US Hits UN Gaza Report for Excess Focus on Israel

[Tashah]

US Hits UN Gaza Report for Excess Focus on Israel
By David Gollust
Washington
19 September 2009

The United States Friday criticized as deeply unbalanced against Israel a U.N. Human Rights Council report this week alleging that both Israel and Hamas apparently committed war crimes in their three-week conflict last winter. The State Department says the international focus should be on supporting efforts to get Israel and the Palestinians back to peace negotiations.

The United States had complained previously that the U.N. Human Rights Council set forth a one-sided and unacceptable mandate for the inquiry. In a talk with reporters, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said the results uphold the United States' earlier misgivings. "Although the report addresses all sides to the conflict, its overwhelming focus is on the actions of Israel. While the report makes over-sweeping conclusions of fact and law with respect to Israel, its conclusions regarding Hamas' deplorable conduct and its failure to comply with international humanitarian law during the conflict are more general and tentative. We also have very serious concerns about the report's recommendations including calls that this issue be taken up in international fora outside the human rights council, and in national courts of countries not party to the conflict," he said.

Source: Voice of America News.com

The lopsided UN report is no great surprise. This is the same wonderful UN that sponsored the anti-Israel DurbanI/DurbanII conferences.

Although it finds the time and resources to disparage Israel at every opportunity, it's quite amazing how the UN never gets around to investigating the oftentimes lengthy violent armed conflicts that transpire in Ossetia, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Somalia, Côte d'Ivoire, Philippines, Algeria(GIA), Turkey(PPK), Uganda(LRA), Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan(Talibs), etc. etc.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

When I read the report, I thought the same thing. UN bias against Israel, while ignoring some of the countries that most often violate human rights is standard operating procedure for this organization. I wrote a post about this a long time ago. It may take me some time, but I'll try to dig it up.

 

[gree0232]

Seriously? I grow tired of the constant, "any criticism of Israel is biased," routine. Here is a report form an earlier story about the subject which was actually released a few days ago.

"On the one hand, Israel will continue to delegitimize the report and the UN
in general, claiming that the international community is biased against it and
that international humanitarian law is ill-equipped to respond to the
realities of war against terror,"

United Nations Report Accuses Israel and Hamas of War Crimes | Reuters

Although I acknowlwdge that Hamas deliberately attacked civlian targets, I have a great deal of trouble castigating the results of this report that require Israeli perfection in battle.

I would sreiously like to now how Israeli conscripts fought better in their first battle, with more precision, and fewer mistakes, than do US soldiers in their 8th year of war, and 6th year of dual war?

God, I would LOVE to train my soldiers to that standard on less time and resources!

The worst part, no specific examples of where the report got out on line, like far too many posts in this forum, it is good enough to simply declare it biased and forget about it. The Paletsinians are baised too ... I am sure they will disappear?

So please tell me, how was attacking the Hamas Police, and internal security force, not a war crime? Particularly when the first thing the Israeli's demanded after the cease fire was that Hamas control all the rockets ...

Seriously? Control all the rockets when you just deliberately targetted and killed the internal security force? There are now far fewer policemen out there to send, and somehow attacking them was both legit in the rules of law and compelling in sustained capacity to police the terrirtory? Clearly, nothing to criticize there.

And of course, it is best to undermine an International Organization? There are five permenant members of the security council that could have prevented this report from being published if it were truly biased beyond reason. Somehow, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, and, curiosly enough, the US allowed it to happen. Say what?

Seriously, that report made it through the UN bureacracy without any of the five permanent SC members realizing it? I wonder if Israel realizes, much less appreciates the US risks being taken by us playing both sides of this coin in an attempt to offer something for both sides to take back to their people?

Palestine gets a UN report that conviently for Fatah blames both Israel and Hamas (God only knows what we promised to get that by Russia and China -- missile defense maybe?)

Israel gets public criticism of the report from the amprophous State Departmart official that is not the UN ambassador, SECSTATE, or POTUS.

Agh well, in the end, we can apparently take solace in pointing a slightly larger finger at one side rather than the other. I am sure all the rockets were destroyed and the tunnels into Egypt were perfectly sealed for the price of blood paid.

 

[Shayah]

Seriously? I grow tired of the constant, "any criticism of Israel is biased," routine.

Lol. Your government found the UN investigation and report to be highly biased against Israel.

I bet you'll next complain that the media comments of the US State Department spokesperson are off-the-cuff remarks and not an official State Department release.

Israel gets public criticism of the report from the amprophous State Departmart official that is not the UN ambassador, SECSTATE, or POTUS.

:rofl

Agh well, in the end, we can apparently take solace in pointing a slightly larger finger at one side rather than the other. I am sure all the rockets were destroyed and the tunnels into Egypt were perfectly sealed for the price of blood paid.

Shame on Hillary Clinton and that bad US State Department for finding fault with the wonderful United Nations :naughty

 

[Gardener]

Seriously? I grow tired of the constant, "any criticism of Israel is biased," routine. Here is a report form an earlier story about the subject which was actually released a few days ago.

.

.....and I think many of the more fair minded people here get fed up with the patently dishonest, and so extremely hackneyed line so often offered up by bigots in regards to "ANY criticism of Israel".

It isn't ANY criticism of Israel that people are reacting to, but the overwhelming bias as displayed by double standards, selective application of criticism, and extremity of focus on one side of the equation.

 

[gree0232]

Lol. Your government found the UN investigation and report to be highly biased against Israel.

I bet you'll next complain that the media comments of the US State Department spokesperson are off-the-cuff remarks and not an official State Department release.


:rofl


Shame on Hillary Clinton and that bad US State Department for finding fault with the wonderful United Nations :naughty

And yet, somehow despite our veto power status in teh US Security status, MY government also found it necessary to let the report be published. Now, please explain to me how a statement from a low level state department functionary carries more weight than the UN ambassador, with Cabinent level representation, and who also reports to the SECSTATE?

Nah, there couldn't possibly be an attmpt to offer both sides of this dispute something to take home to their domestic audience.

In typical Israeli fashion, the one that supports their claim, despite its lack of specifics, must be the true representation, the other ... well, blinders work for horses too.

 

[mbig]

What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel?
Frequently Asked Questions

".....In an analysis of the Security Council's record up to 1989, of 175 total resolutions passed by the Council, 97 were directed against Israel, as contrasted with 4 against all Arab states combined.
The Council expressed its 'concern,' 'grave concern,' 'regret,' 'deep regrets,' 'shock' etc. about Israeli actions 31 times. Regarding Arab actions, the Council Never expressed negative sentiments.
Only the veto power of the US prevented these numbers from being even more one-sided against Israel.

Because it has been blocked from membership in any regional group, Israel is the only nation in the world that is denied the right to hold a seat on the UN Security Council on a rotating basis....."


".......In the years 1947 to 1989, the General Assembly passed a total of 690 resolutions (full or partial). Of these, 429 were against the Israeli position while only 56 were against Arab positions. Of the 56 votes not to the Arabs' liking, 49 concerned the establishment or financing of peace-keeping forces.
Absent these, the last anti-Arab vote in the General Assembly, on any issue, was in May of 1949....."


"....The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem.
The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel.
Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts, but they were convened to condemn Israelis moving into buildings they own in territory they have a legitimate claim to...."

And it's gotten Much Worse since the above article was written/Stats compiled.
-

 

[gree0232]

.....and I think many of the more fair minded people here get fed up with the patently dishonest, and so extremely hackneyed line so often offered up by bigots in regards to "ANY criticism of Israel".

It isn't ANY criticism of Israel that people are reacting to, but the overwhelming bias as displayed by double standards, selective application of criticism, and extremity of focus on one side of the equation.

G:
I will remind you that there are rules to this forum, again.

Launching into personal attacks is a little outside rules. Consider yourself reported, yet again.

While calling others biased, basically because the criticizse Israel, whiel introducing absolutely nothing to addresses the points made by the person you are debating.

If anyone is biased here stud, it is you.

 

[Apocalypse]

And yet, somehow despite our veto power status in teh US Security status, MY government also found it necessary to let the report be published. Now, please explain to me how a statement from a low level state department functionary carries more weight than the UN ambassador, with Cabinent level representation, and who also reports to the SECSTATE?

Hey buddy, I'm going to let you on a secret that most of the people in this forum already know...

A paper weight carries more weight than the UN.

 

[PeteEU]

Another Israeli propaganda thread...

Funny how it is almost illegal on these boards to be even remotely critical of Israel.

And it is funny how this report is critical of both sides, but the IDF and the Israeli government says it is biased.. the reason.. it is not "enough" critical of the Palestinians.. I wonder what "enough" is...

Seems the only report that Israel would accept is one that lays the whole blame on the Palestinians and paints the IDF as angels.....

But I guess that is what you have to expect in this conflict as long as the US backs up Israel no matter what Israel does... bombing civilians with white phosphorous or using human shields or even torturing people.. all fair as long as it is Israel..... lets for get the aparthied system being implemented in the West Bank, and the out right stealing of land by the Israeli government... And lets not forget that despite promise after promise, Israel is still expanding its settlements in direct violation of numerous agreements with the US and the Palestinians.. but as long as it is Israel, then it is illegal and anti-semitic to point such things out... because it is all the Palestinians fault and every Palestinian is a terrorist.

Pathetic.

And inc the usual "you are an anti-semitic jew hater nazi Palestinian terrorist" comments from the usual suspects.

And for the record, Palestinian terror, rockets and abuses is just as wrong as what Israel does.....

 

[Gardener]

G:
I will remind you that there are rules to this forum, again.

Launching into personal attacks is a little outside rules. Consider yourself reported, yet again.

While calling others biased, basically because the criticizse Israel, whiel introducing absolutely nothing to addresses the points made by the person you are debating.

If anyone is biased here stud, it is you.

Oh, he called me a stud! :3oops:

Have all the women been talking THAT much?

 

[mbig]

Another Israeli propaganda thread...

"Propaganda" is in the eyes of the beholder and OPEN FOR DEBATE. You're up!

Do you deny the UN is biased against Israel?
Do you have any response to my post on the last page.

I don't even think UN Bias against Israel would be denied by most.. it's so conspicuous... and Legend even among non-supporters.
This Tiny nation Israel takes half the damn UN Flak.. even while real Genocides are going on.
-

 

[Gardener]

I don't even think UN Bias against Israel would be denied by most.. it's so conspicuous... and Legend even among non-supporters.

-

Can we all say "Durban", kids? Not to mention the fellow who is about to head up UNESCO.

 

[Gardener]

Funny how it is almost illegal on these boards to be even remotely critical of Israel.

No its not.

How pathetic that you would have to resort to such a baseless lie.

 

[gree0232]

What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel?
Frequently Asked Questions

Really the UN is baised against Israel? Yet, somehow Isarel has no problems with a UN force on its Northern border and a UN force on its Southern border.

Go figure.

Now, lets try to define how this body with 192 members in the General Assembly be biased?

There are also five permenant members of the Security Council with veto power.

In order for a resolution to pass it must have 2/3 support of the general assembly and the five permenant members of the Security Council must not veto it.

So how is it that a body that must reflect the general consensus of the global community to reach any statement is inherently, inevitably biased against Israel?

Could it be that sometimes Isarel is actually wrong?

Could it be that Israel's IO campaign is failing to convince the world that it is neceassary to carry out aggressive actions in support of? You tell me!

The same UN report that found Isarel comitted war crimes, also found that Hamas comitted war crimes. Ergo, if the same evidenciary standard (a standard that the global community seems to accept) was applied to both sides and finds that both sides stepped over the line, exactly which portion is biased?

Agh yes, a state department spokesman says it is so while offering no specifics. Ergo, it must be biased.

The report basically says that Israel is wrong for attacking targets of limited military value in highly populated areas where the resultung deaths of non-combatants is high is over the line. Although not in the report, this is particularly so if you cannot really define the military objective you are trying to achieve. If we have no intention of sending ground troops in Gaza City, is it really necessary to hit targets of limited military value and kill non-combatants. Again, there is no binding resolution demanding punishment for Israel, but it is a strongly worded caution to Israel to think about what the hell it is doing.

The report also strongly condemns Hamas for deliberately targetting Israeli cities. This is exactly what Israel has long said. So the UN basically agreeing with Israel's assessment of Hamas is ... biased? :doh

Applying a neutral look into the situation as a global assembly and finding that there are valid points that the two sides in contention can make versus the other is not inherently biased.

And a sstate departent spokesman saying it is biased isn't really a strong evidentiary case for making it biased.

 

[mbig]

I Laugh when people post UNISPAL

and btw...
'Unispal' sounds official UN (So it is).. but it's written by palestinians and might as well be written by their government/s. Whatever their govt is at this moment.

Here's a lesser Known RIG JOB in the UN Human Rights Nightmare:

UNISPAL - UN in the service of Arab propaganda

".......The Department of Political Affairs [DPA] is one of a dozen Departments associated with the UN Secretariate. Its mission statement is so broad, as to cover any conceivable topic.
Little wonder, then, that the Palestinian propaganda machine monopolized an entire Division within the DPA, namely, the “ Division for Palestinian Rights [DPR]” .
Each of the 7 Other Divisions within the DPA is GENERAL, e.g., “Americas and Europe Division”, “Asia and the Pacific Division”, etc.
But the Palestinians were going to settle for nothing less than an entire Division - and they got it, confirming the assessment that the UN is a “wholly-owned subsidiary of the Arab League”.

The mandate of the DPR is as follows:

Providing substantive support and secretariat services for the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and its Bureau;

Assisting the Committee in the exercise of its mandate and the promotion and implementation of its recommendations;

Planning, organizing and servicing the Committee’s programme of international meetings;

Consulting and maintaining liaison with NGOs which are active on the issue;

*Organizing the annual commemoration of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People;

*Preparing studies and publications relating to the question of Palestine and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people;

Promoting the widest possible dissemination of these studies and publications, including in cooperation with the Department of Public Information;

Maintaining and developing the computer-based United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL).​

Paraphrased, the mandate of the DPR is to generate and disseminate Palestinian propaganda, using UNISPAL as a vector.
In its campaign, the DPR uses as conduits a list of NGOs that runs for 11 screen pages, with approximately 250 NGO’s listed.

Of special interest is the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People”, established in 1975, the year of the infamous “Zionism = Racism” resolution......"

The DPR Octopus has many other tentacles as well, one being the organization of international conferences for the dissemination of Palestinian propaganda. As the DPR calendar of events indicates, in the quarter April - June, 2002 alone, the DPR held three international conferences. In this context one should also note the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”, held annually by DPR on November 29 - the very date in 1947 on which the UN voted for the establishment of Israel......"

IsraPundit


Quite remarkable really.
'Europe AND the AmericaS' ONE division! (from Nicaragua to Bosnia to Chile to Venezuela to to Serbia to Guantanamo)
'Asia and the Pacific' .... (From China to North Korea to Tibet to Burma to Indonesia to Philippines) One division!
but the Tiny 'palestinians' get a whole one 1/7 of the planet for themselves.
Not just a division but an Advocacy organization. Any "Days of Solidarity" for the Tibetans or Kurds or anyone else?
Just part of the Vast anti-Israel Bureaucracy called the UN.
-

 

[donsutherland1]

Tashah,

The report sets a new low. Among other things, it grossly distorts the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Government installations (command and control) and security forces are all properly combatants under international law. That the report attempts to invent civilian status for Hamas' government institutions and elements of its security forces would ex post facto render almost all past targeting in conflicts as war crimes. By inventing civilian status for combatants and command-and-control facilities, it also undermines the civilian protections that have evolved over more than a century of experience.

Aside from the report's flaws and material omissions (e.g., its failure to provide context for the conflict) and its adverse impact on international law as it relates to protecting civilians, the report reinforces past examples concerning UN bias.

 

[donsutherland1]

So please tell me, how was attacking the Hamas Police, and internal security force, not a war crime?

Such elements do not fall under the definition of civilians in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 50 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions provides a detailed definition of a civilian. It follows:

Art 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol...

From the Third Geneva Convention:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

...(c) that of carrying arms openly;

...(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

By the reasoning employed in the report that attempts to shield government officials and ministries from attack, the first U.S. strike aimed at killing Saddam Hussein, his sons, and senior Iraqi leaders would have amounted to a war crime. Contrary to the report's novel interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, command-and-control facilities are legitimate military objectives. So are security forces (militias or voluntary forces) who carry arms openly.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Seriously? I grow tired of the constant, "any criticism of Israel is biased," routine. Here is a report form an earlier story about the subject which was actually released a few days ago.

"On the one hand, Israel will continue to delegitimize the report and the UN
in general, claiming that the international community is biased against it and
that international humanitarian law is ill-equipped to respond to the
realities of war against terror,"

United Nations Report Accuses Israel and Hamas of War Crimes | Reuters

Although I acknowlwdge that Hamas deliberately attacked civlian targets, I have a great deal of trouble castigating the results of this report that require Israeli perfection in battle.

I would sreiously like to now how Israeli conscripts fought better in their first battle, with more precision, and fewer mistakes, than do US soldiers in their 8th year of war, and 6th year of dual war?

God, I would LOVE to train my soldiers to that standard on less time and resources!

The worst part, no specific examples of where the report got out on line, like far too many posts in this forum, it is good enough to simply declare it biased and forget about it. The Paletsinians are baised too ... I am sure they will disappear?

So please tell me, how was attacking the Hamas Police, and internal security force, not a war crime? Particularly when the first thing the Israeli's demanded after the cease fire was that Hamas control all the rockets ...

Seriously? Control all the rockets when you just deliberately targetted and killed the internal security force? There are now far fewer policemen out there to send, and somehow attacking them was both legit in the rules of law and compelling in sustained capacity to police the terrirtory? Clearly, nothing to criticize there.

And of course, it is best to undermine an International Organization? There are five permenant members of the security council that could have prevented this report from being published if it were truly biased beyond reason. Somehow, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, and, curiosly enough, the US allowed it to happen. Say what?

Seriously, that report made it through the UN bureacracy without any of the five permanent SC members realizing it? I wonder if Israel realizes, much less appreciates the US risks being taken by us playing both sides of this coin in an attempt to offer something for both sides to take back to their people?

Palestine gets a UN report that conviently for Fatah blames both Israel and Hamas (God only knows what we promised to get that by Russia and China -- missile defense maybe?)

Israel gets public criticism of the report from the amprophous State Departmart official that is not the UN ambassador, SECSTATE, or POTUS.

Agh well, in the end, we can apparently take solace in pointing a slightly larger finger at one side rather than the other. I am sure all the rockets were destroyed and the tunnels into Egypt were perfectly sealed for the price of blood paid.

gree, you can try to spin this all you want, but read mrbig's and don's posts. The UN has grossly oversanctioned Israel, in comparison to similar violations from other countries. There are errors on both sides, 'tis true, but the UN enhances each and every Israeli error (not so with Arab errors), and has different expectations for Israeli behavior than Arab behavior...which is considered antisemetic by the EU, I believe. Also, your explanation of including the Hamas police force as civilians is ridiculous. You have offered no refutation of the charges of bias and, instead, have just provided erroneous and equally as biased information. Bias is not only what is said, but often what is not said.

 

[Laila]

Gaza acts amounted to war crimes, U.N. report says - CNN.com

Although the U.N. investigation found that Palestinian militants also committed war crimes, the overwhelming majority of the criticism in a summary of the 574-page report targets Israel.

Israel did not cooperate in the investigation.

Well no wonder Israel did not help in the investigation. It would have faced condemnation whatever the result.

I was not a fan of the Gaza siege, infact I hated it but I would expect or rather hope the UN was more fair in its report otherwise it loses weight as a organisation

Besides. Why all the focus on Israel? There are a dozen other countries that i can think of that deserves more condemnation.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Gaza acts amounted to war crimes, U.N. report says - CNN.com





Well no wonder Israel did not help in the investigation. It would have faced condemnation whatever the result.

I was not a fan of the Gaza siege, infact I hated it but I would expect or rather hope the UN was more fair in its report otherwise it loses weight as a organisation

Besides. Why all the focus on Israel? There are a dozen other countries that i can think of that deserves more condemnation.

In bold. Excellent point and one that I have presented in the past. Several countries, such as Uganda and China, who's human rights records are atrocious are practically ignored from condemnation in comparison to Israel. If I have time, I'll dig up some numbers on this.

 

[Laila]

In bold. Excellent point and one that I have presented in the past. Several countries, such as Uganda and China, who's human rights records are atrocious are practically ignored from condemnation in comparison to Israel. If I have time, I'll dig up some numbers on this.

We do not even need to go that far.
Look to Israel's neighbours.

UN is always suspiciously quiet on condemning them (including Iran in which protests continue and allegations of torture have surfaced) but will shout the roof down if Israel responds to rockets.
I like the UN as a organization but i do not think it realises the damage it is doing to itself and its credibility.

 

[gree0232]

Such elements do not fall under the definition of civilians in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 50 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions provides a detailed definition of a civilian. It follows:

Art 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol...

From the Third Geneva Convention:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

...(c) that of carrying arms openly;

...(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

By the reasoning employed in the report that attempts to shield government officials and ministries from attack, the first U.S. strike aimed at killing Saddam Hussein, his sons, and senior Iraqi leaders would have amounted to a war crime. Contrary to the report's novel interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, command-and-control facilities are legitimate military objectives. So are security forces (militias or voluntary forces) who carry arms openly.

OK, I am wondering, how exactly is a policeman sitting in a police station prior to the assumption of hostilities properly defined as a military target? Particularly if our military objective is to make Hamas control the rockets, how exactly does killing the police force accomplish this?

Additionally, unless we intend to introduce ground forces to sieze the cities, what is the military necessity of destroying the police facility? If we seize the city, there is obvious military necessity, and the IDF then becomes the local police force if you will (although curiously enough, establishing just such a police force is considered a key tenet of stabilization efforts). If you are not intending to go into the cities, what is the intent of attacking the police station?

And we really don't know what Israel's intentions were because they refused to explain them, and continue to refuse tpo explain what their itentions were.

So, if we can establish that these targets are of dubious military necessity, it is at that point where Israeli actions reach the potential standard of war crimes.

You see, the Geneva Convetion also makes it very clear that the minimum amount of force must be used to garner that military advantage. Ergo, dropping a bomb on a crowded urban neighborhood to kill a couple of policemen (which actually decreased your sole declared objective of forcing Hamas to reign in the rocket fire) and wind up killing a bunch of civilians in the process ....

Now I have seen bombs dropped in urban terrain of targets, and will conceed that sometimes it is necssary to use great power quickly and inflict collateral damage to achieve a military advantage. I will also say that we did not drop a bomb into Sadr City every time we saw a militia man pop up his head.

Instead, we focused out ISR assets to find the special groups, and then used combat power to eliminate the threat. Our objective was clear, we were attacking those elements of the Sadr Malitia that were the most dangerous, ruthlessly comitted, and impicated in the most attacks. By not attacking those forces that were merely waking about with an AK, we were eventually able to co-opt the madhi malitia and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the overall organization. Our use of force was tied to specific, achiveable objectives.

In stark contrast, the targetting of the police stations looks like little more than an attempt at punishment and is not tied to any objectives.

Finally, many Arab Nations have households that contain firearms, as do many households in the US, and it is not merely the prescence of weapons that defines combatants, or all household in Gaza are by definition are combatant .... and, as the IDF takes their weapons home, all Israeli households are thus also combatant. That also means that Hamas committed no war crimes because there were likely weapons present in most the households on the recieving end of the rockets.

You simply cannot have it both ways. You cannot use violence with great indescretion and then turn around and cry when violence is used against you with great indescretion.

In end, as I have long said, violence devoid of strategy achieves nothing.

It is not only th eprescence of weap

 

[gree0232]

In bold. Excellent point and one that I have presented in the past. Several countries, such as Uganda and China, who's human rights records are atrocious are practically ignored from condemnation in comparison to Israel. If I have time, I'll dig up some numbers on this.

Well, I think we need to point out some things about the UN before we condemn the organization as biased. The first being that by definition, they cannot really take sides. Only consesus on issues allows the UN to reach descisions and issue statements. That means a plurality of the 192 member nations support the statement being written.

Some things that UN cannot do:

1. Sanction China, china is one of the five veto wielding members of the SC. There are procedures that can sideline that veto authority over an issue, but to do so requires consensus to present the issue, and teh building of enough consensus to then sanction China.

As many member nations are dependant upon China's resource exploration for development, there is little reason to risk China's ire simply to make a moral statement.

That is not the bias of the UN, that is the member nations acting in accordance with their respective strategic calculation. That is the same thing that the US and China do.

2. I think it is important to clearly define what the UN can and cannot do. There is not a set of principals that the UN can enforce equally, it has neither the resources or the ability to impinge upon oter nations soverignty .... accept when the security council and 2/3 of the member nations impliment resolutions condemning such behavior AND member nations contrbute forces to enforce that UN resolution.

If you cannot reach the first standard, you will never reach the second standard.

The UN is not some independant body that make sand enforces rules, it is a consensus building organization and a forum for conflict resolution. If you really want the UN to fill a role as world cop, then it must be equiped with a military arm to do so, and all member nations must agree to fund and push their sovreign rights over to the UN .... I will submit that this isn;t going to happen any time soon.

That means, we come back to the first question, how did this report come out despite US veto power? Where did the failure at consensus building occur that could have prevnted this report from ever being published in the first place?

The UN cannot be biased, it can only achieve consensus ... or not.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well, I think we need to point out some things about the UN before we condemn the organization as biased. The first being that by definition, they cannot really take sides. Only consesus on issues allows the UN to reach descisions and issue statements. That means a plurality of the 192 member nations support the statement being written.

Some things that UN cannot do:

1. Sanction China, china is one of the five veto wielding members of the SC. There are procedures that can sideline that veto authority over an issue, but to do so requires consensus to present the issue, and teh building of enough consensus to then sanction China.

As many member nations are dependant upon China's resource exploration for development, there is little reason to risk China's ire simply to make a moral statement.

That is not the bias of the UN, that is the member nations acting in accordance with their respective strategic calculation. That is the same thing that the US and China do.

2. I think it is important to clearly define what the UN can and cannot do. There is not a set of principals that the UN can enforce equally, it has neither the resources or the ability to impinge upon oter nations soverignty .... accept when the security council and 2/3 of the member nations impliment resolutions condemning such behavior AND member nations contrbute forces to enforce that UN resolution.

If you cannot reach the first standard, you will never reach the second standard.

The UN is not some independant body that make sand enforces rules, it is a consensus building organization and a forum for conflict resolution. If you really want the UN to fill a role as world cop, then it must be equiped with a military arm to do so, and all member nations must agree to fund and push their sovreign rights over to the UN .... I will submit that this isn;t going to happen any time soon.

That means, we come back to the first question, how did this report come out despite US veto power? Where did the failure at consensus building occur that could have prevnted this report from ever being published in the first place?

The UN cannot be biased, it can only achieve consensus ... or not.

You are partially correct. Your premise in point #1 is pretty on target and a supposition as to why many are resistant to siding with those who sanction Arab countries: petroleum. The fear of rising oil prices, or reduced production/distribution is a powerful thing. Much better to ally against Israel, not a major player in the production of this necessary energy resource than to gain the ire of countries that keep your heaters running.

And a consensus can be based on bias. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.