Antisemitic U.N. issues eight resolutions, all against Israel

[Billo_Really]

Hamas Absolutely

Why can't you answer the question? Are you a troll? Because that's what trolls do. They don't answer questions.

As far as Israel is concerned, they deserve every single resolution against them. Israel is a fascist, apartheid country with a terrorist as a PM.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why can't you answer the question? Are you a troll? Because that's what trolls do. They don't answer questions.

As far as Israel is concerned, they deserve every single resolution against them. Israel is a fascist, apartheid country with a terrorist as a PM.

Your opinion. Not mine.

Gaza deserves return fire for the attack on Israel.

See how that shit works?

 

[Billo_Really]

^^^ and here is an example of the double standards of antisemitism. This one a) doesn’t mention the brutal massacre committed by the Muslim monsters and b) lies about Israel committing murder with “impunity.”

Listen you little dishrag whore, stop lying! I did mention the atrocities committed on Oct 7th, so fuck you!

As for your second point, what has Israel done in regards to the 225 Gazans you fuckers murdered in cold blood just this year before Oct. 7th? And what has Israel done about your criminal settlers murdering innocent Palestinians?

Care to answer that you lying ass bitch? Israel deserves every single resolution against made against it. Israel is a fascist, apartheid country with a terrorist PM.

 

[Moonglow]

The U.N., in the wake of the terror attack by HAMAS savages in which they set Jewish children on fire, cut the heads off babies, baked an newborn to death in an oven, raped women until they died, and stabbed men to death, issued eight resolutions - all of which condemn Israel. There was not a SINGLE resolution condemning what Muslim monsters did.

The U.N.’s never-ending, one-sided bias against the sole Jewish country in its effort to demonize it, is the very definition of antisemitism. When Trump gets back in, I hope he kicks them out of our country and withholds our membership.

U.N. adopts eight resolutions condemning Israel, none condemning Hamas -- or anyone else

The U.N. recently adopted eight resolutions condemning Israel for various alleged human rights violations, yet made no condemnation of other nations or groups, including Hamas. This, after Hamas slaughtered nearly 1,500 innocent Israelis during a...

www.americanthinker.com

Secretary-General Strongly Condemns Attack by Hamas ...​

UN Press
https://press.un.org › sgsm21981.doc.htm



Oct 7, 2023 — The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest terms this morning's attack by Hamas against Israeli towns near the Gaza Strip and central ...

 

[Billo_Really]

Your opinion. Not mine.

Gaza deserves return fire for the attack on Israel.

See how that shit works?

Actually I do agree with that.

 

[Ancient lion]

Actually I do agree with that.

20,000 war crimes aren't enough to satisfy your desire. Are you vampires?

 

[Winston]

We are not discussing historical, geographical place names. We are discussing current events.

State of Palestine. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Israel. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Jordan. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Egypt. Date. Borders. Document.

I have often wondered why the Israeli supporters seem to believe that because there never was a nation called "Palestine", there can be no Palestinians. The area has been known as Palestine, or some variation thereof, since Biblical times. The name has been part of the historical record for almost 2500 years, going back to Ancient Greece.

The only thing that makes sense is by claiming no Palestine as a nation means there are no Palestinians. And by falsely believing there are no Palestinians they are, in no small way, refusing to believe that the Palestinians are people, are human beings.

They can conveniently ignore the fact that 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly evicted from the homes and land, in many cases land that had been in the family for generations. Imagine, the United Nations, along with the United States, gets behind a bunch of Lakota terrorists after they bomb a hotel, and stands by as those terrorists swarm through South Dakota and Montana, forcibly removing farmers and residents from land that their family had held for generations.

They create a new nation, the Lakota nation, and proclaim that nation to be a place for all Lakota throughout the world, a safe place away from the rampant discrimination the Lakota have faced for generations. A place with a guaranteed Lakota majority. Anyone, from anywhere in the world, with at least 1/16th Lakota blood, can attain citizenship and receive some of that confiscated land.

All the former owners of that land are shipped off to Pine Ridge where they live under a land, air, and sea embargo. Everything and everyone, going in or out, must pass through Lakota checkpoints. The Lakota control the food going in, to the calorie, to make sure that all those former owners live with constant food insecurity, just barely above the starvation level. Permission to travel off the reservation is severely limited, employment opportunities are scarce, and unemployment among those former owners quickly swells to more than 50%.

And let's not forget, gun ownership is strictly regulated, by the Lakota, as is the access to fuel, electricity, and building materials. For all intents and purposes, Pine Ridge is an open-air prison to house the people unfortunate to live on land promised the Lakota by the Great Spirit.

Don't like the metaphor? Funny thing, it is closer to justice than Israel, that much is for damn sure.

 

[Shusha]

I have often wondered why the Israeli supporters seem to believe that because there never was a nation called "Palestine", there can be no Palestinians. The area has been known as Palestine, or some variation thereof, since Biblical times. The name has been part of the historical record for almost 2500 years, going back to Ancient Greece.

The only thing that makes sense is by claiming no Palestine as a nation means there are no Palestinians. And by falsely believing there are no Palestinians they are, in no small way, refusing to believe that the Palestinians are people, are human beings.

They can conveniently ignore the fact that 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly evicted from the homes and land, in many cases land that had been in the family for generations. Imagine, the United Nations, along with the United States, gets behind a bunch of Lakota terrorists after they bomb a hotel, and stands by as those terrorists swarm through South Dakota and Montana, forcibly removing farmers and residents from land that their family had held for generations.

They create a new nation, the Lakota nation, and proclaim that nation to be a place for all Lakota throughout the world, a safe place away from the rampant discrimination the Lakota have faced for generations. A place with a guaranteed Lakota majority. Anyone, from anywhere in the world, with at least 1/16th Lakota blood, can attain citizenship and receive some of that confiscated land.

All the former owners of that land are shipped off to Pine Ridge where they live under a land, air, and sea embargo. Everything and everyone, going in or out, must pass through Lakota checkpoints. The Lakota control the food going in, to the calorie, to make sure that all those former owners live with constant food insecurity, just barely above the starvation level. Permission to travel off the reservation is severely limited, employment opportunities are scarce, and unemployment among those former owners quickly swells to more than 50%.

And let's not forget, gun ownership is strictly regulated, by the Lakota, as is the access to fuel, electricity, and building materials. For all intents and purposes, Pine Ridge is an open-air prison to house the people unfortunate to live on land promised the Lakota by the Great Spirit.

Don't like the metaphor? Funny thing, it is closer to justice than Israel, that much is for damn sure.

Wow. Nice story. Or metaphor. For someone who set up the rules of engagement as "document, document, document" you sure are having trouble with providing documents.

State of Palestine. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Israel. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Jordan. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Egypt. Date. Borders. Document.

When and how did these modern States come into being and what process of law created them?

BTW, you are barking up the very wrong tree with your stories and metaphors. I fully support the national sovereignty of all First Nations and indigenous peoples on their ancestral territories. My position is consistent. Across all peoples, across all territories. Yes, that means the Lakota people. Yes, that means that I agree with your initial position that the Arab peoples who call themselves Palestinians are a distinct people (now) and have rights to national sovereignty in that territory. The Jewish people also have indigenous rights to national sovereignty in that territory, based on their culture and history. That's why I continue to support a two-more-states solution, even though it is becoming less and less practical in real life.

Going back to my statement about antisemitism at the UN, the subject of this thread, I see that we are stuck on my first point. You are so entrenched in your narrative about the evil of Israel, you can't even touch on facts. I'm not even asking you to evaluate facts or information provided by me. I'm giving you the opportunity to provide the facts that you use to determine your narrative.

Let's see if we can fill in the gap between, "Palestine has always existed and therefore Israel is evil".

 

[Winston]

Wow. Nice story. Or metaphor. For someone who set up the rules of engagement as "document, document, document" you sure are having trouble with providing documents.

State of Palestine. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Israel. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Jordan. Date. Borders. Document.
State of Egypt. Date. Borders. Document.

When and how did these modern States come into being and what process of law created them?

BTW, you are barking up the very wrong tree with your stories and metaphors. I fully support the national sovereignty of all First Nations and indigenous peoples on their ancestral territories. My position is consistent. Across all peoples, across all territories. Yes, that means the Lakota people. Yes, that means that I agree with your initial position that the Arab peoples who call themselves Palestinians are a distinct people (now) and have rights to national sovereignty in that territory. The Jewish people also have indigenous rights to national sovereignty in that territory, based on their culture and history. That's why I continue to support a two-more-states solution, even though it is becoming less and less practical in real life.

Going back to my statement about antisemitism at the UN, the subject of this thread, I see that we are stuck on my first point. You are so entrenched in your narrative about the evil of Israel, you can't even touch on facts. I'm not even asking you to evaluate facts or information provided by me. I'm giving you the opportunity to provide the facts that you use to determine your narrative.

Let's see if we can fill in the gap between, "Palestine has always existed and therefore Israel is evil".

First, glad to see you support a two-state solution. But can you not see that the current Israeli government is quickly running away from a two-state solution? The Likud party, Bibi, multiple members of the Knesset, the proclamation that only Jews have the right to self-determination, the continued expansion of the settlements. Here is the reality no one sees, the Hamas revised charter actually accepts a two-state solution, albeit begrudgingly. The current majority in Israel does not, and they have acted accordingly. The people that actually live in Israel, they see it, and they have reacted against that government, until this little fiasco. Something that makes one go "um".

And I am happy to see your support of Native Americans. I highly recommend "Wind River", a movie. It speaks volumes as to the plight those Native Americans continue to face. But I was not being facetious with that metaphor. The 1/16th bit the case in point. The current Jews that occupy Israel are no where near 1/16th genetically of the original Jewish population in the time of Moses. Almost all of them are descendants of two non-jewish females from Europe in the middle ages. The reality is that full-blooded Cherokees of the Eastern band of the Cherokee nation have far more genetic markers from the 12 tribes of Israel than they do, I would be happy to document that statement. Furthermore, the very Palestinians, you know, the people that don't exist, also have more genetic markers than the refugees from the diaspora that have returned.

The reality, Israel, a jewish majority, the promised land, it is all a damn con of the first degree. And ironically, the vast majority of the world realizes that, hence the UN resolutions. But in America, well the almighty dollar rules all, and AIPAC throws those dollars around to manipulate the people and control politicians. Nothing is going to change until we realize that.

 

[Shusha]

The current Jews that occupy Israel are no where near 1/16th genetically of the original Jewish population in the time of Moses. Almost all of them are descendants of two non-jewish females from Europe in the middle ages. The reality is that full-blooded Cherokees of the Eastern band of the Cherokee nation have far more genetic markers from the 12 tribes of Israel than they do, I would be happy to document that statement. Furthermore, the very Palestinians, you know, the people that don't exist, also have more genetic markers than the refugees from the diaspora that have returned.

I don't find "blood purity" and DNA markers useful for determining the rights of individual people or collective peoples. Worse, I find it leaning hard into colonial "not Indian enough, no status for you" and Nazi "pure race" philosophies. When used to disconnect the Jewish people from their culture, religion, history, and homeland, as you are doing here, that would make it antisemitic.

The rights of collective indigenous peoples arise from being the keepers of the culture, religion, and history of their homeland.

Almost all of them are descendants of two non-jewish females from Europe in the middle ages.

I could not possibly be more skeptical of a claim than I am of this one.

 

[Winston]

I don't find "blood purity" and DNA markers useful for determining the rights of individual people or collective peoples. Worse, I find it leaning hard into colonial "not Indian enough, no status for you" and Nazi "pure race" philosophies. When used to disconnect the Jewish people from their culture, religion, history, and homeland, as you are doing here, that would make it antisemitic.

The rights of collective indigenous peoples arise from being the keepers of the culture, religion, and history of their homeland.


I could not possibly be more skeptical of a claim than I am of this one.

Most Ashkenazi Jews are genetically Europeans, surprising study finds

www.nbcnews.com

Big Chief Rabbi: Why Cherokees could be Jewish

www.thejc.com

Learn something.

 

[Shusha]

Most Ashkenazi Jews are genetically Europeans, surprising study finds

www.nbcnews.com

Big Chief Rabbi: Why Cherokees could be Jewish

www.thejc.com

Learn something.

Sure. I am always open to looking into claims.

Now, could you kindly address my question and the remainder of my post?

 

[Winston]

Sure. I am always open to looking into claims.

Now, could you kindly address my question and the remainder of my post?

I am not sure what you want me to address. That genetic markers and DNA are not indicative of a people's right. Hell, I won't disagree, but when you claim those very markers and DNA as the foundation of your claim, then you open the door. And the evidence clearly indicates that the Jews in Israel have no right to that claim. That is what makes it a con.
Here is what I think. The promised land belongs to the Palestinians. Hell, they have the genetic markers, they have occupied the land since Roman times. The end times are not going to start until they control the promised land, The Jews, who aren't really Jews, they are the devil's spawn, and their actions demonstrate that in spades.

Here is the deal. God made a promise to Abraham. That didn't turn out so well. So God sent Christ, that didn't work out so well either. So then, he sent Mohammad. The promise didn't work out. The forgiveness didn't work out. Perhaps force is the only option left.

 

[Shusha]

I am not sure what you want me to address. That genetic markers and DNA are not indicative of a people's right. Hell, I won't disagree, but when you claim those very markers and DNA as the foundation of your claim, then you open the door. And the evidence clearly indicates that the Jews in Israel have no right to that claim. That is what makes it a con.
Here is what I think. The promised land belongs to the Palestinians. Hell, they have the genetic markers, they have occupied the land since Roman times. The end times are not going to start until they control the promised land, The Jews, who aren't really Jews, they are the devil's spawn, and their actions demonstrate that in spades.

Here is the deal. God made a promise to Abraham. That didn't turn out so well. So God sent Christ, that didn't work out so well either. So then, he sent Mohammad. The promise didn't work out. The forgiveness didn't work out. Perhaps force is the only option left.

The question of the thread was to demonstrate how the UN is antisemitic in their resolutions against Israel. The context of the discussion was: demonization, delegitimization, double standards. I offered an alternative framework: false narratives, resistance to factual information, misrepresentation of law, refusal to recognize complicity.

You have adequately shown yourself to be antisemitic. Which makes further conversation on this topic difficult. In particular, you are stuck in the false narrative.

Jews aren't "really" Jews. (Delegitimization.)
Jews are the devil's spawn. (Demonization.)
Violence is the only way to deal with the Jews. (Double standards.)

I admit, I am rather disappointed. I enjoy having discussions with people who apply rigorous intellectual standards to debate, and demand thorough and detailed investigation. People like these challenge me and improve my knowledge and understanding. I had hopes, in our initial contact, that you would be one of those people. It is discouraging that you turn out to be a run-of-the-mill antisemitic religious fanatic.

 

[Winston]

The question of the thread was to demonstrate how the UN is antisemitic in their resolutions against Israel. The context of the discussion was: demonization, delegitimization, double standards. I offered an alternative framework: false narratives, resistance to factual information, misrepresentation of law, refusal to recognize complicity.

You have adequately shown yourself to be antisemitic. Which makes further conversation on this topic difficult. In particular, you are stuck in the false narrative.

Jews aren't "really" Jews. (Delegitimization.)
Jews are the devil's spawn. (Demonization.)
Violence is the only way to deal with the Jews. (Double standards.)

I admit, I am rather disappointed. I enjoy having discussions with people who apply rigorous intellectual standards to debate, and demand thorough and detailed investigation. People like these challenge me and improve my knowledge and understanding. I had hopes, in our initial contact, that you would be one of those people. It is discouraging that you turn out to be a run-of-the-mill antisemitic religious fanatic.

You, nor anyone else for that matter, has even attempted to demonstrate how the UN's sanctions demonstrates antisemitism. The person who started the thread screams antisemitism at anything and everything, yielding it like a giant shield against any criticism of Israel.

The OP source was the American Thinker, LOL--more like the American, please don't think, we do it for you. Like this,

The U.N. recently adopted eight resolutions condemning Israel for various alleged human rights violations, yet made no condemnation of other nations or groups, including Hamas.

Completely false.

ODS HOME PAGE

Multilingual interface of the UN Official Documents System

documents-dds-ny.un.org

Resolution ES-10/21

I quote,

Condemning all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Quoting the OP,

There was not a SINGLE resolution condemning what Muslim monsters did.

The entire thread is based on an easily demonstrated false premise. Sure, maybe I should have unleashed that from the getgo, but it has been fun watching all you fools just keep digging the hole deeper. Besides, I gave you guys plenty of hints, like here.

At least one of them, the one concerning the exploitation of resources in the Golan Heights, has nothing to do with the Israeli-Hamas conflict. And your OP attacked Syria for proposing the resolution. But the Golan Heights is considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel by every flippin nation on earth EXCEPT for the US and Israel. And the US only accepted the Golan Heights as Israeli territory under the fat orange man.

But we have this from the OP American Thinker article,

The U.N.’s Second Committee, which focuses on Economic and Financial issues, announced the passage of three such resolutions, including one demanding that Israel cease the “exploitation, damage, cause of loss or depletion and endangerment” in the Golan Heights region of Syria. Huh?

Look, at first, I just couldn't believe anyone would be that ignorant. I mean the exploitation of natural resources within an occupied territory is certainly in the purview of the UN's Second Committee. And Syria, whose territory is being occupied, is the natural entity to file those resolutions. I just figured the writer was just trying to manipulate the reader. But then, when I did some digging, the flippin author of the OP article is a sportswriter who writes about the San Francisco 49ers. He really is that stupid.

Look, I don't know shit about professional football. I know even less about the San Francisco 49ers. What I do know is politics, history, and current events. I am also smart enough to stay in my lane. Eric Utter should do the same.

So now, you tell me about "false narratives", resistance to factual information, misrepresentation of law--I am going to conclude by touching on that, and refusal to recognize complicity.

I have presented factual information, clearly documented, that shows the entire thread is based on a lie. You, and others, refuse to recognize the complicity of the American Thinker, posting completely false information written by a rank amateur who knows nothing about the topic he is writing about.

But the misrepresentation of law is a big one.

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are at the core of international humanitarian law, the body of international law that regulates the conduct of armed conflict and seeks to limit its effects. They specifically protect people who are not taking part in the hostilities (civilians, health workers and aid workers) and those who are no longer participating in the hostilities, such as wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and prisoners of war. The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent or put an end to all breaches. They contain stringent rules to deal with what are known as "grave breaches".

Most importantly, you don't get a free pass from the Geneva accords if enemy combatants are hiding behind a hospital. You don't get a free pass by dropping leaflets telling people to leave, especially when you bomb the very area you are telling those people to flee to. Furthermore, you don't get a free pass if those people refuse to leave.

It is irrelevant, that Israel claims Hamas uses hospitals as command centers. But worse, there has been no demonstrable proof that has happened. Not a single doctor, nurse, health care worker, or international aid worker, has claimed as much. All of them, to the person, will tell you they never saw, nor ever knew, of such a thing.

 

[Shusha]

You, nor anyone else for that matter, has even attempted to demonstrate how the UN's sanctions demonstrates antisemitism. The person who started the thread screams antisemitism at anything and everything, yielding it like a giant shield against any criticism of Israel.

The OP source was the American Thinker, LOL--more like the American, please don't think, we do it for you. Like this,

The U.N. recently adopted eight resolutions condemning Israel for various alleged human rights violations, yet made no condemnation of other nations or groups, including Hamas.

Completely false.

ODS HOME PAGE

Multilingual interface of the UN Official Documents System

documents-dds-ny.un.org

Resolution ES-10/21

I quote,

Condemning all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Quoting the OP,

There was not a SINGLE resolution condemning what Muslim monsters did.

The entire thread is based on an easily demonstrated false premise. Sure, maybe I should have unleashed that from the getgo, but it has been fun watching all you fools just keep digging the hole deeper. Besides, I gave you guys plenty of hints, like here.

At least one of them, the one concerning the exploitation of resources in the Golan Heights, has nothing to do with the Israeli-Hamas conflict. And your OP attacked Syria for proposing the resolution. But the Golan Heights is considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel by every flippin nation on earth EXCEPT for the US and Israel. And the US only accepted the Golan Heights as Israeli territory under the fat orange man.

But we have this from the OP American Thinker article,

The U.N.’s Second Committee, which focuses on Economic and Financial issues, announced the passage of three such resolutions, including one demanding that Israel cease the “exploitation, damage, cause of loss or depletion and endangerment” in the Golan Heights region of Syria. Huh?

Look, at first, I just couldn't believe anyone would be that ignorant. I mean the exploitation of natural resources within an occupied territory is certainly in the purview of the UN's Second Committee. And Syria, whose territory is being occupied, is the natural entity to file those resolutions. I just figured the writer was just trying to manipulate the reader. But then, when I did some digging, the flippin author of the OP article is a sportswriter who writes about the San Francisco 49ers. He really is that stupid.

Look, I don't know shit about professional football. I know even less about the San Francisco 49ers. What I do know is politics, history, and current events. I am also smart enough to stay in my lane. Eric Utter should do the same.

So now, you tell me about "false narratives", resistance to factual information, misrepresentation of law--I am going to conclude by touching on that, and refusal to recognize complicity.

I have presented factual information, clearly documented, that shows the entire thread is based on a lie. You, and others, refuse to recognize the complicity of the American Thinker, posting completely false information written by a rank amateur who knows nothing about the topic he is writing about.

Look, I'll make the whole Syria thing easy. The Golan Heights is sovereign Syrian territory. There is no other correct legal position to take. The only question is whether Israel can legally annex it with a claim to Syrian belligerence and a need for security. None of this is relevant, as it is a totally separate question, not relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or, in my opinion, to the UN's antisemitism.

 

[Shusha]

But the misrepresentation of law is a big one. ...

Most importantly, you don't get a free pass from the Geneva accords if enemy combatants are hiding behind a hospital. You don't get a free pass by dropping leaflets telling people to leave, especially when you bomb the very area you are telling those people to flee to. Furthermore, you don't get a free pass if those people refuse to leave.

Geneva Convention IV Article 19
The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Hospitals, which are being used for the purpose of committing acts of harm, lose their protected status. It is that simple. To claim otherwise would be misrepresenting the law. Thank you for bringing up such a clear and relevant example.

 

[Winston]

Look, I'll make the whole Syria thing easy. The Golan Heights is sovereign Syrian territory. There is no other correct legal position to take. The only question is whether Israel can legally annex it with a claim to Syrian belligerence and a need for security. None of this is relevant, as it is a totally separate question, not relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or, in my opinion, to the UN's antisemitism.

Then why was that the only resolution specifically mentioned in the OP? I mean I will ask again, just what "proof" has anyone offered to support the allegation, that the UN is antisemitic. The only thing that has been posted is a bullshit article, written by a sportswriter, in the American Thinker, thats entire premise is based on a fasle allegation. The entire article is based on accusations made by UN Watch, an organization that is completely owned and controlled by the American Jewish committee. It is comically inept.

 

[Winston]

Geneva Convention IV Article 19
The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Hospitals, which are being used for the purpose of committing acts of harm, lose their protected status. It is that simple. To claim otherwise would be misrepresenting the law. Thank you for bringing up such a clear and relevant example.

I will ask again, where is the "proof", that Hamas used any of the medical facilities that have been part of the 152 documented cases of attacks against medical facilities in the Gaza Strip? Furthermore, where and when were the "warnings" required by international law that you have quoted?

Hell, it makes no sense. Hamas has stated that they have not used those medical facilities for military purposes, indicating in that statement that it would not have been beneficial for them to do so. I mean think about it for a moment. You're a doctor, a nurse, or hell, a janitor, working at one of those facilities. Would you continue to work there if you knew Hamas was staging military operations from the facility, knowing full well that would eliminate the protective status? How the hell did they keep the facilities staffed?

The whole thing, and this whole thread, is a shit show. Not one doctor, not one nurse, not one FLIPPIN JANITOR, has came forward to support the Israeli allegation of the military use of any, ANY, medical facility within the Gaza Strip. The only proof that has been provided is some obviously staged, poor ass photos, provided by the IDF, that are so inept they have removed them from the posting.

 

[Shusha]

I will ask again, where is the "proof", that Hamas used any of the medical facilities that have been part of the 152 documented cases of attacks against medical facilities in the Gaza Strip? Furthermore, where and when were the "warnings" required by international law that you have quoted?

Hell, it makes no sense. Hamas has stated that they have not used those medical facilities for military purposes, indicating in that statement that it would not have been beneficial for them to do so. I mean think about it for a moment. You're a doctor, a nurse, or hell, a janitor, working at one of those facilities. Would you continue to work there if you knew Hamas was staging military operations from the facility, knowing full well that would eliminate the protective status? How the hell did they keep the facilities staffed?

The whole thing, and this whole thread, is a shit show. Not one doctor, not one nurse, not one FLIPPIN JANITOR, has came forward to support the Israeli allegation of the military use of any, ANY, medical facility within the Gaza Strip. The only proof that has been provided is some obviously staged, poor ass photos, provided by the IDF, that are so inept they have removed them from the posting.

Well, proof is entirely a separate issue. (Though denial of demonstrable reality is also a marker of antisemitism).

The point I was making was the misrepresentation of law which you presented about the protected status of hospitals. This same misrepresentation of law was repeated in the UN by the UN Chief Guterres.