Human shields in Gaza: The UN is part of the problem

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp-Dr6P0HbU

They wouldn't permit the evacuation of children in combat areas. I didn't realize they were that beholden to Hamas.


I think it should be obvious why Israel won't go for UN-"enforced" solutions.

When they sacrificed a couple of observers back in the 2006 spat I figured it was just an underling but this goes pretty high up.

 

[Jayjay]

A lion's share of UNRWA funding comes from US and Europe. The right way to address this is via official complaints and investigation to remove those who are involved from UN paroll, not by shooting everything to shit like Israel is doing.

The only one responsible for killing the UNIFIL observers in 2006 is Israel. They knew the UN positions, and they either fucked up and shelled them anyway, or did it deliberately.

 

[laughing dog]

Nowhere in that clip does it say what the OP claims. The clip has been edited so one could draw that conclusion, but nowhere does the UN representative say that the UN prevented anyone from leaving an area targeted by the Israelis.

However, it is truly a fascinating study in hypocrisy to watch someone blame the UN for the injuries and deaths of children from targeted attacks from an aggressor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A lion's share of UNRWA funding comes from US and Europe. The right way to address this is via official complaints and investigation to remove those who are involved from UN paroll, not by shooting everything to shit like Israel is doing.

The only one responsible for killing the UNIFIL observers in 2006 is Israel. They knew the UN positions, and they either fucked up and shelled them anyway, or did it deliberately.

Israel knew, Israel repeatedly asked for them to be withdrawn. They weren't, Israel finally quit considering them a protected target.

Nowhere in that clip does it say what the OP claims. The clip has been edited so one could draw that conclusion, but nowhere does the UN representative say that the UN prevented anyone from leaving an area targeted by the Israelis.

However, it is truly a fascinating study in hypocrisy to watch someone blame the UN for the injuries and deaths of children from targeted attacks from an aggressor.

Pay more attention.

She said they refused to aid in the attack of civilians by removing civilians from the combat area. 1984-worthy words that amount to saying they would not permit the evacuation of children from the battle area. Human shield tactics.

 

[arkirk]

Israel knew, Israel repeatedly asked for them to be withdrawn. They weren't, Israel finally quit considering them a protected target.

Nowhere in that clip does it say what the OP claims. The clip has been edited so one could draw that conclusion, but nowhere does the UN representative say that the UN prevented anyone from leaving an area targeted by the Israelis.

However, it is truly a fascinating study in hypocrisy to watch someone blame the UN for the injuries and deaths of children from targeted attacks from an aggressor.

Pay more attention.

She said they refused to aid in the attack of civilians by removing civilians from the combat area. 1984-worthy words that amount to saying they would not permit the evacuation of children from the battle area. Human shield tactics.

Come on Loren, Don't you know how preposterous your accusations are? The so called "battle area" was U.N. property ...a school that was temporarily converted into a shelter for refuges and their children. It was NOT A HAMAS BASE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. The only way there was to leave the "battle area" which to Israel just means the area they felt free to shell was to leave Gaza...and we know who kept that from happening don't we, Loren? When are you going to stop rationalizing and apologizing for Israel's war crimes? Why do you apologize for them? Most of the killing in this last round in Gaza was cold blooded murder...of civilians. I ask you again, why?

They were in touch with the IDF and gave them the coordinates so they would not be bombed...then, they were shelled. None of the three shelters were headquarters or even quarters for Hamas personnel. Your justification is over the top...maybe somebody there might have known somebody in Hamas. That is about it.

 

[laughing dog]

Pay more attention.

She said they refused to aid in the attack of civilians by removing civilians from the combat area.

Please point to the time in the video where you think you heard that, because I did not hear any words to that effect at all.

1984-worthy words that amount to saying they would not permit the evacuation of children from the battle area. Human shield tactics.

You are admitting that you are literally making up that interpretation from the video.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel knew, Israel repeatedly asked for them to be withdrawn. They weren't, Israel finally quit considering them a protected target.



Pay more attention.

She said they refused to aid in the attack of civilians by removing civilians from the combat area. 1984-worthy words that amount to saying they would not permit the evacuation of children from the battle area. Human shield tactics.

Come on Loren, Don't you know how preposterous your accusations are?

I was actually surprised that they would go that far.

The so called "battle area" was U.N. property ...a school that was temporarily converted into a shelter for refuges and their children. It was NOT A HAMAS BASE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Most any protected target in Gaza is used by Hamas. Again and again rockets were found in schools.

The only way there was to leave the "battle area" which to Israel just means the area they felt free to shell was to leave Gaza...and we know who kept that from happening don't we, Loren? When are you going to stop rationalizing and apologizing for Israel's war crimes? Why do you apologize for them? Most of the killing in this last round in Gaza was cold blooded murder...of civilians. I ask you again, why?

The ground conflict did not involve all of Gaza. There were places to go.

They were in touch with the IDF and gave them the coordinates so they would not be bombed...then, they were shelled. None of the three shelters were headquarters or even quarters for Hamas personnel. Your justification is over the top...maybe somebody there might have known somebody in Hamas. That is about it.

What you are missing is that Hamas loves to use protected locations to attack from.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Please point to the time in the video where you think you heard that, because I did not hear any words to that effect at all.

1984-worthy words that amount to saying they would not permit the evacuation of children from the battle area. Human shield tactics.

You are admitting that you are literally making up that interpretation from the video.

Rather than timestamps, how about a link to the damning words:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184351#.U_596Va4nFI

Paragraph #4.

 

[TacticalLoco]

Please point to the time in the video where you think you heard that, because I did not hear any words to that effect at all.
You are admitting that you are literally making up that interpretation from the video.

Rather than timestamps, how about a link to the damning words:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184351#.U_596Va4nFI

Paragraph #4.

You mean this: "...There have been attempts [by Israel] to try to facilitate military operations against the [Palestinian] civilian population by facilitating the clearance of certain neighborhoods. The UN has refused to be a party to that,"?

So your POV is that if the UN would just get the little brown(er) people out of the way, Israel could go ahead and shell their homes and businesses with impunity?
That's so fucking white of them. No wonder you are upset.

Your hatred has made you irrational, Loren.

 

[Sabine Grant]

As several other posters, my understanding of the motivation of the UN is indeed based on :

There have been attempts [by Israel] to try to facilitate military operations against the [Palestinian] civilian population by facilitating the clearance of certain neighborhoods. The UN has refused to be a party to that,"

To compare with Loren's drawn conclusions,

I didn't realize they were that beholden to Hamas

She said they refused to aid in the attack of civilians by removing civilians from the combat area. 1984-worthy words that amount to saying they would not permit the evacuation of children from the battle area. Human shield tactics.

Most any protected target in Gaza is used by Hamas. Again and again rockets were found in schools.

While it appears Loren is attempting to JUSTIFY Israeli fire on a UN shelter where so many children had been evacuated to.

Interestingly, the UN had taken the precaution to inform the IDF of their shelter locations,(and that information with specific locations was provided SEVERAL times) shelters meant to gather displaced civilians who at this point have no home to return to. Shelters meant to provide SAFE harbor to those civilians fleeing from areas destined to be shelled by IDF fire.

Basically, it is impossible to dismiss the irony of Loren's drawn conclusions. The UN laboring to rescue and provide safe shelter to displaced population while the IDF expects the same UN to be party to the displacement of those civilians. Meanwhile, those shelters(obviously) are not a safe harbor for those displaced civilians.

 

[Deepak]

Surely some recognition must be given to the fact that Hamas has been firing from UN installations.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?1567-What-should-Israel-do&p=58385&viewfull=1#post58385

That linked post contains a zemblanitous news report about Israel bombing such facilities and captures rockets firing. Part and parcel in the UN maintaining these shelters must be to secure them enough that they are not launching attacks.

Or is the opinion that attacks can happen with impunity if they're launched from populated areas, and UN facilities? Safe harbors must by definition be recognized by all sides as such.

 

[laughing dog]

Please point to the time in the video where you think you heard that, because I did not hear any words to that effect at all.
You are admitting that you are literally making up that interpretation from the video.

Rather than timestamps, how about a link to the damning words:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184351#.U_596Va4nFI

Paragraph #4.

That paragraph said the UN refused to facilitate military operations. The UN is supposed to be neutral. In case you are unaware of what that means, it means the UN is not supposed to help one side or the other with the operations.

Interestingly, LP quotes a very pro-Israel source that gives very biased reports. Since LP dismisses any source he views as pro-Palestinian as unreliable because of its bias, one wonders why he would expect anyone to take his sources seriously.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rather than timestamps, how about a link to the damning words:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184351#.U_596Va4nFI

Paragraph #4.

You mean this: "...There have been attempts [by Israel] to try to facilitate military operations against the [Palestinian] civilian population by facilitating the clearance of certain neighborhoods. The UN has refused to be a party to that,"?

So your POV is that if the UN would just get the little brown(er) people out of the way, Israel could go ahead and shell their homes and businesses with impunity?
That's so fucking white of them. No wonder you are upset.

Your hatred has made you irrational, Loren.

Think about "refused to be a party to that" actually means, though. The request was to get the children out of the way. By refusing to do so they're deliberately leaving the children in harm's way--human shield tactics.

 

[untermensche]

You mean this: "...There have been attempts [by Israel] to try to facilitate military operations against the [Palestinian] civilian population by facilitating the clearance of certain neighborhoods. The UN has refused to be a party to that,"?

So your POV is that if the UN would just get the little brown(er) people out of the way, Israel could go ahead and shell their homes and businesses with impunity?
That's so fucking white of them. No wonder you are upset.

Your hatred has made you irrational, Loren.

Think about "refused to be a party to that" actually means, though. The request was to get the children out of the way. By refusing to do so they're deliberately leaving the children in harm's way--human shield tactics.

There is nothing improper in using human shields to defend against brutal invaders who have been oppressing you for decades.

The brutal oppressor has no right to kill at will. They are criminals.

And the only justifiable defense against people who resist the oppression with violence is to end the oppression. Once the oppression is ended and the oppressed are restored to their justifiable rights the past oppressor now has the normal rights given armies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As several other posters, my understanding of the motivation of the UN is indeed based on :



To compare with Loren's drawn conclusions,

I didn't realize they were that beholden to Hamas

She said they refused to aid in the attack of civilians by removing civilians from the combat area. 1984-worthy words that amount to saying they would not permit the evacuation of children from the battle area. Human shield tactics.

Most any protected target in Gaza is used by Hamas. Again and again rockets were found in schools.

While it appears Loren is attempting to JUSTIFY Israeli fire on a UN shelter where so many children had been evacuated to.

Interestingly, the UN had taken the precaution to inform the IDF of their shelter locations,(and that information with specific locations was provided SEVERAL times) shelters meant to gather displaced civilians who at this point have no home to return to. Shelters meant to provide SAFE harbor to those civilians fleeing from areas destined to be shelled by IDF fire.

Basically, it is impossible to dismiss the irony of Loren's drawn conclusions. The UN laboring to rescue and provide safe shelter to displaced population while the IDF expects the same UN to be party to the displacement of those civilians. Meanwhile, those shelters(obviously) are not a safe harbor for those displaced civilians.

More head in sand behavior.

Yes, the UN informed Israel of where the shelters were. Hamas also knew--and was using them as protected bases. Thus they were valid targets and Israel asked that the children be evacuated.

UNICEF refused because that would enable Israeli attacks. In other words, UNICEF used the kids as human shields.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rather than timestamps, how about a link to the damning words:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184351#.U_596Va4nFI

Paragraph #4.

That paragraph said the UN refused to facilitate military operations. The UN is supposed to be neutral. In case you are unaware of what that means, it means the UN is not supposed to help one side or the other with the operations.

Interestingly, LP quotes a very pro-Israel source that gives very biased reports. Since LP dismisses any source he views as pro-Palestinian as unreliable because of its bias, one wonders why he would expect anyone to take his sources seriously.

Apparently you need a bureaucrat-to-English translator.

Think about how they could refuse to facilitate.

 

[untermensche]

Here is the kind of things we get from Israel.

Israel's Video Justifying Destruction of a Gaza Hospital Was From 2009

A video distributed by the Israeli military in July suggesting that Palestinian fighters had fired from the Al Wafa Rehabilitation and Geriatric Hospital in Gaza City was not shot during the recent Israeli attack on Gaza, and both audio and video clips were manipulated to cover up the fact that they were from entirely different incidents, a Truthout investigation has revealed.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25999-israels-video-justifying-destruction-of-a-hospital-was-from-2009

 

[Deepak]

There is nothing improper in using human shields to defend against brutal invaders who have been oppressing you for decades.

This quite frankly is one of the most insane things I've ever heard.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing improper in using human shields to defend against brutal invaders who have been oppressing you for decades.

This quite frankly is one of the most insane things I've ever heard.

The notion of people defending themselves from a brutal oppressor is the most insane thing you've ever heard?

An oppressor has no right to kill simply to maintain the oppression.

If human shields are killed they are killed unjustly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is the kind of things we get from Israel.

A video distributed by the Israeli military in July suggesting that Palestinian fighters had fired from the Al Wafa Rehabilitation and Geriatric Hospital in Gaza City was not shot during the recent Israeli attack on Gaza, and both audio and video clips were manipulated to cover up the fact that they were from entirely different incidents, a Truthout investigation has revealed.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25999-israels-video-justifying-destruction-of-a-hospital-was-from-2009

And I've got some prime Everglades farmland for sale.

Flammable materials don't cause secondary explosions other than in very rare situations (One normally does not tolerate the existence of an explosive environment that could be detonated by an attack.) Secondary explosions are a virtually 100% indication of weapons. Secondary fireballs can be weapons or fuel.

Since they got that part wrong there's no reason to trust the rest of it.

- - - Updated - - -

This quite frankly is one of the most insane things I've ever heard.

The notion of people defending themselves from a brutal oppressor is the most insane thing you've ever heard?

An oppressor has no right to kill simply to maintain the oppression.

If human shields are killed they are killed unjustly.

Human shields are either voluntary--at which point they should be considered combatants and thus valid targets--or they are involuntary and thus you can't consider it people protecting themselves.