Israel and Palestine

I'm talking about both. The point I'm trying to make is that non-state groups (or sub-state groups) have been subject to the UN rules via the appropriate organisations. just because the UNHRC can't be bothered to get of its arse and condemn anyone outside of Israel does not make that rule not applicable.

It's sovereign over Gaza, well it's as sovereign as any state on the losing end of a war is. The blockade doesn't make the Palestinians control over Gaza not sovereign, the same way the British blockade of Germany during WW 1 didn't mean Germany suddenly stooped being sovereign.

And I missed a point.

The condemnations are about more than just influencing the opinion of the condemned, it's about influencing international opinion and outlook. The UNHRC has a dusty to support human rights everywhere, but it appears to be unwilling to speak out properly for human rights outside of where Israel subverts them. Why? I don't believe that it would do no good for a second, part of speaking out against Israel is to convince the likes of the US and Europe to stop supporting Israel's morally wrong actions, so why not do the same to Hamas and try and influence people away from supporting their morally wrong actions?

Anyway it's 2am here and I need to sleep. So any further replies from me will have to wait till the morning.

The only country on my list that got invaded would be Somalia. Burma, Syria, Sudan and North Korea have not been invaded. They may have been sanctioned but that's not because of what the UNHRC has done, it's because of what others have done, I don't see why the UNHRC should get to claim credit when it's done little to bring about action against those countries.

edited 25th Jul '14 5:53:59 PM by Silasw

Is that why Netanyahu said that "Hamas is responsible, Hamas will pay" at the end of June? Kind of sounds like a declaration of war, don't you think?

edited 25th Jul '14 6:05:47 PM by Cyran

Not really, he actually tried to cool things down with Gaza initially, offering "quiet for quiet", but Hamas refused and launched a barrage of rockets. The operation begun as a response to that.

Dunno about your list but Iraq had also recieved less condemnations than Israel. And look what happened to it.

Also, the UNHRC contribution is irrelevant. All iam saying is that those nations who haven't got that much attention from the UNHRC are in a much, much worse position than Israel.

So, getting chewed out as few times while getting away scott free with stuff that woud've resulted in some nasty sanctions against most countries (bar Saudi Arabia) isn't that bad.

Well, if he said "Hamas is responsible, Hamas will pay" it implies that Hamas already fired the first shot and will be held accountable for it. Which is true.

edited 25th Jul '14 6:26:44 PM by LogoP

Except that Hamas didn't kidnap the three settlers as Thorn mentioned on the previous page.

Have you considered that the rockets were in retaliation to the mass arrests and murders that went along with Operation Brother's Keeper where they already knew the settlers were dead and the IDF killed several Palestinians in West Bank?

No, the rockets were fired because HAMAS is an Islamist Extremist Terrorist Group who's core principles are the destruction of the Little and Great Satan's (Israel and USA respectively).

On the term "terrorist":

Of course they were. But that does not change that the operation was a response to the rockets, not the kidnapping. (Also, calling them settlers isn't exactly accurate. While they studied in the West Bank, only one of them actually lived there) Edit: Bah, I really shouldn't write at 5 AM.

edited 25th Jul '14 6:59:38 PM by cag

Sean Hannity might be fucktarded but the Palestinian guest did dodge the question about Hammas. When the answer shouldn't even be up for debate.

Would you prefer I said "settler" and friends? And I'm not the one you should be telling as much as virtually every media outlet that's ever talked about it since last month. Operation Protective Edge was in response to the few dozen rockets which was in response to the shady doings in West Bank (i.e., Operation Brother's Keeper), which was in response to the killing of the one settler and his two friends. Right? Right. Looking at this timeline, I'm not seeing any evidence that Netanyahu said anything about "quiet for quiet", especially considering he immediately blamed Hamas ("knew for a fact" that it was their work) with zero evidence and then went ahead and blamed Abbas for it, saying that Hamas was his responsibility. And now it seems that Hamas was almost certainly not behind the kidnapping and murders of the three teenage Israelis.

More and more this is looking like it could have been precipitated by a concerted effort to undermine the Unity government. The doublespeak on many of these issues is enormous.

Also Israeli troops and settlers have killed at least five Palestinians in the West Bank at protests against Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip.

edited 25th Jul '14 7:10:49 PM by Cyran

@Silas - I don't see how the UN is at any fault when they go after everyone and just one entity goes after Israel. An entity that normally focuses itself on countries that doesn't require the harsher measures. It doesn't condemn the others you mentioned because they already have been hit with worse by the same organization. Other than running up the score, what would be the point? Besides, is it a good idea to have Israel be associated with those other nations? I don't either.

It is not sovereign over Gaza when it can't control its own trade or borders. By your definition, the Islamic State is also sovereign when it fact it's just a terrorist group. Hamas also doesn't claim Gaza as a seperate sovereign state from the rest of Palestine, nor does it claim to rule all of Palestine. It does not have the same privaleges as a sovereign state, nor is it generally recognized as such. By exactly no definitions accepted by the international community, is Hamas a sovereign ruler.

The UNHCR is not the end all be all on these situations, despite the name. It's really more like the kiddie pool for this sort of thing. Though I do agree it shouldn't take the credit either for the worse nations handled by other departments.

edited 25th Jul '14 7:31:03 PM by FFShinra

Has Hamas used suicide bombers at all? Because I haven't seen Palestine use much that would make me consider them "terrorists" (like say, ISIS)

And the human shield thing isn't leading to much credence these days with how easily Israel says they do it now when it hasn't been the case.

Starting with a tragedy that killed/murdered 3 people it was escalated to over 800 dead. "I'm making a note here, huge success"?

edited 25th Jul '14 7:38:03 PM by Uchuujinsan

Compared to Assad's 170,000? Yeah.

Anyone who compares Israel to Assad's regime is out of their mind.

The thing is though, Israel seems to at least want to seem like the good guys, and I'm sure there are several israeli lawmakers who do want peace.

They got all the power to make things better if they wanted. Assad however is just doing the old tyrant massacre we all know sadly.

All's I'm saying is the UNHCR is the kiddie pool for this sort of thing.

I noticed that during this offensive more Israelis died than during all the rocket/mortar attacks since 2001. Even from a purely Israeli pov, if you put zero value on Palestinian life that escalation seems horrible.

One thing I noticed that might be considered subtle propaganda was a reporter in CNN in Gaza using the phrase "So called Blockades"

as if somehow that implies they aren't really blockades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

during the 90's and early 00's, you had a wave of Suicide bombings, committed by various Palestinian groups, including Hamas, Fatah, and PIJ among others. Hamas accounts for the largest number among them.

edited 25th Jul '14 8:57:14 PM by bladeofdarkness

You know, I just noticed 'Israel and Palestine' are actually the second example in the sticky of threads that won't be allowed. Did that get changed at some point or did the mods just forget?

This thread is (supposed to be) very strictly talking about current events regarding Israel and Palestine, not getting into the history between them, the moral/political/legal justifications (or lack thereof) for the various unpleasant things they've done to each other the decades, etc etc. We've wandered a bit from that, but so far the mods have been kind enough to allow the thread to continue. (So let's try to keep it that way.)

The leader of Lebanon's militant Hezbollah group vowed on Friday to support Palestinian militants battling Israeli troops in Gaza, even as his own fighters are bogged down in the war in neighboring Syria.

While I'm perfectly aware its only words and he has no intention of lifting a finger to actually help, I am kinda amused at the Hypocrisy of it.

that man's organization is involved in the biggest massacre of the new 10's, and he talks shit about us like we're the assholes.

Irony much ?

edited 25th Jul '14 9:29:21 PM by bladeofdarkness

I do actually. I'll admit that my knowledge of the escalation path has been based of the word of Israeli troopers in this thread.

Not when we're discussing if the UNHRC is a bias organisation it isn't.

But this isn't how it works. The UNHRC focuses on Israel plus the nasty nations (but mainly on Israel). Here I'll list (in order) for you the nations that the UHRC has taken actions against other that Israel, with the number of actions in brackets before. (10) Burma, Sudan, Syria, (8) Somalia, (5) North Korea, (Dem Rep) Congo, (4) Cambodia, Ivory Coast, (3) Libya, Yemen, (2) Belarus, Eritrea, Guiana, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, (1) Afghanistan, Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, Horrendous, Kenya, Philippines, South Sudan, Sri Lanka.[1]

I'm not the one having "Israel be associated with those other nations", the UNHRC is doing that by putting it at the top of that list. If the UNHRC didn't take action against those nations because it couldn't effect them than I'd be less annoyed, because it would be saying "look our focus is just on nations that will listen to us", but it does take action against those nations, it just takes even more action against Israel.

If the UNHRC only goes after softer nations than that list should have only nice democratic nations on it, but it doesn't, it has a motley collection of dictatorships, failed states, failing states, Israel and a few random add ons down at the bottom.

It may not be the be all and end all but it's a big name and it shouldn't focus all its weight in one place.

As for what the point would be of condemning those nations, raising awareness of what they're doing wrong, trying to build up international pressure against those nations.