The UN is an anti-semitic organization

[Argus]

I have always found it odd how many people seem to believe the United Nations somehow conveys legitimacy and morality with its decisions and statements. We see this often, over the Iraqi affair, for example, but never more often than over Israel. So many times people point to how many UN resolutions Israel has ignored as if this is somehow a condemnation of the state of Israel. No other state, after all, so blatantly ignores UN resolutions. Well,true. No other state is the subject of so many UN resoluations either.

Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 [55 per cent] were directed against Israel. A blatant bias of the United Nations against Israel.

Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 [62 per cent] were directed against Israel. Another example of the bias of the United Nations against Israel.

The UN constantly condemns Israel for human rights violations, but ignores far worse violations of human rights by the likes of China, North Korea and Syria. It does not allow Israel to participate in most committees. Israel has never been on the security council, and never will be. It is not permitted to have any justices on the UN court in the Hague. Attacks on Israel are ignored, and Israeli responses are vehemently criticised. As the following cites show, the UN has long been a propaganda organ for the Muslim lobby and their paid African allies.

The UN's Dirty Little Secret

Isreal withdraws motion to protect children

Israel and the UN

[caesar]

If Israel would quit violating human rights; the UN wouldn't have to condemn Israel. If Israel would stop violating International law and ignoring UN resolutions likewise; Israel would not be condemned. To say that this indicates bias on the part of the UN is ridiculous. That is similar to these people who are constantly in trouble with the law that claim it is because the cops like to pick on him. It is a very poor excuse and not very believeable.

[caesar]

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

PRESS RELEASE

AI Index: MDE 15/095/2004 (Public)

News Service No: 247

5 October 2004

Israel/Occupied Territories: Excessive use of force

Amnesty International is concerned about the deterioration of the human rights and humanitarian situation as a result of the Israeli army incursion in the Jabaliya refugee camp and surrounding areas in the northern Gaza Strip (including sectors in the nearby towns of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya).

In the past week (since the evening of Tuesday 28 September) more than 70 Palestinians have been killed, more than a third of whom were unarmed and including some 20 children. Hundreds of others have been injured.

I suppose you believe that Amnesty Internation is biased, too??

[Argus]

If Israel would quit violating human rights; the UN wouldn't have to condemn Israel.

You don't find anything amiss with the likes of Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen and China criticising Israel over its human rights violations? Why does the UN not continually harp on the human rights violations of all these nations, each of which is far worse than Israel?

  If Israel would stop violating International law and ignoring UN resolutions likewise; Israel would not be condemned. 

That is an intersting, if comical reply. The UN spits out hundreds of anti-Israel resolutions at the behest of Arab nations who despise them. Now if Israel would only obey those resolutions then there would be no more? Absurd. You read none of the links, did you? I didn't think so. You are too content in your ignorance to seek out information which might challenge your narrow world view.

[Argus]

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

PRESS RELEASE

AI Index: MDE 15/095/2004 (Public)

News Service No: 247

5 October 2004

Israel/Occupied Territories: Excessive use of force

Amnesty International is concerned about the deterioration of the human rights and humanitarian situation as a result of the Israeli army incursion in the Jabaliya refugee camp and surrounding areas in the northern Gaza Strip (including sectors in the nearby towns of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya).

In the past week (since the evening of Tuesday 28 September) more than 70 Palestinians have been killed, more than a third of whom were unarmed and including some 20 children. Hundreds of others have been injured.

I suppose you believe that Amnesty Internation is biased, too??

Did you even read the item you posted? No, I guess not. All you saw was "70 Palestinians killed", of course, to your mind it was probably SEVENTY PALESTINIANS KILLLED BY EVIL ISRALI JEWS!!!!!!!!!"

Did you not even catch the implications of the words "more than a third were unarmed"? In other words, something like two thirds were armed combatants. Israel is fighting a war, and like most nations, it would rather fight it in the streets of its enemies than in its own. It is unfortunate but inevitable that this will result in civilian casualties. But so far the only alternative is to fight the war in their own streets, in which case it will be Israeli civilians who die in large numbers.

[caesar]

Did you not read 2/3 not armed. That would be quite the majority. In a war ravaged country like this especially. From the way Americans like to arm themselves that might be hard to find in a crowd in the USA. I am sure that many people arm themselves for self protection so that does not mean that those armed were combatants; and it certainly does not make them the aggressors.

You ignore the 20 children. You may accept these children as acceptable collateral damage; I and much of the world do not.

How is Israel so much under seige in your mind. It was Israel that seized Arab lands and still occupy these lands.

[caesar]

You read none of the links, did you? I didn't think so. You are too content in your ignorance to seek out information which might challenge your narrow world view.

You have the narrow mind. I have done my own research. I do not read Israel propaganda material. I prefer unbiased sources. Expand your horizons; seek truth. The Israeli government is not the innocents ; nor are the terrorists. The children and other civillians are; both Palestinian and Israeli.

[Argus]

Did you not read 2/3 not armed.  That would be quite the majority.  In a war ravaged country like this especially.  From the way Americans like to arm themselves that might be hard to find in a crowd in the USA.  I am sure that many people arm themselves for self protection so that does not mean that those armed were combatants;

Clearly your knowledge of what life is like there is absolutely total. This is a pointess discussion. You know literally _nothing_ about anything to do with this region. Your belief that two thirds of these people were armed but somehow innocents is so divorced from reality that no argument of any kind is going to penetrate your closed mind.

[Argus]

You read none of the links, did you? I didn't think so. You are too content in your ignorance to seek out information which might challenge your narrow world view.

You have the narrow mind. I have done my own research. I do not read Israel propaganda material.

Or perhaps you just don't like Jews.

[Tawasakm]

You don't find anything amiss with the likes of Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen and China criticising Israel over its human rights violations?

You are, of course, correct in saying that uniformity is required in the actions and reactions of the United Nations. Anything to the contrary is a step in the wrong direction.

I believe that Israel violates human rights. I also believe that Palestine does. The nations you listed also fall into this category. Condemnation of one on humanitarian grounds should logically require condemnation of all on those same grounds.

If the UN is to be viable it must possess uniform and universal truths which are applicable to all.

My first post in weeks and this is all I have time for...

[caesar]

Israel and Human Rights

Author and Page informationSkip this Author and Page information section

by Anup ShahThis Page Last Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2000

This page: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Ab...uses/Israel.asp.

To print full details (expanded/alternative links, side notes, etc.) use the printer-friendly version:

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Ab.../Israel.asp?p=1

Israel has faced a lot of criticism about failing to uphold and respect human rights. Many reports in the mainstream media are about the terrorist attacks against the Jewish state and Israel's actions are sometimes overlooked: Israel has violated many UN resolutions since 1967 regarding the occupied territories etc and the Human Rights Committee has once again criticized Israel's violations of Human Rights, use of torture, demolishing Arab homes etc.

Israel has illegally occupied South Lebanon for many years, even violating a UN Security Council resolution to withdraw. However, the United States have supported Israel to not abide by the resolution. Many media reports of Hezbollah "terrorists" attacking the Israeli military regarding the border dispute often fail to mention that they are retaliating against Israeli aggression. Also, note that according to the UN, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a country has a right to self defense if attacked and occupied.

Check out this great link for a speech from Edward Said that provides an alternative look at the issue of Palestine.

Incidentally, until September 1999, Israel was the only country in the world to effectively allow the use of torture.

[caesar]

I guess human rights watch is anti semetic too eh???

[Tawasakm]

I don't know if your last comment was directed at me, caesar, but if it was then it is inappropriate.

I am not making any partisan comments toward Israel or Palestine nor am I even making a comment on anti-semitism. I am supporting a premise which Argus made - that standards in the UN must be uniform and applied universally. I find that premise to be both sound and desirable. That is ALL I am saying.

[Tawasakm]

Incidentally, until September 1999, Israel was the only country in the world to effectively allow the use of torture.

The cynic in me finds that very hard to believe.

[caesar]

No it was directed at Argus.who likes to use that anti Jews bs when one does not support tha fact that Israel is an aggressors and are illegally occupying Arab land. All thanks to approval from the USA,

Rabin was making progress towards peace so he was killed by his own people. There are many hardliners in Israel that want nothing less than the complete destruction of Palestinians.

Israel's long list of human rights abuses and UN resolutions against shows that they are aggressive; it does not mean that the UN is racist. I find this topic heading to be offensive and probably libelous.

[paranoid joe]

caesar, I would like to see the list. give me one example when a country, other than the US or Israel, has given back land won in a war not started by themselves. Also the only reason if any that it is illegal for them is because the UN has said so, therefore either you have agreed with Argus or you have been simply saying anything that you want if it is true or not. There are also many hardliners in Israel that want the same thing to happen to the Jews, but instead of thinking dirty thoughts, or writing a hateful newspaper article, they are willing to give their life away :angry:

[August1991]

I have always found it odd how many people seem to believe the United Nations somehow conveys legitimacy and morality with its decisions and statements. We see this often, over the Iraqi affair, for example, but never more often than over Israel. So many times people point to how many UN resolutions Israel has ignored as if this is somehow a condemnation of the state of Israel. No other state, after all, so blatantly ignores UN resolutions. Well,true. No other state is the subject of so many UN resoluations either.

Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 [55 per cent] were directed against Israel. A blatant bias of the United Nations against Israel.

Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 [62 per cent] were directed against Israel. Another example of the bias of the United Nations against Israel.

The UN constantly condemns Israel for human rights violations, but ignores far worse violations of human rights by the likes of China, North Korea and Syria. It does not allow Israel to participate in most committees. Israel has never been on the security council, and never will be. It is not permitted to have any justices on the UN court in the Hague. Attacks on Israel are ignored, and Israeli responses are vehemently criticised. As the following cites show, the UN has long been a propaganda organ for the Muslim lobby and their paid African allies.

The UN's Dirty Little Secret

Isreal withdraws motion to protect children

Israel and the UN

Argus, I think your thread is good. But few have posted here. Your idea is sadly ignored.

The UN supposedly represents 6 billion people. Not. It is a club of some 200 or so territorial representatives. Most of these representatives are chosen by the local warlord of a territory.

The Middle East is filled with warlords, thugs. No wonder Israel gets voted down. (Caesar, are Arab leaders not warlords, thugs?)

In textbooks, the UN was created in the 1940s as a response to World War II and the failure of the League of Nations.

In fact, the UN was designed to mediate between two superpowers. It did.

Now, the UN is otiose. To use Left Wing language, we need a new paradigm. Fast.

[Tawasakm]

Your idea is sadly ignored.

Give things a bit of time. Its a busy time for many. Sure is for me.

As I said before I believe that the premise that Argus is using is a very solid one. In order to be a viable entity the UN should be in possession of clear and universal principles which are applied universally to all.

I don't think that anybody would disagree with that. If anyone does please stand up and be counted.

The real issue for discussion is whether or not the UN does hold universal princpiles that it is applying universally. With reference to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict if this is demonstrably not the case (as I believe) then the UN, in and of itself, is no longer a viable entity to serve as an intermediary in the area - nor would it then have the validity to provide guidelines in reference to the area.

That to me is the critical point of debate. Is the UN viable on those grounds?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I have always found it odd how many people seem to believe the United Nations somehow conveys legitimacy and morality with its decisions and statements.

Allow me to explain. The United Nations was founded with the sponsorship of the victorious Allies after WWII. It comprises, theoretically, all the sovereign states of the world who wish to be members. Among the member states, by the terms of the Charter they all accede to, the UN, acting in body becomes an authoritative voice on certain questions under international law. States who refuse to acknowledge their treaty obligations are, of course, free to withdraw. We may presume that member states therefore acknowledge the authority, in principle, of the UN.

So many times people point to how many UN resolutions Israel has ignored as if this is somehow a condemnation of the state of Israel.

It is a condemnation of Israel -- a valid and effective one. It is valid because. Israel has no business breaching international law. If it were not effective you wouldn't be moved to launch specious attacks on the UN.

No other state, after all, so blatantly ignores UN resolutions. Well,true. No other state is the subject of so many UN resoluations either.

Israel could end that problem by obeying international law.

Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 [55 per cent] were directed against Israel. A blatant bias of the United Nations against Israel.

Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 [62 per cent] were directed against Israel. Another example of the bias of the United Nations against Israel.

The UN is merely the tool of its members. For you to say that the UN is biased is to say the whole world is biased. Or, 'everyone is wrong'.

Israel has never been on the security council, and never will be.

Because it doesn't have enough support among member states. There are a lot of countries that don't. The solution, if Israel wants it, is to obey international law and make more friends. What is so terrible about that?

It is not permitted to have any justices on the UN court in the Hague.

Why did you choose that phasing "not permitted"???

[The Terrible Sweal]

The UN spits out hundreds of anti-Israel resolutions at the behest of Arab nations who despise them. Now if Israel would only obey those resolutions then there would be no more? Absurd.

Not absurd. Perfectly sensible. The resolutions are clear, and they are passed by the member nations because they make sense to them. If Israel desisted from the breaking of international law, the UN would have no further basis for making the resolutions and the member states would reject them.

The situation is rather plain and clear to everyone but Likudnik apologists. The majority of member states of the UN think Israel is occupying Palestinian territory illegally.

[Guest eureka]

Criticisms of the UN seem to come from the mistaken perception that it is a "talking shop:" a general assembly and a Security Council set up as someone said to mediate between two superpowers.

That is wrong. The UN in its genesis was a combination of idealism and practicality. It incorporated the lessons of the League of Nations in recognizing and allowing for the need for much more.

The UN is UNICEF; UNESCO; The World Bank, and much more. These are the future of the UN and are more important in the long run than any meeting place of powers.

The UN has been extraordinarily successful given the nature of the post WWLL world and the opposition and lack of cooperation of certain powers. It is the only hope of a better world order and a fairer world..

The biggest obstacle for the UN in recent years has been the "hubris" of the United States. As TFB often cites, "The Imperial Hubris." The US has actively worked at undermining the UN and has reneged on its funding responsibilities for years, most notably in the past four.

That, though, the US gains considerable financian benefits from the presence of UN headquarters in New York.

If there is a bright side to the Iraq debacle, it is that the US has been humbled and may learn a lesson and return to the enthusiastic support for the ideals and principles that lead it to become the biggest booster in the early years.

Bush has had the same attitude that killed the League when America withdrew support for that body. FDR vowed nor to make the same mistake and America acted in full accord after the war. Recent administrations have not been so aware.

[caesar]

There wouldn't even have been an Israel without the UN. If you could show that the UN is making false claims; you might have some understanding. The resolutions against Israel are for genuine cause. Clean up their own act. We expect more from a country that is supposed to be a civilized democracy than we do the North Koreas where it is known that they are being run by egotistical dictatorships with no concern for the ordinary people.

Without the USA's unfailing protection for its misdeeds; Israel would be facing serious sanctions for its actions.

[Argus]

Check out this great link for a speech from Edward Said that provides an alternative look at the issue of Palestine.

Yes, no doubt it is an "alternative" look. Said was a notorious hatemonger.

Incidentally, until September 1999, Israel was the only country in the world to effectively allow the use of torture.

I think that tells us all we need to know about the swill you read, Caesar. Israel is the only country in the world to allow torture!? What utter crap.

[Argus]

Israel's long list of human rights abuses and UN resolutions against shows that they are aggressive; it does not mean that the UN is racist.  I find this topic heading to be offensive and probably libelous.

The mere fact an anti-semitic organization passes "resolutions" against Israel does not show Israel is aggressive. As for libelous, let the UN sue me.

[Argus]

I have always found it odd how many people seem to believe the United Nations somehow conveys legitimacy and morality with its decisions and statements.

Allow me to explain. The United Nations was founded with the sponsorship of the victorious Allies after WWII. It comprises, theoretically, all the sovereign states of the world who wish to be members. Among the member states, by the terms of the Charter they all accede to, the UN, acting in body becomes an authoritative voice on certain questions under international law.

Yes, it was a somewhat naive attempt to prevent yet another world war. The problem was the founders never took into account what would happen with the expansion of what was then a tight little club of European nations admitted scores and scores of what became little more than banana republic dictators, many of whom formed into "blocks" and set about selling their votes.

States who refuse to acknowledge their treaty obligations are, of course, free to withdraw.  We may presume that member states therefore acknowledge the authority, in principle, of the UN.

In the matter of Israel the UN has no legal authority as the United States continues to veto almost everything which comes before the Security Council. We are talking, then, of moral authority, such as is often implied by those who attach such to the general assembly resolutions. It is my position that since the people comprising this assembly are, by and large, vicious, murdering scum, their demands can have no moral imperative.

So many times people point to how many UN resolutions Israel has ignored as if this is somehow a condemnation of the state of Israel.

It is a condemnation of Israel -- a valid and effective one. It is valid because. Israel has no business breaching international law. If it were not effective you wouldn't be moved to launch specious attacks on the UN.

Clearly not effective as they have had no, er effect. And their validity is questionable given the nature of those passing these resolutions. Nor am I particularly interested in "laws" when those upholding those laws are criminals and murderers.

No other state, after all, so blatantly ignores UN resolutions. Well,true. No other state is the subject of so many UN resoluations either.

Israel could end that problem by obeying international law.

The only way Israel could end the problem would be by collectively commiting mass suicide. Even then the UN general assembly would pass a resolution condemning them for the foul odour as their bodies rot in the sun.

Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 [55 per cent] were directed against Israel. A blatant bias of the United Nations against Israel.

Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 [62 per cent] were directed against Israel. Another example of the bias of the United Nations against Israel.

The UN is merely the tool of its members. For you to say that the UN is biased is to say the whole world is biased. Or, 'everyone is wrong'.

You have finally arrived at the truth. The UN is indeed the tool of its members. There are 187 member states. This means that you need 94 to pass a resolution. There are 52 Muslim nations and about 75 other dirt poor dictatorships from Africa to Asia which care little or nothing about what happens there but will take money for their votes. This helps to explain why there have been 450 resolutions passed against Israel but not one, not one single resolution passed against any Arab nation or Arab terrorist organization.

To not to admit to anti-Israel bias is to raise questions either about ones own bias or ones honesty.