Bob

They forfeited their "rights" to independence long-ago. You don't get to wage wars and campaigns of terror against Israel and the Jewish people, lose, and then ask for a do-over. This isn't mini-put golf. There's a certain point when collectively a group no longer has any legitimacy in its outcries for national rights - that point was crossed long ago by these Arabs, and continues to be crossed every day. For God's sake, off the top of my head I can recall several terrorist incidents from recent months. Most notably and gruesomely, the murder of the Fogel family in Itamar, the central-bus station bombing in Jerusalem that killed the British Jewish woman who was studying at Hebrew U, the shooting of the religious folks going to Jacob's Tomb (killing one, wounding others) by "Palestinian security" (armed and trained by Israel and the USA), the teenage boy killed in the school bus by a Hamas rocket, the two female hikers assaulted (one was murdered, the other left for dead) near Jerusalem, the Rehavia "road rage" murderer who shouted "Allahu Akbhar" while driving down the road and smashing into vehicles (murdering one, injuring others), etc.... but of course these are tortured souls with no other outlet for "resistance" against the "Zionist entity". When is enough enough? When I am allowed to say to hell with their nationalistic demands? We're not going to grant these people more autonomy so that they can more effectively wage their campaign of terrorism against us.

That statement doesn't make any sense. And I'm not talking about political legitimacy, but worthiness of nationalistic claims. There's an overlap, but they're not one-in-the-same. At this point in the conversation, we've just barely touched on perhaps the biggest forfeiture of the claims of the "Palestinians" to national rights - the way they operate. They are committed to anti-Semitism and warfare against Israel - through terrorism and political delegitimization. None of this would have been a problem if they'd accepted the many opportunities they've had in the past to actualize independence. Beyond that, they've been committed to violence and terrorism since decades before Israel's reestablishment. Am I supposed to have sympathy for a group of people that is perhaps the most anti-Semitic in the world today? They are responsible for their own predicament. They have engaged and continue to engage in some of the most barbaric acts around the world - and you think I want these people having sovereignty on my doorstep? They lynch political opponents, apostates, alleged Israeli "collaboration", homosexuals, tear them to pieces, desecrate their remains, string them up in public squares, condemn their families, perpetuate the most vile anti-Semitic propaganda in all dimensions of public discourse (from the top to the bottom and back up again), murder children in cold blood with their bare hands, desecrate Jewish and Christian holy sites, prohibit Holocaust education in their schools, indoctrinate their children with hate, glorify suicide bombers and other terrorists, etc. If they'd reconciled themselves to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, they'd have had their own state by now. Since they'll never do so (they view Israel as a mistake that they are committed to correcting), the status quo will remain indefinitely. You speak about these "Palestinians" as if they are ordinary people who are between a rock and a hard place at no fault of their own. If anything, they have much more than they deserve and have yet to really suffer the consequences of their crimes. Their current situation is a product of their own decisions. In all seriousness, there are very serious problems around the world that need attention. Many of these "Palestinians" live in a sort of political limbo, so what? They have cameras, Swiss chocolate, cell phones, internet, indoor plumbing, electricity, and education. Who cares if they only have "observer" status at the UN and need to go through Israeli checkpoints before coming into OUR hospitals to receive care? They have everything they need except the destruction of Israel and the establishment of another Arab-Islamic failed state. Let's start talking about real problems, and stop dramatizing the "plight of the Palestinians". There are real people around the world who need help and are actually worthy of the assistance, while the "Palestinians" remain the highest per-capita recipients of foreign aid around the world.

I don't know what book you're talking about with respect to Glenn Beck. I am not a Glenn Beck fan, I do not watch his show regularly or follow him closely. My opinions on issues are not informed by Glenn Beck's lead. What I do like about him is that I have seen him take a staunch pro-Israel position. He also tends to lean towards less government and more freedom, which is an ideological predisposition I agree with. All I said was that he is incredibly successful, I am not suggesting that his success adds credibility to him in one way or another. This is what I meant by him being talented. In the same vein, Michael Moore is also talented, in that he has been successful and amassed a strong support from his fanbase. Yes, his movies have major shortcomings, but he is a talented filmmaker. His success is a product of his talent, just like Glenn Beck.

Bloodyminded, what does any of that have to do with my position that the UN needs abolition? You seem to be clinging to this myth of UN indispensability, hoping it may obstruct immoral Western actions in the future. As if your East Timor example is somehow some sort of argument in favour of maintenance of the UN, rather than another example of the UN's irrelevance - supporting my original position. My position remains the same - anything the UN can try to claim to its credit can be done more easily and more effectively directly between nations outside of the absurdities of the UN horror show. The UN is just a platform through which we treat dictators, failed states, and inferior cultures/societies with undeserved respect.

Let me first say that I know responding to you is a waste of my time and demeans me by virtue of acknowledging you, but perhaps I simply cannot resist pointing out how pathetic it is that you try to draw a moral equivalence between the way our military conducts itself and the conduct of the terrorists. This post of your almost feels like a shedding of crocodile tears over Osama bin Laden. I guess in your view, he wasn't given the fair trial he deserved.

It's not a retort to anything you said specifically, just a general observation I thought I'd share in this thread about a recent story from the UN's most well-known subsidiary. Remember that Libya had a seat at the UNHRC until recent events made it politically unpalatable.

I'm not going to get dragged down into this stupidity, again. It is particularly ridiculous how you wash over the reason these Arab and Islamic dictators are "supported", in the first place. The West doesn't have the option to extricate itself from the Middle East, given its centrality in the global oil industry. We cannot wash our hands of this region, as much as we'd like to. You act as if the West has a choice, to "support" or not to "support" these dictators. We don't have that choice, so we are involved. And when someone like Bush goes in to try and make a positive change, in effect to engage in nation-building, people like you are the first to deride such visions. Either way, we're deflecting from the original point I made which I find quite uncontroversial - the UN provides nothing of value, is on balance more harmful than beneficial to our own interests as well as broader issues such as human rights and justice, and does nothing that could be better done through direct relations between states. We don't need a check on what you view as evil Western influence coming from our enemies (primarily Islamic countries and their allies), while on the Western dime.

Allow me to give an example of how much of the media covers for the UN's flaws in its reporting. There was a resolution passed by the UNHRC, by a vote of 23-19, to investigate discrimination based on sexual orientation around the world. Now, anyone with a shred of understanding should automatically know most, if not all, of the nineteen opposing states must have strong Islamic ties. Let's look at the nineteen opposing countries, shall we? (It took me about twenty minutes to find this thing, the UNHRC website is a veritable e-maze) http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11167&LangID=E Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1) regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011 to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; decides to convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner. AGAINST the resolution: Angola; Bahrain; Islam is the state religion and virtually all of its people are Muslims. Bangladesh; Islam is the state religion, 90% of the population is Muslim. Cameroon; 25% Muslim. Djibouti; 95% Muslim, Islamic law is a part of their legal system. Gabon; 12% Muslim. Ghana; 16% Muslim. Jordan; Over 90% Muslim, Islam is inextricable from its legal/political system. Malaysia; 60% Mulim, with a huge overlap between Islam and the state and its institutions. Maldives; Islam is the official state religion, only Muslims can be citizens. Mauritania; Sharia law in effect, population is nearly 100% Muslim. Nigeria; More than half of the population is Muslim, very religious society. Pakistan; Islam is the official religion, and virtually all Pakistanis are Muslims. Qatar; Islam is the official state religion, and virtually all Qataris are Muslims. Republic of Moldova; Russian Federation; 6% Muslim. Saudi Arabia; well, it's Saudi Arabia... Senegal; 94% Muslim. Uganda; 12% Muslim. Now, I randomly check some news articles reporting on this story to see which, if any, of them stated the correlation between Islamic populations/states and opposition to protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender identity. In other words, was the obvious opposition of the Muslim world to equal rights for LGBT as evidenced by this UNHRC resolution worthy of mention in the mainstream media? Yahoo! news stated the correlation, by mentioned the OitC's opposition to the resolution. As I expected, left-wing CNN ignored the correlation, without mentioned the OitC, Islam, Muslims, or Arabs in the entire article. I was surprised that the CBC actually stated the opposition to the resolution from "Islamic countries". Fox News mentioned the Islamic foundation that drove opposition to this resolution. I couldn't find the BBC story, perhaps it wasn't worth reporting on - they might offend some of their biggest fans. Most articles I found on this story sourced the AP writing,which gave indication of the Islamic component. I did however, notice some interesting editing, at left-wing MSNBC they qualified it as "some Muslim countries", as if some Muslim countries voted for the resolution. This was a clear attempt to obfuscate the truth - all Muslim countries, and all countries at the UNHRC with significant Muslim populations opposed the resolution. I need to make a blog post out of this...

double post.

You seem to be suggesting that the anti-Western interests and voting blocks in the UN provide some sort of desirable check on Western power. In a way the UN does provide such a check, in the sense that liberal indoctrination in our politics and media have produced a deferential attitude towards the UN. I see this as a bad thing, and one that can be demonstrably shown to be contrary to our own interests. The UN is a one-way street, the West compromises its interests politically and financially, while failed states, dictatorships, and inferior societies are propped up on their political soapboxes. Unfortunately, the default opinion of those ignorant of the UN (which includes most of our media and politicians) is one of respect and deference. Overall the UN commands respect and is rarely questioned. This is a problem. I hope the UN can be effectively delegitimized so that public support for it (primarily in the USA) turns to a feeling of contempt, leading to its abolition. Your "concern" that the UN provides the only platform through which irrelevant countries can have a "voice" is wrong on its face. It's called telecommunications, anyone can have their voice heard. Let our enemies form their own bureaucracies, without the financial and political support of the West. If you're worried that the Organization of the Islamic Conference would suddenly and unfairly be dispossessed in the event of the abolition of the UN, and robbed of their "voice", then you're just being ridiculous. They have cameras. They have newspapers. They have internet. They have Anderson Cooper's contact information. At the end of the day, we're paying for the soapboxes our enemies use to attack us while hiding real human rights abuses going on in their own societies.

I liked Lou Dobbs, he was the only guy I saw in the TV media to fairly report on the illegal immigration crisis in the USA. He's intelligent and fair. Glenn Beck is certainly not the brightest candle on the menorah, and he says a lot of silly things and fancies himself a TV-professor with a chalkboard and big plastic glasses, but he has the right philosophy and I think his heart is in the right place. Beyond that, he is hugely popular and successful.

My point is simple, that the UN is not only irrelevant an unnecessary, but on balance causes more harm than benefit - particularly to Western interests (but also globally). It doesn't need reform, it need abolishment. All things the UN is intended to achieve are better achieved outside such a politicized bureaucracy, through direct relations between interested states. The flaws in the UN are absolutely intractable. I wish we had some serious political leadership to say what I've just said. The sad truth is that criticism of the UN from our politicians is virtually non-existent. At best, we had Canada not participate in the anti-Semitic Durban ""anti-racism" conference. There is never a serious dialogue that takes place regarding these issues in our media or in our politics. Considering the USA is the biggest sponsor of this absurd organization, you'd think we could see some leadership aside from the too-little-too-late recent threat to withdraw funding from the UN should it move ahead and declare a "Palestinian" state. Funding to the UN should've been stopped decades ago, it does nothing to advance the interests of the primary funders - it's just an internationally-themed welfare make-work liberal wet dream of a project.

It'd be great to see American leadership cut off funding to this organization. Just withdraw and form useful and practical alliances with your true allies, and stop subsidizing dictatorships' and failed states' soapboxes.

Do you have a point? Are you trying to suggest that the Organization of the Islamic Conference and "non-aligned movement" is some sort of desirable counterweight to the interests of the "biggest power brokers" in the context of the UN? And I certainly do believe that in a general sense, the actions of our governments are "the right thing", whereas the actions of our detractors are exclusively the wrong thing. I get the impression that you think, for simplicity's sake, that the UN serves the essential function of interfering with the interests of "the biggest power brokers". As if that interference is desirable just for the hell of it. I mean, otherwise things would be unfair, and countries like Sudan wouldn't have its voice heard over vital issues it has nothing to do with. After all, Sudan is a state, just like all others. Its vote deserves respect on global and regional issues, just like Canada. It has a seat at the table just like every other state. You think the UN serves some sort of indispensable function? You think it's a good idea to keep funding it? You think it's a worthwhile endeavour?

None of the distinctions Palestinians can claim that distinguish themselves from other Arabs are unimportant. Their experiences with Israel? Many of them having varying levels of Hebrew understanding? These are not substantial differences. There are no meaningful distinctions between the "Palestinians" and most other Arabs, is what I'm saying. You're grasping at straws, here, trying to create some unique Arab identity. It doesn't exist, so stop trying. I could drop a Palestinian in Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon and nobody would be able to identify him or her as different. Now, you can go back to your original assertion, that distinctions are unimportant towards justifying their claims to independence and sovereignty. I think that is a weak position, as I see no legitimacy to nationalistic claims from a group of people that is indistinguishable from neighbouring Arab countries at the expense of the only Jewish state. Moreover, their commitment terrorism and war forfeits their claims to sovereignty on territory that puts us at risk. They are unworthy of independence on our doorstep considering their track record. Why in the world would we ever grant independence to a people on our doorstep that has never ceased its campaign of war, terror, and incitement against us?

I think they were all pretty good, and they had some of the best ratings in their respective timeslots. I like Wolf, but I lost respect for Fareed Zakaria after he implied that Hezbollah was being micharacterized as an anti-Semitic terrorist organization. Amanpour left for greener pastures awhile ago. Anderson Cooper is particularly uninteresting, although telegenic.

Kyra Phillips. Is there a reason my image won't display in this post? Am I doing something wrong?

This story about Hamas accusing Israel of breaking "international law" is also funny, regarding Netanyahu's recent statements about his intentions to end "the party" of terrorists sitting in our jails - he intends to remove many of the privileges they enjoy as our prisoners. The headline: Hamas: Revoking prisoners' privileges is against int'l law

Saudi Arabia is our favourite place and trading partner?

Here's the story at the Huffington Post. Off the top of my head, Fox has poached CNN's best talent, including Lou Dobbs, Gerri Willis, Bill Hemmer, John Roberts, and Glenn Beck. Ed Henry is a great correspondent, too. Good for Fox News.

I'll say it one last time - the culture/society of the original Plishtim is extinct. Did the Plihtim have children? Of course. Are some people around in this world today at least in part descended from them? Almost certainly. Does it matter? No. It's not an issue of blood, it's an issue of culture. Many cultures and societies have been wiped out around the world throughout history, but the Jews are not one of them.

Actually, Jewish culture isn't extinct by any means. We have our language, we have our religion, we have our traditions, we have our humour, and we have our history. The culture/society of the Plishtim, on the other hand, is long gone. That isn't stopping Arab imposters as claiming the namesake of the "Palestinians" in order to pretend to be something they aren't. You're just trying to go into some stupid racist argument, talking about "pure blood", and other such banality. As if somehow contemporary Jews aren't "pure". It's ridiculous and unworthy of serious response. You obviously didn't understand my original post.

We're making up for lost time now, I suppose, by staying strong and rejecting Arab/Muslim imperialism-colonialism.

You're right, I never thought about it like that. It was our fault!

He worried too much. Osama bin Laden (PbUH) and his message have widespread support and sympathy among Arabs and Muslims around the world.