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

[untermensche]

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.

So a civilian just standing there is a combatant if Israel wants to kill somebody else?

So Israel has an unlimited right to kill?

The tyrannical want to give one side unlimited rights and the other none.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Your posts on Israel have fine-tuned my bullshit translator.

Think about how they could refuse to facilitate.

"Could"? In other words, you literally have no actual evidence to support your claims.

 

[Arctish]

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.

So you're saying the UN should have helped Israel carry out a military operation, in violation of it's mandate to remain neutral, by relocating children from a UN shelter to .... a UN shelter? Because by not sending those children to a UN shelter it's the UN's fault they were killed by Israeli fire at a UN shelter? Or are you saying those children should have been removed from the UN shelter and simply put out on the street?

 

[Sabine Grant]

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



To compare with Loren's drawn conclusions,

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.

Actually, I am attempting to help you get your head out of the stinky mud conclusions you have drawn.

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.

Aside from UN shelters, since you appear to have such insights as to the mapping of the Gaza and the number of displaced population, where precisely are you suggesting the displaced population was to be relocated and sheltered?

UNICEF refused because that would enable Israeli attacks.

And as specifically stated, because they did not want to be a party to that. Yet, you have kept accusing the UN/UNICEF of intentionally using such displaced population as human shields while the UN/UNICEF would be "that beholden to Hamas".

I didn't realize they were that beholden to Hamas.

In other words, UNICEF used the kids as human shields.

In YOUR words, "UNICEF used the kids as human shields". Meaning you are emitting here a mere opinion which you have expected other posters to receive as a truth, to include your claim above that "they were that beholden to Hamas".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So a civilian just standing there is a combatant if Israel wants to kill somebody else?

So Israel has an unlimited right to kill?

The tyrannical want to give one side unlimited rights and the other none.

1) The key point is they are knowingly and willingly standing there with the intent to impede hostile action. That makes them a combatant in my book. (If they're unwilling they're a human shield.)

2) You have it backwards--you're the one who wants to give one side (the terrorists) unlimited rights and the other none. We are calling for equal treatment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently you need a bureaucrat-to-English translator.

Your posts on Israel have fine-tuned my bullshit translator.

"Bullshit" != "Bureaucrat"

Think about how they could refuse to facilitate.

"Could"? In other words, you literally have no actual evidence to support your claims.

You missed the point. What actions could they take other than refusing to move the children out of harm's way?

Thus if they took action they were engaging in human shield tactics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So you're saying the UN should have helped Israel carry out a military operation, in violation of it's mandate to remain neutral, by relocating children from a UN shelter to .... a UN shelter? Because by not sending those children to a UN shelter it's the UN's fault they were killed by Israeli fire at a UN shelter? Or are you saying those children should have been removed from the UN shelter and simply put out on the street?

Quit sticking your head in the sand.

UNICEF had two choices:

1) Get the kids out of the way.

2) Leave them there to die.

It's not like leaving them there actually stopped the attack. It just killed some of them. You think it's worth killing kids to make Israel look bad?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, I am attempting to help you get your head out of the stinky mud conclusions you have drawn.

Fundamentally, this comes down to something we have disagreed on before: Whether it's more important to act in a "proper" fashion or minimize the harm done.

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.

Aside from UN shelters, since you appear to have such insights as to the mapping of the Gaza and the number of displaced population, where precisely are you suggesting the displaced population was to be relocated and sheltered?

The ground operations involved only a small part of Gaza. Plenty of other places to put them.

UNICEF refused because that would enable Israeli attacks.

And as specifically stated, because they did not want to be a party to that. Yet, you have kept accusing the UN/UNICEF of intentionally using such displaced population as human shields while the UN/UNICEF would be "that beholden to Hamas".

Their refusal "to be a party to it" consisted of holding the kids in harm's way. Had this been a police matter in the US they would be guilty of first degree murder.

In other words, UNICEF used the kids as human shields.

In YOUR words, "UNICEF used the kids as human shields". Meaning you are emitting here a mere opinion which you have expected other posters to receive as a truth, to include your claim above that "they were that beholden to Hamas".

You're so stuck in your position that you can't even see the implications of her words.

 

[laughing dog]

Your posts on Israel have fine-tuned my bullshit translator.

"Bullshit" != "Bureaucrat"

You missed the point. I don't think you post in "bureaucrat".

You missed the point. What actions could they take other than refusing to move the children out of harm's way?

No, I didn't miss the point, but you persistently do. You have no evidence to support your claim.

Thus if they took action they were engaging in human shield tactics.

Using that "reasoning", you have to admit that IDF engages in the murder of Palestinian civilians in its actions.

 

[arkirk]

Fundamentally, this comes down to something we have disagreed on before: Whether it's more important to act in a "proper" fashion or minimize the harm done.

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.

Aside from UN shelters, since you appear to have such insights as to the mapping of the Gaza and the number of displaced population, where precisely are you suggesting the displaced population was to be relocated and sheltered?

The ground operations involved only a small part of Gaza. Plenty of other places to put them.

UNICEF refused because that would enable Israeli attacks.

And as specifically stated, because they did not want to be a party to that. Yet, you have kept accusing the UN/UNICEF of intentionally using such displaced population as human shields while the UN/UNICEF would be "that beholden to Hamas".

Their refusal "to be a party to it" consisted of holding the kids in harm's way. Had this been a police matter in the US they would be guilty of first degree murder.

In other words, UNICEF used the kids as human shields.

In YOUR words, "UNICEF used the kids as human shields". Meaning you are emitting here a mere opinion which you have expected other posters to receive as a truth, to include your claim above that "they were that beholden to Hamas".

You're so stuck in your position that you can't even see the implications of her words.

Loren: How much further are you going to take this absurd proposition of yours that Hamas and the U.N. are combatants and allies. In war, even a combatant is allowed to surrender under a white flag. I am sure Israeli troops could have visited the facilities and seen what was there. It was cold blooded murder and a "war" crime. Israel brags about their accuracy and their ability to hit exactly what they want. They should stop bragging about that unless they want to admit they simply murder people who are innocent. What is the point of your stirring up Hysteria over Hamas. Your posts ignore the fact they really are not an army. Your posts also ignore the fact that some of them are actually democratically elected to represent to people of Gaza.

One side, the IDF has killed so many civilians, it appears to me that that has become SOP for them. I have to ask again and probably still get no answer...do you have skin in this conflict? Are you protecting an investment in some outfit that trades in arms with the IDF? Why do you continually defend this slaughter?

 

[untermensche]

So a civilian just standing there is a combatant if Israel wants to kill somebody else?

So Israel has an unlimited right to kill?

The tyrannical want to give one side unlimited rights and the other none.

1) The key point is they are knowingly and willingly standing there with the intent to impede hostile action. That makes them a combatant in my book. (If they're unwilling they're a human shield.)

2) You have it backwards--you're the one who wants to give one side (the terrorists) unlimited rights and the other none. We are calling for equal treatment.

They are trying to impede illegal killing.

Killing that only has the purpose of trying to calm down resistance to an illegal quarantine, decades of oppression and endless violence directed at the Palestinians.

 

[arkirk]

I agree with the last half of the OP title: PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THE U.N.

They should blockade Israel as a rogue nation...Blockade, quarantine, and sanction. Leaders in Palestine should have to accept complete demilitarization...deconstruction of all weapons of military significance. That would mean the Israeli nuclear arsenal as well. The problem....veto power of the U.S. in the Security Council.

For all the high sounding language in our Constitution we really do not believe all men and women are indeed born or "created" equal. We don't believe in democracy or we would participate in a world referendum on military and economic violence. How unattainable things like this seem, they are only as far away as agreement. We may have to start small, but we should persist in requiring our national leaders care about all of their governed.

 

[untermensche]

I agree with the last half of the OP title: PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THE U.N.

They should blockade Israel as a rogue nation...Blockade, quarantine, and sanction. Leaders in Palestine should have to accept complete demilitarization...deconstruction of all weapons of military significance. That would mean the Israeli nuclear arsenal as well. The problem....veto power of the U.S. in the Security Council.

For all the high sounding language in our Constitution we really do not believe all men and women are indeed born or "created" equal. We don't believe in democracy or we would participate in a world referendum on military and economic violence. How unattainable things like this seem, they are only as far away as agreement. We may have to start small, but we should persist in requiring our national leaders care about all of their governed.

Yes.

The real problem with the UN is that the US has prevented the UN from doing anything about Israel's illegal activities.

If the US would just step aside and let this matter be handled by the UN, progress might occur.

 

[Arctish]

So you're saying the UN should have helped Israel carry out a military operation, in violation of it's mandate to remain neutral, by relocating children from a UN shelter to .... a UN shelter? Because by not sending those children to a UN shelter it's the UN's fault they were killed by Israeli fire at a UN shelter? Or are you saying those children should have been removed from the UN shelter and simply put out on the street?

Quit sticking your head in the sand.

UNICEF had two choices:

1) Get the kids out of the way.

And take them where? To another UN shelter? Or throw them out into the street?

2) Leave them there to die.

It's not like leaving them there actually stopped the attack. It just killed some of them. You think it's worth killing kids to make Israel look bad?

Nothing like a die-hard Zionist to make Israelis sound purely evil.

"Of course Israel was going to kill those kids if the UN didn't move them! There's no excuse for thinking otherwise. Israel has been killing kids for years. Whether they were playing on the beach, walking to school, playing soccer with friends, watching TV at home, or huddled in a schoolroom seeking shelter from the UN, Israel has killed them whenever it wanted and everyone knows it. And don't think Israel will feel the slightest bit of remorse. There's no shame in killing helpless children (unless the kids are Jews - then it's an atrocity and a war crime). It's all someone else fault, anyway. Israel is never responsible for the choices it makes. Somebody bad made all those choices and Israel had to abide by them because Israel has to do what bad people tell it to do because it can never be Israel's fault when it does bad things."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Bullshit" != "Bureaucrat"

You missed the point. I don't think you post in "bureaucrat".

But she does speak in bureaucrat.

You missed the point. What actions could they take other than refusing to move the children out of harm's way?

No, I didn't miss the point, but you persistently do. You have no evidence to support your claim.

Thus if they took action they were engaging in human shield tactics.

Using that "reasoning", you have to admit that IDF engages in the murder of Palestinian civilians in its actions.

Can you actually address what she said rather than keeping trying to derail?

Do you have any other reasonable meaning of her words other than they engaged in human shield tactics?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren: How much further are you going to take this absurd proposition of yours that Hamas and the U.N. are combatants and allies. In war, even a combatant is allowed to surrender under a white flag. I am sure Israeli troops could have visited the facilities and seen what was there. It was cold blooded murder and a "war" crime. Israel brags about their accuracy and their ability to hit exactly what they want. They should stop bragging about that unless they want to admit they simply murder people who are innocent. What is the point of your stirring up Hysteria over Hamas. Your posts ignore the fact they really are not an army. Your posts also ignore the fact that some of them are actually democratically elected to represent to people of Gaza.

One side, the IDF has killed so many civilians, it appears to me that that has become SOP for them. I have to ask again and probably still get no answer...do you have skin in this conflict? Are you protecting an investment in some outfit that trades in arms with the IDF? Why do you continually defend this slaughter?

What are you smoking?!?! IDF troops visit under a white flag?? Hamas isn't going to respect that!

Besides, that isn't even the issue. The IDF knew what was there--Hamas and human shields.

Their accuracy is very good but it doesn't protect people who are right next to ground zero--especially when Hamas goes out of it's way to use human shields.

The only skin I have in this game is that the Islamists are a threat to all of us. Just because it's currently a fairly small brush fire doesn't mean we should ignore it until it's a raging inferno.

This isn't about Israel vs Palestine, that's just one of the current battlefields. It's about hardline Islam vs the world.

- - - Updated - - -

1) The key point is they are knowingly and willingly standing there with the intent to impede hostile action. That makes them a combatant in my book. (If they're unwilling they're a human shield.)

2) You have it backwards--you're the one who wants to give one side (the terrorists) unlimited rights and the other none. We are calling for equal treatment.

They are trying to impede illegal killing.

Killing that only has the purpose of trying to calm down resistance to an illegal quarantine, decades of oppression and endless violence directed at the Palestinians.

Even if it's illegal they weren't impeding it much. How about if they sacrificed your child, would you feel the same?

However, killing in war is legal. It would have been legal for Israel to simply smash the places, there was no question they were being put to military purpose. Instead they bent over backwards to get civilians out of the way even though it impairs their military objectives.

The side engaging in the illegal killing is your beloved Palestinians.

 

[untermensche]

Even if it's illegal they weren't impeding it much. How about if they sacrificed your child, would you feel the same?

The fact that the Israeli's have very little morality when it comes to the Palestinians is not a good argument to support their right to further killing.

However, killing in war is legal. It would have been legal for Israel to simply smash the places, there was no question they were being put to military purpose. Instead they bent over backwards to get civilians out of the way even though it impairs their military objectives.

Killing to quell resistance to oppression is not justified in any way.

Any killing so that the oppression can go on unimpeded is immoral. You are simply a salesman for immoral killing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact that the Israeli's have very little morality when it comes to the Palestinians is not a good argument to support their right to further killing.

However, killing in war is legal. It would have been legal for Israel to simply smash the places, there was no question they were being put to military purpose. Instead they bent over backwards to get civilians out of the way even though it impairs their military objectives.

Killing to quell resistance to oppression is not justified in any way.

Any killing so that the oppression can go on unimpeded is immoral. You are simply a salesman for immoral killing.

You're looking at things through a Palestinians-can-do-no-wrong filter and thus reaching nonsense conclusions.

 

[untermensche]

The fact that the Israeli's have very little morality when it comes to the Palestinians is not a good argument to support their right to further killing.

Killing to quell resistance to oppression is not justified in any way.

Any killing so that the oppression can go on unimpeded is immoral. You are simply a salesman for immoral killing.

You're looking at things through a Palestinians-can-do-no-wrong filter and thus reaching nonsense conclusions.

Their wrong is mitigated by the fact that they live under brutal oppression.

It's good to know that should we ever fall under brutal oppression you will tell us we have no right to resist, even with violence.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

Your source? Despite trying, I could not find a single news article or source anywhere that would make such a claim. In fact Ban Ki Moon made a statement that Olmert had specificly said UN posts were going to be protected (which nobody in Israel denied), and the investigation that Israel conducted afterwards concluded that the reason was outdated maps.

So, I think you're just bending into a pretzel as usual when you try to defend the indefensible.