Sorry, I was out all day, and it’s close to bed time. It could take several hours to find those cites.
>> However, other agencies of the UN could conceivably take anti-American positions that could be at least embarassing.
Wouldn’t that be awful? The US embarrassed!
It is also conceivable that the Federal Government develop a dislike for North Dakota and pass a resolution which would embarrass that state. Still, it seems the benefits outweigh the risk of that happening. The benefits of the UN also far outweigh the risks and the aspects in which it is not perfect. Any human institution is bound to be far from perfect but that does not mean it is useless.
Is it ironic that you find ignorant arguments and assertions hypocritical, and you come up with the word “uncomprehension”.
It’s doubly ironic that I thought the word was “miscomprehension” and when looking it up to confirm my mastery of the English language, find that the word is in fact “incomprehension”.
You learn something new every day, eh?
My dear newly arrived poster.
One word, neologism.
For those who know me, they will have grasped my sly meaning in my neologism uncomprehension, else for those who don’t they will simply post misplaced “corrections.”
Should you need to confirm your mastery of English, don’t bother to attempt to correct me.
Now, in re substance. Certainly our dear december (may I add the post by I am Sparticus in this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=134151&pagenumber=2 brilliantly encapsulates the problem with december’s attempts at debate.) has a point that during the flush years of the Arab oil boom, they were able to buy a goodly number of childishly silly anti-Israeli General Assembly ‘resolutions’ and findings. Empty posturing in large part, with a few exceptions.
Understandably Israel has been less than fond of the UN – although I think that (a) the substantive reasons for such are either passing or have passed (b) is also in part tied to very legitimate critiques emanating from a variety of quarters, including the UN, in re Israeli policy in re the Occupied Territories. As part of a nice little propaganda game, folks like december try to mix the two issues together.
In any case, the UN is about as good a world talking shop as one can expect in this world. The bureaucracy certainly could use some further paring or tightening up – but Kofi has led an admirable set of reforms and still been spat on (metaphorically) so until the US ponies up owed back dues, I suspect further reform is not in the making. It’s not a world government, it’s a tool for resolution of conflicts between theoretically equal sovereign entities. The starry eyed on the Left and the wild-eyed on the Right might do well to recall this.
Collounsbury and sailor:
Actually, what I was referring to was (after doing a little of the research I should have done beforehand, given that my memory was adversely affected by sleeplessness, but didn’t have time on account of needing to run) the attempts by the EU to enact “tax harmonization” using methods such as the “savings tax directive”, among others. No, there was no actual lawsuit involved, I probably got these tax-raising efforts mixed up with the WTO lawsuit you two so kindly mentioned. My bad. However, these do amount to efforts to effectively raise taxes in America by a variety of means, as a result of the EU losing investors to the veritable tax haven that is the US. Regardless, this thread is about the UN, not the EU, so this is wildly off-topic.
I would also like to mention that I find it unfortunate that even here, on what is supposed to be a forum for mature and thoughtful discourse, peopel feel compelled to act with arrogance and condescension. So I got a fact wrong. Hell, even if I was so ridiculously off-base as to be laughable, does that really warrant such rudeness? Come on, we’re all adults here. Let’s act with maturity here, shall we?
Now, with regards to my second statement, about how the UN praises Zimbabwe, Cuba, and China with regards to their human rights accomplishments, while criticizing the US:
Cuba:
http://www.lacnet.org/suntimes/000416/inside.html
http://www.getusout.org/terrorism/
China:
http://www.un.org/ga/president/55/speech/chinawomen.htm
(I notice that the speaker here kinda forgot to mention the whole forced abortion and sterlization thing. I guess it’s a small oversight.)
The Mugabe bit has already been touched upon, so I won’t go into that.
Meanwhile, the US gets kicked off the Human Rights Commission (to be headed by Libya, of all places), and is beat up for not having socialized medicine and for not doing enough to offer abortions.
Jeff
In other words, you did not get a singel fact right, and your entire intervention was based on a gross misunderstanding of the underlying issues, both in re EU and in re UN.
Also wildly factually incorrect. You may want to take a look at recent FI flows, net.
Maturity, including whinging on? Bother.
As to the rest, the US got voted off the UNHRC because of the present administration’s diplomatic incompetance such that we have managed to alienate our closest and longest standing allies to the point they refrained from supporting our bid.
Rising irritation with clumsy, poorly-thought out simpleminded know-nothing unilateralism has cumulative consequences.
If you have time to participate in a debate that’s “a bit silly”, then you have time to look up cites.
An opinion does not need to be backed up with evidence.
You’re harsh. I’m glad you’re not my boss. If you were my boss, you might not appreciate my posting to th SD at work.
Hmm? ISTM that the claim that anyone who imagined that the UN could develop an anti-American bias was obviously paranoid is just a colorful way of saying that it’s unlikely that the UN could develop such a bias. Surely an opinion like this has some basis.
DDG, we have discussed Ireael and the United Nations a great deal on this message board. Here’s a list of threads that I was involved in from the last 12 months that touch on the subject: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=186417&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending&pagenumber=1
In general the UN has criticized Israeli actions over and over again for any number of alleged infractions, including a non-existent massacre in Jenin and damage to property. However, they most often ignored mass murder by Palestinians.
An instance where the UN actually had evidence of Palestinain misdeeds and hid it is discussed here. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=186417&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending&pagenumber=1
I don’t want to hear about your workplace situation.
I don’t want to hear about your SDMB resume.
I don’t want to hear how many times we’ve discussed Israel and the UN on the boards.
I don’t want to hear a rehash of supposed anti-Israel sentiment at the UN.
I don’t want to hear a rehash of supposed pro-Palestinian sentiment at the UN.
I don’t want to hear other people’s opinions of what goes on at the UN, at all.
I don’t want to hear you continue to attempt to sidetrack the discussion into whether or not somebody somewhere is paranoid.
What I want is to see a list of the “many” anti-Israel UN resolutions that your supposed “Arab/Muslim UN clique” forced through.
You’ve been here in GD all morning.
09-09-2002 09:35 AM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2433467#post2433467
09-09-2002 11:23 AM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2433744#post2433744
09-09-2002 11:48 AM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2433805#post2433805
09-09-2002 12:29 PM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2433879#post2433879
09-09-2002 12:59 PM
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2433926#post2433926
Evidently you have time to look up sports statistics.
I don’t say this often, but, DDG, well done.
This site lists a number of such resolutions with links.
This site names various anti-Israel actions taken by various UN agencies. It begins
This site has some links and it says
However, the above site claims to have seen anti-American actions by the UN, so it must be paranoid.
This site should be close to what you’re looking for, since it has a list of anti-Isrtaeli actions with a discussion of each. If you take the time to read each of the links here, I think you’ll be educated about how Israel has been treated by the UN.
Incidentally, note how long the list is, even though it only goes back to the beginning of year 2000.
Three links are given, only one of which is useful.
Not only is it not “close to what I’m looking for”, but I already told you on Page 1 that their glurge-ridden relentlessly pro-Israel op-ed website is useless for the purposes of factual debate. If you think there are diamonds of relevant facts hidden in amongst the dungheaps, go and find them for me.
If I took the time to read each of the links there, I would not be my parents’ daughter, who taught their little girl to recognize and eschew codswallop.
Re this link http://www.palestinefacts.org/ I also already told you, on Page 1, that the “Palestine Facts” website has no “facts” dealing with UN resolutions but only “opinion”, and is therefore useless for the purposes of factual debate on the subject of UN resolutions.
Your third link brings us back to Morris Abram’s column on anti-Semitism in the UN. However, he does happen to have a list of links to some UN resolutions. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/gatoc.html
I have now worked my way through the last 23 of these resolutions, starting in the year 2001 and going backwards in time. December 2000 seems to be when things in the Mideast last heated up to a degree that required lots and lots of UN resolutions concerning Palestine. And indeed, I do see a definite pattern, although it’s not the pattern of the Arab/Muslim clique pushing anti-Israel resolutions through that you claim exists. No, I see a pattern of Israel acting bad, and having the UN call them on it, and the Palestinians having a thoroughly wretched time of it, and the UN trying to help, by doing things like asking Israel to get out of the way while they start a university, and to stop confiscating Palestinians’ property.
[list=1]
[li]Please demonstrate which of the UN resolutions in Morris Abram’s link that censure or otherwise remonstrate with Israel delivered a censure or remonstrance that was not fully deserved. [/li]
[li]Please demonstrate which of the UN resolutions in Morris Abram’s link that endeavor to assist the Palestinians delivered an assistance that was not fully deserved.[/li]
[li]And please demonstrate exactly how an Arab/Muslim clique forced the passage of these resolutions.[/li][/list=1]
Here is the Voting Record for Resolution 55-129, the one that called on Israel to cooperate with the founding of the University of Jerusalem.
http://www.un.org/russian/documen/gadocs/55sess/vote55-129.htm
Wow, that’s some Arab/Muslim clique! They managed to get practically everybody in the whole wide world to vote with them, except for the United States and Israel, who voted “no”, and 31 others who didn’t vote or abstained. Hey, I want them representing Illinois on Capitol Hill…
Consider the possibility that members like Belize and Denmark thought that Israel was out of line, and voted “yea” out of conscience, not because the Arabs and Muslims told them to.
Well, that’s the essence of our disagreement. If you think Israel’s conduct was far worse than Palistinian conduct, then it makes sense for there to have been so many more anti-Isralel resolutions. (That still wouldn’t explain why there were many more resolutions against Israel than against Sudan or Robert Mugabe’s government. I’m sure you would agree that the wrongs done in Zimbabwe and Sudan far, far exceed Israel’s wrongs. But set that aside for now.)
Everyone knows that the Palestinians acted very badly indeed during this period. We’ve been through this so many times, but some of the bad things Palestinians did included[ul][]Starting the intifada as a response to a peace offer including a Palestinain state.[]Each individual suicide bombing. (How many were there; I’ve lost count.)[]Various murders of settler families, including women and children.[]Palestinian gunman holing up inside a church and taking the priests hostage, in violation of the Geneva Accords.Al Aksa torturing and killing their own citizens, without any sort of trial.[/ul]All these things were reported in the news. Each looks comparably serious to, or more serious than, the worst of Israel’s misdeeds. Yet, almost none of them were criticized by any UN resolution. That’s proof of UN bias.
You do realize – and the name “United Nations” should be a big clue – that the Palestinians are not a nation, right? And as such, they do not have membership status in the United Nations, and are therefore not in a position to be the subject of resolutions concerning UN members, right?
The resolutions concerning Israel – rightly or wrongly – call upon Israel to do or to refrain from doing certain things. The UN claims the authority to do this because Israel is a member state. The Palestinians are not a member state; they are a permanent observer on a par with the EU, the ICRC, the Organization of African Unity and other intergovernmental or nongovernmental organizations. No resolution that the UN could pass could be binding on them. That’s why nations like Syria and the Saudis act as their mouthpieces in the GA.
You can argue that there would be an important symbolic nature to such resolutions, but you’d be hoist on your own petard, vis a vis your “liberals are trying” thread – you’ve already stated in public view that empty, symbolic gestures are a bad thing when it comes to governments and other civic institutions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**One word, neologism.
For those who know me, they will have grasped my sly meaning in my neologism uncomprehension, else for those who don’t they will simply post misplaced “corrections.”
Should you need to confirm your mastery of English, don’t bother to attempt to correct me.
I found the following entry for neologism on dictionary.com:
ne·ol·o·gism Pronunciation Key (n-l-jzm)
n. A new word, expression, or usage.
The creation or use of new words or senses.
Psychology.
a. The invention of new words regarded as a symptom of certain psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia.
b. A word so invented.
Theology.
A new doctrine or a new interpretation of scripture.
I’m trying to figure out if your “neologism” comes under Psychology a or b, or perhaps you are such a God of Linguistics that the Theology entry is more appropriate?
I stuffed that up, Collounsbury’s quote ends with “… don’t bother to attempt to correct me.”
pl, I have two disageements with your point.
Theoretical disagreement: since the UN gives the Palestinians large amounts of money, one might think they had a particular obligfation to cirticize atrciticies committed by the Palestinians.
**Practical disagreement:;/b] I’m fairly certain that there have been resolutions criticizing the Palestinians, despite their non-nation status.
Within the last month or so, the US announced that they would veto any one-sided Security Council resolution – i.e., a resolution that ciriticized Israel but ignored Palestinian misdeeds. This announced policy evidently contemplates the possitility of UN resolutions criticizing the Palestinians.
You are right to raise the question of how important the UN bias has been. Collounsbury made a similar point. I don’t know the answer. I think they hurt the Palestinians as well as Israel, to some degree by raising unrealistic hopes that a violent intifada can succeed. But, I’m not sure.
I do feel certain that these resolutions have harmed the United Nations, by reducing its moral standing. Israel can survive by force of arms, but if the UN’s moral leadership is dissipated, they are fatally weakened.
This is not the place to debate who’s worse, Arafat or Sharon or Mugabe. This is the place to debate whether there is an Arab/Muslim clique controlling the UN by forcing the passage of many anti-Israel resolutions.
No. “Some of the bad things some Palestinians did included…” I don’t want to hear Hamas’ or Al Aksa’s resume. I want to hear you either prove that there’s an Arab/Muslim clique controlling the UN and forcing the passage of many anti-Israeli resolutions, or retract the statement.
“Almost none of them”? Okay, which Palestinian actions were criticized by a UN resolution? I should think you would have this information at least at your very fingertips.
What I think doesn’t signify here. What signifies here is what the members of the UN think, and apparently what the members of the UN think is that Israel’s conduct has been far worse than the Palestinians’ conduct, hence the passage of more resolutions censuring Israel than resolutions censuring the Palestinians. The question before us is, did an Arab/Muslim clique force members like Belize and Denmark to vote that way, or did they vote that way because they thought Israel’s conduct was bad enough to merit the censure?
Not only have you failed to prove your assertion about an Arab/Muslim clique at the UN, but you were also asked to demonstrate which UN resolutions you find unfairly censuring of Israel, and which UN resolutions you find unfairly favorable to the Palestinians. You have not done so.
“Many” is a relative term. The way to determine whether the number of anti-Israel resolutions constitutes “many” is to look at the number passed against other miscreants.
These are formal Palestinian organizations. Al Aksa, in particular, is associated with Arafat. I’m not getting your point.
You’ll recall that I quoted
I guess you’re arguing that this quote is merely someone’s characterization, and you’d rather have an entire analysis.
Well, there was one within the last year where there was ciritcism of suicide bombings as well as criticism of Israel. I looked for it a bit, but haven’t found it.
This is circular reasoning. What you and I think is the key to forming a judgement about whether these UN resolutions are fair or biased. One might as well argue that the KKK isn’t unbiased because they think they’re doing the right thing.
The quote aove describes an Arab/3rd world clique. I admist that I did not find evidence of an Arab/Muslim clique.
The UN has taken so many unfair actions, the cannot be summarized in a single post. My earlier cite included pages and pages just to cover the last 2 years.
So, lets start one at time. In 1975 the UN passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. I maintain that this was unfair and showed anti-Israel bias. Do you agree?