EPTGaza war 2014 - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
On July 24 2014 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote: In other news, this is the UN vote on whether or not to open an investigation into alleged human rights abuses in the conflict: ![[image loading]](https://38.media.tumblr.com/ecc4800b81c8bd7500e77f6c86951edd/tumblr_n96f2rykTP1qj171uo1_500.png) That`s just sad. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
This, according to him, could explain the high death toil in Chardjaiya (more than a hundred killed, mostly civilian, last sunday 20/07) : facing a lot of difficulties (they lost more than 15 soldiers) the Israeli army asked for extraction and bombarded the neighborhood with the result that we know of. (sry it's in french) http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2014/07/24/israel-craint-de-payer-au-prix-fort-la-disparition-du-soldat-shaul-oron_4462243_3218.html About the vote, occidental countries are cowards that's it. | ||
|
mAKiTO
Colombia4177 Posts
- The Israeli decision to rain death and destruction on Gaza, to use lethal weapons of the modern battlefield on a largely defenseless civilian population, is the final phase in a decades-long campaign to ethnically-cleanse Palestinians. - Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely-crowded refugee camps, schools, apartment blocks, mosques, and slums to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command in control, no army… and calls it a war. It is not a war, it is murder. - When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can’t defend yourself when you’re militarily occupying someone else’s land. That’s not defense. Call it what you like, it’s not defense.” | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 24 2014 20:43 mAKiTO wrote: “The incursion and bombardment of Gaza is not about destroying Hamas. It is not about stopping rocket fire into Israel, it is not about achieving peace. - The Israeli decision to rain death and destruction on Gaza, to use lethal weapons of the modern battlefield on a largely defenseless civilian population, is the final phase in a decades-long campaign to ethnically-cleanse Palestinians. - Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely-crowded refugee camps, schools, apartment blocks, mosques, and slums to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command in control, no army… and calls it a war. It is not a war, it is murder. - When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can’t defend yourself when you’re militarily occupying someone else’s land. That’s not defense. Call it what you like, it’s not defense.” I don't think it's ethnical cleansing tho because ethnical cleansing is at a different scale. I think Israeli believe instilling fear in gazan and palestinians overall is a good way to assure their safety, but it just doesn't work and they need the international community to tell that to them, or they will never get out of the palestinian problem. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
I am curious as to how did China vote. Anyobody knows? Or is it whole council? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:04 Silvanel wrote: I am curious as to how did China vote. Anyobody knows? Or is it whole council? Its right there, China voted yes. | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
What's sad is that half the countries that voted yes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Human Rights Council. Oh, the irony. That said, USA's no vote is frustrating but expected. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:10 Warlock40 wrote: What's sad is that half the countries that voted yes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Human Rights Council. Oh, the irony. That said, USA's no vote is frustrating but expected. Same goes for the countries that voted no, but that's a different story. Simply not how it works. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/SpecialSessions/Session21/Pages/21stSpecialSession.aspx | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:12 m4ini wrote: Same goes for the countries that voted no, but that's a different story. Simply not how it works. Well, only one nation voted no, and USA is pretty good as far as human rights are concerned. Or do you mean the ones that abstained? Or do you just mean in a general sense? I once read an article a long time ago about how the selection process for these councils worked, but I forgot all about it, so I'll have to look it up on Wikipedia. Obviously it's not as straightforward as "the nations with the best human rights records get to be on the Human Rights Council", but it kind of should be. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:15 Warlock40 wrote: Well, only one nation voted no, and USA is pretty good as far as human rights are concerned. Or do you mean the ones that abstained? Or do you just mean in a general sense? I once read an article a long time ago about how the selection process for these councils worked, but I forgot all about it, so I'll have to look it up on Wikipedia. Obviously it's not as straightforward as "the nations with the best human rights records get to be on the Human Rights Council", but it kind of should be. Bolded: bingo. Underlined: lol, just no. We're also not having a discussion about this here - we clearly can discuss that via pm though. edit: for the voting process, there simply shouldn't be a voting. If someone is accused of warcrimes, there shouldn't be a voting to investigate. They should just do it. | ||
|
Fi0na
0 Posts
On July 24 2014 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote: In other news, this is the UN vote on whether or not to open an investigation into alleged human rights abuses in the conflict: why would they investigate about these human right abuses but turn a blind eye for the decades of terrorising/attacking civilians with bombs/rockets from the other side? Because there isn't an official representative structure to point fingers at and say "boo"? I'm not saying that this investigation might not be justified, but only doing this and ignoring the other side of the coin would take away from the neutrality of an observer that such an investigation needs to be worth anything really in my humble opinion. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:19 Fi0na wrote: why would they investigate about these human right abuses but turn a blind eye for the decades of terrorising/attacking civilians with bombs/rockets from the other side? Because there isn't an official representative structure to point fingers at and say "boo"? I'm not saying that this investigation might not justified, but only doing this and ignoring the other side of the coin would take away from the neutrality of an observer that such an investigation needs to be worth anything really in my humble opinion. Agreed. They should definitely investigate both sides. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:19 Fi0na wrote: why would they investigate about these human right abuses but turn a blind eye for the decades of terrorising/attacking civilians with bombs/rockets from the other side? Because there isn't an official representative structure to point fingers at and say "boo"? I'm not saying that this investigation might not justified, but only doing this and ignoring the other side of the coin would take away from the neutrality of an observer that such an investigation needs to be worth anything really in my humble opinion. Investigating warcrimes of terrorists? I'm not entirely sure that is even a thing. Did that question ever come up about talibans (honest question, not fluent in that regard)? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:19 Fi0na wrote: why would they investigate about these human right abuses but turn a blind eye for the decades of terrorising/attacking civilians with bombs/rockets from the other side? Because there isn't an official representative structure to point fingers at and say "boo"? I'm not saying that this investigation might not be justified, but only doing this and ignoring the other side of the coin would take away from the neutrality of an observer that such an investigation needs to be worth anything really in my humble opinion. Every government in the world condemn the rocket, but not the Israeli attacks just saying. The gazans lost a lot of money from restriction as soon as they elected Hamas, meanwhile can you give me one exemple of restriction of condamnation on Israelis way of doing things ? | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:18 m4ini wrote: Bolded: bingo. Underlined: lol, just no. We're also not having a discussion about this here - we clearly can discuss that via pm though. edit: for the voting process, there simply shouldn't be a voting. If someone is accused of warcrimes, there shouldn't be a voting to investigate. They should just do it. Regarding the voting process, I can see a need for it, otherwise there'd be baseless claims going back and forth all day. I mean, there probably are already, this just helps cut down the noise. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:25 Warlock40 wrote: Regarding the voting process, I can see a need for it, otherwise there'd be baseless claims going back and forth all day. I mean, there probably are already, this just helps cut down the noise. And the voting is also a way to ask countries if they are willing to send people and deploy ressources to investigate in, most of the time, dangerous war zone. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 24 2014 21:19 Fi0na wrote: why would they investigate about these human right abuses but turn a blind eye for the decades of terrorising/attacking civilians with bombs/rockets from the other side? Because there isn't an official representative structure to point fingers at and say "boo"? I'm not saying that this investigation might not be justified, but only doing this and ignoring the other side of the coin would take away from the neutrality of an observer that such an investigation needs to be worth anything really in my humble opinion. If you are wondering about that, that's because the Gaza strip isn't regarded as a member state of the UN. Now I wonder why that it? As it turns out, USA have consistently denied any sort of attempts by the Palestinians to apply to become a member state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine. Curious how that works out. You want the UN to investigate a non-UN member that the UN doesn't even recognise as a state in it's own right? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On July 24 2014 19:40 Schmobutzen wrote: Actually it is easy! First: Lift the siege and give the Palestinians their state! Second: Make them borders and them treaties as open as possible, let everyone live where they want to, without displacing someone, etc. Build friendly relationships, help and stabilize each other. Treat the other not as an enemy, but as a good neighbor. The Israelian governvements job is to is to keep their citizens safe. Opening up borders while the Gaza strip is not de-radicalised and de-militarized would be ridiculous. For gods sake please stop judging Israel as if it was some central European country that has lived in peace for 60 years. "Oh, no they have used weapon x!", "Oh boy, they have killed y". Israel has gotten their hands dirty occasionally, but basically everyone they have been fighting over the last half century has either tried to eradicate them completely or has used decades of terrorism just for the sake of forcing Israel's hand and shoving blame on them with no respect to human life at all.(The Hamas knows their rockets are accomplishing nothing besides forcing retaliation, they're consciously giving up their citizens lives to blame hate on Israel) I love how we Europeans and Americans sit on our couches and are just like "Yeah, don't kill each other! You gotta start being friendly!" Yeah no shit call the UN | ||
| ||
