Search results

This comes again to what I said. You keep claiming the world helps us but you haven't provided a single, real world argument how that help takes form. Again you revert to how you feel the world works but show no evidence of it. If you can't provide any tangible argument it all seems like just...

I understand you have your feelings, that's fine but I don't see the relevance.

No hubris here. First I just guess we have completely differant understanding of what the word mercy means. Secondly, I guess we have completely different understanding of how the world works if you think anything is done out of goodwill.

You keep saying that but never give any concrete argument other then your feelings. I do agree about the holocust thing though.

More concerning is the unexplainable delusion or supreme stupidity in thinking negotiations will resolve this or it has anything to do with a 2 state solution. And this guy is the secretary general no less, it seem like the "international community" just want this conflict to never end

Sorry, I miss wrote. Didn't mean to imply that. Just find it weird the legal limbo that the gaza strip is in. There is a clear interest by some UN members to not classify Hamas as a terror org. Some for nefarious reasons some from a misguided conception or rather the misconception that...

Gaza isn't a state and you are conflating Hamas with Palestine and the PLO. Only the PLO is recognised as the political leader of Palestine. It is like saying ISIS is a political leader of the Islamic state therfore it is not a terror organisation

I'm not sure how the UN handle the de facto split between Gaza and the West Bank and Hamas and the PLO. A state with two governing bodies?

Well if he think there can be a single secular, democratic state in Palestine he is. If he knows there can't be he is even worse

https://unwatch.org/exposed-top-human-rights-official-craig-mokhiber-deep-seated-anti-israel-bias/ I'm sure he is qualified. I'm also not saying non of his claims have merit. I've said before, I will also never argue against claims of ethnic cleansing, I can excuse small parts of it but will...

Thanks. I'll also add on top of that a extremely unique issue with the Palestinian right of return that makes this even a more complicated matter, legally and in practicality. Palestinian refugees have a historically unprecedented hereditary status by the UN through UNRWA. It means millions...

I have no idea what you are on about here. The discussion we were having and I was clearly referring to was limited to the use of the word genocide and it's legal applicability. The rest is irrelevant, here and in the real world

Sure

Well I'm humble enough not to pretend I am. If it was such a clear cut case then we wouldn't be having this discussions wouldn't we?

It show a clear genocidal intent towards Israelis if he understand what he is saying. If he doesn't then it shows he's an idiot. Either way his opinion or interpretation of international law should never be taken seriously. And that's what it is, interpretation.

It's not. Sorry to say but you either don't understand it or don't want to, I'll go with the later.

It's a euphemism for destroying Israel. Just like "free Palestine" And this guy is a UN official. If anyone needs further prof of how moraly bankrupt that organisation is.

Lol. All needs to be said about this guy

Demonstrebly large. Over 300k civilians in Syria in a single decade is demonstrably large. Over 300k civilians in Yemen in a single decade is demonstrably large. Around 50k including militants in over 70 years is not. The entire israeli-arab conflict is rated 49th By amount of casualties in...

Not neccesserily. Even if we agree you still have to show explicit intent in actions. Number of deaths in of itself is not a prof, unless we are talking demonstrably large numbers I don't think will ever happen in this conflict.