Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
9. Sure, so find how many times Morocco is described as the "Occupying Power".
Thu Sep 15, 2016, 02:27 PM
Sep 2016

That was, after all, the claim from the OP. Israel gets labeled that way all the time. Other occupiers, never. Not once, ever.

Stick to the precise terminology in the OP. Don't make up your own claims, pretend that's what the OP argues, and then shoot down those straw mans. I wonder, is this deliberate on your part?

To help you out...


1. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.
2. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined.
3. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined.
4. General Assembly resolutions employ the term “grave” to describe Israel’s actions 513 times, as opposed to 14 total for all the other conflicts,
5. Verbs such as “condemn” and “deplore” are sprinkled into Israel-related resolutions tens more times than they are in resolutions about other conflicts, setting a unique tone of disdain.
6. Israel has been reminded by resolutions against it of the country’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions about 500 times since 1967—as opposed to two times for the other situations.
7. However, the U.N. has only used the legally loaded word “settlements” to describe Israeli civilian communities (256 times by the GA and 17 by the Security Council). Neither body has ever used that word in relation to any other country with settlers in occupied territory.


7 claims there.

Prove any one of them false.

Or punt.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Reminds me of a good rule of thumb: don't attack your neighbor without provocation. jonno99 Sep 2016 #1
Amen leftynyc Sep 2016 #3
I call BS on the OP. Little Tich Sep 2016 #2
From what I can see, your documents are about what "was". The OP is about what "IS". jonno99 Sep 2016 #4
The Moroccan occupation of West Sahara is still ongoing - just ask Ban Ki Moon. n/t Little Tich Sep 2016 #6
It is a very simple point: jonno99 Sep 2016 #8
It's very simple. Your opponent knows damned well how simple & factual the point is. n/t shira Sep 2016 #10
By it's singular focus on Israel, the UN effectively absolves all other nations' occupations. shira Sep 2016 #13
I seem to be the only one who actually reads the UN resolutions about occupied territories. Little Tich Sep 2016 #16
Maybe we should do a word search & comparison on the phrase "deeply deplores"... shira Sep 2016 #19
Me? I have nothing to prove - you go ahead and have fun with the resolutions... n/t Little Tich Sep 2016 #20
The OP includes verbs like "deplore".... shira Sep 2016 #21
I'll let you have all the fun reading and comparing the UN resolutions... Little Tich Sep 2016 #22
You're not responding to the precise terminology from the OP. shira Sep 2016 #5
The Moroccan occupation of West Sahara was specifically mentioned in the OP. Little Tich Sep 2016 #7
Sure, so find how many times Morocco is described as the "Occupying Power". shira Sep 2016 #9
The simplest way to refute an argument is to prove that its negation is true, which I've already Little Tich Sep 2016 #11
And you haven't refuted anything. Nice try with the bullshit. shira Sep 2016 #12
As the saying goes- jonno99 Sep 2016 #14
Your argument is to prove Morocco being an "occupying power" isn't synonymous... shira Sep 2016 #15
If you could perhaps take a look at S/RES/1483 (2003) that I linked to in post #2? Little Tich Sep 2016 #17
Problem is you don't read too well. Here's what the OP states... shira Sep 2016 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»At the U.N., Only Israel ...»Reply #9