Israel releases 39 Palestinian prisoners under hostage deal

[placnx]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

There was not such 'equation', other than in the poster's allegation. You simply repeat it without any foundation.

You don't seem to care much about Israeli kids, guess them being killed, hurt or taken hostage is legit in your eyes.

I think that he was responding to the indiscriminate bombing - no advanced warning - with a tonnage and intensity unknown in this millenium, anyway. Note the high rate of children killed.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, placnx said:

I think that he was responding to the indiscriminate bombing - no advanced warning - with a tonnage and intensity unknown in this millenium, anyway. Note the high rate of children killed.

 

Are you his spokesperson? I don't envy you.

 

And on your are again tossing about nonsense:

 

Indiscriminate bombing? If that was so there would be far more casualties, way more destruction. Note that the casualty figures (controlled by Hamas) are more or less on par with citations of the number of bombs and munitions dropped on the Gaza Strip. That would make a rather odd ratio if one tried to claim 'indiscriminate'. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

As for 'no advanced warning' - wrong again. Civilians were given warning to evacuate weeks ago, and enough time to do so. You may not like it, but it's there.

 

The number of child casualties is provided by the Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is controlled by the Hamas. Trusting these figures is a matter of choice. Notice how most serious media venues keep repeating the source comment? Yeah...that. You could also ask why Hamas chose to attack Israel knowing full well the consequences, why no warning was given to the populace, why no shelter provided, and why Hamas called on the population to stay put and face Israel's attack. You do not seem to care much about all this.

[scottiejohn]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

your are again tossing about nonsense

Why do you keep responding to this provocative idiot?

Maybe if nobody(which it is) stopped feeding it, it might just crawl away into an Hamas tunnel and meet it's deserved fate!

[placnx]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Are you his spokesperson? I don't envy you.

 

And on your are again tossing about nonsense:

 

Indiscriminate bombing? If that was so there would be far more casualties, way more destruction. Note that the casualty figures (controlled by Hamas) are more or less on par with citations of the number of bombs and munitions dropped on the Gaza Strip. That would make a rather odd ratio if one tried to claim 'indiscriminate'. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

As for 'no advanced warning' - wrong again. Civilians were given warning to evacuate weeks ago, and enough time to do so. You may not like it, but it's there.

 

The number of child casualties is provided by the Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is controlled by the Hamas. Trusting these figures is a matter of choice. Notice how most serious media venues keep repeating the source comment? Yeah...that. You could also ask why Hamas chose to attack Israel knowing full well the consequences, why no warning was given to the populace, why no shelter provided, and why Hamas called on the population to stay put and face Israel's attack. You do not seem to care much about all this.

You should know that "advanced warning" is the IAF practice of sending/dropping a small munition on a building to tell people to get out before the big one that levels the building.

 

In previous wars on Gaza, the figures issued by the Gaza Health Ministry correlated with what was determined afterwards by UN et al. The lists of dead persons have names and other identity info, so not just a body count. The actual death toll may not be known for some time since people are buried under the rubble of pancaked buildings.

 

The Palestinians were facing a quandary with the Abraham Accords, of which one objective was to circumvent them in negotiations regarding their fate. The attack on the kibbutzes was the fateful result.

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, placnx said:

You should know that "advanced warning" is the IAF practice of sending/dropping a small munition on a building to tell people to get out before the big one that levels the building.

 

In previous wars on Gaza, the figures issued by the Gaza Health Ministry correlated with what was determined afterwards by UN et al. The lists of dead persons have names and other identity info, so not just a body count. The actual death toll may not be known for some time since people are buried under the rubble of pancaked buildings.

 

The Palestinians were facing a quandary with the Abraham Accords, of which one objective was to circumvent them in negotiations regarding their fate. The attack on the kibbutzes was the fateful result.

You should know that "advanced warning" is the IAF practice of sending/dropping a small munition on a building to tell people to get out before the big one that levels the building.

 

Known as "roof knocking" its certainly not the only way the IDF carry out advance warnings but one of many methods which also include dropping leaflets, phone and text messages. There are many instances where IDF calls off a target when its clear civilians are there.

 

This being unlike the Hamas preference of using civilians as human shields.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, placnx said:

You should know that "advanced warning" is the IAF practice of sending/dropping a small munition on a building to tell people to get out before the big one that levels the building.

 

In previous wars on Gaza, the figures issued by the Gaza Health Ministry correlated with what was determined afterwards by UN et al. The lists of dead persons have names and other identity info, so not just a body count. The actual death toll may not be known for some time since people are buried under the rubble of pancaked buildings.

 

The Palestinians were facing a quandary with the Abraham Accords, of which one objective was to circumvent them in negotiations regarding their fate. The attack on the kibbutzes was the fateful result.

 

You should reference the post above, by another poster. There are other means of alerting civilians to attacks being used. Regardless, my main point was that the IDF clearly broadcasted the message for the Gazans to evacuate to the south. It was clearly communicated that airstrikes will be carried out and that a ground offensive is on the cards. In fact, operations were twice held back to allow more mass movement of people out of the expected battle zone. You may discount all that, up to you - the fact stands that warnings were given.

 

As a rule, Hamas does not provide details on it's own casualties during fighting. If we agree to consider Hamas men as legit targets, then their number ought to be subtracted (or treated separately) from the overall casualty figures. Recent comments on Hamas casualties provided by the IDF (I'll try finding a proper English language source) refer to the 5000-6000 range (I am not clear if that includes the Hamas men killed on 7/10 or only afterwards - but the same lack of clarity applies for Hamas provided figures). Even if that is exaggerated, the figure would still be in the thousands. Then you have the issue of 'war time' figures from the Gaza Strip failing to differentiate between natural occurring deaths and war-related deaths for the time frame in question. I have not a doubt thousands of Palestinian civilians died, including children. War is hell, and this one was started by Hamas - who treats his own people as potential sacrifices for the 'cause'.

 

You seem to feel that Hamas 'had no choice' or something like that. I neither accept nor agree.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/29/2023 at 10:11 PM, placnx said:

WHile I agree with all you say, Russia and China are beginning to rival the US in using the veto. It's definitely time to curb abuse of the SC veto.

They can keep the security ( non security ) council if they want, but the veto should go. At least if should require a majority vote to quash a resolution. Allowing one country to do so is an abomination IMO.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They can keep the security ( non security ) council if they want, but the veto should go. At least if should require a majority vote to quash a resolution. Allowing one country to do so is an abomination IMO.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

If you 'proposal' was to ever be implemented, it would make sense for countries to go for 'fake' splintering, while effectively retaining the same interests. Because what you imply is that the deciding factor would be how many countries vote for a motion - not what the labels (countries) represent. It would not matter how many people are represented, or what the countries contribute in terms of global economy, knowledge, technology, culture and so on (yes, including military might). All that would be required to pass whatever motion would be having enough countries to vote 'yes'. Given that there are many corrupt, poor countries, this will simply result in another problematic system where vote buying would play a greater role. Another thing we'll see is the empowerment of voting blocs (not totally insignificant even today). This should become 'interesting' when immigration issues will be on the menu.

[placnx]

On 12/1/2023 at 2:11 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

They can keep the security ( non security ) council if they want, but the veto should go. At least if should require a majority vote to quash a resolution. Allowing one country to do so is an abomination IMO.

At least there should be the possibility of overriding a veto, or limiting the ability to veto when the country wanting to veto is tne cause of the resolution. I wonder whether any historian has made a thorough study of the twists and turns in the drafting of the UN Charter.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, placnx said:

At least there should be the possibility of overriding a veto, or limiting the ability to veto when the country wanting to veto is tne cause of the resolution. I wonder whether any historian has made a thorough study of the twists and turns in the drafting of the UN Charter.

 

Is amending the charter not subject to being vetoed as well...?

[placnx]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Is amending the charter not subject to being vetoed as well...?

Absolutely. So it's not something that can happen when major issues such as Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine are in flux.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

Absolutely. So it's not something that can happen when major issues such as Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine are in flux.

 

If any of the permanent members can veto it, what makes you think it will happen? Regardless of current events.

[thaibeachlovers]

Obviously any further hostage release has ended. As heard on Al Jazeera. Hamas is not going to release even non israeli hostages, which it had offered to do, and the terms for further releases has been increased.

 

The israelis protesting for the release of their relatives are apparently outraged and increasing their demonstrations. Must be galling to have come so close to getting them back only to see that chance becoming even less likely.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, placnx said:

At least there should be the possibility of overriding a veto, or limiting the ability to veto when the country wanting to veto is tne cause of the resolution. I wonder whether any historian has made a thorough study of the twists and turns in the drafting of the UN Charter.

If one looks at when the UN was created one can understand why it was set up as it is. That time has passed long ago. Allowing one country to hold other countries hostage is an abomination and a continuation, IMO, of colonialism by less direct means.

 

The security council is no longer fit for purpose and the UN no longer prevents conflicts as proven all around the world. IMO it's a sham that is used by certain ex colonial powers to maintain their control over the once colonised countries.

Some functions of the UN are worthwhile and should be kept, others are not and should be ended. A better way needs to be found.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously any further hostage release has ended. As heard on Al Jazeera. Hamas is not going to release even non israeli hostages, which it had offered to do, and the terms for further releases has been increased.

 

The israelis protesting for the release of their relatives are apparently outraged and increasing their demonstrations. Must be galling to have come so close to getting them back only to see that chance becoming even less likely.

There are limits to negotiating with barbaric terrorists. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If one looks at when the UN was created one can understand why it was set up as it is. That time has passed long ago. Allowing one country to hold other countries hostage is an abomination and a continuation, IMO, of colonialism by less direct means.

 

The security council is no longer fit for purpose and the UN no longer prevents conflicts as proven all around the world. IMO it's a sham that is used by certain ex colonial powers to maintain their control over the once colonised countries.

Some functions of the UN are worthwhile and should be kept, others are not and should be ended. A better way needs to be found.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

When people mention 'colonial' that's often a way of saying 'the West'. Far as I recall, China and Russia are on the UNSC as well, and doubt they're into relinquishing their status as well.

 

I'm not sure what you consider 'proven'. Were things better, globally when there were no UN, UNSC, and permanent members' veto right? I'm not so sure about that, maybe you can demonstrate it. Same goes for abolishing these - how would things work? How would this effect global relations? Wars around the globe? Chances for WWIII? You do not offer any answers. Not even a hit at what would resemble a 'better way'.

[placnx]

On 12/3/2023 at 10:01 AM, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

When people mention 'colonial' that's often a way of saying 'the West'. Far as I recall, China and Russia are on the UNSC as well, and doubt they're into relinquishing their status as well.

 

I'm not sure what you consider 'proven'. Were things better, globally when there were no UN, UNSC, and permanent members' veto right? I'm not so sure about that, maybe you can demonstrate it. Same goes for abolishing these - how would things work? How would this effect global relations? Wars around the globe? Chances for WWIII? You do not offer any answers. Not even a hit at what would resemble a 'better way'.

Somewhere back in this topic I suggested a veto override mechanism.

 

UN Charter followed the WW I outmoded concept of victors dictating to the world, so the "powers" were the countries given veto power in the SC. Two of these were European colonial powers at the time - Britain and France, while the US was supposedly advocating abolition of colonies. In spite of its veto power, USSR was not able to block the UN authorized defense of South Korea, while China a/k/a Taiwan was irrelevant back then. Nowadays China & Russia seem to have imperial ambitions.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

Somewhere back in this topic I suggested a veto override mechanism.

 

UN Charter followed the WW I outmoded concept of victors dictating to the world, so the "powers" were the countries given veto power in the SC. Two of these were European colonial powers at the time - Britain and France, while the US was supposedly advocating abolition of colonies. In spite of its veto power, USSR was not able to block the UN authorized defense of South Korea, while China a/k/a Taiwan was irrelevant back then. Nowadays China & Russia seem to have imperial ambitions.

 

And...?

[placnx]

On 12/3/2023 at 4:09 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously any further hostage release has ended. As heard on Al Jazeera. Hamas is not going to release even non israeli hostages, which it had offered to do, and the terms for further releases has been increased.

 

The israelis protesting for the release of their relatives are apparently outraged and increasing their demonstrations. Must be galling to have come so close to getting them back only to see that chance becoming even less likely.

The WSJ mentioned last Thursday some of the Hamas asks regarding hostage release. Their usual formula is all Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the captured IDF soldiers. However, the article said this: "Hamas told the negotiators it was ready to extend the truce by an additional four days, the officials said, and discuss the release of fighting-age men in exchange for senior Palestinians jailed in Israel." It's been clear for a long time that the exchange ratio for soldiers would be more akin to the Gilad Shalit case. Does "senior Palestinians" mean political prisoners such as Marwan Barghouti?

[placnx]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

And...?

The colonies (or in this case territories taken from the Ottomans) were in the Levant and ruled by France and Britain. It was not the "West", but these two members of the Security Council (SC). I was trying to give more background to the creation of the SC. Russia and China were nonchalantly given permanent member status in 1945 without thinking about how things might change in the future.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

The colonies (or in this case territories taken from the Ottomans) were in the Levant and ruled by France and Britain. It was not the "West", but these two members of the Security Council (SC). I was trying to give more background to the creation of the SC. Russia and China were nonchalantly given permanent member status in 1945 without thinking about how things might change in the future.

 

Yeah, a history lesson, of sorts. How does it relate to current affairs or even to the previous comments by posters?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/3/2023 at 4:01 PM, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

When people mention 'colonial' that's often a way of saying 'the West'. Far as I recall, China and Russia are on the UNSC as well, and doubt they're into relinquishing their status as well.

 

I'm not sure what you consider 'proven'. Were things better, globally when there were no UN, UNSC, and permanent members' veto right? I'm not so sure about that, maybe you can demonstrate it. Same goes for abolishing these - how would things work? How would this effect global relations? Wars around the globe? Chances for WWIII? You do not offer any answers. Not even a hit at what would resemble a 'better way'.

As you quoted me:-

 

The UN was set up with good intentions, but has been subverted, IMO, into a means by which the US exerts control by less obvious means ( at least till their outright bias was exposed by vetoing any call for a ceasefire ).

The UN can become what it was supposed to be, but only if the veto power of the security council is abolished.

 

Were things better, globally when there were no UN, UNSC, and permanent members' veto right?

Are they better now? IMO not.

 

I'm not so sure about that, maybe you can demonstrate it.

I could, given unlimited time ( it's not something for a few sentences ), and even if I did I doubt you would accept it, so I won't waste my time.

 

Same goes for abolishing these - how would things work?

That's so easy that I'm surprised you ask- 2/3rd majority vote in the general assembly would do it. Of course the usual culprits wouldn't like losing their power, but so what.

 

How would this effect global relations? Wars around the globe? Chances for WWIII?

I guess you haven't noticed the wars around the world going that the UN has been able to do nothing about. Syria, Yemen, Sudan, many African countries. Of course they are not wars by white colonial powers so perhaps they are unimportant.

WW3 will happen regardless of the UN- it's just a matter of time as the human race is a bloodthirsty species- always has been, always will be, IMO.

 

 

You do not offer any answers. Not even a hit at what would resemble a 'better way'.

LOL. I'm boggled at that, as I have indeed hinted , and sometimes outright suggested a "better way". I surprised that you claim to have read every one of the 54.6 thousand posts I've made.

If you mean on this thread, well I have posted plenty of posts on the other threads. I guess you just missed all of them.

 

 

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As you quoted me:-

 

The UN was set up with good intentions, but has been subverted, IMO, into a means by which the US exerts control by less obvious means ( at least till their outright bias was exposed by vetoing any call for a ceasefire ).

The UN can become what it was supposed to be, but only if the veto power of the security council is abolished.

 

Were things better, globally when there were no UN, UNSC, and permanent members' veto right?

Are they better now? IMO not.

 

I'm not so sure about that, maybe you can demonstrate it.

I could, given unlimited time ( it's not something for a few sentences ), and even if I did I doubt you would accept it, so I won't waste my time.

 

Same goes for abolishing these - how would things work?

That's so easy that I'm surprised you ask- 2/3rd majority vote in the general assembly would do it. Of course the usual culprits wouldn't like losing their power, but so what.

 

How would this effect global relations? Wars around the globe? Chances for WWIII?

I guess you haven't noticed the wars around the world going that the UN has been able to do nothing about. Syria, Yemen, Sudan, many African countries. Of course they are not wars by white colonial powers so perhaps they are unimportant.

WW3 will happen regardless of the UN- it's just a matter of time as the human race is a bloodthirsty species- always has been, always will be, IMO.

 

 

You do not offer any answers. Not even a hit at what would resemble a 'better way'.

LOL. I'm boggled at that, as I have indeed hinted , and sometimes outright suggested a "better way". I surprised that you claim to have read every one of the 54.6 thousand posts I've made.

If you mean on this thread, well I have posted plenty of posts on the other threads. I guess you just missed all of them.

 

 

 

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

I quote/reply to many of your inaccurate, inane and otherwise bogus comments on related issues. You pretend to 'ignore' my posts, but as obvious from the above, can't really help yourself from reading. That makes your usage of the 'ignore' function rather silly.

 

Be that as it may....

 

As usual, you claim things without bothering to back them up. The UN was 'subverted'? How so? And only for the US's benefit? Russia and China seem perfectly at home shielding themselves and their global interests from UN scrutiny and interference - guess you 'ignore' that too, in the same selective way you 'ignore' posts on this forum.

 

You do not bother explaining how things were better without the USNC - you reiterate that's your opinion (no support or explanation), and claim a 'waste of time'. If it wasn't your intention to address the post, why did you bother replying anyway?

 

It seems that in your brave new UN vision all countries would be given an equal vote on all issues. So a couple of Islands in Micronesia would have the same influence as China, or the USA, or Germany etc. I doubt this makes a whole lot of sense, or is even remotely fair. What would be the motivation of developed/large countries to go for something like that? How would it tackle bad players from having more say in global and regional affairs? And would such a system not encourage vote buying? I don't think you actually thought this through.

 

I don't know that there are more wars these days, relative to the past. I know that there's more media and global coverage of news, so we are certainly more aware of such. The same in terms of the lethality of ongoing wars - I do not know that they are more so, but information is more readily accessible, for sure.

 

Your WWIII musings are of no interest, and got little to do with the topic - or even your 'ideas' regarding the UN. And no, I do not read all of your posts, my comment was with regard to current related topics. Given that you rarely seem to make coherent ones on such matters, I could certainly have skipped something you posted on this, as I didn't bother reading it through. If they were similar to the offering above, seems like the right call.

[placnx]

On 12/4/2023 at 6:56 PM, Morch said:

 

Yeah, a history lesson, of sorts. How does it relate to current affairs or even to the previous comments by posters?

 It helps to understand the reasons historically why we have the Security Council permanent members that we do. Back then evidently the people who drafted the Charter were naive and anachronistic, not understanding the dynamics which could undermine their idealistic view of the functioning of a system to regulate international relations.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, placnx said:

 It helps to understand the reasons historically why we have the Security Council permanent members that we do. Back then evidently the people who drafted the Charter were naive and anachronistic, not understanding the dynamics which could undermine their idealistic view of the functioning of a system to regulate international relations.

 

People act according to the notions of their own time. Similarly, notions used at present to build a 'new' UN would likely seem 'naive and anachronistic' in time. Other than your comment being meaningless, it also implies things which I doubt you could seriously support. Some could equally say that there was nothing 'naive' about the way the UN was structured. And so on and so forth....