Jimmy Carter may head Beit Hanoun probe

[Scurrilous]

UN to vote on proposal by Arab nations to censure Israel for Beit Hanoun deaths, appoint UN probe into incident. US media reports ex-President Jimmy Carter could head mission

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3329275,00.html

<snip>

"The United Nations General Assembly will convene a special emergency session Friday to decide on a response to the call by Arab nations to censure Israel for the IDF strike on Beit Hanoun last week which killed 19 Palestinian civilians.

Aside from the censure, the proposed bill calls for the establishment of an international mission to probe the circumstances of the incident, under the personal supervision of UN chief Kofi Annan, as well as a call for the UN to defend the Palestinian population.

United States media reported that former US President Jimmy Carter may head the probe committee.

The initiative was proposed to the UN by the Arabs nations, which decided not to let the US veto on a similar decision in the Security Council a few days ago pass silently."

[Behind the Aegis]

1. A special emergency session from the UNGA...what a shocker!

:sarcasm:

[Violet_Crumble]

2. You don't think those deaths should be investigated?

Why not?

btw, there's nothing out of the ordinary about the GA calling for investigations. Is there some reason you think Israel should be immune from it?

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Why ask a question you answer?

"You don't think those deaths should be investigated?"

I didn't say that, now did I? Yet, you take it upon yourself to pretend that I did: "Why not?"

See, you have already "asked and answered," without my input.

"btw, there's nothing out of the ordinary about the GA calling for investigations."

Oooops! I didn't say that, now did I? And, since I didn't say "...there's nothing out of the ordinary about the GA calling for investigations", your question, "Is there some reason you think Israel should be immune from it?" is irrelevant.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. You've made it very clear yr opposed to an investigation...

Yr post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you don't have a problem with an investigation being held or with the GA calling an emergency session. Maybe you could try and clarify whatever it was that you were trying to say? For the record, I totally support any calls for an independent investigation into the deaths and would hope every decent person at DU also feels the same way...

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Where did I make it clear I was opposed to an investigation?

As for making sense, it makes perfect sense. I wasn't commenting on the investigation, I was commenting on the special emergency session from the UNGA. You were the one confusing the two things, the investigation and the special emergency session from the UNGA. It is your post, #2, which was nothing but inaccurate speculation based on your own assumptions and mis-phrasing that makes no sense because it didn't address what I had actually written.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. In yr first post in this thread...

No-one who had no problems with an investigation would have any problems with a special emergency session being called to call for an investigation. In fact someone who didn't have a problem with it would have articulated that they support calls for an investigation :)

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Wrong.

"No-one who had no problems with an investigation would have any problems with a special emergency session being called to call for an investigation."

That wasn't the only reason the emergency session was called, now was it? It was the issue, a censure of Israel, that I was commenting on about a special emergency session being called. Just another example of anti-Israeli bias at the UN. So, if fact, I didn't "clearly oppose" any fact-finding mission. I never said anything of the sort. You inferred it, incorrectly.

"In fact someone who didn't have a problem with it would have articulated that they support calls for an investigation."

That is not true. ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

9. So you do support an independent investigation?

Wouldn't you think that someone who did would actually say so rather than go off on a weird tangent where they pretend that special emergency sessions are called because of some bizarre accusation of anti-Israel bias? Yep, that's what I'd be thinking...

I already pointed out to you that special emergency sessions are nothing unusual and Israel is not the only focus. Is there something about that which is too hard to grasp?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Wrong again...

"I already pointed out to you that special emergency sessions are nothing unusual and Israel is not the only focus."

That statement is wrong on two levels.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Nope, I'm actually right on both counts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emergency_special_sessions_of_the_United_Nations_General_Assembly

They're not as common as I thought, but in no way is Israel singled out the way you've implied it is...

Now, let's return to the topic of this thread, which is calls for an independent investigation into the deaths. If this were about someone getting a sprained ankle at a checkpoint, bringing up accusations of bias against the UN might be of some relevance. But in this case, there is a very real need for an independent investigation, and there is nothing biased at all about calling for one...

[Behind the Aegis]

13. You are kidding, right?!

You say "Nope, I'm actually right on both counts..., then turn around and say, "They're not as common as I thought..." See, that means you were wrong. As for Israel being singled out, in 56 years of special emergency sessions, 11 (including this one) have been called and off those 11, 7 single out Israel. Seems to me, that Israel is targeted given the state of the world in the past 56 years, not one single emergency session on Dafur? the former Yugoslavia? Iraq? Tibet? East Timor? etc....

Furthermore, no where did I say it was biased to call for investigations, that was you attempting to speak for me.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Not at all...

I supplied you with a link. Where exactly is this bias that you've been carrying on about? You said: 'Just another example of anti-Israeli bias at the UN.' How is it an anti-Israel bias exactly? Remember, look at the link I supplied you with verrrrry carefully before putting fingers to keyboard...

btw, any chance you'll decide to actually address the OP at any point in the future? I'll get things rolling. I think the establishment of an independent investigation by the UN is an excellent idea, and you've already agreed with me on that, I see. I think Jimmy Carter would be an excellent choice to head an independent investigation. Don't you agree? Israel needs to cooperate with any idependent investigation, wouldn't you agree?

[Behind the Aegis]

15. You just can't admit when you are wrong, can you?

56 years, 11 sessions, 7 on ONE country and you can't see a problem?! I think that pretty much says it all!

[Violet_Crumble]

16. What on earth are you talking about?

I said already that I thought they were more common than they were. When I'm wrong in the past I've been more than willing to admit it. Shall you be needing links or is there zero chance of an apology for that one? I notice you neglected to address this part of my post: 'Where exactly is this bias that you've been carrying on about? You said: 'Just another example of anti-Israeli bias at the UN.' How is it an anti-Israel bias exactly? Remember, look at the link I supplied you with verrrrry carefully before putting fingers to keyboard...'

Now, would you like to actually address the topic of the thread?

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Talking about...

"I said already that I thought they were more common than they were."

Yes, I know, which is why I found your comment, "Nope, I'm actually right on both counts..." to be so contradictory.

"When I'm wrong in the past I've been more than willing to admit it."

Yes, I am aware of that, which is why I found your claim of "Nope, I'm actually right on both counts..." to be odd.

"I notice you neglected to address this part of my post: 'Where exactly is this bias that you've been carrying on about? You said: 'Just another example of anti-Israeli bias at the UN.' How is it an anti-Israel bias exactly? Remember, look at the link I supplied you with verrrrry carefully before putting fingers to keyboard...'"

I did answer you the first time you asked the question. Perhaps you are the one that needs to read verrrrry carefully before re-asking questions already answered. But, should you need it again, here is the answer: "56 years, 11 sessions, 7 on ONE country and you can't see a problem?! I think that pretty much says it all!" Do you not think Israel has been singled out? Actually, don't answer that.

"Now, would you like to actually address the topic of the thread?"

I already did, it was post #1.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Now, is it 7 or 4 sessions, bta?

As you've ignored the bits in my post that were an attempt to get the ball rolling on discussion of the actual OP, I thought I'd just ask if we've got that counting problem under control yet?

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Try #27

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Okay, so you did make a mistake and it was only 4...

So, do you have any sort of opinion to share on yr support of an independent investigation into those deaths or not?

[Behind the Aegis]

36. read #27 again.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I did. You miscounted and won't admit it...

Pathetic...

[Behind the Aegis]

40. WRONG...AGAIN!

(E)3rd session; 1958 Lebanon crisis. Israel singled out? No. Israel even mentioned? No. Israel even an actor in the crisis? No.

(BTA)I will conceed this one because I cannot find the text of 1238(ES-III) in any language other than Russian and Chinese, and I don't read either.

(BTA) Therefore, SEVEN (7) would be incorrect (despite several anti-Israeli groups and sites including session three as a condemnation of Israel).

[Violet_Crumble]

42. So you are admitting you made a mistake?

That's a nice change :)

[Behind the Aegis]

45. So are you admitting you also made a mistake?

That would be a nice change, especially in this thread.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Was that a *Yes*?

I'd already said I was mistaken, so I don't know what yr going on about or why. And I'm sure no-one but you actually cares...

[Behind the Aegis]

50. "I'd already said I was mistaken" Where?!

[Violet_Crumble]

53. For fucks sake, read the thread...

I said I'd thought they were more common than they were. If you have problems comprehending that, then you can continue to leave post after post that has zero to do with discussing the OP coz I'm not wasting my time on you anymore...

[Behind the Aegis]

55. That wasn't your only mistake in this thread...

...it is the only one you half-heartedly admit to.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. So explain where the bias is in this particular session...

If there was no reason for those sessions to be called, then you'd have some sort of point. But there is very good reason for this session to be called, so where is the bias in that??

[breakaleg]

18. Are you saying that becasue there have been so many sessions, that

Israel is being unfairly targetted? Is there a limit to the number of resolutions? Perhaps if another country committed as many wrongs they would have similar numbers. Perhaps the number of sessions is merely equal to the number of infractions committed.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Response

"Are you saying that because there have been so many sessions, that Israel is being unfairly targetted?"

Yes.

"Is there a limit to the number of resolutions?"

That makes no sense, so no answer.

"Perhaps if another country committed as many wrongs they would have similar numbers. Perhaps the number of sessions is merely equal to the number of infractions committed."

Those statements show your bias. Your first statement implies that other countries haven't committed as many wrongs as Israel because there aren't the resolutions to prove it. Your second statement shows naivety, at best. Let me put it to you another way and see if it helps you understand the concept of bias.

In 56 years, there have only been 11 emergency general sessions, of those 11 sessions 7 have been called against Israel. There are, currently, 192 nations as members of the United Nations. Yet, in 56 years and 11 sessions, only ONE country, Israel, has been singled out for 7 of those sessions. However, considering your first statement, I doubt the aforementioned will make a difference. So, I will try this:

The US jails are filled with more than 40% of African-Americans. However, African-American men barely make up 13% of the US population. I wonder how DU'ers might respond if you said, "Perhaps if another (ethnic group) committed as many wrongs they would have similar numbers (of incarceration). Perhaps the number of (convictions) is merely equal to the number of infractions committed." I am going go to out on a limb and guess that you would find the previous statements biased. Now, I have no idea how familiar you are with our country's incarceration and prosecution issues of minorities, but let's just say "biased" is a NICE word for the fuck-up that is our current judicial system, in regards to minority defendants.

[Englander]

24. There's that miscounting mistake again.

There are only 4, that's 4 emergency sessions that 'single out' Israel. There are only four
emergency sessions that are specifically about Israel, that single out Israel, that only mention
Israel, that are not about any other country, that are only about Israel & do not mention any other
country.

[eyl]

57. To pick one counterexample (not entirely at random)

Russian actions in Chechnya exceeded anything the IDF has ever done by at least an order of magnitude (or two or more, depending which figures you use). Since there was no UN resolution condemning that, by your logic, it never happened.

[Englander]

23. Talking of admitting mistakes when they're made -

Here's an opportunity to do just that. Since you've made an absolute howler of a mistake, & have
miscounted the amount of emergency sessions that 'singled out' Israel. They are only 4(this part in
bold) that are specifically about Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. The silence is astounding...

No surprises there, eh?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. I didn't answer fast enough for you and that is "silence?"

Interesting, but no surprises.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. You were posting in the I/P forum for hours after Englander pointed out yr MISTAKE...

That's silence. So, when will you be apologising for yr mistake? Or is that behaviour you demand of others while refusing to do it yrself?

[Behind the Aegis]

31. Wrong!

I have TWO posts AFTER Englander posted his responses! The VERY FIRST is post #27, a response to him! The second was the one you just replied to, and this response makes number 3 for posting after his responses (5 for the day, as two were made 3 hours before his response)!

[Violet_Crumble]

33. You were round this forum long before you reappeared in this thread...

Strange that when yr mistake was pointed out you were nowhere to be found while usually you reply to posts within minutes :)

[Behind the Aegis]

35. You are still wrong.

Prove I was in this forum before I posted to Englander. The first response, after his comments, was a post to him! Strange, you are proved wrong again, yet....;)

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I highly doubt that...

And there's nothing for me to prove. I just found it amusing that you were all over this thread when yr accusing others of making mistakes, yet conveniently vanish when it gets pointed out you made a mistake :)

[Behind the Aegis]

41. "And there's nothing for me to prove." Oh really?

You mean you didn't post: "You were posting in the I/P forum for hours after Englander pointed out yr MISTAKE..."

Prove it!

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Yes, really...unlike you, I want to discuss the OP...

Any chance you'll start doing that any time in the future? Otherwise yr on yr own to do whatever the fuck it is you think yr doing...

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Dodging. You made an accusation you can't substantiate.

No surprises.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Link to discussion of OP...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=154800&mesg_id=155444


Yr clearly not interested in discussing the OP in any way, so yr on yr own with this nonsense. If you change yr mind the link's there for you to follow...

[Behind the Aegis]

49. You made an accusation you cannot back up.

So, of course you want to "change the subject." This sub-thread was created because of your false accusation. When called on that false accusation, you made it about the "OP" again, despite the fact the start of this sub-thread had nothing to do with the OP. You were wrong, can't admit to that fact, so you try to deflect.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. No, I want to discuss the OP...

I wasn't wrong at all, but as I'm not interested in some mindless and boring 'Yes you are!' 'No yr not!' endless thing, I've been giving you links and opportunities to add something constructive to this thread, opportunities which you are intent on passing up. When yr feeling like adding to a constructive discussion of the issues, you know where to go...

[Behind the Aegis]

52. Really?

Then what was the point of this post:

The silence is astounding...
No surprises there, eh?

??????

Can you admit you were wrong?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Question about the OP that was ignored before...

I hate repeating myself but: So, do you have any sort of opinion to share on yr support of an independent investigation into those deaths or not?

[Violet_Crumble]

54. At least I tried...

Oh, well.

[Englander]

59. Hey, it only took 13 hours to get an admission.

That must be a record, it usually takes 2+ days before a mistake is admitted.

[Behind the Aegis]

60. I guess it is also better than "never." n/t

[Englander]

22. 7? Where did you get that from?

Only 4 are specifically about Israel;

1st session; Suez. Israel & the UK, & France. Israel singled out? No.

2nd session; Soviet invasion of Hungary.

3rd session; 1958 Lebanon crisis. Israel singled out? No. Israel even mentioned? No. Israel even an actor in the crisis? No.

4th session; Congo.

5th session; Six Day War. War between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq & Syria. Israel singled out? No.

6th session; Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

7th session; Palestine. Yes, on this one.

8th session; S Africa's occupation of Namibia.

9th session; Israel's occupation of Golan Heights. Yes, that's no. 2.

10th session; Israel's occupation of E Jerusalem. Yes, that's no. 3.

11th session; Beit Hanoun. Yes, that's no. 4

[Behind the Aegis]

27. List

1st session; Suez. Israel & the UK, & France. Israel singled out? No.

Resolution 997 (ES-I)

The General Assembly,

Noting the disregard on many occasions by parties to the Israel-Arab armistice agreements of 1949 of the terms of such agreements, and that the armed forces of Israel have penetrated deeply into Egyptian territory in violation of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 24 February 1949,1/

Noting that armed forces of France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are conducting military operations against Egyptian territory,

Noting that traffic through the Suez Canal is now interrupted to the serious prejudice of many nations,

Expressing its grave concern over these developments,

1. Urges as a matter of priority that all parties now involved in hostilities in the area agree to an immediate cease-fire and, as part thereof, halt the movement of military forces and arms into the area;

2. Urges the parties to the armistice agreements promptly to withdraw all forces behind the armistice lines, to desist from raids across the armistice lines into neighbouring territory, and to observe scrupulously the provisions of the armistice agreements;

3. Recommends that all Member States refrain from introducing military goods in the area of hostilities and in general refrain from any acts which would delay or prevent the implementation of the present resolution;

4. Urges that, upon the cease-fire being effective, steps be taken to reopen the Suez Canal and restore secure freedom of navigation;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to observe and report promptly on the compliance with the present resolution to the Security Council and to the General Assembly, for such further action as they may deem appropriate in accordance with the Charter;

6. Decides to remain in emergency session pending compliance with the present resolution.

source

Israel is singled out in the first paragraph of the resolution. It is not grouped with the other "violators," but merits its own paragraph, the first!

2nd session; Soviet invasion of Hungary.

3rd session; 1958 Lebanon crisis. Israel singled out? No. Israel even mentioned? No. Israel even an actor in the crisis? No.

I will conceed this one because I cannot find the text of 1238(ES-III) in any language other than Russian and Chinese, and I don't read either. 1237(ES-III) doesn't mention any nation, other than the 'victims' of Lebanon and Jordan. Also as a point of interest, this session is generally cited as a resolution against Israel on a number of "anti-Israeli" sites.

4th session; Congo.

5th session; Six Day War. War between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq & Syria. Israel singled out? No.

2253 (ES-V). Measures taken by Israel to change
the status of the City of Jerusalem

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned at the situation prevailing in Jerusalem as a result of the measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City,

1. Considers that these measures are invalid;

2. Calls upon Israel to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would alter the status of Jerusalem;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly and the Security Council on the situation and on the implementation of the present resolution not later than one week from its adoption.

source

2252 (ES-V). Humanitarian assistance

The General Assembly,

Considering the urgent need to alleviate the suffering inflicted on civilians and on prisoners of war as a result of the recent hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Welcomes with great satisfaction Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, whereby the Council:

(a) Considered the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings;

(b) Considered that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war;

(c) Considered that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict;

(d) Called upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations had taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who had fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;

(e) Recommended to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war, contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,2/

(f) Requested the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of the resolution and to report to the Security Council;

2. Notes with gratitude and satisfaction and endorses the appeal made by the President of the General Assembly on 26 June 1967;3/

3. Notes with gratification the work undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the league of Red Cross Societies and other voluntary organizations to provide humanitarian assistance to civilians;

4. Notes further with gratification the assistance which the United Nations Children's Fund is providing to women and children in the area;

5. Commends the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for his efforts to continue the activities of the Agency in the present situation with respect to all persons coming within his mandate;

6. Endorses, bearing in mind the objectives of the above-mentioned Security Council resolution, the efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to provide humanitarian assistance, as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who are at present displaced and are in serious need of immediate assistance as a result of the recent hostilities;

7. Welcomes the close co-operation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and of the other organizations concerned, for the purpose of co-ordinating assistance;

8. Calls upon all the member States concerned to facilitate the transport of supplies to all areas in which assistance is being rendered;

9. Appeals to all Governments, as well as organizations and individuals, to make special contributions for the above purposes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and also to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned;

10. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner- General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report urgently to the General Assembly on the needs arising under paragraphs 5 and 6 above;

11. Further requests the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of the present resolution and to report thereon to the General Assembly.

source

2254 (ES-V). Measures taken by Israel to change
the status of the City of Jerusalem

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 2253 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967,

Having received the report submitted by the Secretary-General,1/

Taking note with the deepest regret and concern of the non-compliance by Israel with resolution 2253 (ES-V),

1. Deplores the failure of Israel to implement General Assembly resolution 2253 (ES-V);

2. Reiterates its call to Israel in that resolution to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would alter the status of Jerusalem;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council and the General Assembly on the situation and on the implementation of the present resolution.

source

During the 5th UN General Assembly emergency session, there were five (5) resolutions passed, A/RES/2252 (ES-V), A/RES/2253 (ES-V), A/RES/2254 (ES-V), A/RES/2256 (ES-V), and A/RES/2257 (ES-V). The last two resolutions deal with sending the minutes to the GA and/or calling for the 5th session. The other three resolutions, specifically mention Israel, and no other country. And, as if one resolution was not enough, the "overkill" resolution, A/RES/2254 (ES-V), is nothing more than a repeat of A/RES/2253 (ES-V). Finally, A/RES/2252 (ES-V) calls for humanitarian responses; the only country mentioned is Israel.


6th session; Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

7th session; Palestine. Yes, on this one.

8th session; S Africa's occupation of Namibia.

9th session; Israel's occupation of Golan Heights. Yes, that's no. 2.

10th session; Israel's occupation of E Jerusalem. Yes, that's no. 3.

11th session; Beit Hanoun. Yes, that's no. 4

In conclusion, four (4) are direct sessions about Israel, one session (the first) condemns several nations, but holds Israel out in its first paragraph as opposed to including it in the lost of other "offenders." Session five has three resolutions, including two that specifically condemn Israel. Therefore, by my count, there are at least SIX (6) resolutions that condemn Israel, there are at FIVE (5) if you do not include the first session, despite the first paragraph of the resolution from that session. Therefore, SEVEN (7) would be incorrect (despite several anti-Israeli groups and sites including session three as a condemnation of Israel). But even with the reduction, the number of GA emergency sessions, of which there are only eleven (11) to date, FIVE (5) (almost half) have singled out Israel, or SIX (6) (more than half) have singled out Israel. NO OTHER COUNTRY comes close to that number, not even if you use 4 (FOUR) as your "guide!"

[Englander]

58. That's a good post, actually, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Because it's civil, coherent, uses credible sources & is mostly on-topic. Shame that the
abuse/misuse of language is still present, though. Or that the goalposts have been moved.
Only four GA ES 'single out Israel', only four Emergency sessions are specifically about Israel,
& no other country. The others don't 'single out Israel', do they?

More details about the '58 Lebanon crisis;

United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon (UNOGIL).
http://www.un.org/depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unogilbackgr.html

[Scurrilous]

7. Israel's UN envoy walks out of session on Beit Hanun shelling

<snip>

"Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman walked out of a UN General Assembly emergency session on Gaza Strip shelling in protest Friday, saying his words were falling on deaf ears and that he was better off holding a nearby press conference.

The session was called to discuss a condemnation of the errant Israel Defense Forces shelling in Beit Hanun last week, which left 20 Palestinians dead.

The resolution is expected to be passed by a large majority."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789457.html

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Bolton will be right behind him 110%

It's situations such as that one where both the US and Israel make it so abundantly clear that they're not interested in doing anything but undermining the UN. The sooner Bolton gets his ugly arse hauled out of that job and someone with half a braincell and a shred of fairness steps in, the better things will be...

[Scurrilous]

21. Bolton is Israel's secret weapon, says Gillerman

<snip>

"After a staunch defence of Israel on Friday night in the UN General Assembly, John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, has been described by his Israeli counterpart as, "Israel's secret weapon."

Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman praised Bolton at a New York Jewish assembly, according to a report carried by Arutz Sheva, an online news network operating in Israel.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton is Israel's secret weapon in the international body, Gillerman is quoted as saying.

According to Arutz Sheva, Gillerman told the Jewish assembly the Israeli delegation to the United Nations is not five people as most believe, but six, including Bolton, who is the Israeli government's secret weapon."

http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/ac83a94a46b17752/cs/1/

[eyl]

25. Given that

the UNGA has already censured Israel, what exactly is the point of a probe?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. To find out whether it was an accident or not?

I think Israel deserves censuring if it was an accident (the sort of incompetence involved in an accident is amazing) and even more so for censuring if it turns out it was deliberate. But most important of all, an independent investigation with the co-operation of Israel needs to happen and imo it'd make more sense to do that before any censuring happens...

[eyl]

56. If

as the IDF inquiry determined, the fault was due to a malfunctioning radar module, than the problem isn't one of incompetence* (unless it's incompetence of the maintenance, something I doubt this kind of international probe would be qualified to determine).

Now, if the UNGA had just decided to send a probe, I wouldn't argue as much. But given that Israel has already been condemned** beforehand, why should Israel cooperate?

*You might possibly argue the policy was reckless, or other things, but not incompetence
**Note that the resolution condemned Israeli military actions in general, not just the loss of life in Beit Hanoun; and also that there's a difference between "deploring" loss of life and "condemning" (the latter term is what the resolution used) it, as the latter means someone is at fault - except that that is what the probe is supposedly intended to determine!