UN endorses the Goldstone Report

MrMicra

dlofnep wrote: »

And when was the last time Israel gave in to international pressure?

Unfortunately Israel is under constant foreign pressure from the American right wing. The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

dlofnep

MrMicra wrote: »

Unfortunately Israel is under constant foreign pressure from the American right wing. The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

Right-wing America supports Israel. But that wasn't the question I asked. I asked when was the last time Israel bowed to international pressure.

wes

MrMicra wrote: »

Unfortunately Israel is under constant foreign pressure from the American right wing. The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

Do they really have that much influence in fairness? I know the Israeli government does stuff to get AIPAC and the like to help them out in the states, but does AIPAC actually exert much pressure on Israel?!?

MrMicra

It isn't AIPAC as such.

To over simplify right wing politicians (who won't talk to HAMAS or close settlements) get money from rich Americans and left wing politicians don't. Israel has strict laws on foreign donations but I don't think (and I could be wrong) that these laws apply to Israeli citizens living abroad. As if you are properly Jewish your right to an Israeli passport is automatic (again I could be wrong on this but don't think I am) the contradiction is obvious. Olmert got 1/3 of his campaign funds from one American donor and it isn't at all clear that he did anything in return except 'hang tough'.

In general the diaspora are more uncompromising than most Israelis. I think that on average and always remembering that Jewish intellectual life is never monochrome only recent Russian immigrants are more uncompromising than American Jews.

After all American Jews get to feel tough without experiencing the negative consequences.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

I taught the purpose of the report was clear, and that was to investigate the conduct of both sides during the 2008/2009 conflict in Gaza, and then for the report writers to make reccommendations on what actions if any should be taken against the relevant parties.

But you people are telling me that no action could ever be taken against Israel.
If that is indeed true, then any recommendations on what actions to take if Israel were found to be at fault are a complete and utter waste of time. The only possible benefit to such a report, then, would be it would be a way to enable punishment against the Palestinians, because of the other three possibilities (Palestinians not at fault, Israelis not at fault, Israelis at fault), the first two require no action anyway, and the third is, apparently, pointless.

And who's fault is that?

Israel's. I've always maintained that it was politically foolish of them not to co-operate with the investigation.

And when was the last time Israel gave in to international pressure?

Brings us back to square one, doesn't it? Now you have this wonderful report which you can take at face value, what are you going to do with it?

NTM

eamo127

It is shameful and grotesque the blind support the Irish people give to palestinian terrorists. Palestine is a nation who celebrates the perpetrators of heinous crimes such as the wholesale AK-47 shooting of innocent children at a 'coming of age' ceremony (like out holy communion) and the murder of whole families out eating pizza. Imaging a terrorist doing that you your family, then seeing their faces painted in Murals and honored in triumph all over the place.

We Irish blindly support Hamas or Hezbollah (we always condemn Israel first) when they fire thousands of rockets randomly at Israel. Would any of the do-gooders here put up with that themselves? We are the most anti-Semitic western country in the world. We ran the Jews out of here a long time ago - something you won't learn in any history lesson, and we are PROUD of it.

As a nation, how could we ever condemn a terrorist act perpetrated against our people? We honour idiots like Rachel Cory who died needlessly trying to protect terrorist tunnels. What a bunch of Hippocrates we are.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Israel's. I've always maintained that it was politically foolish of them not to co-operate with the investigation.

We agree on this.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Brings us back to square one, doesn't it? Now you have this wonderful report which you can take at face value, what are you going to do with it?

I would hope economic sanctions. What do you suggest to start bringing Israel onboard to the negotiating table?

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

But you people are telling me that no action could ever be taken against Israel.

Yeah, at present that seems to be the case.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If that is indeed true, then any recommendatoins on what actions to take if Israel were found to be at fault is a complete and utter waste of time. The only possible benefit to such a report, then, would be it would be a way to enable punishment against the Palestinians, because of the other three possibilities (Palestinians not at fault, Israelis not at fault, Israelis at fault), the first two require no actoin anyway, and the third is, apparently, pointless.

The Palestinians tend to be punished pretty severly by Israel and her allies outside the UN.

As for it being a waste of time, I disagree, in that at least the facts of what occured can at least be confirmed, even if no action results from them. I think finding out the truth is never a waste of time.

wes

eamo127 wrote: »

It is shameful and grotesque the blind support the Irish people give to palestinian terrorists. Palestine is a nation who celebrates the perpetrators of heinous crimes such as the wholesale AK-47 shooting of innocent children at a 'coming of age' ceremony (like out holy communion) and the murder of whole families out eating pizza. Imaging a terrorist doing that you your family, then seeing their faces painted in Murals and honored in triumph all over the place.

Not a single person here has expressed support for Palestinian terrorism, firstly. Of course, let facts be damned, as it easier to try and smear everyone as a terrorist lover.

Secondly, plenty in Israel celebrate there atrocities btw, take for example familys in Israel going to hills near Gaza to watch the carnage there, or Israeli children writing messages on rockets fired in Lebanon. Both sides have some pretty disgusting people, who celebrate atrocities, such as dropping white phophorous shells on children (you see I can play the atrocitiy game too).

eamo127 wrote: »

We Irish blindly support Hamas or Hezbollah (we always condemn Israel first) when they fire thousands of rockets randomly at Israel. Would any of the do-gooders here put up with that themselves? We are the most anti-Semitic western country in the world. We ran the Jews out of here a long time ago - something you won't learn in any history lesson, and we are PROUD of it.

Nice lot of hyperbole here. How about you prove all this then? How exactly are we the most Anti-smetic country in the west? What support has the Irish government supplied to Hamas or Hezbollah? Are we talking military support, or what exactly? Please enlighten us on how you came to your conclusions.

eamo127 wrote: »

As a nation, how could we ever condemn a terrorist act perpetrated against our people? We honour idiots like Rachel Cory who died needlessly trying to protect terrorist tunnels. What a bunch of Hippocrates we are.

I like this collective "we" your employing. Are you royalty or something?

I do have to say I am appaled at you called Rachael Cory a idiot, especially after your tirade against the Palestinians above. So basically you have no respect for people murdered by Israel, and instead blame them. Profoundly distrurbing to blame the victims death on them being stupid. Also, why no respect for the her family? Do there feelings not matter or something? Just imagine someone saying this about one of you family members (see I can play at this trying to make you feel guilty game too, except you actually said something pretty insulting about a murdered Woman, as opposed to a made up smear).

Scofflaw

Let's keep it as civil as possible, people. It's been pretty good so far, let's keep it that way.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

I would hope economic sanctions. What do you suggest to start bringing Israel onboard to the negotiating table?

I can think of a few things.

The Negroponte Doctrine outlines the conditions which must be met by any UN resolution regarding Israel. If these conditions are not met, the US has and will exercise its Security Council Veto,

For any resolution to go forward, the United States — which has a veto in the 15-nation council — would want it to have the following four elements:

• A strong and explicit condemnation of all terrorism and incitement to terrorism;
• A condemnation by name of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, groups that have claimed responsibility for suicide attacks on Israel;
• An appeal to all parties for a political settlement of the crisis;
• A demand for improvement of the security situation as a condition for any call for a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces to positions they held before the September 2000 start of the Second intifada Palestinian uprising in which 1,467 Palestinians and 564 Israelis have died.

This Doctrine has been in effect since July 2002. Should a resolution ever be passed it would mark the beginning of the Negotiating Table.

MrMicra wrote: »

Unfortunately Israel is under constant foreign pressure from the American right wing. The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

I'd never, ever regard it as Pressure. What nonsense.

The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

If you bother to do even the basic Wiki-searching, you'd find that many Jewish sects condemn Zionism and many more abstain from commenting on the matter at all. I wouldnt call it Tail Wagging, and again, I would not call it Pressure.

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Yes, because the UN has such a wonderful record of pressuring Israel into co-operating on anything...infact what pressure do you think they could have put on them? .

Im confused, are you trying to say the UN doesnt pressure Israel enough?

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Still interested in knowing what pressure you think that the UN could have put on Israel to force them to do something that they didn't want to do.... every time I picture the UN trying to pressure someone I get that Team America sketch 'we will be very angry and will write you a letter telling you so'

You are, aren't you.

Heres the Full Article but I'll direct you to this subsection which deals primarily with how UN has addressed all matters Israel in the last 50-60 years. Granted, its Wikipedia, and you're free to discredit it with evidence (and not just the awl' Its Wikipedia-rawr$^(@#$-Ad Hominem') These are some of the highlights that piqued my own interest:

In a lecture at the 2003 UN conference on anti-Semitism, Anne Bayefsky said:

There has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the more than a million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia being kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, UN bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning, and cross-amputation. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.[55]

(Not that Id ever expect a Resolution against China. Again, SC Veto)

resolutions passed in the same period by the General Assembly were far more explicit in their condemnation of Israel. (...) Violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians, including the use of suicide bombers, is mentioned only a few times and then in only vague terms. Violence against Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, is described far more explicitly. Israeli occupying forces are condemned for the “breaking of bones” of Palestinians, the tear-gassing of girls’ schools and the firing on hospitals in which a specific number of women were said to be giving birth.

During its first year of existence (2006), the UNHRC passed seven resolutions, all (100%) critical of Israel.[68] In its second year (2007), Israel has so far been the subject of 4/11 resolutions (36%)[69]
The Council voted on June 30, 2006 to make its review of human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. This decision was renewed in June 2007. Israel is the only country subject to a permanent review. The UNHRC sits in Geneva, thus excluding Israel from participating due to its limited membership to the WEOG group;

Many observers noted this anti-Israel bias. The Economist wrote: "In its fourth regular session, which ended in Geneva on March 30, the 47-member council again failed to address many egregious human-rights abuses around the world. (...) Indeed, in its nine months of life, the council has criticised only one country for human-rights violations, passing in its latest session its ninth resolution against Israel. This obsession with bashing Israel and turning a blind eye to so much else has disappointed those who hoped that the new council might perform better than its predecessor.[76] . Peggy Hicks, Global Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch said in a July 26, 2007 testimony to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee: In its first year, the Human Rights Council has failed to take action regarding countries facing human rights crises such as Burma, Colombia, Somalia, Turkmenistan, and Zimbabwe, ended the mandates of human rights experts on Belarus and Cuba, and rolled back its consideration of the deteriorating situations in Iran and Uzbekistan. At the same time, it focused disproportionately on Israel’s human rights record and worse still, did so in a manner doomed to be ineffective because it failed to look comprehensively at the situation, including the responsibilities and roles of Palestinian authorities and armed groups.[77] Similar accusations were voiced by the Washington Post[78] , Kofi Annan[79] , Ban Ki-moon[80] and US President George W. Bush[81]

Manic Moran

I would hope economic sanctions. What do you suggest to start bringing Israel onboard to the negotiating table?

So you do believe that it is possible to bring actions against Israel. In which case, why not do so to bring compliance with the investigation in the first place?

I disagree, in that at least the facts of what occured can at least be confirmed, even if no action results from them. I think finding out the truth is never a waste of time.

Fantastic. In which case, go for the truth, don't just take the easy way out and say "ah well, they're not letting us ask, so we'll just go ahead and do a half-job of it anyway"

NTM

MrMicra

Support for the implementation of a two state solution is not celebrating Palestinian terror.
One can
strongly support Israel's right to exist as a 'Jewish state,
assert that there should be no more than token compensation for the descendants of Arabs who left Palestine in 1948
condemn Palestinian terror
accept Israel's right to security
and
recognise that Israel is deliberately engaging in collective punishment of Palestinians and is reacting with excessive violence.
To the claim that this is to hold Israel to a higher standard than its neighbours I would simply agree.

MrMicra

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fantastic. In which case, go for the truth, don't just take the easy way out and say "ah well, they're not letting us ask, so we'll just go ahead and do a half-job of it anyway"

NTM

In what way is the Goldstone report untruthful?

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fantastic. In which case, go for the truth, don't just take the easy way out and say "ah well, they're not letting us ask, so we'll just go ahead and do a half-job of it anyway"

NTM

If someone refuses to cooperate, there really is no other choice but to go ahead and investigate. The police wouldn't stop a investigation, just because the accused refuses to cooperate.

The best situation would of course be to get Israeli cooperation, but seeing as they refuse, there isn't a whole lot that can be done in that regard. Having said that, just because Israel refuses to take part, does not mean that the facts of the conflict in 2008/2009 can not be established. Its certainly makes it a bit harder, but it can be done imho.

Also, Judge Goldstone seemed to be able to establish Hamas's part in the conflict as well, and I doubt they were very forthcoming as well btw.

Manic Moran

MrMicra wrote: »

In what way is the Goldstone report untruthful?

It's not the whole truth. It's one side of the story. That is not the fault of Goldstone et al who did the best job they could in the circumstances.

f someone refuses to cooperate, there really is no other choice but to go ahead and investigate. The police wouldn't stop a investigation, just because the accused refuses to cooperate.

Persons can at least be subpoenaed. Of course, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the person would say a word once on the stand, but I must have missed the bit where the 'subpeona' was issued to Israel. If people were really interested in the truth, they could at least have put an effort into it.

The best situation would of course be to get Israeli cooperation, but seeing as they refuse, there isn't a whole lot that can be done in that regard.

Was there any motion to attempt to censure Israel for not acommodating Goldstone et al? It's not as if they'd have been asking Israel to withdraw from land, open security checkpoints or any such issue with larger ramifications. Might have been more support for such a lowly goal than you think.

Also, Judge Goldstone seemed to be able to establish Hamas's part in the conflict as well, and I doubt they were very forthcoming as well btw.

I'd need to re-read the report (it's been a while) to see how much he tried to talk to them, but I'm not sure how good a job he did at that either. It's not as if Hamas has a recognised uniform chain of command he could have worked with to investigate any particular incident.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Persons can at least be subpoenaed. Of course, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the person would say a word once on the stand, but I must have missed the bit where the 'subpeona' was issued to Israel. If people were really interested in the truth, they could at least have put an effort into it.

You can't subpeona a country last time I checked. There really was nothing Judge Goldstone could to compel Israel to take part in the investigation.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was there any motion to attempt to censure Israel for not acommodating Goldstone et al? It's not as if they'd have been asking Israel to withdraw from land, open security checkpoints or any such issue with larger ramifications. Might have been more support for such a lowly goal than you think.

Was such a power available to Judge Goldstone? I don't think he would have been able to do that, so I think your criticism here is overly harsh, as it seems to me that Judge Goldstone would be unable to do what you suggest.

How much power did Judge Goldstone have to compel Israel, is a question you need to ask before criticizing him for not doing enough imho. Also, did he do things any differently than other people working on similar reports for the UN, when regimes they were investigating were uncooperative?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'd need to re-read the report (it's been a while) to see how much he tried to talk to them, but I'm not sure how good a job he did at that either. It's not as if Hamas has a recognised uniform chain of command he could have worked with to investigate any particular incident.

Hamas civilian leaders wouldn't wear uniforms, and they do have uniformed police force, as they control that now.

dlofnep

The real issue lays in could we have put sufficient pressure on Israel to cooperate? The answer is most likely no. Israel do not like external influence on their policies and actions, unless it is in support of it.

While Manic Moran's idea of giving Israel more opportunities to go along with the report is nice, it doesn't mean that it was possible. It's quite clear that Israel wasn't willing to co-operate, regardless.

So why does Israel now protest about the report being one-sided, when they had their chance to have their say. I am of the opinion that they knew that they could not defend their case, and subsquently decided to put their head in the sand.

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the whole truth. It's one side of the story. That is not the fault of Goldstone et al who did the best job they could in the circumstances.

Well, even the ICJ can make binding rulings on cases even when one of the parties refuses to take part in the case if they determine that they have sufficient evidence in order to establish the truth. This happened in 1986 when the US refused to take part in a contentious case with Nicaragua. Perhaps a similar rationale was undertaken here.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Persons can at least be subpoenaed. Of course, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the person would say a word once on the stand, but I must have missed the bit where the 'subpeona' was issued to Israel. If people were really interested in the truth, they could at least have put an effort into it.

When the ICJ doesn't have to power to make states cooperate I don't think a fact finding mission has the power to do so. These fact finding bodies have no coercive powers available to them. On top of this, Israel actually refused to allow the fact-finding mission enter Israel or the West Bank and had to enter Gaza through Egypt.

Israel's lack of cooperation in this is not new or surprising. By refusing to engage in the process Israel can seek to delegitimize the outcome by stating that it is one sided. Israel did this in the 2004 ICJ case regarding the Wall in which Israel refused to provide evidence for its side of the arguement. Knowing that the outcome would likely be against them, Israel pre-emptively seeks to delegitimize the process so it can state afterwards that the outcome was biased.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

The real issue lays in could we have put sufficient pressure on Israel to cooperate? The answer is most likely no. Israel do not like external influence on their policies and actions, unless it is in support of it.

While Manic Moran's idea of giving Israel more opportunities to go along with the report is nice, it doesn't mean that it was possible. It's quite clear that Israel wasn't willing to co-operate, regardless.

So why does Israel now protest about the report being one-sided, when they had their chance to have their say. I am of the opinion that they knew that they could not defend their case, and subsquently decided to put their head in the sand.

youre jumping to conclusions.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

youre jumping to conclusions.

I don't feel that I am. I said it was my opinion that I felt they could not defend their use of excessive force. Perhaps you might explain why that opinion might be wrong.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the whole truth. It's one side of the story. That is not the fault of Goldstone et al who did the best job they could in the circumstances.

Persons can at least be subpoenaed. Of course, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the person would say a word once on the stand, but I must have missed the bit where the 'subpeona' was issued to Israel. If people were really interested in the truth, they could at least have put an effort into it.

Was there any motion to attempt to censure Israel for not acommodating Goldstone et al? It's not as if they'd have been asking Israel to withdraw from land, open security checkpoints or any such issue with larger ramifications. Might have been more support for such a lowly goal than you think.

To be honest, I'm suprised that you've posted that. It bears no relation to reality at all.

Shin Bet

wes wrote: »

Also, Israel attacked first in 1967 btw, due to what they claimed was imminent attack from the Arab states, as to whether this is true or not is another matter and could fill another thread, but it does show you version of events to be inaccurate.

Palestinian or pakistani history books will never tell you Nasser started the war when he blocked the straits of Tiran in May 1967..

Shin Bet

The Saint wrote: »

Israel's lack of cooperation in this is not new or surprising. By refusing to engage in the process Israel can seek to delegitimize the outcome by stating that it is one sided. Israel did this in the 2004 ICJ case regarding the Wall in which Israel refused to provide evidence for its side of the arguement. Knowing that the outcome would likely be against them, Israel pre-emptively seeks to delegitimize the process so it can state afterwards that the outcome was biased.

You should really read up on why Israel pulled its cooperation from the so called "fact finding mission"
lets start,
In the eyes of the authors of the Report, Israel's operation in Gaza had nothing to do with the 12,000 rockets and mortars fired by Hamas over eight years on towns and villages inside Israel, nor with the fact that close to one million Israeli citizens had to live their lives within seconds of bomb-shelters because they were in range of Hamas attacks. Nor, in their view, did it have anything to do with the smuggling of weapons and ammunition to terrorist groups through hundreds of tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border. Indeed, neither the right to self defense nor the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip are even mentioned in the Report.
Rather, the Report advances a narrative which ignores the threats to Israeli civilians, as well as Israel's extensive diplomatic and political efforts to avoid the outbreak of hostilities. In this narrative self defense finds no place – Israel's defensive operation was nothing other than a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population"
In support of this vicious and unfounded assertion, the Report has no qualms about bending both facts and law. In the spirit of the one-sided mandate it was given by the HRC resolution, and the clearly stated political prejudices of some of its Members, of the Mission carefully selected its witnesses and the incidents it chose to investigate for clearly political ends. Yet even within this self-selected body of evidence, the Report engages in creative editing, misrepresentations of facts and law, and repeatedly adopts evidentiary double standards, attributing credibility to every anti-Israel allegation, and invariably dismissing evidence that indicates any wrongdoing by Hamas.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

So you do believe that it is possible to bring actions against Israel. In which case, why not do so to bring compliance with the investigation in the first place?

You're trying to lump two seperate issues into one.

I'm not sure if it's possible to bring sanctions against Israel (Unsure of the US's veto power on it), and secondly - even if Israel was sanctioned, it doesn't neccessarily mean that they would comply with the International community.

You seem very optimistic about Israel's co-operation with the international community. What has Israel done in the past few years to give merit to this optimism? Genuinely curious.

Shin Bet

dlofnep wrote: »

You seem very optimistic about Israel's co-operation with the international community. What has Israel done in the past few years to give merit to this optimism? Genuinely curious.

well the international community seems to realise the war against terror thats why so many states on the Council refused to support the Goldstone report - including the member states of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

You can't subpeona a country last time I checked. There really was nothing Judge Goldstone could to compel Israel to take part in the investigation.

Was such a power available to Judge Goldstone? I don't think he would have been able to do that, so I think your criticism here is overly harsh, as it seems to me that Judge Goldstone would be unable to do what you suggest.

I don't believe that IAEA inspectors have any power to compel countries to let them inspect either. So why don't we simply skip any other process to aid them in accessing Iran and go straight to the conclusion phase? Mr Goldstone was an agent of the UN. The UN can back them up if they're serious about the report.

Also, did he do things any differently than other people working on similar reports for the UN, when regimes they were investigating were uncooperative?

I have no idea. What has the UN tried doing in such cases?

Hamas civilian leaders wouldn't wear uniforms, and they do have uniformed police force, as they control that now.

Are you implying that the uniformed police were the ones lobbing the rockets?

The real issue lays in could we have put sufficient pressure on Israel to cooperate? The answer is most likely no. Israel do not like external influence on their policies and actions, unless it is in support of it.

Which, again, brings us back to step one. If it is impossible to put sufficient pressure on Israel to simply let an inspector in, then what chance is there of achieving anything from the Goldstone report? Instead all it has done as added further fuel to flames, and provided another discussion point for people on web boards and will, in fact, achieve absolutely nothing positive.

To be honest, I'm suprised that you've posted that. It bears no relation to reality at all.

Neither does the thought that the Goldstone Report will have any effect, apparently.

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe that IAEA inspectors have any power to compel countries to let them inspect either. So why don't we simply skip any other process to aid them in accessing Iran and go straight to the conclusion phase? Mr Goldstone was an agent of the UN. The UN can back them up if they're serious about the report.

Iran lets the inspectors in because there are a few powerfull nations pushing for sanctions etc if they do not. I do not see America or any of those nations threatening similar against Israel to be honest. Now it would be nice to believe that they would, but sometimes you have to live in the real world and deal with the situation the best you can.

The alternative would have been to wait until Israel decided it would talk to the inspectors, which we both know, would never have happened.

OldJay

Shin Bet wrote: »

In the eyes of the authors of the Report, Israel's operation in Gaza had nothing to do with the 12,000 rockets and mortars fired by Hamas over eight years on towns and villages inside Israel, nor with the fact that close to one million Israeli citizens had to live their lives within seconds of bomb-shelters because they were in range of Hamas attacks

It didn't.
It was a pre-election attempt by a severely damaged party (with leader in the dock on corruption charges) at winning Israeli voters more to the right back over from the increased support of the Likud etc, by showing zero tolerance of Hamas' idiotic activities.

However this UN group is itself also a sick joke. When the likes of its members such as China, Saudi Arabia and Russia can boast of exemplary civil rights records then maybe it would have more credibility as a civil rights watchdog.

Israel ignore a UN report/resolution/whatever. So what? Everyone in this thread ignores a good ole UN resolution. Mostly nr.181 in fact. The sick irony is that now the pro-Palestinian side of the conflict wants the basic tenets instilled of the bloody resolution that was passed in the first place.

First steps to be taken are
1) Unseat the coalition led by Bibi Netanyahu (already Lieberman's prospects looking grim)
2) Fatah and Hamas conflict requires resolution
3) Settlement expansion to be halted in West Bank and East Jerusalem.

I don't think reverting Palestine to pre-1967 borders and the previous occupiers, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon will ever happen.
Nor will the all-strategic Golanim ever be ceded to its former occupier, Syria.

OldJay

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Iran lets the inspectors in because there are a few powerfull nations pushing for sanctions etc if they do no

They're only letting IAEA inspectors which can only cast eyes over civilian nuclear instalments.
Thats why.