Is one week enough time for this lock? skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36481/…

@Sklivvz Are you making silly illogical remarks because it's the end of the day or what? Because multiple quotes in the very answer we are commenting on contradict your comment.

Please tell me how Israel has not had the opportunity to break 35 or 65 or 79 - or whatever number from that post you want to go with - sanctions, unless it's had a much larger number of sanctions applied to it then the other country in question.

Also how is the Secretary Generals statement not evidence of Israel being given a disproportionate opportunity to break sanctions?

You can't break sanctions not placed

You can choose not to break anything

If they are bad sanctions then they are basically traps

There are thousands of laws I, as a citizen, must obey, and I do. The number of laws do not increase my chances of becoming a criminal

which many of those were

@Ryan that's your opinion, which should be left out of the site

Or if you have evidence, then provide it. As it stands, it's off topic

Currently you are expressing your opinion to keep something that would shed historical context on the situation and a better light on Israel out of the answer originally posted.

And there is evidence, in the Generals Quote

Do you know what some of those resolutions are? like the infamous 242? It demanded that Israel give all land it had occupied back to the 6 different nations that invaded it in 1967 during the 6-day war. Despite the fact that it put 90% of Israel's population in Artillery range of those nations and none of them would sign a peace treaty with Israel for another 12 years, not to mention they would invade again 6 years later...

Again, it's your opinion. And the word of an Israeli general is really no evidence of that either. Of course in a conflict each side have their own propaganda, but assuming the propaganda is true is not really tenable from a skeptical stand point.

Wait? what's my opinion? the 242 info?

That's not opinion that's fact it's online go read it

Your interpretation of it, which you are giving

they are basically traps

I didn't give an interpretation I just said what it did.

That one isn't a trap

ok, I gotta go to bed. This conversation is clearly not going anywhere unfortunately.

Also he's not acting as an Israeli general in that capacity he's acting as the 10 year Secretary General of the UN

Someone supremely placed to know if the UN spends large amounts of time on Israel or not.

Was Ban Ki Moon with an Israeli general?

United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-Moon on Friday said that the UN has a "disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel" while delivering a statement marking his ten-years in office.

huh? Ban's not Israeli and you brought up word of Israeli general first lol

Ah, the secretary general. It's the first time I've heard refer to him as "general"

ah

I see where it got crossed

Everytime I've said General I've meant the Secretary General

Gotcha. In any case he does not say that they were unfair to Israel. Danon then says they are really unfair etc etc, but that's not really impartial evidence

I would think that "disproportionate amount of time criticizing Israel" would be being unfair to them

I mean I totally understand that Israel might feel some of these are unfair, but that's not an objective fact. Clearly the UN did not feel the same when they voted them

They did recall 242

Also as a historical note violating 242 led to the first peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979

Do you honestly think that when countries violate resolutions they think it's wrong? They are more likely to think it's in their best interest at the time. This applies in general.

Saddam Hussein was screaming how unfair the UN resolutions were for years...

What I am trying to convey here is: let's focus on the numbers, not the subjective view on the matter. It's the purpose of the site.

Of course they think it's in their best interest, but as someone who studies history I also look back and think why? and where did it lead and look at other context heading into the future

The purpose of the site is to apply scientific skepticism to claims correct? The science of historical claims involves context and should provide education not mere numbers that seem to make a bad claim true.

OK, but you should not provide it out of your own knowledge. You should cite a reputable, authoritative historian, or much better provide evidence that such a context is the current historians' consensus on the matter.

Or do you want to be quoted: "Mom, mom, Israels a worse country then Iraq was, they broke all these UN sanctions while Iraq only broke half that, it's true I read it on a fact checker site."

If they come here, they will find (referenced) facts, and that's OK.

Those aren't facts their click bait, facts have meaning.

but alright whatever

@Oddthinking, @Anna, the other Mod here Sklivvz is seriously off the rails after our discussion last night he went through my answers and posted this and downvoted my answer. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/34270/…

@Ryan If you want to report a mod for misbehaving, please use the "Contact Us" page: stackoverflow.com/contact to talk the Community Team.

More minor issues can be dealt with on Meta.

I looked at that particular comment, and apart from an out-of-character spelling error, I am not sure how this represents being "seriously off the rails".

If someone serially downvotes all your answers, please report that - it is considered inappropriate behaviour to vote based on the author rather than the content.