"don't focus on us, we're bad but there's other worse people out there"
Jesus listen to yourself
Sigh.
No, that's not what I'm saying, and if you stop putting words in my mouth and actually address that actual facts I sumbit we might actually get a discussion going here.
What I am actually saying that the fact (note: fact, as opposed to my opinion) that the UNHRC focuses almost entirely on Israel, passing more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the nations of the world combined means that it is heavily biased against Israel. Meaning it is not objective in its condemnations and investigations against Israel.
And again, it's not me saying it. It's multiple secretary generals of the UN.
This means that the many, many condemnations of Israel by the human rights council are not the proof you imagine it to be of Israel being the worst human rights offender on the planet every single year, but merely that due to bloc voting the many other, arguably worse offenders in the council protect each other for condemnation and focus solely on the one nation they can all agree sucks.
israel gets condemned more for human rights abuses than states like North Korea, Syria, Libya, or Iran, dont you find that a little strange?
he implied that the number of jews killed in the holocaust was predetermined and cited a nazi website for it
bruh hamas literally admitted to 50 of the killed protesters being theirs and Islamic Jihad claimed 3 more, 9 innocents being killed is fucked but they shouldnt have rushed the fence when they knew the consequences.
they werent killing indiscrimately
how should israel react when Palestinians try to breach the fence with weapons?
https://twitter.com/AskAnshul/status/996693870258733057?s=09
Israelis kill more than 50 Palestinians in Gaza protests, health..
While some said they would abide by official calls to keep the demonstrations peaceful, others talked about their enthusiasm to break into Israel and wreak havoc.
“We are excited to storm and get inside,” said 23-year-old Mohammed Mansoura. When asked what he would do inside Israel, he said, “Whatever is possible, to kill, throw stones.”
Two other young men carried large knives and said they wanted to kill Jews on the other side of the fence.
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/15/611213687/its-a-day-of-grieving-and-more-protests-in-gaza
AHMED AL-BORDANI: (Through interpreter) This is a kite that's going to go to the Jews.
INSKEEP: He said it's designed to float over the Israelis and catch fire. It was decorated with writing claiming Jerusalem for Palestinians and also with swastikas.
What does this thing mean to you? Why do you put that on there?
AL-BORDANI: (Through interpreter) The Jews go crazy for Hitler when they see it.
INSKEEP: The Israelis know that people are flying kites with swastikas. They know this, and they use it to discredit you, to say this shows you're bad people. What do you think about that?
AL-BORDANI: (Foreign language spoken).
INSKEEP: "This is actually what we want them to know," he says, "that we want to burn them." That is one of many views we've heard in the last few days in Gaza, where at least 60 people were killed yesterday in protests. The person we heard helping to translate the Arabic just there was Daniel Estrin of NPR News. He's based in the region. He's been traveling to Gaza for years, and he has been at an area hospital looking at the suffering after yesterday's shootings.
https://www.memri.org/tv/senior-hamas-official-mahmoud-zahhar-on-gaza-protests-this-is-not-peaceful-resistance
Hamas leaders admit that these protests are violent themselves
how would you react if people acting like this massed on your border? people make the israeli response to be some DOOM shit where all they want to do is kill but that's obviously not the case. people treat this conflict like a reality TV show, rooting for team Israel or team Palestine without actually looking further into the conflict.
So lets ignore Israels issues because they aren't real, and move on to the rest of the world?
There are clearly issues.
Once again, that's not what I'm saying and I said that in the very post you quote.
I'm not saying to ignore Israeli human rights violations (here it is, literally- please don't pretend I said it in your next reply OK?). I'm saying that the fact that the UNHRC is biased against Israel means it's resolutions and investigations are also biased and have predetermined results based on politics rather than facts. You know, like your and goetse's posts.
Case in point: the Goldstone report.
Maybe the UNHRC holds Israel to a much higher standard because they are a fully modern and industrialized democratic nation?
Being that Israel gets more resolutions than the rest of the world combined Israel must must be the most modern and democratic nation in the world!
Nah, just nobody in Europe is out doing what Israel's been doing, and America gets away with shit by virtue of being "the leader of the free world" although that idea's been slipping with a lot of people lately.
No, it's just bias. Here's former UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon again, from 2016:
During the past ten years, I have argued that we must never accept bias against Israel within UN bodies. Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel. In many cases, rather than helping the Palestinian cause, this reality has hampered the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively.
Well i dunno, elect a government that doesn't use 90% of its resources to wage an endless war against a technologically superior nation maybe?
I'm not even talking about some behind the scenes corruption. It's filled with countries that have horrible human rights records, countries who hate Israel, etc.
It really is too bad that most of the western world is too cowardly to even vote. They let the Chinas and Saudi Arabia of the world get exactly what they want.
I'm not sure how that answers the point. Here are a list of all the countries that voted yes to the resolution in the OP:
Afghanistan
Angola
Belgium
Brazil
Burundi
Chile
China
Cote d'Ivore
Cuba
Congo
Ecuador
Egypt
Iraq
Kyrgyzstan
Mexico
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Tunisia
UAE
Venezuela
The No votes:
Australia
USA
The abstentions:
Croatia
Ethiopia
Georga
Germany
Hungary
Japan
Kenya
Panama
South Korea
Rwanda
Slovakia
Switzerland
Togo
UK
Take a look through that list of 'yes' votes and tell me how many of them actually matter in the realm of human rights? I would argue that it's far less than half of them.
I know people seemed to absolutely love this post here, but did you actually look at the resolution you cited in the OP? Only one of the countries you listed voted yes, and it was the least significant: Belgium. The rest either voted 'no' or abstained.
The Human Rights Council is a joke because it's filled with illegitimate countries, not because it has some good countries in there. A bunch of countries with horrible human rights records can get together and make and pass a resolution to condemn someone (generally Israel), and they need zero support from countries that actually try to protect human rights.
It's not a silly narrative, it's exactly what happened. just because you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that shows that this is exactly what took place, doesn't mean that it's not what took place.
I would also add that they used press badges to camouflage hamas members to get an international response when they get shot when trying to cross the border. in addition to bringing children to the border.
it's not a silly narrative, it's the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMqRGtigUmk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZEuZgf9HNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qLi8Bj2T0c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdm4x2wlu_U
Hamas is responsible for their poverty, all of the aid that's coming to the Palestinians is actually lining the pockets of Hamas.
Hamas actually turned away aid that Israel offered to the Palestinians
it's the same story every thread, I need make some wall of text where this shit is brought up so I can just copy paste it.
Has Israel considered not trying to take the land of others in the first place
Yes actually. The last time was in 2005 when Israel unilaterally retreated from the Gaza strip, dismantled all settlements there and handed the keys over to the Palestinians.
Which is why there are no settlements in Gaza, and why Hamas is in charge.
and the several thousand years between the isrealites living there and the ottomans taking that land, you know who lived there?
Look, I'm Israeli, so clearly I'm biased on this. That does not mean I would "defend Israel no matter what they'll do" as anyone who bothers to read my posts here could testify. I don't support our current government, I never voted for any of the parties currently in charge and I'm against the occupation and the treatment of Palestinians by Israel in general.
But with all that said, I still feel the need to present an opposing view here if I disagree with something. Just because I see something differently than you doesn't make me "progandanized" or "alt right".
The point I've been trying to get across is that UNHRC missions are not "simply investigating" war crimes because, as I've shown in multiple posts, the UNHRC is biased against Israel. That means it does not send missions with the objective purpose of investigating all sides to determine who did what, but instead assigns them with the predetermined goal of "investigating Israeli war crimes" explicitly deciding that there were war crimes and only Israel committed them even before the investigation started.
You're free to ignore the evidence I present on the UNHRC's bias, both the opinions of multiple UN secretary general who outright said it, or the mere fact there have been more condemnations of Israel than against any other nation on the planet combined. But the fact remains that the UNHRC is generally not interested in investigating the truth, as even it's own commissions of inquiry note, like this one from the 2006 Lebanon war:
A fundamental point in relation to the conflict and the Commission’s mandate as defined
by the Council is the conduct of Hezbollah. The Commission considers that any independent,
impartial and objective investigation into a particular conduct during the course of hostilities
must of necessity be with reference to all the belligerents involved. Thus an inquiry into the
conformity with international humanitarian law of the specific acts of the Israel Defense Forces
(IDF) in Lebanon requires that account also be taken of the conduct of the opponent.
7. That said, taking into consideration the express limitations of its mandate, the
Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe it as equally authorizing the
investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel. To do so would exceed the Commission’s
interpretative function and would be to usurp the Council’s powers.
Not surprising, considering it's mandate was:
The Commission, according to paragraph 7 of resolution S-2/1, was mandated: “(a) to investigate the
systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel in Lebanon; (b) to examine the types of
weapons used by Israel and their conformity with international law; and (c) to assess the extent
and deadly impact of Israeli attacks on human life, property, critical infrastructure and the
environment.”
On the other hand, since you mentioned Syria, how many commissions do you think the UNHRC mandated to investigate Syria? I could find just one since the civil war started, which strangely didn't name any specific target (like, say, the Syrian government) for in its investigation in its mandate:
The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic was established on 22 August 2011 by the Human Rights Council through resolution S-17/1 adopted at its 17th special session with a mandate to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law since March 2011 in the Syrian Arab Republic.
The Commission was also tasked to establish the facts and circumstances that may amount to such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and, where possible, to identify those responsible with a view of ensuring that perpetrators of violations, including those that may constitute crimes against humanity, are held accountable.
Tell me you don't see a difference between the first mandate, which clearly specifies in advance that one and only one specific state actor committed very specific war crimes and tasking the commission with investigating them and them alone, and the second mandate that simply tasks the commission with investigating "alleged" and non-specific human rights violations, and if at all possible determine who was the perpetrator out of all actors involved.
I mean, I'm sure you know there have been a couple of war crimes committed in Syria, right? Barrel bombs? Nerve gas? Stuff like that? Allegedly.
"He only murdered two people, so he should be praised."
That's basically the morality you're peddling here.
they werent killing indiscrimately
what of the multiple combat doctors that have been sniped over the past week.
As with every story here, that depends on who's narrative you buy.
If you believe Tarek Loubani, the Canadian doctor who was shot in the leg in Gaza, Israeli snipers appear to have singled out him and several other medics while treating wounded Palestinains near the fence.
There's also the possibility that he's not telling the whole truth, and for example the team member he reported as having been killed shortly after he himself was shot was actually a captain in the Hamas.
If that's true it aligns with both Israel's and Hamas's claims that the vast majority of those killed were Hamas militants (with some of the rest being Al Aqsa militants), which at the very least proves the IDF wasn't necessarily killing people indiscriminately.
And if that's the case, unless you believe IDF snipers were just identifying and shooting known militants in a crowd of tens of thousands, you have to at least entertain the possibility that those specific people were doing something that got them shot that didn't get the other 140,000 people shot.
Or not. Let me preempt you're answer by admitting that it's very goddamn possible that one or more snipers were just assholes that felt like shooting medics, or that someone gave an order to do so. If that's the case I can only hope that the fact at least one victim was Canadian would ensure the IDF investigates it, and press charges against anyone involved in that.
If not, we may get a clearer picture next time Breaking the Silence publishes a report.
Honest question: Do you not see the problem with an investigation which investigates only a single side in a very complicated conflict, just because that one side is a state actor?
Do you not see how such one-sided condemnation (even if completely valid) could be hindering the path to any nuanced resolution to said conflict (or at the very least the mitigation of some casualties)?
And before you rate me dumb, I am neither strictly a Zionist nor have any particular liking to either the leadership of our country or the military (nor to most of the population, to be honest), so I have no real reason to shill for them (though bias is unavoidable to anyone primarily exposed to one side alone - which actually further cements my point).
You're not very good at reading, are you?
Nobody said Israel shouldn't be investigated, people said not just Israel should be investigated, a thing acknowledged by former heads of said council and affirmed by the fact that in one of their investigations they hoped Hamas would carry their own investigation into war crimes on their side.
You can't change the reality on the ground very effectively if you do not consider the entirety of the reality on the ground from the get-go, can you?
Blame Hamas for dressing terrorists as Press and Medics and obstructing the view by burning tires.
First, the vast majority of people killed were confirmed members of Hamas/Islamic jihad, it's not even a question. There's no problem with an investigation but the UN is shown to be consistently anti israel, it's a guarantee that having the UN investigate israel will be as biased as having the Trump administration investigate illegal immigration and the need for a border wall, the result is known before the investigation begins. If there should be an investigation, it should be done by an unbiased third party, not the openly biased UN
burning tires obstructed the view of... 18 combat medics? a handful of which were shot away from protest and while tending to casualties?
I think the israeli/palestine conflict is one of the longest running in the world so I'm not really surprised.
The Canadian doctor was shot in the leg. His friend that was killed was a Hamas captain.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdQn1xMXUAAzEwz?format=jpg
Top row, second on the right:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdPEKj0W0AAoUqO.jpg:large
I don't trust Hamas propaganda, guy on second left, bottom row looks shopped af
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.