UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has apparently revealed himself as a Palestinian partisan.

by Guest Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:16 am

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has apparently revealed himself as a Palestinian partisan. In remarks last week to the Security Council, Ban said: “Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process... It is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

Besides appearing to justify terrorism, the secretary-general equated its Jewish victims with those who were killed while trying to murder them. “Stabbings, vehicle attacks and shootings by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians – all of which I condemn – and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces, have continued to claim lives,” Ban said.

Could this be a slip of the secretary-general’s tongue: He condemns “targeting Israeli civilians,” but not soldiers? Could he be suggesting in a subtle way that the many attacks on soldiers are justifiable, since they are agents of an occupying army? If this differentiation is not part of a new UN policy, Ban could simply have said “targeting Israelis” and condemned the violence against all of us.

Ban speaks out of concern for frustrated Palestinian youth: “Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.” Is he unaware of Israeli frustration? It hasn’t exactly been a picnic for us either.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response confronted Ban with what is finally becoming acknowledged as the fundamental truth of the Arab-Israeli conflict: The violence is the result of the hatred of Jews, rather than a response to alienation and despair due to years of failure to reach a peace settlement.

Netanyahu was blunt: “They want to murder Jews for being Jews and they say this openly. They do not murder for peace and they do not murder for human rights.”

He in effect accused Ban of supporting terrorism. “The secretary-general’s remarks provide a tailwind for terrorism.

There is no justification for terrorism. Those Palestinians who murder do not want to build a state; they want to destroy a state and they say this openly.”

Jewish officialdom was quick to respond to Ban’s assertion that the plague of Palestinian violence is the natural result of “frustration” from “half a century of occupation.”

World Jewish Congress president Ronald S. Lauder expressed regret at Ban’s statement, calling it a “dangerous justification of terrorism and the murder of Jews.”

He added, “It is extremely worrying and shocking that the leader of the international community has chosen to excuse the inexcusable.”

Lauder also warned of the danger inherent in the secretary- general’s words. “Mr. Ban’s statement will only encourage Palestinians to carry out more of the barbaric attacks we have seen in recent weeks. Crimes that are understood to be unacceptable in Paris and in Brussels – the random murder of people in the street or in their homes – cannot be somehow explained away when it comes to Israel.”

The Anti-Defamation League demanded a clarification from Ban of his remarks, which it called “highly disturbing.”

CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said Ban’s remarks were “incredibly short-sighted.”

Like Lauder, Greenblatt warned of the likely consequences of Ban’s statement: “These comments will not only serve to further embolden Palestinians seeking to attack Israeli civilians, but also undermine the global struggle against terrorism by making inappropriate distinctions and rationalizations.”

Ban did not speak in his own defense, but his spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, briefed reporters in New York on Wednesday. “Anyone is free to choose what they like or dislike from the secretary-general’s speeches. Words can continue to be twisted, but the grave reality cannot be obstructed,” he announced.

Moreover, Dujarric added, Ban “stands by every word” in his address to the Security Council. “He condemns the stabbings, vehicle attacks and shootings by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians,” Dujarric said, repeating that dubious restriction about “targeting Israeli civilians.”

He added, apparently in Ban’s name, that “nothing justifies terrorism.” But this is precisely what his boss attempted to do. Since his spokesman has invited us “to work together to fight the sources and the causes that fuel that terrorism,” we should join the UN in the worldwide campaign it should launch to wipe out anti-Semitism.

http://www.preoccupiedterritory.com/jesus-keeps-turning-muhammads-water-into-wine/

It astounds me that the UN continues to ignore the situation that the Palestinians have created for themselves.
They from the moment the partition plan was voted in the majority in 1947, the Palestinians and other Arab nations refused to accept a sizable ethnic group to have autonomy through self determination. The war with Israel has never truly ended and really started decades before with countless terrorist attacks on Jews. Of course there was also Jewish terrorism at the time before the creation of Israel, all unjustifiable and completely wrong. What then next needs to be asked, is why if countless Islamic scholars are not sending a letter to Hamas and Fatah to the attacks on Israeli's?

from the letter:

Second, your use of the word jihad is incorrect and offensive: jihad al-Saghrir is, as you know, war against oppression. The Qur’an and the Prophet are clear on its rules: it is to be used only against those who would force Muslims from their faith or drive you from your home; it is limited to combatants, and forbidden against innocents; the Prophet himself commanded that civilians be protected from war; and you are commanded by the Prophet to seek peace at every opportunity.

Now as I have pointed out before, the above actually allows for terrorism and that in some of the hadiths, Muhammad was indifferent to women and children being butchered. To then also how these same scholars contradict when some Islamic nations condemn and execute women and children, thus denying them being innocent but instead a false charge of guilty to in many cases laws formed from religious gibberish. So it renders even non-combatants as easily deemed guilty by extreme groups, but what the most telling part is where these scholars state that at every opportunity for Muslims to seek peace.

I think the PLO, Hamas etc, failed to get the memo on that, as they have instead continually sought conflict and it is because of where they lost conflicts from unwarranted aggression against Israel, they unbelievable render themselves as the victims to a conflict they started and refuse to come to peace with. I mean it would be like Nazi Germany at the end of the war claiming victim status for starting a conflict they lost. They had 16 million Germans displaced becoming refugees, lost massive chunks of territory, that had been lived by Germanic people for countless centuries, were occupied, which lasted around 10 years. The Germans were treated far more harshly and suffered at the hands of the invading Polish and Russian forces, rendering the feeble reasons of Palestinian victim-hood some what of a joke.

So why is it that Germany is not carrying out terrorist attacks in both Poland and Russia?
Why is there no mass of Germans demanding the return of lands formerly part of Germany?
Why is there no mass of Germans calling for the right of return of the German refugees and their descendants, no doubt which numbers 35-40 million people, to their former homes in Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary etc?

The reason is because it took two conflicts with where in the second, Germany was utterly destroyed. The Germans had not learnt the lesson of naked aggression from the First World War. It took a second global conflict they initiated and for them to be completely defeated to dispel the myth of German superiority and invincibility. They realized they were just humans and that there is consequences, dire consequences for such hateful genocide. The Germans have moved on as a people and in that I hold my hand up to them. They recognize their nation had to be held responsible for its many wrongs.

That is why at every turn where people excuse the Palestinian authorities from not seeking peace.
You do not see Islamic scholars in any numbers condemn the acts of Hamas and condemn them from not seeking peace.
What I would suggest is people attempt to even understand what it must be like to be Jewish. A group of people that throughout history has had mass killings of their people and ethnic cleansing, no matter where they have lived in the world. Think about it, from the ancient Egyptians, to the Assyrians, to the Babylonians, to the Seleucid empire, to the Roman Empire, to the Byzantine Empire, to then throughout the world under either Christian or Muslim controlled nations, to the holocaust, .

I mean just take stock of that for a minute that for 2,500 years this group of people have been persecuted, murdered and ethnically cleansed from many places all other the world. This should help people understand why if ever there was a reason to have a Jewish majority nation, it is fundamentally needed as a sanctuary for Jews to leave free from antisemitism, persecution, hate etc. As clearly the world has a very poor tract record of defending the human rights of the Jews.

I wonder how many proponents of the BDS back Scottish independence?

by Guest Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:38 am

UN secretary General Ban Ki Moon wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, striking back at critics who said he was justifying terror - by justifying terror:

IN Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, 2016 has begun much as 2015 ended — with unacceptable levels of violence and a polarized public discourse. That polarization showed itself in the halls of the United Nations last week when I pointed out a simple truth: History proves that people will always resist occupation.

Some sought to shoot the messenger — twisting my words into a misguided justification for violence. The stabbings, vehicle rammings and other attacks by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians are reprehensible. So, too, are the incitement of violence and the glorification of killers.

Nothing excuses terrorism. I condemn it categorically. It is inconceivable, though, that security measures alone will stop the violence. As I warned the Security Council last week, Palestinian frustration and grievances are growing under the weight of nearly a half-century of occupation. Ignoring this won’t make it disappear. No one can deny that the everyday reality of occupation provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.

Time to play the substitution game and see if it also sounds like something Ban Ki Moon would say:

History proves that people will always resist being terrorized. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being targeted by knives, car rammings and shootings, not to mention bus bombings and other attacks on Israelis, provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.
History proves that people will always resist being unfairly blamed for double standards. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being vilified by the UN and Europe for things that are often not true, and always far out of proportion compared to every other nation, provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.
History proves that Jews will always resist antisemitism. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being the victim of pogroms, gas chambers and blood libels provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of peace.

It doesn't quite flow, does it?

There are two underlying bigotries that even the Secretary General of the United Nations has deep down, despite a lifetime of studiously avoiding the public appearance of bias. One is that only Muslims are "understood" when they are violent - it is considered part of their culture. The other is that only violence against the Jewish state is justified, even if it is to be condemned - you will not hear Ban Ki Moon make the same kinds of statements about any Arab on Arab violence blaming the victims for forcing them to act this way.

In fact, this op-ed itself is in a way incitement to violence iitself. Let me explain

Israeli settlements keep expanding. The government has approved plans for over 150 new homes in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Last month, 370 acres in the West Bank were declared “state land,” a status that typically leads to exclusive Israeli settler use.

At the same time, thousands of Palestinian homes in the West Bank risk demolition because of obstacles that may be legal on paper but are discriminatory in practice. Palestinians — especially young people — are losing hope over what seems a harsh, humiliating and endless occupation.

As we've recently learned, there had been a de facto building freeze in the settlements for nearly two years that the UN never acknowledged. But let's set that aside for now. Let's assume that Ban Ki Moon's description of the hopeless life of Palestinians is 100% accurate. He is saying that violence is understandable when you are the victim of:

Houses being built a few miles from your home.

Land being taken a few miles from your home.

Your illegally built home being at risk of being demolished.

Now compare these awful conditions with the everyday life of practically everyone in Africa, much of the Far East and essentially every citizen of an Arab state. Compare it to nations where you can be arrested and tortured for a Facebook post. Would Ban Ki Moon ever, in his wildest dreams, say that violence from people whose lives are immeasurably worse than that of Palestinians is understandable?

When the UN and EU say that Jews building homes in their ancestral lands is a reason for people to naturally turn to violence, it is causing those people to consider terrorism to be their right. By not expressing outright and unconditional outrage over Palestinian terrorism and incitement, the message that Ban Ki Moon is expressing is that, among all the conflicts in the world, this is the only one where violence can be blamed on the victims.

In light of that, Ban's "condemnation" rings hollow.

by Raggamuffin Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:51 am

I can never quite see the point of condemning something whilst excusing it or condoning it at the same time.

Apart from the tragic deaths of people in that area, isn't it all really boring? One side says one thing, and the other side says another thing - over and over again.

What would happen if Israel just gave the Palestinians the disputed land, built a big fence, and told the Palestinians they can have the land but they can't come into Israel and they have to stand on their own two feet? I suppose some people would object to banning Palestinians from Israel, but they can't have it both ways.

by Guest Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I can never quite see the point of condemning something whilst excusing it or condoning it at the same time.

Apart from the tragic deaths of people in that area, isn't it all really boring? One side says one thing, and the other side says another thing - over and over again.

What would happen if Israel just gave the Palestinians the disputed land, built a big fence, and told the Palestinians they can have the land but they can't come into Israel and they have to stand on their own two feet? I suppose some people would object to banning Palestinians from Israel, but they can't have it both ways.

They did do that before Rags with Gaza.
They removed all Jewish settlements, and troops out of Gaza, and it did not change anything.
Israel continued to be targeted with terrorism from within Gaza.
So where Israel has made concessions given autonomy to Gaza and West Bank, the conflict continues
Israel has and does accepts Palestinians that flee from the likes of Hamas and its a telling point you make, as for peace to happen, the PLO and Hamas want want the Palestinian state to be an racist nation which denies any Jews living on those lands

by Raggamuffin Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:05 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I can never quite see the point of condemning something whilst excusing it or condoning it at the same time.

Apart from the tragic deaths of people in that area, isn't it all really boring? One side says one thing, and the other side says another thing - over and over again.

What would happen if Israel just gave the Palestinians the disputed land, built a big fence, and told the Palestinians they can have the land but they can't come into Israel and they have to stand on their own two feet? I suppose some people would object to banning Palestinians from Israel, but they can't have it both ways.

They did do that before Rags with Gaza.
They removed all Jewish settlements, and troops out of Gaza, and it did not change anything.
Israel continued to be targeted with terrorism from within Gaza.
So where Israel has made concessions given autonomy to Gaza and West Bank, the conflict continues
Israel has and does accepts Palestinians that flee from the likes of Hamas and its a telling point you make, as for peace to happen, the PLO and Hamas want want the Palestinian state to be an racist nation which denies any Jews living on those lands

What is the legal status of Gaza though? It's not enough to simply withdraw the physical presence of troops.

by Guest Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

They did do that before Rags with Gaza.
They removed all Jewish settlements, and troops out of Gaza, and it did not change anything.
Israel continued to be targeted with terrorism from within Gaza.
So where Israel has made concessions given autonomy to Gaza and West Bank, the conflict continues
Israel has and does accepts Palestinians that flee from the likes of Hamas and its a telling point you make, as for peace to happen, the PLO and Hamas want want the Palestinian state to be an racist nation which denies any Jews living on those lands

What is the legal status of Gaza though? It's not enough to simply withdraw the physical presence of troops.

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

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/PalAuthority.html

You have said that Israel should withdraw and as seen they did withdraw Rags and were then still attacked because the main problem is the view Israel should not exist

What you then have to understand Rags is the ideology of Hamas and why it does not want peace.
This is from their charter

The Preamble to the Charter states: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam invalidates it, just as it invalidated others before it″.

Article 1 describes Hamas as an Islamic Resistance Movement with an ideological programme of Islam.[21]
Article 2 of Hamas' Charter defines Hamas as a "universal movement" and "one of the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine".[17][21][22][23]
Article 3 the Movement consists of "Muslims who have given their allegiance to Allah".[21]
Article 4 the Movement "welcomes every Muslim who embraces its faith, ideology, follows its programme, keeps its secrets, and wants to belong to its ranks and carry out the duty."[21]
Article 5 Demonstrates its Salafist roots and connections to the Muslim brotherhood. [21]
Article 6 Hamas is uniquely Palestinian,[24] and "strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned."[17][21]
Article 7 describes Hamas as "one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders" and links the movement to the followers of the religious and nationalist hero Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.[21][23]
Article 8 The Hamas document reiterates the Muslim Brotherhood's slogan of "Allah is its goal, the Prophet is the model, the Qur'an its constitution, jihad its path, and death for the sake of Allah its most sublime belief."[17][21]
Article 9 adapts Muslim Brotherhood's vision to connect the Palestinian crisis with the Islamic solution and advocates "fighting against the false, defeating it and vanquishing it so that justice could prevail".[21]
Article 11 Palestine is sacred (waqf) for all Muslims for all time, and it cannot be relinquished by anyone.[21]
Article 12 affirms that "Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed" .[21]
Article 13 There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer.[21]
Article 14 The liberation of Palestine is the personal duty of every Palestinian.[21]
Article 15 "The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim". It states the history of crusades into Muslim lands and says the "Palestinian problem is a religious problem".[21]
Article 16 Describes how to go about educating future generations.[21]
Article 20 Calls for action "by the people as a single body" against "a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people".[21]
Article 22 Makes sweeping claims about Jewish influence and power. [21][25]
Article 28 Conspiracy charges against Israel and the whole of the Jewish people: "Israel, Judaism and Jews".

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

by Raggamuffin Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:32 pm

I'm not just talking about Israel withdrawing, I'm talking about Gaza being a completely separate country, responsible for themselves, and also responsible for whether or not they attack another country - ie, Israel.

I didn't read the links about the legal status because I've looked myself, and to be quite honest, I can't really understand it.

Of course the problem would be if there were attacks from the country known as Gaza. The Israelis would have to say - if our country is attacked from outside of Israel, we obviously have the right to defend ourselves, and if that means coming into your country or bombing it, it's your own fault. If you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone, but we won't help you either - you're on your own.

by Guest Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not just talking about Israel withdrawing, I'm talking about Gaza being a completely separate country, responsible for themselves, and also responsible for whether or not they attack another country - ie, Israel.

I didn't read the links about the legal status because I've looked myself, and to be quite honest, I can't really understand it.

Of course the problem would be if there were attacks from the country known as Gaza. The Israelis would have to say - if our country is attacked from outside of Israel, we obviously have the right to defend ourselves, and if that means coming into your country or bombing it, it's your own fault. If you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone, but we won't help you either - you're on your own.

Its up to the rest of the world to recognize a Palestinian state
They have self determination, but in both Gaza and the west Bank no elections have been held for years

What is important is to note that

On Thursday 26 September 2013 at the United Nations, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, was officially recognised as the head of state for the State of Palestine, which the United Nations de facto recognised in November 2012, and correspondingly received the right to sit in the General Assembly’s beige chair which is reserved for heads of state waiting to take the podium and address the General Assembly

Which does not state whether this covers Gaza
If it does, then the UN does not recognise Hamas being democratically elected

Like I say Rags and have said before, there is so much to understand in this conflct

by Raggamuffin Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:45 pm

It's not Israel's responsibility to make the rest of the world accept a Palestinian State. The point is that if the people in Gaza or the West Bank had no justification for blaming Israel for "occupying" their countries, they would have no excuse to claim they're "defending" themselves against "occupation". They would have no reason to support the stone-throwing youths or to complain that they're "repressed".

by Guest Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It's not Israel's responsibility to make the rest of the world accept a Palestinian State. The point is that if the people in Gaza or the West Bank had no justification for blaming Israel for "occupying" their countries, they would have no excuse to claim they're "defending" themselves against "occupation". They would have no reason to support the stone-throwing youths or to complain that they're "repressed".

But the problem is many Palestinians do not think Israel should exist.
Its not Israel's responsibility, but it certainly has tried to negotiate the formation of a Palestinian state.
There is no troops in Gaza, so they cannot even cl,aim occupation and the Oslo accords, signed by the PLO placed Israel in security control of disputed territories until an agreed settlement on the borders for each nation. This never happened. Again this is why its important to understand so much here rags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#Outline_of_the_peace_plan

by Raggamuffin Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:00 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's not Israel's responsibility to make the rest of the world accept a Palestinian State. The point is that if the people in Gaza or the West Bank had no justification for blaming Israel for "occupying" their countries, they would have no excuse to claim they're "defending" themselves against "occupation". They would have no reason to support the stone-throwing youths or to complain that they're "repressed".

But the problem is many Palestinians do not think Israel should exist.
Its not Israel's responsibility, but it certainly has tried to negotiate the formation of a Palestinian state.
There is no troops in Gaza, so they cannot even cl,aim occupation and the Oslo accords, signed by the PLO placed Israel in security control of disputed territories until an agreed settlement on the borders for each nation. This never happened. Again this is why its important to understand so much here rags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#Outline_of_the_peace_plan

Well if that's the case, it would all come out in the wash after the Palestinians get their own countries. If they persisted in attacking Israel, they would no longer be able to claim any kind of moral high ground, and even the most staunch supporters and defenders of Palestinians would sound a little fake.

I realise that I'm simplifying this too much, and that there's a lot to take into account, but nothing has worked so far has it? All the pussyfooting around simply doesn't solve anything. Perhaps it's time for something simpler but more drastic.

by Guest Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:01 pm

No worries rags,, is nice to have a discussion on the topic that is not heated

Right have work to do, so see you later

by Raggamuffin Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:07 pm

Didge wrote:No worries rags,, is nice to have a discussion on the topic that is not heated

Right have work to do, so see you later

OK. See you later.

by Irn Bru Tue Feb 02, 2016 1:23 am

Another load of baloney on here.

Here's what the Secretary General said - in full. Not the cherry-picking as shown in the OP.

And it's bang on the money.

http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=9417

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 1:30 am

Sadly, 2016 has begun much like 2015 ended – with unacceptable levels of violence and a polarized public discourse across the spectrum in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory.
Stabbings, vehicle attacks, and shootings by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians – all of which I condemn -- and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces, have continued to claim lives.
But security measures alone will not stop the violence. They cannot address the profound sense of alienation and despair driving some Palestinians – especially young people.
The full force of the law must be brought to bear on all those committing crimes – with a system of justice applied equally for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.
Some have taken me to task for pointing out this indisputable truth.
Yet, as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.
So-called facts on the ground in the occupied West Bank are steadily chipping away the viability of a Palestinian state and the ability of Palestinian people to live in dignity.
In an effort to overcome the political impasse, Quartet Envoys met Israeli and Palestinian officials on 17 December last year.
They reiterated the urgent need for significant steps, in line with previous agreements, to strengthen Palestinian institutions, security and economic prospects while addressing Israel’s security concerns.
Changing Israeli policies is central to advancing this goal, particularly in Israeli-controlled Area C, which comprises 61 percent of West Bank territory and is home to some 300,000 Palestinians.
Approvals of master plans for Palestinian sectors of Area C would allow for much needed growth in these areas and prevent demolitions.
Progress towards peace requires a freeze of Israel’s settlement enterprise.
Continued settlement activities are an affront to the Palestinian people and to the international community. They rightly raise fundamental questions about Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution.
I am deeply troubled by reports today that the Israeli Government has approved plans for over 150 new homes in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
This is combined with its announcement last week declaring 370 acres in the West Bank, south of Jericho, as so-called "state land". These provocative acts are bound to increase the growth of settler populations, further heighten tensions and undermine any prospects for a political road ahead.
I urge the Israeli Government not to use a recent decision by the Israeli High Court affirming a large tract of land south of Bethlehem as state land to advance settlement activities.
The demolitions of Palestinian homes in Area C of the occupied West Bank continue. So do the decades-long difficulties of Palestinians to obtain building permits.
The Bedouin community, in particular, is paying a heavy price. I reiterate the UN’s call for an immediate end to Israeli plans to forcibly transfer Bedouin communities currently living within the occupied Palestinian territory in the Jerusalem area.
At the same time, the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains perilous.
Eighteen months after the end of hostilities, conditions have not significantly improved. I condemn the continuing rocket fire into Israel from militant groups in Gaza.
Chronic security and governance challenges and funding shortages have slowed the pace of reconstruction. Much work remains to be done. Meanwhile, the people of Gaza face dire unemployment, water and electricity needs.
Meeting these concerns must be a top priority. However none of this can be accomplished without critical support from donors, the fulfilment of pledges from the Cairo Conference, as well as the full return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza.
I continue to strongly believe that conditions in Gaza pose a severe threat to long-term peace and security in the region.
Palestinians must also demonstrate commitment to addressing the divisions among Palestinians themselves.
I strongly urge the Palestinian factions to advance genuine Palestinian unity on the basis of democracy and the PLO principles.
Reconciliation is critical in order to reunite the West Bank and Gaza under a single legitimate Palestinian authority.
Healing Palestinian divisions is also critical so that Palestinians can instead focus their energies on establishing a stable state as part of a negotiated two-state solution.
Genuine unity will also improve the Palestinian Government’s ability to meet pressing economic problems, which are adding to the frustration and anger driving Palestinian violence.
The international community also has a responsibility – not least by responding generously to UNRWA’s recent emergency appeal of over $400 million to support vulnerable Palestinians.
And as we continue to uphold the right of Palestinians to self-determination, let us be equally firm that incitement has no place, and that questioning the right of Israel to exist cannot be tolerated.
In an already tense regional environment, it is imperative to promote and consolidate stability wherever possible.
In Lebanon, I urge all political leaders to work with Prime Minister Tammam Salam and to intensify efforts to resolve the presidential crisis.
The Syria Donors Conference on 4 February in London will be an important opportunity to mobilize support. This must include meeting neighbouring countries huge humanitarian, infrastructure and stabilization needs in light of the refugee crisis. We are all aware of the strains on Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.
I welcome the resumption of calm along the Blue Line and in UNIFIL’s area of operations following the serious incidents of 20 December and 4 January.
All parties have a responsibility to uphold the cessation of hostilities and to ensure full respect for Security Council resolution 1701.
On the Golan, it remains critical that parties to the Disengagement Agreement maintain liaison with UNDOF. They must refrain from actions that could escalate the situation across the ceasefire line.
Some may say the current volatility across the region makes it too risky to seek peace. I say the greater peril is not seeking a solution to the Palestinian question.
Some say the two sides are entrenched in their respective positions. I say that we must not succumb to passivity, resignation or hopelessness that a comprehensive resolution of the conflict is not achievable.
A lasting agreement will require difficult compromises by both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
Yes -- but what are the alternatives?
The continuing deadly wave of terror attacks and killings?
The possible financial collapse of the Palestinian Government?
Ever greater isolation of the Israeli Government?
A further deterioration of humanitarian conditions in Gaza and the agonizing build-up to another terrible war?
A hollowing of the moral foundation of both Israeli and Palestinian societies alike, a creeping moral blindness that ignores the suffering – and indeed the humanity -- of one’s neighbour?
More unilateral acts by each side, intentionally designed to pre-empt negotiations and provoke the other side?
The parties must act – and act now -- to prevent the two-state solution from slipping away forever.
[Upholding] and implementing this vision – two states living side-by-side in peace and security - offers the only means by which Israel could retain both its Jewish majority and democratic status.
As the wider Middle East continues to be gripped by a relentless wave of extremist terror, Israelis and Palestinians have an opportunity to restore hope to a region torn apart by intolerance and cruelty. I urge them to accept this historic challenge in the mutual interest of peace.
The support of regional partners in this pursuit is essential. The Arab Peace Initiative provides a valuable basis for broader support.
And finally, the whole international community must be ever more committed to actively help Palestinians and Israelis to rebuild trust and achieve an enduring peace before it is too late.
Thank you. Muchas gracias.

Absolutely spot on the money. As he is leaving soon he can say what he believes, the Israeli Government can no longer put pressure on him. Wish he had done it before.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:55 am

Irn Bru wrote:Another load of baloney on here.

Here's what the Secretary General said - in full. Not the cherry-picking as shown in the OP.

And it's bang on the money.

http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=9417

Ah I see you excuse his words when I already had posted up his words and that still is defending and justifying terrorism.

Exhibit 1) Yet, as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.

Exhibit 2) Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.

Which if we went by such a statement both Africans and Jews would see an unprecedented levels of extremism and terrorism. The same with Christians in the Middle East, the people of Tibet, the Western Sahara etc

The area was agreed under the Oslo accord for Israel to main effective security control in area C and that how is it that pre-1967 these areas not under Israel where they had terrorism still directed at them and that occupation by Jordanian and Egyptian did not have any terrorism, where in fact this occupation was not even viewed as an occupation as sen by the PLO charter of 1964. So its is trying to promote a falsehood to the terrorist attacks and killings which have only one root cause. Hate of the Jews. Even the excuse of settlements is also misleading. The fact that only recently Israel lifted a two year freeze on building settlements, proves how again it has nothing to do with the terrorism attacks. It has everything to do with refusing to accept the existence of Israel and hating Jews, which has evidence where 93% of Palestinians harbour hatred against the Jews

I mean you do realise Irn this is exactly the same narrative babble that some Muslims to promote to excuse terrorism against the west based on the transition period of power in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet see other periods like this in history where there is next to no such extremism or terrorism. It shows how badly people fail to grasp what is behind and motivates terrorism itself

by Irn Bru Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:15 pm

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:Another load of baloney on here.

Here's what the Secretary General said - in full. Not the cherry-picking as shown in the OP.

And it's bang on the money.

http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=9417

Ah I see you excuse his words when I already had posted up his words and that still is defending and justifying terrorism.

Exhibit 1) Yet, as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.

Exhibit 2) Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.

Which if we went by such a statement both Africans and Jews would see an unprecedented levels of extremism and terrorism. The same with Christians in the Middle East, the people of Tibet, the Western Sahara etc

The area was agreed under the Oslo accord for Israel to main effective security control in area C and that how is it that pre-1967 these areas not under Israel where they had terrorism still directed at them and that occupation by Jordanian and Egyptian did not have any terrorism, where in fact this occupation was not even viewed as an occupation as sen by the PLO charter of 1964. So its is trying to promote a falsehood to the terrorist attacks and killings which have only one root cause. Hate of the Jews. Even the excuse of settlements is also misleading. The fact that only recently Israel lifted a two year freeze on building settlements, proves how again it has nothing to do with the terrorism attacks. It has everything to do with refusing to accept the existence of Israel and hating Jews, which has evidence where 93% of Palestinians harbour hatred against the Jews

I mean you do realise Irn this is exactly the same narrative babble that some Muslims to promote to excuse terrorism against the west based on the transition period of power in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet see other periods like this in history where there is next to no such extremism or terrorism. It shows how badly people fail to grasp what is behind and motivates terrorism itself

But you didn't post up all his words - just your particular selection. And now you're back to making things up again because I never said or suggested that I was defending or justyfying terrorism.

Read the whole of his speech to see that he is saying that the violence has to stop as does the continued occupation and the expansion and lack of opportunity being denied to Palestinian’s in area C. He is saying it’s time to talk and hasn’t in anyway suggested that people should turn to violent resistance but points out that it is an incubator for it. Bearing in mind that Netanyahu is on record that there will not be a two state solution you have to see his point.

Are you suggesting that people living under occupation should just do nothing and accept what little is given to them by the occupiers? If not what is your solution?

And spare me your usual rhetoric that they should accept what is offered to them which is as much as the Likud Party Charter describes it - No Sovereign State - and even that is off the table now.

by Guest Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:50 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Ah I see you excuse his words when I already had posted up his words and that still is defending and justifying terrorism.

Exhibit 1) Yet, as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.

Exhibit 2) Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.

Which if we went by such a statement both Africans and Jews would see an unprecedented levels of extremism and terrorism. The same with Christians in the Middle East, the people of Tibet, the Western Sahara etc

The area was agreed under the Oslo accord for Israel to main effective security control in area C and that how is it that pre-1967 these areas not under Israel where they had terrorism still directed at them and that occupation by Jordanian and Egyptian did not have any terrorism, where in fact this occupation was not even viewed as an occupation as sen by the PLO charter of 1964. So its is trying to promote a falsehood to the terrorist attacks and killings which have only one root cause. Hate of the Jews. Even the excuse of settlements is also misleading. The fact that only recently Israel lifted a two year freeze on building settlements, proves how again it has nothing to do with the terrorism attacks. It has everything to do with refusing to accept the existence of Israel and hating Jews, which has evidence where 93% of Palestinians harbour hatred against the Jews

I mean you do realise Irn this is exactly the same narrative babble that some Muslims to promote to excuse terrorism against the west based on the transition period of power in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet see other periods like this in history where there is next to no such extremism or terrorism. It shows how badly people fail to grasp what is behind and motivates terrorism itself

But you didn't post up all his words - just your particular selection. And now you're back to making things up again because I never said or suggested that I was defending or justyfying terrorism.

Read the whole of his speech to see that he is saying that the violence has to stop as does the continued occupation and the expansion and lack of opportunity being denied to Palestinian’s in area C. He is saying it’s time to talk and hasn’t in anyway suggested that people should turn to violent resistance but points out that it is an incubator for it. Bearing in mind that Netanyahu is on record that there will not be a two state solution you have to see his point.

Are you suggesting that people living under occupation should just do nothing and accept what little is given to them by the occupiers? If not what is your solution?

And spare me your usual rhetoric that they should accept what is offered to them which is as much as the Likud Party Charter describes it - No Sovereign State - and even that is off the table now.

And that makes any difference to the fact he excused terrorism?

I did read all his speech and he indeed tried to excuse murder based on hate which has existed in the region since before the occupation or settlements. Most are not even living under occupation, which is also a distortion of the truth and again this was in agreement of the Oslo accords, so clearly their anger should be directed at the PLO who signed for the arrangement the point you miss

I never said people should do nothing, there is such a thing as peaceful protests and voting into power a leadership that is not constantly at war with Israel and wants peace, but then that is difficult, being after them gaining autonomy the PLO and Hamas has since denied elections

Yes they should accept what is offered to them and deserve nothing more after years of aggression and hate, your view would would make concessions to the likes of nazi Germany for starting a conflict which the Palestinians started this conflict which has never ended. You disgustingly make victims out of aggressors, neglecting they were offered far more territory from the start, and instead chose civil war. So spare me your appeasement bullshit where you wish to award aggressors

by Guest Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Brave Israeli Soldier Speaks Out On BBC Against the Crimes of His Government...

For the sake of Palestinine, for the sake of Israel, Stop Committing War Crimes

by Irn Bru Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:35 am

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Ah I see you excuse his words when I already had posted up his words and that still is defending and justifying terrorism.

Exhibit 1) Yet, as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.

Exhibit 2) Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.

Which if we went by such a statement both Africans and Jews would see an unprecedented levels of extremism and terrorism. The same with Christians in the Middle East, the people of Tibet, the Western Sahara etc

The area was agreed under the Oslo accord for Israel to main effective security control in area C and that how is it that pre-1967 these areas not under Israel where they had terrorism still directed at them and that occupation by Jordanian and Egyptian did not have any terrorism, where in fact this occupation was not even viewed as an occupation as sen by the PLO charter of 1964. So its is trying to promote a falsehood to the terrorist attacks and killings which have only one root cause. Hate of the Jews. Even the excuse of settlements is also misleading. The fact that only recently Israel lifted a two year freeze on building settlements, proves how again it has nothing to do with the terrorism attacks. It has everything to do with refusing to accept the existence of Israel and hating Jews, which has evidence where 93% of Palestinians harbour hatred against the Jews

I mean you do realise Irn this is exactly the same narrative babble that some Muslims to promote to excuse terrorism against the west based on the transition period of power in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet see other periods like this in history where there is next to no such extremism or terrorism. It shows how badly people fail to grasp what is behind and motivates terrorism itself

But you didn't post up all his words - just your particular selection. And now you're back to making things up again because I never said or suggested that I was defending or justyfying terrorism.

Read the whole of his speech to see that he is saying that the violence has to stop as does the continued occupation and the expansion and lack of opportunity being denied to Palestinian’s in area C. He is saying it’s time to talk and hasn’t in anyway suggested that people should turn to violent resistance but points out that it is an incubator for it. Bearing in mind that Netanyahu is on record that there will not be a two state solution you have to see his point.

Are you suggesting that people living under occupation should just do nothing and accept what little is given to them by the occupiers? If not what is your solution?

And spare me your usual rhetoric that they should accept what is offered to them which is as much as the Likud Party Charter describes it - No Sovereign State - and even that is off the table now.

And that makes any difference to the fact he excused terrorism?

I did read all his speech and he indeed tried to excuse murder based on hate which has existed in the region since before the occupation or settlements. Most are not even living under occupation, which is also a distortion of the truth and again this was in agreement of the Oslo accords, so clearly their anger should be directed at the PLO who signed for the arrangement the point you miss

I never said people should do nothing, there is such a thing as peaceful protests and voting into power a leadership that is not constantly at war with Israel and wants peace, but then that is difficult, being after them gaining autonomy the PLO and Hamas has since denied elections

Yes they should accept what is offered to them and deserve nothing more after years of aggression and hate, your view would would make concessions to the likes of nazi Germany for starting a conflict which the Palestinians started this conflict which has never ended. You disgustingly make victims out of aggressors, neglecting they were offered far more territory from the start, and instead chose civil war. So spare me your appeasement bullshit where you wish to award aggressors

Well the highlighted part just comnfirms what I knew all along in that you were never up for a two state solution based on a sovereign Palestinian state. It was all false and that just shows you up for the two-faced bigotted islamaphobe that I knew you were.

Where do you think peaceful protests would have got the French during WWII? Where do you think peacefull ptotests would have got the Stern Gang instead of murdering British soldiers serving in a peace force. Where do you think peacefull protests would have got those oppressed by the Nazi's. Oh, I forgot, you couldn't bring yourself to condemn the Nazi collaborators because you were half Irish.

So where's your thread 'Let's be honest about Britains Islamaphobia' now? Go and read what you were saying then and what you are saying now.

You're a fake, a racist, a bigot and a self confessed xenephobe.

You are no standars bearer foe equality Bruv.

Job Done

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:03 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

And that makes any difference to the fact he excused terrorism?

I did read all his speech and he indeed tried to excuse murder based on hate which has existed in the region since before the occupation or settlements. Most are not even living under occupation, which is also a distortion of the truth and again this was in agreement of the Oslo accords, so clearly their anger should be directed at the PLO who signed for the arrangement the point you miss

I never said people should do nothing, there is such a thing as peaceful protests and voting into power a leadership that is not constantly at war with Israel and wants peace, but then that is difficult, being after them gaining autonomy the PLO and Hamas has since denied elections

Yes they should accept what is offered to them and deserve nothing more after years of aggression and hate, your view would would make concessions to the likes of nazi Germany for starting a conflict which the Palestinians started this conflict which has never ended. You disgustingly make victims out of aggressors, neglecting they were offered far more territory from the start, and instead chose civil war. So spare me your appeasement bullshit where you wish to award aggressors

Well the highlighted part just comnfirms what I knew all along in that you were never up for a two state solution based on a sovereign Palestinian state. It was all false and that just shows you up for the two-faced bigotted islamaphobe that I knew you were.

Where do you think peaceful protests would have got the French during WWII? Where do you think peacefull ptotests would have got the Stern Gang instead of murdering British soldiers serving in a peace force. Where do you think peacefull protests would have got those oppressed by the Nazi's. Oh, I forgot, you couldn't bring yourself to condemn the Nazi collaborators because you were half Irish.

So where's your thread 'Let's be honest about Britains Islamaphobia' now? Go and read what you were saying then and what you are saying now.

You're a fake, a racist, a bigot and a self confessed xenephobe.

You are no standars bearer foe equality Bruv.

Job Done

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has apparently revealed himself as a Palestinian partisan. 5lmwsdd

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:35 am

So do I, it's bloody awesome, the phrase NAIL:HEAD was made for posts like that!

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:31 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

And that makes any difference to the fact he excused terrorism?

I did read all his speech and he indeed tried to excuse murder based on hate which has existed in the region since before the occupation or settlements. Most are not even living under occupation, which is also a distortion of the truth and again this was in agreement of the Oslo accords, so clearly their anger should be directed at the PLO who signed for the arrangement the point you miss

I never said people should do nothing, there is such a thing as peaceful protests and voting into power a leadership that is not constantly at war with Israel and wants peace, but then that is difficult, being after them gaining autonomy the PLO and Hamas has since denied elections

Yes they should accept what is offered to them and deserve nothing more after years of aggression and hate, your view would would make concessions to the likes of nazi Germany for starting a conflict which the Palestinians started this conflict which has never ended. You disgustingly make victims out of aggressors, neglecting they were offered far more territory from the start, and instead chose civil war. So spare me your appeasement bullshit where you wish to award aggressors

Well the highlighted part just comnfirms what I knew all along in that you were never up for a two state solution based on a sovereign Palestinian state. It was all false and that just shows you up for the two-faced bigotted islamaphobe that I knew you were.
Didge wrote:What because you lie again? Nope that is just the typical weasel rat tactic of a racist leftie. By accepting they should have accepted the offered given to them, which they have refused at every turn because they do not accept Israel existing. So it has nothing to do with islamophobia an oxymoron, and shows again the left wing jew hating weasel rat will do anything to distort what is being stated by me, which has always been your problem Irn, you are a lying little prat at the best of times. Again 3 times they could have had a state and Israel has offered them good deals, which you know for a fact is what I am talking about, but as usual you attempt to twist because you are dishonest trying to twist as you always do, hence why you have always run sacred from all the main RW posters Irn, its as simple as that. If I have already stated I want a two state solution it shows the poor little methods you employ do not cut it bucko

Where do you think peaceful protests would have got the French during WWII? Where do you think peacefull ptotests would have got the Stern Gang instead of murdering British soldiers serving in a peace force. Where do you think peacefull protests would have got those oppressed by the Nazi's. Oh, I forgot, you couldn't bring yourself to condemn the Nazi collaborators because you were half Irish.
Didge wrote:Wrong comparison. Not only did a large part of France collaborate with the Nazis, in Vichy France, but you are comparing the Nazis to Israel in that they would never compromise when Israel has compromised, so on all counts that was about the most idiotic attempt to compare something not even comparable. What you are claiming is a blatant lie, as the French had no other options with the occupation under the Nazi's where the Palestinians has always had other options. The Allies occupied Germany, and the Palestinians started this conflict, thus it is justified to occupy an area that keeps attacking you and has done so since 1947, you just made the aggressors the victims, making Nazi Germany the victim by your comparison. So Germany accepted in the end peace which after 10 years saw the withdrawal of the occupied troops. Now through those ten years of occupation, how many terrorist attacks were there? You see the Nazis's and Palestinians are the same even connected, both aggressors, both intent to wipe out the Jews, all documented. Now why was it the Palestinians under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation saw no terrorism against their occupation Irn? And that in fact Israel was still being targeted with terrorism, because the Palestinians refused to accept the state of Israel existing even pre 1967. Oh dear did I just make you look a complete imbecilic left wing Jew hating Hamas supporting scum again Irn. So easy to show up the regressive left wing contradiction. The Palestinians from the start refused the partition plan and started a civil war in the British Mandate, they lost, then accepted occupation under the Jordanians and Egyptians, and when the PLO formed in 1964, its charted never claimed to free either the West Bank or Gaza Oh dear it seems the weasel rat is left looking like the inept apologist jew hating scum that he is. So not only is your comparison that of an apologist weasel rat, its sheer denial of the constant aggression from not only the Palestinian but Arab nations
So where's your thread 'Let's be honest about Britains Islamaphobia' now? Go and read what you were saying then and what you are saying now.
Didge wrote:As seen I just made you look very inept employing your usual distory tactics, twist things I have never said and prove that you are an apologist for an aggressor in the Arabs,

You're a fake, a racist, a bigot and a self confessed xenephobe.
Didge wrote:Nope as seen you are a Jew hating low life piece of scum, that people would not piss off on if on fire,its idiots like you that are fueling the far right with your appeasement of Islamism and hatred of the Jews. Do not blame me when in power and they deport you or far worse execute you, You support the BDS that singles out one nations for supposed wrongs ignoring countless others way worse and who abuse human rights, that makes you racist towards the Israelis

You are no standars bearer foe equality Bruv.

Job Done

You were easily done by me
Standards, this coining from a poster who can never debate points but only ever try to deligitimise me, when in fact I prove what you are. Its why you sit here shit scared to take on the right wing Irn on flap and instead attempt to get others to do your dirty work, you need people around you for support lol
The worst part of your defense is even to equate the Nazi occupation of France to Israel's part occupation of the West Bank which mainly concerns area C, of which was signed and agreed by the Palestinian authorities in the PLO. What gets me is that at every turn you excuse the Palestinian leadership which has spurned every chance of peace and fundamentally let down the Palestinian people, all of which you blatantly ignore. Your views on terrorism justified off occupation fail to understand where there is other options, which your views would justify the IRA terrorism, as they viewed the British as in occupation. At every turn you make yourself look a complete apologist for terrorism and in the case of the Palestinians your pathetic appeasement amounts to nothing justifies terrorism except Palestinian frustration.
Which shows why you are nothing more than a pathetic weasel, who endorses hate and terrorism against the Israeli Jews.
That makes you Nazi scum chum

Also

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:55 am

Here's how the official Wafa news agencyreported yesterday's terror attack:

Three Palestinians have been fatally shot by Israeli police in Jerusalem, after theypurportedly attacked with gunfire and knives Israeli policemen outside Bab al-Amoud Gate in Jerusalem, seriously injuring two Israeli policewomen, according to local sources.

An Israeli police report stated that two policewomen were seriously wounded in the gunfire and stabbing attacks carried out by three Palestinians identified as Ahmad Rajeh Zakarneh, Mohammad Ahmad Kmail, and Ahmad Najeh Abur-Rob.

WAFA correspondent said that, shortly after the incident, Israeli police sealed off Bab al-Amoud area, along with all the gates of Jerusalem’s Old City. Police reportedly attacked Palestinian locals present there with teargas canisters and stun grenades. [This seems to be made up - EoZ]

On January 26th, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it was "human nature" for Palestinians to react violently to Israel's nearly 50-year military occupation.

Speaking at the UN Security Council's Middle East debate, Ban said the new year had begun as 2015 ended, “with unacceptable levels of violence and a polarized public discourse across the spectrum in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory.”

He added that Israeli security measures were failing to “address the profound sense of alienation and despair driving some Palestinians – especially young people.”

I guess that they didn't read Ban's NYT op-ed where he claimed he was in no way justifying terror attacks.

Or perhaps - they did, and understood him perfectly.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/official-pa-news-agency-cites-ban-ki.html

Oh dear further embarrassment for the rat-boy.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not just talking about Israel withdrawing, I'm talking about Gaza being a completely separate country, responsible for themselves, and also responsible for whether or not they attack another country - ie, Israel.

I didn't read the links about the legal status because I've looked myself, and to be quite honest, I can't really understand it.

Of course the problem would be if there were attacks from the country known as Gaza. The Israelis would have to say - if our country is attacked from outside of Israel, we obviously have the right to defend ourselves, and if that means coming into your country or bombing it, it's your own fault. If you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone, but we won't help you either - you're on your own.

An independent state has control of its borders and ports. Gaza does not.

Yes, Israel withdrew all settlers from Gaza but only to turn it into a giant prison.

If you really don't know about this Rags, don't take anyone's word for it. Look it up for yourself.

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not just talking about Israel withdrawing, I'm talking about Gaza being a completely separate country, responsible for themselves, and also responsible for whether or not they attack another country - ie, Israel.

I didn't read the links about the legal status because I've looked myself, and to be quite honest, I can't really understand it.

Of course the problem would be if there were attacks from the country known as Gaza. The Israelis would have to say - if our country is attacked from outside of Israel, we obviously have the right to defend ourselves, and if that means coming into your country or bombing it, it's your own fault. If you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone, but we won't help you either - you're on your own.

An independent state has control of its borders and ports. Gaza does not.

Yes, Israel withdrew all settlers from Gaza but only to turn it into a giant prison.

If you really don't know about this Rags, don't take anyone's word for it. Look it up for yourself.

They are not even in charge of their water, are not allowed to build an airport after Israel bombed the one they had, etc etc etc

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:20 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not just talking about Israel withdrawing, I'm talking about Gaza being a completely separate country, responsible for themselves, and also responsible for whether or not they attack another country - ie, Israel.

I didn't read the links about the legal status because I've looked myself, and to be quite honest, I can't really understand it.

Of course the problem would be if there were attacks from the country known as Gaza. The Israelis would have to say - if our country is attacked from outside of Israel, we obviously have the right to defend ourselves, and if that means coming into your country or bombing it, it's your own fault. If you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone, but we won't help you either - you're on your own.

An independent state has control of its borders and ports. Gaza does not.

Yes, Israel withdrew all settlers from Gaza but only to turn it into a giant prison.

If you really don't know about this Rags, don't take anyone's word for it. Look it up for yourself.

We have been through this before, which would make Egypt by your delusions in occupation also

There has to be an occupying army for it to be an occupation where a legal case back this stance

http://www.ejiltalk.org/european-court-decides-that-israel-is-not-occupying-gaza/

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:23 pm

Also even in the West Bank only parts are in occupation, where again terrorism happened before any occupation and that no such terrorism happened under Jordanian full control, shattering the delusional islamofascists beliefs.

Anywa

Question: Is violence against civilians really a natural response to territorial disputes throughout the ages?
Answer: No.
Oxford University Press recently published a thorough academic study of more than 2,000 militarized, territorial disputes around the world from 1816 to 1996. The analysis demonstrated that only 17% of militarized territorial disputes escalated into war within one year, and only 30% escalated into war within five years. In other words, humans usually do NOT respond to territorial disputes with violence. That’s not an opinion, that’s just history.

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=3fZGCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=what+percentage+of+territorial+disputes+are+violent&source=bl&ots=mkC0xRyCzn&sig=-x9Du7xFXy5B27Pgcq1hTZN77y4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs0JvzmNTKAhXMWxQKHSKkDE8Q6AEIOjAH#v=onepage&q=what%20percentage%20of%20territorial%20disputes%20are%20violent&f=false

Question: Does Ban Ki-moon actually believe that terrorism (against people other than Israelis) is “human nature?”
Answer: No.
A UN Secretary-General has to deal with a lot. For example, right now 190 different countries are engaged in territorial disputes. Further, according to the Armed Conflict Database, there are 42 violent conflicts raging around the world (as of 2015), and in the year 2014 alone, these conflicts produced 12,181,000 refugees and 180,000 fatalities.
Yet in over seven years as UN Secretary-General, we have not been able to find even one example of Ban Ki-moon referring to any of these deaths as “natural” or “human nature,” except for the murder of Israelis.
Question: What do Palestinians say? Is the recent wave of stabbing and shooting attacks against Israelis motivated by a dispute over territory?
Answer: No. In fact, the Palestinian motivation for the latest wave of stabbing and shooting attacks stems from incitement surrounding a fake threat against a certain mosque, and the growing Palestinian support for Islamic State.
Beginning last September, a wave of rumors in Palestinian society falsely claimed that Israelis intended to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Even though the fake threat had no basis in fact and never actually materialized, Palestinian leaders encouraged their youth to react to these rumors. Palestinian sources published practical guides on how to stab Jews. In most cases, the attackers themselves explained their motivations on social media, saying they were acting “to defend the Al-Aqsa Mosque.”
Islamic State further encouraged Palestinian attacks with a series of videos. Clues left behind by Tel Aviv terrorist Nashat Milhem suggest he was inspired by Islamic State.

Question: Does this mean the United Nations should not encourage peace?
Answer: No, that is not what this means at all.
Israelis want peace and are prepared to see an independent Palestinian state existing side by side in peace with Israel. To that end, Israel has taken significant risks to offer Palestinian independenceon three separate occasions in the 25 years since the beginning of the Oslo peace process. But the Palestinian leadership has always refused, sometimes even responding to Israeli offers with violence.
Despite all these risks and challenges, most Israelis continue to support the idea of peace through the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It is appropriate for the UN to encourage efforts for peace.
But when Ban excuses Palestinian terrorism, he lends support and encouragement to the most violent and extreme elements in Palestinian society, thus making peace harder to achieve.
If the Secretary-General is serious about peace for Israelis and Palestinians, he would do well to lend his support to those Palestinians who desire peace instead of to those who desire terror, and to treat Israeli lives with the same degree of seriousness and respect that he shows for the lives of everyone else in the world.
After all, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has never publicly referred to any of the violence on Earth or throughout history as being “human nature.”
Only the murder of Israelis.

http://honestreporting.com/is-murdering-israelis-really-just-human-nature/

Seems like rat-boy is looking a right dick at the moment lol

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:27 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:
An independent state has control of its borders and ports. Gaza does not.

Yes, Israel withdrew all settlers from Gaza but only to turn it into a giant prison.

If you really don't know about this Rags, don't take anyone's word for it. Look it up for yourself.

We have been through this before, which would make Egypt by your delusions in occupation also

There has to be an occupying army for it to be an occupation where a legal case back this stance

http://www.ejiltalk.org/european-court-decides-that-israel-is-not-occupying-gaza/

@Rags - do yo see how quickly our little Hasbeeny responded with their usual propaganda.

You may remember that the US and Israel were not happy with the government "elected" in Egypt after the Arab Spring. Why? Becuase they opened the border.

Hence, why the US and Israel conspired with the Egyptian army to overthrow the elect d government and imprison the leaders of the elected party. GENERAL Sisi was then "installed" as leader who then blocked the border again.

Again, you don't have to take my word for it. It's public record.

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:29 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

We have been through this before, which would make Egypt by your delusions in occupation also

There has to be an occupying army for it to be an occupation where a legal case back this stance

http://www.ejiltalk.org/european-court-decides-that-israel-is-not-occupying-gaza/

@Rags - do yo see how quickly our little Hasbeeny responded with their usual propaganda.

You may remember that the US and Israel were not happy with the government "elected" in Egypt after the Arab Spring. Why? Becuase they opened the border.

Hence, why the US and Israel conspired with the Egyptian army to overthrow the elect d government and imprison the leaders of the elected party. GENERAL Sisi was then "installed" as leader who then blocked the border again.

Again, you don't have to take my word for it. It's public record.

lol So on the defensive the little islamofascist

Who as seen cannot disprove my point so instead turns this about me

Legally its not an occupation as no troops are in the country occupying

And he ends with more conspiracy

Seriously what an ignorant fuckwit ha ha

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:32 pm

TDidge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

@Rags - do yo see how quickly our little Hasbeeny responded with their usual propaganda.

You may remember that the US and Israel were not happy with the government "elected" in Egypt after the Arab Spring. Why? Becuase they opened the border.

Hence, why the US and Israel conspired with the Egyptian army to overthrow the elect d government and imprison the leaders of the elected party. GENERAL Sisi was then "installed" as leader who then blocked the border again.

Again, you don't have to take my word for it. It's public record.

lol So on the defensive the little islamofascist

Who as seen cannot disprove my point so instead turns this about me

Legally its not an occupation as no troops are in the country occupying

And he ends with more conspiracy

Seriously what an ignorant fuckwit ha ha

@Rags - you should now ask yourself if my post deserved such a hysterical response from Didge and find out why he's being so deflective.

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:33 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
TDidge wrote:

lol So on the defensive the little islamofascist

Who as seen cannot disprove my point so instead turns this about me

Legally its not an occupation as no troops are in the country occupying

And he ends with more conspiracy

Seriously what an ignorant fuckwit ha ha
@Rags - you should now ask yourself if my post deserved such a hysterical response from Didge and find out why he's being so deflective.

lol still talking about me, why not beat your pigeon chest a few times, that always helps

Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:33 pm

One of the problems with Gaza is its geographical position. It could be an independent country but it largely borders Israel, so even if it controlled its own borders, it can't control the Israeli border or what happens there.

I fully appreciate that I was taking a very simplified stance in this thread. The trouble is that the problem just goes on and on the same old way. The Palestinians say they're defending themselves, and the Israelis say the same thing. How is that ever going to be resolved?

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:One of the problems with Gaza is its geographical position. It could be an independent country but it largely borders Israel, so even if it controlled its own borders, it can't control the Israeli border or what happens there.

I fully appreciate that I was taking a very simplified stance in this thread. The trouble is that the problem just goes on and on the same old way. The Palestinians say they're defending themselves, and the Israelis say the same thing. How is that ever going to be resolved?

By a more liberal Israel Government and a new Palestinian leadership that actually wants peace

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:45 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:One of the problems with Gaza is its geographical position. It could be an independent country but it largely borders Israel, so even if it controlled its own borders, it can't control the Israeli border or what happens there.

I fully appreciate that I was taking a very simplified stance in this thread. The trouble is that the problem just goes on and on the same old way. The Palestinians say they're defending themselves, and the Israelis say the same thing. How is that ever going to be resolved?

By a more liberal Israel Government and a new Palestinian leadership that actually wants peace

Yeah - dream on. Laughing

We shall see.

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

By a more liberal Israel Government and a new Palestinian leadership that actually wants peace

Yeah - dream on.

We shall see.

Well as people one said apartheid would never end, the only real apartheid that is, it actually did and by reconciliation, something that the clueless lefties on here seem to fail to understand

Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:50 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yeah - dream on.

We shall see.

Well as people one said apartheid would never end, the only real apartheid that is, it actually did and by reconciliation, something that the clueless lefties on here seem to fail to understand

I don't think that anything will be sorted out in advance of any possible move to independence though. A Palestinian leadership could well promise that they want peace, but they can't speak for other groups who might disagree. A more liberal Israeli Government could promise all sorts, only to go back on it if there are terrorist attacks in Israel.

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Well as people one said apartheid would never end, the only real apartheid that is, it actually did and by reconciliation, something that the clueless lefties on here seem to fail to understand

I don't think that anything will be sorted out in advance of any possible move to independence though. A Palestinian leadership could well promise that they want peace, but they can't speak for other groups who might disagree. A more liberal Israeli Government could promise all sorts, only to go back on it if there are terrorist attacks in Israel.

It is the most likely possible though Rags, where lets face it no Palestinian leadership has ever actually taken the chance of peace, because if they did, there would be a Palestinian nation.

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:04 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think that anything will be sorted out in advance of any possible move to independence though. A Palestinian leadership could well promise that they want peace, but they can't speak for other groups who might disagree. A more liberal Israeli Government could promise all sorts, only to go back on it if there are terrorist attacks in Israel.

It is the most likely possible though Rags, where lets face it no Palestinian leadership has ever actually taken the chance of peace, because if they did, there would be a Palestinian nation.

Do you mean that they're deliberately not choosing peace because they want to keep this going?

by nicko Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:08 pm

Of course they want to keep it going, they make a lot of money out of gullible fools.

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:09 pm

Well an independent country would soon make that clear. If they still chose to harass Israelis, it would be clear that they don't want peace at all.

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

It is the most likely possible though Rags, where lets face it no Palestinian leadership has ever actually taken the chance of peace, because if they did, there would be a Palestinian nation.

Do you mean that they're deliberately not choosing peace because they want to keep this going?

Yep, 3 times they could have had a nation and 3 times spurned this, in 1947 they rejected the partition plan and started a civil war which has led to where we are today, where they would have had far bigger Palestine as well, twice since then they have rejected offers.
Again surely you would place peace and a home over anything else?
They don't because they believe all Israel should cease to exist, and that is what has always fundamentally been the probem

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:22 pm

I tell you another thing as well, that people certainly do not learn from history where the Allies occupied the Rhineland and withdrew from to their greater cost

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

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and its settlements and saw an escalation in attacks against Israel. In their position would you not also be concerned about then withdrawing their military occupation in mainly area C of the Westbank, with where already doing this did not bring about peace but further violence. They could have seen this with history before they withdrew from Gaza.. Israel has to have guarantees of peace for them to withdraw and anyone but a loon would claim otherwise based on how they have been continually attacked. The Palestinians have to play their part, which means ensuring peace.

Catch you later

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:50 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you mean that they're deliberately not choosing peace because they want to keep this going?

Yep, 3 times they could have had a nation and 3 times spurned this, in 1947 they rejected the partition plan and started a civil war which has led to where we are today, where they would have had far bigger Palestine as well, twice since then they have rejected offers.
Again surely you would place peace and a home over anything else?
They don't because they believe all Israel should cease to exist, and that is what has always fundamentally been the

lol! And you have the audacity to accuse me of spinning.

Rags - I hope you're not that dumb and naive to think people would not choose peace. If you're really interested, don't trust anyone but yourself and verify for yourself.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:52 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:
@Rags - you should now ask yourself if my post deserved such a hysterical response from Didge and find out why he's being so deflective.

lol still talking about me, why not beat your pigeon chest a few times, that always helps

I know when I've upset you when you start being physically threatened by me. HA HA!

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:55 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

lol still talking about me, why not beat your pigeon chest a few times, that always helps

I know when I've upset you when you start being physically threatened by me. HA HA!

lol seriously zack, I can never be upset with a clueless sheep who pounds his chest all the time in sexual frustration buddy

You cannot threaten your own shadow, its that pathetic ha ha

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I know when I've upset you when you start being physically threatened by me. HA HA!

lol seriously zack, I can never be upset with a clueless sheep you pounds his chest all the time in sexual frustration buddy

You cannot threatened your own shadow, its that pathetic ha ha

The lack of sudden grammar above means you're nervous and your heart rate just went up.

Are you shi-tting your panties?

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:

lol seriously zack, I can never be upset with a clueless sheep you pounds his chest all the time in sexual frustration buddy

You cannot threatened your own shadow, its that pathetic ha ha
The lack of sudden grammar above means you're nervous and your heart rate just went up.

Are you shi-tting your panties?

From you ha ha ha ha

you know where I live, so stop blustering by beating your chest and stop[ with all the bullshit, you just know I would go back to prison once you could speak again claiming a hate crime

so hut up you skinny little runt and put your money where you mouth is, as you are all mouth and no trousers Laughing

otherwise pipe down before you fall down

by Guest Thu Feb 04, 2016 6:01 pm

I guess he was the one that shit his pants then lol

by eddie Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:06 pm

Just to let you both know, I ain't cleaning up no ones shit

by Sponsored content