well.

 

This seems to be a relatively new policy development by the US, a sort of an extension of the Negroponte Doctrine. In essence, it pushes for a clearer mention and condemnation of Palestinian parties, rather than a generalized non-specific mention often used.

 

The Us motion to include such a phrase passed through three sets of General Assembly votes. Two won a majority, and the last one failed by a narrow margin. The first vote was an objection (raised by the resolution's sponsor) to the very point of holding a vote on the altered text, and the second was on adopting the changes. These two passed - so claiming the world view is this or that, might not be all that some make it to be.

 

Considering that this is a relatively new policy, and that Israel's condemnation was almost a foregone conclusion, I don't know that the US sees the results as that bad. In terms of mustering support for specific condemnation of Hamas, that's, as far as I recall, a first, in terms of votes. Maybe not a bad result as far as Haley is concerned,  odds being what they are.

 

The voting results were as follows:

- Rejecting motion to vote on amended text - 78 against, 59 in favor, 26 abstentions.

- Accepting suggested US suggested changes -  62 in favor, 58 against, 42 abstentions.

- Incorporating changes w/o a two-third majority -  73 against, 66 in favor, 26 abstentions.

- Resolution vote -120 in favor,  8 against, 45 abstentions

 

As expected, one of the most vocal voices in favor of the resolution was that of the Palestinian Ambassador. And to make things clearer, the post is manned by a PA official. One of the arguments cited objecting to naming the Hamas in the resolution text was that it might damage the prospects of Palestinian reconciliation.

 

Kinda funny when one considers that on the domestic and regional front, the PA was (and still is) one of the main agitators for increasing diplomatic and economic pressure on the Hamas (at the Gaza Strip's population expense). This would be the same PA which claimed protests are encouraged and funded by Iran. And the same PA trying to ban and disperses demonstration supporting the protests or objecting to its policies on this.

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Whatever, it's not about me qualifying myself to you.  I've been a news junkie since my teenage years, but that's not even necessary.  This has been a news item for many decades now.  Anyone who observes the news knows the big picture here.  Your argument strikes me as a deflection.  

 

That would be yet another post which doesn't address any points raised.

 

There were two issues discussed - one is how much one can rely on echo chambers to gauge general views, the other dealing with an inconsistent presentation included in your own post. You haven't addressed either in any meaningful way, yet announce "deflection".

 

Deflecting would be bringing up all sorts of claims that weren't claimed, or going about posting general statements without much foundation.

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

 " As for your last bit of nonsense " ... Here you show who you really are ! Use your brain , the answer is obvious .

 

 

Do tell. How are various crises mentioned not comparable?

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Wait a minute --- Are you really saying that Israel had no other option but to kill more than 120 people on the border , medics , kids and old people ... no other option ...?

If that is a joke , it is a very bad one , but I think you really mean it , right ?

Enough , I will not waste my time anymore with you ... welcome to my ignore list .

 

Spins aside, I haven't said that.

The issue I did raise was that there aren't always good answers, options and solutions. Yet to see some substantial comments from posters on this - as in offering realistic alternatives.

 

Here are a couple of considerations to mull:

- It wasn't demonstrated that using non-lethal means would have been effective.

- If a mass breach would have occurred, casualty figures would have been way higher.

 

Trying to portray all protesters as innocent ("...medics, kids and old people...") is lame. Even Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't make these sort of claims, though.

 

And that would be the second or third time you welcome me to your ignore list. While at the same time following my posts...

[ChidlomDweller]

51 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would be yet another post which doesn't address any points raised.

 

There were two issues discussed - one is how much one can rely on echo chambers to gauge general views, the other dealing with an inconsistent presentation included in your own post. You haven't addressed either in any meaningful way, yet announce "deflection".

 

Deflecting would be bringing up all sorts of claims that weren't claimed, or going about posting general statements without much foundation.

Pray remind me of your point.  Is it that, yes, you can be for ethnic cleansing, theft of land and property, penning an entire population in reservations with all traffic in and out controlled, AND claim the high moral ground?

[MisterTee]

17 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Pray remind me of your point.  Is it that, yes, you can be for ethnic cleansing, theft of land and property, penning an entire population in reservations with all traffic in and out controlled, AND claim the high moral ground?

Bravo!

You nailed it.

[dexterm]

If 124 unarmed civilians had been killed, including 15 children, 2 clearly identifiable journalists and 2 medics in uniform, and over 13,000 injured some crippled for life in an attempted border crossing anywhere else but on Israel's unilaterally declared fence, there would have been a justifiable furore possibly even from America's UN rep. Maybe even a few cruise missiles lobbed as when Trump recently expressed pangs of conscience when children had been killed nearby.

 

But because it's Israel there's a concerted effort to sweep the matter under the carpet, blame the victims with Haley claiming Israel was acting in self defense and it was all Hamas's fault for firing rockets with the muddied timeline of two full weeks before a single retaliatory rocket was fired back after Israel had done the bulk of its killing on 14th May. Note the OP resolution specifies rockets not burning kites (nor Israel's F35s).

 

No answers yet (if ever) from Israel as to how these heinous crimes could have happened when the highly trained Israeli snipers with scopes could supposedly account for every bullet fired. Approaching 14,000 dead and injured supposedly armed and attacking the IDF and yet only one soldier slightly bruised. Haley's assertion simply doesn't hold water.

 

The global community is not dumb and it can see who pulled the triggers. Just another chapter in Israel's collective punishment of 2 million people in the Gaza ghetto, whose only crime is they want to return to their homeland and that 44% of the population voted for Hamas 12 years ago. 

Hence the UN vote 120-8 with 45 abstentions many possibly aware of repercussions that USA threatened for those that dont toe the line.

 

Politicians come and go, the truth will out, and one day they and all Israeli apologists will find themselves on the wrong side of history. 

 

The murders will continue (possibly as early as after Friday prayers tomorrow) until the international community has the guts to apply the international laws and UN resolutions it votes for to offer some protection for Palestinian refugees.

[thaiguzzi]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

If 124 unarmed civilians had been killed, including 15 children, 2 clearly identifiable journalists and 2 medics in uniform, and over 13,000 injured some crippled for life in an attempted border crossing anywhere else but on Israel's unilaterally declared fence, there would have been a justifiable furore possibly even from America's UN rep. Maybe even a few cruise missiles lobbed as when Trump recently expressed pangs of conscience when children had been killed nearby.

 

But because it's Israel there's a concerted effort to sweep the matter under the carpet, blame the victims with Haley claiming Israel was acting in self defense and it was all Hamas's fault for firing rockets with the muddied timeline of two full weeks before a single retaliatory rocket was fired back after Israel had done the bulk of its killing on 14th May. Note the OP resolution specifies rockets not burning kites (nor Israel's F35s).

 

No answers yet (if ever) from Israel as to how these heinous crimes could have happened when the highly trained Israeli snipers with scopes could supposedly account for every bullet fired. Approaching 14,000 dead and injured supposedly armed and attacking the IDF and yet only one soldier slightly bruised. Haley's assertion simply doesn't hold water.

 

The global community is not dumb and it can see who pulled the triggers. Just another chapter in Israel's collective punishment of 2 million people in the Gaza ghetto, whose only crime is they want to return to their homeland and that 44% of the population voted for Hamas 12 years ago. 

Hence the UN vote 120-8 with 45 abstentions many possibly aware of repercussions that USA threatened for those that dont toe the line.

 

Politicians come and go, the truth will out, and one day they and all Israeli apologists will find themselves on the wrong side of history. 

 

The murders will continue (possibly as early as after Friday prayers tomorrow) until the international community has the guts to apply the international laws and UN resolutions it votes for to offer some protection for Palestinian refugees.

Absolute excellent post. Well written sir.

[crankshaft]

Israel as a country is allowed to protect it's boarders. Job well done Israel!...

[ivor bigun]

If children have been killed by Israael.what in Gods name were they doing demonstrating at the borders their parents are to blame for their deaths for taking them there.
I feel sorry for The Israaely people constantly being attacked

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[duanebigsby]

16 hours ago, ezzra said:

The UN has lost it's moral legitimacy long time ago by being bias, hypocrite and under pressure from the arab/muslim members, the UN can go on condemning Israel as much as they like, the bottom line is that Israel is fighting for its survival and existence in a sea of hostile terrorists and misguided Palestinians,

as long as the Palestinian are being led by a brutal and murderous leadership, and be sent to be a sniper's fodder, they will continue to suffer and the UN will continue to condemn Israel...

Israel has been "fighting for its survival" by attacking, conquering, and settling its neighbours' territory for decades.

Both sides are at fault but the world lines up with one or the other.

There will never be peace until there is a Palestine country and a free and open for all Jerusalem.

[Morch]

 

@ChidlomDweller

 

The two issues raised were mentioned in the post you replied to, and on previous posts. They had nothing to do with your nonsense assertions regarding my supposed "point". I have never posted anything such as you alleged. Not being able to deal with criticism is not reason enough to put words in my mouth.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, MisterTee said:

Bravo!

You nailed it.

 

That's quite an apt avatar and handle.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

There was actually a majority (62 in favor, 58 against, 42 abstentions) for including the changes referencing Hamas, suggested by the US. It wasn't incorporated into the resolution proposal for administrative and political reasons. Not because there was a unanimous agreement with the one-sided presentation you push.

 

Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, Palestinian violence is not limited to launching rockets. Your narrative about a muddied timeline is intentionally misleading, and was debunked on previous topics. There were, in fact, numerous Palestinian attacks from the Gaza Strip in the time leading to the protests and while they were going on. That you ignore these doesn't change facts. All the more bizarre seeing as neither Hamas nor Islamic Jihad does. Not holding water would be an apt description of your "account".

 

As usual, the "questions" you raised are directed only at Israel. Nothing new there considering you will not discuss anything bearing negatively on the Palestinian side. But for those not completely blinkered - the Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, the Hamas was in control of the protests, the Hamas kept egging people on regardless of casualties. Are these acceptable actions from a regime supposedly entrusted with its people's well being? Acknowledging this  doesn't get Israel off the hook, but it does inject a wee bit of realism into the "discussion".

 

And you can spin the just-want-to-return-to-their-homeland yarn all you like - still wouldn't change facts. The facts being that they do not actually even have the right of return without it being a peaceful and agreed one. There's no right of return for hostiles, other than in your posts. Similarly, wholesale denial of Hamas's role is simply nonsensical -  good for rants and tirades, perhaps, but not much else. Coming to this conclusion doesn't even require embracing Israel's point of view - it's what all involved parties, and that "civilized world" you go on about, assert.

 

[Saladin]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Your tally Conveniently leaving out 45 abstentions (many by countries hailing from what you often label the "civilized world").

The abstainers are the gutless wonders that have been cowed by America's stand-over tactics which have now become par for the course under The Don.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Saladin said:

The abstainers are the gutless wonders that have been cowed by America's stand-over tactics which have now become par for the course under The Don.

 

That would be your learned assertion, no doubt. But the fact stands that the other votes, taken prior to the final one, tell a different story. So do comments made by ambassadors prior to the voting. What the vote conveys is that many countries are indeed critical of Israel's handling of the protests - and rightly so. That said, most would have preferred a somewhat more balanced resolution. The UN is about given and take politics, not so much about ideals and perfect solutions.

 

Guess that in some posters minds, the only one applying pressure is the US. The Arab/Muslim bloc would never stoop to such tactics, of course, being righteous and all that.

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.

 

[carmine]

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

European countries' votes were actually split between those supporting of the resolution and those abstaining. I don't know that this is quite what you had in mind when making the assertion. Hard to tell what you were on about in the first part, anyway.

Yet not a mention of the Israeli actions

[carmine]

17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That would be yet another post which doesn't address any points raised.

 

There were two issues discussed - one is how much one can rely on echo chambers to gauge general views, the other dealing with an inconsistent presentation included in your own post. You haven't addressed either in any meaningful way, yet announce "deflection".

 

Deflecting would be bringing up all sorts of claims that weren't claimed, or going about posting general statements without much foundation.

I can't see you have addressed anything regards the actions of Israel which is the threads subject matter.  Just glossing over and talking about surrounding issues rather than the direct subject matter

[carmine]

10 hours ago, crankshaft said:

Israel as a country is allowed to protect it's boarders. Job well done Israel!...

At last you've posted something.  Ofcourse its allowed to protect its borders, thats not in question.

Edited June 15, 2018 by carmine

[carmine]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

There was actually a majority (62 in favor, 58 against, 42 abstentions) for including the changes referencing Hamas, suggested by the US. It wasn't incorporated into the resolution proposal for administrative and political reasons. Not because there was a unanimous agreement with the one-sided presentation you push.

 

Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, Palestinian violence is not limited to launching rockets. Your narrative about a muddied timeline is intentionally misleading, and was debunked on previous topics. There were, in fact, numerous Palestinian attacks from the Gaza Strip in the time leading to the protests and while they were going on. That you ignore these doesn't change facts. All the more bizarre seeing as neither Hamas nor Islamic Jihad does. Not holding water would be an apt description of your "account".

 

As usual, the "questions" you raised are directed only at Israel. Nothing new there considering you will not discuss anything bearing negatively on the Palestinian side. But for those not completely blinkered - the Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, the Hamas was in control of the protests, the Hamas kept egging people on regardless of casualties. Are these acceptable actions from a regime supposedly entrusted with its people's well being? Acknowledging this  doesn't get Israel off the hook, but it does inject a wee bit of realism into the "discussion".

 

And you can spin the just-want-to-return-to-their-homeland yarn all you like - still wouldn't change facts. The facts being that they do not actually even have the right of return without it being a peaceful and agreed one. There's no right of return for hostiles, other than in your posts. Similarly, wholesale denial of Hamas's role is simply nonsensical -  good for rants and tirades, perhaps, but not much else. Coming to this conclusion doesn't even require embracing Israel's point of view - it's what all involved parties, and that "civilized world" you go on about, assert.

 

When are you going to discuss the Israeli actions?!!!!!  As i have already said, that is the subject matter of this thread!!!  Its about universal condemnation.  

 

Why do you think that is?  

 

What is your opinion on the murder by sniper bullet of a female medic or an invalid in a wheelchair, women and children?  Who's foot is the jackboot on now!!!

 

What is your opinion of kids being hit by sniper bullets 400m from the border fence.....hardly endangering their security is it!!!

 

So, this is the subject matter, what are your thoughts?

 

 

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, carmine said:

When are you going to discuss the Israeli actions?!!!!!  As i have already said, that is the subject matter of this thread!!!  Its about universal condemnation.  

 

Why do you think that is?  

 

What is your opinion on the murder by sniper bullet of a female medic or an invalid in a wheelchair, women and children?  Who's foot is the jackboot on now!!!

 

What is your opinion of kids being hit by sniper bullets 400m from the border fence.....hardly endangering their security is it!!!

 

So, this is the subject matter, what are your thoughts?

 

 

Yes, getting really tired of all this 'but but they' all the time.

[dexterm]

This was all predicted (in a Jerusalem Post interview 21 May 2004) 14 years ago by Arnon Sofer the original architect of Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from occupied Gaza, because it would upset the demographics. He was aware that 70% of the Palestinians and their families in Gaza had been ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel, and if either Gaza were annexed or the Palestinians exercised their right of return to their homeland in Israel, it would undermine Israel's artificially manufactured Jewish majority. He advised Sharon to contain Gazans in their toxic cage, but that the pressure at the border would eventually become unbearable.

 

 "We will have to kill and kill and kill, all day, every day.”  He added that “the only thing that concerns me is how to ensure that the boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.”

https://israelpalestinenews.org/kill-and-kill-and-kill/
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/gaza-massacre-price-jewish-state

 

His only sympathy and concern was with the IDF soldiers who would have to do the slaughtering.

 

Things have unfolded exactly as he planned. The only way Israel can be a Jewish State is by killing non Jews who try to return to their homes. Simple as that. And that injustice is what Haley is defending at the UN.

Edited June 15, 2018 by dexterm

[carmine]

19 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Is this the same Europe that saw Hungary erect that  razor wire fence, and Italy abandon those boat  refugees, both violating the UN agreements on refugees?

Is this the same Europe that has Afghan refugees in Greece forced into prostitution? Is this the same Europe that provoked the war in Libya causing the refugee crisis for which it refuses to accept responsibility? I could go on, but really, Europe isn't much of a moral force when it comes to these things.

And America is?  Once it had taken all the Iraqi oil rights,  how many Iraqi civilians had to die....over a million!!  The most aggressive warmongering country in the world that ignores Israeli criminal action without so much as the slightest sign of disapproval.......sounds about par for the course.

 

Oh and for the record, the refugee crisis was the result of a brutal civil war, not caused by europe.  That assertion is totally ridiculous, as if judging the moral backbone of a country on the basis that it has a number of foreign prostitutes, my point being that every country in the world has this.  It bears no relevance whatsoever to the validity of a UN vote.

Edited June 15, 2018 by carmine

[carmine]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, getting really tired of all this 'but but they' all the time.

Yes, been listening to that thug Netanyahu barking on about the same old crap for years.  Obama clearly couldn't stomach him but of course he right up Trump's street isn't he!!  

[geriatrickid]

20 hours ago, stevenl said:

Doesn't make them wrong in this case.

Only because it supports your position.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Only because it supports your position.

No. It means that you can talk about other issues just to deflect, but that does not mean they are wrong (or right) in this case.