5 ms·

Many members of the UN are openly biased against Israel, many are officially against the very existence of Israel and have always been, and they happily vote on

by soldthat 10mo ago

Many members of the UN are openly biased against Israel, many are officially against the very existence of Israel and have always been, and they happily vote on any condemnation of Israel regardless of what Israel does. This includes countries that have ethnically cleansed their Jews, and countries that do not allow Jews to enter.

GordonS 10mo ago
Isn't it difficult not to be biased against an apartheid, rogue nuclear state with a history of terrorism that is currently carrying out a genocide?
- flyinglizard 10mo ago
  See, that's exactly the bias. The adjectives you used are all entirely subjective and politically charged. None of these represent an objective quality. Is Israel an apartheid state? of course not; 25% of its population are Arabs who enjoy equal rights by the law (in comparison, 0% of Saudi Arabians are Jewish). Is Israel a "rogue nuclear state"? It is a nuclear state, but so are France and Britain. What makes it anymore rogue than them? Does Israel have "an history of terrorism"? You'll need to expand this one as I'm not sure what is the terrorism you mean. Is Israel "carrying out a genocide"? Well the number of people in Gaza increased during the war. Don't believe me, hear out Hamas leaders [0]. Israel is in a tough neighborhood. Never before has any country faced such a campaign of ongoing hostility and delegitimization from its neighbors and far away countries alike. Israel is doing very well though. [0] https://youtu.be/3qp_oXxzrcM?t=40 https://youtu.be/3qp_oXxzrcM?t=40
  - GordonS 10mo ago
    > It is a nuclear state, but so are France and Britain. What makes it anymore rogue than them? The fact that Israel refuses inspections, something that no other country on Earth is permitted to do. > Well the number of people in Gaza increased during the war. This is just absurd holocaust denial. Israel has murdered almost 400,000 under the age of five https://x.com/i/status/1968772985227010398 https://x.com/i/status/1968772985227010398
    - flyinglizard 9mo ago
      Only Israel can be accused of murdering more kids (400,000) than there were actually living pre-war (330,000) [0], with the accusations made by no other than the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese. [0] https://x.com/arikouts/status/1968935650263978009/photo/1 https://x.com/arikouts/status/1968935650263978009/photo/1
      - GordonS 9mo ago
        Utterly shameless drivel.
pcthrowaway 10mo ago
> Many members of the UN are openly biased against Israel, many are officially against the very existence of Israel and have always been, and they happily vote on any condemnation of Israel regardless of what Israel does. "regardless of what Israel does" they haven't tried ending the occupation yet; do you really think they would be condemned for doing so? > and countries that do not allow Jews to enter. Which countries are these exactly?
- soldthat 10mo ago
  This predates the occupation.
- flyinglizard 10mo ago
  In 2005 Israel end the occupation in Gaza by evacuating all Jews from the strip and leaving it in Palestinian Authority control. Next came Hamas, then the rockets, then the incursions and finally October 7th.
  - mrexcess 10mo ago
    >In 2005 Israel end the occupation in Gaza This is misinformation. Although Israel did pull its settlers from most of Gaza in 2005, it retained air, sea, and land border control. That is still a military occupation. The reality is, Israel never ended the occupation in Gaza.
    - flyinglizard 10mo ago
      No, the misinformation is yours. Israel pulled out Jews from all of Gaza, going back to the pre-1967 line. Gaza shared a land border with Egypt (Rafah crossing) which Israel did not - and could not - control. While Israel retained air and sea passage control, the blockade as we know it only came after Hamas was elected as the Gaza government and not before. (this is the opportunity to note that after the Israeli pullout from Gaza, Gazans could have chosen many different paths but they chose Hamas to lead them into the catastrophe they've become)
forgetfulness 10mo ago
Many countries were also "biased" against Apartheid South Africa, the bias was disapproval of apartheid, much like the one enacted on the West Bank and Gaza.
- soldthat 10mo ago
  The bias predates the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The litmus test is if they were just opposed to the policies of the South African government, or did those countries also hate South Africa and South Africans? Did they have a history of persecution of South Africans in their own country? Were they funding armed groups to attack South Africa? Did they believe that South Africa has no right to exist anyway?
  - mrexcess 10mo ago
    Disagree wholeheartedly. The only relevant litmus test is: "Did the accused party commit the offense they are accused of?" ...everything else is whataboutism, red herring, ad hominem, and DARVO. If the worlds worst person says 2+2=4, you still can't evaluate that claim by testing how many people like or hate the person. Only by whether the content of their words is true or false.
    - soldthat 10mo ago
      We don’t rely on the judgements of racist juries.
      - mrexcess 10mo ago
        [dead]
  - aprilthird2021 10mo ago
    > Countries tend to dislike and boycott apartheid states > Ah but what about many many decades ago in history the minority ruling the apartheid state were treated badly! In other places! Did you think of that?
mrexcess 10mo ago
[dead]
kergonath 10mo ago
> Many members of the UN are openly biased against Israel OTOH, why would anybody not be biased against an agressive, xenophobic theocracy bent on illegally occupying and annexing its neighbour, all the while whining that "they want to destroy us and deny the existence of the Israeli state", and then with the other side of their mouth "all Palestinians must die and their homeland belongs to us"? The mind boggles. > many are officially against the very existence of Israel and have always been Here we go. > and they happily vote on any condemnation of Israel regardless of what Israel does. Israel following up on their promise and actually applying the treaties they signed never got them any condemnation. Them doing the exact opposite obviously does. > This includes countries that have ethnically cleansed their Jews, and countries that do not allow Jews to enter. Someone being oppressed does not justify them then oppressing others. I can’t believe this still needs to be said.
- soldthat 10mo ago
  > Someone being oppressed does not justify them then oppressing others. That’s not the point. A country that has a history of hatred against a group, to the point of ethnic cleansing, and has not changed on the matter, has no legitimacy in critisizing or making judgments on that group. I think this would be obvious in any other context.
  - mrexcess 10mo ago
    [dead]

GordonS 10mo ago

Isn't it difficult not to be biased against an apartheid, rogue nuclear state with a history of terrorism that is currently carrying out a genocide?

flyinglizard 10mo ago
See, that's exactly the bias. The adjectives you used are all entirely subjective and politically charged. None of these represent an objective quality. Is Israel an apartheid state? of course not; 25% of its population are Arabs who enjoy equal rights by the law (in comparison, 0% of Saudi Arabians are Jewish). Is Israel a "rogue nuclear state"? It is a nuclear state, but so are France and Britain. What makes it anymore rogue than them? Does Israel have "an history of terrorism"? You'll need to expand this one as I'm not sure what is the terrorism you mean. Is Israel "carrying out a genocide"? Well the number of people in Gaza increased during the war. Don't believe me, hear out Hamas leaders [0]. Israel is in a tough neighborhood. Never before has any country faced such a campaign of ongoing hostility and delegitimization from its neighbors and far away countries alike. Israel is doing very well though. [0] https://youtu.be/3qp_oXxzrcM?t=40 https://youtu.be/3qp_oXxzrcM?t=40
- GordonS 10mo ago
  > It is a nuclear state, but so are France and Britain. What makes it anymore rogue than them? The fact that Israel refuses inspections, something that no other country on Earth is permitted to do. > Well the number of people in Gaza increased during the war. This is just absurd holocaust denial. Israel has murdered almost 400,000 under the age of five https://x.com/i/status/1968772985227010398 https://x.com/i/status/1968772985227010398
  - flyinglizard 9mo ago
    Only Israel can be accused of murdering more kids (400,000) than there were actually living pre-war (330,000) [0], with the accusations made by no other than the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese. [0] https://x.com/arikouts/status/1968935650263978009/photo/1 https://x.com/arikouts/status/1968935650263978009/photo/1
    - GordonS 9mo ago
      Utterly shameless drivel.

pcthrowaway 10mo ago

> Many members of the UN are openly biased against Israel, many are officially against the very existence of Israel and have always been, and they happily vote on any condemnation of Israel regardless of what Israel does. "regardless of what Israel does" they haven't tried ending the occupation yet; do you really think they would be condemned for doing so? > and countries that do not allow Jews to enter. Which countries are these exactly?

soldthat 10mo ago
This predates the occupation.
flyinglizard 10mo ago
In 2005 Israel end the occupation in Gaza by evacuating all Jews from the strip and leaving it in Palestinian Authority control. Next came Hamas, then the rockets, then the incursions and finally October 7th.
- mrexcess 10mo ago
  >In 2005 Israel end the occupation in Gaza This is misinformation. Although Israel did pull its settlers from most of Gaza in 2005, it retained air, sea, and land border control. That is still a military occupation. The reality is, Israel never ended the occupation in Gaza.
  - flyinglizard 10mo ago
    No, the misinformation is yours. Israel pulled out Jews from all of Gaza, going back to the pre-1967 line. Gaza shared a land border with Egypt (Rafah crossing) which Israel did not - and could not - control. While Israel retained air and sea passage control, the blockade as we know it only came after Hamas was elected as the Gaza government and not before. (this is the opportunity to note that after the Israeli pullout from Gaza, Gazans could have chosen many different paths but they chose Hamas to lead them into the catastrophe they've become)

forgetfulness 10mo ago

Many countries were also "biased" against Apartheid South Africa, the bias was disapproval of apartheid, much like the one enacted on the West Bank and Gaza.

soldthat 10mo ago
The bias predates the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The litmus test is if they were just opposed to the policies of the South African government, or did those countries also hate South Africa and South Africans? Did they have a history of persecution of South Africans in their own country? Were they funding armed groups to attack South Africa? Did they believe that South Africa has no right to exist anyway?
- mrexcess 10mo ago
  Disagree wholeheartedly. The only relevant litmus test is: "Did the accused party commit the offense they are accused of?" ...everything else is whataboutism, red herring, ad hominem, and DARVO. If the worlds worst person says 2+2=4, you still can't evaluate that claim by testing how many people like or hate the person. Only by whether the content of their words is true or false.
  - soldthat 10mo ago
    We don’t rely on the judgements of racist juries.
    - mrexcess 10mo ago
      [dead]
- aprilthird2021 10mo ago
  > Countries tend to dislike and boycott apartheid states > Ah but what about many many decades ago in history the minority ruling the apartheid state were treated badly! In other places! Did you think of that?

mrexcess 10mo ago

[dead]

kergonath 10mo ago

> Many members of the UN are openly biased against Israel OTOH, why would anybody not be biased against an agressive, xenophobic theocracy bent on illegally occupying and annexing its neighbour, all the while whining that "they want to destroy us and deny the existence of the Israeli state", and then with the other side of their mouth "all Palestinians must die and their homeland belongs to us"? The mind boggles. > many are officially against the very existence of Israel and have always been Here we go. > and they happily vote on any condemnation of Israel regardless of what Israel does. Israel following up on their promise and actually applying the treaties they signed never got them any condemnation. Them doing the exact opposite obviously does. > This includes countries that have ethnically cleansed their Jews, and countries that do not allow Jews to enter. Someone being oppressed does not justify them then oppressing others. I can’t believe this still needs to be said.

soldthat 10mo ago
> Someone being oppressed does not justify them then oppressing others. That’s not the point. A country that has a history of hatred against a group, to the point of ethnic cleansing, and has not changed on the matter, has no legitimacy in critisizing or making judgments on that group. I think this would be obvious in any other context.
- mrexcess 10mo ago
  [dead]