comment: >
  
  Things like this only ensure more Palestians will be slaughtered.
context: Since when are national gun laws of any UN concern? >
  
  Antisemitism doesn’t care about logic >
  
  Which this isn't. >
  
  Of course it isn’t, the UN always focuses on Israel because it has nothing to do with antisemitism >
  
  The UN isnt focused on Israel. They're critical of Israels human rights abuses. And quite rightly too.
  Any other country would have been blockaded, boycotted and no-fly-zoned by now for the shit Israel has been getting away with.
  And have they been for much less. >
  
  Blockaded and no-fly zoned by the UN?? Wtf are you talking about >
  
  I'm talking about enforcement of UN resolutions.  What do you think I'm talking about >
  
  What UN resolution called for a no-fly zone over Israel? You’re just saying random shit now >
  
  None. You're making my point for me. Israel isn't a special case. If anything, they're treated better by the UN than other human rights abusers >
  
  Why on earth would there be resolution for a no-fly zone or blockade for Israel when there isn’t even one for Ukraine, Ethiopia, etc? What are you even saying dude?
  How tf are they treated better when they have more resolutions passed against them then any other country? >
  
  Does someone have statistics on how much the UN has condemned Israeli policies compared to the rest of the Middle-east's human rights violations? Genuinely curious. >
  
  I wouldn't say they do nothing. In fact I'd argue the frequent condemnations play a role in the public perception of Israel. >
  
  Exactly. Israel wins the PR battle with high society (corporations, governments (even Arab governments), security and intelligence agencies around the world, and R&D institutions), but with the average person around the world, they generally lose. The average person thinks that Israel is just one giant CIA/MI5, something to be regarded as suspicious and to be feared. >
  
  israels nothing to be feared unless your an innocent unarmed Palestinian child >
  
  How do I know when someone doesn't actually care about kids dying or apartheid or other social issues? When they come to make 11 comments against Israel on this thread, with all the usual empty buzzwords, but no similar effort devoted to any other conflict situation, even ones that are many times larger and more serious. >
  
  Has the UN read the UN Charter to find out how much the internal affairs of a member state is none of the UN's business? >
  
  B-but Israel bad!1!1! >
  
  Newsflash: world leaders don’t like armed populations. >
  
  It’s much easier to control the population if they are unarmed and afraid. 
  Get some ignorance in there and you can oppress them easily. 
  Source: History…. >
  
  How are Americans so controlled when they're the most armed people on earth? >
  
  Well a majority of Americans have too much pride to think they are being controlled or played, and will never consider themselves a third world country which I believe we are. >
  
  Calling America a third world country is a little hyperbolic, no? >
  
  It's completely hyperbolic and ridiculous. It's usually, ironically, a statement by extremely privileged white Americans, too. >
  
  Lmao I’m a minority and even served for the country which I love but I can be honest about it unlike you >
  
  Lmao right? I always trust comments that derive authority from being a minority. 
  The US is not a "third world country". Maybe try traveling the world a little or just using some of that GI bill for education. Maybe take an economics class or two. >
  
  Lmao I’m going to school for business and I’ve probably travelled more than you I’ve been to Mexico and it is similar to the U.S. you’ll probably get butt hurt for that comparison >
  
  You have not travelled more than me. I'm glad you've been to Mexico. That's nice you're going to school for "business". Maybe try to pay attention in your classes so you know what 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world country actually means. Now that the USSR has collapsed those designations have changed meaning. Maybe try undeveloped vs developed. Maybe you can try GDP per capita combined with Gini coefficient. Maybe you can try just backing down from your dumb comment instead of anchoring on the absurd claim that the US is a "third world country" and basing that claim off your prior military service and your minority status. Maybe you should just get off the internet, smoke a little weed, and jerk off. You're not good for much else. >
  
  I criticize the UN for raping thousands in Africa >
  
  Or spreading cholera in Haiti... >
  
  And raping Haitian girls. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  UN rights chief Volker Turk on Friday called for an end to the "Illogic of escalation" between Israel and the Palestinians amid a spike in deadly violence, criticizing plans to streamline and ease the requirements for Israelis to carry weapons.
  The UN rights chief was referring to the announced overhaul of the National Security Ministry's firearm licensing department following a series of terror attacks.
  Most terror attacks occur in the West Bank, where civilians can already apply for a license - currently, some 13% of gun licenses are based on home or work location criteria.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: attack^#1 Israel^#2 Palestinian^#3 terror^#4 Security^#5 >
  
  
  Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Meirav Eilon Shahar, responded to Turk, saying that the UN rights chief’s statement “does not even have the decency to describe the attacks last week for what they were, acts of Palestinian terrorism targeting the Jewish people.”
  
  Israel would be at the top of my list of countries whose citizens need more access to firearms for self-protection.  The UN is essentially arguing that Israel should just stay unarmed, smoke the hopium, and wish the terrorist attacks will stop. >
  
  I think it's the Palestinians who need more firearms for self protection. Palestinians wouldn't have to rely on Hamas if the regular people have guns. Obviously both sides are constantly doing terrorist attacks against the other but 5 Palestinians die for every 1 Israeli. The Palestinians have a lot more to protect themselves against. >
  
  The Palestinians have a lot of firearms already, you should see the magnitude of what is captured by the IDF and of the foiled smuggling attempts from Jordan. They have guns, and when they fire them at trained soldiers, they get whacked, because just because you have guns doesn't mean you know how to use them. And that's why you have 5 Palestinians die for every one Israeli. Because for 95% of firefights, there are 0 IDF casualties, and at least a few Palestinian gunmen down. >
  
  Basically, Israel losses the PR game because they are better trained and more accurate shooters. >
  
  They lose the PR game cause they won the war but Palestine won’t surrender and let there be peace. Palestine could be a country tomorrow if it would accept peace >
  
  But they won’t because then they gotta admit they suck ass and that Israel has a right to exist >
  
  The UN can get fucked. >
  
  Honest question I haven't been able to find an answer to: What portion of the firearm licenses in Israel are held by Arab residents? >
  
  Most people who possess a firearm license in Israel have military background (for most applications it's one of the requirements), so probably not many. However, it's estimated that there are some 300k illegal weapons stashed in Arab communities in Israel, a large portion of which were stolen from military bases. >
  
  Also. All Israeli citizens Arab/Druze/Jewish have to serve in the the army. So literally almost everyone has military experience. Plenty of non Jews serve in the Israeli military.
  Edti: I was incorrect >
  
  Arabs don't have to serve in the military >
  
  Then I stand corrected. I thought it to be compulsory for all citizens. I do know Arabs serve.
  “Under Israeli law, only men are drafted from the smallest minority groups of the Druze and of the Circassians, whereas Jewish women are required to serve alongside Jewish men. Arab citizens of Israel (both genders) and Arab-Christians (both genders) may enlist voluntarily, but they are not conscripted by law.” >
  
  It's not hard at all to be a conscientious objector tho. Political reasons, religious, etc >
  
  You can't get out of service though; you'd be required to participate in some other service taking out equal time. So considering that, there is little reason to ever be a conscientious objector, especially as if you just say 'I don't want to be in a combat role' you won't be. >
  
  UN: “Please don’t make it harder for terrorists to kill you. Pretty, pretty please” >
  
  yeah a lot of terrorists in those children hospitals that israel bomb - and those homes they keep demolishing to steal land that doesn't belong to them >
  
  How is that really to the average citizen having a gun? >
  
  UN: Israel did something!!!  Time to condemn it! >
  
  I'm a person that's really anti-gun BUT!:The UN really has nothing to say what Israels personal gun laws should be. Especially when they don't do the same to other countries. >
  
  Is there anything that comes out of Israel the UN doesn’t criticize? 
  Have they criticized the beauty products from the Dead Sea yet? >
  
  Criticize the damn sales people at the mall first. 
  Like look you pidgeotto wanna be, no one is buying your greasy salt rubs. >
  
  UN has no right to criticize Israel. >
  
  they do when israel keeps killing loads of innocent kids >
  
  It’s funny you mention kids, since (one of) the terror attacks this gun law is in response to was carried out by a brainwashed 13 year old who decided to shoot up some civilians >
  
  loophole! make kids the terrorists, when they get killed by security forces you can complain about jews killing kids! >
  
  Is there anything that Israel does that doesn’t garner criticism from the hypocrites at the UN? >
  
  The UN typically isnt handing out compliments around the world.  Is that why you are disappointed?  The UN only criticizes Israel when they address Israel directly?  This is the UN's mission statement.
  "Maintain International Peace and Security. Protect Human Rights. Deliver Humanitarian Aid. Support Sustainable Development and Climate Action."
  I find it hard to disagree with this mission, it seems like all good stuff to me.  It could be you are biased.  It could be Israel is being called out for doing bad stuff and you dont like it that way. >
  
  Did you know that only 45% of all UN condemnations are about Israel now? This year Israel-Palestine almost broke the top 25 most violent ongoing conflicts! 
  The UN will condemned everything Israel will do, unrelated to it being good or bad. >
  
  I’ve got an idea.  List 3 of the least egregious acts committed by Israel and we can all decide whether or not the UN had a valid concern. >
  
  I am not saying it doesn't have valid concern, but they have limited time and resources, and using half of that time and money to look into Israel specifically when the rest of the world does much worse without a word from the UN is just tyranny of the majority .
  Black people account for almost 40% of incarcerated in the us while only being about 14% of the population. Does that mean the they are innocent? No, just that they system is prejudicial agaist them and prosecutes them in an unproportional rate, same applies here. >
  
  Okay you won’t list even 3 of the most minor incidents.  
  Moving on….  You said “the rest of the world does much worse.”  Tell me 3 countries in the world with “occupation” scenarios that are ‘much worse’ than the israeli palestinian conflict. >
  
  You’d think Israel would be one of the few countries in the world that would absolutely have every single person armed. >
  
  Maybe they understood that morons with guns can be as dangerous as criminals with guns. >
  
  Well supposing they have mandatory military service I think they have some degree of trust in their population. >
  
  That kind of reinforces my point. >
  
  I'm strongly against gun ownership in peaceful states.
  But Isreal isn't exactly peaceful. The civilians there are under constant threat of getting blown up by a brainwashed madman. So in case of Israel I fully support their need to have armed population. >
  
  So what happens when a peaceful state becomes unpeaceful? >
  
  Go Israel screw the UN >
  
  Have they criticized Netanyahu's disemboweling of the Israeli judiciary yet? >
  
  The UN can go fuck itself, respectfully.
  A useless organization that only exists to drain money and funnel it to either the pockets if its top people or to terrorists. >
  
  What could possibly go wrong!? >
  
  Because the UN has a one nation/one vote structure (except for the Security Council, which gives greater power to the actual powerful), the huge number of Islamic, Leftist, and former colonized countries vote against Israel every chance they get.
  And it doesn’t mean jack-shit. >
  
  The UN is a joke and wouldn’t exist without American $$ >
  
  UN criticizes... (blank)... 
  Nobody cares. >
  
  The UN.  Hehe.  Israelis are condemned for getting guns 2 weeks sooner, while Russia can fire supersonic missiles at Ukrainian citizens with not a peep. That’s why the UN has shown itself to be irrelevant. >
  
  Israel-Palestine is at a much further stage than Russia-Ukraine. >
  
  You can ask us to live for peace but you can’t ask us to die for it >
  
  Surprise…..the UN is critical of Israel……I hated Trump,but his suggestion to stop contributing funds to the UN I agreed with 100% >
  
  Pretty easy to make the statements from a safe place where armed guards make sure you aren't being shot at.   
  It isn't the UN's call, regardless. >
  
  And I’m pretty sure Israel’s reaction will be “Yeah, so anyway…” as it should be >
  
  Of course the UN is.
  They want no one but themselves to have firearms.
  How else will they be safe when they move their “security” forces into a country. >
  
  Topics on Israel is the one thing that reddit leftists and rightists unite on. >
  
  As they have the Israeli Defense Force, all the citizens have more education in firearms than most countries….USA >
  
  I’m very surprised and very pleased with the tone of the comments. Didn’t expect that out of Reddit lol >
  
  The UN…🙄 >
  
  hold on you cant arm your citizens how will palestinians win now?? >
  
  This is some pretty insane astroturfing for Israel in the thread lol.
  A lot of people in here don’t understand how the UN works (or doesn’t). The UN CONSTANTLY criticizes/remarks/condemns/etc. the internal policies and actions of countries. In fact, given that UNGA resolutions are non-binding, and the OHCHR (which Turk is the current High Commissioner of) is under the GA, yeah, criticizing ease of gun ownership is pretty much par for the course. Does Israel get more flak than other countries? Sure, but as someone else pointed out in the thread, it’s an easy win for everyone involved. Arab countries who hate Israel will sign on, countries that generally fear vigilantism and prefer a restricted populace with sign on, and countries that hate the US (who Israel often toes the line with, and often takes cues on foreign policy from) will usually sign on with.
  So, pretty often, in a futile “I’m writing a letter to the president of the company” kind of way, these countries will pass a resolution, or make some comment, etc. that admonishes some policy that Israel (or the US, or Russia, or any big-stick foreign policy power) has. And in response, the aforementioned target of the criticism will usually put their middle finger up and go “Boo Hoo.”
  Now, why this is important, is because in the actual arena of BINDING resolutions made by the Security Council, Israel has done pretty well for itself since the 90’s. There’s been a lot of UNSC “calls for” stuff or “deplores” stuff, but that’s important, because those are not really actionable directives on policy that the SC could enforce. If they tried to work in that language, one of the permanent members of the council will usually shut it down. (I think the last time the UNSC actually “Demanded” in a resolution from Israel might have been during the conflict with Lebanon, and the Siege of Beirut.)
  This is in contrast to other countries whose policies or internal strife are not related to or protected by one of the Veto members of the Security Council (I.e. the UNSC did a LOT of Demanding when it came to Myanmar if I remember correctly). 
  So, all this to say, Israel gets a lot of condemnation from the GA, but part of that is that they have the privilege of being pretty protected when it comes to the SC because they generally have interests that align with veto-ing members of the UNSC, but smaller countries, who have no such connections, have a tendency to come much harder under the gun when it comes to binding resolutions. I guarantee you Israel much prefers to have a condemnation they can ignore, like an angry letter in the mail, than have the Security Council imposing their will. It’s a quid pro quo, and they take the heat because they are in the better position in the long run.
  Edit: lol downvote away. My point isn’t even that Israel is the bad guy here. Yes, the UN commenting on domestic gun policy really isn’t constructive. My point is more that, this is something the State of Israel accepts as a trade-off because they are guaranteed other protections in the larger UN structure. That’s just international politics, y’all. >
  
  Lotta words for nothing of substance >
  
  And that, buddy, is the UN experience lol >
  
  I don’t disagree >
  
  So the UN also wants people to be incapable of protecting themselves now. This new world order conspiracy is looking more factual everyday. >
  
  Why is the UN in the USA again? >
  
  Israel is learning from America, I see. >
  
  The terrorists in Israel aren't young white males who hate their moms tho >
  
  No, they're young Jewish males with a fascist and supremacist ideology, bent on purging their land of the ethnically impure. >
  
  How would it help the attacks, though? Do they expect the civilian population to form a militia to defend themselves? >
  
  People carrying guns in Israel are often seated facing the entrance of restaurants and public spaces.
  If you're a soldier (or look like someone who'd carry a weapon), you may be asked if you mind sitting near the entrance of a cafe/library/bus/auditorium/synagogue/whatever, according to a friend who travels for work. >
  
  Very common for the bouncer of a bar to have a literal uzi on his/her shoulder. >
  
  Going with the "Only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" tactic.
  Well played, Israel. You clearly did your research, that tactic never fails. >
  
  Umm do you even realize that the last 2 attacks by terrorists in israel ended with armed citizens shooting at the terrorists because the police took like 10 min just to get there? >
  
  No, I didn't know that. Well, I'm sure that control sample of two will translate perfectly when applied to the rest of the population. >
  
  It's a common accorance by now, last year i remember clearly a terrorist wielding a knife was on a murder spree and it took the police a solid 15 min before getting there, by then he killed 3 people and was stopped by an armed bus driver. >
  
  Jeez it’s not Indiana >
  
  Tell me you have no idea about the situation Israel is in without telling me you have no idea about the situation is in >
  
  Hopefully the UN will slowly build consensus and be able to convince world governments to start seeing the wisdom of having a single unified government for this and other concerns world wide. We have an amazing planet with a future only shadowed by petty regional concerns >
  
  Unless we see a major extensional threat emerge (aliens or the like) this is mostly likely an impossibility. >
  
  If aliens invade the UN will probably side with them. >
  
  As a weapons trained Brit, the thing that really scares me is the thought of armed and untrained civilians with guns!
  In Israel, they have (close on) universal military service. That means they all had weapons training. Is their training comparable to that which I got in uniform? >
  
  Now do USA >
  
  Keep the population defenseless and reliant lol >
  
  I agree with the UN on this one. >
  
  They have plenty of weapons already >
  
  The problem with this is that it is going to inevitably put more weapons into UNTRAINED hands. This is designed to allow the illegal settlements easier access to guns to further expand and solidify those claims to the land. Most of those settlers are people who used religious exemptions to mandatory service and are extreme right.
  This will decidedly only escalate matters, likely also resulting in more weapons in the hands of Palestinians, and thus more deadly terror attacks in response to these policies.
  The UN rep is quite correct, this is a horrid idea, and it deserves to be roundly bashed. Unfortunately the Israeli right taking cues from the US right will just cause the same suffering there. >
  
  Where are you getting the fact that they are untrained? Is the policy specifically targeting the relative handful of Israelis who don’t engage in their IDF service? >
  
  I'm guessing considering this is TimesOfIsrael that this is a reference to Hamas terror attacks and not settler terror attacks? >
  
  How many settler terror attacks did we have in the last 10 years, and how did Israel respond, compared to Palestinian terror attacks in the last 10 years and how did Palestinian or PA respond? >
  
  Great idea Israel. Just look how well its working in the US. More people with guns, more happiness!