Why Louise Arbour is a Cunt
Rue D'Awakening
Posts: 143
Deadly logic
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post published on Friday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour apportioned more blame to Israel than to Hizbullah for last summer's conflict.
Additionally, according to her avowed perception of the ongoing confrontations on the Gaza front, human rights abuses "were particularly acute in the occupied Palestinian territory." The Gazans' "right to life was particularly imperiled," she concluded, because of "policies and practices" related to Israel's security measures.
It must be noted that Arbour's five-day trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority afforded her a unique opportunity to see things from the vantage point of targeted Israeli civilians in Sderot. Her visit there coincided with yet another Kassam rocket barrage, this time claiming the life of Yaakov Yaakobov, a 43-year-old fork-lift operator who couldn't reach cover quickly enough. She was taken to the plant where he was slain and where others were wounded before their blood could be mopped off.
Sderot's outraged citizenry had no patience for her skewed sanctimony. She was angrily shouted down and had to be whisked away from folks whose anguished cries gave voice to the charge that both she and the organization she represents "are against us."
Arbour should have realized that there are very raw emotions and grievances on the Israeli side.
But the impact didn't seem to deter her from the UN's routine resort to the devil's arithmetic - morality by body count. The side that sustains more fatalities is judged as more aggrieved.
Such were Arbour's calculations during her Post interview. She did berate the shelling of Israeli civilians, and she lent lip service to Israel's right to protect its population, but she averred that Israel is at fault even if civilians are accidentally killed during Israeli strikes.
"There is very little distinction," she intoned, "between recklessness and intent."
The bottom line is that if terrorists - be they in Lebanon or Gaza - target Israelis deliberately from crowded townships, whose inhabitants are conscripted as human shields, then Israel has no right to preempt such attacks, lest the human shields come in harm's way.
The tragic irony is that this logic runs directly counter to that of the UN's own charter. One wonders whether Arbour has read that charter or agrees with it, given that the charter's logic - that peace must be maintained by identifying, punishing, and defending against aggression - is inescapable.
Israel is being pilloried for behaving precisely as the UN charter recommends.
Arbour is willfully turning a blind eye to the question of responsibility for the bloodshed - on both sides. It should not be surprising that aggressors try to confuse the issue of responsibility by conflating attacker and defender into a morally homogeneous "cycle of violence." But the fact is that there is no predetermined or senseless "cycle of violence."
This terminology is part and parcel of Arab propaganda which the UN promotes. Its raison d'etre is to undermine Israel's moral position. This is why the UN initiates investigations into Israel's responses and not into the aggression of those who kindle the conflict in the first place.
The monstrosity of Arab aggression mushrooms unrelentingly before our eyes. As Arbour was being interviewed, Hamas sent a grandmother suicide-bomber to her death. The evil of drafting anyone - from juveniles to elderly women - to function as human-guided missiles does not seem to factor into the UN amoral arithmetic.
The UN Charter's premise cannot be escaped, no matter how present UN powers-that-be warp it.
Aggressors must be fought and self-defense is a fundamental right. The only way that Israel can be seen as the aggressor in this conflict is if our very existence is a form of aggression.
This, of course, is the open message of the jihadi forces arrayed against Israel and the West: Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran. We are not surprised that those who want to destroy us think, act, and speak in this way. So long as the UN's idea of peace differs, and includes Israel's existence in freedom and security, then its officials need to refresh their understanding of the precepts upon which their organization was founded.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post published on Friday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour apportioned more blame to Israel than to Hizbullah for last summer's conflict.
Additionally, according to her avowed perception of the ongoing confrontations on the Gaza front, human rights abuses "were particularly acute in the occupied Palestinian territory." The Gazans' "right to life was particularly imperiled," she concluded, because of "policies and practices" related to Israel's security measures.
It must be noted that Arbour's five-day trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority afforded her a unique opportunity to see things from the vantage point of targeted Israeli civilians in Sderot. Her visit there coincided with yet another Kassam rocket barrage, this time claiming the life of Yaakov Yaakobov, a 43-year-old fork-lift operator who couldn't reach cover quickly enough. She was taken to the plant where he was slain and where others were wounded before their blood could be mopped off.
Sderot's outraged citizenry had no patience for her skewed sanctimony. She was angrily shouted down and had to be whisked away from folks whose anguished cries gave voice to the charge that both she and the organization she represents "are against us."
Arbour should have realized that there are very raw emotions and grievances on the Israeli side.
But the impact didn't seem to deter her from the UN's routine resort to the devil's arithmetic - morality by body count. The side that sustains more fatalities is judged as more aggrieved.
Such were Arbour's calculations during her Post interview. She did berate the shelling of Israeli civilians, and she lent lip service to Israel's right to protect its population, but she averred that Israel is at fault even if civilians are accidentally killed during Israeli strikes.
"There is very little distinction," she intoned, "between recklessness and intent."
The bottom line is that if terrorists - be they in Lebanon or Gaza - target Israelis deliberately from crowded townships, whose inhabitants are conscripted as human shields, then Israel has no right to preempt such attacks, lest the human shields come in harm's way.
The tragic irony is that this logic runs directly counter to that of the UN's own charter. One wonders whether Arbour has read that charter or agrees with it, given that the charter's logic - that peace must be maintained by identifying, punishing, and defending against aggression - is inescapable.
Israel is being pilloried for behaving precisely as the UN charter recommends.
Arbour is willfully turning a blind eye to the question of responsibility for the bloodshed - on both sides. It should not be surprising that aggressors try to confuse the issue of responsibility by conflating attacker and defender into a morally homogeneous "cycle of violence." But the fact is that there is no predetermined or senseless "cycle of violence."
This terminology is part and parcel of Arab propaganda which the UN promotes. Its raison d'etre is to undermine Israel's moral position. This is why the UN initiates investigations into Israel's responses and not into the aggression of those who kindle the conflict in the first place.
The monstrosity of Arab aggression mushrooms unrelentingly before our eyes. As Arbour was being interviewed, Hamas sent a grandmother suicide-bomber to her death. The evil of drafting anyone - from juveniles to elderly women - to function as human-guided missiles does not seem to factor into the UN amoral arithmetic.
The UN Charter's premise cannot be escaped, no matter how present UN powers-that-be warp it.
Aggressors must be fought and self-defense is a fundamental right. The only way that Israel can be seen as the aggressor in this conflict is if our very existence is a form of aggression.
This, of course, is the open message of the jihadi forces arrayed against Israel and the West: Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran. We are not surprised that those who want to destroy us think, act, and speak in this way. So long as the UN's idea of peace differs, and includes Israel's existence in freedom and security, then its officials need to refresh their understanding of the precepts upon which their organization was founded.
Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism
Most antizionists are antisemites
Most antizionists are antisemites
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he'll have you believe that hamas's naked aggression was legitimiate retaliation for something as implausible and unprecedented as the idf kidnapping a palestinian civilian of no strategic value. and he'll have you believe that hamas's "retaliation" was just that, when the tunnel they dug into israel took two months to dig.
nice try. by the way what does that have to do with louise arbour being a cunt, anyway?
Most antizionists are antisemites
The perpetrators of this are Israel. They started it. The militt groups are merely defending themselves-exactly the same way as the IDF are-with violence. Of course, you're in Israel, it's easy for you to label all Palestinians as terrorists, and view Israel heroically. But Arbour is completely right. So was Kofi Annan. It were an unnecessarily excessive use of force.
guess you didn't hear about the 5 rockets launched at israel this morning after the cease-fire supposedly went into effect.
did you read the editorial that started this thread, that step-by-step eviscerates both arbour's and your twisted, sick logic? can you at least cite something new to support this claim? assume that i am the pathetic moron you think i am and try to spell out for me why morality is based solely on quantifying death and not on intent and circumstance.
frankly, i'm bored of clueless americans and europeans expecting any israeli to swallow this obvious bullshit when your own sholoarly background on the middle east amounts to amnesiac cnn and self-referential "alternative" news sources.
that's news to me. care to tell me exactly when and how israel 'started' it?
was it the riots in 1920, 1925, 1936? oh wait, that was the arabs.
was it the sniper attacks, bombings and stabbings in November 1947? oh wait, that was the arabs.
was it the cross-border raids on civilian population centers throughout the 50's and 60's? oh wait that was the arabs.
was it the closing of the straits of tiran, and the expulsion of UN peacekeepers to serve as a buffer in '67? oh wait, that was the arabs.
was it the "days of rage" in september, 2000? arabs again.
who has launched over a thousand rockets since the occupation of gaza ended?
for most of the past year before this summer Israel's only response to the qassam's from recently-relinquished gaza was for jets to fly low over the strip and create sonic booms. and then people like you were bitching about that because it was the only Israeli action you could bitch about. back then, that was somehow the moral equivalent of shooting rockets at civilians.
if the "militants" were merely defending themselves they wouldn't provoke the Israeli military by shooting ROCKETS at CIVILIANS. -to say nothing of suicide bombers who, when infiltrating Israel, have always sought to maximize CIVILIAN casualties by attacking buses, malls, and restaurants. -never military targets. you can close your eyes to these distinctions all you like. the people whose opinions actually matter (i.e. me, not you) know what's really going on.
find where i said that all palestinians are terrorists. try not to put words in my mouth, as happens so often in these oh-so-constructive conversations.
Most antizionists are antisemites
i am clearly in the twilight zone. each time another person comes out of the woodwork to spout off self-righteous bullshit that they don't back up with a single example, a single fact, and then explain HOW that supports the idea they are advocating. maybe their memory doesn't serve them well enough to recall a single one.
can you, now, be the first one among the israel-bashers to ELABORATE on exactly HOW Israel is now "muddier" than those who INTENTIONALLY target civilians? or can you only point out that more palestinians have died than Israelis and think that that settles it?
Did you know that of the Palestinian deaths, a higher PROPORTION of those deaths were combatants while a higher proportion of Israeli deaths were civilians? Did you know that Israel stops hundreds of attempted suicide bombings every year? Of course not. This saves thousands of lives. Does Israel's own effectiveness at counterterror thus lend innocence to the Palestinians?
Ok. I'm waiting for the next holier-than-thou pseudo-intellectual to repeat what the last 4 people said, with their obnoxious editorial spin being the only original aspect of their post.
Most antizionists are antisemites
The difference between intentionally targeting citizens and targeting terrorists knowing that citizens will be killed is not that off.
Yes, rockets were fired within hours of calling a truce, which certainly wont do the Palestianians any favours. Israel should show some strength; rise above it and not sink to their level. I am sceptical of this, based on their past actions, can you blame me?
When I said that 'Israel started this', I'm not implying in any way that they were the founders of sectarian violence and excessive force. I was making reference to the fact that they took a country, Palestine, in 1947 with a little help of some others, and thereby forced the inhabitants of the country to flee or live as second class citizens with an imminent threat of their home being bulldozed, family being stripped and shot, branded 'terrorists' and oppressed on a regular basis in the name of Israel's freedom.
Ask yourself, why do militant groups like Hamas, Hezbollah etc exist? Why the aggression? Because of the above. It's a cycle of violence. I'm not condoning the militants by any means, but I don't blame them for not sitting still while the IDF roll past in their tanks pointing guns at their children and firing at invisible terrorists. Do you think that they would just stop and forget it, get on with their impoverished lives while they are being laughed at and thrown stones at? Fuck no.
Both sides are responsible, and both sides have to take responsbility. One of them HAS higher ground, and the international representation to lead by example. Perhaps this imposed caesefire will prove this. But I doubt that it will be too long before the IDF start launching 'counter attacks' wherever they fancy. Do you?
This could be the most ironic thing I've read this year.
I think this pretty much says it all. Anyone who would start a thread with such a comment clearly isn't interested in having an intelligent discussion.