UN says Israeli tanks burst through gates of peacekeeper base

They are literally attacking the UN and still we are expected to provide unquestioning support?

The Zionists don't want witnesses. Thats why they've murdered 170 journalists in Gaza.

The UN troops have the right to defend themselves.

Fun fact: an Israeli paramilitary assassinated a UN mediator in 1948 because they were afraid his peace deal wouldn't be good for the Israeli State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte

The assassination was organized by Yitzhak Shamir, later elected prime minister of Israel.

Zionists have always been terrorists, attacking the UN since before they were even given an official State.

Has anyone informed Scorpius?!

Seriously though, Israel has proven over and over again that it has no respect for the UN whatsoever. Maybe it's time to kick them out, at least until they have a fucking non-genocidal government.

This is fucking disgusting, and a testament that Israel believes they have so much control over the narrative by Cambridge Analiticising the major social networks and their owners that they feel they can get away with it. If there's one thing I agree with Israel now, it's that the UN was certainly wrong - by choosing after WW2, to legitimize the Nazi Haavara Agreements on partitioning Mandatory Palestine and enabling the neocolonialism that became Israel hidden under the faint veil of religious superiority claims. What the persecuted minorities needed were their homes and their wealth back, not an appointed figurehead to lead them into colonialism 2.0.

In its version of events, the Israeli military said militants of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah had fired anti-tank missiles at Israeli troops, wounding 25 of them. The attack was very close to a UNIFIL post and a tank helping evacuate the casualties under fire then backed into the UNIFIL post, it said. "It is not storming a base. It is not trying to enter a base. It was a tank under heavy fire, mass casualty event, backing up to get out of harm's way," the military's international spokesperson Nadav Shoshani told reporters. In a statement, the military said it used a smoke screen to provide cover for the evacuation of the wounded soldiers but its actions posed no danger to the U.N. peacekeeping force.

OK, sounds plausible enough...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement addressed to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: "The time has come for you to withdraw UNIFIL from Hezbollah strongholds and from the combat zones." "The IDF has requested this repeatedly and has met with repeated refusal, which has the effect of providing Hezbollah terrorists with human shields

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Why do you want the peacekeepers out? Why not coordinate with them?

"We don't want witnesses to our human rights violations. These 'accidents' will keep happening until you leave."

Wait like the Actual UN?

I get that the UN has no real teeth, but the peacekeepers do have teeth.

The fuck is going on anymore. Like I get they have all sorts of freedom to fuck around because they have weapons given to them with no control over their use, but this seems to me they are truly beginning to test their fate.

The spoiled child of the middle east throwing a temper tantrum that has hurt people.

Now what will Biden do to reign in Bibi and his mercenaries?

Obviously the UN is Hamas

Fascists gonna fash.

This is how Israel does diplomacy. They are trying to de-escalate through escalation.

Fucking terrorists

They're acting like a bratty kid. Wtf

Netanyahu needs to be drone striked.

They should have fucking M-Law'ed it.

So these cunts are attacking the UN now? Reign em in.

In its version of events, the Israeli military said militants of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah had fired anti-tank missiles at Israeli troops, wounding 25 of them. The attack was very close to a UNIFIL post and a tank helping evacuate the casualties under fire then backed into the UNIFIL post, it said. "It is not storming a base. It is not trying to enter a base. It was a tank under heavy fire, mass casualty event, backing up to get out of harm's way," the military's international spokesperson Nadav Shoshani told reporters.

.ml users called it over the weekend.

So what're they gonna do about it?

Aight boys open season on un bases declared, time to go in

EDIT: After further research, and a few high-school level insults, I’m fairly certain, given the mind-boggling complexities of what went down in 1948, (like to what degree the British are to blame for however much of the violence, or how did the population of Arab-Jews factor into anything) that I am seriously under qualified to make the assessment that I made. I’m not sure anyone even can (although numerous books have written about it, one of which my Zionist parents tried to push on me), unless they were a truly neutral, on the ground observer at the time. (Maybe it's another reason to have a different term, since saying it is loaded doesn't even seem sufficient.)

I wish people would stop throwing around the term Zionist willy-nilly. It’s not accurate to the situation, and I don’t understand why it was twisted into this weird genocidal war-mongering meaning that has nothing to do with the word itself.

Now, clearly, there is a large portion of the Israeli government/military/and I guess, population, that is intent on genocide and war mongering, and it’s sickening and they need to be stopped. I just don’t like this term being used inaccurately. Maybe I’m being pedantic.

The term “Zionist” itself does not inherently imply war-mongering or a desire for genocide. Zionism originally refers to the movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel, beginning in the late 19th century. It emerged as a response to centuries of persecution, including pogroms in Europe, and sought to create a safe, sovereign space for Jews.

However, over time, some have associated Zionism, especially in its modern form, with certain political actions taken by the State of Israel. Critics of Israeli policies, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, may use “Zionist” to refer to those who support aggressive military actions or expansionist policies, which clearly are contributing to extreme violence and the attempted genocide of Palestinians. This is where the connotation of war-mongering or even genocidal intent comes into play, often in highly polarized or emotionally charged discussions.

It’s important to note that many Zionists strongly reject these characterizations. They argue that Zionism is about self-determination for Jewish people. Equating Zionism with war-mongering or genocide often reflects political bias or misunderstanding of the broader spectrum of Zionist thought, which ranges from more moderate to more hardline positions.

The term can thus be polarizing, with very different meanings and implications depending on the speaker’s perspective and the context.

Im so shocked, its almost as if international law is made up by the global north in order to justify oppressing the global south while taking no accountability.

Why are are even calling them UN peacekeepers if they prevent violence from one side, but allow it on the other?

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support