Forums → WEPR → [necro] For all the Israel haters...
| 181 | 45240 |
I dare you to claim that this is not a clear example of U.N. bias against Israel. This sort of stuff has been seen time after time after time in events like the Goldstone Report, the Zionism equals Racism vote, and the Durban Conferences. The U.N. needs to seriously reexamine what it stands for, because it has now become a sound-off board for those who wish to condemn Israel at every opportunity.
Discuss whether or not you think that the U.N. is biased against Israel.
- 181 Replies
Zionism is Jewish nationalism; and in doing so it has strived to perve artificially the Jewish character of the state by preventing the Palestinians from returning because the leaders are afraid of the demographic timebomb.
Under that logic any nationalism is racism. It would mean putting your own countries people before non-citizens!
Similarly we can show the continuation of settlement building by the Israelis whilst they claim ''eace'' is a blatant breach of negotiations and shows their true colours - They don't want peace.
Again, I bring up the example where settlements were stopped for 10 months, and then the Pals demanded even more concessions.
You don't address my accusations of bias in the Goldstone Report. You only call out how Israel decided to launch its own investigation. Also, I assume that you didn't even look at the Mission's charter.
Because Israel has always been accused of gross humans rights abuse, and because many member nations want to see that targeted.
Even more so than Iran? Syria? China? Uganda? Chad? Sudan? At least the women there are able to drive *coughSAUDIARABIAcough*
And the Arab citizens are able to vote, serve in office, and do anything a Jewish citizen can do.
They've allowed the state-terrorists of the Israeli government to speak for over 60 years.
In what way is Israel a terrorist country? I know of no country that can be accused of terrorism when protecting its own civilians. Of course, this means you probably support instances like these because they are against the "terrorist state" of Israel.
Nationalism is not racist if it's developed out of the idea of a single nation and not one based on race. Singapore's version of nationalism is not racist because it's based on the concept of how Singaporean you are, and not how Chinese one is, even though the majority of us are Chinese.
And in this case Israel outright refuses to allow a displace people to go back to artificially preserve a soon to be minority culture; this is racism at it's extreme, te favoritism of one culture, dominated largely by race and religion, over the other.
I'm not talking about Arab or Israeli citizens. If you read the numerous articles presented; they are about the Palestinian Women in the Gaza Strip, not your average Israeli women. Does China shoot it's own women? Allow sexual harassment whilst standing by? No. To bring in driving as though it's a
Magnificent achievement, compared to not even allowing mothers ther basic needs is frankly, a disgusting diversion.
And that's that for now before I can access a com.
Again, I bring up the example where settlements were stopped for 10 months, and then the Pals demanded even more concessions.
Right, I think I've mentioned how this was merely a shallow, cursory and symbolic gesture before. Israel continued construction on 3,000 pre-approved housing units in the West Bank, and did not extend the freeze to East Jerusalem. The freeze applies only to new construction, meaning housing already underway will continue. Clearly, it shows the Israelis evasive disregard for the peace plan. Why continue building, even if it's limited, unless they knew that they didn't want peace, and that negotiations were going to be fruitless? Also, why build in East Jerusalem which is rightfully part of the proposed Palestinian state?
You don't address my accusations of bias in the Goldstone Report. You only call out how Israel decided to launch its own investigation. Also, I assume that you didn't even look at the Mission's charter.
You don't address my accusations of the UN being biased in Israel's favour. You don't address how I pointed out that the US dominates the UN and is able to do so, for Israel. You don't point out how very few resolutions are passed against Israel because the US, and the US alone with some allies callously block such resolutions. You don't address the crimes committed against Palestinian women.
I am forced to assume you have not read half of what I posted.
Really, is there going to be an end to this puerile accusation of me?
Nonetheless, no I did not only show that Israel is calling it's own investigation. I demonstrated how that investigation was going to be fraud, by not interviewing ground units, I demonstrated how Israel is afraid to allow independent bodies within itself to conduct their own reports, and how independent NGOs have generally supported the report.
So apart from that, yes I agree that the Goldstone Report has it's own mistakes, and big ones at that. But that doesn't stop it from having some truth in it. Goldstone himself is Jewish, if the appointment of a Jewish Zionist judge with impeccable international credentials was meant to appease Israel, it failed. The Israeli government and its supporters in the Israeli media went for Goldstone with a vengeance.
Furthermore, Israel refused to engage with the mission and denied it any understanding of Israel's motives in attacking the Gaza Strip. Israel also barred Goldstone and his colleagues from entering Gaza from Israel, forcing them to travel via Egypt, before the actual report began. If Israel has nothing to hide, and everything to show the world about Hamas, why was this so?
In what way is Israel a terrorist country? I know of no country that can be accused of terrorism when protecting its own civilians. Of course, this means you probably support instances like these because they are against the "terrorist state" of Israel.
Israel protects its own citizens by the above mentioned crimes against women? Israel protects its citizens by allowing settlers to carry out vigilante attacks? Israel protects its own citizens by sanctioning the building of more settlements even though it fully knows that by doing so, it will only provoke more attacks? Israel holds onto land that it should not, even though it means an undying grudge by the Palestinians and hence more attacks? I don't think that's protecting citizens at all, but rather, opening up more reasons to cause threats to their lives.
You want cases where Israel's leaders used terror (Which is after all, what terrorism is) against the Palestinians? Sure.
In 2004, Israel army bulldozers are razed dozens of homes in the Rafah refugee camp in retaliation for the deaths of five Israeli soldiers. Prime Minister Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz authorized the army to demolish hundreds of Palestinian houses at Rafah, on the Gaza Stripâs border with Egypt, so as to create a 'sterile' zone hundreds of meters wide. This, in addition to dozens of homes demolished or threatened with demolition in the Zeidun refugee camp in Gaza City. According to witnesses, panic-stricken residents are grabbing whatever belongings they can carry and are fleeing, some waving white flags at approaching Israeli forces.
The demolitions are being carried out as part of a campaign of collective punishment visited on the Palestinian population of Gaza after two army troop carriers were destroyed in the wake of the Israeli invasion.
But you might say that sanctioning attacks isn't terrorism is it? I disagree, but anyway, how about the leaders themselves perpetuating such acts of terrorism?
Israel has been a terrorist state from its beginning, and has its foundations in terrorism. Three Israeli prime ministers were or are terrorists:
Menachim Begin took part in terrorist acts in the 1940s, including the attack on the King David Hotel which killed 91 people.
Begin ordered...the destruction of the central British administrative offices in the King David Hotel. â" Jewish Virtual Library
Yitzhak Shamir was the operations commander, and later leader, of the Stern Gang, a terrorist group which was responsible for a string of political assassinations.
In post-war British-mandated Palestine the words Stern Gang equalled 'terrorism' â" assassinations, bombings, the full works...Yitzhak Shamir had been the gang's operations commander....By appointing Shamir Foreign Minister, Prime Minister Menachem Begin had selected the organiser of two famous assassinations: the killing of Lord Moyne, the British Minister representative in the Middle East, in 1944, and that of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN's special Mediator on Palestine, in 1948.
Ariel Sharon initiated the Sabra-Shatila massacre in which between 1000 and 3000 people (mostly Palestinians) were murdered, and now leads a terrorist campaign against all Palestinians living in the occupied territories of the West Bank.
''No one has ever been tried for the massacre, but an official Israeli commission of inquiry found that Israel's defense minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, "bears personal responsibility" as well as "indirect responsibility." It was Sharon, after all, who had ordered the Israel Defense Forces to invade Beirut and surround the camps. ... Like Pinochet and other war criminals, Sharon and his Phalangist underlings should be brought to book; if they can successfully evade justice, then it will give heart to killers everywhere. '' Marking a Massacre, The Nation
and did not extend the freeze to East Jerusalem.
East Jerusalem will never be part of any Palestinian country. Israel has all the right she wants to build there.
You don't address my accusations of the UN being biased in Israel's favour.
How in Hell is the U.N. biased in Israel's favor? Simply because they made them over 100 countries ago? Simply because the U.S. realizes that there is something wrong with a country not being able to participate fully, so they request a different regional group to accept them partially? Because the Human Rights Council and UNESCO is oh so lenient on them? Pray tell, which one of these proves bias toward Israel?
You don't point out how very few resolutions are passed against Israel because the US, and the US alone with some allies callously block such resolutions.
That's because some of these resolutions need to be shot down. I know that there is no way to prove this, however there is an anti-Semitic undertone to some of these resolutions. Did you know that the U.N. first condemned anti-Semitism in the late 1990s? Shows how tolerant they really are.
Goldstone himself is Jewish, if the appointment of a Jewish Zionist judge with impeccable international credentials was meant to appease Israel, it failed. The Israeli government and its supporters in the Israeli media went for Goldstone with a vengeance.
Again, find the charter for the Mission. Israel never has a fair shot, and some of the missions members, mainly Christine *****in, were biased toward the Palestinians before they even started investigating.
Furthermore, Israel refused to engage with the mission
Again, read the charter. You'll see why Israel is pissed.
Israel protects its own citizens by the above mentioned crimes against women?
I read the articles, and I was not impressed. A highly biased Middle Eastern Arabic website and then MSNBC, which I trust more, however these are allegations. Unless of course, you follow the HRC method, which is to claim guilt before any investigation.
Israel protects its citizens by allowing settlers to carry out vigilante attacks? Israel protects its own citizens by sanctioning the building of more settlements even though it fully knows that by doing so, it will only provoke more attacks?
And I disapprove of all of the above actions! I support Israel, and yes, they do protect their self, however they need to control their citizens more! I fully admit this, and I wish things could be changed! HOWEVER, whenever they launch missiles at the Gaza Strip, any time the launch an airstrike, it is not out of "hatred" for Palestinians, it is because they are protecting their civilians from rockets being rained down upon their heads!
And in this case Israel outright refuses to allow a displace people to go back to artificially preserve a soon to be minority culture; this is racism at it's extreme, te favoritism of one culture, dominated largely by race and religion, over the other.
It does not allow the "Right of Return" because to do so would crowd their borders! They do not have the living space to house millions of refugees, and even if they did, it is a moot point. The Pals could have had their own country long ago. Did you know that Abbas is trying to get a state based on U.N. Resolution 181?. I'm sorry, if it wasn't good enough for you then, what makes it good enough for you now?
If you read the numerous articles presented; they are about the Palestinian Women in the Gaza Strip, not your average Israeli women. Does China shoot it's own women? Allow sexual harassment whilst standing by? No. To bring in driving as though it's a
Magnificent achievement, compared to not even allowing mothers ther basic needs is frankly, a disgusting diversion.
In fact, I did read them. Again, I was underwhelmed. Simply because something is in print does not make it true. Also, we have something called "burden of proof." As long as these allegations are just that, I will treat them with skepticism!
East Jerusalem will never be part of any Palestinian country. Israel has all the right she wants to build there.
And you accuse the Palestinians of being obstinate? Jerusalem at any rate, was supposed to be an independent international city for 10 years in 1947, and then put to a referendum to decide it's fate. Hence, Israel's occupation of it is purely illegal.
How in Hell is the U.N. biased in Israel's favor? Simply because they made them over 100 countries ago?
Did I say that? I don't know how you pull these ''statements'' out like a conjurer pulling rabbits from his hat.
Simply because the U.S. realizes that there is something wrong with a country not being able to participate fully, so they request a different regional group to accept them partially? Because
If the US and UN were impartial, they would have forced the Arab states, and worked towards the Arab states accepting them, and not put them into a group that they altogether don't deserve to be at all.
Because the Human Rights Council and UNESCO is oh so lenient on them?
I think I already stated earlier why the Council keeps passing resolutions on Israel. Because the USA has always vetoed or thrown its weight around to make such resolutions sink. Furthermore, Israel does condone gross acts of human rights abuse, so I fail to see how this is ''biased''.
That's because some of these resolutions need to be shot down.
So, condemning Israel for it's abuse of the Palestinian population needs to be shot down? I've never seen such a blind disregard for other human beings before.
I know that there is no way to prove this, however there is an anti-Semitic undertone to some of these resolution
No proof, why are you making a statement? I assert that there's a giant invisible pink teapot revolving around Earth now, but I have no proof. Yet I assert it. You therefore have to accept it!
Did you know that the U.N. first condemned anti-Semitism in the late 1990s? Shows how tolerant they really are.
Did you also know that the UN has largely failed to pass resolutions condeming Israel because of a minority of nations? Shows how ''biased'' they are against Israel.
Why only condemn lately? Because antisemitism, the expression of hatred against all Jews, is distinct from anti-zionism and condemned by the UN since 1998. The Arab nations and the Palestinians hated Israel (pre-1990s) predominantly not because they're Jewish, but because they illegally took land that didn't belong to them. Anti-semitism only took on a new life after Nazi rule in the 1990s, with the rise of new-antisemitism. Hence the UN's ''late'' response.
Again, find the charter for the Mission. Israel never has a fair shot, and some of the missions members, mainly Christine *****in, were biased toward the Palestinians before they even started investigating.
Yes, the Charter was biased at first. Subsequently, when Goldstone himself protested, the UN modified it to such a mission''Its mandate was "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after. Speaking at Brandeis University, Goldstone noted that the widened mandate was presented by the president of the UNHRC to a plenary session, where it did not encounter a single objection.''.
SO.......biased? Or not biased? Take your pick.
I read the articles, and I was not impressed. A highly biased Middle Eastern Arabic website and then MSNBC, which I trust more, however these are allegations. Unless of course, you follow the HRC method, which is to claim guilt before any investigation.
I fail to see how Wikipedia is subjective and biased when supported by a variety of sources, which you can easily access at the bottom of the page.
Also, you bandy the word ''allegation'' as though it's merely a rumor. So, even with a more trustable site of MSNBC, you're not going to accept it? So, are you only going to accept sources from BBC, or American news reports, which are pro-Israeli? Talk about double standards here. Similarly, I can say I'm not impressed whenever you throw me such sources, because they're from a biased source as well.
So, will you then trust, let's say, an Israeli site? Written by a professor from the Ben Gurion University? If you claim that it's biased too, then the problem won't be with the sources, but your special talent for only regarding sources that are pro-Israeli as fair.
HOWEVER, whenever they launch missiles at the Gaza Strip, any time the launch an airstrike, it is not out of "hatred" for Palestinians, it is because they are protecting their civilians from rockets being rained down upon their heads!
I'm not arguing about the rocket attacks. Israel does protect it's citizens in some cases, but in allowing settlers to build and move into illegal land, by sanctioning more buildings, they are not protecting their citizens, but provoking more backlash. So, even if Israel does have some legitimate reasons in some cases, in many others it does not. So don't cloud and conflate the two.
It does not allow the "Right of Return" because to do so would crowd their borders! They do not have the living space to house millions of refugees, and even if they did, it is a moot point. The Pals could have had their own country long ago. Did you know that Abbas is trying to get a state based on U.N. Resolution 181?. I'm sorry, if it wasn't good enough for you then, what makes it good enough for you now?
Yes I know what Abbas is doing. So? The 1967 borders so happens to also be what the Israeli public wants.
It does not allow the Right of Return rimarily because of demographics, and not a housing problem. Some opponents argue that if all or a large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants were to implement a ''right of return'', it would make Arabs the majority within Israel and Jews an ethnic minority. They contend that this would ''mean eradicating Israel.''
If Israel was so worried about the ''swamping of borders'', it can implement it's world famous, settlement-block building on the same scale as it does now. Which would easily solve problems. The ''swamping of borders'' reason is but a petty, shallow excuse why Israel does not want them back.
In fact, I did read them. Again, I was underwhelmed. Simply because something is in print does not make it true. Also, we have something called "burden of proof." As long as these allegations are just that, I will treat them with skepticism!
I have also read your articles. And in fact, I can play the same feeble excuse by claiming that they are merely allegations with no evidence to back them up. I think I should shouldn't I? I mean, it's such a convinient excuse to just simply brush off reports by claiming that not everything I read is true, and avoiding the main line of argument, which is that the UN as an organization is not biased towards Israel; rather, because world opinion is largely against Israel, it manifests itself in such a form. Or somehow, do you want democracy to be dead just because it doesn't suit you?
So I shall end of on the same note. As long as these allegations in your articles are just allegations, I shall treat them with skepticism, bury my head in the mud, and ignore everything else! And you can't fault me for that, because I have a nasty tendency to conviniently choose which sources I want to believe or not to believe! Because I say so! Therefore I can!
I heard that Israel is a safe place to go because there is an armed guard on every corner. Not kidding. Don't know if it is true, but they were serous.
I heard that Israel is a safe place to go because there is an armed guard on every corner. Not kidding. Don't know if it is true, but they were serous.
Thank you for not reading the OP once again.
Did I say that? I don't know how you pull these ''statements'' out like a conjurer pulling rabbits from his hat.
I recall you posting in an earlier thread that the U.N. could be considered perpetually biased in favor of Israel because it is the entity that created it...
If the US and UN were impartial, they would have forced the Arab states, and worked towards the Arab states accepting them, and not put them into a group that they altogether don't deserve to be at all.
By your argument, the US shouldn't be in a group either. It's called the West European and Others Group for a reason. If Israel cannot join the Asian group, at least it can join WEOG.
So, condemning Israel for it's abuse of the Palestinian population needs to be shot down? I've never seen such a blind disregard for other human beings before.
I never said that. You also seem to have a penchant for pulling words out of my mouth magically. Israel has violated human rights to some extent. But have they violated human rights to the extent of Syria? China? Sudan? Khmer Rouge? I think not.
No proof, why are you making a statement? I assert that there's a giant invisible pink teapot revolving around Earth now, but I have no proof. Yet I assert it. You therefore have to accept it!
I knew that instead of attempting to refute that statement logically you were going to go off on another one of your tantrums. In fact, after posting that I found some evidence to back it up...
"On 11 March 1997, the Palestinian representative charged, in a chamber packed with 500 people including the representatives of 53 states and hundreds of non-governmental organizations, that the Israeli Government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the repeated interventions of the Governments of Israel and the US, and UN Watch, this modern Blood Libel stands unchallenged and unrefuted on the UN record. No appropriate action by any UN body or official has been taken to date."
Jewish Virtual Library
"In comments reported today in the the US and Canadian media, Syrian diplomat Rania Al Rifaiy had accused Israel of being a state "built on hatred, discrimination, oppression and a paranoid feeling of superiority."
As evidence, she purported to quote anti-Arab comments from a rabbi and a children's song. "Let me quote a song," said Al Rifaiy, "that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school:`With my teeth I will rip your flesh, with my mouth I will suck your blood."
U.N. Watch
Speaking at Brandeis University, Goldstone noted that the widened mandate was presented by the president of the UNHRC to a plenary session, where it did not encounter a single objection.''.
However the new mandate was not accepted by the Council, only proposed by the President. The mandate under which the Mission acted on was the original.
So, even with a more trustable site of MSNBC, you're not going to accept it?
If there was irrefutable proof, then yes, I'd accept it. However I do not trust Palestinian reports because of their notoriety for being made up. Remember Muhammad al-Durrah? Pallywood in action.
it would make Arabs the majority within Israel and Jews an ethnic minority. They contend that this would ''mean eradicating Israel.''
Which it would. It would cease to be Israel if Arabs became the majority!
I have also read your articles. And in fact, I can play the same feeble excuse by claiming that they are merely allegations with no evidence to back them up. I think I should shouldn't I?
Actually, it's article. Not in the plural form...
And the article is backed up by U.N. transcripts of the very meeting! So yes, there is proof that Abbas is attempting to use Res. 181 to gain a Palestinian state illegally.
As long as these allegations in your articles are just allegations, I shall treat them with skepticism, bury my head in the mud, and ignore everything else! And you can't fault me for that, because I have a nasty tendency to conviniently choose which sources I want to believe or not to believe! Because I say so! Therefore I can!
Instead of screaming like an immature child who doesn't get their way, I suggest using a more respectful tone in debates. If you continue this line of rhetoric, you will lose face in any IRL argument. It is necessary to be polite, even when chatting with an adversary. You might want to learn to be more kind.
I recall you posting in an earlier thread that the U.N. could be considered perpetually biased in favor of Israel because it is the entity that created it...
Did I here?
By your argument, the US shouldn't be in a group either. It's called the West European and Others Group for a reason. If Israel cannot join the Asian group, at least it can join WEOG.
The Americans only have observer status. And yes, I disagree that America should be inside, but that's beside the main point of Israel not being inside. Don't avoid that and bring in another country.
I never said that. You also seem to have a penchant for pulling words out of my mouth magically. Israel has violated human rights to some extent. But have they violated human rights to the extent of Syria? China? Sudan? Khmer Rouge? I think not.
That's because some of these resolutions need to be shot down.
By shooting them down, that's showing a disregard for human rights. Yes, they have condemned Syria recently. No, China does not allow such abuses to happen to its women. Nor do any of these countries illegally occupy any foreign land.
I knew that instead of attempting to refute that statement logically you were going to go off on another one of your tantrums. In fact, after posting that I found some evidence to back it up...
I logically disproved it by proving that at that time you had no evidence. It is not a temper, but merely an absurd statement to show the absurdity of yours.
"In comments reported today in the the US and Canadian media, Syrian diplomat Rania Al Rifaiy had accused Israel of being a state "built on hatred, discrimination, oppression and a paranoid feeling of superiority."
As evidence, she purported to quote anti-Arab comments from a rabbi and a children's song. "Let me quote a song," said Al Rifaiy, "that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school:`With my teeth I will rip your flesh, with my mouth I will suck your blood."
U.N. Watch
How does this even show UN biasedness? It just shows the ignorance of one diplomat.
If there was irrefutable proof, then yes, I'd accept it. However I do not trust Palestinian reports because of their notoriety for being made up. Remember Muhammad al-Durrah? Pallywood in action.
One Palestinian source being a blacksheep does not indicate them ALL being biased.
Which it would. It would cease to be Israel if Arabs became the majority!
Then that's a natural demographic progression which Israel is artificially stopping via terror. I'd like to see what would happen when one day the Arab Israelis outnumber the Jewish ones.
Actually, it's article. Not in the plural form...
And the article is backed up by U.N. transcripts of the very meeting! So yes, there is proof that Abbas is attempting to use Res. 181 to gain a Palestinian state illegally.
There's nothing illegal about it. If UN Resolution 181 is illegal, so is Israel.
Also, you're telling me I'm immature when you hop onto an extra ''s''?
Instead of screaming like an immature child who doesn't get their way, I suggest using a more respectful tone in debates. If you continue this line of rhetoric, you will lose face in any IRL argument. It is necessary to be polite, even when chatting with an adversary. You might want to learn to be more kind.
I think if you look up at my post, everything was well backed and written without tempers, until the last paragraph, where I merely caricature your hysterics about Palestinian sources all being false. If you think the rest of the post is just me being petulent, perhaps you need the vocab meter in your head checked. Or rather, the sarcasm meter, because anyone can easily see the hyper-inflated and exaggerated tone of my last paragraph was a parody of you, and not a temper.
Did I here?
Like I said...an earlier thread.
The Americans only have observer status. And yes, I disagree that America should be inside, but that's beside the main point of Israel not being inside. Don't avoid that and bring in another country.
I'm not avoiding it. I'm just saying that it is unfair that Israel is treated with double standard. There is no way that Israel will ever have good standing with many of its Arab neighbors, so they might as well join a different group.
Nor do any of these countries illegally occupy any foreign land.
*coughTIBETcough*
'nuff said
How does this even show UN biasedness? It just shows the ignorance of one diplomat.
I never said it was an example of U.N. bias. It was an example of U.N. anti-Semitism.
There's nothing illegal about it. If UN Resolution 181 is illegal, so is Israel.
The resolution is not illegal. It is the retrospective attempt by the Palestinians to try and use that to gain a country that is illegal.
Or rather, the sarcasm meter, because anyone can easily see the hyper-inflated and exaggerated tone of my last paragraph was a parody of you, and not a temper.
Again, using hyperbole in a debate is deconstructive. I suggest you don't do it again, otherwise I might just leave due to the degenerate nature of this discussion. Of course, that would bring out more accusations of me automatically agreeing with whatever you say!
Like I said...an earlier thread.
Right. I can't remember everything I said.
I'm not avoiding it. I'm just saying that it is unfair that Israel is treated with double standard. There is no way that Israel will ever have good standing with many of its Arab neighbors, so they might as well join a different group.
I'm not avoiding it. I'm just saying that it is unfair that Israel is treated with double standard. There is no way that Israel will ever have good standing with many of its Arab neighbors, so they might as well join a different group.
No. If the UN really is fair, they would constantly mediate any conflict between the group during discussions, and not transfer it favourably to another group where it has no grounds to be in.
*coughTIBETcough*
'nuff said
I would dispute the ''occupation'', and the extent of such abuses, which are extremely light compared to what Israel commits.
I never said it was an example of U.N. bias. It was an example of U.N. anti-Semitism.
It's not UN anti-semitism, but one diplomat's semitism; what she said does not represent the views of ALL UN diplomats.
The resolution is not illegal. It is the retrospective attempt by the Palestinians to try and use that to gain a country that is illegal.
So looking back at resolutions now is illegal? How does that work out?
Again, using hyperbole in a debate is deconstructive. I suggest you don't do it again, otherwise I might just leave due to the degenerate nature of this discussion. Of course, that would bring out more accusations of me automatically agreeing with whatever you say!
Then leave, because such accusations are hypocritical in nature when you yourself constantly do so all the time. I don't have to conform to the way you argue, and be all ''objective'' in my rhetoric, anymore than you do. Again, I've accused you of agreeing with me automatically, so I don't know where you got that from.
So looking back at resolutions now is illegal? How does that work out?
Because basically Abbas wants to turn the clock back to 1947 and accept the Partition. My response to that is "too bad so sad." They had their chance, and they lost it. It would be insulting to the memory of Israeli soldiers who died in the multiple wars if the Partition plan was suddenly replaced into effect.
No. If the UN really is fair, they would constantly mediate any conflict between the group during discussions, and not transfer it favourably to another group where it has no grounds to be in.
I still do not understand how you are faulting Israel for attempting to fully participate in U.N. procedures. It just shows your own bigotry against Israel because if you truly were not biased, you wouldn't care if Israel wasn't in the "roper" group because the WEOG is literally the only group that is legally allowed to accept them besides their "home" group, which will not in the foreseeable future.
I would dispute the ''occupation'', and the extent of such abuses, which are extremely light compared to what Israel commits.
List of more Chinese crimes.
I don't have to conform to the way you argue, and be all ''objective'' in my rhetoric, anymore than you do.
I just prefer that you don't indirectly insult me in this thread!
Because basically Abbas wants to turn the clock back to 1947 and accept the Partition. My response to that is "too bad so sad." They had their chance, and they lost it. It would be insulting to the memory of Israeli soldiers who died in the multiple wars if the Partition plan was suddenly replaced into effect.
It would be not just an insult, but a death sentence and misery to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians under Israeli Occupation. Not to mention an insult to the Palestinians who died for a homeland, but that's inconsequential.
I still do not understand how you are faulting Israel for attempting to fully participate in U.N. procedures. It just shows your own bigotry against Israel because if you truly were not biased, you wouldn't care if Israel wasn't in the "roper" group because the WEOG is literally the only group that is legally allowed to accept them besides their "home" group, which will not in the foreseeable future.
Because Israel's main concern is with the Arab states, and with the UN allowing them to bypass the group, its the same as avoiding the conflict at hand. And yes, it matters, because different regional groups have a different number of seats allocated to them. Similarly, I can accuse you of your inherent biasness towards Israel if you're going to claim that Israel has a ''right'' to belong to the WEOG. Actually wait, didn't you say the UN was biased against Israel? Clearly, this isn't a case of biasness.
. According to a document captured by the guerrillas fighting the Chinese army, 87,000 deaths were recorded in Lhasa between March 1959 and September 1960.
This was during a war. Unfortunately, the violence erupting in the Occupied Areas now are mainly perpetuated not by IDF soldiers, but by settler communities pushing off the locals from their land. I don't see any normal Chinese citizen taking a gun and shooting the Tibetans on a regular basis. Furthermore, Israel has failed to develop the Occupied Areas as well as hindering any developments started by the PLO, by contrast, China has shelled out tons of money developing Tibet.
I just prefer that you don't indirectly insult me in this thread!
I didn't. I don't know how you got this conflated picture from.
Honestly, in my opinion, the U.N. is just a diplomatic joke. The powerful nations (such as America and the victors of WWII) that lead the U.N. use less powerful nations to justify their decisions and if they don't like what those less powerful nations say, they do what they want regardless.
Thread is locked!