the UN once again proves its biased against israel

[moonshinegnomie]

the UN passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire,demanding civillians be freed and a truce to allow aid into gaza
it passed 120-14 with 45 abstentions

canada introduced an amendment that aganst hamas "unequivocally rejects and condemns" the attacks while demanding the "immediate and unconditional" safe release of all hostages.
i required a 2/3 vote to pass

it failed with 88 vote for 55 against and 23 abstain.

once again the UN proves its useless


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/at-united-nations-canada-to-speak-about-humanitarian-pauses-in-israel-hamas-war-1.6620444

[David__77]

1. Yes, the international community has an opinion.

[EllieBC]

8. Clearly they do. One that says not go call out Hamas.

Noted.

[David__77]

10. Lots of countries voted for both resolutions.

[Happy Hoosier]

26. Yup... apparently Hamas can do what it wants. NT

[Redleg]

2. I don't see it as explicitly biased against Israel

I don't doubt that some UN members do harbor such biases, but demonstrating a concern for the welfare of civilians in Gaza doesn't seem to smack of bias in this instance. Joe Biden has advocated for some of the same things. I don't believe he is biased against Israel.

[wnylib]

12. The aid to civilians in Gaza gets diverted by Hamas to

their own supplies in the tunnels. It does not get to the people who need it. So the nations that voted for humanitarian aid to Gaza are voting for Hamas to maintain its supplies and prolong the war.

Hamas steals aid from UN agencies.

https://unwatch.org/unrwa-reports-hamas-stole-humanitarian-aid-hillel-neuer-on-i24-news/

[Redleg]

17. I realize this

It is a stretch to say that they voted for aid to Hamas. This situation calls for humanitarian aid to be secured by the military so that supplies don't get into the wrong hands. I am not saying this is the responsibility of Israel but should be part of an international effort.

[Cha]

69. Yeah Did UN Mention That? TY

[Voltaire2]

3. It failed to reach the 2/3 majority requirement

But got a large majority of votes. This does not really support your argument that the UN is biased against Israel.

[T_A]

4. Agreed

Plus, generally the UN seems to prefer voting on single issues.

[AntivaxHunters]

5. Or maybe

Israel is in the wrong & the world recognizes it. Kind of like how we invaded Iraq, you know?

[womanofthehills]

7. Agree - the world is viewing a daily massacre on our phones

. How many bloody kids can we watch being pulled out of bombed civilian houses - thousands I guess -almost 3 weeks straight. The whole world will remember this forever. Every person in every Arab country is seeing even more dead baby videos than we are. Our Middle East ally leaders are having to quell anti Israel & anti American protests in their countries. They will get new leaders if they ignore their citizens. Thousand of American kids are viewing this war on TicToc too and only 20% of those under 40 approve of Israel’s inhumane actions. Our compassionate kids are commenting by the thousands on Tic Toc - wanting to hug and take care of the Palestinian children.

This is what the entire world is seeing. WARNING- graphic - you might not want to open!

Link to tweet

?s=46&t=YZgyyp4w_z7vW3neKxa6cQ

[AntivaxHunters]

11. Yup that's exactly it

I mean 👇🏽

Link to tweet

[wnylib]

13. Or maybe Hamas is a brutal terrorist gang

more interested in destroying Israel than in saving the lives of Palestinians.

https://unwatch.org/unrwa-reports-hamas-stole-humanitarian-aid-hillel-neuer-on-i24-news/

[AntivaxHunters]

15. Oh they are

But we're talking about Israeli's targeting a hospital with aid orgs calling bullshit.

Aid orgs aren't fighting a war. They're fighting to save the lives of innocent people hurt in that war & it's important to keep that in mind.

And let's not forget that the IDF has a very long storied history of covering up their atrocities. So ya, I'm going with a group who's aim isn't war but humanitarian aid.

[moonshinegnomie]

41. Israel didn't target the hospital

That’s been proven

[TexasDem69]

57. are you still peddling the lie

That Israel targeted the hospital in Gaza despite President Biden—the leader of our party—and every other legitimate leader calling bullshit? Or is this some other alleged attack by Israel?

[PufPuf23]

22. No one is arguing that Hamas is not a brutal terrorist organization.

Looks to me like neither Hamas nor the IDF gives a flying fuck about the hostages nor the Palestinians.

Must be frightening and hopeless to be a Palestinian.

[Wingus Dingus]

33. This has to be the dumbest analogy I've seen yet.

And I've seen some dumb ones.

[Cha]

70. Fucking Butchers of

Hamas Cowards Hiding among Civilians are Dead WRONG 😡

[ripcord]

6. The U.N. needs to step up if they are so worried

Israel should say they will stop their actions in Gaza in return for U.N. peacekeepers stationed there to suppress any more cross border attacks or raids into Israel. I know some deny it but Israel has legitimate security concerns especially after 10/7.

[wnylib]

14. Israel has had legitimate security concerns since 1948.

[Celerity]

18. 1948 - The Nakba

Bear in mind, the expulsions/displacements have continued right up until the present time, mainly from the illegal land grabs for the illegal West Bank settlements:

In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled by Zionist militias, during the 1948 Palestine war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight

The exodus was a central component of the fracturing, dispossession and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba, in which between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were destroyed, village wells were poisoned in a biological warfare programme and properties were looted to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning, and other sites subject to Hebraization of Palestinian place names, and also refers to the wider period of war itself and the subsequent oppression up to the present day.

The precise number of refugees, many of whom settled in refugee camps in neighboring states, is a matter of dispute but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (half of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes. About 250,000–300,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, before the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, a fact which was named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League into the country, sparking the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians. Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare, fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre, which caused many to leave out of panic, direct expulsion orders by Israeli authorities, the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing, the typhoid epidemic in some areas caused by Israeli well-poisoning, collapse in Palestinian leadership and Arab evacuation orders, and a disinclination to live under Jewish control.

Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented Arabs who had left from returning to their homes or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees. The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge. Nevertheless, the existence of the so-called Law of Return allowing for immigration and naturalization of any Jewish person and their family to Israel, while a Palestinian right of return has been denied, has been cited as an evidence for the charges of Apartheid against the State of Israel. The status of the refugees, and in particular whether Israel will allow them the right to return to their homes, or compensate them, are key issues in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The events of 1948 are commemorated by Palestinians both in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere on 15 May, a date known as Nakba Day.

snip

[wnylib]

19. While I can't and don't support ethnic cleansing

I do see how and why it was part of Israel's beginning as a nation. Palestinians opposed the establishment of Israel as a nation. Fighting between Palestinians and Jews in Palestine broke out before Israel was a nation, with the goal of preventing it from happening, and continued afterward.

1948 was just 3 years after the end of WWII. Jews whose ancestors had remained in Palestine throughout the centuries, and especially those who had escaped the Holocaust in Europe or survived the camps, were adamant about having their own nation and had zero tolerance for any resistance to it. To them, Palestinians were enemies in the war to prevent the establishment of Israel. They did not want war enemies within their borders.

The settlements in the West Bank are a deliberate attempt by Israel to take more land from Palestinians and should never have been permitted or encouraged by Israeli governments following the 1967 war.

Netanyahu is a RW extremist who uses the I/P conflicts to stay in power and to push for Israel to possess the entire region of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Whether he admits it or not, he deliberately prevents a two state solution.

Two states in the region will be impossible unless both sides (and outside nations) accept the right of the other side to exist in the former British Palestine.

[Think. Again.]

31. You write...

"Two states in the region will be impossible unless both sides (and outside nations) accept the right of the other side to exist in the former British Palestine."

Apparently a majority of Gaza Palestinians are ready to do that...

From foreignaffairs.com:

"The argument that the entire population of Gaza can be held responsible for Hamas’s actions is quickly discredited when one looks at the facts. Arab Barometer, a research network where we serve as co-principal investigators, conducted a survey in Gaza and the West Bank days before the Israel-Hamas war broke out. The findings, published here for the first time, reveal that rather than supporting Hamas, the vast majority of Gazans have been frustrated with the armed group’s ineffective governance as they endure extreme economic hardship. Most Gazans do not align themselves with Hamas’s ideology, either. Unlike Hamas, whose goal is to destroy the Israeli state, the majority of survey respondents favored a two-state solution with an independent Palestine and Israel existing side by side.

(Full article: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/what-palestinians-really-think-hamas )

[sarisataka]

24. Shoul we go back to the 1917 map

Just different management? Would that be fair?

[Celerity]

32. Israel, the modern nation state is very young, only around since 1948. If you go back just 100 years there were only

around 84,000 Jews there, 140 years ago only 24,000.

There also is an overwhelming lack of historical Jewish control (on balance) of Jerusalem and much of the surrounding area as the last 6 and a half or so millennia rolled by.



https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present






^The British mandate for Palestine, which began in 1922, ended prior to Israel’s declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. The Arab states invaded, and following the war, Palestine ceased to exist. The figures for 1948 are for the State of Israel. The figures prior to 1970 do not include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, or the Golan Heights, which were occupied by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. From 1970, the figures only include citizens of Israel and not Palestinians living in the disputed territories. *As of September 14, 2023

[sarisataka]

34. I am aware of the history of Judea/ Palestine/ Israel

My question stands. Would it be fair to go back to post WW1 map with Palestinian rather than British governance?

[Celerity]

38. It will not happen, as that predates the founding of the nation state, and thus no, that is not fair play, nor

is it remotely feasible.

[questionseverything]

28. Your post should be an op

Lot of important information there

[Celerity]

9. UN bashing is a long tradition on the Right, sorry to see it here (and far from just this OP) as well. nt

[AntivaxHunters]

16. I have been waiting for someone to say this

Thank you

[Sympthsical]

20. Sorry to see defense of the destruction of Israel here

But, you know, it's been a disappointing period all around, hasn't it.

[Celerity]

23. Where is anyone on DU (other than disruptor burner trolls soon MIRTed) pushing for the destruction of Israel?

Or do you mean off board (and thus chalk and cheese to my specific posted reply)?

[Sympthsical]

25. It isn't hiding

When someone defends and promotes events that call for the destruction of Israel, that's support.

And if you've honestly not seen any of that here, I'll take you at your word that you haven't seen it.

[Think. Again.]

30. I don't see any of that either...

...however, I am proud to see strong support for Palestinian people who are also suffering under the rule of hamas, as well bein victimize by the scorn, prejudice, and bombs of so many other people gloabally, including some here on DU.

[Celerity]

36. I have seen no positive promotion nor defence on DU of the calling for the destruction of Israel.

I have seen, on DU, plenty of news coverage of events where some at those events did (directly or indirectly), but those event attendees calling for said destruction were condemned (rightly so) here on DU.

I have seen repeated false charges of that many (using the OPs' and random thread repliers' own words) on DU are Hamas supporters, which is a scurrilous lie. There are no Hamas supporters here on DU (other than rando agent provocateur burner troll accounts that are quickly dealt with by MIRT).

[DemocratInPa]

48. WHO IS CALLING FOR THE END OF ISRAEL?

We are calling for help to the innocent lives being effected.

Hamas needs defeated, but Israel coming 400 times in a night is just crazy.

Us backing them for that is worst.

[TexasDem69]

59. So you think Biden backing Israel

Is “worst”? Worst than Hamas beheading and burning women and children?

[ripcord]

21. I think criticising the UN is perfectly fine

I have no problem considering it a huge, unfunny UN joke that Iran, the largest sponsor of terrorism, is currently leading the UN Human Rights Commission.

[Think. Again.]

29. That is an outright lie...

...and apparently a popular right-wing talking point here on DU.

Here is a list of member states on the UN Human Rights Council (formally Commission):

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/membership

And here is a list of that groups leaders:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/bureau

[LauraInLA]

37. Your statement is not quite accurate -- Iran IS leading an important part of the HRC, condemned by EU among others.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-001936_EN.html

“ The appointment of Ali Bahreini, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, to chair the 2023 United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Social Forum (2 and 3 November 2023), is nothing more than a slap in the face given the human rights situation of most Iranians, particularly women, and the repeated executions in the wake of the ongoing protests in the country and, more generally, the Islamic Republic's gross human rights violations and its catastrophic and politicised handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, when its refusal to import Western vaccines cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Given that Ali Bahreini was chosen from among other candidates, can the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union say:

1. Whether he intends to take action to remove Ali Bahreini from this post?
2. What role did the EU play in Mr Bahreini’s appointment as chair of the 2023 UN Human Rights Council Social Forum?
3. What concrete measures is the EU taking to restore respect for human rights in Iran?”

[SickOfTheOnePct]

39. I was just about to post this

I can see where the confusion comes from

[Think. Again.]

43. There is no "confusion"...

....chairing a 2-day forum is not anywhere close to "currently leading the UN Human Rights Commission."

My statement stands as written.

[Think. Again.]

42. Chairing a 2 day forum...

...is not anything close to "currently leading the UN Human Rights Commission."

My statement is completely accurate and stands as written.

[stuck in the middle]

35. UN bashing and...

...bashing of even the most minimal rules of war under international law.

[Silent Type]

53. +1. UN is still best hope for peace, and I hate to see us join Right in bashing it.

[TexasDem69]

58. The UN plainly has a large body of antisemitic

Governments. Sad to see folks on DU supporting that antisemitism. Thought we’d be better here.

[Celerity]

76. There is no one supporting antisemitism here, that is a false claim designed to induce a chilling effect.

Same for the false claim that there are Hamas supporters here.

What there actually is here is an attempt by a vert aggressive minority to try and broaden and weaponise patterns of framing in order to stifle debate and paint anyone who disagrees with said group as a pantomime villain.

[Think. Again.]

27. It looks to me...

....as if the amendment calling for the immediate release of hostages was unnecessarily redundant, as the original resolution is already "demanding civillians be freed"

Considering that, I'd say it was the amendment that was useless and therefore rightfully rejected.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Trying to find the actual texr

But my understanding was that amendment would replace the paragraph calling for release of the hostages with a paragraph that calls for the release of the hostages, thus not redundant. Once I find the actual text and motion, I’ll post it.

But it would also would have called for the UN to condemn Hamas for the terrorist attacks of 7 Oct, which we know will never happen.

[Think. Again.]

46. Does the UN do condemnations?

...serious question, I don't know, but maybe they don't get into meaningless judgement calls?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

54. The UN frequently

uses the words "condemn" or "condemns" in their resolutions.

And if you consider "Unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took
place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages,..." to be a meaningless judgement call...well, all I can say is that's an interesting take.

[former9thward]

55. Some use the word "Condemn", Some "Deplore", some "Concern", Some "Calls on Israel".

Wiki lists at least 250 from the General Assembly.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel

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

[LauraInLA]

50. See #49 for amendment and resolution text EOM

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. Thank you!

I just found it, and was about to post - glad I looked at responses before I did so.

[LauraInLA]

49. Not redundant b/c the original failed to mention the hostages!

The Canadian amendment would have added this to the existing resolution:

After operative paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:
A/ES-10/L.26
Distr.: Limited
26 October 2023 Original: English
Unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages, demands the safety, well-being and humane treatment of the hostages in compliance with international law, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release;

https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/322/57/PDF/N2332257.pdf

Here’s the resolution: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/319/20/PDF/N2331920.pdf

[Think. Again.]

56. That is a lie...

You write:

"Not redundant b/c the original failed to mention the hostages!"

However, paragraph 7 of the original resolution clearly states:

"Calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all civilians who are being illegality held captive, demanding their safety, well-being and humane treatment in compliance with international law."

It is very difficult to take your position seriously if you continue to apply misinformation to support it.

[LauraInLA]

60. I'm sorry, but the fact that they won't

Use the actual term “hostages” is very telling. I’m being accurate, not delivering misinformation. YM Obviously Varies, but you don’t need to slur me. Have a good evening.

[Think. Again.]

63. I'm not an international language expert...

...but I suspect these documents must be written as concise as possible to be translated into all member languages with as little variation of meaning as possible.

Perhaps that's why the document doesn't include synonyms you would have chosen.

But the meaning as written clearly applies to the civilians who are being held against their will.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

61. That the resolution

Included neither “hostages” nor “Hamas” is significant.

But as the PP said, YMMV.

[Think. Again.]

62. oh stop....

...the statement is very clear.

Remember this is an international document that needs to unambiguous and translatable, let's not add mysterious conspiracies about word choices or look for hidden meanings in the absence of words you would have preferred to see.

It's clearly known who the players are and I'm sure they meant for both sides to abide by international law, no need to name them both in every sentence.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. Please

No one is asking for anyone to be named every sentence. But to not even mention by name the group that started all of this?

As you said , oh stop.

[Think. Again.]

66. You might have noticed...

...that the only time the government of Isreal is mentioned, is in paragraph 5 which specifically refers to orders the government of Isreal has made in regards to the relocation of Palestinian civilians and others within the borders of Gaza.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

68. Where is Hamas mentioned? N/t

[Think. Again.]

71. Maybe this had something to do with it?....

"US vetoes UN resolution condemning Hamas attacks on Israel, violence against citizens"

Full Article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-vetoes-un-resolution-condemning-hamas-attacks-on-israel-violence-against-citizens/ar-AA1irTim

[SickOfTheOnePct]

72. Did you read the entire article

Or just the headline? Of course the US is going to veto a resolution that doesn’t call out Israel’s right to defend itself.

As you seem to be against the Canadian amendment, I’m curious as to why, if you’re you’re willing to share.

[Think. Again.]

73. I did read the entire article...

...and found it very interesting that Biden's stance has shifted over the last few days.

I just wanted to point out that the UN was prepared to issue a condemnation of hamas after all, but it was vetoed by only one country, the US, who wanted it to include an unnecessary statement of the obvious.

As to the Canadian amendment, I think it would have inflamed the situation there when the point of the resolution is specifically to bring things back within the boundaries of international law.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

74. To your first point

Based on the reaction of many to Israel actually defending itself, I don’t think it is obvious that they have a right to do so.

And if mentioning Hamas by name and condemning their atrocities would inflame the situation, then that’s pretty strong evidence of anti-Israeli bias at the UN.

Calling out terrorist croup’s by name for beheading people, burning people alive, rape, and executions shouldn’t be controversial for a body that claims to be all about peace and human rights.

It’s telling that you consider such a statement to be inflammatory.

[Think. Again.]

75. To YOUR first point...

...there are limits to the amount of force that is needed, and is acceptable, in defence. Excess of that force goes beyond self defence and becomes aggressive violence. The reaction to Isreal's use of excessive force is a good thing.

To your second point: it was the US that vetoed a UN condemnation of hamas, not the UN itself, and that vetoe had nothing to do with a bias against Isreal, to the contrary, it was based on a bias of support for Isreal.

To your third point: I was not personally the target audience for the UN resolution, so obviously my concern is that the amendment would be considered inflammatory by the actors in this war.

[ripcord]

65. They never did name Hamas though

If you are calling out both side but only one by name, I would call that bias.

[Think. Again.]

67. The document only calls out the government of Isreal...

...once, when referring to orders that government has made over Palestinian civilians and others.

[LauraInLA]

51. I'd say the language about "hostages" was an important distinction

But regardless, I find it pitiful that the proposed amendment language was too divisive to be included. If you read both texts, it shouldn’t have been controversial.

[Maru Kitteh]

40. I rec'd this but I disagree that the UN is worthless, I do agree it too often reflects

the global constancy of antisemitism, and when we see global spikes in antisemitism we see that reflected at the UN as well.

I think the concept of the UN, if it survives, will take a couple hundred years to refine into something truly just and effective. So ya know, we'll be seriously dead. Like all the way dead.

[uponit7771]

44. Unnnn, the whole UN?!

[DemocratInPa]

47. Why is getting innocent civilians out..and

gettin aid into there being anti-Israel?

I also don't get why THE USA voted no..

Do US have Americans in mind.. Seems like we want WAR