« Sometimes, Failure Is Good | Main | The RINO in the room »

UN Chief Expresses Outrage Over UN Compound Bombing

UN leader Ban Ki Moon has condemned Israel for it's bombing of a U.N. aid compound in Gaza, as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the strike a "grave mistake".

Ban has called several times for an immediate ceasefire between the Nation of Hamas and Israel, mostly condemning Israeli for "disproportionate" attacks.

Perhaps if Mr. Ban had to live under a constant barrage of missile attacks, he'd be a bit more sympathetic to the Israeli cause.

He should recall, while in Iraq to meet with President Malki, the explosion which rocked his press conference, in which Mr. Ban almost soiled himself, and wonder if he could live with such terrorist attacks like that which Israel endures on a daily basis.

No word yet on whether Mr. Ban will condemn the actions of his "Peacekeepers" raping women in eastern Congo


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/33970.

Comments (35)

Look, it's a UN compound, a... (Below threshold)
James H:

Look, it's a UN compound, and he's the UN Secretary General. I'm not terribly sympathetic to general declarations that Israel shouldn't do X, Y, or Z, but I think he's certainly within his rights to make a stink about his own compound getting bombed.

The building was hit by a s... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

The building was hit by a shell. According to reports Israel was taking fire from that position and responded. Now if UN is allowing HAMAS to fire rockets in the vicinity of their buildings then they are endangering themselves. This is a problem in Gaza where Hamas likes to take up positions near targets that Israel will receive condemnation if they are hit. Looks like Israel needs some more snipers and operators in Gaza. A few double taps could help reduce collateral damage.

I won't call you a "dangero... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I won't call you a "dangerously stupid person", Shawn, but I do have a couple of quibbles.
"Perhaps if Mr. Ban had to live under a constant barrage of missile attacks, he'd be a little more sympathetic to the Israeli cause." And perhaps if you were a young Palestinian man imprisoned and blockaded in Gaza the last couple of years,or had ever talked to one, you'd have a little sympathy for the Hamas position.
"...the explosion which rocked his press conference, in which Mr. Ban almost soiled himself..." This is made up. You have NO IDEA whether or not Ban "almost soiled himself." This is just schoolyard-bully taunting, and you should be ashamed of yourself for writing it.

Now if we could only get th... (Below threshold)
Mike B.:

Now if we could only get them to target the U.N. in NYC!

In case anyone thinks the l... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

In case anyone thinks the latter part of my first comment was mere hyperbole, I refer you to comment #5.

Hey, 9/11 was over seven years ago--I guess conservative America's fake honeymoon with New York City has finally come to a close. More dead liberals! More dead foreign bureaucrats!

Mike B., you're also a dangerously stupid person. Thank Shiva you morons are a statistically irrelevant minority.

Hey, what do you know, the ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hey, what do you know, the UN compound is the headquarters for humanitarian aid in Gaza. The Israeli army is well aware of that, and now they've set tons of food and aid on fire. They've also attacked a hospital and the Reuters and AP offices today.

Perhaps if Mr. Ban had to live under a constant barrage of missile attacks, he'd be a bit more sympathetic to the Israeli cause.

Learn the difference between a missile and a rocket, you twit. But you're right, we should be sympathetic. When are the Gazans going to just give up fighting and die of starvation already? The Israelis are tired of waiting.

Mantis:You were ha... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Mantis:

You were half right... "When are the Gazans going to just give up fighting and die of starvation already?"

They give up fighting - and they get what they need to survive. It's that simple.

They're not going to get it by lobbing rockets over the border, they're not going to get it through suicide bombers. They're not even observing the 3-hour a day cease-fire so aid can get in. They're ripping up their own sewer pipes to make rockets - and bitching because Israel won't allow replacement piping to be brought in so the sewage can be taken care of. (Like it's going to be fixed, instead of the pipes being used to make more rockets...)

Just WHY are we supposed to be sorry or sympathetic for such suicidal behavior?

The Palestinian people are between a rock and a hard place. Their own societal pride depends on Israel being destroyed - and Hamas will gladly ruin the entire area in order to gain any sort of advantage. The only people willing to let the Palestinians hang around ARE the Israelis - they've already managed to get themselves kicked out of Jordan, and Egypt wants nothing to do with them.

Now, why would that be?

Fire from the UN compound? Sure - why not? If the Israelis don't attack, they can keep firing. If the Israelis DO respond - they're firing on the UN, man! Doesn't that show just how eEvil those jooos are?

There could be peace in Gaza - but Hamas doesn't want it. Hamas could end the entire battle today - but it would require them to accept Israel isn't going away. And that would bring their entire societal structure and the core beliefs they've built their psychotic mass of suicidally masochistic zealots on into question.

eEvil jooos are" Could you... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

eEvil jooos are" Could you give that particular piece of rhetoric a rest, Jay. It was neither funny nor insightful the first time. By now it's getting tedious.

"And that would bring their entire societal structure and the core beliefs they've built their psychotic mass of suicidally masochistic zealots on into question."

And while you're at it - Calm down and slow down. Then you won't try to jam all your thoughts into one big steaming bowl of word soup.

hyper - "If the IDF can... (Below threshold)
Marc:

hyper - "If the IDF can't operate in such a way as to avoid "mistakes" like this one, then maybe they should replace their entire command hierarchy with decent human beings."

"Nice" scare quotes, are we to interpret that to mean you think is was done intentionally? If so, prove it.

That aside, name a single military conflict in history where innocent civilians or buildings not meant to be targeted weren't hit.

Wart is an ugly thing and as they say; Shit happens.

Like United Nations agencies employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools.

Or when Hamas uses ambulances, complete with UN decals, to maximize the perception Israel will hit any and everything regardless of it's legitimacy. (when will the Secretary General call that a "war crime?")

I mean it was done careless... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I mean it was done carelessly, Marc, and when one does something through carelessness, not malice, we still hold them morally accountable. Greater care should be taken not to kill innocent people, than to kill the guilty ones. Cowards disagree and argue that expedience or "security" trumps honourable conduct.

Hamas doing shitty things does not exempt the IDF from striving to be decent. While nearly everyone agrees that Hamas are to blame for the recent conflict, it's hard to find anyone outside the wankosphere who thinks the Israeli military has executed its mission judiciously.

Oh, and JLawson, I have to ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Oh, and JLawson, I have to echo Dave here: when you insist on conflating Israeli with Jew, the only thing this shows is your failure to understand either of the words.

Hyper, it is good to see yo... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper, it is good to see you take the usual liberal road of demeaning and dismissing a poster or commenter. So mature is my canadian friend. Oh! Talk about tedious, how about the "irrelavent conservative minority" that is getting old.

I would like to see the lefties just once condemn the terrorists alone. ww

If they were taking fire fr... (Below threshold)
Brett:

If they were taking fire from the UN compound, it is a perfectly legitimate target. Obviously I don't know one way or another if that was so. But it's perfectly consistent with terrorist tactics and past experience that they locate their assets near schools/hospitals/UN compounds/ Certainly the UN has been perfectly willing to allow that in the past. Those sort of decisions have consequences.

hyper - "I mean it was ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

hyper - "I mean it was done carelessly, Marc,"

And as stated in the post Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the strike a "grave mistake".

As I said, shit happens.

Dave:Not my fault ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Dave:

Not my fault you can't follow any post longer than 50 words. Perhaps the Nickelodeon message boards would be more suitable to your limitations?

But to make things a bit easier for you - Hamas and the Palestinians haven't learned anything in the last 50 years. And they won't change. The Palestinian people voted into office a group that essentially guarantees they'd be destroyed. They destroy the things they're given to attack the state that gave them the things in the first place.

I really don't see why I should have any sympathy for them at all - much less support them in any fashion.

Oh, too many words again. Sorry for hurting your brain.

Hypie:"the only th... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hypie:

"the only thing this shows is your failure to understand either of the words."

Only thing it really shows is your inability to comprehend sarcasm and ridicule. (That you don't generate yourself, that is...)

Which is, oddly enough... well...

Willie: so it's not enough ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Willie: so it's not enough for you that I state--clearly--that Hamas is responsible for the conflict? I'm sorry, I thought it went without saying that firing rockets into populated areas was a Very Bad Thing.

It speaks volumes about you that you never think to hold the good guys to a higher standard of conduct--that not being terrorists somehow makes the actions of Israel beyond reproach. Having an attitude like that means you are no longer one of the good guys. You're a moral relativist, willing to excuse someone's actions by virtue of the flag they choose to salute.

By the way, there's a comment thread dedicated to you. It would be great for you to sprinkle some of your wisdom over there. Otherwise, your silence will be taken as tacit acknowledgement of the sort of person people take you to be.

JLawson: so can we assume that you finally grasp the distinction between Jew and Israeli?

Sorry, JL, that was cross-p... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Sorry, JL, that was cross-posted.

I don't see how it's sarcasm, though. Anyway, doesn't matter. Israeli does not equal Jew; criticizing the IDF is not anti-Semitism; we both understand that; the issue is moot.

Hypie -<a href="ht... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hypie -

Bit dense today, perhaps?

Pity, that...

Marc -That asid... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Marc -

That aside, name a single military conflict in history where innocent civilians or buildings not meant to be targeted weren't hit.

Hasn't been one yet. At best, we can try to minimize casualties - and the Iraq war (before the 'insurgents' decided the best way to get us out was to slaughter Iraqi civilians wholesale) was about as good as it got. We could have carpet-bombed the cities, as in WW2, and reduced the population in Iraq by half - but by going for the command and control structure and using advanced weaponry we avoided a lot of what would have been 'normal' casualties and made the rebuilding much easier. (We won't even talk about OUR historically low losses.)

Like United Nations agencies employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools.

Or when Hamas uses ambulances, complete with UN decals, to maximize the perception Israel will hit any and everything regardless of it's legitimacy. (when will the Secretary General call that a "war crime?")

Somewhere between 'never' and 'the end of the universe', I'm sure. As soon as they can pencil it in. Because they've been a bit... busy.

Iran Wields The Gavel At The UNDP - Forbes.com
.
To chair the 2009 governing board of the U.N.'s flagship agency, the multibillion-dollar globe-girdling United Nations Development Program, dedicated to promoting good governance and ending poverty, the U.N. has now picked--wait for it--the Islamic Republic of Iran.
At one time I thought the UN had a clue - but now? What sense does that make?

Dang. Or when ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Dang.

Or when Hamas uses ambulances, complete with UN decals, to maximize the perception Israel will hit any and everything regardless of it's legitimacy. (when will the Secretary General call that a "war crime?")

Sorry about that - it was italicized in the preview!

jlawson - "At best, we ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jlawson - "At best, we can try to minimize casualties - and the Iraq war (before the 'insurgents' decided the best way to get us out was to slaughter Iraqi civilians wholesale) was about as good as it got.

Exactly, and as a "moonbat head exploder" I'd suggest they buy NGC's DVD Shock and Awe that details just how precise the planning and ultimate carrying out those plans were during the early stages of Iraqi Freedom.

And perhaps if yo... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
And perhaps if you were a young Palestinian man imprisoned and blockaded in Gaza the last couple of years,or had ever talked to one, you'd have a little sympathy for the Hamas position.
1. Israel gives them land. 2. Israel provides them with green houses to grow food 3. Israel allows workers to cross into Israel

In return they elect a group that does not believe that any type of peaceful negation with Christians and Jews is possible. They believe in the destruction of the state of Israel at all cost.
They destroy the green houses. They cross into Israel to do suicide bombings. The build tunnels to care in weapons. So in an reasonable response Israel cracks down on the borders.

So with limited movement they launch missiles into Israel. So no one, if their government cares more about killing JEWS than helping them so be it.
The Palestinians have a choice. 1 Have HAMAS renounce their charter. 2 Kick Hamas out of the government. 3. Die in Gaza.

if i were Israel, i would d... (Below threshold)
kepa poalima:

if i were Israel, i would demand that the UN investigate how and why the UN allows hamas to use UN buildings as forward firing positions. don't be defensive, take the offense, put the UN on the defensive

"Not my fault you can't fol... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

"Not my fault you can't follow any post longer than 50 words. "

Yeah, but not 50 words in one sentence. People who try to sound smart write long discursive sentences.

And see - You can write comprehensible English.
Your second paragraph proves it.

For the record, I have no sympathy for Hamas. But I do have sympathy for the innocent Palestinian civilians caught in the cross-fire.
I have this bleeding heart thing about maiming and burning women and children in the name of your sovereignty. Approximately 1000 Palestinians have died in this invasion so far,
a substantial percentage of whom are civlians.
The corresponding number of Isrealis is 13, 3 of whom are civlians. The Israeli response to Hamas' provocations is the collective punishment of the Gazan people.

Well maybe I could muster u... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Well maybe I could muster up more sympathy for the "innocent" Palestinians if only they hadn't ELECTED Hamas as their government. Hamas is just doing the will of the people. The only one's I pity are the Palestinian children who don't have control over their government and are brainwashed in school to hate Israeli's.

# 23:Hamas was elect... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

# 23:
Hamas was elected by the Palestinians largely in reaction to years of incompetence and corruption by Fatah, not because the average Palestinian wanted a "terrorist" government. Hamas was seen as more honest and competent than Abbas's party. Instead of trying to work with the duly-elected government, the US, the EU, and Israel tried immediately to marginalize it and deny it the authority the election had bestowed upon it. Punitive measures were taken which have contributed to this current situation.
Oh, and "Israel gives them land." Wh-aat? Whose land was it for Thirteen Hundred Freaking Years?

BruceYes work with... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Bruce

Yes work with a Islamic Resistance Movement." who states

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.

I am sure the German People were very nice but they voted in Government provoked a war and their cities were bombed because of it. The NAZI were a scourge and need to be eliminated. Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood which were NAZI supporters.


The people in Gaza either get rid of Hamas, Hamas changes or Israel destroys HAMAS.

The last owner of the Land was Israel under which the land was fertile and profitable. They turn it over to and Hamas use it launch attacks and destroy aspects of it profitability.

I think what will happen is... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I think what will happen is "Hamas changes." Just as Fatah did. Next most likely is "people in Gaza get rid of Hamas." Israel will NEVER EVER eradicate Palestinian resistance by violent means. It's like the Hatfields and McCoys. It doesn't matter who was in the right 60 years ago. Every action will spark a reaction, and the violence will never end until somebody makes it end.

Bruce Henry:"Whose... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Bruce Henry:

"Whose land was it for Thirteen Hundred Freaking Years?"

Pretty much nobody's. No actual tribes were permanently settled there, there were nomadic groups that passed through. The boundary lines weren't exactly fixed. The Brits annexed it, and in 1917 had the Balfour declaration that 'Palestine' would be a Jewish homeland.

It wasn't much. Nothing in the way of resources. No oil, not much water, good bit of dry territory and sand. Mark Twain called it a "..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)

But he may have been exaggerating for effect. ;)

In 1922, the League of Nations confirmed the existance of 'Palestine' - The UN confirmed it in 1947, because the Brits were tired of mediating the pissing contests between the Jews and the Arabs (AND the Brits), so they let the UN handle things.

Israel declared independence, and the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 was on. In 1949 - the UN admitted Israel - thereby confirming (more or less) their existance as a soveriegn state.

Dave Noble...About... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Dave Noble...

About all I can say about your critique is, again - this. Don't like the way I write? I'm not holding your eyeballs or fingers hostage. Feel free to not bother to reply, and have a nice day!

Take it easy there, Jay. D... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Take it easy there, Jay. Don't get your feathers all ruffled.

Now re: substance rather than style.

"Whose land was it? . . .

Pretty much nobody's. No actual tribes were permanently settled there, there were nomadic groups that passed through. The boundary lines weren't exactly fixed. The Brits annexed it, and in 1917 had the Balfour declaration that 'Palestine' would be a Jewish homeland."

That's interesting. That's exactly what we said about the Native Americans. They were nomads they didn't really own the land so it was the White Man's for the taking. But it's estimated that in the fifteenth century there were up to 15 million native inhabitants in the United States. By 1910 there were 200,000.
They were conquered by a technologically superior culture.

The same thing happened in Palestine. The early Israelis were Jews, yes, but they were also predominantly Europeans. I commend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond to your review. It's explains a lot about world history.

I don't want to get in an argument about the legitimacy of conquest as a legal theory of property rights. We're not going to go away and give the United States back to the Native Americans and the Israelis are not going to go away and give Israel back to the Palestinians.
But your one-sided view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its inherent legitimacies is overly-simplistic. In that view Israel wins every argument about justice. That view stands in the way of peace in the Middle East, as much as the perverse idealogy of Hamas.

Comment # 33 hits it pretty... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Comment # 33 hits it pretty much on the head. In the 19th Century, when modern Zionism began, conventional wisdom had it that the "superior" Europeans (British, French, Belgians, and yes, Jews) had the right to "colonize" lands that they coveted. Indeed, they even had the DUTY to bring civilisation to those benighted heathens.
Nowadays, benighted heathens don't just accept that. Guess what, they never did!
Of course Israel is here to stay, but to refuse to see the Middle East from any other viewpoint than the Israeli is to forever misread the situation.

They don't like history eit... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

They don't like history either it seems.

And the UN is the single mo... (Below threshold)
Spurwing Plover:

And the UN is the single most supporter of terrorists how many terrorists are hiding there anyway?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy