Israel and Palestinians engage in rare UN shouting match

[webfact]

Israel and Palestinians engage in rare UN shouting match
EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Israeli and Palestinian ambassadors engaged in a rare shouting match in the U.N. Security Council on Monday, reflecting Israel's growing consternation at the upsurge in Palestinian attacks against civilians and Palestinian frustration at the failure to achieve its dream of a truly independent state.

Israel's Ambassador Danny Danon started the heated exchange at the end of his speech during Monday's monthly council meeting on the Middle East.

Looking across the council table at Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour, he demanded: "Will you condemn Palestinians who commit terror attacks against Israelis?"

Mansour, whose initial response was not heard because his microphone was off, retorted when it was turned on: "We condemn the killing of all innocent civilians including Palestinian civilians. Do you do the same?"

During Israel's war against Gaza militants in 2014, more than 2,200 Palestinians were killed, including hundreds of civilians, according to U.N. figures.

Since the current wave of unrest began in September, Palestinian attackers have killed 28 Israelis and two Americans and at least 189 Palestinians have been killed. On Monday, a bus exploded in Jerusalem wounding at least 15 people in what police were calling a "terror attack." Palestinians have accused Israel of using excessive force against assailants, and in some cases, killing innocent civilians.

Neither Danon nor Mansour got an answer to their initial question, but the Israeli ambassador wasn't giving up.

Danon accused the Palestinians of teaching "hatred" in schools and naming streets after "terrorists" and demanded that these practices stop.

"You pay the families of terrorists," he said. "You glorify terrorism. Shame on you for doing that."

Mansour shot back: "We don't."

Danon, undeterred, went on: "Shame on you for glorifying terrorism."

Mansour retorted: "Shame on you for killing thousands of Palestinian children."

After another heated exchange, China's U.N. Ambassador Liu Jieyi banged his gavel and told the Israeli ambassador to continue with his statement.

But Danon ignored him, again shouting at Mansour, saying: "You cannot condemn terrorism. You cannot say it here ... Shame on you for not being able to say it."

Mansour responded but his microphone was turned off.

When it was turned on, he shouted back: "Let my people be free. You are occupiers. You are colonizers. Leave us alone."

The Israeli-Palestinian exchange followed a briefing to the Security Council by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who said the latest killings "have only deepened the divisiveness, hatred and grief" on both sides.

Mansour said the Palestinians are moving ahead on a Security Council resolution that would address illegal Israeli settlements and aim at de-escalating the volatile situation, rebuilding trust and moving toward "a just, lasting, comprehensive peace."

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

China's Wang, obviously annoyed at the shouting match, urged all to speakers to "keep order in this chamber in order to reflect the solemnity of the question we are discussing."


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-19

[Ulysses G.]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[ezzra]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match, beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying for that decision.....

[dexterm]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match,

beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President

Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have

a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying

for that decision.....

95% and not 100% are the key numbers. That's your reason why. The Palestinians have compromised enough. Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

[Ulysses G.]

Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

Maybe because the Palestinians and other Arabs kept waging war on them. They wanted payback for the blood and treasure they spent defending themselves. The Arabs should have accepted the UN deal in 1948, if they wanted those borders.

[SgtRock]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match,

beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President

Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have

a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying

for that decision.....

95% and not 100% are the key numbers. That's your reason why. The Palestinians have compromised enough. Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

It is called compromise.

It is a simple concept.

Lose a bit to gain even more.

[bentfarang]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match,

beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President

Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have

a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying

for that decision.....

95% and not 100% are the key numbers. That's your reason why. The Palestinians have compromised enough. Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

It is called compromise.

It is a simple concept.

Lose a bit to gain even more.

Also, geographically the area is so small... no-one gains VAST areas of land.

[ggt]

Sad...been there...daily expectation of being bombed or attacked in some way...the stress of daily life fills the air...

[dexterm]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match,

beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President

Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have

a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying

for that decision.....

95% and not 100% are the key numbers. That's your reason why. The Palestinians have compromised enough. Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

It is called compromise.

It is a simple concept.

Lose a bit to gain even more.

It's called roll over and allow the invader to ....you even more.

Works the other way too. But for Israeli greed, Israel could have had peace for the last 2 decades too.

[SgtRock]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match,

beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President

Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have

a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying

for that decision.....

95% and not 100% are the key numbers. That's your reason why. The Palestinians have compromised enough. Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

It is called compromise.

It is a simple concept.

Lose a bit to gain even more.

Also, geographically the area is so small... no-one gains VAST areas of land.

The gains I referred to were nothing to do with land mass.

I was thinking more along the lines of potentially saving lives, bringing an end to daily death and destruction and the possibility of perhaps living with relative peace.

[dexterm]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match,

beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President

Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have

a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying

for that decision.....

95% and not 100% are the key numbers. That's your reason why. The Palestinians have compromised enough. Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

It is called compromise.

It is a simple concept.

Lose a bit to gain even more.

Also, geographically the area is so small... no-one gains VAST areas of land.

Tell that to the dispossessed Palestinians now living in refugee camps to make way for European Zionist invaders.

And if as you say the area that Israel stole is not vast, why not give it back then or allow the original Palestinian owners to live in their own homes again to which they still have the keys?

Edited April 19, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

But for Israeli greed, Israel could have had peace for the last 2 decades too.

There is absolutely no evidence of that - other than your wishful thinking.

[car720]

The world is waking up.'

France and Iran now doing deals.

The yanks threatening to expose the Saudis.

Turkey entrenching.

Just saying.

[DeaconJohn]

But for Israeli greed, Israel could have had peace for the last 2 decades too.

There is absolutely no evidence of that - other than your wishful thinking.

No, it's not wishful thinking.

It is proven by the fact that the Israelis are occupying land outside their 1967 borders.

The continued land grabs and building of illegal settlements is what provokes the violence.

Zionist spinmeisters - on this forum and elsewhere - go into contortions to refute that obvious truth.

[Jai Dee]

One flame post and subsequent replies have been removed from this thread.

[SgtRock]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match,

beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President

Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have

a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying

for that decision.....

95% and not 100% are the key numbers. That's your reason why. The Palestinians have compromised enough. Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

95% and not 100% are the key numbers.

They sure are.

95% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

It is a small price to pay on the road to potential peace and harmony and the cessation of needless deaths.

[Steely Dan]

I'm sure the Palestinian envoy was just about to condemn terrorism and stop the cradle to grave incitement but his microphone was conveniently turned off at the time.

[Cats4ever]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

They were interested in peace until they were removed from the land and homes they had occupied for 2000 years. Negotiating with Israel is a case of chasing the shifting goal posts. You line up to score and they move them elsewhere.

Extremists on both sides muddy the waters. Big power politics adds poison to the brew.

Would a return to the 1967 borders be an reasonable compromise? Maybe for reasonable people, but there are few of them involved in this mess.

[off road pat]

There is absolutely no evidence of that - other than your wishful thinking.

There is so much evidence of the internet is bursting ... !!! it's a long read sometimes....

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/

http://www.infoplease.com/world/countries/israel-palestine-conflict/early-history.html

Edited April 19, 2016 by off road pat

[humqdpf]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

I don't know where you are from, Ulysses but lets imagine that your country or state was taken from your people and many of the inhabitants had to run to neighbouring countries where they had to stay for years as refugees (and still stay there). Would you and your people be happy with this?

Would you be happy with continued occupation, impoverishment, controls on movement etc? And when the occupying power continues to install "settlements" on your land, would that create in you a desire for peace?

When you have answered these questions, perhaps you might not be so quick to judge those who experience this every day.

[Elfin]

Better to have a shouting match than a shooting match,

beside, as Mrs. Clinton said last week, if Arafat would have accepted President

Clinton offer to 95% return of all the territories, the Palestinians would have

a county by now... but he didn't, and his people keeps on dyeing and paying

for that decision.....

95% and not 100% are the key numbers. That's your reason why. The Palestinians have compromised enough. Israel had already stolen vast areas of land prior to 67. Why do they greedily want even more?

95% and not 100% are the key numbers.

They sure are.

95% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

It is a small price to pay on the road to potential peace and harmony and the cessation of needless deaths.

I think what is in that 5% that Israel wanted to keep is key. Water, fertile land, strategic hilltops?

[Steely Dan]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

They were interested in peace until they were removed from the land and homes they had occupied for 2000 years. Negotiating with Israel is a case of chasing the shifting goal posts. You line up to score and they move them elsewhere.

Extremists on both sides muddy the waters. Big power politics adds poison to the brew.

Would a return to the 1967 borders be an reasonable compromise? Maybe for reasonable people, but there are few of them involved in this mess.

How many Jews are living over the 1949 armistice lines? I have read 800,000. Even moving half this number is a pipe dream. There was huge civil unrest just moving 6,000 out of Gaza. In proportion to the overall population it would be like the U.S moving 15million people. Does anyone for a millisecond think the U.S can send even the 11million illegal immigrants packing.

It's a pipe dream which will never happen. How about the West taking all the displaced Palestinians, they seem to have a voracious appetite for displaced Syrians so what's the difference? Sounds reasonable to me.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Steely Dan

[Pakboong]

n its 2015 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor acknowledges the “institutional and societal discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel.”

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2015&dlid=252927#wrapper

Edited April 19, 2016 by Pakboong

[Jingthing]

But for Israeli greed, Israel could have had peace for the last 2 decades too.

There is absolutely no evidence of that - other than your wishful thinking.

No, it's not wishful thinking.

It is proven by the fact that the Israelis are occupying land outside their 1967 borders.

The continued land grabs and building of illegal settlements is what provokes the violence.

Zionist spinmeisters - on this forum and elsewhere - go into contortions to refute that obvious truth.

Sure thing. Israel leaving Gaza proves your point, eh?

[Jingthing]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

I don't know where you are from, Ulysses but lets imagine that your country or state was taken from your people and many of the inhabitants had to run to neighbouring countries where they had to stay for years as refugees (and still stay there). Would you and your people be happy with this?

Would you be happy with continued occupation, impoverishment, controls on movement etc? And when the occupying power continues to install "settlements" on your land, would that create in you a desire for peace?

When you have answered these questions, perhaps you might not be so quick to judge those who experience this every day.

Are you even aware of the Jewish Nakba that happened all over the Middle East and North Africa? It's so ONE SIDED for the Israel demonization agenda. They also fail to acknowledge the truth that JEWS are indigenous people to the Israel region, much earlier than Arabs/Muslims.

[Jingthing]

I'm sure the Palestinian envoy was just about to condemn terrorism and stop the cradle to grave incitement but his microphone was conveniently turned off at the time.

Anyway, better shouting than shooting.

Middle Eastern people, Jews and Arabs, don't claim to overvalue British reserve.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[GeorgesAbitbol]

"Be nice and stop harassing us, Once you ll be obedient and let us steal your land and expropriate you and uproot your olive tree plantations, then we will talk"

-Bibi-

[dexterm]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

I don't know where you are from, Ulysses but lets imagine that your country or state was taken from your people and many of the inhabitants had to run to neighbouring countries where they had to stay for years as refugees (and still stay there). Would you and your people be happy with this?

Would you be happy with continued occupation, impoverishment, controls on movement etc? And when the occupying power continues to install "settlements" on your land, would that create in you a desire for peace?

When you have answered these questions, perhaps you might not be so quick to judge those who experience this every day.

Are you even aware of the Jewish Nakba that happened all over the Middle East and North Africa? It's so ONE SIDED for the Israel demonization agenda. They also fail to acknowledge the truth that JEWS are indigenous people to the Israel region, much earlier than Arabs/Muslims.

The fanatical Zionist colonist stepping off a plane from New York to claim his instant Israeli citizenship and land package stolen from dispossessed Palestinians may share the same religion as Semitic people (just as Palestinians are) living in Palestine 2,000 years ago, but he himself was not born there and is not indigenous. That's a falacious argument that cuts no mustard with Palestinians herded into refugee camps, nor with the world community who can see through the great Zionist con.

Edited April 19, 2016 by dexterm

[Steely Dan]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

I don't know where you are from, Ulysses but lets imagine that your country or state was taken from your people and many of the inhabitants had to run to neighbouring countries where they had to stay for years as refugees (and still stay there). Would you and your people be happy with this?

Would you be happy with continued occupation, impoverishment, controls on movement etc? And when the occupying power continues to install "settlements" on your land, would that create in you a desire for peace?

When you have answered these questions, perhaps you might not be so quick to judge those who experience this every day.

Are you even aware of the Jewish Nakba that happened all over the Middle East and North Africa? It's so ONE SIDED for the Israel demonization agenda. They also fail to acknowledge the truth that JEWS are indigenous people to the Israel region, much earlier than Arabs/Muslims.

The fanatical Zionist colonist stepping off a plane from New York to claim his instant Israeli citizenship and land package stolen from dispossessed Palestinians may share the same religion as Semitic people (just as Palestinians are) living in Palestine 2,000 years ago, but he himself was not born there and is not indigenous. That's a falacious argument that cuts no mustard with Palestinians herded into refugee camps, nor with the world community who can see through the great Zionist con.

Horse manure, and that's according to the UN criteria for who is indigenous. Palestinians are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula.

http://www.israelandstuff.com/under-un-guidelines-jews-are-indigenous-to-israel-palestinians-are-not

[Jingthing]

Excellent.

It's no longer "Next Year in Jerusalem" but "This year we're home" for so many modern Jews.

Next year in Jerusalem - Passover \ Pesach song from the Haggadah

The hateful Israel demonization agenda is really pushing it when they suggest Jews don't belong in Israel or that Jews are not INDIGENOUS to Israel.

They try to push this ignorant lie that Jews in Israel are "colonialist" equivalents to what the Belgians were in the Congo.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Jingthing