Netanyahu says UN chief Ban Ki-moon 'encouraging terror'

[canthai55]

English version of Yair Lapid's response to Moon:

https://www.facebook.com/YairLapid/?fref=nf

Terrorism against innocent civilians is the result of nothing except the murderous insanity of the perpetrators

My point exactly. Thank you. Look no further than a blue Star of David on a white background.

[seedy]

Posts Edited. Posts Hidden. Troll / Flaming.

[Jingthing]

English version of Yair Lapid's response to Moon:

https://www.facebook.com/YairLapid/?fref=nf

Terrorism against innocent civilians is the result of nothing except the murderous insanity of the perpetrators

My point exactly. Thank you. Look no further than a blue Star of David on a white background.

Your point is the Israeli flag is a flag of terrorism? Oh boy, how original. The sickness again.

Of course there is lots to criticize in Israeli government policy. But Israel is a great small nation which has made wonderful positive contributions to the world and civilization way above what you'd expect based on it's small population, and of course it remains the only national homeland of the Jewish people in the world for those who were born there (the vast majority of today's Israelis), choose to move there for positive reasons, or choose to move there because of oppression of Jews in their current/previous diaspora locality.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[canthai55]

Your point is the Israeli flag is a flag of terrorism? Oh boy, how original. The sickness again.

Please do not point words in my mouth. Terrorism is - and has been - committed on both sides. I am not anti anybody - just Anti Fanatics. If you do not agree that Israel has committed atrocities, as have the Palestinians, then this explains to me in glowing detail why there will never be Peace in this region. Both sides need to sit down, acknowledge the harm they have done, work toward a solution, and implement it. But both sides are so entrenched that they will not back down. Don't give me the same old speech about how persecuted the Israeli side is, or the Palestinian side is. Old news. If you can not see this, it explains why there is no hope. In that case, a bigger bully than either side will have to come in, hammer down, and MAKE both sides behave. Is that what you want ? I do not think so. So both sides need to grow up, forget that someones great-great-great grandfather stole a goat form someone elses great-great-grandfather and work to a solution

[Jingthing]

Your point is the Israeli flag is a flag of terrorism? Oh boy, how original. The sickness again.

Please do not point words in my mouth. Terrorism is - and has been - committed on both sides. I am not anti anybody - just Anti Fanatics. If you do not agree that Israel has committed atrocities, as have the Palestinians, then this explains to me in glowing detail why there will never be Peace in this region. Both sides need to sit down, acknowledge the harm they have done, work toward a solution, and implement it. But both sides are so entrenched that they will not back down. Don't give me the same old speech about how persecuted the Israeli side is, or the Palestinian side is. Old news. If you can not see this, it explains why there is no hope. In that case, a bigger bully than either side will have to come in, hammer down, and MAKE both sides behave. Is that what you want ? I do not think so. So both sides need to grow up, forget that someones great-great-great grandfather stole a goat form someone elses great-great-grandfather and work to a solution

Your post was inflammatory. It was hard core Israel demonization that anyone with any reason can see clearly. If you don't want people to react to hate speech posts for what they obviously are, don't post them.

Sure of course I see how difficult this conflict is.

I see that the Palestinian family of a terrorist that recently murdered Shlomit Krigman, a lovely young girl, murdered for being a Jew, handed out candies in celebration.

But I don't see how it's helpful to spread HATE SPEECH that the Israeli flag, the one flag in the world with a JEWISH symbol, represents terrorism. That's sickness. You say you're against hate on both sides ... that's FOMENTING hate specifically against Israel.

Your more rational thought I have said hundreds of times ... BOTH sides need better leadership. But again going on the internet calling the Israeli flag a flag of terrorism is not moving towards that good goal. The OPPOSITE, actually.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[Scott]

The topic is about Netanyahu's accusation that the UN Chief is encouraging terrorism. Stay on topic or face a suspension.

[Jingthing]

Anyway, I don't think it much matters what the U.N. chief says or doesn't say. The recent "Knife Intida" continues regardless. The Palestinian terrorists are already motivated by other things such as the false accusation of a change of status quo at the Temple Mount. If the U.N. said stop it, would it stop? Of course not.

[casualbiker]

Somethings fishy there in that SOURCE.

Always worth checking out SOURCES.

Particularly so from members with a long history of posting Neo-Nazi, holocaust denying sources such as Rense (if you're not a neo-Nazi only go there to verify there are still Nazis and perhaps to vomit).

I can't find a link for this supposed organization Jews for Justice in the Middle East organization (weird that), but it is a classic Israel demonizing tactic to exploit the minority of far left wing Jews (even imaginary Jews) for propaganda purposes. Ultra religious anti-Zionists (there aren't many but they exist) are also exploited for propaganda this way.

As far as the If Americans Knew source that is a totally biased, obsessive Israel demonizing source. I focus on If Americans Knew because they are the DISTRIBUTOR of that pamphlet and they have a massive web presence. Jews for Justice in the Middle East doesn't. Like I said, couldn't even find a link. Fishy, huh?

Some background on If Americans Knew.

Americans should know more about If Americans Knew ...

http://www.minndakjcrc.org/executive-directors-commentary-published-in-the-argus-leader.html

Within this context, enter Alison Weir from "If Americans Knew," which describes itself as "a clear-sighted view of the [israeli-Palestinian Conflict] that is free of partisan perspectives or preconceptions and that relies exclusively on facts-based analysis." Though Ms. Weir presents a mild mannered persona in her current South Dakota speaking tour, which included a fair and challenging interview with the Argus Leader's Patrick Lalley, her conspiracy minded belief that Israel is at the heart of all that is wrong with the Middle East quickly reveals her hateful bias. No wonder, the ADL has noted that "Alison Weir's criticism of Israel has, at times, crossed the line into distortions customarily found in the literature of anti-Semites."

...DELETED

Some insight into the other distributor of the article.

http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/whoweare/

Is it possible that the authors could have been Jews for Justice. http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=2

I believe it actually is!

[Jingthing]

A followup news story about Ban Ki Moon.

He wrote a response to Bibi's harsh characterization of his previous statements.

Take the U.N. chief's op-ed how you will, but the article includes an interesting analysis of Moon's total such communications, giving good evidence of the usual U.N. predictable and unfair unbalanced attention on the faults of Israel compared to ALL of the rest of the world.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Ban-uses-unprecedented-tone-in-scolding-Israel-in-op-ed-443500

Analysis: Ban uses unprecedented tone in scolding Israel in op-ed

The finger-pointing at Netanyahu and his government and the specificity of the criticism in this piece are unprecedented.

Ban's web site lists 85 op-eds he has written since becoming secretary general in 2007 for various newspapers and websites around the world -- five of which were in The New York Times -- and not one of them has the finger-wagging tone toward a specific government that Ban used in his Monday piece.

Of those 85 pieces, there is not one devoted to the scourge of terrorism, or to Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela or Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

A followup news story about Ban Ki Moon.

He wrote a response to Bibi's harsh characterization of his previous statements.

Take the U.N. chief's op-ed how you will, but the article includes an interesting analysis of Moon's total such communications, giving good evidence of the usual U.N. predictable and unfair unbalanced attention on the faults of Israel compared to ALL of the rest of the world.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Ban-uses-unprecedented-tone-in-scolding-Israel-in-op-ed-443500

Analysis: Ban uses unprecedented tone in scolding Israel in op-ed

The finger-pointing at Netanyahu and his government and the specificity of the criticism in this piece are unprecedented.

Ban's web site lists 85 op-eds he has written since becoming secretary general in 2007 for various newspapers and websites around the world -- five of which were in The New York Times -- and not one of them has the finger-wagging tone toward a specific government that Ban used in his Monday piece.

Of those 85 pieces, there is not one devoted to the scourge of terrorism, or to Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela or Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

You seem to be saying, usng the quoted article as support, that Ban Ki Moon's criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank is not in itself incorrect. It's just that he should have written more op eds condemning other countries that the Jerusalem Post editor thinks warrant criticism too. Simply a deflection to besmirch the messenger Ban Ki Moon.

Ban Ki Moon says it more eloquently than I: “Criticism of the United Nations — or attacks against me — comes with the territory. But when heartfelt concerns about shortsighted or morally damaging policies emanate from so many sources, including Israel’s closest friends, it cannot be sustainable to keep lashing out at every well-intentioned critic.”

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Ban-uses-unprecedented-tone-in-scolding-Israel-in-op-ed-443500

[Ulysses G.]

What he is saying is that Ban Ki Moon is a HYPOCRITE and - as the article points out - where was the fingerpointing when it came to Islamic terrorism and a number of other grievous transgressions?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

I keep posting the last UN vote regarding Palestinian Sovereignty and that vote was 164-5 and 3 of the five who voted against were USA, Israel, and Canada. This is completely revealing in so many ways. The Israeli narrative is tiring and this vote essentially proves it. Maybe they can get their lobbies to go after the individual voters and get them to change their vote. Lets get serious here, the vote was 164-5, nothing else needs to be said. This number requires no comment.

Perception is reality, even if it pertains to Israel.

I of course, am assuming that the 164 countries who voted in favor did not look only among their anti-semites for representatives.

[dexterm]

What he is saying is that Ban Ki Moon is a HYPOCRITE and - as the article points out - where was the fingerpointing when it came to Islamic terrorism and a number of other grievous transgressions?

Nonsense. Try googling: Ban Ki Moon condemn Daesh, Boko Haram,Al Shabab...

...hundreds of hits.

What the Jerusalem Post editor biasedly does is select one small part (op eds) of the Secretary General's enormous output, and extrapolates from that that he is somehow picking on Israel. Quite an invalid deflection.

I notice that no-one yet including Netanyahu in the OP has actually rebutted the issue of settllement expansion undermining the viability of a 2 state solution that Ban Ki Moon intially made.

Instead Zionist apologists as usual have focused on attacking the messenger. .

[Ulysses G.]

READ THE ARTICLE. It does not say that he has never criticized anyone else.

This hypocrite's tone is shriller than ever before.

Ban's web site lists 85 op-eds he has written since becoming secretary general in 2007 for various newspapers and websites around the world -- five of which were in The New York Times -- and not one of them has the finger-wagging tone toward a specific government that Ban used in his Monday piece.

Of those 85 pieces, there is not one devoted to the scourge of terrorism, or to Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela or Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

READ THE ARTICLE. It does not say that he has never criticized anyone else.

This hypocrite's tone is shriller than ever before.

Ban's web site lists 85 op-eds he has written since becoming secretary general in 2007 for various newspapers and websites around the world -- five of which were in The New York Times -- and not one of them has the finger-wagging tone toward a specific government that Ban used in his Monday piece.

Of those 85 pieces, there is not one devoted to the scourge of terrorism, or to Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela or Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

With the UN the expression 'what do you expect from a pig but a grunt springs to mind.' So why expect any different from Ban Ki-moon? A majority only reflects the consensus view of its constituents, who are always going to reflect the large voting bloc of the OIC, plus any communist nations which will reflexively vote against the US or her perceived allies. Ban Ki-Moon merely reflects the internal politics of the UN and this has no bearing whatsoever as to the supposed sins of those he criticizes.

[dexterm]

READ THE ARTICLE. It does not say that he has never criticized anyone else.

This hypocrite's tone is shriller than ever before.

Ban's web site lists 85 op-eds he has written since becoming secretary general in 2007 for various newspapers and websites around the world -- five of which were in The New York Times -- and not one of them has the finger-wagging tone toward a specific government that Ban used in his Monday piece.

Of those 85 pieces, there is not one devoted to the scourge of terrorism, or to Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela or Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

With the UN the expression 'what do you expect from a pig but a grunt springs to mind.' So why expect any different from Ban Ki-moon? A majority only reflects the consensus view of its constituents, who are always going to reflect the large voting bloc of the OIC, plus any communist nations which will reflexively vote against the US or her perceived allies. Ban Ki-Moon merely reflects the internal politics of the UN and this has no bearing whatsoever as to the supposed sins of those he criticizes.

Rather than demonizing the Secretary General, has it ever occurred to you that Ban Ki Moon and other world leaders may be correct, and it is Israeli apologists and the right wing government of Netanyahu who are on the wrong side of history trying to defend the indefensible..

[Steely Dan]

READ THE ARTICLE. It does not say that he has never criticized anyone else.

This hypocrite's tone is shriller than ever before.

Ban's web site lists 85 op-eds he has written since becoming secretary general in 2007 for various newspapers and websites around the world -- five of which were in The New York Times -- and not one of them has the finger-wagging tone toward a specific government that Ban used in his Monday piece.

Of those 85 pieces, there is not one devoted to the scourge of terrorism, or to Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela or Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

With the UN the expression 'what do you expect from a pig but a grunt springs to mind.' So why expect any different from Ban Ki-moon? A majority only reflects the consensus view of its constituents, who are always going to reflect the large voting bloc of the OIC, plus any communist nations which will reflexively vote against the US or her perceived allies. Ban Ki-Moon merely reflects the internal politics of the UN and this has no bearing whatsoever as to the supposed sins of those he criticizes.

Rather than demonizing the Secretary General, has it ever occurred to you that Ban Ki Moon and other world leaders may be correct, and it is Israeli apologists and the right wing government of Netanyahu who are on the wrong side of history trying to defend the indefensible..

Though he made the obligatory token condemnation of terrorism this was a mealy mouthed moral equivalence argument which in effect rationalized Palestinian terrorism as a direct result of Israeli settlements. No matter how often such an assertion is made there is no proof that this was the real reason and not Palestinian racism or genocidal aspirations. Take Ban Ki-Moons comments and transfer them to another scenario and it becomes clear how loaded they are. For instance vigilante attacks against migrants even including murder are regrettable but merely human nature due to the appalling behavior of some migrants and the numbers let in. That some may be genuine refugees or behave impeccably makes their murders regrettable but understandable.

Juxtapose it to the Israelis too. Should the Israelis decide to summarily execute any Palestinian they think may be about to commit violence it would be regrettable but understandable given the random murders Israeli citizens have to endure. Should Israel conclude they need to drive every last Palestinian out of Judea and Samaria to make space for diaspora Jews making Aliyah and needing land. That too would be regrettable but understandable considering the demonization of Israel by the UN and the failure of the West to stop rising antisemitism causing Jews to seek refuge in Israel.

Moral equivalence cuts both ways you see.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

READ THE ARTICLE. It does not say that he has never criticized anyone else.

This hypocrite's tone is shriller than ever before.

Ban's web site lists 85 op-eds he has written since becoming secretary general in 2007 for various newspapers and websites around the world -- five of which were in The New York Times -- and not one of them has the finger-wagging tone toward a specific government that Ban used in his Monday piece.

Of those 85 pieces, there is not one devoted to the scourge of terrorism, or to Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela or Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

With the UN the expression 'what do you expect from a pig but a grunt springs to mind.' So why expect any different from Ban Ki-moon? A majority only reflects the consensus view of its constituents, who are always going to reflect the large voting bloc of the OIC, plus any communist nations which will reflexively vote against the US or her perceived allies. Ban Ki-Moon merely reflects the internal politics of the UN and this has no bearing whatsoever as to the supposed sins of those he criticizes.

Rather than demonizing the Secretary General, has it ever occurred to you that Ban Ki Moon and other world leaders may be correct, and it is Israeli apologists and the right wing government of Netanyahu who are on the wrong side of history trying to defend the indefensible..

Though he made the obligatory token condemnation of terrorism this was a mealy mouthed moral equivalence argument which in effect rationalized Palestinian terrorism as a direct result of Israeli settlements. No matter how often such an assertion is made there is no proof that this was the real reason and not Palestinian racism or genocidal aspirations. Take Ban Ki-Moons comments and transfer them to another scenario and it becomes clear how loaded they are. For instance vigilante attacks against migrants even including murder are regrettable but merely human nature due to the appalling behavior of some migrants and the numbers let in. That some may be genuine refugees or behave impeccably makes their murders regrettable but understandable.

Juxtapose it to the Israelis too. Should the Israelis decide to summarily execute any Palestinian they think may be about to commit violence it would be regrettable but understandable given the random murders Israeli citizens have to endure. Should Israel conclude they need to drive every last Palestinian out of Judea and Samaria to make space for diaspora Jews making Aliyah and needing land. That too would be regrettable but understandable considering the demonization of Israel by the UN and the failure of the West to stop rising antisemitism causing Jews to seek refuge in Israel.

Moral equivalence cuts both ways you see.

Should the Israelis decide to summarily execute any Palestinian they think may be about to commit violence it would be regrettable but understandable given the random murders Israeli citizens have to endure. Should Israel conclude they need to drive every last Palestinian out of Judea and Samaria to make space for diaspora Jews making Aliyah and needing land. That too would be regrettable but understandable considering the demonization of Israel by the UN and the failure of the West to stop rising antisemitism causing Jews to seek refuge in Israel.

This is already happening, just read the news

[casualbiker]

READ THE ARTICLE. It does not say that he has never criticized anyone else.

This hypocrite's tone is shriller than ever before.

Ban's web site lists 85 op-eds he has written since becoming secretary general in 2007 for various newspapers and websites around the world -- five of which were in The New York Times -- and not one of them has the finger-wagging tone toward a specific government that Ban used in his Monday piece.

Of those 85 pieces, there is not one devoted to the scourge of terrorism, or to Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela or Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

With the UN the expression 'what do you expect from a pig but a grunt springs to mind.' So why expect any different from Ban Ki-moon? A majority only reflects the consensus view of its constituents, who are always going to reflect the large voting bloc of the OIC, plus any communist nations which will reflexively vote against the US or her perceived allies. Ban Ki-Moon merely reflects the internal politics of the UN and this has no bearing whatsoever as to the supposed sins of those he criticizes.

Rather than demonizing the Secretary General, has it ever occurred to you that Ban Ki Moon and other world leaders may be correct, and it is Israeli apologists and the right wing government of Netanyahu who are on the wrong side of history trying to defend the indefensible..

Though he made the obligatory token condemnation of terrorism this was a mealy mouthed moral equivalence argument which in effect rationalized Palestinian terrorism as a direct result of Israeli settlements. No matter how often such an assertion is made there is no proof that this was the real reason and not Palestinian racism or genocidal aspirations. Take Ban Ki-Moons comments and transfer them to another scenario and it becomes clear how loaded they are. For instance vigilante attacks against migrants even including murder are regrettable but merely human nature due to the appalling behavior of some migrants and the numbers let in. That some may be genuine refugees or behave impeccably makes their murders regrettable but understandable.

Juxtapose it to the Israelis too. Should the Israelis decide to summarily execute any Palestinian they think may be about to commit violence it would be regrettable but understandable given the random murders Israeli citizens have to endure. Should Israel conclude they need to drive every last Palestinian out of Judea and Samaria to make space for diaspora Jews making Aliyah and needing land. That too would be regrettable but understandable considering the demonization of Israel by the UN and the failure of the West to stop rising antisemitism causing Jews to seek refuge in Israel.

Moral equivalence cuts both ways you see.

How many Palestinian knife attackers are alive and awaiting trial? You said " Should Israel conclude they need to drive every last Palestinian out of Judea and Samaria to make space for diaspora Jews " isn't that what has actually been happening from time to time.. Certainly the land grab maps that other TV members have posted seem to imply that!

[Cynical Sailor]

This argument has been ongoing since 1948. I'm not sure the pseudo-academics on TV are going to come to a consensus in 2016.

[casualbiker]

This argument has been ongoing since 1948. I'm not sure the pseudo-academics on TV are going to come to a consensus in 2016.

Are you sure the Zionists actually WANT a consensus or agreement?

[Jingthing]

This argument has been ongoing since 1948. I'm not sure the pseudo-academics on TV are going to come to a consensus in 2016.

That's obviously true. So what?

We do miss our REAL scholar Morch.

He gave these Israel - Palestinian threads real value.

[Steely Dan]

^^

Georges wrote.

Should the Israelis decide to summarily execute any Palestinian they think may be about to commit violence it would be regrettable but understandable given the random murders Israeli citizens have to endure. Should Israel conclude they need to drive every last Palestinian out of Judea and Samaria to make space for diaspora Jews making Aliyah and needing land. That too would be regrettable but understandable considering the demonization of Israel by the UN and the failure of the West to stop rising antisemitism causing Jews to seek refuge in Israel.

This is already happening, just read the news

Now we are getting somewhere.. were it true that would indeed be regrettable but understandable. So how to move forward?

I would suggest the UN drop its usual bias, western nations get a grip on what's causing antisemitism and the Palestinian leadership stop incitement. Should this happen I'm sure the Israeli population would be far more receptive to a two state solution and less likely to do anything that might jeopardize it. As it is there is a cross party consensus in Israel that a two state solution is not realistic in the current environment.

In a nutshell Ban's comments contribute to Israelis concluding they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Steely Dan

[dexterm]

^^

Georges wrote.

Should the Israelis decide to summarily execute any Palestinian they think may be about to commit violence it would be regrettable but understandable given the random murders Israeli citizens have to endure. Should Israel conclude they need to drive every last Palestinian out of Judea and Samaria to make space for diaspora Jews making Aliyah and needing land. That too would be regrettable but understandable considering the demonization of Israel by the UN and the failure of the West to stop rising antisemitism causing Jews to seek refuge in Israel.

This is already happening, just read the news

Now we are getting somewhere.. were it true that would indeed be regrettable but understandable. So how to move forward?

I would suggest the UN drop its usual bias, western nations get a grip on what's causing antisemitism and the Palestinian leadership stop incitement. Should this happen I'm sure the Israeli population would be far more receptive to a two state solution and less likely to do anything that might jeopardize it. As it is there is a cross party consensus in Israel that a two state solution is not realistic in the current environment.

In a nutshell Ban's comments contribute to Israelis concluding they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

SD wrote..."As it is there is a cross party consensus in Israel that a two state solution is not realistic in the current environment."

Has anyone in the Israeli government or opposition told the US and EU administrations that? After all a two state solution is the basis for their support of Israel. Take that away and there's no reason left to support Israel.

Looks like Ban Ki Moon's comments in the OP were spot on then, if, as you say,the Israeli consensus is against a 2 state solution.

"He condemned the attacks but said Israel's settlement-building programme cast doubt on its commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35414822

[canthai55]

People will not change except for two reasons -

1 - they want to

2 - they are forced to

Clearly - they do not want to. So ...

The only solution to this ongoing problem is for outside forces to drag both sides - kicking and screaming if that is what it takes - to the bargaining table and make them come to an agreement.