Code said:
Yeah, but I never compared cthulhu to the UN, although I'm sure I could. 
nope, cthulhu would have to learn to love its fellow octopuses before it could join the UN, i'm sorry to say.
I finally got the message board to work. Its been having problems lately.
long post ahead. Its easier to just cut/paste the whole thing than to cut/paste the aspects that say what i want them too. I don't have that much time.
vanilla
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: to the left
Posts: 3804
Is the United Nations good?
In this link here:
http://www.getusout.org/
Its claimed that the U.N. is bad, and will make Americans lose lots of its rights, including that of being able to try citizens in our own courts, etc.
What exactly has the U.N. done since its inception?
Has it done good for world peace?
Whats bad about it?
thank you.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 03:40 PM
Soup_du_jour
Member
Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Foggy Bottom
Posts: 306
The UN has provided a forum for nations to try and voice their disputes with other nations without the necessity of going to war.
It has given a voice to smaller or less powerful countries.
It has facillitated multilateral dialogue on such varied issues as Development, Disarmament, Human Rights, and Security conerns.
It holds countries accountable to their own people and to the international community for their actions.
Yup, I'd say that it's pretty good.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 06:57 PM
sailor
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 6728
The bullshit on that site is amazing. Someone would have to be incredibly ignorant to believe any of it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: The United Nations (financed by American taxpayers!) has long been a safe harbor for terrorist and oppressive regimes which target America as the enemy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ummmm. ok.. . whatever.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 07:05 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
The UN was founded with the best of intentions. IMHO it was good when it began, but it has deteriorated a lot. A clique of totalitarian nations wields more and more power. Ulimately it's hard for the UN to be any better than it's member countries, but it's easy for it to be worse. It's hard for me to think of any actions taken by the General Assembly or Security Council that have actually done any good in the last 10 years.
Some of the sub-agencies are good. The World Health Organization does an exellent job and UNICEF does many good things. OTOH UNESCO has long done more harm than good, and it's now worse than ever.
Aside from not doing much useful good, the UN is inefficient and wasteful and corrupt in small ways.
I wish there were some way to re-structure the UN to make it more effective, but that's not in the cards. Given that the UN cannot be improved or replaced, I think it's worth keeping, but just barely.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 07:13 PM
Collounsbury
Member
Registered: Jun 2000
Location: None of your business.
Posts: 2306
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by december
A clique of totalitarian nations wields more and more power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really, what clique is that, december old man? And what substantive facts do you have to support this? Please do note in advance substantive facts should include a full contexualization (e.g. 3 bad acts should be weighted according to the number of overall actions. But then you should know this.)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard for me to think of any actions taken by the General Assembly or Security Council that have actually done any good in the last 10 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the phrase begins accurately enough, but one does have to question the basis of your "thoughts" -- might I suggest your evaluation of
http://www.un.org/Docs/scinfo.htm especially in regards to the specific actions cited therin?
I'm afraid I can't shake the impression that yours is an argument from ignorance.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 07:56 PM
Maeglin
Member
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Labyrinth
Posts: 2567
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard for me to think of any actions taken by the General Assembly or Security Council that have actually done any good in the last 10 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, this explains more about your memory and biases than it reveals about the UN.
Just four months ago, free elections were held in Sierra Leone after ten years of astoundingly brutal civil war. These elections were made possible by the arrival of a multilateral UN peacekeeping force two years ago, which systematically destroyed the RUF (Revolutionary United Front) and jailed its insane leader, Foday Sankoh. Now Sierra Leone houses the UN's largest peacekeeping operation anywhere.
The UN's success in Sierra Leone is almost completely unqualified. Nearly 2 million Sierra Leoneans voted freely in the last election, and UN officers are actually restoring stability to this nearly annihilated country.
This is the first example I could think of off the top of my head. I am sure others will chime in with more.
While I don't disagree with you in principle, december, I think it is incorrect to argue that the UN has not performed multilateral "good deeds."
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 08:07 PM
Mighty Maximino
Member
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Mesquite, TX
Posts: 348
The UN does a lot of good work -- Sierra Leone is a good example, and the World Health Organization has also done tremendous amounts of good all over the world.
They also have a lot of bureaucratic infighting and politicking, as well as a reputation for not paying parking tickets. Well, nobody's perfect, and there's certainly room for improvement.
But taking information from a site that claims the UN is trying to take away "the God-given rights of Americans" seems a bit unwise.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 08:26 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
East Timor.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiap...rial/index.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Timor voted overwhelmingly to break away from Indonesia in a U.N.-sponsored referendum held on August 31, 1999.
< snip >
The Democratic Republic of East Timor was officially established in May, after the United Nations administered the tiny, half-island region following the 1999 violence.
Portugal abandoned its 400-year presence in East Timor in 1974. This was followed by an invasion and occupation by Indonesia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Botswana. Nothing dramatic, just "help".
http://www.bw.undp.org/the_un_in.html
And the Security Council was keeping busy back in 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/08/mi...mmit/index.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.N. agrees to pump up peacekeeping force
Millennium Summit turns attention to African AIDS, Mideast
September 8, 2000
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Thursday to overhaul United Nations peacekeeping operations to create a more potent, better-financed peacekeeping force.
Chastened by the U.N.'s recent poor record in preventing massacres, a special summit of the 15-member Security Council adopted guidelines intended to support Secretary-General Kofi Annan's drive to give the world body more teeth.
< snip >
But while the United States, Britain and Canada sought to extend the grounds for intervention to avert disasters, Russian and Chinese leaders stressed their fierce opposition to interference in countries' internal affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, er, I couldn't help noticing the lack of any "clique of totalitarian nations" in this action. Who exactly are you referring to, anyway? Here is the list of current Security Council members. Please be so kind as to indicate which of them constitute the Clique, who have the coolest clothes and always get everything "their" way...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mauritius
Mexico
Norway
Russian Federation
Singapore
Syrian Arab Republic
United Kingdom
United States
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Colombia
Guinea
Ireland
France
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 08:47 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
<<Its claimed that the U.N. is bad, and will make Americans lose lots of its rights, including that of being able to try citizens in our own courts, etc. >>
In fairness to the obnoxious site mentioned in the OP, there are some UN treaties that would permit the trial of Amercans in international courts or that would restrict some normal Americna civil liberties. The US has resisted signing these treaties. However, when that site says, "take aim at the God-given rights" they entirely lose me. It makes the UN sound like the enemy of God and as if it is intentionally trying to reduce our rights.
There may be some sane anti-UN sites somewhere on the web. I wouldn't trust this one.
DDG, I didn't say the clique was on the Security Council. I was thinking of e.g., the African nations which recently voted to have Libya as the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission and the Arab nations that led to the passage of the many ridiculous anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian-terrorist resolutions.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 08:54 PM
ElJeffe
Member
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 147
Was it the UN that was trying to sue US corportations for not paying what they believed to be a fair amount of taxes, and thus "stealing" away foreign investors? Or was that the EU? If it was the UN, I would classify that as trying to take away the rights of Americans, namely the right to structure our tax system however we damn well please.
I also find it a bit hypocritical that the UN constantly criticizes the US for its human rights "atoricities", yet fawns over China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and others.
I think overall the UN is probably more good than bad, but that doesn't keep them from frequently annoying me.
Jeff
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 08:59 PM
Collounsbury
Member
Registered: Jun 2000
Location: None of your business.
Posts: 2306
I am so frequently impressed by the depth of understanding displayed here of international institutions, foreign affaires, foreign commerce and international exchanges. The sophistication in which posters are able to discern the differing institutions, their effects and the complex relationships.
No. I'm sorry, I am lying. Please reverse all of the above.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ElJeffe
Was it the UN that was trying to sue US corportations for not paying what they believed to be a fair amount of taxes, and thus "stealing" away foreign investors? Or was that the EU?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This muddle of uncomprehension refers to the action brought by the EU in the context of the WTO in re the United States Government's illegal export subsidies via tax policy (two holdings on this matter and recent judgement on level of damage, see FT articles in past week).
Always encouraging to see how people get their facts straight. At least you managed the EU.
Note, the mechanism applied is one which the US makes frequent recourse to also.
Two way street and all that, this free trade thing.
Further note, the WTO is not a UN organization.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was the UN, I would classify that as trying to take away the rights of Americans, namely the right to structure our tax system however we damn well please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When one undertakes treaty obligations, one undertakes to make compromises in the interest of large mutual benefits.
Childish playgroundesque fits of pique by the misinformed, the ignorant not withstanding.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also find it a bit hypocritical that the UN constantly criticizes the US for its human rights "atoricities", yet fawns over China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it rather hypocritical that posters such as yourself make such assertions, arguments from ignorance.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 09:11 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
Vanilla, honey, that's a classic Conspiracy Theory website. What were you looking for when you found them?
Typical of all Conspiracy Theory websites, they put up a lot of jingoist buzz words and catch phrases, all of which are calculated to get you upset, but none of which are supported by any facts.
I will debunk one thing, as that's all I have the patience for, with this sort of thing. In bright blue letters it proclaims, "The United Nations Wants Control of YOUR Child!" and then below it says, in much tinier, gray print, "Every child is our child - Motto of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)" Well, sheesh, that's dumb enough (twist the UNICEF motto to make it seem sinister? ), but there's more.
If you click on that link, it says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you concerned that...the UN's aim has always been to take over our educational system?
The UN launched its Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946 with the announced intent to usurp parents' rights to educate and train their children. UNESCO heavyweight Dr. Luther Evans stated, "UNESCO's is a radical program.... To make the system of the UN and its specialized agencies work, we must sweep past traditional barriers...." (emphasis added.) Radio newscaster Paul Harvey condemned UNESCO's undermining of patriotism in one of his broadcasts: "Through UNESCO, American children are influenced away from their national allegiance. American children are being indoctrinated with world government."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's just stupid and paranoid. It's a gross (and bizarre) misrepresentation of what UNESCO stands for. And it's also, quite simply, 100% wrong. UNESCO wasn't founded "with the announced intent to usurp parents' rights to educate and train their children". You can go and read the UNESCO constitution here, where Article I, "Purposes and Functions", on page 8 (PDF document) talks about, um, their purposes and functions. It doesn't say anything that even remotely sounds like "usurp parents' rights". It's all about "education" and "cultural understanding". Only a truly paranoid conspiracy theorist could twist this into something sinister.
And actually, it even says, at the end of Article I, in Paragraph 3:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a view to preserving the independence, integrity and fruitful diversity of the cultures and educational systems of the States Members of the Organization, the Organization is prohibited from intervening in matters which are essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh This directly contradicts what the website wants you to think, which is that UNESCO somehow wants to indoctrinate the world's children ("YOUR children! " " ). UNESCO doesn't want anything of the kind.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 09:23 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
UN Meeting Jeers Colin Powell, Cheers Robert Mugabe
It's incidents like this that make one want to take the UN and shake it. How anything but trouble come from an international meeting on world hunger that cheered Robert Mugabe. Mugabe is carrying out a policy of intentionally starving many of his own people through a policy of "selective starvation." However, they jeered our Secretary of State, who was announcing a billion dollars of aid for developmental aid.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, dozens of presidents and prime ministers cheered Mr. Mugabe as he assailed Tony Blair, the British prime minister, for criticizing Zimbabwe's land redistribution program in a speech at a United Nations sustainable development meeting in South Africa. Two days later, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was jeered at the same meeting when he accused Mr. Mugabe of violating human rights and pushing the nation to the brink of starvation by ordering thousands of whites to hand over their farms to black novice farmers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/i...ica/06ZIMB.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ZANU-PF government of President Robert Mugabe is carrying out a policy of selective starvation against its political enemies. The denial of food to opposition strongholds has replaced overt violence as the government’s principal tool of repression in Zimbabwe. Mortality and morbidity rates will continue to accelerate if this policy is not reversed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://allafrica.com/stories/200208290169.html
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 09:37 PM
sailor
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 6728
It helps if you know what you are talking about
>>Was it the UN that was trying to sue US corportations for not paying what they believed to be a fair amount of taxes, and thus "stealing" away foreign investors? Or was that the EU? If it was the UN, I would classify that as trying to take away the rights of Americans, namely the right to structure our tax system however we damn well please.
So much ignorance in such a short paragraph. Now I begin to understand why web sites like the one linked in th OP have people who actually believe them. The EU sued the US in the WTO for breaking commitments it had voluntarily made. The WTO ruled in favor of the EU and said they were entitled to slap tariffs on US products. The US has admitted it was in the wrong and is just trying to get a lower settlement. The US can pull out of the WTO whenever it wants and become a pariah in isolation. Then it can do as it well damn pleases as far as subsidising exports although there will be few exports to subsidise.
>> I also find it a bit hypocritical that the UN constantly criticizes the US for its human rights "atoricities", yet fawns over China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and others.
Can you show me any evidence that "the UN constantly criticizes the US for its human rights "atoricities", yet fawns over China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and others"? Of course you can't. because you just made that up.
>> I think overall the UN is probably more good than bad, but that doesn't keep them from frequently annoying me.
Maybe if you dealt with facts instead of with imaginary things you would be less annoyed.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 09:48 PM
Collounsbury
Member
Registered: Jun 2000
Location: None of your business.
Posts: 2306
Re: UN Meeting Jeers Colin Powell, Cheers Robert Mugabe
I suppose that it might be too much to ask for you to be able to distinguish between attendees at a single conference and the UN per se?
The forum was for the attendees to express themselves.... The UN as the institution is not to blame for anti-American feeling in certain quarters.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by december
It's incidents like this that make one want to take the UN and shake it. How anything but trouble come from an international meeting on world hunger that cheered Robert Mugabe. Mugabe is carrying out a policy of intentionally starving many of his own people through a policy of "selective starvation." However, they jeered our Secretary of State, who was announcing a billion dollars of aid for developmental aid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/i...ica/06ZIMB.html http://allafrica.com/stories/200208290169.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 09:53 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
Decided to go look for this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Arab nations that led to the passage of the many ridiculous anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian-terrorist resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, right off the bat, no matter how much I Google, I don't find anything that resembles a "pro-Palestinian terrorist" UN resolution, either in the General Assembly or in the Security Council. The UN, as far as I can tell, has never passed a resolution in favor of either terrorists or terrorism, whether Palestinian, Italian, Afghan, Chechen, Malaysian, or any other of the Baskin-Robbins 31 Flavors of Terrorism, and if you think otherwise, I'd like to see a cite, please.
Next I will look for the "Arab nation" clique, controlling the UN on behalf of their friends, the Palestinians, and working steadily against Israel, their enemy.
Ah ha! In 1998, the resolution to let Palestine at least join in the conversation at the UN.
http://www.palestine-un.org/news/jul98_res.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted resolution 52/250, entitled "Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations", with 124 votes in favor, 4 against and 10 abstentions. The four negative votes were...the United States, Israel and Micronesia, with the addition of the Marshall Islands.
The abstentions were Bulgaria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Honduras, Liberia, Malawi, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Rwanda and Zambia.
A total of 47 Member States were absent from the vote, 22 of which could not vote due to arrears.
The revised text that was adopted was cosponsored by the same sponsors of the original draft resolution in December. Indonesia introduced the draft resolution before the Assembly on behalf of its cosponsors, which consisted of Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam and Yemen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eureka! The Arab Clique appears!...Er...I was not aware that Vietnam and Cuba were "Arab nations". Guinea? Bangladesh? Indonesia? Malaysia? Afghanistan?
Here is the membership list for the League of Arab Nations.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algeria
Bahrain
Comoros
Djibouti
Egypt
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tunisia
U.A.E.
Yemen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, lemme see, take away 7 non-Arab nations from the "Arab Clique" that submitted the resolution, that leaves...Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen...that leaves 15 "Arab Nations". So the "clique of Arab Nations" is evidently one-third non-Arab.
Well, gee, I think that's mighty generous of the Arab Clique, to share power like that. Kudos to them for letting Wee Folks like Vietnam play on their Arab Clique team...
So, anyway, got any cites? I'd especially like to see the word "many", as in "many resolutions", illustrated.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 10:03 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
I should have said an Arab and Muslim bloc. There have been many resolutions which criticized Israel but ignored or even endorsed Palestinian terrorism. This topic would be worth at least a full thread on its own. Here are some cites. I could easily find more.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html
http://www.adl.org/ads/israel_ad_042602.asp
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedN..._94/4076_94.asp
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4074_62.asp
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_fa...israel_bias.php
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/news_un.html
The last one appears to be the most comprehensive.
As far as pro-terrorism, there was a controversy when the General Assembly passed a resolution about a year ago, which criticized Israel and subtly endorsed Palistinian terrorism by reference to an earlier resolution by another UN committee, which had endorsed the use of terrorism by Palestinians.
It's easy to find examples of UN resolutions that critcized or censured Israel while simply ignoring ongoing mass murder by Palestinian groups, even in cases where the Israel action was in reaction to a Palestinian attack. In fact, the US made news of a sort just a couple of weeks ago, by announcing that they would henceforth veto any such resolution.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-06-2002 10:44 PM
SenorBeef
Member
Registered: Aug 2001
Location:
Posts: 858
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by december
<<Its claimed that the U.N. is bad, and will make Americans lose lots of its rights, including that of being able to try citizens in our own courts, etc. >>
In fairness to the obnoxious site mentioned in the OP, there are some UN treaties that would permit the trial of Amercans in international courts or that would restrict some normal Americna civil liberties. The US has resisted signing these treaties. However, when that site says, "take aim at the God-given rights" they entirely lose me. It makes the UN sound like the enemy of God and as if it is intentionally trying to reduce our rights.
There may be some sane anti-UN sites somewhere on the web. I wouldn't trust this one.
DDG, I didn't say the clique was on the Security Council. I was thinking of e.g., the African nations which recently voted to have Libya as the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission and the Arab nations that led to the passage of the many ridiculous anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian-terrorist resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 12:14 AM
milroyj
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 639
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Well, gee, I think that's mighty generous of the Arab Clique, to share power like that. Kudos to them for letting Wee Folks like Vietnam play on their Arab Clique team...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, kudos to the Arab Clique for having such upstanding countries as Vietnam on their side. Or not. YMMV
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 01:40 AM
TheeGrumpy
Member
Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK USA
Posts: 581
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Maeglin
The UN's success in Sierra Leone is almost completely unqualified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tee hee.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 03:03 AM
Mighty Maximino
Member
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Mesquite, TX
Posts: 348
Oh -- I note that this thread is becoming a somewhat useful discussion on the merits of the UN, and am reluctant to bring up the subject of the site in the OP.
But I'm going to.
Those are the same people who have been putting up these huge billboards all over Texas (at least between Dallas and Houston) that say in big bold letters: COULD THE UN INVADE THE US? In smaller print is their phone number and website. There are blurred background images of helicopters, APCs, and the American flag. I'd been meaning to check them out, but it always slipped my mind. And now I've been blessed with the opportunity to confirm that they are, in fact, wacko nutjobs. (And further, if the UN was going to invade the US, why on earth would we want to quit? We could use our veto on the Security Council to deep-six the resolution. )
Please carry on with the relevant debate.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 03:34 AM
SenorBeef
Member
Registered: Aug 2001
Location:
Posts: 858
Ugh. I hit 'submit', got an error, hit 'back', and 'submit' again, and it only posted the quoted text, not all of mine.
Ugh.
I'll rewrite it tomorrow or something.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 04:07 AM
musteion
Member
Registered: May 2001
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 42
First, I think that the UN is about as efficient and benevolent as any group of largely wealthy powerful men can be.
Ahem.
Second, I think the debate on whether or not the U.S. ought to sign on to the ICC is one of the most interesting in recent years. As much as I dislike the guy, I can't find fault in ol' Bush for not pushing for ratification. The only reason he has to deal with it at all is because Clinton forced him...at the 11th hour of his term.
That said, I've heard good arguments on both sides, and I tend to lean toward the U.S. joining. It will never, ever pass muster with Congress, but in an ideal world, I think we ought to do it. Forgetting for a moment the ethical argument that war crimes [even those committed by us) ought to be punished outside of a home-grown venue, Clinton got enough loopholes into the document to virtually guarantee that U.S. citizens will never be brought to trial. Heck, any pending case has to get through the Security Council...on which we have a big veto.
...then again...it does seem like accepting the ICC necessarily means violating the sovereignty of the Constitution. Ah well. It'll never pass through Congress, regardless. =}
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 04:57 AM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A clique of totalitarian nations wields more and more power...I didn't say the clique was on the Security Council. I was thinking of...the Arab nations that led to the passage of the many ridiculous anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian-terrorist resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I said, "So, anyway, got any cites? I'd especially like to see the word "many", as in "many resolutions", illustrated." By "cites" I meant cites concerning actual UN Resolutions that can be shown to be (a) specifically anti-Israel, and (b) specifically pro-Palestinian, and (c) specifically pushed through the UN by an "Arab clique". I accept your modification of the term "Arab" to include "Arab/Muslim", but it doesn't make any difference. None of the cites you've given me fulfill these criteria. Got any more?
And, notice how I am overlooking your hyphenation which apparently lumps together the terms "Palestinian" and "terrorist". I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that you are meaning "Palestinians", not "Palestinian terrorists".
Taking your cites one by one...
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html
This is an op-ed piece by Morris B. Abram, of UN Watch, titled, "Anti-Semitism in the United Nations".
The total discussion here of actual resolutions is limited to the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During its July meeting, the Session considered a resolution that requested member states "not to allow any import of goods produced and manufactured in occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was "considered", not "passed". If it was passed, please give a cite for it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolutions of the November meeting requested that the Swiss government, as the depository of this Geneva Convention, convene by February 1998 a meeting of experts to initiate the process of condemning Israel for violating the Convention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All it's asking for is a meeting of experts to talk about the Geneva Convention. I submit that Morris Abram has intentionally slanted it to make it sound as though Israel is being specifically targeted. If you want to prove me wrong, why don't you go find it for me, and show me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the same period, 34 resolutions deploring Israel were passed at the UN, but not one against the terror attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of me asking you for cites to support your statement that there is a clique of Arab/Muslim nations pushing anti-Israel resolutions through the UN was for you to go and find those on the Web and post the URLs here, so I could read them for myself. The point was not for you to go and find various anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel commentators and quote what they say. I'd like to see cites for those "34 anti-Israel UN resolutions". So far all we have is Morris' word for it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there were the usual anti-Israel resolutions passed each year in the UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The usual"? This is his opinion, not a statement of fact. Cite, please.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The infamous "Zionism is Racism" was passed in 1975 when Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister...Although the resolution was rescinded in 1991...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution was passed nearly 30 years ago--and it was rescinded over ten years ago.
Here is the text of the original Resolution 3379 from 1975.
And here's the list of those who sponsored it, 24 members.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen Arab Republic: draft resolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was adopted, 72 to 35, with 32 abstentions As many people abstained as voted against it. So only 48 other members, besides the 24 sponsoring members, voted in favor of it. In what way did the 24 sponsoring Arab/Muslim members push this through? What sort of leverage did they exert on those 48 other members to force them to vote for this? Remember, your point is that the Arab/Muslim members are controlling the UN by forcing anti-Israel resolutions through, not merely that anti-Israel resolutions have been passed. I don't question the fact that there is an Arab/Muslim voting bloc in the UN--what I do question is your assertion that they're controlling the UN's political process and pushing "many" anti-Israel resolutions through.
I also don't question the fact that there is probably a certain amount of anti-Israel feeling in the UN, but that's not the point here.
http://www.adl.org/ads/israel_ad_042602.asp
This was an ADL Ad in The New York Times, April 26, 2002, and as such is beneath notice as a cite.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedN..._94/4076_94.asp
This is an Anti-Defamation League press release concerning the UN envoy's comments concerning Jenin, and has nothing to do with UN resolutions, whether Arab/Muslim-sponsored or not.
We're not here to talk about "anti-Semitism in the UN"--we're here to talk about specific UN resolutions.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4074_62.asp
This is another press release from April 16, 2002 by the ADL concerning a "U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution condemning Israel for alleged mass killings of Palestinians",
I'm assuming that this was the "Situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory - Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/1". Here is the actual text of the resolution (VBulletin won't make it into a link, so Copy and Paste the entire thing into the Address window.)
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2002.1.En?Opendocument
Okay, so there's one (1) actual UN resolution, definitely not friendly to Israel, although I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not a Security Council resolution, or even a General Assembly resolution--it's just a Human Rights Commission resolution. But--in what way did your presumed Arab/Muslim clique push this through? Please demonstrate.
Consider the possibility that the members of the UNHRC commission who voted for it might have done so simply because they think Israel is out of line, and not because any Arabs or Muslims pressured them into it.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_fa...israel_bias.php
This is an opinion piece masquerading as "Palestine Facts" titled, "What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel?" There are facts, yes, but there are also a lot of unproven assertions. And I don't see any references to actual UN resolutions, whether pushed through by an Arab/Muslim clique or not.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Security Council has repeatedly adopted one-sided resolutions charging Israel with sole responsibility for human rights violations, violence and deportations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Repeatedly"? And what was the text of the resolutions? In what way did they charge Israel with all this? Cite, please.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Routinely"? Cite, please.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria and Libya are never criticized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, some actual numbers. Um, maybe this is because Israel is the one who has the most trouble, so Israel is the one who gets the most attention?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an analysis of the Security Council's record up to 1989, of 175 total resolutions passed by the Council, 97 were directed against Israel, as contrasted with 4 against all Arab states combined. The Council expressed its 'concern,' 'grave concern,' 'regret,' 'deep regrets,' 'shock' etc. about Israeli actions 31 times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same thing--what was the text of the resolutions? A resolution merely expressing "shock" and "regrets" doesn't automatically qualify as "anti-Israeli".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the years 1947 to 1989, the General Assembly passed a total of 690 resolutions (full or partial). Of these, 429 were against the Israeli position while only 56 were against Arab positions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is beginning to sound like the kid who has problems in class and then complains that he's always in the principal's office. Well, yeah, that's the way it works. UN members who don't have trouble with their neighbors don't normally have the UN pass resolutions against them. What was the actual text of the resolutions?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Special Emergency Session of the United Nations passed a one-sided resolution condemning Israel for the violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please be so kind as to go find this for me, and show me how it condemns Israel, and then show me how it was pushed through the UN by an Arab/Muslim clique.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The numerical strength of the Arab states and the Non-Aligned Movement in the General Assembly created the long series of offensive, anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western resolutions, capped by the infamous 1975 "Zionism equals racism" Resolution 3379.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Prove this. Show how the votes added up and the Arab/Muslim clique pushed it through.
B. Almost parenthetically, I might note that it would seem to me that if this "series of anti-Israel resolutions" "was capped" by something in 1975, that it might be classed as "ancient history". Still, in a conflict that goes back over 2,000 years, I suppose 27 years is as a passing dream...
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/news_un.html
Not only is this last one the most "comprehensive", it's also the most biased. No way am I going to wade through all that glurge, looking for actual UN resolutions.
The first one I looked at is an article by Jonah Goldberg titled U.N. Vote Undermines "Human Rights", dealing with last April's UNHRC resolution, and it starts out with this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights voted to condemn Israel. This is hardly news. The United Nations has been condemning Israel with the regularity of a metronome for decades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finishes up with this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may think the United Nations is 100 percent right about Israel. Fine, just so long as you realize the United States might be next.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, geez. Total paranoia, right out of the box.
So, as far as I'm concerned, your assertion that there's an Arab/Muslim clique running things at the UN and forcing the passage of "many" anti-Israel resolutions is not proven.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been many resolutions which criticized Israel but ignored or even endorsed Palestinian terrorism.
It's easy to find examples of UN resolutions that critcized or censured Israel while simply ignoring ongoing mass murder by Palestinian groups, even in cases where the Israel action was in reaction to a Palestinian attack.
Here are some cites. I could easily find more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do. You can put them in your new thread, so we can get out of Vanilla's way.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This topic would be worth at least a full thread on its own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 04:49 PM
vanilla
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: to the left
Posts: 3804
Well, at first I'd thought it might be a good site, as lots of "christians" seem to like the ideas of the John Birch Society.
And I certainly am a beleiver in some conspiracies myself.
I really wanted info, as I knew nothing about the U.N.
There was a really good book called Birchism Was My Business by a Gerald Schomp, written many years ago.
He used to be a Bircher, then left and wrote a funny expose of it. I can't find it anywhere.
__________________
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 05:50 PM
clairobscur
Member
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 1233
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by musteion
Clinton got enough loopholes into the document to virtually guarantee that U.S. citizens will never be brought to trial. Heck, any pending case has to get through the Security Council...on which we have a big veto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Doesn't work like that. The pending cases don't have to go through the Security Council. The Security Council can suspend a case, however. So, with its veto, the US could prevent a case from being blocked. But it couldn't block it.
So, there's actually no guarantee that US citizens will never be brought to trial. But the fact that the US ratify the treaty or not is irrelevant, anyway. Citizens of non-signatory countries can be brought to trial too. The only difference is that the court has no juridiction for war crimes when US citizens are the victims, or when they're commited on the US territory. And of course the US has no say in its organization. But if an american is the criminal, he can be tried by the court, even though the US have not signed the treaty.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 07:07 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
DDG -- You've asked for a lot. If I have time, I'll look for more cites. I am not planning to start a new thread at this time.
However, I would take exception to this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may think the United Nations is 100 percent right about Israel. Fine, just so long as you realize the United States might be next.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, geez. Total paranoia, right out of the box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I read it, the statement you quoted is saying that the US might be next to be treated unfairly by the UN. The booing of Colin Powell at the recent UN earth summit in South Africa shows that it's far from paranoid to imagine that the UN might develop an anti-American bias.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 07:09 PM
musteion
Member
Registered: May 2001
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 42
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by clairobscur
Nope. Doesn't work like that. The pending cases don't have to go through the Security Council. The Security Council can suspend a case, however. So, with its veto, the US could prevent a case from being blocked. But it couldn't block it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn't what I said. The U.S. has a veto and no, it isn't a wholesale block, but it surely is a powerful one.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, there's actually no guarantee that US citizens will never be brought to trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ICC is only involved in issues where a crime can be substantiated to the Security Council, and the country in question is unwilling or unable to conduct their own investigations in good faith. Further, the crimes must be on a grand scale, and only democracies who open up their records (and are investigated) on human rights may sign or ratify.
One schmo in Japan who rapes a 16-year-old would not, for example, be brought to trial (actually, for several reasons), and countries like Iraq, China, Libya, and Sudan could never even sign if they wanted to.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the fact that the US ratify the treaty or not is irrelevant, anyway. Citizens of non-signatory countries can be brought to trial too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFAIK, this is not true. Only countries Can you cite from the document to back this up?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only difference is that the court has no juridiction for war crimes when US citizens are the victims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends. First, like all cases, they must be "war crimes," and be on a grand scale. Second, you are incorrect. Since the U.S. is a member of the Security Council, they may bring charges. Charges may be brought if the crime occurs in a country that has ratified, by a country that has ratified, or if referred by the Security Council.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...or when they're commited on the US territory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you back this up to any degree? It appears false on its face.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And of course the US has no say in its organization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish. Not only did Clinton and Albright negotiate a large portion of the Rome treaty, but every U.N. nation is involved in the selection of judges.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if an american is the criminal, he can be tried by the court, even though the US have not signed the treaty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we have signed the treaty...but signing the treaty is meaningless. Second, the crime must be on a grand scale. Third, yes, Americans may be brought to trial even if we do not ratify the treaty if and only if:
-The crimes are committed in a country that has ratified
-The Security Council approves
I mean no disrespect, but have you read the document?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 07:34 PM
Cardinal
Member
Registered: Apr 1999
Location: Yorba Linda, CA USA
Posts: 811
That Schomp book is available at Amazon's Zshops.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 09:32 PM
sailor
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 6728
Duck Duck Goose, I have to commend you on that extensive analysis. I gave up long time ago.
I hope this thread will not be hijacked with the ICC theme because the ICC was discussed to death not too long ago. Let's keep this about the UN.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 09:41 PM
musteion
Member
Registered: May 2001
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 42
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sailor
I hope this thread will not be hijacked with the ICC theme because the ICC was discussed to death not too long ago. Let's keep this about the UN. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...sorry about that. I couldn't resist the temptation.
Bad Musteion...bad! =}
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 10:24 PM
andros
Member
Registered: Sep 1999
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 1943
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The booing of Colin Powell at the recent UN earth summit in South Africa shows that it's far from paranoid to imagine that the UN might develop an anti-American bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It shows nothing of the sort.
Or are you prepared to demonstrate that "anti-American protestors" somehow equals "UN delegates?"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-07-2002 11:56 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
andros, I'm not claiming that the UN is anti-American. I'm not even claiming that the UN could become anti-American some day. All I'm claiming is that it's not paranoia per se for someone to believe that the UN might become anti-American some day. I think that would not be an insane belief, anyhow. The booing of our Secretary of State at a UN conference tends to support the possibility that much more.
YMMV. Do you have evidence that anyone who thinks that the UN might turn anti-American is ipso facto paranoid?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-08-2002 12:46 AM
andros
Member
Registered: Sep 1999
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 1943
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The booing of our Secretary of State at a UN conference tends to support the possibility that much more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I'm still not following. Are you saying that because the protest happened at a UN event, the protestors are somehow representative of the UN?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-08-2002 01:11 AM
Mr2001
Member
Registered: Dec 1999
Location: Spokane, WA, USA
Posts: 1101
There was a billboard for that web site on the main drag here in Spokane last week. I was going to complain to the billboard company that it gave the impression our town is full of ignorant hicks who think the UN is going to invade us, but the billboard is already gone. I guess someone already complained.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-08-2002 08:23 AM
sailor
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 6728
>> The booing of Colin Powell at the recent UN earth summit in South Africa shows that it's far from paranoid to imagine that the UN might develop an anti-American bias
Seeing that many, if not most, were *Americans* themselves I would not call that antiAmerican bias, I would rather call it anti-American-government-policy in that particular area. So, what are you going to do? Outlaw Americans whose opinions differ from their government's opinions?
To show this as an example of anti-Americanism is just silly.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-08-2002 09:21 AM
Estilicon
Member
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Argentina
Posts: 303
December
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN Meeting Jeers Colin Powell, Cheers Robert Mugabe
It's incidents like this that make one want to take the UN and shake it. How anything but trouble come from an international meeting on world hunger that cheered Robert Mugabe. Mugabe is carrying out a policy of intentionally starving many of his own people through a policy of "selective starvation." However, they jeered our Secretary of State, who was announcing a billion dollars of aid for developmental aid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may think the United Nations is 100 percent right about Israel. Fine, just so long as you realize the United States might be next.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, geez. Total paranoia, right out of the box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I read it, the statement you quoted is saying that the US might be next to be treated unfairly by the UN. The booing of Colin Powell at the recent UN earth summit in South Africa shows that it's far from paranoid to imagine that the UN might develop an anti-American bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December, read all you wrote, ponder it, and then try discussing it. Firts of all Who cheered for mugabe? then Who jeered Powell? Then Who cares? Prove that The General Assembly, The economic and social council, the general secretary or the security council (just to name a few of the UN's organs) ever compromised U.S. security. Read the Un's chart start with chapter five, articles 23 and ss. specially read article 27. When you do that you will know how is it that the U.N. can never threaten the U.S. China, Russia, France, Great Britain. Article 27 is the reason that you can't be paranoid. Also read articles 108, and 109. That means that the secuirty council can also veto reforms that will private it from their current powers.
What is the meaning of all those articles? If the U.S doesn't want the U.N. to take an important action, it can vote against it and the action will never happen. Period.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-08-2002 03:09 PM
hawthorne
Member
Registered: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2083
Please
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by december
DDG -- You've asked for a lot. If I have time, I'll look for more cites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not more, better. Preferably before you make up your mind. Definitely before you try to make up ours.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-08-2002 04:55 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
This mini-debate is a bit silly. I was responding to a statement made with no evidence at all that anyone who imagined that the UN could develop an anti-American bias was obviously paranoid. I suppose I ought to have simply demanded evidence for that POV and let it go at that.
Yes, the UN could always veto a Security Council resolution. However, other agencies of the UN could conceivably take anti-American positions that could be at least embarassing. Anyone who thinks that the sentence immediatly preceeding this one proves that I'm paranoid, please explain why.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 02:09 AM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
Where are my cites?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 03:15 AM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
Sorry, I was out all day, and it's close to bed time. It could take several hours to find those cites.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 03:18 AM
sailor
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 6728
>> However, other agencies of the UN could conceivably take anti-American positions that could be at least embarassing.
Wouldn't that be *awful*? The US embarrassed!
It is also conceivable that the Federal Government develop a dislike for North Dakota and pass a resolution which would embarrass that state. Still, it seems the benefits outweigh the risk of that happening. The benefits of the UN also far outweigh the risks and the aspects in which it is not perfect. Any human institution is bound to be far from perfect but that does not mean it is useless.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 07:30 AM
BamBam
Member
Registered: Sep 2002
Location:
Posts: 23
Unmisincomprehension
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Collounsbury
This muddle of uncomprehension refers to the action brought .....
I find it rather hypocritical that posters such as yourself make such assertions, arguments from ignorance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it ironic that you find ignorant arguments and assertions hypocritical, and you come up with the word "uncomprehension".
It's doubly ironic that I thought the word was "miscomprehension" and when looking it up to confirm my mastery of the English language, find that the word is in fact "incomprehension".
You learn something new every day, eh?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 08:42 AM
Collounsbury
Member
Registered: Jun 2000
Location: None of your business.
Posts: 2306
Re: Unmisincomprehension
My dear newly arrived poster.
One word, neologism.
For those who know me, they will have grasped my sly meaning in my neologism uncomprehension, else for those who don't they will simply post misplaced "corrections."
Should you need to confirm your mastery of English, don't bother to attempt to correct me.
Now, in re substance. Certainly our dear december (may I add the post by I am Sparticus in this thread
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...51&pagenumber=2 brilliantly encapsulates the problem with december's attempts at debate.) has a point that during the flush years of the Arab oil boom, they were able to buy a goodly number of childishly silly anti-Israeli General Assembly 'resolutions' and findings. Empty posturing in large part, with a few exceptions.
Understandably Israel has been less than fond of the UN -- although I think that (a) the substantive reasons for such are either passing or have passed (b) is also in part tied to very legitimate critiques emanating from a variety of quarters, including the UN, in re Israeli policy in re the Occupied Territories. As part of a nice little propaganda game, folks like december try to mix the two issues together.
In any case, the UN is about as good a world talking shop as one can expect in this world. The bureaucracy certainly could use some further paring or tightening up -- but Kofi has led an admirable set of reforms and still been spat on (metaphorically) so until the US ponies up owed back dues, I suspect further reform is not in the making. It's not a world government, it's a tool for resolution of conflicts between theoretically equal sovereign entities. The starry eyed on the Left and the wild-eyed on the Right might do well to recall this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BamBam
Is it ironic that you find ignorant arguments and assertions hypocritical, and you come up with the word "uncomprehension".
It's doubly ironic that I thought the word was "miscomprehension" and when looking it up to confirm my mastery of the English language, find that the word is in fact "incomprehension".
You learn something new every day, eh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 03:44 PM
ElJeffe
Member
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 147
Collounsbury and sailor:
Actually, what I was referring to was (after doing a little of the research I should have done beforehand, given that my memory was adversely affected by sleeplessness, but didn't have time on account of needing to run) the attempts by the EU to enact "tax harmonization" using methods such as the "savings tax directive", among others. No, there was no actual lawsuit involved, I probably got these tax-raising efforts mixed up with the WTO lawsuit you two so kindly mentioned. My bad. However, these do amount to efforts to effectively raise taxes in America by a variety of means, as a result of the EU losing investors to the veritable tax haven that is the US. Regardless, this thread is about the UN, not the EU, so this is wildly off-topic.
I would also like to mention that I find it unfortunate that even here, on what is supposed to be a forum for mature and thoughtful discourse, peopel feel compelled to act with arrogance and condescension. So I got a fact wrong. Hell, even if I was so ridiculously off-base as to be laughable, does that really warrant such rudeness? Come on, we're all adults here. Let's act with maturity here, shall we?
Now, with regards to my second statement, about how the UN praises Zimbabwe, Cuba, and China with regards to their human rights accomplishments, while criticizing the US:
Cuba:
http://www.lacnet.org/suntimes/000416/inside.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annan said that Cuba's achievements in health, education and literacy were all the more significant given the size of its domestic product per capita and the suffering the country has undergone since the US imposed economic embargo of July 1963.
As the human development index of the UN makes clear year after year, he said, "Cuba should be the envy of many other nations ostensibly far richer."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.getusout.org/terrorism/
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During an April 2000 summit in Havana, Annan insisted that Castro's regime has "set an example we can all learn from."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China:
http://www.un.org/ga/president/55/speech/chinawomen.htm
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should like to congratulate the women of [China] and its government for having been very active in enhancing the status of women. China is a party to the Convention of All Forms of Discrimination against Women since 1980 and has made achievements in many areas of gender equality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I notice that the speaker here kinda forgot to mention the whole forced abortion and sterlization thing. I guess it's a small oversight.)
The Mugabe bit has already been touched upon, so I won't go into that.
Meanwhile, the US gets kicked off the Human Rights Commission (to be headed by Libya, of all places), and is beat up for not having socialized medicine and for not doing enough to offer abortions.
Jeff
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 04:56 PM
Collounsbury
Member
Registered: Jun 2000
Location: None of your business.
Posts: 2306
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ElJeffe
Collounsbury and sailor:
Actually, what I was referring to was (after doing a little of the research I should have done beforehand, given that my memory was adversely affected by sleeplessness, but didn't have time on account of needing to run) the attempts by the EU to enact "tax harmonization" using methods such as the "savings tax directive", among others. No, there was no actual lawsuit involved, I probably got these tax-raising efforts mixed up with the WTO lawsuit you two so kindly mentioned. My bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, you did not get a singel fact right, and your entire intervention was based on a gross misunderstanding of the underlying issues, both in re EU and in re UN.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, these do amount to efforts to effectively raise taxes in America by a variety of means, as a result of the EU losing investors to the veritable tax haven that is the US. Regardless, this thread is about the UN, not the EU, so this is wildly off-topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also wildly factually incorrect. You may want to take a look at recent FI flows, net.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to mention that I find it unfortunate that even here, on what is supposed to be a forum for mature and thoughtful discourse, peopel feel compelled to act with arrogance and condescension. So I got a fact wrong. Hell, even if I was so ridiculously off-base as to be laughable, does that really warrant such rudeness? Come on, we're all adults here. Let's act with maturity here, shall we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maturity, including whinging on? Bother.
As to the rest, the US got voted off the UNHRC because of the present administration's diplomatic incompetance such that we have managed to alienate our closest and longest standing allies to the point they refrained from supporting our bid.
Rising irritation with clumsy, poorly-thought out simpleminded know-nothing unilateralism has cumulative consequences.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 05:28 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
If you have time to participate in a debate that's "a bit silly", then you have time to look up cites.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...a statement made with no evidence at all that anyone who imagined that the UN could develop an anti-American bias was obviously paranoid. I suppose I ought to have simply demanded evidence for that POV and let it go at that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An opinion does not need to be backed up with evidence.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 05:37 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
"Do as I say, not as I do"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
If you have time to participate in a debate that's "a bit silly", then you have time to look up cites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're harsh. I'm glad you're not my boss. If you were my boss, you might not appreciate my posting to th SD at work.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An opinion does not need to be backed up with evidence. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm? ISTM that the claim that anyone who imagined that the UN could develop an anti-American bias was obviously paranoid is just a colorful way of saying that it's unlikely that the UN could develop such a bias. Surely an opinion like this has some basis.
DDG, we have discussed Ireael and the United Nations a great deal on this message board. Here's a list of threads that I was involved in from the last 12 months that touch on the subject:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ng&pagenumber=1
In general the UN has criticized Israeli actions over and over again for any number of alleged infractions, including a non-existent massacre in Jenin and damage to property. However, they most often ignored mass murder by Palestinians.
An instance where the UN actually had evidence of Palestinain misdeeds and hid it is discussed here.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ng&pagenumber=1
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 06:29 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
I don't want to hear about your workplace situation.
I don't want to hear about your SDMB resume.
I don't want to hear how many times we've discussed Israel and the UN on the boards.
I don't want to hear a rehash of supposed anti-Israel sentiment at the UN.
I don't want to hear a rehash of supposed pro-Palestinian sentiment at the UN.
I don't want to hear other people's opinions of what goes on at the UN, at all.
I don't want to hear you continue to attempt to sidetrack the discussion into whether or not somebody somewhere is paranoid.
What I want is to see a list of the "many" anti-Israel UN resolutions that your supposed "Arab/Muslim UN clique" forced through.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 06:54 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
You've been here in GD all morning.
09-09-2002 09:35 AM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...467#post2433467
09-09-2002 11:23 AM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...744#post2433744
09-09-2002 11:48 AM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...805#post2433805
09-09-2002 12:29 PM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...879#post2433879
09-09-2002 12:59 PM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...926#post2433926
Evidently you have time to look up sports statistics.
Maeglin
Member
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Labyrinth
Posts: 2567
I don't say this often, but, DDG, well done.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 07:28 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
What I want is to see a list of the "many" anti-Israel UN resolutions that your supposed "Arab/Muslim UN clique" forced through.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This site lists a number of such resolutions with links.
This site names various anti-Israel actions taken by various UN agencies. It begins
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically Arab members of the UN have used the General Assembly (GA) as a forum for isolating and chastising Israel. "...the United Nations has long been a forum for political attacks against Israel ... "
With support from third-world nations, the Non-Aligned group and others, the Arab states have had little difficulty passing harsh anti-Israel resolutions through the GA. Even today, the strength of these forces in the world body allows them to continue rebuking Israel. This is demonstrated each year at the opening session of the GA when the Arab members challenge the credentials of the Israeli delegation.
For decades, the Security Council has also participated in singling out Israel by passing one-sided resolutions charging Israel with sole responsibility for human rights violations, violence and deportations. On the other hand, Palestinian and other Arab violations and involvement with such incidents are rarely criticized, or even noted by the Council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This site has some links and it says
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UN General Assembly is still dominated by blocks of third-world countries that are anti-American and anti-Israel. The numerical strength of the Arab states and the Non-Aligned Movement in the General Assembly created the long series of offensive, anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western resolutions, capped by the infamous 1975 "Zionism equals racism" Resolution 3379. Except for Resolution 3379 itself, repealed in 1991, these black marks of injustice remain on the General Assembly's record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the above site claims to have seen anti-American actions by the UN, so it must be paranoid.
This site should be close to what you're looking for, since it has a list of anti-Isrtaeli actions with a discussion of each. If you take the time to read each of the links here, I think you'll be educated about how Israel has been treated by the UN.
Incidentally, note how long the list is, even though it only goes back to the beginning of year 2000.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 07:33 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
Three links are given, only one of which is useful.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This site {
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/news_un.html } should be close to what you're looking for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only is it not "close to what I'm looking for", but I already told you on Page 1 that their glurge-ridden relentlessly pro-Israel op-ed website is useless for the purposes of factual debate. If you think there are diamonds of relevant facts hidden in amongst the dungheaps, go and find them for me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you take the time to read each of the links here, I think you'll be educated about how Israel has been treated by the UN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I took the time to read each of the links there, I would not be my parents' daughter, who taught their little girl to recognize and eschew codswallop.
Re this link
http://www.palestinefacts.org/ I also already told you, on Page 1, that the "Palestine Facts" website has no "facts" dealing with UN resolutions but only "opinion", and is therefore useless for the purposes of factual debate on the subject of UN resolutions.
Your third link brings us back to Morris Abram's column on anti-Semitism in the UN. However, he does happen to have a list of links to some UN resolutions.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/gatoc.html
I have now worked my way through the last 23 of these resolutions, starting in the year 2001 and going backwards in time. December 2000 seems to be when things in the Mideast last heated up to a degree that required lots and lots of UN resolutions concerning Palestine. And indeed, I do see a definite pattern, although it's not the pattern of the Arab/Muslim clique pushing anti-Israel resolutions through that you claim exists. No, I see a pattern of Israel acting bad, and having the UN call them on it, and the Palestinians having a thoroughly wretched time of it, and the UN trying to help, by doing things like asking Israel to get out of the way while they start a university, and to stop confiscating Palestinians' property.
Please demonstrate which of the UN resolutions in Morris Abram's link that censure or otherwise remonstrate with Israel delivered a censure or remonstrance that was not fully deserved.
Please demonstrate which of the UN resolutions in Morris Abram's link that endeavor to assist the Palestinians delivered an assistance that was not fully deserved.
And please demonstrate exactly how an Arab/Muslim clique forced the passage of these resolutions.
Here is the Voting Record for Resolution 55-129, the one that called on Israel to cooperate with the founding of the University of Jerusalem.
http://www.un.org/russian/documen/g.../vote55-129.htm
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeas: 156
Nays: 2
Abstentions: 2
Non-voting: 29
Total voting membership: 189
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, that's some Arab/Muslim clique! They managed to get practically everybody in the whole wide world to vote with them, except for the United States and Israel, who voted "no", and 31 others who didn't vote or abstained. Hey, I want them representing Illinois on Capitol Hill...
Consider the possibility that members like Belize and Denmark thought that Israel was out of line, and voted "yea" out of conscience, not because the Arabs and Muslims told them to.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 09:30 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose And indeed, I do see a definite pattern, although it's not the pattern of the Arab/Muslim clique pushing anti-Israel resolutions through that you claim exists. No, I see a pattern of Israel acting bad, and having the UN call them on it, and the Palestinians having a thoroughly wretched time of it, and the UN trying to help, by doing things like asking Israel to get out of the way while they start a university, and to stop confiscating Palestinians' property.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's the essence of our disagreement. If you think Israel's conduct was far worse than Palistinian conduct, then it makes sense for there to have been so many more anti-Isralel resolutions. (That still wouldn't explain why there were many more resolutions against Israel than against Sudan or Robert Mugabe's government. I'm sure you would agree that the wrongs done in Zimbabwe and Sudan far, far exceed Israel's wrongs. But set that aside for now.)
Everyone knows that the Palestinians acted very badly indeed during this period. We've been through this so many times, but some of the bad things Palestinians did included
Starting the intifada as a response to a peace offer including a Palestinain state.
Each individual suicide bombing. (How many were there; I've lost count.)
Various murders of settler families, including women and children.
Palestinian gunman holing up inside a church and taking the priests hostage, in violation of the Geneva Accords.
Al Aksa torturing and killing their own citizens, without any sort of trial.
All these things were reported in the news. Each looks comparably serious to, or more serious than, the worst of Israel's misdeeds. Yet, almost none of them were criticized by any UN resolution. That's proof of UN bias.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-09-2002 10:20 PM
pldennison
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7493
You do realize -- and the name "United Nations" should be a big clue -- that the Palestinians are not a nation, right? And as such, they do not have membership status in the United Nations, and are therefore not in a position to be the subject of resolutions concerning UN members, right?
The resolutions concerning Israel -- rightly or wrongly -- call upon Israel to do or to refrain from doing certain things. The UN claims the authority to do this because Israel is a member state. The Palestinians are not a member state; they are a permanent observer on a par with the EU, the ICRC, the Organization of African Unity and other intergovernmental or nongovernmental organizations. No resolution that the UN could pass could be binding on them. That's why nations like Syria and the Saudis act as their mouthpieces in the GA.
You can argue that there would be an important symbolic nature to such resolutions, but you'd be hoist on your own petard, vis a vis your "liberals are trying" thread -- you've already stated in public view that empty, symbolic gestures are a bad thing when it comes to governments and other civic institutions.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 12:13 AM
BamBam
Member
Registered: Sep 2002
Location:
Posts: 23
Re: Re: Unmisincomprehension
Originally posted by Collounsbury
One word, neologism.
For those who know me, they will have grasped my sly meaning in my neologism uncomprehension, else for those who don't they will simply post misplaced "corrections."
Should you need to confirm your mastery of English, don't bother to attempt to correct me.
I found the following entry for neologism on dictionary.com:
ne·ol·o·gism Pronunciation Key (n-l-jzm)
n. A new word, expression, or usage.
The creation or use of new words or senses.
Psychology.
a. The invention of new words regarded as a symptom of certain psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia.
b. A word so invented.
Theology.
A new doctrine or a new interpretation of scripture.
I'm trying to figure out if your "neologism" comes under Psychology
a or b, or perhaps you are such a God of Linguistics that the Theology entry is more appropriate?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 12:31 AM
BamBam
Member
Registered: Sep 2002
Location:
Posts: 23
I stuffed that up, Collounsbury's quote ends with "... don't bother to attempt to correct me."
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 12:35 AM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
pl, I have two disageements with your point.
Theoretical disagreement: since the UN gives the Palestinians large amounts of money, one might think they had a particular obligfation to cirticize atrciticies committed by the Palestinians.
Practical disagreement:;/b] I'm fairly certain that there have been resolutions criticizing the Palestinians, despite their non-nation status.
Within the last month or so, the US announced that they would veto any one-sided Security Council resolution -- i.e., a resolution that ciriticized Israel but ignored Palestinian misdeeds. This announced policy evidently contemplates the possitility of UN resolutions criticizing the Palestinians.
You are right to raise the question of how important the UN bias has been. Collounsbury made a similar point. I don't know the answer. I think they hurt the Palestinians as well as Israel, to some degree by raising unrealistic hopes that a violent intifada can succeed. But, I'm not sure.
I do feel certain that these resolutions have harmed the United Nations, by reducing its moral standing. Israel can survive by force of arms, but if the UN's moral leadership is dissipated, they are fatally weakened.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 12:37 AM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you would agree that the wrongs done in Zimbabwe and Sudan far, far exceed Israel's wrongs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not the place to debate who's worse, Arafat or Sharon or Mugabe. This is the place to debate whether there is an Arab/Muslim clique controlling the UN by forcing the passage of many anti-Israel resolutions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some of the bad things Palestinians did included
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. "Some of the bad things some Palestinians did included..." I don't want to hear Hamas' or Al Aksa's resume. I want to hear you either prove that there's an Arab/Muslim clique controlling the UN and forcing the passage of many anti-Israeli resolutions, or retract the statement.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, almost none of them were criticized by any UN resolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Almost none of them"? Okay, which Palestinian actions were criticized by a UN resolution? I should think you would have this information at least at your very fingertips.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think Israel's conduct was far worse than Palistinian conduct, then it makes sense for there to have been so many more anti-Isralel resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I think doesn't signify here. What signifies here is what the members of the UN think, and apparently what the members of the UN think is that Israel's conduct has been far worse than the Palestinians' conduct, hence the passage of more resolutions censuring Israel than resolutions censuring the Palestinians. The question before us is, did an Arab/Muslim clique force members like Belize and Denmark to vote that way, or did they vote that way because they thought Israel's conduct was bad enough to merit the censure?
Not only have you failed to prove your assertion about an Arab/Muslim clique at the UN, but you were also asked to demonstrate which UN resolutions you find unfairly censuring of Israel, and which UN resolutions you find unfairly favorable to the Palestinians. You have not done so.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 02:20 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
"Zionism = Racism" -- Fair or Unfair?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
This is not the place to debate who's worse, Arafat or Sharon or Mugabe. This is the place to debate whether there is an Arab/Muslim clique controlling the UN by forcing the passage of many anti-Israel resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many" is a relative term. The way to determine whether the number of anti-Israel resolutions constitutes "many" is to look at the number passed against other miscreants.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. "Some of the bad things some Palestinians did included..." I don't want to hear Hamas' or Al Aksa's resume.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are formal Palestinian organizations. Al Aksa, in particular, is associated with Arafat. I'm not getting your point.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to hear you either prove that there's an Arab/Muslim clique controlling the UN and forcing the passage of many anti-Israeli resolutions, or retract the statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll recall that I quoted
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically Arab members of the UN have used the General Assembly (GA) as a forum for isolating and chastising Israel. "...the United Nations has long been a forum for political attacks against Israel ... "
With support from third-world nations, the Non-Aligned group and others, the Arab states have had little difficulty passing harsh anti-Israel resolutions through the GA. Even today, the strength of these forces in the world body allows them to continue rebuking Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you're arguing that this quote is merely someone's characterization, and you'd rather have an entire analysis.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Almost none of them"? Okay, which Palestinian actions were criticized by a UN resolution? I should think you would have this information at least at your very fingertips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there was one within the last year where there was ciritcism of suicide bombings as well as criticism of Israel. I looked for it a bit, but haven't found it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I think doesn't signify here. What signifies here is what the members of the UN think, and apparently what the members of the UN think is that Israel's conduct has been far worse than the Palestinians' conduct, hence the passage of more resolutions censuring Israel than resolutions censuring the Palestinians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is circular reasoning. What you and I think is the key to forming a judgement about whether these UN resolutions are fair or biased. One might as well argue that the KKK isn't unbiased because they think they're doing the right thing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only have you failed to prove your assertion about an Arab/Muslim clique at the UN, but you were also asked to demonstrate which UN resolutions you find unfairly censuring of Israel, and which UN resolutions you find unfairly favorable to the Palestinians. You have not done so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote aove describes an Arab/3rd world clique. I admist that I did not find evidence of an Arab/Muslim clique.
The UN has taken so many unfair actions, the cannot be summarized in a single post. My earlier cite included pages and pages just to cover the last 2 years.
So, lets start one at time. In 1975 the UN passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. I maintain that this was unfair and showed anti-Israel bias. Do you agree?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 02:50 PM
vanilla
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: to the left
Posts: 3804
thank you december
Now, about the United Nations...
Have they made any anti_U.S. resolutions?
How many countries belong?
Who doesn't and why?
What are their future goals?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 02:52 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many" is a relative term. The way to determine whether the number of anti-Israel resolutions constitutes "many" is to look at the number passed against other miscreants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not here to quibble pointlessly about semantics. We are here to debate whether there is in fact an Arab/Muslim clique that controls the UN and forces the passage of anti-Israel resolutions, period, whether they may qualify as "some" or "several" or “many” or “a whole lot” or “beaucoups”.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are formal Palestinian organizations. Al Aksa, in particular, is associated with Arafat. I'm not getting your point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was twofold. First, it's important to distinguish between the actions of “Palestinians” and those of “Palestinian terrorists”.
Al Aqsa are terrorists. Hamas are terrorists.
http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/ftolist.htm
I objected to your categorical statement describing “bad things the Palestinians did”, since three out of five of the actions you listed were carried out by “Palestinian terrorists”, not by “Palestinians”. Al Aqsa started the latest intifada; both Al Aqsa and Hamas have carried out suicide bombings; and of course, this--"Al Aksa torturing and killing their own citizens, without any sort of trial"--is self-explanatory.
And as for this--"Palestinian gunman holing up inside a church and taking the priests hostage, in violation of the Geneva Accords"--according to church officials, the priests were not held hostage, so the point would seem to be moot.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast...vity/index.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Israelis said the Palestinians had taken the nuns and priests inside as hostages: The clergy disputed that, saying they had stayed inside to provide refuge for the fighters and to protect the church.
"We are staying here, not because of the Palestinians, but we are staying here because this is our house, because we try to protect this place," said Rev. Cewelalo, a Franciscan priest. "This is our mission and we are convinced that we chose this mission."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as for this--"Various murders of settler families, including women and children"--well, yeah, I'm not going to argue with you that this was bad, whether "Palestinians" or "Palestinian terrorists" did it. But there's war on, over there, and sometimes women and children get killed. You can call it "murder" if you like, or "collateral damage", or whatever.
My second point is that I don't want to hear you attempt to change the subject by bringing up totally irrelevant stuff. The bad things that Palestinian terrorists have done qualifies as “totally irrelevant stuff”. We are here to debate whether there's an Arab/Muslim clique controlling the UN and forcing the passage of anti-Israel resolutions, not to discuss the bad things that Palestinian terrorists have done. However, if you were to tie it in with the UN resolutions that I asked for, the ones that actually censured the Palestinian terrorists for the bad things they've done, then it might be relevant.
Also, I will point out that whether or not Al Aqsa is “associated with” Arafat has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Ditto for whether or not they are “formal Palestinian organizations”. I don't care if they have charters, clubhouses, band uniforms, and a secret handshake. It's not relevant to the discussion, which is the supposed existence of an Arab/Muslim clique in the UN that forces the passage of anti-Israel resolutions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll recall that I quoted [ Morris Abram's opinion ]. I guess you're arguing that this quote is merely someone's characterization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup. Got it in one.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you'd rather have an entire analysis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Got that one wrong. I'd rather have facts, not somebody else's analysis. I can do my own analysis.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there was one within the last year where there was ciritcism of suicide bombings as well as criticism of Israel. I looked for it a bit, but haven't found it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, keep at it. And when you find it, look and see whether it's criticism of "Palestinian terrorists" or of "Palestinians".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you and I think is the key to forming a judgement about whether these UN resolutions are fair or biased.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, so as requested earlier, please demonstrate for me which, in your judgement, of the UN resolutions censuring Israel are unfair.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I admist that I did not find evidence of an Arab/Muslim clique.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, hallelujah! He's teachable after all.
Aw, but then you had to go and spoil it...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote aove describes an Arab/3rd world clique.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now palestine facts dot org thinks there's an Arab/Third World clique controlling the UN and forcing the passage of anti-Israel resolutions. Okaaayyyy...we're right back where we started.
Cite?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UN has taken so many unfair actions, the cannot be summarized in a single post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take as many posts as you think it requires to demonstrate to me which of the UN resolutions that censured Israel were unfair.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1975 the UN passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. I maintain that this was unfair and showed anti-Israel bias. Do you agree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree--it was unfair. Here is the resolution itself, 3379.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unga3379.html
It's ridiculous to equate Zionism with racism. That's why it was rescinded in 1991.
I'll even be willing to grant you that a coalition of Arab nations may have pressed for its passage, as I have heard other people say that. At that point in time, they were flush with OPEC money and power, and many members most likely thought they had to go along in order to get along, thus they voted for 3379.
However, that was a long time ago.
Okay, that's a grand total of one (1) anti-Israel resolution that was unfair.
So, got any more?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 10:06 PM
Estilicon
Member
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Argentina
Posts: 303
I would like the list of the Arab/3world clique that dominates the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the U.N.
First my country has the privilege of being a member of that august congregation better known in intelectual circles as "The Undeveloped World" (notice the capital letters). I can assure you that Argentina does whatever the hell U.S.A. wants us to do. Threfore it is rare the case in which we vote against "the first world".
Second, it is different to control the General Assembly than controlling the U.N. you already seem to know about the veto power the "great" have. What you don't seem to know is that the Security Council has power of decission in every important issue the U.N. resolves (for example the election of the International tribunal members). Therefore it is pretty much difficult than now or in the future the "arabs + 3 world" dominates the organazation. I beg you December read the damm chart before giving your opinion.
And third over the past few years you can notice that the most uncontroversial decissions have been aproved by the U.N without almost any oposition. Sadly It's your country that have decided to join forces with the "rogue states" in the world (often loosing 130-5 for example). Sadly because there isn't a country in the world that has fought longer and harder for democracy, human rights and justice than the U.S. (in my definition of rogue states I include China, Irak, etc and also Israel, I don't include the palestinians not because they aren't "rogue" but because they are not an state).
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-10-2002 10:51 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
Duck Duck Goose, you wrote something that offended and appalled me. Before going on, I will invite you to reconsider your comment and withdraw it. What I found offensive was:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as for this--"Various murders of settler families, including women and children"--well, yeah, I'm not going to argue with you that this was bad, whether "Palestinians" or "Palestinian terrorists" did it. But there's war on, over there, and sometimes women and children get killed. You can call it "murder" if you like, or "collateral damage", or whatever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're talking about armed men sneaking into residences and killing men, women and children in their sleep, including babies. All civilians. No purported military purpose.
There have been a couple of cases where Israelis intentionally set out to kill Palestinian civilians. They were prosecuted for murder, as they should have been. When Lt. Calley intentionally killed civilians in Vietnam, he was prosecuted, as he should have been.
What we're talking about was not warfare. It was not collateral damage. Please tell me that you have reconsiderred your comment above.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 02:44 AM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
I'm sorry if I offended and appalled you. You're right, I have reconsidered--I should have asked you for a cite for your use of the word "murder" in the first place. I assumed you were using it rather dramatically to refer to the deaths that are resulting during the current Mideast war, or crisis, or however you want to refer to it.
So now I'm asking--what are you talking about?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're talking about armed men sneaking into residences and killing men, women and children in their sleep, including babies. All civilians. No purported military purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay--cite? When and where did this happen, exactly? Names, dates, places. Provide links. And facts, please, not more of somebody else's opinions.
And, don't change the subject. Still waiting to hear about more anti-Israel UN resolutions that you think were unfair.
And--while you're up, could you get the list of members of the Arab/Third World clique for Estilicon? Thanks ever so.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 03:18 AM
pldennison
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7493
Er . . . I'll back december up on that one. The killings of settlers by Palestinians have been so well-reported that I wouldn't think it particularly controversial that december would mention it.
Here's one link: Visit this page at CNN and scroll down to April 27. There you'll find Danielle Shefi, age 5, who was:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killed by terrorists disguised in Israeli army uniforms who entered West Bank settlement and broke into residents' homes. Killed as she played in her parents' bedroom with her mother and two younger brothers, who were slightly injured. Three others also killed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, if you visit page 12, you'll find Avishai Shabo, also age 5. She died when a terrorist entered her home in the West Bank settlement of Itamar and opened fire. Her mother, her 16- and 13-year-old brothers, and a neighbor who attempted to help, were also killed.
I'm sure if you just want to browse back and forth among those pages, you can find others. Some of his language may be hyperbolic, but in this case, I'm willing to overlook it.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 04:08 AM
The Calculus of Logic
Member
Registered: Sep 2002
Location:
Posts: 21
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vanilla
There was a really good book called Birchism Was My Business by a Gerald Schomp, written many years ago.
He used to be a Bircher, then left and wrote a funny expose of it. I can't find it anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that book is everywhere. There are 4 copies at amazon.com & 18 at abe.com
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 07:49 AM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
Okay, thanks, PLD, but it proves my point.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killed by terrorists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't figure out where he was seeing news reports of "Palestinians" acting as secret assassins. But what he's talking about aren't the actions of "the Palestinians"--it's the actions of "the Palestinian terrorists".
What I objected to was his failure to distinguish between the two groups.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 01:42 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
Because, ultimately, the agenda here is "UN resolutions", and I want him to show me how the UN resolutions attempting to help "Palestinians" are unfair. I have yet to see a UN resolution attempting to help "Palestinian terrorists".
Also, I'd like him to point me to those UN resolutions that he believes censure the actions of "Palestinians", which I believe are in reality referring to the actions of "Palestinian terrorists".
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 01:50 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Okay, thanks, PLD, but it proves my point.
I couldn't figure out where he was seeing news reports of "Palestinians" acting as secret assassins. But what he's talking about aren't the actions of "the Palestinians"--it's the actions of "the Palestinian terrorists".
What I objected to was his failure to distinguish between the two groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before going back to the UN, I want to debate this specific point. DDG made a similar point yesterday.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was twofold. First, it's important to distinguish between the actions of “Palestinians” and those of “Palestinian terrorists”.
Al Aqsa are terrorists. Hamas are terrorists.
http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/ftolist.htm
I objected to your categorical statement describing “bad things the Palestinians did”, since three out of five of the actions you listed were carried out by “Palestinian terrorists”, not by “Palestinians”. Al Aqsa started the latest intifada; both Al Aqsa and Hamas have carried out suicide bombings; and of course, this--"Al Aksa torturing and killing their own citizens, without any sort of trial"--is self-explanatory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a tautology to say that the people who commit terror are terrorists. Similarly, all robberies are committed by robbers. So, what does DDG's statement actually mean?
I would guess, DDG, that your meaning was that these terrorists do not represent the Palestinian people. If that's a correct interpretation (or if you intended some other meaning) please support your POV.
In general, a society indicates that they are appalled by the actons of a subgroup of its citzens by punishing those people. At one time, some areas in the South indicated that lynching was more-or-less OK, because a lynch mob could expect not to be punished. OTOH when 3 racists dragged James Byrd to a horrible death a few years ago, the state of Texas indicated that they were appalled by this action by executing two of the murderers and putting the 3rd in prison for life.
I have not heard of the PA ever imposing an analogous punishment.
Furthermore al Aksa is associated with or controlled by Yasir Arafat, who runs the government. Also, I have heard few Palestinians speak out against the terrorism, and I have heard many speak out in support of it.
In summary, I do think it's appropriate to accuse "the Palestinians" of comitting these misdeed. DDG, I invite you to agree or to support the opposing POV
(Incidentally, I do not consider this topic to be a hijack. If these killings are merely individual crimes, then the UN has no business criticizing them. If they are actions of the Palestinian people or Palestinian government, then UN resolutions might be considered.)
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 02:03 PM
vanilla
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: to the left
Posts: 3804
Thank you Calculus.
I am ordering thru the library system right now.
It Is good.
So, Sweden has joined the U.N.
What is the largest country that isn't in?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 02:30 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
Switzerland is the country that recently joined the UN.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 02:34 PM
vanilla
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: to the left
Posts: 3804
oops
Well, they look alike.....
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 02:55 PM
Estilicon
Member
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Argentina
Posts: 303
Just checking in order to see if december bothered to show us some FACTS:
1) U.N. resolutions pro-palestinian or anti-israel
2) Countries that voted those resolutions
3) Any other resolution by that organism that shows the evil aliance between "arabs and 3 world.
Don't tell me you are going to pull another DECEMBER*
* A message board strategy in which you say a very improbable thing and manage to wade through 4 pages without giving a single piece of evidence about what you have said.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 06:04 PM
Latro
Member
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 111
Is the UN Good or Bad?
What is it you people have with this notion of good and bad?
Why is it always about the Good vs the Bad (or even Evil).
So many debates here revolve around this. And, of course, the USA are always the Good Guys.
A year ago NOBODY would have thought of the UN as a bad institution (well OK, maybe the Serbs). Now this warcrimes thing comes up.
'Oh dear, this doesn't serve US interests' (equals Bad), KRZZZT goes the Yankee brain >>>> UN=Bad
Honestly, sometimes I grow so tired of this 2 dimensional thinking.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 07:26 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your meaning was that these terrorists do not represent the Palestinian people. If that's a correct interpretation please support your POV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is indeed my meaning. The actions of a group of terrorists cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of the entire ethnic and/or political group from whom they sprang. The actions of the terrorist group Al Qaeda cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of either Moslems, Saudi Arabians, or Afghans. The actions of Italy's Red Brigades cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of Italians. The actions of the Abu Sayyaf group cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of Filipinos. The actions of Hizballah cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of Lebanese. The actions of the Egyptian Al-Jihad cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of Egyptians.
Are you starting to see where I'm going with this?
The actions of the Palestinian terrorist groups Al Aqsa and Hamas cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feeling, and motives of Palestinians.
Judging an entire group by the actions of a few members of that group is called "bigotry".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, a society indicates that they are appalled by the actons of a subgroup of its citzens by punishing those people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's true, but that only happens if three conditions are met--if the society wants to punish the subgroup, if the subgroup is under the control of the society, and if the society itself is free to act.
I believe that the majority of Palestinians (Palestinian "society") would like to punish Al Aqsa and Hamas for screwing up all their lives by refusing to deal and instead resorting to terror tactics. It's just human nature. They have to know that they're missing out on tourism dollars, development dollars, all kinds of money that places like Turkey and Egypt are raking in, but the Palestinians are sucking hind tit while the terrorists make constant trouble. So, assuming that, that's condition (1) met.
However, conditions (2) and (3) are not met. Al Aqsa and Hamas are not under the control of Palestinian society, they are under the control of local thugs (and yes, I'm including Arafat as a "thug"--I don't believe he's acting in good faith, no matter how many times he may call for an end to suicide bombings), the way that Mugabe's thugs are under Mugabe's control. And (3) Palestinian society itself is not free to act, as the local thugs who control the subgroup can send the subgroup to wreak mayhem upon the society. Now, you can argue that a society gets the government it deserves, and to a certain extent I believe that, but it can be damned hard for a society to get rid of thugs if the thugs have all got guns, and all the society has is the UN and its resolutions.
It can also be damned dangerous to speak out against the thugs, hence the relative silence of Palestinian society on the subject of "the thugs in our midst".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think it's appropriate to accuse "the Palestinians" of comitting these misdeed. I invite you to agree or to support the opposing POV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judging an entire group by the actions of a few members of that group is called "bigotry". If you are going to persist in stating that all Palestinians are terrorists, then you are going to be a "bigot".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these killings are merely individual crimes, then the UN has no business criticizing them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe the UN did criticize them. I don't believe the UN concerns itself with individual crimes at all. However, I welcome enlightenment. If you believe otherwise, please provide a cite.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they are actions of the Palestinian people or Palestinian government, then UN resolutions might be considered.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is last fall's Security Council resolution condemning world-wide terrorism in general, but "Palestinian terrorism" is not specified.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm
Here is another link to Morris Abram's list of UN resolutions. Please look through them (or look somewhere else) and find me a UN resolution that addresses acts of Palestinian terrorism. I don't believe there is one, but I welcome enlightenment.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/gatoc.html
Now, then, that's out of the way. We can get back to those lists you were supposed to be working on, the one of all the UN resolutions that you feel are unfair to Israel, and the UN resolutions that you feel are unfairly favorable to the Palestinians, and the list of the members of the Arab/Third World clique that is controlling the UN and forcing the passage of anti-Israel resolutions.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 09:47 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
And if "all Palestinians are terrorists", then how do you explain this?
July, 1994.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cp40
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 25, 1994
RESULTS OF MEETING BETWEEN FINANCE MINISTER SHOCHAT AND ABU-ALA
(COMMUNICATED BY FINANCE MINISTRY SPOKESMAN)
Following yesterday's successful meeting between Finance Minister Avraham (Beiga) Shochat and the Palestinian Authority's representative for Economics and Trade, Ahmed Qeria (Abu-Ala), NIS7 million is being transferred to the Palestine Authority from Israel and eight joint committees dealing with economic affairs begin work next Monday (August 1, 1994).
< snip >
Abu-Ala raised a number of issues during the meeting, including a request that more permits be granted for Palestinian workers to work in Israel, especially those from Gaza. He also asked that Israel relax restrictions on allowing Palestinian produce to enter the country. Shochat told him that Israel would do everything in its power to allow more workers into the country and is well aware of the needs of Palestinian labor. Presently some 24,000 Palestinian workers hold permits to work in Israel. In principle, Israel would like more Palestinians to work in Israel. A few thousand Palestinians currently work in Israel without permits, said Shochat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February, 1997.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/arc..._1997-20mn.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel To Accept Palestinian Workers
Israeli and Palestinian labor officials in mid-January agreed to reduce the number of foreign workers from Asia and Eastern Europe so that Palestinian workers can take their jobs. The plan would reduce from 75,000 to 30,000 the number of Asians and Eastern Europeans granted work permits as part of efforts to improve Israeli-Palestinian ties in the wake of the agreement that extended Palestinian rule to Hebron.
In February-March 1997, 20,000 more Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip are to be given permission to work in Israel, followed by another 20,000 over the following two months and an additional 5,000 by the end of August.
About 65,000 Palestinians living on the West Bank and in Gaza have permits to work in Israel, but only 46,000 of them enter Israel for jobs every day.
In March 1993, when terrorist attacks against Israel began, there were 115,600 Palestinians with work permits that enabled them to enter Israel each day. Israel's labor ministry would like to reduce the number of legal Asian and Eastern European workers from 120,000 in early 1997 to about 25,000 and to increase the number of Palestinians from 65,000 to 80,000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April, 2001.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cover/...-worke.428.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel to let in more Palestinian workers (04/28/2001)
The Israeli Defence Ministry said on Friday it would relax some curbs imposed during seven months of violence to allow 11,000 Palestinians to return to work in Israel.
"Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer today permitted an additional 11,000 Palestinian workers into Israel," said a statement issued by his office following security talks between Palestinian and Israeli officials.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast...east/index.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel grants work permits to 5,000 Palestinians
Cabinet also votes to ease curfews in West Bank
July 3, 2002 Posted: 1:55 PM EDT (1755 GMT)
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- A day after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat apparently fired two security officials, the Israeli Cabinet voted to ease restrictions on Palestinians, granting permits that will allow 5,000 to enter Israel to work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So for years now, the Israeli government has been issuing work permits literally to thousands of terrorists? Really?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 10:50 PM
pldennison
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7493
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Latro
Is the UN Good or Bad?
What is it you people have with this notion of good and bad?
Why is it always about the Good vs the Bad (or even Evil).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, I assume you Dutch have a notion of good and evil, what with that whole "fighting the Nazis and hiding Jewish refugees" thing. Maybe not--I don't know what they teach kids these days.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many debates here revolve around this. And, of course, the USA are always the Good Guys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please support this assertion or retract it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now this warcrimes thing comes up.
'Oh dear, this doesn't serve US interests' (equals Bad), KRZZZT goes the Yankee brain >>>> UN=Bad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the people arguing against the "UN bad" proposition are Americans, so I insist you retract this unsupportable bigotry.
DDG, I think that there is a legitimate case to be argued -- not that I completely agree with it -- that a great proportion of Palestinian culture does in fact support the actions of the terrorists. I ask legitimately: What proportion of Palestinians would have to support terrorism before you feel it would be fair to say, "The Palestinians do X?"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-11-2002 11:56 PM
andros
Member
Registered: Sep 1999
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 1943
Latroll:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, sometimes I grow so tired of this 2 dimensional thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm.
All Americans' brains shut down. All Americans hate the UN. All Americans see things in black and white. All Americans follow their nation in lockstep.
Who is thinking two-dimensionally here?
There's an english expression, you might have heard it. it involves pots, kettles, and a great deal of pigment.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 12:25 AM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
When should a group be judged by actions of individuals?
Thanks for your response, DDG. First of all, as you know, I'm not talking about an ethnic group; just a political group. If I said "white race should be destroyed", as a Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev recently did, that would be racism. http://washingtontimes.com/national...904-4292682.htm
You went too far, IMHO, when you wrote,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judging an entire group by the actions of a few members of that group is called "bigotry".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that this statement is true in many circumstances. However, ALL actions by a group are necessarily commited by some number of members. People commit acts. As pldennison pointed out, the question is, when is it appropriate to blame an entire group for the acts of some of its members?
You called Arafat and his administration "thugs." I agree. That characterization might or might not excuse the Palestinian people, but it doesn't excuse the UN. It makes them even more culpable. They gave this thug prestige, by inviting him to address their General Assemble. They have passed numerous resolutions at the request of this thug. For years, the UN has been giving this thug large sums of money, knowing full well that he steals much of it and uses some of it to pay for terrorism.
To the degree that Arafat is a UN-sponsored thug, I would say the UN has a particular obligation to comment on misdeeds commited by the PA or al Aksa.
You said it was "ridiculous" to equate Zionism with racism. It's more than ridiculous. Zionism effectively means the existance of Israel. The meaning of that resolution is that Israel has no moral right to exist. (There's an irony, in that Israel allows Jews and Muslims to be citizens and elected representatives, whereas, Arafat's anti-Semitic regime makes it virtually impossible for Jews to live there, and difficult for us to even visit.) America's UN Ambassador, Daniel Patrick Moynahan called this resolution an "obscene act."
The UN General Assembly passed this obscene resolution in 1975 and left it on the books. I vaguely remember various efforts to get it overturned. The GA stuck to it for 16 long years. Nor was this obscene resolution all the UN did. From the same source:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloc voting also made possible the establishment of the pro-PLO “Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” in 1975. The panel became, in effect, part of the PLO propaganda apparatus, issuing stamps, organizing meetings, preparing films and draft resolutions in support of Palestinian “rights.”
In 1976, the committee recommended “full implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their return to the Israeli part of Palestine.” It also recommended that November 29 — the day the UN voted to partition Palestine in 1947 — be declared an “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” Since then, it has been observed at the UN with anti-Israel speeches, films, and exhibits. Over the objections of the United States, a special unit on Palestine was established as part of the UN Secretariat.
Israel is the object of more investigative committees, special representatives and rapporteurs than any other state in the UN system. The special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited Israel 51 times during 27 years of activity. A "Special Mission" has been sent by the Director-General of the ILO to Israel and the territories every year for the past 17 years.
The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria and Libya are never criticized. The special rapporteur assigned by the commission to the territories was given a mandate very different from that of any other special rapporteur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I difidn't understand your point in writing:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another link to Morris Abram's list of UN resolutions. Please look through them (or look somewhere else) and find me a UN resolution that addresses acts of Palestinian terrorism. I don't believe there is one, but I welcome enlightenment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was complaining the the lack of such resolulutions was evidence of bias. You seem to be arguing that the lack of such resolutions means that no such resolutions were appropriate. If that's your point, I would call it circular reasoning.
You wrote,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So for years now, the Israeli government has been issuing work permits literally to thousands of terrorists? Really?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the horrible bombing at multi-ethnic Hebrew University was done by a Palestinian who had access because he had been given a job there. Adding insult to injury, you use Israel's practice of hiring Palestinians to argue against Israel. (It goes without saying that neither the PA nor other Arab states have been offering jobs to Israelis.) My only response is the complaint, No good deed goes unpunished.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 03:01 AM
andros
Member
Registered: Sep 1999
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 1943
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I said "white race should be destroyed", as a Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev recently did, that would be racism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if taken completely out of its context.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 04:25 AM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by PLDennison:
that there is a legitimate case to be argued...that a great proportion of Palestinian culture does in fact support the actions of the terrorists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, do it. Prove to me that a great proportion of Palestinian culture supports terrorism. And, do it without using either Arafat's mouthpieces or biased Israeli cites.
You ask, "What proportion of Palestinians would have to support terrorism before you feel it would be fair to say, "The Palestinians do X?" Well, you tell me--how many Americans would have to support a war on Iraq before you feel it would be fair to say, "The Americans support a war on Iraq"? Answer--the majority of them. Therefore, I would have to have it proved to me that the majority of Palestinians support Al Aqsa and Hamas and their terrorism agendas before I would stop carefully distinguishing between "Palestinians" and "Palestinian terrorists". I guess that's 51%. So--cite?
You could start by showing me that Arafat consistently has a greater than 51% approval rating.
http://web1.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/586/re61.htm
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al-Ahram Weekly Online
16 - 22 May 2002
Issue No.586
Palestinians everywhere, whether in the West Bank or Gaza, are sharply critical of the deals that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat made in securing the lifting of the siege on his compound in Ramallah -- the muqataa -- and the church in Bethlehem. On the former, a Jerusalemite stated, "He is free to leave his headquarters but we are still imprisoned and blockaded in our cities and towns. He should have negotiated freedom of movement for us before he secured liberty for himself." The latter is seen as a betrayal of the men who fought the occupying Israeli army. Arafat's approval rating, which soared to 75-80 per cent during his ordeal his headquarters, has begun to falter and fall towards its pre-crisis level of 23-25 per cent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of my thesis, in addition to the thousands of Palestinians I already mentioned that the Israeli government evidently doesn't have any problem with giving work permits to, I offer the following.
There's Sari Nusseibeh. Does he support terrorism?
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/fea....nusseibeh.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Voice of Moderation
College President Sari Nusseibeh Enters Middle East Political Fray
Oct. 18, 2001 -- Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University in Jerusalem, has long been considered one of the leading intellectuals among Palestinians, and one of the most impassioned advocates for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Israel and the occupied territories.
He was recently appointed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to be the top Palestinian politician in Jerusalem. In that post, Nusseibeh hopes that he can inject a spirit of moderation and dialogue into a tattered peace process.
Nusseibeh has critics and fans among both Palestinians and Jews because he has been equally critical of both sides for escalating the violence in the Middle East. His speeches rail against the atmosphere of retribution and hatred that he says perpetuates the war - mostly at the expense of Palestinians. He also called the current Palestinian uprising a "convulsion" and not a revolt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/03/aq032002.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Sari Nusaybah Urges Palestinians To Pursue Nonviolent Conflict
Resolution
Document Number: FBIS-NES-2002-0320
Document Date: 20 Mar 2002
Source: Jerusalem Al-Quds in Arabic 20 Mar 02 p 13
AFS Number: GMP20020320000198
Subslug: Commentary by Sari and Lucy Nusaybah: "More Effective Force"
[FBIS Translated Text] "More Effective Force" is a new six-part TV
series. It shows that nonviolent political struggle has constituted one
of the most effective and inventive forms of change in the 20th century.
Local Palestinian TV stations will begin showing this series on 21 March.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the rest of the faculty at Al Quds, and the college kids studying dentistry? Do they all cheer every time another suicide bomber blows up a Jerusalem cafe and kills a few more Jews?
http://www.alquds.edu/faculties/
Do the kids at the music school in Ramallah want to be suicide bombers? How would their teachers feel about that? How about their parents?
http://beta.kpix.com/news/ap/APTV/N...arenboi-ai.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Barenboim holds much-delayed master class for Palestinian youths in Ramallah
Tuesday September 10, 2002
By JAMIE TARABAY
Associated Press Writer
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) Jubilant Palestinian teen-agers greeted pianist Daniel Barenboim on Tuesday before he sat down and played Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata at a master class for young musicians in the West Bank.
The event, attended by some 100 students in Ramallah, came nearly six months after the Israeli army refused to grant Barenboim permission for a visit. This time, Barenboim simply ignored the Israeli travel ban and entered the West Bank under German diplomatic escort.
Boys and girls dressed in their school uniforms of blue-and-white striped shirts applauded Barenboim, an Argentine-born Jew and Israeli citizen, as he entered a hall at the Friends School.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barenboim's a Jew, and an Israeli citizen. Why would Jew-hating Palestinian terrorists allow him to come near their children, let alone teach them?
What about members of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society? Do they serve coffee and donuts to celebrate when Hamas claims credit for another bombing?
http://www.palestinercs.org/
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Mission: Humanitarian, Health & Social Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about all the members of the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations network? Are all these people supporting terrorists? Are all the people down at the Society for Deaf Children cheering in sign language when they turn on the TV and see bodies being scraped off the sidewalk in Jerusalem?
http://www.pngo.net/
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PNGO Network was established in September 1993, as a quick response to the signing of the Oslo Agreements with an objective to enhance coordination, consultation, and cooperation between member organizations working in different developmental domains. The main domains of work are: Coordination and networking, capacity-building, community-outreach, and public education. Throughout the past eight years, PNGO organized a wide numbers of activities in these fields of work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pngo.net/members.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addameer
Al Haq
ARIJ Applied Research Institute
Arab Thought Forum Centre
Atfaluna Society For Deaf Children
Ashtar for Theatre Production & Training
Bisan (Center for Research and Development)
Culture and Free Thought Association
Defence for Children International
Democracy and Workers' Rights Center
Early childhood Resource Centre
El - Wafa Elderly Nursing Home
First Ramallah Group
Gaza Community Mental Health Program
Health, Development, Information and Policy Institute
Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre
LAW - The Palestinian Center for the Protection of Human Rights & the Environment
MA'AN Development Center
Mashru' Al-Ri'ayya Society - Project Loving Care
Muwatin
Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of Inte..
Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees
Palestinian Center for Human Rights
Palestinian Centre for Peace and Democracy
Palestinian Hydrology Group
Palestinian Red Crescent Society
Palestinian Working Woman Society
Panorama
PASSIA
Popular Arts Centre
Rawdat Al-Zuhur Society
Sakakini Cultural Center
Science And Cultural Center
Tamer Institute
Teacher Creativity (TCC)
The Educational Network Center
The Palestinian Counseling Center
The Union of Health Care Committees
The Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees (UPMRC)
Thought and Culture Center
Women's Affairs Center / Gaza
Women's Studies Centre
Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling
YWCA
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
Miftah - The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, yeah, the YWCA in Ramallah, it's a real hotbed of terrorism, especially that kindergarten they're running in the Jalazon refugee camp...
This is a lot of people we're talking about here. Now, if you can show me that any of these groups are just a front for Hamas or Al Aqsa or Arafat, as always I welcome enlightenment. But until you can show me otherwise, I will continue to believe that these people are the "silent majority" I'm talking about, the ones who are just trying to get on with their lives and who privately wish that all the thugs would go away, and that the thugs are in the minority, and that therefore it's important to continue to distinguish between the "normal people" and the "thugs".
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 04:06 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You went too far, IMHO, when you wrote, "Judging an entire group by the actions of a few members of that group is called "bigotry".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right, I did go too far. "Judging an entire group by the actions of a few members of that group" is technically not "bigotry"--it's "prejudice". "Bigotry" is only "the obstinate or intolerant holding to one's opinions and prejudices". So the act of "judging" itself wouldn't make you a bigot--it's the act of holding to the prejudices that resulted from your "judging" that would make you a bigot. My mistake.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: big·ot·ry
Date: circa 1674
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
Date: 13th century
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
synonym see PREDILECTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the question is, when is it appropriate to blame an entire group for the acts of some of its members?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only appropriate to blame the entire group if the things that some of its members did were done in fulfillment of the agenda of the larger group. It's appropriate to blame Earth First for a member's act of putting spikes in a tree that made a chainsaw buck back and injure a logger, because this is the sort of thing that's on Earth First's agenda.
It's appropriate to blame the Red Brigades for the actions of those members who blew up a Parliament member's car, since blowing up cars is on the Red Brigade's agenda.
It's not appropriate to blame the Democratic Party for the Watergate burglary, since burglary isn't on the Democratic Party's agenda.
It's not appropriate to blame the Chicago Police Department for the actions of cops who took bribes, because taking bribes is not on the CPD's agenda.
It's not appropriate to blame the entire group of Palestinians for the actions of those members who are currently sending suicide bombers against Jews, because sending suicide bombers against Jews is not on the Palestinians' agenda. If you believe it is, then give me a cite that proves it.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OKAY NOW I'M REALLY PISSED!!! Give me cites for all of the following, toot suite, or this discussion is over.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have passed numerous resolutions at the request of this thug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the request" of Arafat? Prove that. (We're back to the "Arabs run the UN" conspiracy theory, I see.)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the UN has been giving this thug large sums of money, knowing full well that he steals much of it and uses some of it to pay for terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove that he steals it. Prove that he uses it to pay for terrorism. Prove that the UN knows this.
Your basic premise that started this discussion was "the UN is unfair to Israel, specifically in regard to its resolutions." I've been asking you for days now for a list of all the pro-Palestinian UN resolutions that you feel were unfairly favorable to the Palestinians, and all the anti-Israel UN resolutions that you feel were unfairly censuring of Israel, and you have consistently refused to do so, preferring instead to bring up totally irrelevant matters, from Zionism to white supremacy to lynch mobs to the My Lai massacre to Zimbabwe.
Anybody else, upon my first request for a list of the offending resolutions, would have simply said, "Oh, sure, here they are," and provided some links and a quick rundown on exactly how he felt they were unfair. Then we could have discussed it. But no, you prefer to carry on with your anti-Palestinian, anti-UN blatherings, as you faithfully repeat all the glurge from the anti-UN, anti-Palestinian websites.
Put up or shut up.
And I'm not even going to touch your "Arabs run the whole UN" conspiracy theory until we finish dealing with UN resolutions (if we ever do), but just so you'll know, there's a limit to the amount of time I'm willing to spend talking to conspiracy theorists.
Especially if they refuse to even attempt to provide cites.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 05:17 PM
pldennison
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7493
Uh, DDG, the part of my quote that you rather conveniently took out and replaced with ellipses said, "not that I completely agree with it." I'm not going to go to the trouble to provide support for an argument I don't completely agree with, unless you think there's a compelling reason why I should.
That said, perhaps the "silent majority" needs to be less silent. Or perhaps they aren't a majority. I 'm sure I don't know.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 06:22 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
The use of a collective noun does not constitute prejudice or bigotry
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose "Judging an entire group by the actions of a few members of that group" is technically not "bigotry"--it's "prejudice".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it's neither. It's simply the use of a collective noun.
To say, "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor," is a correct historical statement. However, to assume that every single every single Japanese citizen approved of the attack would be prejudice. YMMV
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not appropriate to blame the entire group of Palestinians for the actions of those members who are currently sending suicide bombers against Jews, because sending suicide bombers against Jews is not on the Palestinians' agenda. If you believe it is, then give me a cite that proves it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some US $ 26 million for the victims of the Intifada
The Saudi government has offered a financial aid of US $ 26 million to the families of the victims of the Palestinian Intifada in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Saudi Arabia-Palestine, Politics, 12/5/2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Wee...e/20001204.html
Since a Saudi Arabian publication calls it a "Palestinian Intifada," why shouldn't we do the same?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me cites for all of the following, toot suite, or this discussion is over.
"At the request" of Arafat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was implied in the cites I provided.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove that he steals it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was widely reported recently that Arafat had stolen over $1 billion. We discussed it on a thread here, as well.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove that he uses it to pay for terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFAIK his money comes from the UN and the EU.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove that the UN knows this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they don't, they're totally negligent.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your basic premise that started this discussion was "the UN is unfair to Israel, specifically in regard to its resolutions."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have put words in quotation marks that I never said. Newspapers fire reporters for that.
In fact, my basic premise was that the UN has been unfair to Israel. I've provided quite a bit of evidence. The amount of additional evidence available is huge. However I'm losing interest, particularly as you seem to ignore each bit of evidence I bring up, and you never provide any evidence the other way..
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been asking you for days now for a list of all the pro-Palestinian UN resolutions that you feel were unfairly favorable to the Palestinians, and all the anti-Israel UN resolutions that you feel were unfairly censuring of Israel, and you have consistently refused to do so
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have stated a different premise than I did and now you're telling me how I must make my case.
Here's an alternative idea. I've provided substantial evidence of my POV. It's your turn. Please provide some evidence that the UN has not been biased against Israel.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody else, upon my first request for a list of the offending resolutions, would have simply said, "Oh, sure, here they are," and provided some links and a quick rundown on exactly how he felt they were unfair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cite?
Seriously, the amount of unfair and unbalanced UN actions against Israel is so large that it would take a book. You are asking for too much. You want a book that doesn't exist, UN Anti-Israel Prejudice for DummiesTM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 08:08 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
<< enters thread >>
<< checks preceding post for requested lists of UN resolutions >>
<< finds none >>
<< checks preceding post for requested cites >>
<< finds none >>
<< leaves >>
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 09:38 PM
Duck Duck Goose
Member
Registered: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 7522
<< cursing the hamsters, puts head back into thread just long enough to point out that the fact that some Saudis may have referred to it as a "Palestinian" intifada does not count as a cite proving that the entire group of Palestinian people have as their communal and mass agenda the sending of suicide bombers against Jews >>
<< leaves >>
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
09-12-2002 10:16 PM
december
Member
Registered: Mar 1999
Location: new Jersey
Posts: 3488
The goose is loose
Ms./Mr. Goose -- you are asking for too much. We spent a number of posts debating the propriety of addressing "Palestinian" conduct -- whether it was racist or bigoted or prejudiced. You laid down circumstance that would satisfy you that the label could legitimately be used. That's your standard. You say I have not satisfied your standard, and I agree.
We now know that a Saudi Arabian periodical has their standard. Why isn't their standard at least as valid as yours?
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
