Jump to content

United Nations condemns excessive Israeli force against Palestinians


webfact

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, carmine said:

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

Then what is the problem? If the muslims in the Gaza strip, who think it's their god given right to kill all Jews and these muslims are trying to crash your border then the Jewish state has the moral obligation to send them to meet their 72 virgins....

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, crankshaft said:

Tiny minority pfffft....then why isn't hamas reigning in this tiny minority of good natured rabble rousers

Hamas is a terrorist organization.  You appear to be confusing them with the general populous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, carmine said:

Hamas is a terrorist organization.  You appear to be confusing them with the general populous.

Take your head out of the sand and look around....hamas and it's henchmen control gaza. I don't see any kind of rebellion from so called vast peaceful majority of muslims against hamas in Gaza. Just maybe give a thought to how much better life would be for the people in Gaza if they were not in a constant jihad against Israel.  

 

The definition of "insanity"....doing the same thing over and over again expecting shyt to change...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ezzra said:

It should read: Israel has the right to protect its borders AT ANY COST WHATSOEVER.... no more being led to the slaughter, no more persecutions, no more being exiled out of the holy land the land of the jewish people..

Trouble is not a single other country in the world officially recognizes the fence that Israel unilaterally built to prevent the return of 70% of Gaza's population whose families have been ethnically cleansed from Israel. Not even the USA whose ambassador Haley is hypocritically claiming Israel's self defense.

Edited by dexterm
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ezzra said:

It should read: Israel has the right to protect its borders AT ANY COST WHATSOEVER.... no more being led to the slaughter, no more persecutions, no more being exiled out of the holy land the land of the jewish people..

You forgot: as Israel seems fit, without any interference from others.

 

Your attitude is sad.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@carmine

 

In response to your repeated bogus claims - I have addressed Israel's actions, both on this topic and previous ones. You may want to try reading instead of auto-commenting. All the more so as some of the comments on previous topics were in direct response to your own posts.

 

I guess that some posters have a hard time accepting not everyone is inclined to express himself through faux emotional dramatics. So if that's the only sort of response considered "valid", I'll have to disappoint yet again. Do note that I don't go there with regard to actions and positions taken by either side. Can't see how this helps get a better handle on things, or how it matters.

 

And to reiterate, on the off chance that you're actually not paying attention - Israel's actions dealing with the current protests were indeed heavy-handed. I'm positive that some of the cases involved were unwarranted, and could even be classed as war crimes. That this applies to all cases is doubtful.

 

Posters, especially the vehement ones, often pretend to be knowledgeable with regard to international law, war crimes and whatnot. The truth of it is that most aren't, and a whole lot of the notions people got regarding such matters aren't strongly founded when it comes to actual legalities. The legal reality often comes short of what posters claim it to be. Blame this on legalities, claim it ain't fair etc. - no argument, but that's how things are.

 

Generally speaking, shooting civilians not constituting a direct threat is a no no. Relevant questions would be what's considered a threat, and who's considered a civilian. I think that there are no easy answers there, and that the reality pertaining to many present-day conflicts outpaced the legalities, making them less relevant or easier to exploit (the same, by the way, with regard to immigration issues).

 

It might be counter-intuitive for some, but I find that the issues with casualties are more relevant with regard to those injured, rather than those killed. Of those killed, many were Hamas/Islamic Jihad operatives, either directly engaged in violence or inciting/organizing it. Relative to the level of "activity" (violent protests/direct attacks) over time, perhaps to be expected. When it comes to the wounded, though, the figures suggest a different story - IMO, more of a case there, even if these aren't as high value for the deathploitation fans.

 

Yet to see a reasoned response explaining how Israel ought to have handled the protest, in a manner that is both effective (in terms of preventing mass breach) and acceptable. General comments regarding Israel's stance in the conflict, diatribes about the conflict's roots, or formulations of conflict solutions aren't it. None of these are relevant to the the rather concrete question presented. Same goes for assertions about usage of non-lethal means, without support regarding their availability or how effective they are.

 

My view is that there was no "good" way to handle the situation. Too "soft" an approach could have realistically led to a mass breach of the border fence. If anyone imagines such a scenario wouldn't have resulted in even more casualties, they got no business posting on this topics. Could the application of the "hard" approach been better? Quite possibly (again, perhaps more so with regard to injuries, rather than deaths). But then some posters seem to disregard the fact that Israel's main priority is protecting Israel and Israelis, rather than the Palestinians. Running the risk of a mass breach (which would have resulted in more casualties) was probably not a great option either.

 

Whether posters like to acknowledge it or not, there is no way to absolve Hamas of responsibility. It doesn't make Israel blameless. It means that the one-dimensional narratives don't hold. And while some may be loath to accept this, such is life. A leadership entrusted with the well-being of its people does not knowingly encourage them to go in harm way - not when it's obviously futile and self-serving. Quite telling many of the posters adamantly refusing to acknowledge the point, go on about the very same when it comes up in different situation.

 

Finally, your "criticism" would be a tad more credible if you'd bother directing it  toward other posters refusing to discuss anything bearing negatively on the Palestinian side  - that you do not do so gives up the game.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@dexterm

 

Making misleading claims regarding statements and sources is nothing new when it comes to your posts. So no surprises when referencing an article, without directly linking it, and relying on two propaganda outlets to provide an "objective' commentary, painting things in a way "supportive" of your agenda.

 

About as honest as can be expected, I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, carmine said:

What is very revealing on this thread, and whilst i have not read every post, but i have not read a single post from a defender of the Israeli position that has even mentioned the murder of innocent Palestinians!!  Its just glossed over.......you are simply deceiving yourselves.

 

The UN vote went hugely against Israel because they decided not to gloss over it.  Simple as that!

 

What is revealing is that you rush to make a general comment, while not bothering to read the topic. Apparently no issues with posters "supporting" the Palestinians disregarding Hamas complicity. Nothing new there.

 

The UN vote went against Israel, in pretty much the same way votes in the UNGA go. If you think that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with bloc voting or influence games - guess we'll have to disagree.

 

Those applying a wee closer look will note that prior to this vote, there was a majority for including a specific denouncement of Hamas as well. Guess ignoring that would be your way of glossing over things. Same goes for comments by many Western ambassadors on this score.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

Trouble is not a single other country in the world officially recognizes the fence that Israel unilaterally built to prevent the return of 70% of Gaza's population whose families have been ethnically cleansed from Israel. Not even the USA whose ambassador Haley is hypocritically claiming Israel's self defense.

 

Your nonsense is irrelevant. Whether or not countries "officially" recognize Israel's borders doesn't matter in the least. In realty (granted, an alien concept for some) - all parties involved are aware where the border is, and de-facto accept it. The current de-facto border, whether "officially" recognized or not, is pretty much where it would be anyway - the differences, if they exist, are minimal.

 

Some (those not invested in an extreme, one-sided narrative) would say that the border fence is in place to prevent Hamas attacks. Not a valid consideration as far as your agenda goes, but that word again- reality. As pointed out, there is no unconditional right of return, and there is no obligation to allow such.

 

And there's nothing "hypocritical" about claiming self-defense. Unless you wish to imply that the Palestinians have no aggressive intentions - now, that would indeed be "hypocritical", never mind a blatant lie.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...