Marius Grinius, Canada's representative on the council, said the language of the motion, which accused Israel of sparking a humanitarian crisis, was "unnecessary, unhelpful and inflammatory."
unnecessary, unhelpful and inflammatory?
I don't know, what kind of language needs to be used to condemn the deaths of civilians?
Will 'touchy feely' language be better.
"Oh, Israel, that is sooo naughty. You have killed more then 900 people now, blown them to bits in their beds and schools. But, poor you (pat on the head) you didn't mean it. Here is some candy now run along?"
Is that the language Canada expects?Then wait for this, cause it get's better...
"He said the text failed to "clearly recognize" that Hamas rocket attacks on Israel triggered the crisis."
Why would or should the text "clearly recognize" that? Since Hamas rocket attacks DID NOT trigger the crisis. That would be nonsense, utter and complete.
You can inform yourself of that here, here, here and this...
Hey, why let truth get in the way? Especially when bullshit propaganda will suffice