“Ottawa agrees that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territories.”
…then get a back bone and vote for the motion.
Krazee9 on
Did nobody check this headline before publishing it? The motion was for Israel to end *their* presence *in* Gaza and the West Bank, but the way this headline’s worded it’s as if the motion asked for Israel to glass the entirety of Palestine out of existence. Seriously, it’s one word, “in” instead of “of.” What does Global pay their editors for? They’re the ones who are supposed to catch these things.
Edit:
I checked other news sources once I saw that this was a Canadian Press article, and I’m seeing them report the headline as “end occupation of” instead of “end presence of,” so this looks like Global might have some kind of policy against calling it an “occupation,” and had something, like, auto-replace the word “occupation” with “presence” and nobody bothered to check it.
Laffs on
Should have voted against it. This motion calls for Israel to unilaterally pull out without even asking Hamas to stop attacking Israel.
Ok_Currency_617 on
Smart, don’t get involved.
eastvanarchy on
absolute cowardice
JohnDeft on
A tiny book makes the pen look bigger. Also, should edit the motion to stop everyone from attacking Israel. just saying.
I_poop_rootbeer on
I think Hamas permanently fucking off should be a condition for Israel leavingÂ
publicworker69 on
Israel left Gaza in 2005? I wonder why they went in?
TheHeavyD21 on
I believe this needs to end but how hard would it really have been to throw something in asking for the hostages back and for Hamas to also cease activities going forward?Â
xemprah on
Well well well. Lol
Gh0stOfKiev on
Canada compliant with genocide
We said Never Again
PoliteCanadian on
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and had plans to execute a similar withdrawal from the West Bank by the end of the decade.
Those latter plans were torn up after Hamas used the opportunity to take over Gaza and launch a new war on Israel.
These kinds of motions are irrelevant. Israel will never agree until someone provides meaningful security guarantees. That could mean Gaza and the West Bank end up occupied by UN peacekeepers. But we’ve seen how **completely useless** UN peacekeepers have been in Lebanon, completely failing to enforce security council resolution 1701. The history of UN engagement in this conflict has been resolutions are written, Israel complies, and everybody else violates it without consequences.
So why would Israel accept any such motion? It’s pure sophistry. They need security guarantees and the international community has proven itself to be completely faithless when it comes to enforcing any such guarantees.
Wandering-AroundI on
Regarldess of whether you’re pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, or in the middle. What is the point of all those motions? The article literally said “non-binding”. It seems that most UN motions are just that, non-binding and meaningless motions.
13 Comments
“Ottawa agrees that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territories.”
…then get a back bone and vote for the motion.
Did nobody check this headline before publishing it? The motion was for Israel to end *their* presence *in* Gaza and the West Bank, but the way this headline’s worded it’s as if the motion asked for Israel to glass the entirety of Palestine out of existence. Seriously, it’s one word, “in” instead of “of.” What does Global pay their editors for? They’re the ones who are supposed to catch these things.
Edit:
I checked other news sources once I saw that this was a Canadian Press article, and I’m seeing them report the headline as “end occupation of” instead of “end presence of,” so this looks like Global might have some kind of policy against calling it an “occupation,” and had something, like, auto-replace the word “occupation” with “presence” and nobody bothered to check it.
Should have voted against it. This motion calls for Israel to unilaterally pull out without even asking Hamas to stop attacking Israel.
Smart, don’t get involved.
absolute cowardice
A tiny book makes the pen look bigger. Also, should edit the motion to stop everyone from attacking Israel. just saying.
I think Hamas permanently fucking off should be a condition for Israel leavingÂ
Israel left Gaza in 2005? I wonder why they went in?
I believe this needs to end but how hard would it really have been to throw something in asking for the hostages back and for Hamas to also cease activities going forward?Â
Well well well. Lol
Canada compliant with genocide
We said Never Again
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and had plans to execute a similar withdrawal from the West Bank by the end of the decade.
Those latter plans were torn up after Hamas used the opportunity to take over Gaza and launch a new war on Israel.
These kinds of motions are irrelevant. Israel will never agree until someone provides meaningful security guarantees. That could mean Gaza and the West Bank end up occupied by UN peacekeepers. But we’ve seen how **completely useless** UN peacekeepers have been in Lebanon, completely failing to enforce security council resolution 1701. The history of UN engagement in this conflict has been resolutions are written, Israel complies, and everybody else violates it without consequences.
So why would Israel accept any such motion? It’s pure sophistry. They need security guarantees and the international community has proven itself to be completely faithless when it comes to enforcing any such guarantees.
Regarldess of whether you’re pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, or in the middle. What is the point of all those motions? The article literally said “non-binding”. It seems that most UN motions are just that, non-binding and meaningless motions.