Imagine hearing this and throwing your toys out the pram.... The situation in the Middle East is growing more dire by the hour. The war in Gaza is raging and risks spiralling throughout the region. Divisions are splintering societies. Tensions threaten to boil over. At a crucial moment like this, it is vital to be clear on principles -- starting with the fundamental principle of respecting and protecting civilians. I have condemned unequivocally the horrifying and unprecedented 7 October acts of terror by Hamas in Israel. Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring and kidnapping of civilians – or the launching of rockets against civilian targets. All hostages must be treated humanely and released immediately and without conditions. I respectfully note the presence among us of members of their families. Excellencies, It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing. But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Excellencies, Even war has rules. We must demand that all parties uphold and respect their obligations under international humanitarian law; take constant care in the conduct of military operations to spare civilians; and respect and protect hospitals and respect the inviolability of UN facilities which today are sheltering more than 600,000 Palestinians. The relentless bombardment of Gaza by Israeli forces, the level of civilian casualties, and the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods continue to mount and are deeply alarming. I mourn and honour the dozens of UN colleagues working for UNRWA – sadly, at least 35 and counting – killed in the bombardment of Gaza over the last two weeks. I owe to their families my condemnation of these and many other similar killings. The protection of civilians is paramount in any armed conflict. Protecting civilians can never mean using them as human shields. Protecting civilians does not mean ordering more than one million people to evacuate to the south, where there is no shelter, no food, no water, no medicine and no fuel, and then continuing to bomb the south itself. I am deeply concerned about the clear violations of international humanitarian law that we are witnessing in Gaza. Let me be clear: No party to an armed conflict is above international humanitarian law. Excellencies, Thankfully, some humanitarian relief is finally getting into Gaza. But it is a drop of aid in an ocean of need. In addition, our UN fuel supplies in Gaza will run out in a matter of days. That would be another disaster. Without fuel, aid cannot be delivered, hospitals will not have power, and drinking water cannot be purified or even pumped. The people of Gaza need continuous aid delivery at a level that corresponds to the enormous needs. That aid must be delivered without restrictions. I salute our UN colleagues and humanitarian partners in Gaza working under hazardous conditions and risking their lives to provide aid to those in need. They are an inspiration. To ease epic suffering, make the delivery of aid easier and safer, and facilitate the release of hostages, I reiterate my appeal for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Excellencies, Even in this moment of grave and immediate danger, we cannot lose sight of the only realistic foundation for a true peace and stability: a two-State solution. Israelis must see their legitimate needs for security materialized, and Palestinians must see their legitimate aspirations for an independent State realized, in line with United Nations resolutions, international law and previous agreements. Finally, we must be clear on the principle of upholding human dignity. Polarization and dehumanization are being fueled by a tsunami of disinformation. We must stand up to the forces of antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry and all forms of hate. How anyone can see that as anything other than a firm but fair statement and actually very honest and honourable, is nothing more than the Israeli's throwing a hissy fit because it scuppers the media agenda they've been desperately trying to set over the past 4/5 days as people's attention turns to the death and destruction against civilians in Gaza. Israel revoked all visas to U.N. staff following this. Not sure if that applies to relief workers. Tow the line or else. In other words, blackmail...coercion.
I've deconstructed this quite thoroughly in previous posts which you either missed or chose not to engage with. No problem with that as nothing obligates you to respond, but in summary: If Gutterres genuinely had a pair, he would have called out Iran and Islamic extremism as well as the occupation. He didn't, hence people went nuts, even people (myself included) who believe that settlements genuinely are a major obstruction to peace and cause of violence. But they aren't the only obstruction or only cause. Settlements did not create Hamas' fundamentalist Islamic ideology, an ideology that dates back to the first Islamic civil war in the 7th century. Settlements may have made it more likely for Palestinians to subscribe to such ideology, true. But that point is entirely speculative and therefore the job of a journalist, not the Secretary General of the UN. Settlements also didn't create Iran's expansionist ambitions in the region. Guterres' comments make it sound like a fait accompli. End the occupation and you end Hamas. Simple. Not at all. End the occupation and you still have Iran and still have Islamic extremism throughout the region. Can you not see how clumsy he was?
he who doesn’t read or watch anything that doesn’t suit his narrative….not naming any names it’ll take me to long……I’ll start by saying me brb peej and peej again to name just a few
I'll respond. Why should Israel's obligation to meet international law - the countless U.N. resolutions that cite Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land and their withdrawal from it, be dependent on or responsible for some condition to sort out Iran or Islamic extremism? Or any other random claim anyone has from the 7th Century? You either believe in the rule of law or you don't. When Putin was illegally occupying Crimea and now Ukraine, were we saying, ah but hold on before we call out Russia to withdraw from the territory we must consider x, y and z? When the nazi's took over Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland was it right to say, hold on we must consider this or that? Why is even mentioning Israel's illegal occupation or talking about their illegal actions, on the public stage or in the media, considered a taboo subject? There is no doubt that the illegal occupation and the subjugation and maltreatment of occupied Palestinians is fuelling the cycles of violence. Addressing it will go a long way, certainly not all, towards ending the violence. But whatever violence remains is irrespective of the Palestinians right to freedom. And btw, Netanyahu and his cronies said themselves, that keeping Hamas as a player was a massive asset in preventing an independent Palestinian state. You know this. So let's not pretend the Israeli government didn't like having Iran and Hamas around prior to 7th October.
As mentioned previously. The nub of this particular conflict is Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine If you look at the world, there are historic conflicts, claims to land etc that go back centuries. Do Mexico and the world call out the US for stopping Mexicans crossing the US border at parts that were once part of Mexico ? No, because the US states that current law and jurisdiction apply. Does Italy claim vast swathes of the UK for itself because the Romans once occupied it ? Any Italian can move to England, claim citizenship and take the land for themselves to build houses on exclusively for themselves, whilst controlling the airspace, borders, supply of water, fuel and electricity and what goods come in and out ? There are hundreds of examples you could cite around the world. The law as it applies today states that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. CK says that 'Israel wants peace with its neighbours', it's within it's own power to begin to address that peace.
I get your point & even agree with it in parts. But that made me chuckle because it was ****ing difficult to find a comparison so you just opted for "x, y & z"
But they would have no leg to stand on. Right now as an independent i only see Israel as the bad guys in my book between the two states (there are no good guys just who is the worse one)
I have never said that one is dependent on or responsible for the other. Nor have I said that it should be taboo to talk about the issue of occupation. With respect, you are putting words in my mouth. Ending the occupation will without question move the peace process forward. Is it within Israel's power to do this? Of course. But Israel is a democracy. A democracy that returns notoriously flimsy governing majorities due to the electoral system. Whereas a dictatorship could choose to end an occupation at the flick of a finger, in a democracy that rather momentous, generational decision needs to be sold to the public if it is to pass into reality. So the question of ending the occupation then becomes a complicated tale of chicken and egg and which should move first. Trace public sentiment in Israel through time and you can see this clearly. It boils down to one simple question: would or could the Israeli public trust in the security and safety of the sovereign state of Israel if all illegally created buffer zones were dismantled? This has been the overarching question through decades of Israel's history irrespective of the government. It is why even under Rabin, Peres and Olmert who all agreed to return in the region of 96% of all land and make up the rest with land transfers, what was in the 4% they all insisted on keeping? Security presence along the Jordan valley. Why? Because the public simply couldn't stomach the idea of Iraq, Iran and others having direct access via Syria or Jordan to territory deep inside Israel proper. There was just no other way to sell the policy and get it voted through. I have little time or love for Israeli settlers. I've said that many times on this forum. But I do understand the concerns of an average family living in Tel Aviv who fears an independent Palestinian state run by Hamas (they would crush Fatah in an open election) sitting literally a twenty minute drive from their front door. And recent events have only served to exponentially heighten that fear. The general public are rarely wrong. They got the Golan Heights absolutely spot on when Barak sought to return them to Hafez Assad. With hindsight, we now know that Israel would have had a failed despotic state and Iranian backed militias overlooking a third of the country from the region's most strategically important position. They were torn over the disengagement from Gaza. Most felt that under a united Fatah government, it would be a step toward peace, whereas under a Hamas leadership it would be catastrophic. Were they wrong? I'm playing devil's advocate now. If Guterres, you, Pinkie, Bobby etc are right and the only salient issue is ending the occupation, go ahead and sell that vision to me as if you were selling it to the average Israeli who doesn't particularly like Netanyahu. Go ahead. I'm intrigued to hear how you'd actually approach this 'on the ground'. Make me want to vote for it.
Israel has some genuine security concerns, and I think that was reflected back in the 90's when the border of Jordon was one of the areas that Israel wasn't willing to give up. But is it reasonable to suggest that if Israel were to end the blockade in Gaza, stop the continued settlement building and gradually lessen it's grip on the Palestinian people, then the anger and subsequent violence would also begin to subside, to a point where again, you could talk about a two state solution, with East and West Jerusalem recognised as the captials of both an Israeli and Palestinian state ? Israel has to concede some way here. Because they are stepping on the neck of the Palestinians and the only thing left for them is to fight, they are at a point where they have nothing else to lose. And recognising that in the short to medium term there will be genuine security concerns that Israel will need to maintain to protect themselves as well as a recognition from Palestine that a Govt (Hamas) who are intent on destroying Israel is a non starter.
Sorry but you haven't sold it to me. I agree with you in theory but to get my vote, you need my agreement in practice. Here's what the average Israeli would probably respond: I want a Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel. But can you give me guarantees that lifting the blockade on Gaza won't lead to a mass influx of Iranian weapons and proxy soldiers? Look how many they got in with a bloody blockade in place! You mention my genuine security concerns over sovereignty of the West Bank, and I am grateful for that. Can you elaborate on how you will meet those concerns so that we avoid an extremist party like Hamas coming to power in the West Bank? Can you elaborate on how you would prevent Iran from doing to the West Bank exactly what it has done to Lebanon and Syria, if we do not maintain a presence along the Jordan valley? When would my security concerns 'expire' in a region that is historically one of the most unstable and unpredictable in the world? These are perfectly reasonable questions that all but the most die-hard 'peacenik' over here lives and votes by. If you can't overcome these basic obstacles, you won't get a Palestinian state.
Russia and China veto a motion for a humanitarian pause to allow the passage of aid into Gaza. UNfit for purpose.
