thank you december :rolleyes:
Now, about the United Nations…
Have they made any anti_U.S. resolutions?
How many countries belong?
Who doesn’t and why?
What are their future goals?
We are not here to quibble pointlessly about semantics. We are here to debate whether there is in fact an Arab/Muslim clique that controls the UN and forces the passage of anti-Israel resolutions, period, whether they may qualify as “some” or “several” or “many” or “a whole lot” or “beaucoups”.
My point was twofold. First, it’s important to distinguish between the actions of “Palestinians” and those of “Palestinian terrorists”.
Al Aqsa are terrorists. Hamas are terrorists.
http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/ftolist.htm
I objected to your categorical statement describing “bad things the Palestinians did”, since three out of five of the actions you listed were carried out by “Palestinian terrorists”, not by “Palestinians”. Al Aqsa started the latest intifada; both Al Aqsa and Hamas have carried out suicide bombings; and of course, this–“Al Aksa torturing and killing their own citizens, without any sort of trial”–is self-explanatory.
And as for this–“Palestinian gunman holing up inside a church and taking the priests hostage, in violation of the Geneva Accords”–according to church officials, the priests were not held hostage, so the point would seem to be moot.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/10/mideast.nativity/index.html
And as for this–“Various murders of settler families, including women and children”–well, yeah, I’m not going to argue with you that this was bad, whether “Palestinians” or “Palestinian terrorists” did it. But there’s war on, over there, and sometimes women and children get killed. You can call it “murder” if you like, or “collateral damage”, or whatever.
My second point is that I don’t want to hear you attempt to change the subject by bringing up totally irrelevant stuff. The bad things that Palestinian terrorists have done qualifies as “totally irrelevant stuff”. We are here to debate whether there’s an Arab/Muslim clique controlling the UN and forcing the passage of anti-Israel resolutions, not to discuss the bad things that Palestinian terrorists have done. However, if you were to tie it in with the UN resolutions that I asked for, the ones that actually censured the Palestinian terrorists for the bad things they’ve done, then it might be relevant.
Also, I will point out that whether or not Al Aqsa is “associated with” Arafat has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Ditto for whether or not they are “formal Palestinian organizations”. I don’t care if they have charters, clubhouses, band uniforms, and a secret handshake. It’s not relevant to the discussion, which is the supposed existence of an Arab/Muslim clique in the UN that forces the passage of anti-Israel resolutions.
Yup. Got it in one.
Nope. Got that one wrong. I’d rather have facts, not somebody else’s analysis. I can do my own analysis.
Well, keep at it. And when you find it, look and see whether it’s criticism of “Palestinian terrorists” or of “Palestinians”.
Right, so as requested earlier, please demonstrate for me which, in your judgement, of the UN resolutions censuring Israel are unfair.
Well, hallelujah! He’s teachable after all.
Aw, but then you had to go and spoil it…
So now palestine facts dot org thinks there’s an Arab/Third World clique controlling the UN and forcing the passage of anti-Israel resolutions. Okaaayyyy…we’re right back where we started.
Cite?
Take as many posts as you think it requires to demonstrate to me which of the UN resolutions that censured Israel were unfair.
Yes, I agree–it was unfair. Here is the resolution itself, 3379.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unga3379.html
It’s ridiculous to equate Zionism with racism. That’s why it was rescinded in 1991.
I’ll even be willing to grant you that a coalition of Arab nations may have pressed for its passage, as I have heard other people say that. At that point in time, they were flush with OPEC money and power, and many members most likely thought they had to go along in order to get along, thus they voted for 3379.
However, that was a long time ago.
Okay, that’s a grand total of one (1) anti-Israel resolution that was unfair.
So, got any more?
I would like the list of the Arab/3world clique that dominates the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the U.N.
First my country has the privilege of being a member of that august congregation better known in intelectual circles as “The Undeveloped World” (notice the capital letters). I can assure you that Argentina does whatever the hell U.S.A. wants us to do. Threfore it is rare the case in which we vote against “the first world”.
Second, it is different to control the General Assembly than controlling the U.N. you already seem to know about the veto power the “great” have. What you don’t seem to know is that the Security Council has power of decission in every important issue the U.N. resolves (for example the election of the International tribunal members). Therefore it is pretty much difficult than now or in the future the “arabs + 3 world” dominates the organazation. I beg you December read the damm chart before giving your opinion.
And third over the past few years you can notice that the most uncontroversial decissions have been aproved by the U.N without almost any oposition. Sadly It’s your country that have decided to join forces with the “rogue states” in the world (often loosing 130-5 for example). Sadly because there isn’t a country in the world that has fought longer and harder for democracy, human rights and justice than the U.S. (in my definition of rogue states I include China, Irak, etc and also Israel, I don’t include the palestinians not because they aren’t “rogue” but because they are not an state).
Duck Duck Goose, you wrote something that offended and appalled me. Before going on, I will invite you to reconsider your comment and withdraw it. What I found offensive was:
We’re talking about armed men sneaking into residences and killing men, women and children in their sleep, including babies. All civilians. No purported military purpose.
There have been a couple of cases where Israelis intentionally set out to kill Palestinian civilians. They were prosecuted for murder, as they should have been. When Lt. Calley intentionally killed civilians in Vietnam, he was prosecuted, as he should have been.
What we’re talking about was not warfare. It was not collateral damage. Please tell me that you have reconsiderred your comment above.
I’m sorry if I offended and appalled you. You’re right, I have reconsidered–I should have asked you for a cite for your use of the word “murder” in the first place. I assumed you were using it rather dramatically to refer to the deaths that are resulting during the current Mideast war, or crisis, or however you want to refer to it.
So now I’m asking–what are you talking about?
Okay–cite? When and where did this happen, exactly? Names, dates, places. Provide links. And facts, please, not more of somebody else’s opinions.
And, don’t change the subject. Still waiting to hear about more anti-Israel UN resolutions that you think were unfair.
And–while you’re up, could you get the list of members of the Arab/Third World clique for Estilicon? Thanks ever so.
Er . . . I’ll back december up on that one. The killings of settlers by Palestinians have been so well-reported that I wouldn’t think it particularly controversial that december would mention it.
Here’s one link: Visit this page at CNN and scroll down to April 27. There you’ll find Danielle Shefi, age 5, who was:
Then, if you visit page 12, you’ll find Avishai Shabo, also age 5. She died when a terrorist entered her home in the West Bank settlement of Itamar and opened fire. Her mother, her 16- and 13-year-old brothers, and a neighbor who attempted to help, were also killed.
I’m sure if you just want to browse back and forth among those pages, you can find others. Some of his language may be hyperbolic, but in this case, I’m willing to overlook it.
that book is everywhere. There are 4 copies at amazon.com & 18 at abe.com
Okay, thanks, PLD, but it proves my point.
I couldn’t figure out where he was seeing news reports of “Palestinians” acting as secret assassins. But what he’s talking about aren’t the actions of “the Palestinians”–it’s the actions of “the Palestinian terrorists”.
What I objected to was his failure to distinguish between the two groups.
Because, ultimately, the agenda here is “UN resolutions”, and I want him to show me how the UN resolutions attempting to help “Palestinians” are unfair. I have yet to see a UN resolution attempting to help “Palestinian terrorists”.
Also, I’d like him to point me to those UN resolutions that he believes censure the actions of “Palestinians”, which I believe are in reality referring to the actions of “Palestinian terrorists”.
Before going back to the UN, I want to debate this specific point. DDG made a similar point yesterday.
It’s a tautology to say that the people who commit terror are terrorists. Similarly, all robberies are committed by robbers. So, what does DDG’s statement actually mean?
I would guess, DDG, that your meaning was that these terrorists do not represent the Palestinian people. If that’s a correct interpretation (or if you intended some other meaning) please support your POV.
In general, a society indicates that they are appalled by the actons of a subgroup of its citzens by punishing those people. At one time, some areas in the South indicated that lynching was more-or-less OK, because a lynch mob could expect not to be punished. OTOH when 3 racists dragged James Byrd to a horrible death a few years ago, the state of Texas indicated that they were appalled by this action by executing two of the murderers and putting the 3rd in prison for life.
I have not heard of the PA ever imposing an analogous punishment.
Furthermore al Aksa is associated with or controlled by Yasir Arafat, who runs the government. Also, I have heard few Palestinians speak out against the terrorism, and I have heard many speak out in support of it.
In summary, I do think it’s appropriate to accuse “the Palestinians” of comitting these misdeed. DDG, I invite you to agree or to support the opposing POV
(Incidentally, I do not consider this topic to be a hijack. If these killings are merely individual crimes, then the UN has no business criticizing them. If they are actions of the Palestinian people or Palestinian government, then UN resolutions might be considered.)
Thank you Calculus.
I am ordering thru the library system right now.
It Is good.
So, Sweden has joined the U.N.
What is the largest country that isn’t in?
Switzerland is the country that recently joined the UN.
Well, they look alike…
Just checking in order to see if december bothered to show us some FACTS:
- U.N. resolutions pro-palestinian or anti-israel
- Countries that voted those resolutions
- Any other resolution by that organism that shows the evil aliance between "arabs and 3 world.
Don’t tell me you are going to pull another ** DECEMBER* **
- A message board strategy in which you say a very improbable thing and manage to wade through 4 pages without giving a single piece of evidence about what you have said.
Is the UN Good or Bad?
What is it you people have with this notion of good and bad?
Why is it always about the Good vs the Bad (or even Evil).
So many debates here revolve around this. And, of course, the USA are always the Good Guys.
A year ago NOBODY would have thought of the UN as a bad institution (well OK, maybe the Serbs). Now this warcrimes thing comes up.
‘Oh dear, this doesn’t serve US interests’ (equals Bad), KRZZZT goes the Yankee brain >>>> UN=Bad
Honestly, sometimes I grow so tired of this 2 dimensional thinking.
Yes, that is indeed my meaning. The actions of a group of terrorists cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of the entire ethnic and/or political group from whom they sprang. The actions of the terrorist group Al Qaeda cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of either Moslems, Saudi Arabians, or Afghans. The actions of Italy’s Red Brigades cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of Italians. The actions of the Abu Sayyaf group cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of Filipinos. The actions of Hizballah cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of Lebanese. The actions of the Egyptian Al-Jihad cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feelings, and motives of Egyptians.
Are you starting to see where I’m going with this?
The actions of the Palestinian terrorist groups Al Aqsa and Hamas cannot be taken to represent the thoughts, feeling, and motives of Palestinians.
Judging an entire group by the actions of a few members of that group is called “bigotry”.
That’s true, but that only happens if three conditions are met–if the society wants to punish the subgroup, if the subgroup is under the control of the society, and if the society itself is free to act.
I believe that the majority of Palestinians (Palestinian “society”) would like to punish Al Aqsa and Hamas for screwing up all their lives by refusing to deal and instead resorting to terror tactics. It’s just human nature. They have to know that they’re missing out on tourism dollars, development dollars, all kinds of money that places like Turkey and Egypt are raking in, but the Palestinians are sucking hind tit while the terrorists make constant trouble. So, assuming that, that’s condition (1) met.
However, conditions (2) and (3) are not met. Al Aqsa and Hamas are not under the control of Palestinian society, they are under the control of local thugs (and yes, I’m including Arafat as a “thug”–I don’t believe he’s acting in good faith, no matter how many times he may call for an end to suicide bombings), the way that Mugabe’s thugs are under Mugabe’s control. And (3) Palestinian society itself is not free to act, as the local thugs who control the subgroup can send the subgroup to wreak mayhem upon the society. Now, you can argue that a society gets the government it deserves, and to a certain extent I believe that, but it can be damned hard for a society to get rid of thugs if the thugs have all got guns, and all the society has is the UN and its resolutions.
It can also be damned dangerous to speak out against the thugs, hence the relative silence of Palestinian society on the subject of “the thugs in our midst”.
Judging an entire group by the actions of a few members of that group is called “bigotry”. If you are going to persist in stating that all Palestinians are terrorists, then you are going to be a “bigot”.
I don’t believe the UN did criticize them. I don’t believe the UN concerns itself with individual crimes at all. However, I welcome enlightenment. If you believe otherwise, please provide a cite.
Here is last fall’s Security Council resolution condemning world-wide terrorism in general, but “Palestinian terrorism” is not specified.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm
Here is another link to Morris Abram’s list of UN resolutions. Please look through them (or look somewhere else) and find me a UN resolution that addresses acts of Palestinian terrorism. I don’t believe there is one, but I welcome enlightenment.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/gatoc.html
Now, then, that’s out of the way. We can get back to those lists you were supposed to be working on, the one of all the UN resolutions that you feel are unfair to Israel, and the UN resolutions that you feel are unfairly favorable to the Palestinians, and the list of the members of the Arab/Third World clique that is controlling the UN and forcing the passage of anti-Israel resolutions.
And if “all Palestinians are terrorists”, then how do you explain this?
July, 1994.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cp40
February, 1997.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/archive_mn/feb_1997-20mn.html
April, 2001.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cover/storydb/2001/04/28/wn-worke.428.html
July, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/03/mideast/index.html
So for years now, the Israeli government has been issuing work permits literally to thousands of terrorists? Really?
Uh, I assume you Dutch have a notion of good and evil, what with that whole “fighting the Nazis and hiding Jewish refugees” thing. Maybe not–I don’t know what they teach kids these days.
Please support this assertion or retract it.
Some of the people arguing against the “UN bad” proposition are Americans, so I insist you retract this unsupportable bigotry.
DDG, I think that there is a legitimate case to be argued – not that I completely agree with it – that a great proportion of Palestinian culture does in fact support the actions of the terrorists. I ask legitimately: What proportion of Palestinians would have to support terrorism before you feel it would be fair to say, “The Palestinians do X?”
Latroll:
Hmmm.
All Americans’ brains shut down. All Americans hate the UN. All Americans see things in black and white. All Americans follow their nation in lockstep.
Who is thinking two-dimensionally here?
There’s an english expression, you might have heard it. it involves pots, kettles, and a great deal of pigment.
Thanks for your response, DDG. First of all, as you know, I’m not talking about an ethnic group; just a political group. If I said “white race should be destroyed”, as a Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev recently did, that would be racism. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20020904-4292682.htm
You went too far, IMHO, when you wrote,
I agree that this statement is true in many circumstances. However, ALL actions by a group are necessarily commited by some number of members. People commit acts. As pldennison pointed out, the question is, when is it appropriate to blame an entire group for the acts of some of its members?
You called Arafat and his administration “thugs.” I agree. That characterization might or might not excuse the Palestinian people, but it doesn’t excuse the UN. It makes them even more culpable. They gave this thug prestige, by inviting him to address their General Assemble. They have passed numerous resolutions at the request of this thug. For years, the UN has been giving this thug large sums of money, knowing full well that he steals much of it and uses some of it to pay for terrorism.
To the degree that Arafat is a UN-sponsored thug, I would say the UN has a particular obligation to comment on misdeeds commited by the PA or al Aksa.
You said it was “ridiculous” to equate Zionism with racism. It’s more than ridiculous. Zionism effectively means the existance of Israel. The meaning of that resolution is that Israel has no moral right to exist. (There’s an irony, in that Israel allows Jews and Muslims to be citizens and elected representatives, whereas, Arafat’s anti-Semitic regime makes it virtually impossible for Jews to live there, and difficult for us to even visit.) America’s UN Ambassador, Daniel Patrick Moynahan called this resolution an “obscene act.”
The UN General Assembly passed this obscene resolution in 1975 and left it on the books. I vaguely remember various efforts to get it overturned. The GA stuck to it for 16 long years. Nor was this obscene resolution all the UN did. From the same source:
I difidn’t understand your point in writing:
I was complaining the the lack of such resolulutions was evidence of bias. You seem to be arguing that the lack of such resolutions means that no such resolutions were appropriate. If that’s your point, I would call it circular reasoning.
You wrote,
Well, the horrible bombing at multi-ethnic Hebrew University was done by a Palestinian who had access because he had been given a job there. Adding insult to injury, you use Israel’s practice of hiring Palestinians to argue against Israel. (It goes without saying that neither the PA nor other Arab states have been offering jobs to Israelis.) My only response is the complaint, No good deed goes unpunished.