Once again Israel shows it doesn't screw around

[Nyah]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28437626

The UN's top human rights official has condemned Israel's military actions in the Gaza Strip, saying that war crimes may have been committed.

She also condemned Hamas for "indiscriminate attacks" on Israel.

Israel, which claims the UN Human Rights Council is biased, is unlikely to co-operate with any authorised UN investigation, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva reports.

Israel's Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, said her country was acting according to international law.

"It is regrettable civilians are killed, but when we call on them to vacate and Hamas calls on them to stay, then that is what happens," she told Israel radio.

Ms Livni also described the UN Human Rights Council as an "anti-Israel" body.

Kyung-wha Kang, the assistant secretary-general at the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said civilians in Gaza had no safe to place to go "as 44% of the land has been declared a 'no-go zone' by the Israeli army".

"Families are taking the heart-wrenching decision to split to different locations - mother and son to one; father and daughter to another - hoping to maximise the chance one part of the family survives."

Pretty sad. Why does Tzipi Livni think that the UN Human Rights Council is anti-Israel?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

What do you gain by insulting him?

When did calling someone's point false and exaggerated become and insult?

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I get that his post probably got you fired up, but what he said was true, as that claim has been made multiple times in this thread.

What point is there in this post? What do you gain by insulting him?

How is that insulting him? Who are the 'some people' that claim the Palestinians deserve to die because they support Hamas. He is trying to paint anyone that doesn't agree with his position as being unsympathetic to the Palestinians through exaggeration and generalization.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Zevo

He is trying to paint anyone that doesn't agree with his position as being unsympathetic to the Palestinians through exaggeration and generalization.

This... this concept is vaguely familiar from reading this thread. Just having trouble putting my finger on it... someone help me out...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Nyah

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28437626

Pretty sad. Why does Tzipi Livni think that the UN Human Rights Council is anti-Israel?

Because the UN Human Rights Council keeps telling Israel to stop building illegal settlements and killing civilians in a militarily occupied, non-ceded territory.

It's pretty germain to this discussion as the same thing happens here. Critical of israeli policy = biased and/or anti-semite.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

When did calling someone's point false and exaggerated become and insult?

Originally Posted by Zevo

How is that insulting him? Who are the 'some people' that claim the Palestinians deserve to die because they support Hamas. He is trying to paint anyone that doesn't agree with his position as being unsympathetic to the Palestinians through exaggeration and generalization.

Perhaps insulting wasn't the word I meant. More along the lines of antagonising I suppose?

What I mean to say, is that while you may have not liked what he said, there is zero point in brushing him off with "Well he's probably making it up like usual." Why say anything at all? Why not just ignoring him instead of making a statement purposely designed to elicit a negative reaction. Just because you feel he did it first? That seems silly.

His statement, while clearly a shot at the people that have made that claim, was true, go back and look through the thread. I didn't get he impression he was accusing everyone of that at all. Certainly not you, nor blankall, have been guilty of that (so far as I'm aware).

Anyways, I don't mean to pretend to be the decency police. I apologise. I just think (from what I've seen from your posts) that you're capable of a lot better than that.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Israel has threatened to withdraw from the UN HRC after this. Surprised the UK and some of the others simply abstained rather than vote straight no, as an abstention is essentially voting no.

UN GenevaVerified account‏@UNGeneva1h
UN Human Rights Council States vote on resolution establishing independent Commission of Inquiry for #OPT & #Gaza pic.twitter.com/C9NWG4tZRM

[WCW Nitro]

Funny how Israel never wants to cooperate in investigations, you'd think it would want to showcase all the "extraordinary" measures it takes to not target civilians.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Israel has threatened to withdraw from the UN HRC after this. Surprised the UK and some of the others simply abstained rather than vote straight no, as an abstention is essentially voting no.

Yikes that's embarrassing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yikes that's embarrassing.

It's embarrassing that half the countries on that list aren't exactly stewards of human rights themselves.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yikes that's embarrassing.

I agree embarrassing that countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Venezuela are on a body responsible for upholding human rights.

Countries that make homosexuality a crime should be nowhere near that body.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's embarrassing that half the countries on that list aren't exactly stewards of human rights themselves.

Originally Posted by blankall

I agree embarrassing that countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Venezuela are on a body responsible for upholding human rights.

Countries that make homosexuality a crime should be nowhere near that body.

Well it's important to have different views on there. Those countries seem to be the only ones that are willing to uphold international laws in this case.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Well it's important to have different views on there. Those countries seem to be the only ones that are willing to uphold international laws in this case.

I am sure Muslim countries don't have an axe to grind at all when Israel is involved. Their votes are obviously out of the concern for human rights. I wonder what the Saudi Arabian response would be to a similar human rights inquiry into those guilty verdicts for a couple of those rape victims.

You have to realize you might be siding with the wrong set of people when you see a vote list like this one. There has to be a better way to go about this than relying on a list of countries that regularly abuse human rights and freedoms.

[Senator Clay Davis]

China, Russia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire. I guess if you're going to have a panel on human rights you might as well have some of the biggest offenders on there. That panel is actually pretty messed up.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

That panel is actually pretty messed up.

It makes you realize how worthless the UN actually is as far as being an organization that can actually help make the world a better place. The people that it should be watching are the ones making the decision.

Wasn't Canada taken off this committee or something because of complaints by countries like China over our treatment of the First Nations or am I totally making that up in my head and mis-remembering?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

I agree embarrassing that countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Venezuela are on a body responsible for upholding human rights.

Countries that make homosexuality a crime should be nowhere near that body.

I agree, I've questioned the UN appointments to bodies like this for a long time. I think you should have to have some intent of implementing fundamental human rights and equality rights in order to be invited onto a panel like this.

So I take this result with a grain of salt.

What i find interesting is that there's a bit of a slap in the face to the American's there as they couldn't form a voting block.

We know that their international influence and prestige has slipped a bit, this makes a compelling argument for that.

[Flash Walken]

Well, it would be tough to stock the UN if the criteria was that strict.

What is the amount of time that needs to pass to repair the reputation of a nation? Does British Colonialism count?

German treatment of jews, gypsies, homosexuals and dissidents?

Racism was official in South Africa until 1994.

Do the Japanese get points removed from their license for hiroshima and nagasaki?

The United States executes the mentally disabled.

Should we let them on?

Instead of trying to pull apart the organization, why not focus some substance on the argument?

[Flash Walken]

JERUSALEM—In response to criticism surrounding the death toll during its ongoing incursion into Gaza, representatives from the Israeli government Wednesday emphasized that warnings sent to Palestinian civilians provided them with ample time to evacuate to nearby bombing sites. “We are being very careful and thorough as we carry out our targeted strikes, and I can say, without question, that Palestinians are given more than enough time to leave their residences and find shelter in a future bombardment target,” said Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, adding that whether alerted by phone, text message, or leaflet, Palestinians have sufficient opportunity to relocate to any number of locations marked for imminent aerial strikes.

“Giving Palestinian civilians the chance to seek safety in the home of a family member or friend that will be shelled to rubble in the next 48 hours is a gesture we deserve praise for, not condemnation. In fact, this initiative has been a major success in this campaign.” Ya’alon added that since there were numerous bombing sites Palestinians could take shelter in, he was not responsible for whatever happened to people who chose to stay home.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/isr...cuate-t,36527/

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, it would be tough to stock the UN if the criteria was that strict.

What is the amount of time that needs to pass to repair the reputation of a nation? Does British Colonialism count?

German treatment of jews, gypsies, homosexuals and dissidents?

Racism was official in South Africa until 1994.

Do the Japanese get points removed from their license for hiroshima and nagasaki?

The United States executes the mentally disabled.

Should we let them on?

Instead of trying to pull apart the organization, why not focus some substance on the argument?

Come on Flash, some of those members of the human rights council are the worst offenders of the modern day, right now, and are showing no interest in changing it. We know that getting onto these commissions is pretty much about influence peddling, favors and side deals. To me its meaningless.

Is Germany still executing Jews, homosexuals and gypsy's?

Has South Africa gone away from Apartheid?

etc.

In order to be a body that promotes and sanctions all things human rights the countries in those bodies should have some kind of minimum standard or else that body is hypocritical.

[Flash Walken]

Does that invalidate in any way the findings of the council, or is everyone just out to get Israel?

Some of these dictatorships know human rights abuses when they see them.