“but until the professional anti-Israel activists can disentangle their cause from anti-Semitism, and equally condemn equivalent or worse actions by other countries, I will always find their motives suspect.”
So does this requirement apply only to critics of Israel? When Allan Dershowitz condemns Palestinian terrorism is he also expected to equally condemn terrorism in Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Phillipines, Spain, Northern Ireland, Russia, Greece etc. Otherwise he is a bigot? When the American media do a story about a terrorist act in Israel they are bigots unless they give equal time to terrorist acts in other places of the world? When Bush makes a statement condemning Palestinian terrorism he is expected to make similiar statements about every other terrrorist act in the world?
I never understand why critics of Israel alone are put under this requirement of equally condemning every atrocity in the world before they have a right to criticize Israel.
The reality is that some disputes like the Arab-Israeli dispute have a higher profile than others. UN resolutions reflect this reality.
BTW I am not going to bother to refute every bit of nonsense from the propoganda site you linked to.
But this caught my attention:
“On December 16, 1991, the General Assembly voted 111-25 (with 13 abstentions and 17 delegations absent or not voting) to repeal Resolution 3379. No Arab country voted for repeal. The PLO denounced the vote and the U.S. role.”
Huh? . I would have thought that a massive 111-25 vote for repealing the “Zionism is racism” resolution is powerful evidence that the UN as a whole is not biased against Israel. Instead the site complains that the Arab countries didn’t vote for the resolution.
Another important example of the UN siding with Israel is on the Sheba Farms dispute where the UN has ruled against Syria and for Israel.
Officialy it sides with Israel, yes. But was there even a single condemnation of the Hizballah, Lebanon or Syria on the issue?
The only thing the UN did is hiding info concerning the involvement of peacekeepers in the kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers and hiding more info about clues that might help the investigation of the case. They even denied the very existance of the info(video tapes) at first.
“The representative of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in Lebanon today/Friday condemned an attack by Hezbollah guerillas against an Israeli patrol.”
None of the other examples you give are ostensibly evenhanded world bodies. Obviously individuals or countries have interests that concern them more than others.
But answer this straightforwardly. Do you honestly believe that the difference in population, number of UN seats, and oil wealth between the Arabs and Israel is NOT a factor in the UN focus and positions regarding the Israel/Palestinian issue?
The thread is not about Annan’s opinions, but about the biases of the entire UN, the voting body (the General Assembly or whatever it’s called).
If the General Assembly recognized the new border as legal it should’ve almost unanimously condemned the first bullet fired from Lebanese territory, not to mention the kidnapping of soldiers.
“None of the other examples you give are ostensibly evenhanded world bodies”
But I have already given you reasons in my first post why the UN has a special responsibility for the Palestinian issue which it doesn’t for most other places. Besides news organizations are also ostensibly evenhanded. The point is that when the NY Times gives more space to terrorist acts in Israel compared to, say, Sri Lanka this simply reflects the fact that the Arab-Israeli dispute is more politically important. The same thing with UN resolutions.
As for your question, Arab influence may be a factor but I don’t think it’s very important and certainly not enough to indicate that the UN as a whole is biased against Israel. If the Arabs were that influential they wouldn’t have been beaten 111-25 on the “Zionism is racism” issue, would they?
“The thread is not about Annan’s opinions, but about the biases of the entire UN, the voting body (the General Assembly or whatever it’s called).”
This is not Annan’s opinions but the public statements by official UN spokemen. You asked for condemnations. I gave you condemnations. Now you are changing the goalposts.
Actually NYT coverage reflects the interests of the readership. The NYT does not have a mandate to be evenhanded in it’s coverage. But I would bet the NYT is not nearly as skewed as the UN (can’t prove it).
The reason the Arabs were beaten on the racism issue was because it was taken in the wake of the peace concessions, during a brief interlude of relatively warm feelings toward Israel. To say that since you have not won every single issue does not mean that you don’t have disproportionate influence.
“This is not Annan’s opinions but the public statements by official UN spokemen. You asked for condemnations. I gave you condemnations. Now you are changing the goalposts.”
I raised the issue of Hizballah condemnation and in the spirit of the thread the intention was for a General Assembly condemnation. You’re the one who avoid the issue and “Changing the goalposts” .
“The NYT does not have a mandate to be evenhanded in it’s coverage”
I don’t know what you mean by “mandate”. The professional standards which good newspapers follow do require evenhanded coverage. Besides markdiscorida was referring to anti-Israel activists not the UN specifically.
In any case I don’t know what evenhandedness has to do with the fact that some disputes are more important than others.
“To say that since you have not won every single issue does not mean that you don’t have disproportionate influence.”
I think the vote shows that the Arab countries are powerless unless they get the rest of the world on their side.
Beside what do you mean by “disproportionate influence”? Disproportiionate compared to their share of the world population? Their share of the total number of countries in the world?
Actually I think this thread is about the UN as a whole and not just the General Assemby. Anyway do you agree based on the statements that the professional bureaucracy of the UN is not biased against Israel?
The lack of evenhandedness deing discussed here is manifested as paying more attention to the sins of some than others. A newspaper can do that.
IOW that they don’t constitute a majority of the votes. No big news here.
Disproportionate compared to the Israelis. Or the Rwandis. Such that more attention will be paid to things the Arabs are concerned about than other groups.
“The lack of evenhandedness deing discussed here is manifested as paying more attention to the sins of some than others. A newspaper can do that.”
So presumably can anti-Israel activists without being accused of bigtotry.
And so for that matter can the UN if there are good reasons for doing so which I gave in my first post; ie the UN has a responsibility towards the Palestinians.
“Such that more attention will be paid to things the Arabs are concerned about than other groups.”
There is a difference between more attention being paid to an issue and that attention being biased. Besides US is also responsible for more attention being paid to the Arab-Israeli dispute than , say, Rwanda.
BTW a question: Has the General Assembly passed resolutions condemning terrorists groups in Sri Lanka, Spain,Northern Ireland etc? If it were the case that the GA routinely condemned all terrorist groups around the world except Palestinian groups then there would probably be a case for bias. But I don’t think that’s the case.
Let us say that an idividual, call her Ms. Smith, is concerned about the “glass ceiling” in England, and is vocal about it. That’s fine even though there are places much worse for women’s rights. She’s allowed to be biased in her interests.
Now let us say that Ms. Smith is head of the UN Human Rights Committee Workforce on Women’s Issues*, and she, announces that the Committee is concerned about Women’s freedoms everywhere and specifically calls attention to England with a specific resolution. This is different. It suggests the question, Why should this international body concerned with Women’s Rights everywhere and allegedly even-handed specifically focus on England? Are they by far the most egregious offender? Or is there some other reason that motivates this special attention? That Committee is not an individual free to be biased. I would question if this Committee had some reason to be biased against England.
In the case of children in occupied territories it is clear that theirs is not anywhere near the worst situation. So why is it named?
Cyber’s suggestion that the UN has a special obligation to the area having set up the original mandate and all is just unconvincing. By that token the UN should be more interested in many other areas that it sent in peacekeeper troops, but horrific abuses of children’s rights continue in those locales without specific resolutions.
I haven’t seen the resolution itself. Does it specifically address the abuses of children’s rights caused by the use of children as sheilds and weapons by Palestinian militants? Such would be expected to be highlighted if their motive was the UN’s alleged special unique obligation to look out after the areas of the Palestinian Mandate. (As would of course the targeted killing of Israeli children by Palestinian terrorists.) Somehow I doubt that it is in there. I would be thrilled to be surprised. Anyone have a link to the actual resolution?
*Women’s rights is not chosen as an example without thought, The UN’s past resolutions on Women’s Rights included specific condemnation of Israel and no mention of the abysmal situation for women in most Arab countries. Just coincidental I’m sure.
“Cyber’s suggestion that the UN has a special obligation to the area having set up the original mandate and all is just unconvincing. By that token the UN should be more interested in many other areas that it sent in peacekeeper troops, but horrific abuses of children’s rights continue in those locales without specific resolutions.”
I think that sending peacekeeping troops for a while is a rather different level of involvement compared to 55 years of involvement in Palestine starting from the original partition plan. Not to mention the responsibility of the UNHCR to Palestinian refugees. And also the fact that the Palestinians don’t have a state unlike most of the examples mentioned in the OP. All this makes the qualilative involvement of the UN different from virtually any other place in the world and means that the UN has a special responsibility towards the Palestinians.
Add to this the fact that the Arab-Israeli dispute is politically one of the most important in the world not least because of heavy US involvement. The UN simply reflects this political reality just as the large amount of media attention to that part of the world reflects it.
“Anan’s statement isn’t quite on par with specific resolutions passed by the body as a whole.”
The UN as a whole doesn’t really pass resolutions. Specific institutions like the General Assembly and the UNSC do. Annan’s statements reflect the important positions of an important part of the UN. And as a practical matter I think the nitty-gritty of border disputes like the Sheba Farms issue is far more important than any number of non-binding GA resolutions.
Besides, like I said, AFAIK there are many other terrorist groups around the world which the GA hasn’t condemned. Therefore their failure to do this for Hezbollah is hardly evidence of anti-Israel bias.
Well, like said, I’m not convinced, but would be pleasantly surprised by the highlighting of Palestinian militants’ abuse of children’s right that such a motive would require.
Meanwhile, as to other resloutions: The security council has indeed also passed resolutions condemning anti-Israel terrorism … specifically #1450 condemning the attacks in Kenya. And the General Assembly has condemned terrorism elswhere, eg 57/289 re Rwanda. But the GA singles out Israel almost as a boilerplate on anything about human rights concerns in the world in general.