ForumsWEPR[necro] For all the Israel haters...

181 45710
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

I dare you to claim that this is not a clear example of U.N. bias against Israel. This sort of stuff has been seen time after time after time in events like the Goldstone Report, the Zionism equals Racism vote, and the Durban Conferences. The U.N. needs to seriously reexamine what it stands for, because it has now become a sound-off board for those who wish to condemn Israel at every opportunity.

Discuss whether or not you think that the U.N. is biased against Israel.

  • 181 Replies
iMogwai
offline
iMogwai
2,030 posts
Peasant

I tried to find an article about this which wasn't from an American or Israeli source, just to compare, but I couldn't find any.

Anyways, I don't think the problem was that Israel was condemned as much as that various other countries got away with it.

U.N. Women Executive Director Michelle Bachelet drew attention to the Palestinian issue, at the top of a short list of what she called âa number of important reports before us.â

Other items she listed were thematic â" women hostages, women and HIV/Aids, empowerment, preventable maternal mortality and âthe right to sexual and reproductive health.â


^ This shouldn't be ignored.

But then again, neither should the situation in Iran. Perhaps the reason why the U.N. is focusing on Palestine is because they know that they are responsible for creating the situation Palestine is in today by "creating" Israel after WW2.

I have no idea whatsoever for why the U.N didn't condemn Iran, and the article doesn't mention it either. I can't help but feel that the article itself was a little bit biased.

Discuss whether or not you think that the U.N. is biased against Israel.


I don't think it's a bias against Israel as much as it is a focus on the Israel/Palestine situation. It might not be fair that Israel is condemned when others are ignored, but I think it's the treatment of the others that is incorrect, rather than the treatment of Israel.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,989 posts
Grand Duke

Yes, I dare to say that it's unbiased.

Right, so down to business on explaining how the UN is not ''biased''. So somehow, just condeming Israel for only two years is now a grave matter of partiality? Seems like someone is exaggerating quite a bit.

Of course the commision should aim to write a resolution condemning all nations who deprive their women folk of basic human rights. But that would be ineffectual if they targeted so many nations in one fell swoop, rather than focus on one. And either case, one can bring quite a strong case against why Israel has worse abuse of women than Iran. Whilst Iran might be thoroughly condemned for allowing polygamy and less opportunity to hold public office like the article mentioned, the ''vigilante'' justice, ''justice'' that smears and taints the concept itself, perpetuated by Israeli settlers is far more horrendous, with the settlers blatantly attacking and assaulting them whilst the IDF soldiers watched on. Furthermore, they have been constantly denied access to hospitals for maternal care by Israeli soldiers and the numerous road blocks in the Gaza Strip, and forced to give birth on the roads itself. If such degradation is not a far reaching violation of women's rights, then nothing is. So, are you going to compare not getting a public office job to the debasement of a woman's natural child bearing process and tell me the former is worse? Clearly the women in the Gaza Strip/West Bank are in far more need of help than those in Iran.

Let's also get this straight. The UN condemns Israel frequently, because Israel has shocking cases of state-backed terrorism; it should do more to condemn Hamas, but that doesn't mean that it stop the frequency of its resolutions towards Israel.

Next salient point. Israel is roundly condemned worldwide because of world opinion, not because the UN is impartial. This is the third time I'm going to explain this. The UN is composed of the nearly 200 sovereign states in the world, and 3/4 of them are against Israel and its actions on many fronts. Hence, the number of resolutions against Israel is naturally going to be high. Is this a sign of bias? If it is to you, then the introduction of a gay-marriage bill because the the majority of an electorate supports it, is biased too. There is no worldwide anti-Zionist conspiracy in the UN that is determined to make life difficult for Israel at every turn. Each individual nation has a right to put forth its opinions, and when the majority of them hold a view contrary to yours, are you going to call it impartial and unfair? If it is, then, welcome to the concept of democracy, which people usually say is a good thing.


And this would have been better placed in the main Israel thread.

thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,825 posts
Nomad

Clearly the women in the Gaza Strip/West Bank are in far more need of help than those in Iran.

Correction
Citizens of Gaza Strip/West Bank are in far more need of help than those in Iran.
As for rest, I Agree with Niko.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,989 posts
Grand Duke

Correction
Citizens of Gaza Strip/West Bank are in far more need of help than those in Iran.
As for rest, I Agree with Niko.


Well, the focus was on women, so I only mentioned the women, but yes, agreed.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,989 posts
Grand Duke

Anyway, while we're on it, is the UN really biased against Israel? I think not.

Just one small example; Israel has been allowed into the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), an influential UN agency with a billion-dollar budget, giving Israel a voice in setting UNDP's agenda and resource allocation. The ability for Israel to even be eligible and get into the UNDP is due to it being placed wrongly and inaccurately in one of the UN's unofficial regional group, the Western European and Other Group, rather than the Middle Eastern group to which it should belong to. US pushing for Israel's membership gave it a seat, and thus allowed it as a member of the WEOG group more access to other UN bodies, such as the UN Commission on International Trade Law.

And this is but a little sample of how, as the tongue in cheek reference goes, Great Satan has helped Israel in the UN, disproportionately. The US has a much disproportionate voice in the UN, and this has saved Israel multiple times, and given it much support that would otherwise in a truly fair system, not happen.

For example(Just one out of a laundry list), U.S. engagement at the UN, allowed the U.S. to fight against the Arab League-sponsored Israeli Nuclear Capabilities resolution at last year's IAEA general conference, which would have called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

To be sure, the UN Human Rights Council is often 'blatantly, horribly anti-Israel, and incredibly dysfunctional,' as one U.S. diplomat described it. But U.S. efforts have ensured that, in its most recent session, no resolutions were adopted under the council's Israel-specific agenda item. In March 2011, the US prevented six anti-Israel resolutions from unanimously passing the council.

Is it even fair that the US and Israel has constantly thrown spikes at the feet of the PLO and prevented it from even getting a seat to voice its own opinion? So the US and Israel can have a voice, yet the Palestinians cannot? Talk about being biased.

So is the UN actually biased against Israel when only the US and a handful of allies are the ones preventing much to be done about the conflict? Or is it biased when the majority (3/4) of the world is against Israel's actions, yet is prevented from taking action repeatedly?

Do the math yourself.

impartial


Change all to Partial*
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

You might want to hold your tongue until you read these articles...









Israel has been banned from participating in its rightful U.N. group by anti-Zionist Arab countries.

The U.N. declared that Zionism-the want for a Jewish nation-is equal to racism.

The Goldstone Report was a sham. The charter commissioning the report did not ask the mission to find facts, it asked it to simply back up allegations that had been put forth. Israel was guilty before being given a chance to defend herself.

One of the members even wrote a letter expressing her opinion before the mission began!!! The mission refused to exclude her even though there was precedent for that before.


But that would be ineffectual if they targeted so many nations in one fell swoop, rather than focus on one.


So then why is all the focus on Israel? Time after time after time, the U.N. has not failed to prove its bias, be it the Goldstone Report (see above) or the Durban Conference.

The ability for Israel to even be eligible and get into the UNDP is due to it being placed wrongly and inaccurately in one of the UN's unofficial regional group, the Western European and Other Group, rather than the Middle Eastern group to which it should belong to. US pushing for Israel's membership gave it a seat, and thus allowed it as a member of the WEOG group more access to other UN bodies, such as the UN Commission on International Trade Law.


You fail to mention that the reason Israel is not in her rightful group is because ARAB COUNTRIES block her from joining!!! You cannot condemn Israel for the bias of her neighbors.

So is the UN actually biased against Israel when only the US and a handful of allies are the ones preventing much to be done about the conflict?


No, but it's biased when more resolutions are passed about Israel than Darfur, more resolutions are passed than about Syria, more than about human rights violations in Libya, and more than about women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The U.N. obsesses over Israel and it distracts them from the real work they should be doing.

So the US and Israel can have a voice, yet the Palestinians cannot? Talk about being biased.


Note the name. United Nations, and the last I checked, the Palestinians don't have a nation, nor should they ever until they can drop their weapons and sit down at the table. Israel is waiting.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,825 posts
Nomad

The Goldstone Report was a sham.

No wonder Israel have tried to deny such brutal actions.
Some clips from UNESCO documents
Deplores, with grave concern, the failure of the Government of Israel to comply
with paragraph 7 of 83 EX/Decisions, 4. 2. 3 and physically admit all the textbooks
approved by the Director-General of Unesco into the occupied territories for distribution
and use in the UNRWA/Unesco schools;
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) document. WARNING! Spelling errors might subsist. In order to access
to the original document in image form, click on "Original" button on 1st page.
84 EX/Decisions - page 16
8. Reiterates its earnest call upon the Government of Israel to authorize, within the
shortest possible time, the admittance of all textbooks approved by the Director-
General into the occupied territories for distribution and use in the schools therein;

Paragraph 4. 2.3 is

4. 2.3 Co-operation with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
(83 EX/8 and Add. )
The Executive Board,
1. Having examined the Director-Generalâs report on co-operation with the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (83 EX/8 and Add. ) ,
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) document. WARNING! Spelling errors might subsist. In order to access
to the original document in image form, click on "Original" button on 1st page.
83 EX/Decisions - page 13
2. Recalling its previous decisions on this question and in particular decision
4. 2.5 adopted at its 82nd session,
3.
4.
Having heard the debate,
Commends the Director-General on the measures he has taken to implement
the said decision:
5. Regrets the failure to import and put to use in the UNRWA/Unesco schools
in the occupied territories the textbooks approved by the Director-General;
6 Asks the Director-General to request the UNRWA authorities not to use
in the UNRWA/Unesco schools the textbooks indicated as unacceptable by
him;
7. Urgently calls upon the Government of Israel to remove immediately any
obstacles to the import and use of the textbooks approved by the Director-
General in the UNRWA/Unesco schools in the occupied territories so that
the textbooks would be in practical use in the said schools as early as possible
in the present scholastic year;
8 Asks the Director-General in the event of the Government of Israel failing
to comply with paragraph 7 of this resolution to report urgently to the
Board, so that the Board may reconsider the whole situation;
9 Asks the Director-General to report to the Executive Board at its next
session on the application of this resolution.

The problem with people like you is that their mind is like always in "with me or against me" stance and never admit their mistake.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

No wonder Israel have tried to deny such brutal actions.
Some clips from UNESCO documents


How does denying access to textbooks in anyway relate to an international report which falsely placed almost all of the blame on Israel for the deaths of civilians?

The problem with people like you is that their mind is like always in "with me or against me" stance and never admit their mistake.


I have never ever claimed that Israel is always right! I disagree with many of the things they do, however it is completely unfair how Israel can be kicked through the mud in what is supposed to be a peace-promoting body!
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,825 posts
Nomad

How does denying access to textbooks in anyway relate to an international report which falsely placed almost all of the blame on Israel for the deaths of civilians?

It does not, I just showing that they are trying to change pals culture
I have never ever claimed that Israel is always right! I disagree with many of the things they do, however it is completely unfair how Israel can be kicked through the mud in what is supposed to be a peace-promoting body!

I never read any of your post admitting their fault.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

I never read any of your post admitting their fault.


That's because there are none on this thread. I have criticized Israel for many of their more brash actions, however I am and will remain an ardent supporter.

It does not, I just showing that they are trying to change pals culture


How would it change their culture? You're losing me on this...
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,825 posts
Nomad

How would it change their culture? You're losing me on this...

If an american kid is taught from kindergarten that George Washington was a cruel person who did bad things.He will believe it.
That's because there are none on this thread. I have criticized Israel for many of their more brash actions, however I am and will remain an ardent supporter.

My memory is not weak, we had argued on "Do you support Israel? I do"
You always brought some lame explanation or some stupid justification about their actions.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

If an american kid is taught from kindergarten that George Washington was a cruel person who did bad things.He will believe it.


Except blocking textbooks is not the same thing as using repetition to instill some subliminal message that "Israel is the savior" or "Israel does no bad."

My memory is not weak, we had argued on "Do you support Israel? I do"
You always brought some lame explanation or some stupid justification about their actions.


That's because all of their actions have an explanation! The raid on the "Freedom Flotilla." The Mavi Marmara was trying to run a legal blockade! It was already announced that they were attempting to do so, and Israel had legal right to pounce on it. The commandoes who boarded the ship after it refused to divert to an Israeli port were beaten with metal poles and deck chairs, then were thrown overboard onto a lower deck. It was in self defense that Turkish citizens died, not some malicious zionist plot to keep Gaza isolated.

Operation Cast Lead was perfectly legal. Yes, there were instances of Israel killing citizens on purpose, but again, that was not direct orders, and more like rouge soldiers killing for killing's sake. I condemn all violent action against civilians that is carried out on purpose. You have not necessarily done the same. I remember, in fact, you supported the killing of Israeli civilians for no other crime than being Israeli.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,825 posts
Nomad

Except blocking textbooks is not the same thing as using repetition to instill some subliminal message that "Israel is the savior" or "Israel does no bad."

Except this was the main reason UNESCO had to interfere.
That's because all of their actions have an explanation! The raid on the "Freedom Flotilla." The Mavi Marmara was trying to run a legal blockade! It was already announced that they were attempting to do so, and Israel had legal right to pounce on it. The commandoes who boarded the ship after it refused to divert to an Israeli port were beaten with metal poles and deck chairs, then were thrown overboard onto a lower deck. It was in self defense that Turkish citizens died, not some malicious zionist plot to keep Gaza isolated.

And I quote
According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[20]

In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[17][18][19]

The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[146] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[20] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[146]

Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[147][148] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[36][149] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008â"2009 Israelâ"Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops.

Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[36]

BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[36] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[36] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that âThe blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately.â And that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gazaâs inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[150]


and I quote
A fact-finding mission of the UNHRC claimed that Israel had broken international law.[250] The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay condemned the Israeli raid, saying it involved disproportionate use of force and that the Gaza blockade was illegal.[279] Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University said that the "ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas".[280] Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law, said the raid was illegal and that a legitimate blockade would have required a state of war between Israel and Hamas, which he said was not the case.[41][281]

In September 2011, a United Nations report concluded that the Israeli blockade was legal, but that the Israeli action was "excessive".[282]

This efficiently nullifies any Israeli Justification
Operation Cast Lead was perfectly legal. Yes, there were instances of Israel killing citizens on purpose, but again, that was not direct orders, and more like rouge soldiers killing for killing's sake. I condemn all violent action against civilians that is carried out on purpose. You have not necessarily done the same. I remember, in fact, you supported the killing of Israeli civilians for no other crime than being Israeli.

Just read this
And I quote
Also in October 2009, Israel pressured the Palestinian president to postpone asking for a UN vote on the Goldstone report. Yuval Diskin, head of the Israeli Shin Bet security service, met in Ramallah with President Mahmud Abbas and informed him that if Abbas refuses to ask to postpone the UN vote on the Goldstone report then Israel will turn the West Bank into a "second Gaza": the Shin Bet chief told Abbas that if he did not ask for a deferral of the vote, Israel would withdraw permission for mobile phone company Wataniya to operate in the Palestinian Authority and threatened to revoke the easing of restrictions on movement within the West Bank that had been implemented earlier in 2009.[87]

International reaction Gold stone report
and I quote
Europe
The European Parliament passed a resolution endorsing the Goldstone report in March 2010. The resolution called on the bloc's member states to &quotublicly demand the implementation of [the report's] recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes."[114]
The French foreign ministry called the facts revealed by the report "extremely serious" and deserving of utmost attention.[115] The French UN Ambassador Gérard Araud urged both sides to initiate "independent inquiries in line with international standards."[102]
Talking to Israeli television Channel 2, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero said that in any event, Spain would not seek to prosecute Israelis for alleged war crimes.[116]
Sweden's foreign minister Carl Bildt said he supported the report, and called Israel's refusal to co-operate with the investigation a mistake. Bildt characterized Goldstone as a person with high integrity and credibility, and called his report worthy of consideration. At the time of Bildt's statement, Sweden held the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union.[117]
At the UNHRC, Switzerland commented favourably on the impartiality of the findings in the 575-page report. The Swiss ambassador called on Israel and Hamas to conduct independent investigations into the allegations of war crimes. He also called for an independent expert panel to oversee legal procedures on both sides.[118]
Turkey, which holds a seat in the Security Council until the end of 2010, has voiced support for discussing the report to the Security Council. Turkish prime minister Tayyip ErdoÄan called for "accountability" and said that guilty parties should be identified and face necessary sanctions.[119] He also accused Israel of raining &quothosphorus bombs ... on innocent children in Gaza".[120]
In an interview with an Israeli radio station, the British Ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, supported the findings of the report and called for both Israel and the Palestinians to investigate its conclusions.[121] During the UN Security Council's meeting, he said that "the Goldstone Report itself did not adequately recognize Israel's right to protect its citizens, nor did it pay sufficient attention to Hamas's actions." Nevertheless, he further stressed the concerns raised in the report, which he said cannot be ignored.[106] In October 2009 it was reported saying that Ehud Olmert, Israeli prime minister during the conflict, would &quotrobably" face arrest should he visit the UK.[122]
Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen said both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must investigate war crimes allegations, saying "there can be no impunity for serious human rights violations both on the Palestinian and the Israeli side". Verhagen also urged Israel to halt building settlements in the West Bank, calling the practice a serious obstacle to peace, which "will have to stop".[123]
As reported in Haaretz in April 2011, Labor Party Secretary-General Hilik Bar says that Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre told him that Norway will reconsider their support for the report in light of Goldstone's recantation.[124]
[edit]
Asia and Africa
A Foreign Ministry spokesman said China had voted in favor of the report "in the hope of protecting the human rights of the people in the occupied Palestinian territories and to promote the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace process."[125] Chinese members of parliament told a visiting delegation of the Israeli Parlament officials in Beijing that China will oppose discussing the Goldstone Commission's report at the UN Security Council and allowing the document to serve as a basis for law suits against Israel at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. The Chinese parliamentarians stressed that the UNHRC had the necessary tools to look into the report without the involvement of other institutions.[126]
Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, referred to the report when calling for legal action against the Israeli leadership saying that "the perpetrators of the Gaza war should stand before [an] international war crimes tribunal".[127]
The Nigerian ambassador to the UNHRC, Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, said that he Council should not dilute its efforts by vilifying the Fact-Finding Mission members and parts of the report â" no useful purpose would be served by compounding the human rights situation in the region through sheer rhetoric or failure to act. He said that "the implementation of the report was crucial to addressing the pernicious issues of impunity and accountability".[98]
[edit]
Organizations
The Arab League called for implementation of the recommendations and Secretary General Amr Moussa stressed the its commitment to closely following up the situation and assuring implementation of Goldstone's recommendations to &quotrevent future assaults."[128]
On behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Pakistani Ambassador Zamir Akram welcomed the fact-finding mission and thanked them for presenting a comprehensive and objective account. Discussing responding to allegations of war crimes, he said that "it was now the time for action; words needed to be converted into deeds".[98]
Speaking in the UNHRC, numerous states called the report "balanced".[118]
Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Egyptian Ambassador Hisham Badr welcomed the report, saying that those responsible for crimes should be brought to justice and called for an end to a "situation of impunity and defiance of the law".[98]
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,989 posts
Grand Duke

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2012/0 ⦠anti-.html


Similarly we can show the continuation of settlement building by the Israelis whilst they claim ''eace'' is a blatant breach of negotiations and shows their true colours - They don't want peace. The US cannot complain that UNESCO is anti peace when Israel behind its back at the negotiation table is already anti-peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ⦠ution_3379

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Pa ⦠ed_Nations


So what do you want me to focus on here?


Goldstone report right. In October, support grew within Israel for the launch of an independent inquiry, although the IDF and Defense Ministry argued that it would discredit the military's own internal investigations. Why would the military be afraid of its own people investigating if all it did was correct?

So what happened next? The IDF started its own report, with the Defense Military vowing NOT to interview soldiers or officers. Errrr right. That was impartial; not interviewing any of the ground troops. And it's not just the UN who condemened them. In April 2010, the independent Human Rights Watch released a 62-page report on Israel's and Hamas' investigations. Concerning Israel, HRW reported that Israel had until that point failed to conduct a credible and independent investigation into the alleged war crimes in Gaza. 'Israel's investigations into serious laws-of-war violations by its forces during last year's Gaza war lack thoroughness and credibility', HRW said in a release.


You fail to mention that the reason Israel is not in her rightful group is because ARAB COUNTRIES block her from joining!!! You cannot condemn Israel for the bias of her neighbors.


I don't need to condemn the UN for this. I definitely condemn the Arab states for pushing Israel off its rightful group, but it's not the UN's fault, but the Arab nations. The very fact that the Israelis can then be allowed to seat on an entirely different group because of the backing of one single nation shows inherent biasness not against Israel but for Israel. Let's make that distinction clear.

No, but it's biased when more resolutions are passed about Israel than Darfur, more resolutions are passed than about Syria, more than about human rights violations in Libya, and more than about women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The U.N. obsesses over Israel and it distracts them from the real work they should be doing.


No, how can you even have a conscience and term the degradation of women's rights in Israel not a ''real work''? Of course the UN should condemn the other nations, and it HAS been doing so for Syria quite a lot recently if you didn't read so in the news.

The U.N. declared that Zionism-the want for a Jewish nation-is equal to racism.'


Zionism is Jewish nationalism; and in doing so it has strived to perve artificially the Jewish character of the state by preventing the Palestinians from returning because the leaders are afraid of the demographic timebomb.

As Israel increasingly inserts itself into the occupied territories, and as Israeli settlers, Israeli settlements, and Israeli-only roads proliferate and a state infrastructure benefiting only Jews takes over more and more territory, it becomes no longer possible to ignore the racist underpinnings of the Zionist ideology that directs this enterprise. It is no longer possible today to wink at the permanence of Zionism's thrust beyond Israelâs pre-1967 borders. It is now clear that Israelâs control over the occupied territories is, and has all along been intended to be, a drive to assert exclusive Jewish control, taming the Palestinians into submission and squeezing them into ever smaller, more disconnected segments of land or, failing that, forcing them to leave Palestine altogether. It is totally obvious to anyone who spends time on the ground in Palestine-Israel that the animating force behind the policies of the present and all past Israeli governments in Israel and in the occupied West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem has always been a determination to assure the predominance of Jews over Palestinians. Such policies can only be described as racist, and we should stop trying any longer to avoid the word.


So then why is all the focus on Israel? Time after time after time, the U.N. has not failed to prove its bias, be it the Goldstone Report (see above) or the Durban Conference.


Because Israel has always been accused of gross humans rights abuse, and because many member nations want to see that targeted.
Resolutions are proposed by member states, and since much world opinion is fixated upon this piece of land that has a violent and repressive recent history, it's their choice to submit resolutions. The UN as a body is not biased, the UN as a whole does not propose resolutions for the members to discuss; the reverse happens.

Note the name. United Nations, and the last I checked, the Palestinians don't have a nation, nor should they ever until they can drop their weapons and sit down at the table. Israel is waiting.


A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history. Doesn't state anything about land.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,989 posts
Grand Duke

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php


Rebuttal for some of the ''facts'' here:
Report claims the UN is biased for:

1956: Permitted Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal


It did not give the go ahead to Nasser and ''ermit'' it; as far as I know, the UN was neutral towards the nationalization itself; as it has for such incidents worldwide. What it condemned was the fighting afterwards.

1967: Secretary-General U Thant withdrew UN peace- keeping forces from Gaza


As far as I know, Egypt was the only country in the first place to allow UN troops on its soil, whilst Israel pouted and refused to comply. Furthermore, when U Thant asked the Israelis if they wanted a buffer, he could redeploy UN troops to the Israeli side of the border to prevent war, the Israelis refused.

Either way, I don't this shows any biasness at all, and if any, it does for Israel, because it didn't pressure Israel into allowing UN peacekeepers on its soil in the first place.

1974: Invited Terrorist Yasser Arafat to address the General Assembly


They've allowed the state-terrorists of the Israeli government to speak for over 60 years.

1975: Adopted the infamous resolution equating Zionism with racism


Explained earlier.
Showing 1-15 of 181