-
j2k4's United Nations.
l had to paste this whole, it really doesn't abbreviate well, so l apologise for it's length.
------------------------------------------------------
Road map for US relations with rest of world.
Hundreds of deletions and insertions on just about every global issue could undermine the UN summit agreement
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday August 27, 2005
The Guardian
For any student of the Bush administration's foreign policy, the US version of the draft United Nations summit agreement, leaked earlier this week, is an essential text.
The hundreds of deletions and insertions represent a helpfully annotated map to Washington's disagreements with most of the rest of the world on just about every global issue imaginable.
Most of the disagreements illustrated in this document are longstanding. President Bush was never going to sign a document urging UN member states to support the Kyoto protocol on climate change, or the international criminal court. The mystery is how these differences surfaced only at the end of a long drafting process.
There are two versions of how this happened. The US delegation says it was raising its objections informally at meetings to discuss the draft, and was forced to circulate its blunt list of deletions and additions only after those objections were ignored.
The account provided by European officials at the UN explains the late timing of this intervention by turmoil inside the US foreign policy establishment. For the first seven months of this year, as the draft was being hammered out, the US had no full permanent representative at the UN. John Danforth retired in January, and the White House's attention was focused on persuading the Senate to confirm John Bolton. A career diplomat, Anne Patterson, led the delegation in the interim, but reportedly received little political guidance from Washington.
When Mr Bolton arrived this month, finally forced in by the president with a temporary executive appointment, the change was dramatic. The leadership shifted from a non-political diplomat to one of the most ideological and partisan US permanent representatives in recent history.
The document reflects Mr Bolton's belief that the assertion of US interests should almost always take precedence over the search for compromise with an international community that includes despotic and corrupt regimes.
Of particular interest is the repeated deletion of the word "disarmament" in the section on nuclear arms. The Bush administration wants global counter-proliferation strategy to focus exclusively on preventing more countries acquiring nuclear weapons. It is seeking to play down the importance of reducing the stockpiles of the established nuclear powers, as it has plans to overhaul its own arsenal and develop new weapons, such as nuclear "bunker busters".
The removal of any mention of the Millennium development goal for rich countries to donate 0.7% of their gross national product to the developing world, marks a final break with the pledge agreed by the Clinton administration. US overseas development assistance is below 0.2% and near the bottom of the league.
The deletion of references to "corporate responsibility" reflects an ingrained distaste for regulation of the private sector in the pursuit of social goals such as the elimination of poverty or the treatment of HIV in Africa.
Here are some of the US changes:
Values and principles
We further reaffirm that core values and principles, such as respect for human rights and human dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, [deleted: respect for nature], the rule of law, shared responsibility, multilateralism, and non-resort to the threat or use of force [inserted: in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations] are essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among states.
We rededicate ourselves to support [deleted: all] efforts to uphold ... the sovereign equality of all states, respect for their territorial integrity and political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, resolution of disputes by peaceful means, and the right of self-determination of peoples [deleted: which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation]
We pledge to make the United Nations more relevant, more effective, more efficient, more accountable and more credible [deleted: and to provide the organisation with the resources needed to fully implement its mandates].
Development
We [deleted: remain concerned, however, by the slow and uneven implementation of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium development goals and] reaffirm our commitment to eradicate poverty and promote sustained economic growth, sustainable development and global prosperity for all.
We resolve to... make the fight against corruption at all levels a priority, as agreed at Monterey, and welcome all actions taken in this regard at the national and international levels including the adoption of policies that emphasise accountability, transparent public sector management, competitive markets [deleted: and corporate responsibility and accountability]
[Deleted: We welcome the establishment of timetables by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7% of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015 and to reach at least 0.5% by 2009 and urge those developed countries that have not yet done so to make concrete efforts towards allocating 0.7% of their GNP for ODA...]
Protecting our common environment
[Deleted: We recognise that climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the world. We call for further technological and financial international cooperation for the sustainable use and management of natural resources in order to promote sustainable production and consumption patterns as a means of keeping the balance between the conservation of natural resources and the furtherance of social and economic objectives.]
We therefore resolve to [deleted: undertake concerted global action to address climate change, including through meeting all commitments and obligations under the Kyoto protocol...].
Meeting the special needs of Africa
We resolve to provide, as a priority, assistance for HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment in African countries [deleted: on a grant basis, and encourage pharmaceutical companies to make anti-retroviral drugs affordable and accessible in Africa]
Use of force under the UN charter
We also reaffirm that the provisions of the charter of the United Nations regarding the use of force are sufficient [deleted: to address the full range of security threats and agree that the use of force should be considered as an instrument of last resort].
Disarmament and non-proliferation
We also recognise that non-compliance with existing arms control, non-proliferation and [deleted: disarmament] agreements and commitments also threatens international peace and security of all nations and increases the possibility of terrorist acquisition of WMD.
We reiterate our firm commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty [deleted: its three pillars, disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy].
Impunity
... we commit to end the impunity for the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes [deleted: by cooperating with the international criminal court, the existing ad hoc and mixed criminal tribunals and other mechanisms for international justice as well as through strengthening national legal systems].
The hostile messenger
John Bolton is the perfect messenger for the blunt challenge Washington has thrown down to the international consensus. He is famous for his brusque manner and deep scepticism, verging on hostility, towards the UN.
During his Senate confirmation hearings, previous glib remarks came back to haunt him, such as the observation that if the UN headquarters "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".
He also came under scrutiny for claims he tried to have state department analysts sacked if they did not conform to his political beliefs.
After months of wrangling, the White House had to resort to a "recess appointment", a means of bypassing the Senate, to get Mr Bolton to the UN. The manoeuvre sent a signal that although he was the president's envoy, he did not represent all of the US.
-----------------------------------------------------
So what this adds up to is the US's desire for the United Nations to reflect US policy whether the rest of the world likes it or not. The hypocrisy is staggering, the arrogance, however, is typical.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Wtf is this thread called "j2k4's United Nations"? :huh:
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Wtf is this thread called "j2k4's United Nations"? :huh:
Because it's the one j2k4 has been pushing for, so it's only fair he takes some of the credit.
Mr Bush fires a missile
Leader
Saturday August 27, 2005
The Guardian
Less than three weeks before world leaders are due to meet in New York for an unprecedented summit aimed at reforming the United Nations and preparing it to face the challenges of the 21st century more effectively, Washington has suddenly proposed hundreds of amendments to the working document. In effect they are telling officials to tear it up and start again.
The amendments begin ominously on page one of the 40-page document where, among a list of core values such as freedom, equality and the rule of law, the US - in a none-too-subtle snipe at the Kyoto protocols - wants to delete "respect for nature". The amendments continue in a similar vein over the remaining pages, weakening references to the millennium development goals (agreed by 191 members of the UN five years ago as a strategy tocombat poverty), deleting a statement that force should be a "last resort" when dealing with security threats, and so on.
What these amendments actually say comes as no great surprise. We have already heard them from the Bush administration many times, but they are also a sign that hopes for a less divisive approach from Washington during the president's second term may be misplaced. The forum in which this is happening is also significant. Mr Bush has never really forgiven secretary general Kofi Annan and other senior UN figures for their failure to support his invasion of Iraq. Although no one disputes that the UN is in need of reform, the American notion of reform looks more like a settling of scores than an attempt to improve its workings.
The president's controversial appointment of John Bolton as his ambassador at the UN - during a recess without the senate's approval - is a case in point. The abrasive Mr Bolton once famously remarked before his appointment: "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." He also observed that the UN headquarters building in New York has 38 storeys and that "if it lost 10 storeys, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".
Mr Bolton is described by some as a multilateralist - though he seems to favour the kind of multilateralism where the US occupies the driving seat, such as Nato and the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. At the same time he has opposed other international initiatives that might impose constraints on the US, including the international criminal court and treaties restricting landmines, biological weapons, nuclear weapons testing and the small arms trade.
He was reportedly disappointed that President Bush did not include Cuba in the axis of evil along with Iraq, Iran and North Korea. While working at the state department under Colin Powell, he described President Kim Jong Il as a tyrannical dictator - which, true though it may be, is not the sort of language to yield productive results in the world of international diplomacy. North Korea responded in kind by calling Mr Bolton "human scum" and a "bloodsucker".
This confrontational style goes down well with the American neoconservatives who, little more than two years ago, were arguing that a dose of "creative destruction" in Iraq would work wonders for the Middle East and apparently hope to try the same remedy at the UN now.
It is difficult to see, though, how this can be squared with the efforts of Condoleezza Rice who, since she took over as secretary of state, has been trying to repair diplomatic damage caused by the Iraq war, or the appointment of former White House counsellor Karen Hughes to improve America's faded image abroad. While Ms Rice is busy building bridges, Mr Bolton seems equally busy blowing them up.
---------------------------------
PS: Using WTF for Why the Fuck is confusing, l propose you use YTF.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Wtf is this thread called "j2k4's United Nations"? :huh:
Because it's the one j2k4 has been pushing for, so it's only fair he takes some of the credit.
PS: Using WTF for Why the Fuck is confusing, l propose you use YTF.
Ok you got it though. I doubt you were THAT confused.
j2 is pushing for what exactly? Everything that was deleted?
Some of those deletions make sense.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
are these seriously the changes?
they might as well just officially pull out.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
are these seriously the changes?
they might as well just officially pull out.
What if we did?
Absent the U.S., you could make the U.N. precisely would you would like it to be, and best of all, you could do it somewhere other than that prime piece of upper-east side real estate.
Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic, and totally committed (to the effective exclusion of it's chartered aims) to marginalizing the U.S. and any other capitalist system?
It must be said that the U.S., as a fully-realized concept, functions somewhat less-than-perfectly, but in a way that far outstrips the U.N.
Let the U.N. become the example it truly should be, instead of the faux-moralistic pretender it is.
I think why...me's document is a good start, but doesn't quite go far enough.
As he/she seems to want a sum-total refutation of his/her post, I hereby consent to parse the deletion of his/her choice...
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
are these seriously the changes?
they might as well just officially pull out.
What if we did?
Absent the U.S., you could make the U.N. precisely would you would like it to be, and best of all, you could do it somewhere other than that prime piece of upper-east side real estate.
Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic, and totally committed (to the effective exclusion of it's chartered aims) to marginalizing the U.S. and any other capitalist system?
It must be said that the U.S., as a fully-realized concept, functions somewhat less-than-perfectly, but in a way that far outstrips the U.N.
Let the U.N. become the example it truly should be, instead of the faux-moralistic pretender it is.
I think whypikonme's document is a good start, but doesn't quite go far enough.
As he/she seems to want a sum-total refutation of his/her post, I hereby consent to parse the deletion of his/her choice...
Refresh my memory...
Who's idea was the UN, and which country basically wrote the rules? :rolleyes:
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What if we did?
Absent the U.S., you could make the U.N. precisely would you would like it to be, and best of all, you could do it somewhere other than that prime piece of upper-east side real estate.
Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic, and totally committed (to the effective exclusion of it's chartered aims) to marginalizing the U.S. and any other capitalist system?
It must be said that the U.S., as a fully-realized concept, functions somewhat less-than-perfectly, but in a way that far outstrips the U.N.
Let the U.N. become the example it truly should be, instead of the faux-moralistic pretender it is.
I think whypikonme's document is a good start, but doesn't quite go far enough.
As he/she seems to want a sum-total refutation of his/her post, I hereby consent to parse the deletion of his/her choice...
Refresh my memory...
Who's idea was the UN, and which country basically wrote the rules? :rolleyes:
It was one of our Democrats; do you know which one?
Never mind-it really doesn't matter.
We need have looked no further than Wilson's League of Nations for an example of the impending failure of such a venture.
I think we should spend our U.N. chit on our own national healthcare proggy instead.
In any case, if we wrote the rules, they aren't being followed, and a re-write is in order. ;)
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Roosevelt was a very popular Democrat, to have won so many elections though, dontcha know :snooty:
Shame he kicked the bucket before the war ended, and so failed to see his dream become a reality....
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic
LMFAO, riiite j2, if they really were Anti-Semitic, Israel would have been screwed a long time ago....I very much doubt that the UN is racially biased. If anything, they're pro-semitic (just a thought, I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just saying).
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
Quote:
Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic
LMFAO, riiite j2, if they really were Anti-Semitic, Israel would have been screwed a long time ago....I very much doubt that the UN is racially biased. If anything, they're pro-semitic (just a thought, I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just saying).
So let's use whypickonhim's logic.
Anti-semitic does not refer to Jews, so what's your point.
Now let's use my logic, Judaism is not a race, so what does racism have to do with it.
So at either end of the spectrum, what the feck are you talking about Asda.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
LMFAO, riiite j2, if they really were Anti-Semitic, Israel would have been screwed a long time ago...
The U.N. can't screw Israel or anything else capable of defending itself, that's why it's minions find themselves raping Sudanese youngsters and thieving poor defenseless barrels of oil. :dry:
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
LMFAO, riiite j2, if they really were Anti-Semitic, Israel would have been screwed a long time ago...
The U.N. can't screw Israel or anything else capable of defending itself, that's why it's minions find themselves raping Sudanese youngsters and thieving poor defenseless barrels of oil. :dry:
Are you implying that the war in Iraq was started by the UN? As for the UN's food for oil program, yes, I find that to be a very selfish program. But I'm just saying, the UN is anything but Anti-Semetic. As for the problem in Sudan, I honestly don't know why the UN isn't doing anything about it, I'm not defending the UN (it has its pros, but a lot of cons) I'm just saying that the UN is not Anti-Semetic (as much as I'd like it to be, j/k).
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
LMFAO, riiite j2, if they really were Anti-Semitic, Israel would have been screwed a long time ago....I very much doubt that the UN is racially biased. If anything, they're pro-semitic (just a thought, I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just saying).
So let's use whypickonhim's logic.
Anti-semitic does not refer to Jews, so what's your point.
Now let's use my logic, Judaism is not a race, so what does racism have to do with it.
So at either end of the spectrum, what the feck are you talking about Asda.
Not the literal meaning dim-wit, most people think Anti-Semitism is racism or a prejudice against Jews, I very well know the meaning of the word semite/semitism, but average people don't.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So let's use whypickonhim's logic.
Anti-semitic does not refer to Jews, so what's your point.
Now let's use my logic, Judaism is not a race, so what does racism have to do with it.
So at either end of the spectrum, what the feck are you talking about Asda.
Not the literal meaning dim-wit, most people think Anti-Semitism is racism or a prejudice against Jews, I very well know the meaning of the word semite/semitism, but average people don't.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Good to know you're not average.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
I don't understand why America can't keep out of other country's business.
The war because Saddam 'had WMD', sure American's you keep telling youself that. How come Iraq hasn't invaded America? America has WMD's. Oh i forgot, because the real reason for the war was Oil.
Also something thats always bothered me, America has no national sport (well apart from War; 2 wins and 2 loses in the past hundred years or so) so why does Baseball have a 'World Series' that only American teams enter :huh:
Stupidity > America
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
Not the literal meaning dim-wit, most people think Anti-Semitism is racism or a prejudice against Jews, I very well know the meaning of the word semite/semitism, but average people don't.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Good to know you're not average.
Both below avarage and above avarage people can know, just not teh avarage people. Guess which one he is.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The U.N. can't screw Israel or anything else capable of defending itself, that's why it's minions find themselves raping Sudanese youngsters and thieving poor defenseless barrels of oil. :dry:
Are you implying that the war in Iraq was started by the UN? As for the UN's food for oil program, yes, I find that to be a very selfish program. But I'm just saying, the UN is anything but Anti-Semetic. As for the problem in Sudan, I honestly don't know why the UN isn't doing anything about it, I'm not defending the UN (it has its pros, but a lot of cons) I'm just saying that the UN is not Anti-Semetic (as much as I'd like it to be, j/k).
Here's one for the archive-someone else actually acknowledging the U.N. has a problem, just a wee, tiny little problem involving "selfish"-ness.
As to your belief regarding the U.N. and anti-Semitism, I'll beg a bit of time to find something for your edification...
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
Both below avarage and above avarage people can know, just not teh avarage people. Guess which one he is.
And let us not forget those who can not spell "average".
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
Not the literal meaning dim-wit, most people think Anti-Semitism is racism or a prejudice against Jews, I very well know the meaning of the word semite/semitism, but average people don't.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Good to know you're not average.
I'm above average when it comes to knowledge, practical things on the other hand...
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikibonbon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
Both below avarage and above avarage people can know, just not teh avarage people. Guess which one he is.
And let us not forget those who can not spell "average".
Aye, and those whole live in a country when its 1:45 in the morning and have been drinking large quantity's of alcohol, they need there own group too :snooty:
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikibonbon
And let us not forget those who can not spell "average".
Aye, and those whole live in a country when its 1:45 in the morning and have been drinking large quantity's of alcohol, they need there own group too :snooty:
Hell, the fun doesn't even start till 2:30 and you've already gone home!
Your punishment shall be to ponder on why Canada has a baseball team that year after year fails to make it to the World Series. Also, you must ponder on why there are some damned many non-Americans who play professional baseball. Why are all the big names these days Puerto Rican, Cuban or Japanese?
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
, if they really were Anti-Semitic, Israel would have been screwed a long time ago....I very much doubt that the UN is racially biased. If anything, they're pro-semitic (just a thought, I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just saying).
Here's a little something for you:
ON THE RECORD
One Small Step
Is the U.N. finally ready to get serious about anti-Semitism?
BY ANNE BAYEFSKY
Monday, June 21, 2004 11:15 a.m. EDT
(Editor's note: Ms. Bayefsky delivered this speech at the U.N. at a conference on Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding, sponsored by the United Nations Department of Information, this morning.)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you at this first U.N. conference on anti-Semitism, which is being convened six decades after the organization's creation. My thanks to the U.N. organizers and in particular Shashi Tharoor [the undersecretary-general for communications and public information] for their initiative and to the secretary-general for his willingness to engage.
This meeting occurs at a point when the relationship between Jews and the United Nations is at an all-time low. The U.N. took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and according to its charter was to flower on the strength of a commitment to tolerance and equality for all men and women and of nations large and small. Today, however, the U.N. provides a platform for those who cast the victims of the Nazis as the Nazi counterparts of the 21st century. The U.N. has become the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism--intolerance and inequality against the Jewish people and its state.
Not only have many of the U.N. members most responsible for this state of affairs rendered their own countries Judenrein, they have succeeded in almost entirely expunging concern about Jew-hatred from the U.N. docket. From 1965, when anti-Semitism was deliberately excluded from a treaty on racial discrimination, to last fall, when a proposal for a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism was withdrawn after Ireland capitulated to Arab and Muslim opposition, mention of anti-Semitism has continually ground the wheels of U.N.-led multilateralism to a halt.
There has never been a U.N. resolution specifically on anti-Semitism or a single report to a U.N. body dedicated to discrimination against Jews, in contrast to annual resolutions and reports focusing on the defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. Instead there was Durban--the 2001 U.N. World Conference "Against Racism," which was a breeding ground and global soapbox for anti-Semites. When it was over U.N. officials and member states turned the Durban Declaration into the centerpiece of the U.N.'s antiracism agenda--allowing Durban follow-up resolutions to become a continuing battlefield over U.N. concern with anti-Semitism.
Not atypical is the public dialogue in the U.N.'s top human rights body--the Commission on Human Rights--where this past April the Pakistani ambassador, speaking on behalf of the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, unashamedly disputed that anti-Semitism was about Jews.
For Jews, however, ignorance is not an option. Anti-Semitism is about intolerance and discrimination directed at Jews--both individually and collectively. It concerns both individual human rights and the group right to self-determination--realized in the state of Israel.
What does discrimination against the Jewish state mean? It means refusing to admit only Israel to the vital negotiating sessions of regional groups held daily during U.N. Commission on Human Rights meetings. It means devoting six of the 10 emergency sessions ever held by the General Assembly to Israel. It means transforming the 10th emergency session into a permanent tribunal--which has now been reconvened 12 times since 1997. By contrast, no emergency session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, estimated to have killed a million people, or the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia, or the death of millions over the past two decades of atrocities in Sudan. That's discrimination.
The record of the Secretariat is more of the same. In November 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report on Israel's security fence, detailing the purported harm to Palestinians without describing one terrorist act against Israelis which preceded the fence's construction. Recently, the secretary-general strongly condemned Israel for destroying homes in southern Gaza without mentioning the arms-smuggling tunnels operating beneath them. When Israel successfully targeted Hamas terrorist Abdel Aziz Rantissi with no civilian casualties, the secretary-general denounced Israel for an "extrajudicial" killing. But when faced with the 2004 report of the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions detailing the murder of more than 3,000 Brazilian civilians shot at close range by police, Mr. Annan chose silence. That's discrimination.
At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of right hand and left foot. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.
As Israelis are demonized at the U.N., so Palestinians and their cause are deified. Every year the U.N. marks Nov. 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People--the day the U.N. partitioned the British Palestine mandate and which Arabs often style as the onset of al nakba or the "catastrophe" of the creation of the state of Israel. In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors of the concentration camps celebrated, was described by Secretary-General Annan as "a day of mourning and a day of grief."
In 2003 the representatives of over 100 member states stood along with the secretary-general, before a map predating the state of Israel, for a moment of silence "for all those who had given their lives for the Palestinian people"--which would include suicide bombers. Similarly, U.N. rapporteur John Dugard has described Palestinian terrorists as "tough" and their efforts as characterized by "determination, daring, and success." A commission resolution for the past three years has legitimized the Palestinian use of "all available means including armed struggle"--an absolution for terrorist methods which would never be applied to the self-determination claims of Chechens or Basques.
Although Palestinian self-determination is equally justified, the connection between demonizing Israelis and sanctifying Palestinians makes it clear that the core issue is not the stated cause of Palestinian suffering. For there are no U.N. resolutions deploring the practice of encouraging Palestinian children to glorify and emulate suicide bombers, or the use of the Palestinian population as human shields, or the refusal by the vast majority of Arab states to integrate Palestinian refugees into their societies and to offer them the benefits of citizenship. Palestinians are lionized at the U.N. because they are the perceived antidote to what U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called the great poison of the Middle East--the existence and resilience of the Jewish state.
Of course, anti-Semitism takes other forms at the U.N. Over the past decade at the commission, Syria announced that yeshivas train rabbis to instill racist hatred in their pupils. Palestinian representatives claimed that Israelis can happily celebrate religious holidays like Yom Kippur only by shedding Palestinian blood, and accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-positive blood.
U.N.-led anti-Semitism moves from the demonization of Jews to the disqualification of Jewish victimhood: refusing to recognize Jewish suffering by virtue of their ethnic and national identity. In 2003 a General Assembly resolution concerned with the welfare of Israeli children failed (though one on Palestinian children passed handily) because it proved impossible to gain enough support for the word Israeli appearing before the word children. The mandate of the U.N. special rapporteur on the "Palestinian territories", set over a decade ago, is to investigate only "Israel's violations of . . . international law" and not to consider human-rights violations by Palestinians in Israel.
It follows in U.N. logic that nonvictims aren't really supposed to fight back. One after another concrete Israeli response to terrorism is denounced by the secretary-general and member states as illegal. But killing members of the command-and-control structure of a terrorist organization, when there is no disproportionate use of force, and arrest is impossible, is not illegal. Homes used by terrorists in the midst of combat are legitimate military targets. A nonviolent, temporary separation of parties to a conflict on disputed territory by a security fence, which is sensitive to minimizing hardships, is a legitimate response to Israel's international legal obligations to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity. In effect, the U.N. moves to pin the arms of Jewish targets behind their backs while the terrorists take aim.
The U.N.'s preferred imagery for this phenomenon is of a cycle of violence. It is claimed that the cycle must be broken--every time Israelis raises a hand. But just as the symbol of the cycle is chosen because it has no beginning, it is devastating to the cause of peace because it denies the possibility of an end. The Nuremberg Tribunal taught us that crimes are not committed by abstract entities.
The perpetrators of anti-Semitism today are the preachers in mosques who exhort their followers to blow up Jews. They are the authors of Palestinian Authority textbooks that teach a new generation to hate Jews and admire their killers. They are the television producers and official benefactors in authoritarian regimes like Syria or Egypt who manufacture and distribute programming that depicts Jews as bloodthirsty world conspirators.
Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in response to two suicide bombings which took place in Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: "Once again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in the Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to such methods." "The Secretary General condemns the suicide bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any cause." Refusing to name the perpetrators, Mr. Secretary-General, Teflon terrorism, is a green light to strike again.
Perhaps more than any other, the big lie that fuels anti-Semitism today is the U.N.-promoted claim that the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestinian land. According to U.N. revisionism, the occupation materialized in a vacuum. In reality, Israel occupies land taken in a war which was forced upon it by neighbors who sought to destroy it. It is a state of occupation which Israelis themselves have repeatedly sought to end through negotiations over permanent borders. It is a state in which any abuses are closely monitored by Israel's independent judiciary. But ultimately, it is a situation which is the responsibility of the rejectionists of Jewish self-determination among Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim brethren--who have rendered the Palestinian civilian population hostage to their violent and anti-Semitic ambitions.
There are those who would still deny the existence of anti-Semitism at the U.N. by pointing to a range of motivations in U.N. corridors including commercial interests, regional politics, preventing scrutiny of human rights violations closer to home, or enhancement of individual careers. U.N. actors and supporters remain almost uniformly in denial of the nature of the pathogen coursing through these halls. They ignore the infection and applaud the host, forgetting that the cancer which kills the organism will take with it both the good and the bad.
The relative distribution of naiveté, cowardice, opportunism, and anti-Semitism, however, matters little to Noam and Matan Ohayon, ages 4 and 5, shot to death through their mother's body in their home in northern Israel while she tried to shield them from a gunman of Yasser Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The terrible consequences of these combined motivations mobilized and empowered within U.N. chambers are the same.
The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential agent of equality or dignity or democratization.
This conference may serve as a turning point. We will only know if concrete changes occur hereafter: a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism adopted, an annual report on anti-Semitism forthcoming, a focal point on anti-Semitism created, a rapporteur on anti-Semitism appointed.
But I challenge the secretary-general and his organization to go further--if they are serious about eradicating anti-Semitism:
* Start putting a name to the terrorists that kill Jews because they are Jews.
* Start condemning human-rights violators wherever they dwell--even if they live in Riyadh or Damascus.
* Stop condemning the Jewish people for fighting back against their killers.
* And the next time someone asks you or your colleagues to stand for a moment of silence to honor those who would destroy the state of Israel, say no.
Only then will the message be heard from these chambers that the U.N. will not tolerate anti-Semitism or its consequences against Jews and the Jewish people, whether its victims live in Tehran, Paris or Jerusalem.
Ms. Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikibonbon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
Aye, and those whole live in a country when its 1:45 in the morning and have been drinking large quantity's of alcohol, they need there own group too :snooty:
Hell, the fun doesn't even start till 2:30 and you've already gone home!
Your punishment shall be to ponder on why Canada has a baseball team that year after year fails to make it to the World Series. Also, you must ponder on why there are some damned many non-Americans who play professional baseball. Why are all the big names these days Puerto Rican, Cuban or Japanese?
In real sports the top 3 or 4 teams from each country get entered into a European contest, unless ofcourse it's a shit country like Wales, in which case only the top team gets in.
That way teams fight to get into those top spots, and each country has a chance of winning it.
Does America have a national baseball squad, and what teams have they recently played? The American B team and the American U-18's :unsure: well at least America win again :01:
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikibonbon
Hell, the fun doesn't even start till 2:30 and you've already gone home!
Your punishment shall be to ponder on why Canada has a baseball team that year after year fails to make it to the World Series. Also, you must ponder on why there are some damned many non-Americans who play professional baseball. Why are all the big names these days Puerto Rican, Cuban or Japanese?
In real sports the top 3 or 4 teams from each country get entered into a European contest, unless ofcourse it's a shit country like Wales, in which case only the top team gets in.
That way teams fight to get into those top spots, and each country has a chance of winning it.
Does America have a national baseball squad, and what teams have they recently played? The American B team and the American U-18's :unsure: well at least America win again :01:
Took response to sports world.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
I don't understand why America can't keep out of other country's business.
Also something thats always bothered me, America has no national sport (well apart from War; 2 wins and 2 loses in the past hundred years or so) so why does Baseball have a 'World Series' that only American teams enter :huh:
Baseball, basketball, football are national sports. You are referring to leagues which in some cases do have teams from other countries.
You don't know what you're talking about.....again.
What's your national sport? :huh:
Irregardless to keeping out of other countries' business, I agree. Some Americans need to get it through their heads that they shouldn't feel the need save every other country nor exploit it.
If some country wants to invade another, let it go.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we should let him go. None of our business.
The Iran/Iraq War. None of our business.
Vietnam. None of our business.
Korea. None of our business.
Somalia. None of our business.
We need to let stuff go until it comes to our doorstep like Pearl Harbor. It was none of our business until then too. The rest of the world will manage.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Good to know you're not average.
I'm above average when it comes to knowledge, practical things on the other hand...
I thought you were spiffing at practical things. I was impressed by you breaking a man's arm with a punch, when you were 8 years old.
BTW I love the phrase "I'm above average when it comes to knowledge ..." it speaks volumes.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikibonbon
Your punishment shall be to ponder on why Canada has a baseball team that year after year fails to make it to the World Series.
since the Montreal Expos are now the Washington Nationals, i'll assume you're referring to the Toronto Blue Jays and respond with: ???. the Blue Jays won the World Series twice in a row, 1992 and 1993! that's not too shabby.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikibonbon
Hell, the fun doesn't even start till 2:30 and you've already gone home!
Your punishment shall be to ponder on why Canada has a baseball team that year after year fails to make it to the World Series. Also, you must ponder on why there are some damned many non-Americans who play professional baseball. Why are all the big names these days Puerto Rican, Cuban or Japanese?
In real sports the top 3 or 4 teams from each country get entered into a European contest, unless ofcourse it's a shit country like Wales, in which case only the top team gets in.
That way teams fight to get into those top spots, and each country has a chance of winning it.
Does America have a national baseball squad, and what teams have they recently played? The American B team and the American U-18's :unsure: well at least America win again :01:
You are missing the point....again.
We have capitalist leagues which are about making money and have player's unions.
National teams play in the Olympics to go up against other countries.
Your comparisons are moot.
I doubt Britain (better yet the UK), for instance, could support 30 soccer teams...with TV and stadiums for each...and it be viable. Your country is too small.
America is a different animal.
We have viable sport leagues (well except hockey :lol: :lol: ) that have enough support within the country (plus Canada).
If the league saw viability in Mexico, we'd go there and expand.
Isn't there an NFL Europe? :blink:
@Tiki - Canada having a basball team (or basketball) has nothing to do with a "national" team. It's not like the Toronto Blue Jays have all Canadian born players. :dry:
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
@Tiki - Canada having a basball team (or basketball) has nothing to do with a "national" team. It's not like the Toronto Blue Jays have all Canadian born players. :dry:
I wasn't refering to the national team when I spoke of Toronto, I was refering to there being a non-American (locationwise) team being eligible to play in the World Series.
P.S., I cntinued this earlier in Sports World so as not to mess up this topic so we can enjoy it and all its silliness.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I doubt Britain (better yet the UK), for instance, could support 30 soccer teams...with TV and stadiums for each...and it be viable. Your country is too small.
I take it this is an attempted rod, if so it's a V Poor one.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I doubt Britain (better yet the UK), for instance, could support 30 soccer teams...with TV and stadiums for each...and it be viable. Your country is too small.
I take it this is an attempted rod, if so it's a V Poor one.
Without expounding on the quality of the rod (about which I know naught :P ), I would say that the U.K. is a hot-bed of football (their brand, of course), and as such produces practitioners in numbers out of all proportion to their population; a similar situation on the domestic side might be the state of Indiana and it's love of and penchant for the sport of basketball, yes? :)
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I take it this is an attempted rod, if so it's a V Poor one.
Without expounding on the quality of the rod (about which I know naught :P ), I would say that the U.K. is a hot-bed of football (their brand, of course), and as such produces practitioners in numbers out of all proportion to their population;
Well spectators in numbers out of proportion, but your point is well made.
I would venture that our participation rate in the national sport is proportionately higher than yours, however that is no more than a guess and may well be pish.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Without expounding on the quality of the rod (about which I know naught :P ), I would say that the U.K. is a hot-bed of football (their brand, of course), and as such produces practitioners in numbers out of all proportion to their population;
Well spectators in numbers out of proportion, but your point is well made.
I would venture that our participation rate in the national sport is proportionately higher than yours, however that is no more than a guess and may well be pish.
Pish?
Not likely.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I take it this is an attempted rod, if so it's a V Poor one.
Without expounding on the quality of the rod (about which I know naught :P ), I would say that the U.K. is a hot-bed of football (their brand, of course), and as such produces practitioners in numbers out of all proportion to their population; a similar situation on the domestic side might be the state of Indiana and it's love of and penchant for the sport of basketball, yes? :)
Totally different.
I said 30 teams with stadiums...all in Britain.
No one's talking of "how much said sport is loved". It's irregardless to population.
I thought that was CaptianObvious without me having to actually say it.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikibonbon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
@Tiki - Canada having a basball team (or basketball) has nothing to do with a "national" team. It's not like the Toronto Blue Jays have all Canadian born players. :dry:
I wasn't refering to the national team when I spoke of Toronto, I was refering to there being a non-American (locationwise) team being eligible to play in the World Series.
P.S., I cntinued this earlier in Sports World so as not to mess up this topic so we can enjoy it and all its silliness.
Gotcha but that's moot 'cause Peerzy has got it wrong....again.
MLB ain't about countries. It's a league.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
There are currently at least 3 Sports Stadiums in Newcastle alone (Football, Rugby and Athletics)..
Newcastle isnt a big city.
Every team in the Premiership has a Stadium, and i would suspect every team in the 1st Division.. as they wouldnt be able to compete in the Premiership without one.
Thats just England...
I KNOW Scotland have a few lying around, and then theres Cardiff & Wembley...
What was the question again... :blink:
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
There are currently at least 3 Sports Stadiums in Newcastle alone (Football, Rugby and Athletics)..
Newcastle isnt a big city.
Every team in the Premiership has a Stadium, and i would suspect every team in the 1st Division.. as they wouldnt be able to compete in the Premiership without one.
Thats just England...
I KNOW Scotland have a few lying around, and then theres Cardiff & Wembley...
What was the question again... :blink:
Do you have 30?
Oh that's what I thought.
Still you miss the point. The three in Newcastle seem to be for different sports.
We've got 30 baseball, 31 basketball, and 32 football teams each with their own stadiums.
Different population and country make-up entirely.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
This is much less tedious than a discussion of the U.N.
What is the capacity of your average stadium...is rugby played in the same stadia as football/soccer?
What about cricket?
Are these multi-use venues?
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
We've got 30 baseball, 31 basketball, and 32 football teams each with their own stadiums.
minus one or two exceptions. the Raiders and the A's play in the same stadium, for example.
-
Re: j2k4's United Nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Without expounding on the quality of the rod (about which I know naught :P ), I would say that the U.K. is a hot-bed of football (their brand, of course), and as such produces practitioners in numbers out of all proportion to their population; a similar situation on the domestic side might be the state of Indiana and it's love of and penchant for the sport of basketball, yes? :)
Totally different.
I said 30 teams with stadiums...all in Britain.
No one's talking of "how much said sport is loved". It's irregardless to population.
I thought that was CaptianObvious without me having to actually say it.
You mean it really isn't a rod, you actually are that ignorant of soccer in the UK.
Every team in the English Premiership has it's own ground, there are 20 there alone. There are several games televised live each week, those which are not are shown in full later on. Several of the clubs have their own TV stations. Try to get a ticket to get into someplace like Old Trafford (Man Utd) to see a serious game, bet you can't.
There are 24 teams in the English Championship (the League below) all the teams have their own grounds (I'm 99% certain of that, ground sharing is very uncommon in the UK). Several games are shown live each week, with highlights being shown for the other ones.
There are a further 2 leagues below that, each with 24 teams. Almost certainly the majority of these have their own grounds.
That's just England.
There are 12 Teams in the Scottish Premier League, all of whom have their own ground. There is at least one live televised game a week, with highlights of the rest being shown. Both Celtic and rangers have their own TV station, which show every game they play in (not live but in full). Celtic Park has a capacity of just under 60,000 and is generally full or very near to it, I'm sure Castle Greyskull is the same.
There are other minor leagues in Scotland. I don't know the situation in Wales or Ireland.
FFS we also get live football from Italy, Spain, Germany and France (that I know of).
