Israel used 'incredible violence' against Gaza aid flotilla

[falxori 0]

Here are a few...

s of June 2010, the UNHRC has criticized Israel in 33 resolutions. During its first year of existence (2006), the UNHRC passed seven resolutions, all (100%) critical of Israel. In its second year (2007), Israel was the subject of 4/11 resolutions (36%)

The Council voted on June 30, 2006 to make its review of human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. This decision was renewed in June 2007. Israel is the only country subject to a permanent review.

The Economist wrote: "In its fourth regular session, which ended in Geneva on March 30, the 47-member council again failed to address many egregious human-rights abuses around the world. (...) Indeed, in its nine months of life, the council has criticised only one country for human-rights violations, passing in its latest session its ninth resolution against Israel. This obsession with bashing Israel and turning a blind eye to so much else has disappointed those who hoped that the new council might perform better than its predecessor."

Peggy Hicks, Global Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch said in a July 26, 2007 testimony to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "In its first year, the Human Rights Council has failed to take action regarding countries facing human rights crises such as Burma, Colombia, Somalia, Turkmenistan, and Zimbabwe, ended the mandates of human rights experts on Belarus and Cuba, and rolled back its consideration of the deteriorating situations in Iran and Uzbekistan. At the same time, it focused disproportionately on Israel’s human rights record and worse still, did so in a manner doomed to be ineffective because it failed to look comprehensively at the situation, including the responsibilities and roles of Palestinian authorities and armed groups".[90] Similar accusations were voiced by Freedom House,[91][92] the Washington Post,[93] Kofi Annan,[94] Ban Ki-moon,[95] US President George W. Bush,[96] and members of the European Parliament
---------------------------------
all from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations#Claims_that_the_UN_is_anti-Israel

Sorry, I have to rely on wiki right now as I don't have time to put together a more comprehensive list but the bottom line is clear, this organization (much like the UN General assembly) is a joke.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Abedy 0]

Quote

I guess some folks were taken in by the con.

Muhahahaha

The sky is not the limit. The ground is.

The Society of Skydiving Ducks

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Sorry, I have to rely on wiki right now as I don't have time to put together a more comprehensive list but the bottom line is clear, this organization (much like the UN General assembly) is a joke.

And if you look at the sections immediately above the "anti-Israel" section they have similarly cited examples of the UN-being pro-Israel. But regardless of whether you want to argue that the UN is either pro or anti Israel, the fact remains that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a big deal, with wide reaching impacts. Our country was attacked nine years ago and this conflict was one of the major reasons. It's a big deal and it's going to get attention. But your point about the UN being a joke, I'm not inclined to completely disagree. It's too un-democratic to be effective. They can repeatedly point out the problems which need to be dealt with but it makes little difference if a permanent voting member shoots them all down.

Personally I put little weight on the UN's capacity to impart change. Let them document the war crimes but it's going to be up to each country's citizenry to hold their own leaders accountable. I'm going to keep pushing my leaders because I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy. Next week may be another opportunity. The Palestinians and Israelis are at the peace table right now. If Israel ends the settlement freeze then the talks will collapse. Israel has the power right now. What will it do with it?

[falxori 0]

Quote

they have similarly cited examples of the UN-being pro-Israel

A claim by the PLO that Israel should not be recognized by the UN is not as convincing as the factual number of resolutions and discussions dedicated to Israel. again a 100% of their resolution were against Israel in 2006 (when they were formed). was there no other human right issue to discuss at the time?

Quote

It's too un-democratic to be effective.

and you don't see a problem with having 52 Arab and Muslim countries in the UN and only one Israel?
they can pass a resolution that the world is flat. it doesn't make it right. without the US veto the UN would have been an even bigger joke.

Quote

If Israel ends the settlement freeze then the talks will collapse. Israel has the power right now. What will it do with it?

This is off topic, but why should it collapse? Israel froze it for almost a year and nothing happened until now. Why is it expected to give away everything in advance when the PA wouldn't even openly recognize Israel's right the exist?

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

This is off topic, but why should it collapse? Israel froze it for almost a year and nothing happened until now. Why is it expected to give away everything in advance when the PA wouldn't even openly recognize Israel's right the exist?

the peace talks will collapse if israel does not stop building in occupied land. is this what you want?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

and you don't see a problem with having 52 Arab and Muslim countries in the UN and only one Israel?

No, how many Israels should there be? That's how democracies work. But you also have human rights institutions in place to insure that no country violates the rights of another. At least that's the theory.

Quote

This is off topic, but why should it collapse?

Because Israel is in control of whether or not it wants to continue stealing land. If they decide to continue then the Palestinians will get pissed (rightly so) and walk away from the table. They have said as much. So the choice is up to Israel. Practically everyone else in the world, and a sizable contingent of Israelis recognize that Israel is stealing land. It can choose to continue the moratorium and continue the talks or it can resume stealing land and jeopardize the talks.

And come on Ori, what do you mean by "give away everything"? Israel has enjoyed a decade and a half of nearly unhindered expansion. Stopping that expansion is not "giving away everything".

If you want peace, you have to make it happen. The party in power is the one who controls the process.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If you want peace, you have to make it happen. The party in power is the one who controls the process.

The problem is that you're missing an important element. The one who control whether or not the process goes forward are not at the table. No matter who is sitting down with Israel today, if Hamas or other (looking for a neutral word here) ... asymetrical fighters ... contiue to attack, then table talks are pointless.

Tell you what, when Hamas and Fatah or whomever is running the palestinian areas openly recognizes Israel's right to exist, peace talks might go somewhere. But seeing as that hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen, what's the point?

Would you contend that if Israel pulled completely out of Gaza, the West Bank, and Golan Heights that attacks on Israel would stop?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Would you contend that if Israel pulled completely out of Gaza, the West Bank, and Golan Heights that attacks on Israel would stop?

there are continuing ira attacks in northern ireland but the peace deal is still in place - the same can happen in israel.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Would you contend that if Israel pulled completely out of Gaza, the West Bank, and Golan Heights that attacks on Israel would stop?

there are continuing ira attacks in northern ireland but the peace deal is still in place - the same can happen in israel.

The difference here is that the Catholics believe that the protestants actually exist.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chuteless 1]

Good for Israel. That is THEIR land, and they have to defend it against all comers.


Give the Palestinians an inch and they'll take every inch you've got, and more if they can get away with it.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Would you contend that if Israel pulled completely out of Gaza, the West Bank, and Golan Heights that attacks on Israel would stop?

Yes I do, because without a buffer zone Israel would eventually cease to exist as a Jewish home state.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I'm not seeing any bias.

Then why is they are acting just like the Commision on Human Rights, which was replaced with a clone when it lost credibility?

Then why is it their first years they only attacked Israel?

Then why is it that there is a group mandated by the UN HRC to investigate Israel and only Israel? Not both sides of the conflict, just Israel. Why aren't there missions to investigate NKorea, Myanmar, Sudan/Darfur, and all the other human rights violators. Again in 2009 the UN set up an investigation and instructed them to investigate only Israel.

Doesn't that sound like they want to beat up on Israel and don't give a damn what others are doing to Israel, or what violators in other places are doing?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[obelixtim 100]

I think what we watched every night on our TV screens a year or so ago with the IDF firing white phosphorus shells into Gaza, indiscriminately injuring and killing the civilian population said it all about Israel.

This after taking out a refugee camp in South Lebanon a few years ago.

They lost any moral high ground they had right then, and deserve no sympathy at all.

Its not going to stop until they stop.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[billvon 2,434]

>because without a buffer zone Israel would eventually cease to exist as a
>Jewish home state.

Good. The loss of both the "Jewish home state" and "the Palestinian territories" as staunchly-defended bastions of "us, not them" would do both groups a lot of good.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The problem is that you're missing an important element. The one who control whether or not the process goes forward are not at the table. No matter who is sitting down with Israel today, if Hamas or other (looking for a neutral word here) ... asymetrical fighters ... contiue to attack, then table talks are pointless.

Not true. There will indeed be attacks, from both sides. Don't forget who killed Rabin. But that's the point where the leaders are tested. The leaders hold to their agreements and not let the fanatics derail the deal.

Quote

Tell you what, when Hamas and Fatah or whomever is running the palestinian areas openly recognizes Israel's right to exist, peace talks might go somewhere. But seeing as that hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen, what's the point?

It did happen. And there have been numerous times during the last decade where agreements and proposals have been proffered, the Geneva Accord being the best IMO. But it was completely ignored here in the US. I think Colin Powell made a positive comment publicly but that was all I found. But why should Israel agree to quit with the manifest destiny when it had the Bush administration giving them free reign, countless vetos and $3B/year?......


Fuck....it's happening again. And on a Friday.

Here. Read if you like.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_35&search_string=israel+geneva+hamas&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=idrankwhat&sb=score&mh=25

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Good for Israel. That is THEIR land, and they have to defend it against all comers....

God WILLS IT!




When will we evolve? It's no wonder the aliens won't come and visit with all their neat toys.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Good for Israel. That is THEIR land, and they have to defend it against all comers....

God WILLS IT!




When will we evolve? It's no wonder the aliens won't come and visit with all their neat toys.

You mean it wasn't the Allied Forces Government that made this happen after WWII?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

I think what we watched every night on our TV screens a year or so ago with the IDF firing white phosphorus shells into Gaza, indiscriminately injuring and killing the civilian population said it all about Israel.

Not that errors don't happen, but you're talking about RETURN FIRE there.

Quote

They lost any moral high ground they had right then, and deserve no sympathy at all.

Damn shame they won't just lay down and die like good little Jews should, huh?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

Not that errors don't happen, but you're talking about RETURN FIRE there.

Are you saying its OK to return fire with WP. Onto civilians. Who didn't have WP to fire back.

Seemed like pretty much continuous return fire for the duration of the conflict. Literally hundreds of shell and bomb bursts, all over the city. All from IDF. All before the eyes of the world live on TV.

Didn't see much going over the wall from Hamas at the time.

And I believe the use of WP is outlawed against civilian targets. It is a horrible weapon at any time.

Remind me of the casualty stats from both sides during the Gaza conflict. Pretty heavily in favour of Israel, and a reaction out of all proportion.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[futuredivot 0]

I'm saying that cowardly bastards can only expect to hide behind civilians for so long before the people they are attacking return fire. WP was fired at MILITARY objectives that were purposely place in civilian areas-once again, Hamas will make a martyr out of you even if you don't want to be.

Casualty rates-don't fuck with people with better weapons.

Hamas is just the bratty little brother that pokes and pokes and then runs to mommy when poked back. Unfortunately they are playing with lives.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Not that errors don't happen, but you're talking about RETURN FIRE there.

Are you saying its OK to return fire with WP. Onto civilians. Who didn't have WP to fire back.

Seemed like pretty much continuous return fire for the duration of the conflict. Literally hundreds of shell and bomb bursts, all over the city. All from IDF. All before the eyes of the world live on TV.

Didn't see much going over the wall from Hamas at the time.

And I believe the use of WP is outlawed against civilian targets. It is a horrible weapon at any time.

Remind me of the casualty stats from both sides during the Gaza conflict. Pretty heavily in favour of Israel, and a reaction out of all proportion.

Do you understand how to win a conflict?

It is much better to overwhelm a violent act with disproportionate, but appropriate force. It pretty much stops further agression for a while.

For instance - You shoot at me with one bullet - you will get all of my bullets fired at you in return. Disproportionate, yes, effectual, more than likely.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,149]

That's only true if you will always be more powerful than the vanquished. Otherwise, it's better to find a non zero sum way to end the conflict. A negotiated peace, give-and-take -- that way everyone gets to go home with something.

Kind of like in divorce. Yeah, you might have more money, and can spend $40,000 screwing over your ex. But everyone goes home with more money if you instead spend $5000 and split the other $35,000 (and much of the ex's divorce-lawyer costs too).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

Damn shame they won't just lay down and die like good little Jews should, huh?

I'll let that crack go. Its beneath contempt.

FYI I have trained quite a number of Israelis to skydive over the years, including some of their SF boys. Most were pretty good blokes, and some are still good mates.

Doesn't mean I agree that firing WP ordinance into civilian areas is right, whatever the provocation. I know a few Israelis who agree with me.

Israel does itself no favours with its actions.

I'm done with this, its pointless getting into a shitfight when positions are entrenched.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[billvon 2,434]

>It is much better to overwhelm a violent act with disproportionate, but
>appropriate force. It pretty much stops further agression for a while.

Yep. And when both sides think that, you get . . . the Middle East, where it most emphatically does not work.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's only true if you will always be more powerful than the vanquished. Otherwise, it's better to find a non zero sum way to end the conflict. A negotiated peace, give-and-take -- that way everyone gets to go home with something.

Have you ever seen one side "play fair" in war? We sure as hell didn't in the attacks on Iraq. Overwhelming force was the name of the game. Why would you sacrifice your own in the name of fairness? Esp against a side using any and all tactics possible?

Because Hamas is outgunned, of course they have to resort to unsavory tactics. Typical of every revolutionary force. But it's crazy to think the IDF will restrain itself to fight a force dedicated to its destruction.