UN Condemns Indiscriminate Missile Attacks on Israeli Civillians.

[SellyCat]

Referring to Palestinian Kassam attacks on the western Negev town of Sderot, United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Alvaro de Soto said on Thursday that "the United Nations regards such indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians as completely unjustifiable." [emphasis added]

In a UN press release, de Soto reiterated his "call on the Palestinian Authority to take concrete steps to halt rocket attacks against Israel."

Sderot is not a settlement and is within the green-line, that is behind the 1967 border. The Hamas Organisation has claimed responsibility for the latest blitz of more than 60 missiles. This is the problem with Hamas leading the Palestinian government. They initiated the deliberate attacks for the purpsoe of murdering Israeli civillians after 8 Palestinian civillians were killed by what now seems to have been a HAMAS mine laid on a civillian beach.

That incident resembles one where Hamas was parading around Gaza with it's missile trucks and one of them, packed with Kassams, exploded, killing a whole bunch of civillians, including small children. They used that as an excuse to rain missiles down on civillians.

There are no military targets in Sderot.

 

[~atp~]

"the United Nations regards such indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians as completely unjustifiable."

That's a self-evident nevertheless superficial remark.

 

[Ditto Much]

A UN condemnation is kind of like a parking ticket you don't have to pay.

 

[SellyCat]

A UN condemnation is kind of like a parking ticket you don't have to pay.

Yeah for sure, but the UN has been so incredibly anti-Israeli that it's nice to see them have some integrity for a change.

 

[Genesius]

A UN condemnation is kind of like a parking ticket you don't have to pay.

HA.

 

[~atp~]

Yeah for sure, but the UN has been so incredibly anti-Israeli that it's nice to see them have some integrity for a change.

First of all, I don't like the idea of declaring the UN "anti-Israel". Second, it's not like that attitude, assuming it exists as you suggest, is even relevant given that U.S. veto power looms over the entire operation.

 

[Ditto Much]

Yeah for sure, but the UN has been so incredibly anti-Israeli that it's nice to see them have some integrity for a change.

Yeah to be honest that did amaze me.


Does three UN condemnations and a buck and a quarter still get you a coffee at Tim Hortons?

 

[Ditto Much]

First of all, I don't like the idea of declaring the UN "anti-Israel". Second, it's not like that attitude, assuming it exists as you suggest, is even relevant given that U.S. veto power looms over the entire operation.

yeah you're right, the UN arab voting block really didn't exist. The 70's and 80's really didn't happen it was all just a bad flashback.

 

[Genesius]

First of all, I don't like the idea of declaring the UN "anti-Israel". Second, it's not like that attitude, assuming it exists as you suggest, is even relevant given that U.S. veto power looms over the entire operation.

Agreed.

If anything the UN are/should be anti-oppression... it's easily argued that the power to oppress is in the hands of Israel, and they use it. The UN has every right and responsibility to defend the rights of the oppressed, that means giving Israel (and Hamas) a hard time.

 

[SellyCat]

First of all, I don't like the idea of declaring the UN "anti-Israel". Second, it's not like that attitude, assuming it exists as you suggest, is even relevant given that U.S. veto power looms over the entire operation.

The UN is exceptionally biased against Israel, even if you don't like that fact being stated. And it matters because the UN is an opinion forming instrument--that is one of its self-declared functions--and it has gone out of its way to sponsor conferences for the purpose of making the most extreme and outlandish condemnations against Israel.

The South African conference on Racism is the perfect example! According to the UN report filed there, Israel was the only racist country on the whole entire planet! Imagine that! It was right after the Taliban used TANKS to destroy ancient statues of Buddha carved into a mountain. But that's not racist--hell, the Taliban in general weren't racist at all, were they, according tot he UN. The NGO report that accompanied that confrence called for comprehensive international sanctions against israel to cripple its economy like that of IRAQ. None of the Arab countries who, on a daily basis, print incredibly racist, anti-semitic blood libels about Jews, were even mentioned.

The UN is very anti-Israeli.

 

[SellyCat]

Agreed.

If anything the UN are/should be anti-oppression... it's easily argued that the power to oppress is in the hands of Israel, and they use it. The UN has every right and responsibility to defend the rights of the oppressed, that means giving Israel (and Hamas) a hard time.

Except they give ONLY Israel a hard time. This is because they are so spineless that they--and everyone else--uses Israel as the convenient lightning rod to pretend that anybody actually gives a shit about stopping oppression. There are oppressive regimes FAR worse than Israel. But it's easy to attack Israel, so everyone does it. It's extremely convenient.

The UN could barely bring itself--and for a long time never did--to condemn deliberate mass murders committed by Palestinian militants.

 

[Genesius]

It was right after the Taliban used TANKS to destroy ancient statues of Buddha carved into a mountain. But that's not racist--

Right, that's not racist, it's religious (I'm not saying it's right). It has little to nothing to do with race. And Certainly Israel, who you would have to admit is a nation based strictly on race & religion, should not escape judgement. Do you think that if they felt they could destroy the muslim dome without causing a major war they wouldn't do it? comon.

The NGO report that accompanied that confrence called for comprehensive international sanctions against israel to cripple its economy like that of IRAQ.

I have to ask for a source on that one.

 

[~atp~]

SellyCat, I think that's a very superficial way to look at the behaviour of the UN vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine.

 

[Genesius]

Except they give ONLY Israel a hard time. This is because they are so spineless that they--and everyone else--uses Israel as the convenient lightning rod to pretend that anybody actually gives a shit about stopping oppression. There are oppressive regimes FAR worse than Israel. But it's easy to attack Israel, so everyone does it. It's extremely convenient.

The UN could barely bring itself--and for a long time never did--to condemn deliberate mass murders committed by Palestinian militants.

No argument here.

 

[SellyCat]

Right, that's not racist, it's religious (I'm not saying it's right). It has little to nothing to do with race. And Certainly Israel, who you would have to admit is a nation based strictly on race & religion, should not escape judgement. Do you think that if they felt they could destroy the muslim dome without causing a major war they wouldn't do it? comon.



I have to ask for a source on that one.

Jews are a race? Palestinians are a race?

Actually, Judaism is a religion, and Palestinian is a nationality.

The conference didn't strictly mean about RACE! Hello!? It was about that type of discrimination.

 

[SellyCat]

SellyCat, I think that's a very superficial way to look at the behaviour of the UN vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine.

~atp~, I think that's a very superficial way to look at what I'm saying.

KEITH!

 

[Genesius]

Jews are a race? Palestinians are a race?

Actually, Judaism is a religion, and Palestinian is a nationality.

The conference didn't strictly mean about RACE! Hello!? It was about that type of discrimination.

Hello!!???

You were talking about the destruction of BUDDHIST statues, by ISLAMISTS.
This is not a racist act. Just because a bunch of Polish soccer fans beat up a bunch of German soccer fans does not qualify (on it's own) as a racist act.

 

[Ditto Much]

Of 700 UN resolutions to date 450 specifically condemn Israel. 1 condemns Iraq, no other Arab nation has ever been condemend by the UN.

 

[Genesius]

wow, Israel is being a bad, bad boy (or girl as it were).

 

[Ditto Much]

wow, Israel is being a bad, bad boy (or girl as it were).

no but some of the resolutions are just laughable. There was a period during the 70's and 80's when basically the former soviet union along with a group of arab nations passed resolution after resolution. The US walking out on the UN labour comission was part of this, it was laughable that Israel was being condemened by a nation that was actually involved in selling slaves at the time (Sudan).

 

[~atp~]

I'm not interested in rhetoric. The SA conference on racism (from what I know) has to be highlighted as a problem that dates back to previous resolutions that discuss Zionism and Israel's citizenship policies. They don't explicitly declare "Israel was the only racist country on the whole entire planet", nor is it really implied. I assume you're referring to this document:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.Conf.189.12.En?Opendocument

which is from the 2001 conference in Durban SA. Israel is mentioned twice. Here are the excerpts:

We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion;

...

As for the situation in the Middle East, calls for the end of violence and the swift resumption of negotiations, respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, respect for the principle of self-determination and the end of all suffering, thus allowing Israel and the Palestinians to resume the peace process, and to develop and prosper in security and freedom;

If you look specifically at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, this is what appears to draw all the heat in the debate that occurs later on. Your sensationalist statement,

Israel was the only racist country on the whole entire planet

is extremely misleading.

 

[~atp~]

Also, I would like to note that some 50+ countries during UN GA votes are Muslim. This constitutes something like 1/4 of all votes. Instead of elaborating on some mysterious bias against Israel from the U.N. as an entity, it would be worthwhile to examine the internal reasons for the outcomes we see.

 

[praktik]

good point Keith. The UN is a nice scapegoat -> "oh that shitty UN never did anything about Rwanda". Not really, the UN's member countries didnt do anything. The UN itself is a composite of its member countries, always. You can't say the UN believes any one thing - because the UN is every country that's a member. Even on things on which there is a consensus, there will be divergences by one or more member nations. Even treaties that are widely signed vary in their implementation, and acceptance (countries can accept certain tenets with "reservations").

The UN can't be anti-Israeli - but some of its member states could be, or individuals within the organization. Another distinction to draw would be those that actually dont support a "pro Israeli" amendment for reasons otehr than being "Anti-israeli". If I support a resolution calling for IDF withdrawal from refugee camps during a crisis - is that Anti-Israeli? Anti-Israeli is useful as a propaganda term, just as Anti-American or anti-soviet are used. As chomsky has mentioned before, try talking about Anti-Italianism on the streets of Naples and you'll be laughed off the streets (though say it in New York and you'll get invited to the next Italian-American Association gathering!)

 

[Ditto Much]

wow when in doubt argue symantics

 

[praktik]

Well I wasn't in doubt, nor was I arguing. I was just buttressing Keith's point and trying to illustrate the complexity of the UN since oftentimes people speak too easily about it without really thinking of the political realities (as in this thread). Reading Romeo Dallair'es "Shake Hands with the Devil" has helped heighten my sensitivity to criticism of the UN. Yes there's blame for Rwanda that can be laid at certain individual's feet at the UN, but the large portion of responsibility rests on its member nations, and especially those on the security council. The UN didnt fail in Rwanda as much as Canada, US, France, Belgium and England failed Rwanda. Its always important to be clear about what we're saying, to call the UN "Anti Israel" is to engage in simple rhetoric - when you do that I will call you on it. Call it a pet peeve.

And ya, I ain't in doubt...