And, fucking Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden all voted that way. Italy abstained.
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:
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
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.
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.
First thoughts that came into my head after reading this:
“Who needs the French, we’ve got the Germans!”
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:
–I can’t find mentioned anywhere else. I keep finding this quote–
–but not any actual “endorsement of violence”.
I also can’t find this anywhere else.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Considering how long these two have been fighting over this land, I doubt seriously either side will listen.
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?
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.
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
I’m shocked. Shocked.
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** part of Israel. They are occupied territories that have been infestated by Israeli squatters.
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.
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.
(singing) “To dreammmmmmmmmmm… the impossible dreammmmmmmmmmm…”
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!)