Obviously every country deserves the rights in the UN Charter except for Israel is closer to what you mean.
The bombing and forced migration of a captive civilian population is not self defense. It is the textbook definition of genocide.
How would you deal with Hamas? I know what you don't want to do, but what would you do given Hamas uses human shields. Would you try to get those shields to move?
Maybe improve the the material conditions of the average Palestinian with an influx of money to make Hamas obsolete?
This will not stop Hamas or Israel
The other option is if one side becomes extinct.
It’s the only thing that will stop both.
War is immenat. Promises are dependant on long term goals.
If Blackrock went into Gaza and invested into a bank for the people of Palestine. This war would end real quick.
Dreams are just that
You sound like you actively want war
I actively understand reality
Keep telling yourself that! Youd take the word of a US diplomat over the combined voices of the rest of the international community. You must understand very little indeed
The rest of the international community ...
I would understand that Hamas is a symptom of the repression and poverty of Palestinians, and endeavour towards a diplomatic two state solution.
That is the same as saying al Qaeda was a symbol of oppression. It's not true.
Hamas and al Qaeda are not equivalent. One is the democratically represented governent of a people. However unpalatable their motives, they must be taken seriously, because they are the only game in town. Ignoring them, as Israel and the Western governments have, will lead them resorting to violence to be heard.
Al Qaeda are fringe radicals committed to religious war. They will always choose violence, and there is no point negotiating with them.
Conflating the two is a mistake, rooted in ignorance.
Oh? And when was the last time Hamas was elected?
More often than Palestinians have been able to vote for the Israeli leadership, i.e. never.
"Khaled Mashaal, its leader, has publicly affirmed the movement's readiness to accept the borders of 1967. When Hamas won a majority in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Haniyeh, the then president-elect, sent messages both to George W. Bush and to Israel's leaders, asking to be recognized and offering a long-term truce (hudna), along the 1967 border lines. No response came."
"In November 2011, Hamas leader Khaled Mishal made an agreement with Mahmoud Abbas in Cairo, in which he committed to respecting the 1967 borders."
"In February 2012, according to the Palestinian authority, Hamas forswore the use of violence. Evidence for this was provided by an eruption of violence from Islamic Jihad in March 2012 after an Israeli assassination of a Jihad leader, during which Hamas refrained from attacking Israel. "Israel—despite its mantra that because Hamas is sovereign in Gaza it is responsible for what goes on there—almost seems to understand," wrote Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, "and has not bombed Hamas offices or installations".
Of course there should be more elections in Palestine. But there should be a Palestine first, something that Israel's actions are not facilitating.
In other words, Hamas has never been elected.
Don’t put words in my mouth and try to address the article in the post.
Then why not write the article into humanitarian pause proposal?
Don’t know what you mean, I didn’t write the article.
The article refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, which I quoted. You don't seem to think it matters. To member nations of the UN it matters very much. Why wasn't article 51 included? Because it is a right denied by those that wrote theproposal.
I get what you’re saying now. And I think it wasn’t included because the resolution deals with humanitarian aid not _self defense _ . The fact that it wasn’t included is just an excuse for the US to vote no. Why didn’t the US introduce a new resolution with that language included? Because it gives them plausible deniability.
It doesn't work that way. You can't ask for a pause once Article 51 is invoked, and it was. It's not up to the US to write proper declarations for others. I don't see them denying anything, they in essence vetoed it.
Your crybully appeals to procedure are deeply unserious. The US have obviously vetoed a humanitarian measure intended to help over a million civilians.
I know that's what you want to promote, but that's not what the ambassador said.
What I'm "promoting" is the analysis provided by top humanitarian organisations:
'"Once again the U.S. cynically used their veto to prevent the U.N. Security Council from acting on Israel and Palestine at a time of unprecedented carnage," said Human Rights Watch'
What you are promoting is pure spin. You cannot possibly be so naive, so you must be deliberately obtuse.
Rather than your spin, I actually read the article. Saw what was quoted, pointing out what it meant.
@TokenBoomer I agree with this. As well as being a bit off topic, quoting chapter and verse of the UN charter in every resolution would be redundant.
It's already in the charter.
It's not normally a requisite for resolutions and making it an excuse not to sign seems disingenuous to me.
Obviously every country deserves the rights in the UN Charter except for Israel is closer to what you mean.
The bombing and forced migration of a captive civilian population is not self defense. It is the textbook definition of genocide.
How would you deal with Hamas? I know what you don't want to do, but what would you do given Hamas uses human shields. Would you try to get those shields to move?
Maybe improve the the material conditions of the average Palestinian with an influx of money to make Hamas obsolete?
This will not stop Hamas or Israel
The other option is if one side becomes extinct.
It’s the only thing that will stop both.
War is immenat. Promises are dependant on long term goals.
If Blackrock went into Gaza and invested into a bank for the people of Palestine. This war would end real quick.
Dreams are just that
You sound like you actively want war
I actively understand reality
Keep telling yourself that! Youd take the word of a US diplomat over the combined voices of the rest of the international community. You must understand very little indeed
The rest of the international community ...
I would understand that Hamas is a symptom of the repression and poverty of Palestinians, and endeavour towards a diplomatic two state solution.
That is the same as saying al Qaeda was a symbol of oppression. It's not true.
Hamas and al Qaeda are not equivalent. One is the democratically represented governent of a people. However unpalatable their motives, they must be taken seriously, because they are the only game in town. Ignoring them, as Israel and the Western governments have, will lead them resorting to violence to be heard.
Al Qaeda are fringe radicals committed to religious war. They will always choose violence, and there is no point negotiating with them.
Conflating the two is a mistake, rooted in ignorance.
Oh? And when was the last time Hamas was elected?
More often than Palestinians have been able to vote for the Israeli leadership, i.e. never.
"Khaled Mashaal, its leader, has publicly affirmed the movement's readiness to accept the borders of 1967. When Hamas won a majority in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Haniyeh, the then president-elect, sent messages both to George W. Bush and to Israel's leaders, asking to be recognized and offering a long-term truce (hudna), along the 1967 border lines. No response came."
"In November 2011, Hamas leader Khaled Mishal made an agreement with Mahmoud Abbas in Cairo, in which he committed to respecting the 1967 borders."
"In February 2012, according to the Palestinian authority, Hamas forswore the use of violence. Evidence for this was provided by an eruption of violence from Islamic Jihad in March 2012 after an Israeli assassination of a Jihad leader, during which Hamas refrained from attacking Israel. "Israel—despite its mantra that because Hamas is sovereign in Gaza it is responsible for what goes on there—almost seems to understand," wrote Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, "and has not bombed Hamas offices or installations".
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)
Of course there should be more elections in Palestine. But there should be a Palestine first, something that Israel's actions are not facilitating.
In other words, Hamas has never been elected.
Don’t put words in my mouth and try to address the article in the post.
Then why not write the article into humanitarian pause proposal?
Don’t know what you mean, I didn’t write the article.
The article refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, which I quoted. You don't seem to think it matters. To member nations of the UN it matters very much. Why wasn't article 51 included? Because it is a right denied by those that wrote theproposal.
I get what you’re saying now. And I think it wasn’t included because the resolution deals with humanitarian aid not _self defense _ . The fact that it wasn’t included is just an excuse for the US to vote no. Why didn’t the US introduce a new resolution with that language included? Because it gives them plausible deniability.
It doesn't work that way. You can't ask for a pause once Article 51 is invoked, and it was. It's not up to the US to write proper declarations for others. I don't see them denying anything, they in essence vetoed it.
Your crybully appeals to procedure are deeply unserious. The US have obviously vetoed a humanitarian measure intended to help over a million civilians.
I know that's what you want to promote, but that's not what the ambassador said.
What I'm "promoting" is the analysis provided by top humanitarian organisations:
'"Once again the U.S. cynically used their veto to prevent the U.N. Security Council from acting on Israel and Palestine at a time of unprecedented carnage," said Human Rights Watch'
What you are promoting is pure spin. You cannot possibly be so naive, so you must be deliberately obtuse.
Rather than your spin, I actually read the article. Saw what was quoted, pointing out what it meant.
@TokenBoomer I agree with this. As well as being a bit off topic, quoting chapter and verse of the UN charter in every resolution would be redundant.
It's already in the charter.
It's not normally a requisite for resolutions and making it an excuse not to sign seems disingenuous to me.