Hamas and the UN's apparent bias

[icehorse]

To be clear, I think the Israel / Palestine impasse is incredibly complex. I'm mostly suspicious of claims that it's simple - in either direction.

With that said:

In 2005 thousands of Jews unilaterally left Gaza and turned Gaza over to the Palestinians. At that point, Gaza was a decent place to live.

Between 2005 and now, Gazans have received - let's say - $20 billion dollars in aid from around the world. They were supposed to use that money to build infrastructure (dig wells and build schools and houses and hospitals and such), to buy food and so on. You know, humanitarian stuff. I've added a link below that enumerates over $10 billion in aid over the last 10 years for so, so my $20 billion is an extrapolation, but probably conservative.

Now the world has known for almost the entire period since 2005 that most of these aid dollars have NOT gone for humanitarian purposes. E.g., the fact that Hamas was building tunnels was the worst kept secret in the world. And during this period the UN has issued a steady stream of resolutions condemning Israel, hundreds of resolutions.

So my question is this: For the last 18 years, why has the UN looked the other way when it comes to Hamas's monumental misuse of aid dollars? The UN could have issued resolutions condemning Hamas. It's possible that peacekeeping forces could have been sent to Gaza. Crickets.

Why?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why?

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7041H2/

Excerpted...

Israel said would keep Gaza near collapse - Wikileaks​

Reuters
January 5, 20115:20 AM ESTUpdated 13 years ago

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel told U.S. officials in 2008 it would keep Gaza's economy "on the brink of collapse" while avoiding a humanitarian crisis, according to U.S. diplomatic cables published by a Norwegian daily on Wednesday.
Three cables cited by the Aftenposten newspaper, which has said it has all 250,000 U.S. cables leaked to WikiLeaks, showed that Israel kept the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv briefed on its internationally criticised blockade of the Gaza Strip.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In 2005 thousands of Jews unilaterally left Gaza and turned Gaza over to the Palestinians. At that point, Gaza was a decent place to live.

Please carefully read, and then reread, Israeli disengagement from Gaza.

 

[icehorse]

Please carefully read, and then reread, Israeli disengagement from Gaza.

Given that I was giving a brief summary, what points important to the OP did I misconstrue?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please carefully read, and then reread, Israeli disengagement from Gaza.

Given that I was giving a brief summary, what points important to the OP did I misconstrue?

Should I assume from this response that you chose not to read the linked entry?

 

[icehorse]

Should I assume from this response that you chose not to read the linked entry?

I read it. And I've been trying to guess what point you want me to see. My first guess is that I underplayed how gut wrenching it was for these Israeli families to be uprooted and leave their homes?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My first guess is that I underplayed how gut wrenching it was for these Israeli families to be uprooted and leave their homes?

I was in Jerusalem when people on the street were arguing the pros and cons of disengagement. It has become a favorite talking point of Israeli hawks, e.g.

'We gave it to them and look how they repaid us ...'​

​

But give a bit more thought to the subsection Aftermath, the one that begins:

The year of the disengagement would see the removal of 8,475 settlers from Gaza, while in that same year the number of new settlers in the West Bank increased by 15,000.[78] Political economist Sara Roy describes the disengagement from Gaza as completing the separation and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank. She describes the period before the disengagement as a period of increasing dependence on the Israeli economy and that of the West Bank, while the period after the disengagement is characterized by economic, social and political isolation of Gaza. She describes the disengagement as normalizing the occupation in the eyes of the international community, despite the expansion of the occupation and the lack of any "safe passage" between Gaza and the West Bank.[79]​

And to what effect? That of effectively transforming Gaza into a dysfunctional Bantistan.

Also worth noting note the following two excerpts addressing the 2006 Palestinian legislative election ...

1. An exit poll conducted by Near East Consulting on 15 February 2006 on voters participating in the 2006 PA elections revealed the following responses to major concerns:
   
   Support for a Peace Agreement with Israel: 79.5% in support; 15.5% in oppositionShould Hamas change its policies regarding Israel: Yes – 75.2%; No – 24.8%Under Hamas corruption will decrease: Yes – 78.1%; No – 21.9%Under Hamas internal security will improve: Yes – 67.8%; No – 32.2%Hamas government priorities: 1) Combatting corruption; 2) Ending security chaos; 3) Solving poverty/unemploymentSupport for Hamas' impact on the national interest: Positive – 66.7&; Negative - 28.5%Support for a national unity government?: Yes – 81.4%; no – 18.6%Rejection of Fatah's decision not to join a national unity government: Yes – 72.5%; No – 27.5%Satisfaction with election results: 64.2% satisfied; 35.8% dissatisfied[43]
   World Public Opinion summarised the election voting drivers as follows:
   
   

   The decisive victory of the militant Islamic group Hamas in last month's Palestinian legislative elections (winning 74 of 132 parliamentary seats) has raised the question of whether the Palestinian public has become aligned with Hamas' rejection of Israel's right to exist and its stated goal of creating an Islamic state covering all of historic Palestine, including what is now Israel. Hamas has come under increasing pressure to renounce its goal of eliminating Israel, but Hamas leaders have refused.

   However, new polling following the election indicated that two-thirds of Palestinians believed Hamas should change its policy of rejecting Israel's right to exist. Most also supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Post-election polls indicated that Hamas' victory was due largely to Palestinians' desire to end corruption in government rather than support for the organization's political platform.
2. In April 2008 Vanity Fair published "The Gaza Bombshell":
   
   

   There is no one more hated among Hamas members than Muhammad Dahlan, long Fatah's resident strongman in Gaza. Dahlan, who most recently served as Abbas's national-security adviser, has spent more than a decade battling Hamas. ... Bush has met Dahlan on at least three occasions. After talks at the White House in July 2003, Bush publicly praised Dahlan as "a good, solid leader." In private, say multiple Israeli and American officials, the U.S. president described him as "our guy."
   Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)
   Some sources call the scheme "Iran-contra 2.0," recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.'s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.[66]

It is a dismal history of failure upon failure all in defense of an occupation.

 

[Koldo]

In 2005 thousands of Jews unilaterally left Gaza and turned Gaza over to the Palestinians. At that point, Gaza was a decent place to live.

How did you reach the conclusion that Gaza was a decent place to live at that point?

 

[icehorse]

How did you reach the conclusion that Gaza was a decent place to live at that point?

Because thousands of Jews who lived there did not want to leave. Given that they were free to relocate, it's hard to imagine it was the "open air prison" that so many pro-Palestinian folks keep saying it is now.

In other words, in the 18 or 19 intervening years, despite receiving BILLIONS of aid dollars, the residents of Gaza have driven it into the ground. Either that, or it wasn't the horrible place the pro-Palestinians would have us believe.

 

[Koldo]

Because thousands of Jews who lived there did not want to leave. Given that they were free to relocate, it's hard to imagine it was the "open air prison" that so many pro-Palestinian folks keep saying it is now.

In other words, in the 18 or 19 intervening years, despite receiving BILLIONS of aid dollars, the residents of Gaza have driven it into the ground. Either that, or it wasn't the horrible place the pro-Palestinians would have us believe.

I have absolutely no idea on what connection you see between any of this and claiming that Gaza was a decent place to live at 2005.

 

[Yerda]

Because thousands of Jews who lived there did not want to leave. Given that they were free to relocate, it's hard to imagine it was the "open air prison" that so many pro-Palestinian folks keep saying it is now.

The Jews in the settlements?

In other words, in the 18 or 19 intervening years, despite receiving BILLIONS of aid dollars, the residents of Gaza have driven it into the ground. Either that, or it wasn't the horrible place the pro-Palestinians would have us believe.

Have you ever listened to Gazans speak of their experience of living there?

Is it because they are Muslim that you are afraid to acknowledge their suffering?

 

[icehorse]

I have absolutely no idea on what connection you see between any of this and claiming that Gaza was a decent place to live at 2005.

Hmmm, now I'm confused. Why would thousands of Jews willingly live there if it was horrible, and why were they loath to leave?

 

[icehorse]

The Jews in the settlements?

We're talking specifically about the thousands of Jews who were living in Gaza prior to 2005, when the Israeli government forced them to leave Gaza.

Have you ever listened to Gazans speak of their experience of living there?

Is it because they are Muslim that you are afraid to acknowledge their suffering?

The point is that in the 18 or 19 years Palestinians have been on their own in Gaza, receiving TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars in aid from around the world, they still managed to turn the place into a hell hole. I'm under no illusion prior to Oct 7th, Gaza had a lot of problems. But the question is why? They were handed a decent place and TENS of BILLIONS of dollars in aid, why did it go to ****?

 

[Koldo]

Hmmm, now I'm confused. Why would thousands of Jews willingly live there if it was horrible, and why were they loath to leave?

Perhaps because living in israeli settlements was quite a distinct experience compared to living outside the settlements?

 

[InChrist]

To be clear, I think the Israel / Palestine impasse is incredibly complex. I'm mostly suspicious of claims that it's simple - in either direction.

With that said:

In 2005 thousands of Jews unilaterally left Gaza and turned Gaza over to the Palestinians. At that point, Gaza was a decent place to live.

Between 2005 and now, Gazans have received - let's say - $20 billion dollars in aid from around the world. They were supposed to use that money to build infrastructure (dig wells and build schools and houses and hospitals and such), to buy food and so on. You know, humanitarian stuff. I've added a link below that enumerates over $10 billion in aid over the last 10 years for so, so my $20 billion is an extrapolation, but probably conservative.

Now the world has known for almost the entire period since 2005 that most of these aid dollars have NOT gone for humanitarian purposes. E.g., the fact that Hamas was building tunnels was the worst kept secret in the world. And during this period the UN has issued a steady stream of resolutions condemning Israel, hundreds of resolutions.

So my question is this: For the last 18 years, why has the UN looked the other way when it comes to Hamas's monumental misuse of aid dollars? The UN could have issued resolutions condemning Hamas. It's possible that peacekeeping forces could have been sent to Gaza. Crickets.

Why?

Israel has been a member of the UN for over 50 years. Yet, Israel has never been allowed to take a two year term as one of the rotating nations on the UN Security Council. Some of the worst countries with human rights violations, as Libya, Cuba, and Zimbabwe have been allowed to take their turns on the Security Council, but not Israel. Neither has Israel been allowed to take a rotating turn on the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNHRC). Nations with clear egregious violations of human rights have been allowed, but not Israel. Even Sudan, where more than 2 million Blacks were slaughtered by Muslims was voted into the council. Yet, Israel the only democratic nation in the Middle East is excluded. The United Nations has consistently taken a stand with Arab nations, even terrorists against Israel.

So my answer to the question, “Why?”

Antisemitism. I don’t care if anyone is tired of hearing it, don’t want to acknowledge it, or attempt to twist it and put the blame on Israel. I think there is an ongoing hatred against Israel.

 

[Yerda]

We're talking specifically about the thousands of Jews who were living in Gaza prior to 2005, when the Israeli government forced them to leave Gaza.

They dismantled the settlements. I don't think they made it illegal for Jews to live in Gaza.

If you're question is why didn't the people living in the settlements want the settlements dismantled, I guess that kinda answers itself, no?

The point is that in the 18 or 19 years Palestinians have been on their own in Gaza, receiving TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars in aid from around the world, they still managed to turn the place into a hell hole. I'm under no illusion prior to Oct 7th, Gaza had a lot of problems. But the question is why? They were handed a decent place and TENS of BILLIONS of dollars in aid, why did it go to ****?

Mostly gets spent building homes and infrastructure, health care, water projects and supporting the constant refugee population. Which makes sense when you think about the nature of the place.

Israel bombs it every few years, which means that they need teams of people to clear the rubble, construction projects for new homes, hospitals, etc. They live under constant economic embargo and complete blockade when Israel feels like it, so people lose work and go hungry periodically. Unemployement of 25% is not unusual.

I'm sure Hamas wastes funds on things like tunnels and rockets and so on. But most of the aid is spent keeping the people alive and housed.

 

[icehorse]

They dismantled the settlements. I don't think they made it illegal for Jews to live in Gaza.

If you're question is why didn't the people living in the settlements want the settlements dismantled, I guess that kinda answers itself, no?


Mostly gets spent building homes and infrastructure, health care, water projects and supporting the constant refugee population. Which makes sense when you think about the nature of the place.

Israel bombs it every few years, which means that they need teams of people to clear the rubble, construction projects for new homes, hospitals, etc. They live under constant economic embargo and complete blockade when Israel feels like it, so people lose work and go hungry periodically. Unemployement of 25% is not unusual.

I'm sure Hamas wastes funds on things like tunnels and rockets and so on. But most of the aid is spent keeping the people alive and housed.

You ought to at least quickly skim the previous posts in the thread, thanks.