Bob

In indicated that the UN's influence is in part a product of the reflexive respect many people feel towards it. This respect, of course, is misplaced. The UN deserves contempt, not respect. Unfortunately, since the UN is still respected by many and viewed as an institution that operates in goodwill towards its mandate, its operations influence public opinion in negative ways. None of my statements were contradictory. I've clearly stated that the UN cannot claim credit for any accomplishments, as these accomplishments (which you're yet to flesh out) would have been more successfully achieved outside of the UN with direct relations between states and other stakeholders. And if you want to get into a conversation about supposed UN achievements, we must certainly also discuss certain UN failures. "These media are not conducive to public discussion"? Did you not read the rest of that paragraph? Politicians and other stakeholders can have public conferences and release press statements, or be compelled to release information in accordance with their laws on public disclosure. There is no need for a "world forum" within which to grant legitimacy to so many dictatorships, failed states, and inferior societies and cultures. In the UN, we establish a parity between Sudan and Canada. And what "apt criticism" did I dodge? You wrote two or three lines. I elaborated on how your statement that only the UNSC has "power" was simplistic, by explaining how the UN has the ability to mobilize public opinion and provide a stage and grant legitimacy to reprehensible views. Good luck explaining how the UN has bettered the lives of "many poor people". If anything, UN aid programs perpetuate poverty.

And what have those conventions actually delivered to us? Are the terrorists adhering to them and treating our POWs properly? Are they wearing uniforms when in combat? Are they making reasonable efforts to reduce harm to civilians? The obvious answer is no, and the Geneva Conventions have delivered nothing to us except flaunting our moral superiority over our enemies. The Geneva Conventions only apply to us, not the enemy. And the West's adherence to such principles and values isn't a function of the Geneva Conventions, either. Our morality isn't dependent on that document. Our morality transcends the document. It's not as if our soldiers would be going around cutting the heads off of Joe Muhammad and posting the videos online had it not been for us being signatories to these conventions. People who tout the Geneva Conventions (and I'm not saying you're doing this, Bonam) as some sort of moral accomplishment seem to think that the only way you can get someone to conduct themselves in a certain way is through coercive legislation. We are the way we are because of our values and culture, not because the UN forces us into compliance. If anything, the Geneva Conventions have benefited the enemy, not us. There are many absurd examples of Western soldiers because prosecuted for "war crimes", for doing what they had to do to survive.

There was nothing hyperbolic about my post, at all. Although the UNSC is "the power" at the UN, there is still plenty of influence held the the UNGA and all its subsidiaries. The UN, unfortunately, is still reflexively respect by many people (such as yourself) who are completely ignorant of its politicization and endemic flaws. The UN and its subsidiaries are still regularly quoted by media, academics, and politicians in a context of respect. I fear that the UN and its subsidiaries have the power to influence people, because people ignorantly trust their resolutions, statements, proclamations, and investigations. Your assertion that the UN can be credited with the betterment of the lives of "many poor people" is so laughable as not to warrant a serious response. I will say this, however - in the same vein that all accomplishments the UN takes credit for could have been more successfully achieved without the UN, that economies that rise or fall do so despite the UN. Any "poor people" that have seen their circumstances improved owe nothing to the UN, despite the UN uniforms worn by the folks dispensing aid and UN-branding on the aid parcels. As I've already said, anything worthwhile that the UN tries to take credit for could more easily have been achieved without the UN. The idea that we need such a "forum to discuss world affairs" is absurd. There is an invention called a telephone. There is a more recent invention called email. There are also such things as conference centres. We don't need a UN to provide a "forum" for world leaders to do anything. You'd have been accurate if you had described the UN as a forum where dictators and human rights abusers are granted a strange form of legitimacy, where countries like Iran and Libya stand alongside Canada and the USA as equals. A forum where Holocaust denial is given a platform to be espoused through Ahmedinejad and his supporters in the OIC, and the Durban "anti-racism" conference which is actually a festival of anti-Semitism. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it there. Only someone completely oblivious about the UN and its subsidiaries could support such an institution. The UN, on balance, is a negative force in this world. I know it bothers someone like you to read this, because you're of the ideological persuasion that supports more centralization of power in the "international community".

And what good have these international conventions delivered? Nothing. The only countries that protect such rights and adhere to basic standards are those that did so beforehand. Canada, for example, doesn't protect human rights within its own borders because of some document it signed under the UN auspices. Canada protects human rights because of our own constitution and charter, as well as our culture and values. Countries don't adhere to standards because they sign documents and treaties at the UN, they do so for internal reasons. On the other hand, many signatories to these conventions and treaties regularly violate them, and the UN ignores them. The UN is a forum which treats all countries as equals, when they most certainly are not. If anything, this conventions, resolutions, treaties, and everything in between are abused by human rights violators (such as the Organization of Islamic Conference) to conduct political warfare on the West - particularly on Israel. They are politicized and inappropriately used towards these ends (i.e. accusation of "war crimes" being levied against Israel). "International courts" don't back up anything and are also politicized tools. They didn't protect people anywhere. Darfur and Rwanda being recent and powerful examples of UN ineptitude. The UN not only cannot enforce the standards it claims to stand for, but it doesn't even want to. That's why it was such a struggle to get any movement towards the Libyan issue, and the UN has been almost completely silent on the Syrian issue. The examples of the UN ignoring real human rights and global security issues are endless. Indeed, the UN perpetuates conflict, and doesn't resolve it. Your suggestion that the UN is a forum where countries make agreements instead of war is the opposite of the truth. Do you have any idea how many wars between UN member state there have been since the UN's establishment in 1945? Is that an indictment of the UN, contrary to your assertion that the UN prevents wars? The UN is the ultimate example of the epic leftist failure - a mega "international" bureaucracy that blames all of its failures on lack of funding and limited powers. If only the UN's influence was broadened, if only it had more money and more staff... then the world would be perfect! Less importantly, the UN resolution passed a little while ago (six months or a year ago?) protecting the "rights of indigenous people" was a perfect example of a political weapon. What we need are human rights, not "indigenous rights". It was a transparent attempt by agencies at the UN to elevate the rights of certain groups ("indigenous" people) over others. And as usual, for the leftist and politically correct purposes, most countries bought into it - including Canada. The UN doesn't just need reform or major modifications - it needs to be completely abolished. Any multinational/multilateral goal worth achieving can be achieved through agreements between states, without a massive and meaningless bureaucracy that only seeks to perpetuate its existence despite its irrelevance. I would go so far to say that not only is the UN irrelevant, but it has been, on balance, bad for the world and for the causes it claims to advance - human rights and global security.

Not when those "backwards countries" make up the balance of power at the UNGA and virtually all of its subsidiaries. The UN isn't just slightly flawed, it is a complete failure. There is no need for such a bureaucracy, anything positive the UN can claim to its credit could have been accomplished through direct dealings between states.

It's just a component of the multifaceted phenomenon that is anti-Semitism. I certainly didn't mean for this to be seen as the fundamental root/common denominator of all anti-Semitism out there.

People like you who wish to centralize more power into "world government" are one of the worst ideological cancers around today. Thankfully, this ultra-leftist ideology is collapsing. How anybody can support increased "global governance" in this day and age suggests one of two things. Either you are massively ignorant of the failures and ultra-politicization of "international institutions" (namely the UN and its subsidiaries), or you actually support this messed up system and wish to empower them even further. As far as the inhumane manner in which sharks are often killed for their fins, there are much better ways to address it than to make it an agenda item for some type of global bureaucracy.

I think there's truth to this. I saw a Christopher Hitchens speech at a Daniel Pearl memorial on YouTube, and his view (which I somewhat agree with) is that Christianity and Islam can't really get over the "insult" to their belief systems from the Jewish people, who saw both Jesus and Muhammad and said, "no sale". In other words, in a general sense, many of them can't forgive us for rejecting the new "revelations" from their "prophets". We are the only people still around today who bore witness to both Jesus and Muhammad and didn't buy into the hype.

This is not an easy question to answer. The animosity towards Israel from our enemies is rooted in many causes. Among ordinary decent folks, it is primarily rooted in ignorance of history and contemporary events as well as being subjected to false narratives and propaganda. Among those who are more familiar with the conflict who can't use ignorance as an excuse, it's something much more malicious. Other times there is a sort of reflexive resentment towards Israel among leftists, who view the Arabs ("Palestinians") as the underdog oppressed by big bad Israel. At the end of the day, though, does it really matter? Israel simply needs to stay strong and combat the lies and misrepresentations to the best of its ability.

There's a lot of crocodile tears shed over Arab refugees (who subsequently became "Palestinians" after the Six Day War), and never a mention of many other refugee problems created by other conflicts, which did not result in establishment of new states and was resolved by integration into other states. Although not comparable to the Israel-Arab conflict in the sense that Israel never wages a campaign of genocide, one million Armeninans fled Turkey to escape genocide. They were absorbed into other countries. Same thing in the Algerian War of Independence, where two million refugees fled (according to Wikipedia). The most prominent component of this evacuation being the exile of 900K Pieds-Noir. There are so many examples of refugee problems being resolved by absorption into other countries. Lastly, this simple analysis doesn't take into account the responsibility for the conflict in 1948-1949 - it was the Arabs who rejected partition, not the Jews. They were given an opportunity to have sovereignty, and they refused. And they have been refusing it ever since. As far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned, the Fourth Geneva Conventions are the part that address "right of return", and were written in 1949 for the specific purpose of undermining Israel. They were written in the aftermath of Israel's War of Independence for transparent political purposes (to "repatriate" the Arabs and destroy the Jewish demographics of the nascent state of Israel). It's irrelevant, anyways, as the "Palestinian refugees" will never "return" to Israel. End of story. It's a waste of energy even discussing such a scenario.

That's exactly it, in a nutshell. There are obviously potential conflicts between the needs of Israel to be both Jewish and democratic, but Israel does a great job balancing these two values. I have stated in this forum before that when democratic values come into conflict with Israel's Jewish character, particularly if democratic values pose an existential threat to Israel's Jewish character, then the Jewish character must prevail and democratic issues be abrogated towards Israel's perseverance of its Jewish character. Of course the degree of the abrogation should be kept to the minimum necessary level.

Says who? Says you? Israel has provisions for family reunification purposes. Unfortunately, it's often been abused for terrorist purposes.

If the advantages are so great, then they should serve in the military - nothing is stopping them from doing so. They choose not to. And of the extremely small number of Arabs that do serve, they fear ostracization and other repercussions from their communities. At the end of the day, they're free to enlist, and choose not to do so. The alleged discrimination Arabs face as a result of not doing their national service (which may or may not mean military service) is avoidable.

The JNF is a largely a private organization that can set its own parameters for who it wants to sell or lease land to. It does not support your false assertion of "discriminatory land polices". The JNF owns little-to-no land in urban areas. There is no shortage of land available in Israel owned by private individuals/organizations of the ILA from whom anyone can buy or sell. Moreover, why do you make no mention of Arab prejudice that prevents sale or renting to Jews? This is true in many Arab villages in Israel. Although less relevant, the sale of land to a Jew is punishable by death in Palestinian-administered lands in the West Bank. It's unimportant in the sense that Jews are not trying to move there, but is quite telling of prevalent anti-Semitism among Arabs that you ove to ignore.

The rhetoric of "Arabs can't get a building permit" is just that - rhetoric. Yes, statistics will be provided about the number of requests/applications submitted by Arabs, and the proportion of them rejected. They may even provide statistics regarding the amount of requests/applications submitted by Jews, and the proportion of them rejected. But can you really understand the full context without understanding the regulations, seeing the requests/applications, and the details of the rejections - and then comparing them to the request/applications and details of associated rejections from the other side? Haaretz will never, ever go into these details. Neither will any "civil rights" or "human rights" organization that advances the same false claims about discrimination in the system of distribution of building permits. This "discrimination of growth" statement is just absolutely ridiculous. It really sounds like an Al-Jazeera talking point. It's a related story, and another one of great complexity, but eventually I will provide some details about the vast amount of illegal construction that has been going on for decades in certain Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem.

What myth? You're the one who has made allegation based on a weak grasp of "the facts". You have yet to demonstrate how Israel's "housing and land policies" favour Jews. Anyone can buy or lease land from the state (the ILA). Anyone can buy, sell, or rent property anywhere (legally, although of course reality can be different going both ways). And Israel doesn't have an official state religion, contrary to your assertion. You're wrong on all fronts. The only place where your statement has truth is the description of Israel giving preferential treatment to Jews for immigration. But even this isn't an issue of preference. Jews can make Israel their home. End of story. It is a completely different process, and we are not immigrating - we are returning. On the other hand, it is almost impossible for a non-Jew to emigrate to Israel (as it should be). And this is essential to preserve Israel as the Jewish state, to prevent us from being dispossessed and placed at the mercy of others yet again. And immigration policies are not relevant to the assertion that non-Jews inside of Israel are discriminated against in some sort of systemic manner.

I typed emigration twice, when I meant to type it once. It was a typo as I was typing late at night. You are quite desperate to be attacking me for that, as the message was clear. Immigration policies do not affect existing citizenry. You are trying to suggest that Israel discriminates against its non-Jewish population. Immigration policies deal with non-citizens. So, immigration policies are irrelevant to an analysis of how non-Jewish minorities are treated within Israel. Beyond that, the Law of Return is a beautiful thing which is part of enshrining Israel's Jewish character, and the ultimate representation of Israel's function as the homeland of the Jewish people. I guess you have a problem with a Jewish homeland. I wonder why? The JNF is not a governmental institution, and can set its own policies. It is a Jewish institution with an objective to promote an increased Jewish presence in Israel. There is widespread opposition to Arabs selling or renting lands/properties to Jews. In fact, there is a campaign of intimidation against many Arabs (particularly in Jerusalem) who choose to rent or sell property to Jewish people. Is this indicative of discrimination against Jews in Israel? There is also a lot of money coming into Israel from Arab and Muslim institutions with contrary objectives to increase the Arab/Muslim presence in Israel. They support purchasing of lands and properties for Arab/Muslim expansion. Good luck finding a Wikipedia entry on that. There's so much you don't know about this country, and I find it quite rich how you have the nerve to act as if you're in any position to educate me with your amateur-hour Wikipedia homework. Get real. I live here, care about these things, and am deeply involved with them on several levels. You can stand by whatever assertion you want about national service - if Arabs feel discriminated against, they are welcome to perform their national service (military or alternatives). They have the option to do so, they are simply not required to do so. Unfortunately, there is also a common element of discrimination against Arabs (mostly the Muslim Arabs) from their communities when they choose to serve the country. I can tell you this, many Israelis would like to enjoy the opportunity of the Arabs to not be drafted to the army, and gain two (for girls) or three (for guys) years of their lives to themselves. It's very easy to obtain good employment in Israel without army service, provided you have good education and/or skills and/or experience. This mythology of some expectation in the professional world from job applicants to be ex-military is grossly overexaggerated. The reality is, this entire situation is a case of discrimination against the Jewish majority as the Arab minority is given a choice whereas the Jewish majority isn't.

What I meant to say was that Jewish emigration to Israel is not considered random immigration, it is viewed as a return to the homeland. Since it deals with non-citizens wishing to become citizens, it is not an example illustrating what you claim to be Israeli discrimination against non-Jews within Israel. The idea that the Jews of Israel are some sort of homogenous group increasing our "democratic weight" is quite silly. It ignores the heterogeneous nature of Jews in this country. Beyond that, this is the Jewish state - and the Law of Return is a fundamental component of this country. It is an inextricable part of Zionism, and Israel being the Jewish state and homeland of Jewish people who choose to live here. The "preferable rates" given to Olim to Israel are a joke. It's a fraction of a percent of your mortgage. And again, this applies to Olim, not ordinary citizens. It does NOT lend a preferential treatment to Jewish people in this country at the expense of the non-Jewish population. "Placement is housing blocks"? Now you're really making things up. Buying a home in this country is like buying a home anywhere else. You don't cue in some line-up and get bumped up because you're Jewish. The JNF if a largely private organization and can conduct things as it wishes. It's owns a small fraction of land in Israel, anyways. You probably don't know the difference between the JNF and ILA, and are trying to put on some front as if you're familiar with these institutions. We're all still waiting for how "Israeli land policies" discriminate against non-Jews in Israel. JNF polices are NOT Israeli policies. God bless the JNF, anyways, as it is a crucial part of modern Jewish and Israeli history in Israel and the pre-Israel British Mandate for Palestine. I'll await your smear campaign. Please spare us your insights into Israeli society's perceptions of military service. Many people don't do their service for a variety of reasons - sometimes legitimate, sometimes not. A person with good skills, education, and/or experience will not have a difficult finding work in this country. The way you try and twist Arab exemptions from army service (and they CAN join the army if they choose to, or do alternative options of national service) as some sort of disadvantage for the Arabs is quite rich. It's basically another three years free for the males and two years free for the females. According to false characterization, these poor Arabs will now endlessly suffer in Israel by experiencing hurdles to obtaining employment because of their lack of national service - despite the fact that they could do this service if they so choose (small groups of Arab do enlist in the army or perform alternative national service). And Israel doesn't have an official religion, despite your attempts to tell us otherwise. Please explain to us what an "official state religion" is, according to you, and then explain to all of us how Israel fits that's characterization.

The term "Jewish state" is stated in Israel's declaration of independence. That's it. There's no constitution in Israel delineating Judaism as a state religion. Jewish religious law doesn't inform our legal system. And Israel is the Jewish state. It is not the same thing as an official state religion. You don't seem to understand what an official state religion entails. Start with Iran and Pakistan as case studies to understand real examples of states with an official state religion. Why are you ignoring my request for elaboration on your commentary in your earlier post? I think we both know why...

Israel doesn't have an official religion. In Israel, Jewish emigration isn't seen as emigration, rather it is a return to the homeland. And that relates to NON-CITIZENS. Even if you are to describe this as a discriminatory immigration policy, it is irrelevant to the day-to-day life of current Israeli citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. What do you know about Israel's "housing" or "land" policies? Enlighten us as to how Israel's "housing and land policies" favour Jewish people. I sure hope you can provide something more substantial than a quote from a "controversy" section from Wikipedia citing an editorial from The Guardian. I know one thing, Arabs and religious Jewish students are exempted from national service. Is that not an example of favouritism for Arabs and the ultra-orthodox, while punishing the rest of Israelis? You conveniently left out the biggest example of discrimination in Israel, which favours the Arabs. Doesn't quite fit with your false narrative of Israel discriminating against its non-Jewish citizens, eh?

"Land laws". Why don't you elaborate on that? Run off to Wikipedia and tell us all how "land laws" discriminate against Arabs. As far as funding for Arab sector social services, you may have a point - but at the end of the day Arabs contribute less to the Israeli economy, per capita, than their Jewish counterparts. Without having looked at all the numbers, I'd assume it's proportional. Does that make it fair? It depends on who you ask. For example, certain Arab neighbourhoods in "East Jerusalem" are "underfunded". By that I mean the schools are less impressive, some areas don't have decent waste removal services (sometimes because they are illegally constructed areas not on the official map), the roads are in disrepair, etc. But then, there are quite a few areas around the country that can make this claim, and most of these areas aren't Arab areas. As far as spousal sponsorship, it's quite complicated, and I certainly don't believe you're informed enough to explain the full context to members on this forum. Israel allows for family reunifications under different circumstances. Stop pretending to understand Israel.

Wow, that's quite the conspiracy. When there's so much money on the line, I guess it's more believable. It's just so pathetic and embarrassing. It's so contrary to honest and humble lifestyles that, in my opinion based on my experiences, are the bedrock of very observant Jews.

A very small contingent of them. Most Ethiopian Jewry have solid Jewish credentials - they practise and/or know enough to be considered Jewish by anybody who I would consider reasonable. They also have some crazy stories about the earliy immigrant. Thousands of them WALKED to Israel, and many of them have horrible tragedies to share associated with that (dying on the way, for example). There is also another contingent of them that had converted to Christianity. I think it's paradoxical to import "Jews" who practise another religion into Israel. But of course, legally, under the Law of Return, they still qualify to make Aliyah to Israel. Israel has had this problem with various Aliyot, including Russian "Jews" who openly practised Christianity, but of course qualified to make Aliyah to Israel under the Law of Return. Just another crazy part of this country. EDIT - Oh, by the way, I also think a Muslim cannot marry a Christian. I don't know the marriage rules of other religions, but since there is no secular marriage in Israel, all recognized religious denominations in Israel are charged with administering their own marriages, in accordance with their religious values. So I think we have one Islamic administration, and quite a few Christian denominations (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc...).

This is simply not true. Perhaps I'll address it more completely later. At least as far as Michael Oren's "Six Days of War" is concerned, of the top of my head, Israel didn't have long-term plans for the seizure of these territories beyond using them as bargaining chips for peace - which didn't work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution

I think you're absolutely correct. Of course your post seems somewhat "conspiracy theory" to the ignorant, but if you read the statements of much of the Palestinian and Arab leadership, even up through the Oslo Accords, this is true. Arafat himself, indirectly, stated this. I can remember off the top of my head a senior Palestinian official stating on Al-Jazeera that Arafat had told him, in confidence, that he intended to use the Oslo Accords to "drive Israel crazy" and as a stepping stone towards complete dismantling of Israel. The idea that the violence will stop once '67 lines are reestablished is ridiculous. If that was all the Arabs wanted, why the wars in '56 and '48? Indeed, why the Arab riots/pogroms of the 1920s? And the violence started even before that.... The '67 lines as a point of departure for negotiations wouldn't be so bad if the Arabs were SINCERE about making peace. They could've established their state between '49 and '67, anyways... but of course that didn't happen.