The Fucking United Nations ENDORSES terrorism

[december]

And, fucking Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden all voted that way. Italy abstained.

UN backs Palestinian violence

UNITED NATIONS - Six European Union countries yesterday endorsed a United Nations document that condones violence as a way to achieve Palestinian statehood.

They were voting as members of the UN Human Rights Commission on a resolution that accuses Israel of a long list of human rights violations, but makes no mention of suicide bombings of Israeli civilians... http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20020416/652511.html

Some on this UN panel explained that they were endorsing violence, but not terrorism. Since Palestinian violence has mostly been in the form of terrorism, this distinction seems a tad disingenuous.

In any event, what the fuck is the United Nations doing endorsing violence?

I am speechless.:mad:

[Odesio]

Originally posted by december

In any event, what the fuck is the United Nations doing endorsing violence?

I am speechless.:mad:

Just more evidence of why the United Nations shouldn't be taken seriously. With a stance like that is it any wonder Israel doesn't want the UN protecting them?

Marc

[Spavined Gelding]

I am more than a little disappointed that our friend December can’t, or doesn’t want to, tell the difference between the United Nation’s and its no-authority, window dressing only, third world dominated and anti-western civil rights club. It my well be that some European nations wanted to send Israel a message about the occupied territories (the same message the last three, or four or five, US administrations have been sending), but our friend’s implication that this was a vote of the Security Counsel or the General Assembly is both dishonest and disingenuous.

[Hemlock]

The UN Human Rights Commission should more accurately be called the UN Vacuous Gesture Commission. Barely worthy of attention. It's used to send messages and give countries a poke in the ribs. EG, China (which co-sponsored this resolution with Cuba and Vietnam) is constantly running around cajoling and bribing countries into voting down resolutions criticizing its human rights record. This is a way for them to get their own back and irritate the West - and split the West, too. The wording was effective in dividing France, Belgium and other rabble from the US, UK, Canada, Germany etc. The resolution changes nothing.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Hemlock
The wording was effective in dividing France, Belgium and other rabble from the US, UK, Canada, Germany etc.

First thoughts that came into my head after reading this:

"Who needs the French, we've got the Germans!"

[Duck Duck Goose]

Some slightly less inflammatory views of the resolution.
http://www.thedailycamera.com/news/worldnation/16wun.html
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/020415/w041599.html
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/04/15/killings/

This, from the OP's link:
...the measure...supports the use of "all available means, including armed struggle" to establish a Palestinian state.
--I can't find mentioned anywhere else. I keep finding this quote--
"The text contains formulations that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence. There is no condemnation whatsoever of terrorism," German Ambassador Walter Lewalter told the meeting.
--but not any actual "endorsement of violence".

I also can't find this anywhere else.
...a United Nations document that condones violence as a way to achieve Palestinian statehood.
So, lacking any other information, I am going to assume that the "endorsement of violence" is all in Steven Edwards', and the National Post's, imaginations.

[Alereon]

Violence is the traditional method used by oppressed peoples against their oppressors when "Hey! Stop oppressing me!" doesn't work. We can all condemn acts of violence against civilians (need I point out that the Palestinians aren't the only ones commiting such acts?), but attacks against Israeli military forces and targets are completely justified. THIS IS A WAR, PEOPLE! Soldiers die in war. It's sad, but it's what happens.

[matt_mcl]

Fuck, that's in the National Post? I didn't notice the byline.

Well, that explains that. Does anyone still believe that that's an honest paper anymore? I mean, their editorialists have called people "faggots" on the front page before. (Why do they even have editorials on the front page? Can anyone even tell the difference?)

It shouldn't surprise Duck Duck Goose or anyone else to find that something is in the National Post's imagination. Don't bother with them.

[capacitor]

Hey december, I suppose that you want the Palestinians to lay down, eat live tank shells and stay there while they get buried alive, right?

[Saint Zero]

Considering how long these two have been fighting over this land, I doubt seriously either side will listen.

[december]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose So, lacking any other information, I am going to assume that the "endorsement of violence" is all in Steven Edwards', and the National Post's, imaginations.I checked the web site of the UN Human Rights Commission this morning and did not find the text of the resolution. Anyone know how to get the actual text?

[jjimm]

december - challenge for you - read something that doesn't fit your political mold. Digest it. Turn it into a thread. Make a cogent argument about it. Condemn it, if you like. Could be an interesting post. Would certainly erode the stereotype I have of you.

[SuaSponte]

Oh, I get it now. A close reading of the National Post article reveals all - the National Post is being disingenuous, if not deliberately misleading.

It starts by presenting, as an apparent quote from the resolution, an endorsement of the use of "all available means, including armed struggle" to establish a Palestinian state. But, in actuality, that phrase came from a 1982 General Assembly resolution that was (at least according to the National Post) "recalled" by the new resolution.

Add to that, it appears that the 1982 resolution did not specifically refer to Palestine. According to the National Post "quote" (after these shenanigans, I feel obliged to place that word in quotes), the 1982 resolution "reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."
Taken as a general statement, it would be mighty hard for Americans, much less much of the rest of the world, to object to this, though admittedly "all available means" is disturbingly overbroad.

Sua

[matt_mcl]

the National Post is being disingenuous, if not deliberately misleading.

I'm shocked. Shocked.

[RenMan]

This is pretty hypocritical of France and Spain especially. Both of them fight violent regional independence movements in their own countries (Basque Country and Corsica).

[Floater]

Originally posted by RenMan
This is pretty hypocritical of France and Spain especially. Both of them fight violent regional independence movements in their own countries (Basque Country and Corsica).

On the other hand: The West Bank and Gaza are {b]not[/b] part of Israel. They are occupied territories that have been infestated by Israeli squatters.

[Polycarp]

Well, it should not surprise you that the United Nations endorses violence. As I recall, it was originally an alliance of nations combatting aggression by Germany, Italy, and Japan in defense of democracy (and Communist people's republics, since the USSR was an integral part, but we don't mention that aspect, since the ideals held by most and given lip service by others were for law-abiding democracy). To preserve the desired state of affairs, the United Nations Organization was founded by an agreement among the United Nations, and differed from the League of Nations in having the ability to combat unethical force with ethical force.

As to whether it has carried out its mandate, and whether or not endorsing violence by Palestinians (or by Israelis, or anybody else you care to name) is appropriate, opinions may differ.

Floater -- interesting point. Ignoring your inflammatory language, may I suggest that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are within Israel's de facto boundaries, part of the territory claimed by the Jewish people under an alleged mandate from God, part of Palestine as a British mandate and trust territory -- And the problem with this whole scenario is who has the right to live in that defined territory and who has the right to govern there -- two distinct questions with related answers.

[RenMan]

Originally posted by floater
On the other hand: The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. They are occupied territories that have been infestated by Israeli squatters.

floater, there are those who think that the Basque Country is not part of Spain, and Corsica is certainly not a part of France. It's a freakin' island, and they speak Italian for crying out loud!

Borders are defined by those in power. There are Germans who think that Alsace and Lorraine are rightfully part of Germany, for example. Chechnyans don't really think Chechnya is part of Russia, but the Russians seem to disagree.

So don't start trolling me about who is the rightful owner of your so-called "occupied" territories. My point was entirely different: that France and Spain are hypocritical in advocating violent rebellion, when they are dealing so harshly with independence movements in their own countries.

[rjung]

Originally posted by jjimm
december - challenge for you - read something that doesn't fit your political mold. Digest it. Turn it into a thread. Make a cogent argument about it. Condemn it, if you like. Could be an interesting post. Would certainly erode the stereotype I have of you.
(singing) "To dreammmmmmmmmmm... the impossible dreammmmmmmmmmm..."

[december]

jjimm and rjung, do you recall my debates on the Bayesian analysis of the Exchange Paradox and on the Axiom of Choice? Those were mathematics topics.

However, on the political side, see Should we ban human cloning? (I agree with the Democrats!) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=108726&highlight=democrats)

[manhattan]

Originally posted by december
I checked the web site of the UN Human Rights Commission this morning and did not find the text of the resolution. Anyone know how to get the actual text? Ask, and ye shall receive (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2002.1.En?Opendocument).

Someday, I'm going to work that phrase into a football thread. "Win the toss, and..."

[sailor]

Having read the resolution I fail to find one single word justifying Palestinian use of violence or terrorism. Maybe december or RenMan can locate it and point it out to me?

>> France and Spain are hypocritical in advocating violent rebellion, when they are dealing so harshly with independence movements in their own countries.

RenMan, you are quite ignorant. Spain is *not* advocating violent rebelion anywhere and it is *not* dealing harshly with any "independent movement" but with a terrorist group which is opposed by the majority of the Basque people and which is killing Basques. Mainly it is killing Basque elected representatives in Basque institutions. Most of the antiterrorist actions are done by the Basque police which is controlled by the Basque government.

And yet there are idiots in America, namely the Legislature of the sheep-humping state of Idaho, who have passed legislation which can be interpreted much more clearly as a support of terrorism and the Federal Government had to intervene to avoid some serious problems with Spain. The obligatory cite (http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/leg2002/20020312/238435.shtml)

So you can see there are plenty of idiots to go around and the USA has its fair share if not more.

[Joachim Pieper]

Wait, wait. Does the US endorse violence as a solution to all its international problems? Or are all those fat bombs just to look pretty? And what was that war of independence thing all about? Violent much?

Sentiment in Palestine might just be the same... I'm gonna go crazy and compare Arafat to George Washington...

Cheers.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Joachim Pieper


Sentiment in Palestine might just be the same... I'm gonna go crazy and compare Arafat to George Washington...

Cheers.

When did Washington assist US forces in suicide bombings? Oh, I suppose suicide bombings weren't really much of an option back then. Do you have any evidence that Washington assisted in a campaign of murder against Royalist supporters in the colonies?

Marc

[december]

Thank you, manhattan. It looks as if Sua hit the nail on the head. This resolution may be critcized as unfair, one-sided, and unhelpful. It willfully ignores all the provocations, such as homicide bombers, hiding bombs in ambulances, etc.

In effect, the resolution faults every possible step Israel has taken to fight the Palestinian terrorism, which is what started the current conflict. Nevertheless, it's just over the edge to say that the resolution backs Palestinian violence. I feel let down by the National Post. I apologize for misleading the GDMB.

[Joachim Pieper]

No, no evidence at all, but I rather suspect that he would have, given that his cause was so clearly just. Point is Arafat thinks his cause is right and just. See what I'm getting at?

Cheer

[sailor]

A misleading OP by december? NO! I am shocked!. Shocked, I tell you.

[SPOOFE]

Does the US endorse violence as a solution to all its international problems?
It would if it only used violence as a solution to all its international problems.

Or are all those fat bombs just to look pretty?
Only as pretty as all those ambassadors.

[andros]

With no offense intended, december, that's about the most graciously I've ever seen you back down. I know how hard it is. Thank you.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Joachim Pieper
Wait, wait. Does the US endorse violence as a solution to all its international problems? Or are all those fat bombs just to look pretty? And what was that war of independence thing all about?

Fuck off.


Sentiment in Palestine might just be the same... I'm gonna go crazy and compare Arafat to George Washington...

Cheers.

Crazy is an understatement, mac.


Oh, and you finally annoyed me enough to mention this, but your name is quite similiar to that of a Waffen-SS Officer (http://www.clandavidsonusa.com/wac/panzergruppe/aug96/aug96.html#malmedy). Nothing to do with anything, it just irks me.

[rushtopher]

Originally posted by Joachim Pieper
No, no evidence at all, but I rather suspect that he would have, given that his cause was so clearly just. Point is Arafat thinks his cause is right and just. See what I'm getting at?

Cheer

So you are saying that you think that George Washington would have done it if he could have, but he didn't because he couldn't.

Let's put aside the fact that you are probably not capable of reading the mind of a man who has been dead for 200 years. Let's put aside the fact that you admit that you have no evidence. We'll even put aside the likelihood that you are just saying really inflammatory things about founding fathers to get a rise out of people and feed your superiority complex. Let's just ask the question of why do you think that George Washington didn't kill every Tory he could find during the Revolutionary War? He had the manpower, he had the weaponry. So why?

See what I'm getting at?

[Hemlock]

Originally posted by MGibson


When did Washington assist US forces in suicide bombings? Oh, I suppose suicide bombings weren't really much of an option back then. Do you have any evidence that Washington assisted in a campaign of murder against Royalist supporters in the colonies?

Marc

Why do you think the United Empire Loyalists fled to Canada? Both sides commited terrible atrocities - farms were destroyed, crops burned, physical assaults took place, there was persecution of women and children, innocent pepole were killed in cold blood.

Washington himself probably had better things to do. But the American Revolution was fought by people motivated by hate - don't believe the cute idealistic stuff in school textbooks.

I wouldn't, but it would be perfectly possible to draw parallels and call the current violence the "Palestinian War of Independence".

[rjung]

Originally posted by december
However, on the political side, see Should we ban human cloning? (I agree with the Democrats!) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=108726&highlight=democrats)
Random fluke. ;) And, given your numerous misleading-but-provocative-evil-liberal-op-ed threads in GD, statistically insignficant.

Still, at least you were big enough to apologize for the misleading OP once the facts came to light, so that's a gold star for ya. :)

[december]

The National Journal's exaggeration of that UN HRC resolution does not in any way excuse the UN and those countries who voted for it. They must have known it was so one-sided as to be nothing but propaganda. This does nothing to achieve peace. It's an abuse of what the UN ought to be. The only "positive" aspect is that it would have been even worse if it had been passed by the Security Council or General Assembly, as Spavined Gelding pointed out. (Of course, all the countries who voted for the resolution sit on the GA and some of them sit on the SC.)

This resolution calls for Mary Robinson to visit Israel, but the Israelis haven't agreed to let her in. Who can blame them? She's so partisan, she be smuggling explosives. ;)

Seriously, this resolution stinks. It's bad for peace, it's bad for the United Nations, and it's bad for the world.

[clairobscur]

, and Corsica is certainly not a part of France. It's a freakin' island, and they speak Italian for crying out loud!

Corsican , not Italian. Though both languages are related, it's not the same thing. And actually they mostly speak french..only part of the Corsican speak the language.

[december]

Originally posted by manhattan
Ask, and ye shall receive (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2002.1.En?Opendocument).I sent the above cite into the Wall Street Journal Opinionjournal.com, and got the following e-mail back from James Taranto.Wrong resolution. Note the date April 5, which is about 10 days before this one was passed. See
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/fa8e2218d732fe10c1256b
9c0052682c?Opendocument, which appears to be a draft of the one that was passed.

When I previewed, this site it put "url" in the middle. Maybe that's the e-mail broke at that point. So I moved "url" to the end.
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/fa8e2218d732fe10c1256b9c0052682c?Opendocument
Neither version opened for me. Also, I could no longer open manhattan's link. Can any of you figure out how to open this site and view twhat Taranto says was he actual resolution?

[Joachim Pieper]

Steady on, Mike. No offence intended. Joachim Pieper was an efficient SS officer. He killed those men out of a need for speed, rather than a need for blood. No other defense for him, I'm afraid. Pragmatism, not idealism.


'Violence has relsoleved more issues than any other factor in history.'

That was 'starship troopers', but the point may just hold true. Call me crazy, but the US has a foreign policy backed up by the treat of potentially apocalyptic violence, no? It's the only effective kind, after all...


Cheers.

[andros]

Ok, Joachim, you're crazy.

You're also offensive, tragically un-hip, and not nearly as deep as you obviously think you are. And apparantly too stupid or too poorly-versed in the English language to understand the difference between "more" and "all" in your post above. Not to mention quite full of yourself for being able to quote Heinlein out of context without even a reasonable understanding of how his views apply to whatever the fuck it is you're on about.

Hope you don't mind if I ask you to fuck off. There's a good lad.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Joachim Pieper
Steady on, Mike. No offence intended. Joachim Pieper was an efficient SS officer. He killed those men out of a need for speed, rather than a need for blood. No other defense for him, I'm afraid. Pragmatism, not idealism.

Oh, and that makes it all better. :rolleyes:

[december]

Originally posted by december
I sent the above cite into the Wall Street Journal Opinionjournal.com, and got the following e-mail back from James Taranto.
When I previewed, this site it put "url" in the middle. Maybe that's the e-mail broke at that point. So I moved "url" to the end.
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/fa8e2218d732fe10c1256b9c0052682c?Opendocument
Neither version opened for me. Also, I could no longer open manhattan's link. Can any of you figure out how to open this site and view twhat Taranto says was he actual resolution? Today the above link does work. Inside this UN resolution we find 1. Affirms the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation by all available means in order to free its land and be able to exercise its right of self-determination and that, by so doing, the Palestinian people is fulfilling its mission, one of the goals and purposes of the United Nations;That phrase, "by all available means" could certainly be interpreted as an endorsemenst of violence and terror.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by december
That phrase, "by all available means" could certainly be interpreted as an endorsemenst of violence and terror.

Of course, it could also be considered an endorsement of 10-year olds sticking live frogs into goverment official's lunchboxes.


Which is exactly the trouble you get when you word things vaugely.

[sailor]

So, december, if we find a quote by President Bush or other high-ranking US official, saying words like "we will fight terrorism with all available means" or similar words to that effect, are you willing to say he is endorsing using terrorism? Please answer yes or no because I think I have a quote for you.

[plnnr]

Its only "terrorism" is the other guy is blowing up YOUR house. If you're blowing up his house, its a completely justifiable use of legitimate force.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by december
The National Journal's exaggeration of that UN HRC resolution does not in any way excuse the UN and those countries who voted for it. They must have known it was so one-sided as to be nothing but propaganda.

So, if you propound that one side is right and the other is wrong, you are not taking a position, but instead are merely engaging in "nothing but propoganda?" If that's the definition, december, then explain why in god's name you keep posting propoganda on these boards?

Perhaps, instead, the countries involved believe that the Palestinians are right and the Israelis are wrong? An almost unbelievable possibility, to be sure, but just perhaps.

Sua

[SuaSponte]

No, no, no, SPOOFE. Joachim is absolutely right. Why, just last year we turned Beijing into a radioactive parking lot over the spy plane incident.

Sua

[december]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Oh, I get it now. A close reading of the National Post article reveals all - the National Post is being disingenuous, if not deliberately misleading.

It starts by presenting, as an apparent quote from the resolution, an endorsement of the use of "all available means, including armed struggle" to establish a Palestinian state. But, in actuality, that phrase came from a 1982 General Assembly resolution that was (at least according to the National Post) "recalled" by the new resolution.Now we know that the new resolution retained the phrase "all available means", although it did not explicitly mention "armed struggle." So, when the National Post left the impression that the current resolution endorsed terrorism, they were being fair, not disingenuous.
sailor
So, december, if we find a quote by President Bush or other high-ranking US official, saying words like "we will fight terrorism with all available means" or similar words to that effect, are you willing to say he is endorsing using terrorism? Please answer yes or no because I think I have a quote for you. I think anyone would take the phrase "all available means" to include as a minimum those means currently being used, such as the use of daisy cutter bombs in Afghanistan.

Similarly, the Palestinian means actually in use include the bombing if civilians, so the phrase seems to endorse more of the same.

SuaSo, if you propound that one side is right and the other is wrong, you are not taking a position, but instead are merely engaging in "nothing but propoganda?" In this case, the givaway was the failure to even acknowledge the suicded bombings.

Getting real, Arab countries and their supporters prmoted this resolution. A number of western countries went along with it, because a HRC resolution doesn't mean much of anything. What this incident mostly demonstrates is the uselessness of the HRC.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by RenMan
This is pretty hypocritical of France and Spain especially.

Although I'm probably giving CPR to a dead horse, I agree that it's very hypocritical of France to have signed this- they violated international extradition policies and kidnapped Carlos the Jackal from Sudan in order to have him stand trial for terrorism in France (for planting bombs in French malls in the name of the "palestinian cause").

I agree with what they did with C.the J., which is why I think they're being hypocritical now.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by december
[B]Now we know that the new resolution retained the phrase "all available means", although it did not explicitly mention "armed struggle." So, when the National Post left the impression that the current resolution endorsed terrorism, they were being fair, not disingenuous.

Utter bullshit. Re-read the article. The National Post presented, as a quote from the resolution the phrase "all available means, including armed struggle."

We now know that that phrase was not in the resolution. The National Post therefore lied - they present a falsity as truth. That, methinks, comes under "disingenuous."

Sua

[sailor]

A more adequate title for the thread would be "fucking december endorses equivocation and obfuscation (yet again)".

I guess we can also accuse Spain of being inconsistent and hypocritical as just last Sunday Spanish police arrested Ahmed Brahim, high ranking member of Al Qaeda who is considered to have helped finance the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Spain should make up theor minds on whether they do or do not endorse terrorism.

[Joachim Pieper]

un-hip? Say what?


Cheers.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Joachim Pieper
un-hip? Say what?

What the fuck? :confused:

[Guinastasia]

How about, december does NOT endorse the fight against ignorance?

[Lux Fiat]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Utter bullshit. Re-read the article. The National Post presented, as a quote from the resolution the phrase "all available means, including armed struggle."

We now know that that phrase was not in the resolution.Wait, yes it was. From the link december gave (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/fa8e2218d732fe10c1256b9c0052682c?Opendocument):
Recalling particularly General Assembly resolution 37/43 of 3 December 1982 reaffirming the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples against foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle,The resolution seems to me to be pretty much an endorsement of the intifada, without coming right out and saying "we endorse the intifada." It condemns Israel (and pretty justifiably so, I think, in most cases) for a whole list of human rights violations, but then has passages like Expressing its grave concern at the continued violence and the resulting deaths and injuries, mostly among Palestinians, the toll of casualties having so far increased to over 1,200 martyrs and over 25,000 wounded since 28 September 2000,
and7. Condemns the expropriation of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem, the revocation of identity cards of the citizens of East Jerusalem, the imposition of fabricated and exorbitant taxes with the aim of forcing the Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem, who cannot afford to pay these high taxes, out of their homes and out of their city, preparing in this way the path for the Judaization of Jerusalem, and calls upon the Government of Israel to put an end immediately to these practices;
"Martyrs?" "Judaization?" Maybe a case could be made that "Judaization" can refer merely to their perception that Israel intends to disregard the claim of Islam on Jerusalem as a holy city, and recognize its importance as a holy site only for Jews. But words like that send up flags for me. (The document says that the original language of the resolution is English, so there's no question these are the words they intended to use.)

What could have been an effective reminder that there are wartime practices for which the international community will accept no justification is undermined, in my opinion, by what I see as a streak of ugliness underlying the resolution. Not that I really expect any better from the Commission on Human Rights as it exists, I guess, but I can hope.

[sailor]

Oh, I might disagree with most of the resolution but that is not the point of the OP which is whether the FUN (Fucking United Nations) endorse terrorism. If december were in charge of America's foreign policy the entire rest of the world would unite against the US in a matter of days.

His attitude can be summed up in two points
1- America is the greatest and we don't need to compromise with or understand other countries and if they disagree with us it is just an indication of how backward they are. We don't need them for anything and we can do as we please.
2- Why the hell don't all those other countries cooperate fully with us and do everything we tell them when we need them?

[manhattan]

Now hold on just a sec.

That second link, from december, is a draft. There is no record on the bottom of it recording the vote or even saying it was adopted.

As best I can tell from the UCHR site, the 5 April resolution, which I cited, was the only resolution on this subject brought to a vote.

I can't find a direct link to the cited doc on the UCHR website (but of course it's there -- the site is real slow and I didn't spend all that much time on it). I did find a link to another April 9 draft resolution on the subject, which did not have the "armed struggle" language, here (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.2002.L.17.En?Opendocument).

Now, of course it takes time to update websites, finish translations, say hi to Opal, &ct. But as of this moment, I'm not ready to concede that the April 9 draft was adopted.

If someone else wants to get in on the fun, the main navigation page I'm using is here (http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/FramePage/Docs+58CHR?OpenDocument).

[sailor]

Well, that one saysThe Commission on Human Rights,
. . . 2. Expresses its grave concern: . . . (c) At and strongly condemns all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction, in particular the indiscriminate terrorist attacks over the past weeks, killing and injuring civilians; A strange way to endorse terrorism if you ask me.

[Lux Fiat]

Originally posted by sailor
Oh, I might disagree with most of the resolution but that is not the point of the OP which is whether the FUN (Fucking United Nations) endorse terrorism. If december were in charge of America's foreign policy the entire rest of the world would unite against the US in a matter of days.Okay, I hear that. And apparently my post is somewhat moot anyway because
Originally posted by manhattan
Now hold on just a sec.

That second link, from december, is a draft. There is no record on the bottom of it recording the vote or even saying it was adopted.

As best I can tell from the UCHR site, the 5 April resolution, which I cited, was the only resolution on this subject brought to a vote.

I can't find a direct link to the cited doc on the UCHR website (but of course it's there -- the site is real slow and I didn't spend all that much time on it). I did find a link to another April 9 draft resolution on the subject, which did not have the "armed struggle" language, here (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.2002.L.17.En?Opendocument).
Well, shit. That's totally different. And a little poking around on the UHCR site (http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/FramePage/Docs+58CHR?OpenDocument) seems to show that, surprise! the document to which manny originally linked (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2002.1.En?Opendocument) is the adopted resolution, which has virtually nothing to do with the nasty bit of writing upon which I went off in my post.

So. Let us

1) :o Just ignore that bit of prose up there with my name on the side of it.

2) Trust manhattan in all things.

[december]

Originally posted by Lux Fiat UHCR site (http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/FramePage/Docs+58CHR?OpenDocument) seems to show that, surprise! the document to which manny originally linked (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2002.1.En?Opendocument) is the adopted resolution, which has virtually nothing to do with the nasty bit of writing upon which I went off in my post.
[/B]But, the resolution cited by Manny's says it was adopted April 5. The resolution addressed in the OP was reported on April 16 in the National Post, The Daily Camera and Salon reported about the resolution on April 16.

Can you account for the discrepancy in dates?

[december]

Originally posted by sailor
If december were in charge of America's foreign policy the entire rest of the world would unite against the US in a matter of days. sailor, the OP blasted the UN, because a newspaper reported that their HRC had endorsed terrorism. The OP was not meant to address the US or other specific countries.

It's inappropriate for a panel of the UN to endorse terrorism, isn't it?

[matt_mcl]

Originally posted by december
But, the resolution cited by Manny's says it was adopted April 5. The resolution addressed in the OP was reported on April 16 in the National Post, The Daily Camera and Salon reported about the resolution on April 16.

*sigh* The time it takes for people (at the UN and at the wire services) to do their work, maybe?

[sailor]

I'm still waiting for december to show some evidence that the FUN endorses terrorism (but I'm not holding my breath).

[december]

Originally posted by sailor
I'm still waiting for december to show some evidence that the FUN endorses terrorism (but I'm not holding my breath). The OP quotes a newspaper saying UNITED NATIONS - Six European Union countries yesterday endorsed a United Nations document that condones violence... Several posters here at the SDMB have trying to get a cite to the actual resolution.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal cited a draft resolution which he said was the same as the final resolution. That draft resolution uses the phrase, "by all available means," which could be interpreted to endorse terrorism.

[december]

Here's a link to a UN press release dated April 15, 2002 (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/NewsRoom?OpenFrameSet)In a resolution adopted by a vote of 40 in favour and 5 opposed, with 7 abstentions, the Commission among other things strongly condemned violations by Israeli occupation authorities of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories; strongly condemned the war launched by the Israeli army against Palestinian towns and camps, which had so far resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including women and children; strongly condemned the practice of "liquidation" or extra-judicial executions carried out by the Israeli army against Palestinians; strongly condemned the establishment of Israeli settlements; and called upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. The press release discusses some other actions as well. It does not say when this resolution was adopted.

Here's a link to a UN press release dated April 5 (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/NewsRoom?OpenFrameSet), which describes an HRC resolution. I would assume that Manhattan's link is to the resolution described in the April 5 press release.

[capacitor]

So the UN made specific reasons why Bush made request for Sharon to get out of the occupied terrorities. Sharon dissed both Bush and the UN. But then, of course, killing all Palestinians is supposed to be as moral as stepping on roaches. Oh well.

[sailor]

december I have read your last quote very carefully and I see the text is critical of some of the things Israel is doing. Now, I have a question: Can you fucking tell me where the fuck do you get from that fucking quote the fucking UN endorses fucking terrorism? You still haven't fucking shown any fucking support for your fucking OP. Do you fucking understand what I am fucking trying to say? Or do you need me to draw a fucking diagram?

(The previous question was phrased in consonance with the OP for your better comprehension. Do not use this kind of language at home or anywhere in front of your parents)

[POWER_station]

to set things in perspective:


Jewish terror in the 1940's


1945

October 31

Jewish terrorist offensive against British rule in Palestine begins, with a wave of bomb attacks on police vehicles, railway sites and Haifa oil refinery. One policeman, one soldier and two railway workers killed.


November 27

Eight British soldiers killed in bomb attack on police station Jerusalem, Palestine, in Jewish Irgun terrorist attack.


1946

July 22

Ninety people killed and forty five wounded after Jewish terrorists blow up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Palestine, which was home to British government and military offices. The terrorists held workers at pistol point while they planted the explosives in the basement of the hotel.


October 31

British embassy in Rome, Italy, wrecked by two bombs in suit cases left by Jewish Irgun terrorists. No casualties.


1947

July 12

Jewish Irgun terrorists kidnap and then hang two British Army sergeants. The terrorists were trying to secure the release of three Irgun members who had been sentenced to death by the British authorities in Palestine.


September 29

Jewish Irgun terrorists bomb police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing four British and four Arab policemen, as well as two Arab civilians. Forty six people injured.


December 12

Twenty Arabs, five Jews and two British soldiers killed and thirty wounded in Jewish terrorist bomb attacks on buses in Haifa and Ramleh, Palestine. British mandate to rule Palestine ends on 15 May 1948; state of Israel established


December 29

Jewish Irgun terrorists throw grenades from passing taxi into café near the Damascus gate, Jerusalem, Palestine, killing eleven Arabs and two British policemen.


1948

April 9

Jewish Irgun terrorist group attacks Deir Yassim, Palestine, murdering two hundred and fifty four Arab women and children captured in the remains of the village.


September 17

United Nations mediator in Palestine, Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, murdered by Jewish Stern gang extremist in Jerusalem, Palestine, who fired at point blank range through window of his official car



From Washington report:

"...Mr. Netanyahu also employs a double-standard on terrorism. While he talks tough about Muslim terrorists, he praises Jewish terrorist groups like Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi (Stern Gang) and Menachem Begin’s Irgun Zvai Leumi, which together were responsible for terrorist attacks against the British, including both the bombing of the King David Hotel and the hanging of kidnapped British soldiers, and against the Palestinians, including the massacre of the men, women and children of the village of Deir Yassin, during the first half of this century. He credits this network of “Jewish underground movements” for the British departure from Palestine and the U.S.-backed U.N. resolution that led to the creation of Israel in 1948..."

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0896/9608026.htm

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by POWER_station
including the massacre of the men, women and children of the village of Deir Yassin, during the first half of this century.

Ahem. (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html)

[sailor]

I am not sure why what happened 50 years ago would be relevant to judging what people are doing today. Every country has done things in its history which would be wrong today but we judge them on what they are doing today, not what they did long ago.

At any rate, this thread is about the FUN endorsing terrorism or not.

[december]

Here's the resolution from the OP as shown in the UN web site. The vote and the date make it clear that this is the right one. http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2002.8.En?Opendocument
As written here, the resolution says 1. Affirms the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation in order to free its land and be able to exercise its right of self-determination and that, by so doing, the Palestinian people is fulfilling its mission, one of the goals and purposes of the United Nations; This clause does not mention violence and does not include the words, "by all available means."

Those words "by all available means" had been in the draft resolution. The posting of the actual resolution was delayed.

[sailor]

So are you going to admit your OP was wrong when you said the FUN exdorses terrorism? Or is that too much to ask?

[december]

Originally posted by sailor
So are you going to admit your OP was wrong when you said the FUN exdorses terrorism? Or is that too much to ask? Yep. If this is an accurate version of what was voted on, there is no endorsement of terrorism, contrary to the National Post article quoted in the OP.

Note that the words, "by all available means" were in the draft, but are not a part of the final resolution as shown on the UN web site.

[sailor]

I guess I should be grateful to be alive because once in DC I got a traffic ticket for making a U-turn which I believed was not a U-turn at all as I had turned onto another street. I told the cop I would fight that ticket "by all available means" and I guess he would be justified in taking that as a terrorist threat and shooting me on the spot.

And we we go by what politicians in DC have proposed we could have some fun but I guess you would agree what some looney proposes is not a reflection of the USA as a whole.

[Gadarene]

december, next time you see a piece of news that seems incredibly shocking and unbelieveable, maybe you could, y'know, hunt around for collaboration before running hysterical hyperventilating to the Pit or to GD. Especially if the news is from a source which isn't noted for its level-headed objectivity. Whaddya say?

[Gadarene]

err, corroboration. Dammit.

[december]

I wrote to the National Post, questioning their article's accuracy. (That is, the article quoted in the OP)
Here's their response. The resolution included support for "armed struggle" by "recalling" (para 7, if I remember correctly) the 1982 General Assembly resolution that uses these words, as well as "all available means." The 1982 resolution, as recalled, is quoted in the story.

A story the previous day on the resolution explains how the words were going to be repeated. In the end, the 1982 document was simply recalled, which diplomats interpret as having been invoked (see International Herald Tribune report from same day).
Is the National Post's explanation correct? Well, the CHR resolution includes Recalling particularly General Assembly resolution 37/43 of 3 December 1982 reaffirming the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples against foreign occupation, And, that GA resolution says (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be65b75f931fa995052567270057d45e/bac85a78081380fb852560d90050dc5f!OpenDocument), 2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle; So, in a roundabout way, it appears that the HRC did authorize "all available means including armed struggle."

This explanation also refutes Sua Sponte's point. The National Post weren't being tricky when they quoted the 1982 resolution. They were appropriately quoting it because it was embodied within the 2002 resolution.

I herebv withdraw apologies on this thread. The UN HRC did endorse the use of all available means including armed struggle by the Palestinians. Furthermore, so did the General Assembly (20 years ago.)

And, aside from that point, the resolution was virtually propaganda, in that it ignored the suicide bombings, the shells being fired from Lebanon and all other attacks on Israel, which preciptated Israel's response. If the UN had it's way, the State of Israel would change its name to the State of Punching Bag.
perhaps with a capital called Punching Bagdad.

[sailor]

december, if "armed struggle" equals "terrorism" in your mind, the biggest terrorist country in the world today would be the USA as it is the major user of armed force. It so happens this is the view of the enemies of the US. Are you telling me you agree with them?

[december]

Originally posted by sailor
december, if "armed struggle" equals "terrorism" in your mind, the biggest terrorist country in the world today would be the USA as it is the major user of armed force. One could interpret the phrase, "all available means including armed struggle," to include Palestinian terrorism, because: [list=1]
The bombing of civilians for the purpose of causing terror is the means the Palestinians are actually using.
The HRC resolution did not note nor object to the suicide bombings. By ignoring suicide bombings, the resolution appears to have condoned them.
[/list=1]

[wring]

and the phrase also could include biological warfare and nuclear warfare as well, since of course, it didn't specify that it didn't.

[december]

Originally posted by wring
and the phrase also could include biological warfare and nuclear warfare as well, since of course, it didn't specify that it didn't. Is this sarcasm? If so, it ignores point #1-- terrorism is what the Palestinians have been doing.

E.g., if right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some organizaton had endorsed all available means against Japan, wouldn't you think they meant that more atomic bombs would be OK? Especially if their resolution said nothing against the use of atomic bombs.

If you're serious, then perhaps you agree that this is an inappropriate message to come from the UN.

[wring]

I interpret the UN's resolution to indicate that the Palestinians have a right to use 'all available means including armed struggle'. (IOW, I'm not substituting words in their declaration).

Since the suicide bombings specifically involve civilian targets, I do [b]not[/]b make the assumption that the UN is sanctioning those, since bombings of civilian targets is traditionally always a 'no-no' to the UN.

I would change that stance when/if the UN specified 'including use of means directed at primarily civilian targets' but I won't be holding my breath.

[MaxTheVool]

I can't believe anyone is seriously disagreeing that this resolution supports terrorism. In this case, December (who I've had my share of disagreements with in the past) is exactly correct.

The Mafia (at least the fictional romanticized mafia of the past) is noted for killing potential witnesses against it. If a mafio boss tells one of his underlings "hey, Joey, make sure that Frankie doesn't testify against us. Use whatever means are available", it's pretty clear that he doesn't intend Joey to poison the water supply of an entire county and kill 50,000 people. If I claim that I am going to fight a traffic ticket "by whatever means are available", that doesn't imply that I will singlehandedly organize an anarchistic overthrow of the US government. And when the Palestinians habitually use suicide bombing against civilian targets and the UN endorses their struggle "by whatever means", that is a CLEAR endorsement of suicide bombing against civilian targets. I can not believe anyone woul ddisagree with that point. (Although of course the issues is muddled by the unclear wording of the resolution).

[sailor]

Look, the interpretation that those words are a direct support of terrorism is pretty twisted to begin with. Now, If that was signed by Iraq, Libya and North Korea I might consider there's something to it. But to say "fucking Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden" have any intention of implying terrorism against civilians may be justified you have to be a fucking idiot and a fucking ignorant idiot at that.

[wring]

Max, are you seriously comparing the UN to the Mafia?

you're suggesting that they're talking in code? When has the UN ever done anything than outrightly condemn intentional civilian deaths? why in the world would you or anyone else decide that this time, their word usage goes against their entire history?

[sailor]

And when have fucking Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden done anything than outrightly condemn intentional civilian deaths? But december, in his immense ignorance, has decided there's no room for opinion here. Either European countries are 100% pro-American and 100% pro-Israel or they are aiding and abetting terrorists. No room for their own opinion. He started a thread saying Spain was supporting terrorism because they expressed some reservations about handing terrorists to the USA if they would be subject to military tribunals and/or the death penalty. That earned Spain a tirade from december who is fucking ignorant that the USA has been using military bases in Spain during this conflict, that Spain has cooperated fully in many ways, including sending soldiers to Afghanistan and arresting more than 20 Al Qaeda terrorists in Spain. President Aznar who is presiding the European Union this semester speaks against terrorism almost daily and has offered his support to the USA on behalf of the EU many times. But now december has decided Europe is guilty of supporting terrorism because he is strentching the meaning of those words to mean what he should know European countries would never endorse. It is an insult to those countries. december you are an embarrasment to your country and not helpful. People like you alienate other countries who are America's alies. So if you are feeling patriotic and want to do your country a favor I would recommend you shut the fuck up for a while until you become more versed in European affairs.

I support Israel in their struggle but that does not mean I am going to blindly endorse them if they do or have done wrongs. European countries feel Palestinians have been wronged by Israel, a view which I do not share, but let's grow the fuck up, that does not mean Europe is supporting terrorists. If it seems to you everyone and anyone who disagrees to the slightest degree with you or your country is endorsing terrorism then you are just making enemies for your country of those who would be friends.

[istara]

Sailor: further to your post I am getting the feeling that the open-minded, intelligent people of SDMB - whatever their political leanings - are increasingly wasting their time responding to december. There are plenty of other pro-Israeli posters who put forward much more compelling, interesting and relevant arguments to support their case than he/she/it does. I prefer to see them as representative of their case/country rather than december and thus more worth our time to debate with.

[POWER_station]

Originally posted by sailor
I support Israel in their struggle but that does not mean I am going to blindly endorse them if they do or have done wrongs.

I find that i bit hard to believe. -That you don't blindly endorse them.

Do you support Sharons struggle against what he calls terrorism ?

[december]

Originally posted by istara
Sailor: There are plenty of other pro-Israeli posters ... This thread was meant to blast a particular UN resolution for not living up to the UN's principles -- or not living up to what I think their principles ought to be.

sailor and wring -- I accept the fact that you and I may interpret this resolution differently. Even under your interpretation, I find the resolution terrible. E.g., it ignores the suicide bombings.

istara -- Do you have a particular point on which you disagree with me?

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by POWER_station
I find that i bit hard to believe. -That you don't blindly endorse them.

Do you support Sharons struggle against what he calls terrorism ?
If you went to the trouble of reading some of sailors posts, you'd have little trouble believing it. Then you wouldn't have to ask dumb questions.

[sailor]

In a related story Spain arrests suspected al Qaeda member (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/23/inv.spain.terror.arrest/index.html) but that means nothing to december because they did not mention the suicide bombings. Sheesh.

POWER_station, you might want to read my posts *before* you form an opinion. You might want to search the threads about Jenin and about military tribunals and see what I had to say. Then you *might* want to shut up.

[istara]

Originally posted by december
istara -- Do you have a particular point on which you disagree with me? [/B]
The point that "The Fucking United Nations ENDORSES terrorism" to start with.

[sailor]

december, trying to reason with you is a waste of time. The UN has a long track record of condemning violence against innocent civilians and for you to say now they endorse it because the *did not mention* it in one of their resolutions is just plain ludicrous. It is the equivalent of taking one phrase out of context for the purpose of maing the talker say the opposite of what you know he means and thinks. It is a shameful thing for you to do.

Furthermore. If I have to choose between the phrases "the fucking UN endorses terrorism" and "the fucking US endorses and promotes and supports terrorism" I can assure you there is much more evidence to support the latter and no one here is saying the US is an evil country which ought to be condemned wholesale. The US is a country with its limitations and errors which may need to be addressed but to disqualify it on account of a few bad things without taking account all the good things is just plain stupid. And yet, that is what you are doing again and again: attacking Europe like they are the main enemy of the US.

What is truly sad is that in Europe there are people who are the exact mirror image of you: ignorant people who put down America at every turn looking for all the bad and never finding any of the good. They (and you) would do well to shut up for a while so more enlightened people can have their say.

[december]

Originally posted by sailor
december, trying to reason with you is a waste of time. The UN has a long track record of condemning violence against innocent civiliansIndeed they do. That's exactly why I found this particular resolution so shocking. It is the equivalent of taking one phrase out of context for the purpose of maing the talker say the opposite of what you know he means and thinks. I don't think it was out of context. What is your basis for saying so?

As I see it, the HRC resolution condemned Israeli military actions but ignored the suicide bombings which provoked those actions. Do you think it would be out of context to address both of these in the same resolution? If I have to choose between the phrases "the fucking UN endorses terrorism" and "the fucking US endorses and promotes and supports terrorism" Well, you don't have to make that choice. You can judge each entity on its merits. What is truly sad is that in Europe there are people who are the exact mirror image of you:Wait a minute. There are some insults too great even for the Pit.

You're comparing me to European people! :eek:

This is a dreadful insult against Europeans. :p

[wring]

december : Your OP/Title = "UN Endorses terrorism"

your evidence = "While constructing a resolution, they did not include the statement 'and, by the way, we still do not condone in any way the intentional killing of civilians' "

YOu'll have to wait a while for my response, the convoy of trucks carrying :rolleyes: got delayed.

[Gary Kumquat]

I don't know why anyone is even surprised any more.

December seems to act almost entirely on a "post first, check facts later" basis. How many times now have we seen threads from him lambasting Europe/the UN/any non US group for their supposed behaviour, only for him to have to retract his position. Hell, this is almost an exact replay of his "France supports terrorism" thread from a couple of months back (where as I recall, Sailor managed again to finally beat a retraction out of him)

December - I have only one question. Have you travelled much?

[december]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat How many times now have we seen threads from him lambasting Europe/the UN/any non US group for their supposed behaviour, only for him to have to retract his position. I admit that the OP was based on a single newspaper article. As it turns out, subsequent checking has verified that the resolution in question did indeed endorse terrorism, under a reasonable interpretation.

No doubt one could interpret the resolution differently. Something created by a committee is apt to be ambiguous. Maybe the thread should have been titled more precisely as: "Fucking UN arguably endorses terrorism."

Still. I was shocked to learn that a UN panel had passed a resolution that can be read as an endorsement of terrorism. Is this UN resolution really OK with the rest of you?December - I have only one question. Have you travelled much?I don't know why that's relevant. The answer is yes. I've been in a good bit of the US, as well as most of the European countries, Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, Israel, and Australia. I even visited East Germany in 1960, shortly after the Berlin Wall was erected -- an experience that ended my respect for communism.

[wring]

subsequent checking has verified that the resolution in question did indeed endorse terrorism, under a reasonable interpretation

[Princess Bride] I do not think it means what you think it means [/Princess Bride]

[Mojo]

After reading through this thread, my only argument with the OP is the use of "endorses"- it seems like "condones" would be the more appropriate word.

Otherwise I agree with december. :eek:

[sailor]

Oh yeah, I am sure that was quite the intent of those countries when they signed it. The very clearly wanted it to "condone" terrorism. I believe they have a secret plan. You see, Europe is on the brink of disaster. The whole European Union thing has been a huge failure and they can't find a way out of it. So they have a secret plan which is to side with terrorists so the USA will invade Europe and then rebuild it again. That's why they're doing it. I got it from the horse's mouth.

[sailor]

Oh yeah, I am sure that was quite the intent of those countries when they signed it. The very clearly wanted it to "condone" terrorism. I believe they have a secret plan. You see, Europe is on the brink of disaster. The whole European Union thing has been a huge failure and they can't find a way out of it. So they have a secret plan which is to side with terrorists so the USA will invade Europe and then rebuild it again. That's why they're doing it. I got it from the horse's mouth.