Whoops! That's ALSO A War Crime

[T_A]

A U.N. humanitarian representative announced they were reminding Israel that cutting off electricity, gas, water, and food to a population is, ALSO A WAR CRIME.

Ruh Roh.

[Marius25]

1. They put Iran on the Women's Human Rights council

They've spent years refusing to condemn Hamas.

[T_A]

7. Actually

EVERYBODY ELSE cares what the U.N. says. Only those that don't want to talk about the Likud's repeated War Crimes don't want to care what the U.N. says.

[Marius25]

8. Cool story. The UN is worthless and has no power.

They support terrorist groups and oppressive, theocratic regimes.

[T_A]

12. Quite Predictable Response

[PCIntern]

16. Yes it is...

because it is the TRUTH. and the TRUTH is painful.

[T_A]

18. It's Merely Unreality

[Igel]

179. Parsed as, "It's merely, uh, reality." n/t

[hlthe2b]

26. The very nature and structure of the UN limits it and can leave its committees sometimes open to

manipulation, including on major geopolitical votes. Its record has been uneven, albeit its agencies including WHO, UNHCR, UNESCO, FAO, WFP, IAEA, UNICEF, and many others have done and continue to do important work.

With all its limitations, it is the best of any proposed alternative and I, for one am proud of the medical work I did while detailed to WHO years ago--as I am likewise very proud of the work done by colleagues with UNICEF, FAO, and WPF (World Food Program).

Attacking the UN has long been the providence of the RW--who want NO international cooperation and I will NOT buy into it.

[LeftInTX]

57. The problem is, many times they have no teeth.

Many times they're good at brokering treaties etc, but they also accused Bush of war crimes. It got nowhere.

Of course their other programs are excellent, but making statements often doesn't result in much of anything.

[hlthe2b]

63. It was never meant to be a judicary equivalent. That is the World Court that the US declined to

join, but which has prosecuted more criminal war crimes than any since Nuremburg.

Read the history and purpose of the UN. People complain that it is not something in which the member states never intended it to be.

[KS Toronado]

100. Good place to start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

[AloeVera]

156. Veto Power

UN action is often impeded by the Veto Power of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. It was used by Russia re Crimea for example and by the U.S. just in the past week. That resolution, brought by Brazil, would have created a "humanitarian pause" in Gaza as well as limited Israel's ability to wage war on its own terms. To put it nicely.

Lots of controversy around the Veto Power but I don't see reform going anywhere.

[Goddessartist]

112. Exactly.

[SCantiGOP]

80. No one cares about the UN

Except civilized people.

[lapucelle]

121. Think again about why folks might be skeptical when the "UN" source isn't named.

[T_A]

132. It Was Named

It was the humanitarian representative to the United Nation.

[Igel]

180. That's quite specific as to title, I guess.

There is no name? "Chosen side"?

[AntiFascist]

155. Oppressive, theocratic regimes seem to be the problem. n/t

[Redleg]

177. Irrelevant. You should be able to judge the criminality of this action

without the U.N.'s help.

[hlthe2b]

20. Yes, indeed

Israel has most of the world behind them, but not if they turn into that which they are fighting.

[Hekate]

37. ****

[lapucelle]

122. Think again why there are no sources and not even a name for the "UN" expert.

[T_A]

135. Already Addressed

[lapucelle]

138. You said there was no link. Think again and maybe you can recall a name.

[T_A]

145. Why Would I Need To Recall A Name?

anyone can look-up who the humanitarian representative is at the U.N.

[lapucelle]

148. That was good advice. I did look it up. It's Francesca Albanese.

US officials blast UN rapporteur on Palestinian rights over past ‘Jewish lobby’ and other comments

Top U.S. and Israeli diplomats sharply criticized the top United Nations official monitoring Palestinian rights for past comments on Israel, including one involving the “Jewish lobby” and “guilt about the Holocaust.”

Michèle Taylor, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council, pointed to a comment Francesca Albanese made in 2014, saying Wednesday on Twitter that the Biden administration was “appalled” at the comments.

Taylor wrote: “References to the ‘Jewish Lobby’ are an age-old trope; this is outrageous, inappropriate, corrosive, and degrades the value of the U.N.”

Deborah Lipstadt, the State Department envoy to monitor antisemitism, said Albanese’s 2014 remarks were part of an “established pattern” of antisemitism, alluding to a slew of past and recent controversies that have attended Albanese’s appointment to the job earlier this year. Albanese has also compared the Nakba, the dispersion of Palestinians during Israel’s war for independence, to the Holocaust and shared a Facebook post that compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto.

https://www.jta.org/2022/12/15/politics/us-officials-blast-un-rapporteur-on-palestinian-rights-over-past-jewish-lobby-and-other-comments

[T_A]

159. Except

the statement was made on Oct 10th, 2023, not 2014, and founded in the Geneva Conventions.

[lapucelle]

160. The name you can't provide is Francesca Albanese. She was interviewed on last week.

It was posted here on DU.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/132125

The statement by our UN ambassadors made in 2014 was about about Francesca Albanese history of anti-Semitism. That's called context.

It's easy to provide a name, a link and context when the facts are on your side.

It prevents having to say things like:

[T_A]

161. BZZZT!

the U.N. humanitarian representative who spoke on BBC radio Oct 10th, reminding Israel of what are indeed 'War Crimes' was a MALE.

Wrong path, Kemosabe .

[lapucelle]

162. Sorry, "Unnamed guy on unlinked show said something" is simply not good enough.

I don't think "BZZZT" is part of the English lexicon, and "kemosabe" is a very dated reference to the racist depiction of a Native American on a TV show from the 1950's.

It might be time to update the default dictionary of America slang.

[T_A]

164. Except

The U.N. merely based it upon the Geneva Conventions, therefore who from the U.N. said it, when they said it, is simply moot.

Oh, and 'kemosabe' translates to FRIEND.

[lapucelle]

165. I don't use translators when I'm writing posts.

[T_A]

166. Me Neither

I just meant, in general.

[lapucelle]

168. You said "translates". N/T

[Igel]

182. But polysemy.

Definition from the web (one that I'm okay with tonight):

To render in another language.
--"translated the Korean novel into German."
To express in different, often simpler words.
--"translated the technical jargon into ordinary language."
To change from one form, function, or state to another; convert or transform.
--"translate ideas into reality."

Not all require translation to a different language.

"I deem you, sir, a reprehensible swine, worthy of no respect" 'translates' to "you effing pig'. One can translate between languages, or, within a language, between styles or registers. Don't narrow definitions artificially to 'prove' a point; it's a semantic and logical fail.

[Igel]

181. Opravdu.

Maybe in a diverse, multilingual community when posting and reading it's not a bad idea.

[Goddessartist]

45. Yep.

[AntivaxHunters]

11. You know who doesn't care about the UN?

I'll give you a very good guess.

[Emile]

14. +1 spot on!

[Mosby]

47. Hamas? Hezbo?

[LiberalArkie]

51. They only do what the people who finance them want them to do. Kind of like our R's in congress.

[Mosby]

53. Islamic extremism is driven by ideology

And fundamentalism, not capitalism.

There is little rational about Iran's actions.

[LiberalArkie]

54. maybe when 1 or 2 people do something, but when thousands of rockets worth million start

flying, there is some serious money at play. Plus the leaders do not live in tents in the deserts and ride camels to the meetings. a lot of money at play..

[PatrickforB]

151. I'm with LiberalArkie on this one. Yes, Iran ruled by the Ayatollahs is definitely a

fundamentalist country. No doubt. There is no logic in religious zealotry, no matter which religion.

But there's lots of money on the table with this. The arms sales are up up up, and them profits is rollin' in!

Capitalism adds to the tragedy. It really does.

[Bucky]

190. This reads like a "bothsides" argument

Certainly you do not want to be in the same category as the people who don't give a damn about international law.

[AntivaxHunters]

193. What's wrong is wrong no matter who's doing it

And that's the fact, Jack 👍🏼

[Disaffected]

32. What ever one thinks about the UN

or what it says, the question remains, is cutting off civilians (and particularly children) from of the necessities of life a war crime?

I would contend it is.

[wnylib]

52. Yes, of course it is. When fighting an enemy, there is

always the risk of becoming like them, due to anger and outrage. This is especially true when the enemies are terrorists.

When fighting terrorism after 9/11, the US confined suspects in prison indefinitely, without trials, and used torture. Americans condemned the fanaticism of the terrorists' religion that led them to their actions, and condemned nations that were governed by religious law instead of by the secular law of democracies. Then the ones who condemned Islam the loudest threw aside secular law and embraced their own religious law in the US.

Israel has been fighting wars and terrorist attacks against them for decades.

[Disaffected]

55. Yes, thus it has been and

thus it will be. The beast within is hard to quell.

[T_A]

62. No Need For Contention

One assumes the U.N. is relying upon the Geneva Conventions.

[quakerboy]

104. Trump, Boebert, Gaetz agree on spite towards the UN

Congrats on taking a bipartisan unity position, I guess.

[BlueMTexpat]

107. Too many here love to

bash the UN because they think it is all about the Security Council, bombast in NYC and Israel-Palestine issues.

They have NO idea whatsoever of the MULTITUDE of worthwhile projects around the globe in which the UN, affiliated international organizations and NGOs participate with wholly dedicated personnel from all nations . often at peril of their own lives - that actually improve lives that would never even have had a chance otherwise.

Most of these operations are managed through the United Nations and International Organization Offices in Geneva and other locations.

I am one who KNOWS from firsthand experience. So please do not diss me. Or the UN.

The UN is not perfect by any means and it is all too subject to manipulation by powerful States, including our own.

But bashing the UN and saying that NO ONE CARES is simply NOT true and has no place on Democratic Underground, IMO!

[JohnSJ]

152. If for nothing else UNICEF and other health, medical care, food etc. it is well

worth it

[AntivaxHunters]

191. This is a hell of a reply! 🔥🔥🔥

[claudette]

2. And, yet

many here believe pointing that out is somehow "anti-Semitism." It isn't.

[Marius25]

5. I don't think the UN can be taken seriously.

Last edited Tue Oct 10, 2023, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

They literally prop up terrorists and oppressive regimes.

[hlthe2b]

22. Well, that is and has long been the RW and Trump stance on the UN. Interesting that you would agree

with Trumpists, far RW MAGAs, including MTG...

[Goddessartist]

46. Yep.

[redqueen]

64. Interesting indeed nt

[inthewind21]

75. I'm not

surprised. The "this applies to THEM but not me /mine" hypocrisy has been apparent for a while now.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

65. Definitely

clears things up.

[Celerity]

103. yes, interesting indeed

[stopdiggin]

137. indeed. solid point. -(nt)-

[Beastly Boy]

27. No, it's just abject ignorance of the law.

In this particular case.

[treestar]

125. +1

The entitlement to 1000% agreement with every Israeli action is astounding. The threads bemoaning anyone saying anything at all, like it's morally wrong to even consider their actions, and that you have to be so biased in their favor, there is nothing the Israelis cannot do and not expect enthusiastic cheerleading from everyone.

[niyad]

3. Welcome to our DU family.

[housecat]

34. Like any family we occassionally have food fights

[treestar]

128. just noticed post counts are not in the posts now

had to click on the name and look it up!

[ProfessorGAC]

143. There's A Way To See Those

At least on a tablet or phone.
If you go to the browser menu, select Desktop View. (The name might differ, but the function is the same. )
When I did that, all those missing niceties, like post count & the info in the upper right showing who was being replied to, showed up.
The forum page itself changed, too. The Views & Replies & Time Of Last Post columns, and the Forum list on the left all reappeared.

[MiHale]

4. Welcome home T_A...

[T_A]

6. *

[Duncan Grant]

9. A link would add greater credibility.

Not busting your chops, simply interested to know who said it and when. Thx.

[T_A]

13. BBC Radio

Their site may have something.

[Beastly Boy]

28. That's not very helpful.

Better than "radio", but otherwise pretty non-descriptive.

[Hekate]

68. "Their site may have something" does not equal a link. Just sayin'

[T_A]

70. BBC Radio Is LIVE Audio

You have some technique for extracting a link from that?

[Hekate]

73. As it happens I have developed a few work-arounds which I will be happy to share with you

Television:
Time of day (and time zone, since DUers are all over the map)
Station
Name of program
Name of person who said whatever it is you found interesting — anchor or panelist, it makes a difference

Radio would be exactly the same

Newspaper:
Pick a reputable one
Link
Title of article
Note whether the author is a columnist, someone from the editorial staff, or an Op-Ed contributor—it makes a difference
Four paragraphs only, due to copyright laws

Newspaper if your computer, pad, or the newspaper itself don’t give usable links (I have a problem with this):
All of the above, plus cite the date and page number

It’s not that difficult once you get the hang of it, and you will see the basics in the TOS. Do enjoy your time at DU.

[T_A]

83. You're Confused

I'm referencing LIVE audio from a radio tuned to a station broadcasting the BBC radio program.

There is no possible manner to obtain a "link" to such a broadcast.

[Hekate]

84. I am not at all confused. I've been here over 20 years, and I learned to cite sources decades before

…then. If you want your statements to be solidly believed, cite your sources solidly.

Use the same technique for radio that you would use for television. Nowadays a lot of broadcasters even provide online transcripts, but if you are wanting to make a post in the moment, those will not be up yet. Listening carefully to something you want to share is an art, but it can be done.

To reiterate, for tv and radio:
Television:

Time of day (and time zone, since DUers are all over the map)
Station
Name of program
Name of person who said whatever it is you found interesting — anchor or panelist, it makes a difference

Radio would be exactly the same

[T_A]

87. That's Not A Link

People wanted a link. There is no link.

[Hekate]

90. As we used to say when I was a freshman in college: "Cite Your Sources."

I am sorry if you find this difficult. Do enjoy DU.

[T_A]

93. I Did

[Beastly Boy]

115. There is a difference between citing and eluding to.

The difference is the same as eating ice cream and telling people you are eating ice cream.

[lapucelle]

123. Think again if you expect folks to accept the claims

of a random unnamed "UN" source.

[T_A]

136. Already Addressed

[lapucelle]

141. Think again. Maybe you can recall her name.

[lapucelle]

140. Think again. Maybe you can recall her name.

[lapucelle]

169. It's not impossible to obtain the link.

But it is impossible to hear what you said you heard because no one said it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001r83d

[T_A]

170. Wrong Program

Wrong correspondent.

As I previously posted, I already searched that day.

[lapucelle]

171. You posted that it was "impossible to obtain a link". Think again.

[T_A]

173. NO

It's not about not finding a link, no link can exist.

There can be NO LINK to a LIVE radio broadcast of BBC radio.

[lapucelle]

175. I just posted one. Sorry, but "Some guy on a show I can't name said something."

just doesn't translate into cogent argumentation.

[T_A]

176. NO

you didn't. You posted a link to a BBC radio program. Not a LIVE radio broadcast.

[lapucelle]

178. Sorry, "Some guy on some program said something" is even worse than this.

[moonshinegnomie]

10. i dont think israel gives a damn what the UN says

they have proven themselves to be anti israel for a long time

[Alexander Of Assyria]

97. War crimes don't give a damn what anyone thinks...it's still a crime, by clear legal definition...

What if Russia did this to a besieged Ukrainian city of two million people…would it be a war crime then? Yes…see the sameness?? And the difference in reactions….?? Why?

[moonshinegnomie]

109. take it up with the hague after israel finishes destroying hamas

if ukraine was supporting terrorists that where invading russia and murdering babies you might have a point. but if you think what israel is doing to gaza in any way compares to what russia is doing to ukraine you are sadly misguided

[czarjak]

117. And after Hamas is destroyed, there'll be another terrorist organization born.

Gonna be a long, drawn-out process.

[Skittles]

158. STOP WITH THE WHATABOUTISM

IF IT'S WRONG IT IS *WRONG* NO MATTER *WHO* IS DOING IT AND *WHY*

[Beastly Boy]

113. First, Ukraine is not a terrorist organization, and it doesn't target civilians.

Using Ukraine in this "what if" speculation is insulting to Ukraine.

Second, it has no record of hiding weapons in schools and hospitals, so the entire proposition is baseless and the analogy is forced.

Finally, war crimes is a well defined legal construct. It is up to the court to decide what is a war crime and what is not, based on well established rules and precedents. The source is obviously unaware of the legal definition of war crimes, or pretends not to be. His pronouncement is a poor excuse for presuming there is any evidence for a war crime being committed.

Your comment about war crimes not giving a damn what anyone thinks is a two sided coin. It applies equally to the people who presume there is a war crime where there is none.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

118. Gaza is not a nation, can't declare war, that's a Western fiction...and 2 million people living

there in squalor are not terrorists, or are they all??

[Beastly Boy]

120. Gaza is a territorial unit of statutory Palestine, which is a

is signatory to the Inernational Court’s Rome Convention, and as such is bound by its statutes. Hamas who is in control of Gaza is not immune from this commitment and is culpable for violating the statutes as prescribed in it.

Hamas is a belligerent combatant regardless of Gaza status.

Gasans are victims of the crimes committed by Hamas. As soon as Hamas is liquidated, there will be no need for Israel to step one foot inside Gaza.

[usonian]

15. Try suing PG&E for a power outage.

They were guilty only of killing people and destroying homes.

Paid a fine, went into and out of bankruptcy, and just raised rates.

I guess you could say they took most of the 5th largest country hostage.

Eerie.

[NutmegYankee]

17. And this is stupid.

You don't supply your enemy with the means to continue resistance. It's warfare 101. Surrender and the electricity, gas, water, and food can flow again. Literally how every siege in the history of mankind has worked, and will work.

[David__77]

59. US doesn't like it when others use that tactic.

…

[MorbidButterflyTat]

66. You *might* want to consider

your "enemy" is not families struggling to survive.

How do they surrender? and to whom?

Yeah...I remember when the Turks and the Vikings and the European colonists, etc., etc. "literally" shut down the gas and electricity of their enemies. Good war plan.

[NutmegYankee]

71. Food and water? Most sieges of towns and cities had innocent families in the middle.

You don't possibly think food and water were supplied do you? I'd say get real, but for you to bring up electricity or fossil fuels and mention Vikings or Turks, centuries before either came into use, was just pathetic and absurd. You damn well know what point I was making, and how the needs or societies changed over time. Siege of Leningrad ring a bell?

[Progressive dog]

89. It was never necessary to shut down

things that didn't exist then. How do you remember something that couldn't have happened?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

119. Literally advocating for a war crime against a city of 2 million...regressing to the Stone Age wars?

Shocking how so many tow the media Warhawk line … remember Iraq? Same hook…bite again!?

[treestar]

124. An enemy would be someone you don't have control over like that.

That they can do this cutoff shows they are in control.
No wonder that poll of Israelis faulted the government for not preventing the attack.
With all that security, I'd expect that too. With control of the other area, also (we didn't control Afghanistan, at least not totally, when Al Qaeda trained there).

[sarisataka]

19. By this logic

The US submarine campaign against Japan was a war crime.

Should we have put our generals and admirals on trial next to Tojo and his cohorts?

[speak easy]

35. Surrounding Berlin was a war crime?

[sarisataka]

43. Apparently

But that at least was on the Soviets.

[Historic NY]

21. You mean the Palestinians after all these years didn't build any infrastructure

but remain dependent on Israel to provide it. What did they do with the millions they were given except buy weapons.

[T_A]

61. They're Living Under

Illegal Military Occupation in the largest open-air prison on the planet.

What infrastructure did you expect them to construct?

[Mossfern]

172. Israel is not occupying Gaza

Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?
"Open air prison" is a propaganda buzz phrase. If you want to make a valid argument, please use your own words.

[LeftInTX]

23. The UN is often ignored

I believe Bush was accused of war crimes numerous times. It got nowhere.

[markpkessinger]

69. The accusations against Bush went nowhere because . . .

. . . the U.S. is one of the five countries that are permanent members, and have veto power.

[LeftInTX]

78. Been there. Done that with Israel

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-israel/index

[onecaliberal]

24. Why do you think 1/2 the population are children? Their parents and grandparents have already been

Killed.

[speak easy]

38. Nonsense

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-youngest-populations-in-the-world.html

[EX500rider]

42. By who hamas? Certainly not Israel

If there are let's say a million children in Gaza that's 2 million parents and 4 million grandparents are you suggesting Israel's killed close to 6 million people in Gaza?
you'll need to show your work

[TexasDem69]

129. Seems like I would have read about THAT

Somewhere if it happened

[EX500rider]

133. yeah expect crickets as a reply

[meadowlander]

67. In contested areas, there can be a race to have more children than the other guys

as a way to access political power. This was certainly the strategy in Northern Ireland which is basically a gerrymandered state to ensure a majority Protestant population. So all the Catholics got busy trying to tilt the demographics in their favor.

And it's a tactic used in many Israeli communities as well who see having as many kids as possible as a social duty to replace the people killed in the Holocaust. For the illegal settlers having a ton of kids will eventually be used as a rationale for the impossibility of them leaving.

Also, if you live in a really dangerous area, you need to have more kids to ensure enough of them survive to adulthood to take care of you in your old age. And access to birth control can be out of reach if you can't afford or aren't living in stable enough conditions to get down to the pharmacy every month. Or you live in a very patriarchal society and women don't have a say in how many children then are having.

[Hekate]

74. Intelligently stated

[jfz9580m]

105. Yup

I view pretty much everything as a resource war on an overburdened planet with a shrinking resource pool. It doesn't surprise me that the world over and (largely due to ideologies driven by religious extremism or general belligerence), keeping women from having a say in limiting the number of children they have (it is usually always in that direction though there are far less common examples of coercive sterilization etc) is the wtg.

In general if you want to keep populations at each others throats and miserable there is no more efficient way than forcing or coaxing women to have more children or never letting women get emancipated to the point where they end up doing what most women end up choosing (to significantly reduce the number of children they have or have then for sane reasons-not to win some ideological war..or gasp even making connections that are not narrowly tied to certain specific forms of self interest..such as that the more of the planet that humans across the board complete transform into human habitation or malls and factory farms, the less room there is for any type of nonhuman life-and I don't mean ai) or its err "evolved" counterpart keeping women obsessed with that topic. Sadly, even a significant chunk of humanists don't seem to get that planetary health is needed for humans to thrive. And overcrowding as well as overburdening with consumerism both take a toll on planetary health and that resulting sort of war torn slummification comes back to bite us in the ass in more ways than can be as clearly shown with just one or two metrics like co2.
We are fucking up the planet in far too many ways and destabilizing everything but because the blowback comes in forms that are not always that clear the root issue is often not recognized.


Too damn many people and too much general belligerence and consumption in people. The planet gets the short end either way...

I see a fairly obvious connection between human overcrowding and rising fascism/rising terrorism and warfare. Resources get strained more and more whether we discuss it or not.

Economists have been trying to bamboozle people into buying that infinite growth is not next door to magical thinking.

It is all a mess..in every part of the planet..If there were only around 3 billion of us, almost every problem we have would be manageable and democratically. Instead we have chaos and instability in every part of the world and bread and circuses...
It is really difficult to produce a civilized, healthy human adult and when humans are churned out to be pawns in the lives or wars their parents are involved in..

I definitely feel bad for all the kids involved...

[treestar]

134. that's what the Christian right tries to do too

The Quiverful movement - the Duggars.
Though I think it is typical of third world countries that half the population is children. For the reasons you state.

[tritsofme]

77. So now we are just making stuff up?

🤡

[Progressive dog]

92. That is not true.

[uponit7771]

94. There have no doubt been a disproportionate amount of Palestinians

[Beastly Boy]

25. If I had a nickel for every time a UN humanitarian was wromg.

Good luck to this UN humanitarian embarrassing himself before the International Criminal Court.

[sarisataka]

31. Please educate

What is your alternative recourse?

[IronLionZion]

33. Yes but who is going to punish Israel?

they have sympathy now because of the brutal attacks and high death count. This is Bibi's 9/11 event to justify all sorts of bad stuff.

[Beastly Boy]

39. Nobody will punish Israel for a misinformed statement from a UN official

Sadly, n obody will punish that UN official either.

[ripcord]

56. I would like to see the source and the quote

[Beastly Boy]

60. so would I, but it's not forthcoming.

I am assuming the OP's recollection of the statement is accurate. In this case, the UN official who made the statement is grossly misinformed about war crimes as defined by the Inerrnational Criminal Court and is in turn misinforming the public.

[lapucelle]

131. It might be the woman called out by our UN ambassador for her history of anti-Semitism,

Francesca Albanese.

US officials blast UN rapporteur on Palestinian rights over past ‘Jewish lobby’ and other comments

Top U.S. and Israeli diplomats sharply criticized the top United Nations official monitoring Palestinian rights for past comments on Israel, including one involving the “Jewish lobby” and “guilt about the Holocaust.”

Michèle Taylor, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council, pointed to a comment Francesca Albanese made in 2014, saying Wednesday on Twitter that the Biden administration was “appalled” at the comments.

Taylor wrote: “References to the ‘Jewish Lobby’ are an age-old trope; this is outrageous, inappropriate, corrosive, and degrades the value of the U.N.”

Deborah Lipstadt, the State Department envoy to monitor antisemitism, said Albanese’s 2014 remarks were part of an “established pattern” of antisemitism, alluding to a slew of past and recent controversies that have attended Albanese’s appointment to the job earlier this year. Albanese has also compared the Nakba, the dispersion of Palestinians during Israel’s war for independence, to the Holocaust and shared a Facebook post that compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto.

https://www.jta.org/2022/12/15/politics/us-officials-blast-un-rapporteur-on-palestinian-rights-over-past-jewish-lobby-and-other-comments

------------------------------------------------------------

Someone shared Democracy Now's interview with Albanese a few days ago.

"Lobbyists" were blamed for the interview being age-restricted.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/132125

---------------------------------------------------

There was an interesting post asking "Is Gaza a Ghetto?"

The Warsaw Ghetto coincidentally came up in replies.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100218341001#post32

---------------------------------------------------------

Disappointing days here on DU.

[Beastly Boy]

149. That's the one.

[lapucelle]

150. "The name was in a previous adjacent thread at the time."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218344500#post37

[housecat]

40. and Bibi is trying to control the courts to protect his criiminal rightwing ass. Israel is divided

just like the US is. All Israelis are all alike about as much as we are.

[ripcord]

36. Israel should ignore the U.N. because it is anti Israel

[Alexander Of Assyria]

98. Israel IS ignoring doing war crimes, UN is just the messenger...but then again a Eric and israel

don’t belong to the Court of Justice…like a get out of jail free card for war crime!!

[treestar]

144. Didn't it have a hand in creating the current state?

Google:

On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain's former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end.

[Happy Hoosier]

41. I don't think the UN is a honest broker here.

Hamas is the governing authority in Gaza. They would direct any supplies to their own use, including military use, first. Not saying I'm happy with the situation, but Hamas let slip the Dogs of War.

[T_A]

88. You Don't Need To Believe The U.N. Is An "Honest Broker"

The U.N. is relying upon the 'Geneva Conventions'.

[Happy Hoosier]

95. It's the interpretations of them.

The Geneva Conventions have exceptions for cases when there is a legitimate military reason to interdict supplies.

And IMO, your own personal bias is informing your position as well.

Don’t get me wrong… Israel has a history of illegal collective punishment of civilians. But they do have an argument in this case.

[uponit7771]

106. How can people who initiate collective punishment have an argument in this context, they should stop

... the collective punishment first no? tia

[Beastly Boy]

116. No.

Collective punishment is not the purpose of the IDF actions in Gaza. The purpose is to eliminate Hamas and this is what Israel initiated, not collective punishment. Hamas, due to its long-standing practice of hiding behind civilians, which itself is a violation of international law, is the sole initiator of the collective punishment being inflicted on the Gazans. They, and only they, are in the position to end it. I t is solely responsible for the civilian deaths, and they will have to answer for the deaths.

[ripcord]

44. Source?

[Goddessartist]

48. It is a crime against humanity. The Israeli Def Minister called Palestinians "human animals"

[leftstreet]

49. Still can't wrap my brain around that

seriously can't

[Goddessartist]

72. Dehumanization, and eradication.

Bibi was informed by Egypt 10 days prior. He wanted this so that they could slaughter Palestinians. His actions, and inaction, is part of this.

https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/as-israel-reels-from-mass-deaths

[redqueen]

82. Is anyone surprised

From the Vox link:

Second, a columnist at Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper unearthed evidence that Netanyahu has intentionally propped up Hamas rule in Gaza — seeing Palestinian extremism as a bulwark against a two-state solution to the conflict.

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” the prime minister reportedly said at a 2019 meeting of his Likud party. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

These exact comments have not yet been confirmed by other sources. But the Times of Israel’s Tal Schneider wrote on Sunday that Netanyahu’s reported words “are in line with the policy that he implemented,” which did little to challenge and in some ways bolstered Hamas’s control over the Gaza Strip. Moreover, Schneider notes, “the same messaging was repeated by right-wing commentators, who may have received briefings on the matter or talked to Likud higher-ups and understood the message.” Some Netanyahu confidants have said the same thing, as have outside experts.

[Goddessartist]

108. Not surprised at all.

Bibi wanted this to happen, IMHO. After all, Egypt said it warned Bibi 10 days prior.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

99. Yea. Cant walk back genocidal talk followed by...genocide.

Prison of Gaza v. Nuclear Israel…not a war as the media has decided to camouflage with…it’s a an open air massacre…hard to watch either sides terrorists in action.

[Goddessartist]

111. Exactly.

[calimary]

50. Welcome to DU, T_A!

I’d add a “Yikes!” to that “Ruh Roh”.

Makes me think back to high school when I first read (and got creeped out by) “The Second Coming”, and that key phrase: “Things fall apart…”

The Second Coming
BY WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming

Kinda makes you wonder what he was drinking that night…

[milestogo]

58. So your response is snark?

Atrocities do not justify more atrocities.

War crimes do not justify more war crimes.

[Calculating]

76. Nobody gives a damn about the UN

They haven't done a thing about the Russia Ukraine war either.

[orangecrush]

79. Welcome to DU

Thanks for your concern.

[former9thward]

81. Did we supply food and energy to the Germans and Japanese populations?

Was that a war crime?

[Hekate]

85. We certainly did -- after surrender

[former9thward]

86. No one in this war has surrendered.

And we did not supply anything during combat. Just the opposite.

[Hekate]

91. Right. I hope the OP gets that.

[treestar]

153. We did not have occupational power over those

until we bombed them. We did not have the ability to do that already, before they attacked us and before we bombed them.

[former9thward]

157. No.

In both cases the Allies tried to starve the German and Japanese populations. Once the U.S. got control of the Pacific nothing was allowed into Japan.

[treestar]

187. seems more like 911 than those

and we did not blame Al Qaeda alone - this very board has many posts condemning Dubya for not preventing it, and LIHOP. So it is no wonder the poll of Israelis had a majority of them thinking that the world's most tight security state should be able to prevent terrorism.

Dubya wanted to consider it an act of war - is terrorism war or crime? Or in between somewhere? It does not gain any occupation - it kills people and damages property, but makes not progress in terms of gaining land. The US and Israel treat it as a war attack, and so use the military to attack the enemy. The US even had to figure out which country could stand in for Al Qaeda as a full on war enemy. Afghanistan because the allowed Al Qaeda to train there.

[TomSlick]

96. Did the UN representative cited to a provision of the Geneva Convention or Hague Protocol?

The ICRC website discusses limitations on the use of siege warfare but it is not said to be necessarily a violation of international law.

[albacore]

101. Irrelevant. Both sides' war crimes are irrelevant now...

It's the outcome of the current war that counts.
The Israeli's will NEVER forget. NEVER make any kind of settlement. From this point, it's "No rules".
For either side.
Hopeless.

[Xolodno]

102. The UN is only relevant when...

...its taking an adverse position against China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. The Hague is now a joke as it ignores a lot of war crimes but looks at certain nations "more closely". Other than that, many will say they don't matter.

This is part of the many of the reasons why the world is becoming, well, I'll let you fill in the blanks.

[Captain Stern]

110. That's probably true.

But, so what? Israel will be in big trouble for doing that....hell, they might get thousands of rockets fired at them.

What difference does it make what a U.N. humanitarian representative's opinion is? The answer is 'none'. I wish it mattered, but it doesn't..at all.

The only folks that convicted overall of war crimes are the losers of whatever war was being fought. The winners are ok.

The entire concept of 'war crimes' has always amazed/baffled/confused me. It's incredible that we can all sit down, and come up with 'civilized' rules for war, but we can't can't continue the conversation and stop having wars altogether.

[Bucky]

114. It's not surprising they have overreacted

It'll be a welcome surprise if they reel it in a bit and just go after the perpetrators instead of their neighbors.

Right now I don't have a lot of faith in Netanyahu

[TexasDem69]

126. Is there a link to a this?

At least a link to a statement from a UN representative that the UN supports? I can’t find anything online.

[T_A]

139. For Me

It was a LIVE radio broadcast of BBC radio.

[TexasDem69]

142. Was it BBC stating this or a UN rep?

I can’t find anything on the BBC website on this either.

[T_A]

146. U.N. Rep

I also searched the BBC website later that day.

[lapucelle]

154. It might have been the Democracy Now! interview with Francesca Albanese.

who has been called out for her history of antisemitism by both our U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council and the State Department's envoy to monitor antisemitism.

US officials blast UN rapporteur on Palestinian rights over past ‘Jewish lobby’ and other comments

Top U.S. and Israeli diplomats sharply criticized the top United Nations official monitoring Palestinian rights for past comments on Israel, including one involving the “Jewish lobby” and “guilt about the Holocaust.”

Michèle Taylor, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council, pointed to a comment Francesca Albanese made in 2014, saying Wednesday on Twitter that the Biden administration was “appalled” at the comments.

Taylor wrote: “References to the ‘Jewish Lobby’ are an age-old trope; this is outrageous, inappropriate, corrosive, and degrades the value of the U.N.”

Deborah Lipstadt, the State Department envoy to monitor antisemitism, said Albanese’s 2014 remarks were part of an “established pattern” of antisemitism, alluding to a slew of past and recent controversies that have attended Albanese’s appointment to the job earlier this year. Albanese has also compared the Nakba, the dispersion of Palestinians during Israel’s war for independence, to the Holocaust and shared a Facebook post that compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto.

https://www.jta.org/2022/12/15/politics/us-officials-blast-un-rapporteur-on-palestinian-rights-over-past-jewish-lobby-and-other-comments

------------------------------------------------------------

Someone here shared Democracy Now's interview with Albanese a few days ago.

"Lobbyists" were blamed for the interview being age-restricted.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/132125

---------------------------------------------------

Out of the blue, here was an interesting OP asking "Is Gaza a Ghetto?"

The Warsaw Ghetto coincidentally came up in replies.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100218341001#post32

[enid602]

127. NO WATER FOR YOU!!!! Soup Nazi on Seinfeld

Cutting off people’s food, water and services is not only a war crime. It’s also petty, low class and an insult to the US, who is forced to finance these operations.

[stopdiggin]

130. they've said this from the very beginning

there has been no change in this message

[usonian]

147. I'm suing PG&E

[LexVegas]

163. NOPE. nt

[LymphocyteLover]

167. Here is MY question-- how WAS Israel supposed to respond to this awful attack???

Just sit back and do nothing?

[Martin68]

174. Anything that harms civilians is war crime. Starving them is just as bad as shooting them.

[EX500rider]

183. Yeah that's just not true

Lots of civilians can die in a war without it being a war crime.

Bombs go off course, missiles miss, bullets ricochet etc

And if you want to argue the point please point to the passage in the Geneva Conventions that backs that up.

[Martin68]

184. Well, duh. But when civilians die because they were not allowed to get water, food or medical treatment, that is a war crime.

I'm not sure why that is so difficult to comprehend.

"According to Section 6(1)(b)(xxv), “ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

[EX500rider]

185. Is Israel allowing relief supplies across the Egyptian crossing now, yes

Does Israel have to supply someone they are at war with, no.

Show me in history where one combatant kept supplying the other with electricity, water, food etc while a state of war existed.

Maybe Hamas should have thought that thru before literally biting the hand that feeds them.

[Martin68]

188. Show me one war in which either combatant had the power to completely cut off all water, power, and

medical supplies to a highly urbanized very densely populated area in a war zone. I'm afraid with the power Israel has imposed on Gaza and the West Bank comes a deep responsibility to insure a vulnerable population of civilians is not harmed. The nearest any historical situation I can think of is the Roman siege of Masada. Think about that for a minute.

"According to Section 6(1)(b)(xxv), “ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

[EX500rider]

194. The US imposed a complete naval blockade on Japan in WWII

The blockade explicitly aimed to cut off food supplies and kill millions of Japanese, mostly civilians, from starvation.

By sinking virtually all Japanese military and commercial ships, the country lost the means to transport energy and materials between the mainland and the colonies or occupied areas. Without inputs, production came to a halt. This was the primary reason for the collapse of Japan's war economy.

[Martin68]

196. You seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. Japan had food and water no matter who blockaded them.

You are clearly not interested in an objective discussion.

[EX500rider]

199. No they did not

Last edited Sun Oct 22, 2023, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Japan did not grow enough food for their population and millions were going to starve to death if they didn't surrender.

The mountains of Japan provide great natural beauty but restrict the farming area to less than 20% of the land surface.

[EX500rider]

201. Food Insecurity in Japan

During World War II, starvation was common on the home front in Japan. The Japanese government created the food rationing system in 1940, but it was not until 1941 when certain foods like rice, meat, fish, soy, salt, and oil became strictly rationed.[1] By the end of the war, the U.S. Strategic bombing survey reported that one-hundred percent of urban residents experienced weight loss with the average caloric consumption being 1,405 calories in Tokyo in 1945 and 1,354 calories in Nagoya in 1944.[2]
http://exhibits.usu.edu/exhibits/show/therewerechildrenonthebattle/foodinsecurityinjapan

An ideal daily intake of calories varies depending on age, metabolism and levels of physical activity, among other things. Generally, the recommended daily calorie intake is 2,000 calories a day for women and 2,500 for men.

[Martin68]

202. Food insecurity at a the time was a product of the wartime effort that drafted farmers to fight the war,

as well as the firebombing of cities such as Tokyo. The Geneva Conventions were revised in 1949 to deal with new developments in warfare, adding several Articles. Among the most important Articles are those on the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. They contain a definition of military objectives and prohibitions of attack on civilian persons and objects.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977

I get it. You feel there is no limit to the number of civilians that can be lawfully "accidentally" killed in bombing attacks on a hostile enemy. The US probably refused to be governed by the World Court to avoid liability for such attacks, such as the tens of thousands of civilians killed during the invasion of Iraq. I'm not OK with that. You are. But when you state that the Geneva Conventions do not prohibit such actions, you are flatly wrong.

[EX500rider]

203. Japan has to import food, they can not grow enough for their population

The US blockaded Japan with unrestricted submarine warfare.
Japan wanted food they had to surrender.


If they don't eliminate Hamas they will have to do this over and over in the future.

With your methods Nazi's would still hold France.

The Allies (mostly US & UK) killed over 20,000 civilian French citizens in the bombardments leading up to the D-day invasion of France.
Without that there was no guaranty of the success of the landings.

[EX500rider]

186. "Anything that harms civilians is war crime."

So now you agree what you said wasn't true?

[Martin68]

189. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Why would I agree that is not true? I just cited the

part of the Geneva convention that outlaw the denial of food and water to a civilian population. That's what you asked for, isn't it?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

192. Perhaps

Because the statement “Anything that harms civilians is a war crime” IS untrue?

[EX500rider]

195. Post 147 of yours

Anything that harms civilians is war crime. Starving them is just as bad as shooting them.

[Martin68]

197. "According to Section 6(1)(b)(xxv), "ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of

objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

[EX500rider]

200. "willfully impeding relief supplies" is not the same as you have to supply them

[Happy Hoosier]

198. That is simply not true.

Do a little research… just a tiny bit… and you’ll discover that that is not true.

DELIBERATELY targeting civilians (like Hamas did) is a war crime. Collateral casualties are not so long as reasonable measures are taken to avoid them.

Striking infrastructure is not automatically a war crime if enemy combatants are using that infrastructure.