Guest Derek L Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I hope Israel does feel somewhat vindicated. The United Nation’s long-awaited Palmer Report on the Gaza flotilla incident has now been released, and, from Israel’s perspective it has to be seen as a major win. The committee firmly decides that the blockade is legal and notes that an essential element of a legal element is that it has to be enforced consistently (which means intercepting folks trying to breach it, and can entail forcibly boarding resisting vessels). link I have to question the finding that Israel used "excessive and unreasonable" force though, in light of the report's finding "that the the Israeli soldiers who boarded the Mavi Marmara did face violent resistance." Well, the UN can hardly be expected to become a Solomon Redux.... Give Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people and to know good and evil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Probably roughly when statements like this are made. Ummmmm.... I covered that already. Not to mention, that's not the comment/post you quoted in your response; in other words, not the comment you were responding to. I stand by my original statement regarding the UN. It's going to take more than one report to undo years of heavily handed criticism of Israel. Just as I wouldn't start listening to Fox News as a "fair and balanced" news source based on one newscast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well, the UN can hardly be expected to become a Solomon Redux.... Give Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people and to know good and evil What I'm saying is - I think the "excessive and unreasonable" judgement, in light of the other finding, is totally inconsistent. When one is met with "violent resistance," I have to wonder what kind of "force" in response would be acceptable. Seems to me violent force is not only justifiable, but necessary, when being met with "violent resistance." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 What I'm saying is - I think the "excessive and unreasonable" judgement, in light of the other finding, is totally inconsistent. When one is met with "violent resistance," I have to wonder what kind of "force" in response would be acceptable. Seems to me violent force is not only justifiable, but necessary, when being met with "violent resistance." I agree 100%……I see the entire event as being akin to a traffic cop pulling someone over than being bushwhacked then after, being criticized for using force to defend him/herself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 8 posts from the person who doesn't want to waste her time reading what she's responding to. The main point - you missed as usual - was: "The UN spends so much time criticizing Israel - yet so little time criticizing others". You're of course free to duck it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The UN found the blockade legal. Of course they had to take some pot shots at Israel in the process, but they didn't feel up to blatantly lying about the obvious legality of the blockade. That's the one important piece of information in the report, everything else ("excessive", "unreasonable", etc) is subjective opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The UN found the blockade legal. Of course they had to take some pot shots at Israel in the process, but they didn't feel up to blatantly lying about the obvious legality of the blockade. That's the one important piece of information in the report, everything else ("excessive", "unreasonable", etc) is subjective opinion. I didnt think it was excessive, i thought it was just a botched operation that wasnt thought through very well. It put both Israeli soldiers and the boats occupants at risk. Thats essentially what the Israeli military investigation found. It also caused a public relations nightmare that caused Israel to have to relax the siege. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 you're trying to babble your way out of what is obvious; which is that you're trolling. both the post you've wasted your time on replying to and the report have said that the israeli blockade is legal while the raid was excessive and the deaths unacceptable. hardly one-sided. i expect more denial by you. you've become an expert in that. When the UN can put countries like Libya under Ghaddafi as head of Human Rights Commissions, along with some fundamentalist, barbaric Muslim countries, what's the point of reading ANY UN report? One would think that such reports would be rather predictable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The main point - you missed as usual - was: "The UN spends so much time criticizing Israel - yet so little time criticizing others". You're of course free to duck it. bs. you don't even know what the UN spends time doing. any criticism of israel is too much for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 bs. you don't even know what the UN spends time doing. How do you know? Btw, what the 's' stands for in your initials? any criticism of israel is too much for you. Not at all, the more the merrier, or as the man said Make My Day. Do you feel lucky today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 bs. you don't even know what the UN spends time doing. any criticism of israel is too much for you. .... supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged, by standards that are not applied to its enemies – and too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies. Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan, General Assembly 19 September 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 How do you know? Btw, what the 's' stands for in your initials? Not at all, the more the merrier, or as the man said Make My Day. Do you feel lucky today? are you competing with jbg for the unfunniest poster on this forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 are you competing with jbg for the unfunniest poster on this forum? I understand how it's not funny - for you. Therefore you're better off to stay with the actual issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) When the UN can put countries like Libya under Ghaddafi as head of Human Rights Commissions, along with some fundamentalist, barbaric Muslim countries, what's the point of reading ANY UN report? One would think that such reports would be rather predictable... UN is a big organization with several sub organizations. these organizations and committees have different systems. there is no doubt that there are problems with some of the organizations and committees. like durban, for example. however, you can't disregard UN as useless based on something like the above. the UN has a lot of productive and necessary organizations. take the fact finding mission, headed by judge goldstone for example. goldstone is one of the most respected judges in the world. he's been behind very high profile cases, including the hunt for nazis in argentina. goldstone set the rules on how the investigation will be conducted. yet, those who are afraid of any criticism of israel, try to dismiss the report because it originated from the UN. Edited September 2, 2011 by bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 UN is a big organization with several sub organizations. these organizations and committees have different systems. there is no doubt that there are problems with some of the organizations and committees. like durban, for example. however, you can't disregard UN as useless based on something like the above. the UN has a lot of productive and necessary organizations. take the fact finding mission, headed by judge goldstone for example. goldstone is one of the most respected judges in the world. he's been behind very high profile cases, including the hunt for nazis in argentina. goldstone set the rules on how the investigation will be conducted. yet, those who are afraid of any criticism of israel, try to dismiss the report because it originated from the UN. Well, that's the official excuse! To me, it makes more sense to look at a large organization and see if it's virtues outnumber its faults. Human rights is just ONE committee that is grievously flawed! Hell, even all those pennies for UNICEF we collected for Halloween became involved in a scandal! After a while you begin to suspect that "a lot of productive and necessary organizations." are actually in the minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well, that's the official excuse! To me, it makes more sense to look at a large organization and see if it's virtues outnumber its faults. Human rights is just ONE committee that is grievously flawed! Hell, even all those pennies for UNICEF we collected for Halloween became involved in a scandal! After a while you begin to suspect that "a lot of productive and necessary organizations." are actually in the minority. again, the UN is a big organization that has many subsidiaries. they're separate in how they work and what their system is. so what about the goldstone report? do you agree with it or not? if not, why not? what about the report this thread is about? the one american woman didn't read. do you agree with it or not? if not, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Because UN are bunch of hypocritical bureaucrats. Easily bribed by Arab oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 it's not just UN report after UN report that criticizes israel. numerous human rights organizations criticize israel as well. shocking that you would dismiss those as well. I dismiss them, yes. I have little more than contempt for them, in fact. They have so little moral authority in light of their dishonesty and lack of integrity I quite literally believe nothing they say on any subject. And I'm a person who becomes very angry at human rights abuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 UN calls israeli raid 'excessive', 'unreasonable' What does UN call Chinese attack and occupation of Tibet?????? The UN hasn't gotten around to investigating that yet. Nor is it unduly concerned with what Syria is doing, or North Korea, or Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Interesting. Turkey expels Israeli Ambassador. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/02/gaza-flotilla-raid-report-israel-turkey-united-nations.html Not much of a surprise given Turkey's Islamist leanings. Most reasonable people realize the Islamist government of Turkey was reasponsible for the violence itself. They encouraged, partly funded and recruited those who launched the flotilla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 I didnt think it was excessive, i thought it was just a botched operation that wasnt thought through very well. It put both Israeli soldiers and the boats occupants at risk. Thats essentially what the Israeli military investigation found. It also caused a public relations nightmare that caused Israel to have to relax the siege. Essentially, the problem the Israelis made was to use far too little force. They sent in the initial raiders largely unarmed, with paint guns, of all things. They clearly weren't prepared for frenzied Muslim fanatics clawing at their eyes and stabbing them with knives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Essentially, the problem the Israelis made was to use far too little force. They sent in the initial raiders largely unarmed, with paint guns, of all things. They clearly weren't prepared for frenzied Muslim fanatics clawing at their eyes and stabbing them with knives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Israel can simply declare all that "internal matter" (like China does) after annexing Lebanon and part of Jordan, and that's the end of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Interesting. Turkey expels Israeli Ambassador. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/02/gaza-flotilla-raid-report-israel-turkey-united-nations.html The Israeli Ambassador wasn't even in Turkey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Essentially, the problem the Israelis made was to use far too little force. They sent in the initial raiders largely unarmed, with paint guns, of all things. They clearly weren't prepared for frenzied Muslim fanatics clawing at their eyes and stabbing them with knives. And they also were waiting with guns, steel rods etc. They started the fracas. They well knew Israelis board every such vessel and do so with no violence. It was a trap and Israel fell for it. Had they simply boarded with guns pointed prepared to shoot, the attack by 'pacifists' wouldn't have happened. I can't fault the Israelis for respondingonce attacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.