Political Crossfire Forums

[uzi]

Quote:

What is Zionism?


Zionism is the movement for the reestablishment of the Jewish people's self determination in their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

In 70 CE, the Romans destroyed the Jewish people's holy Temple and razed the city of Jerusalem, the religious and administrative capital of the Jewish people. Jewish independence came to an end, and in the decades that followed, most of the Jews in the Land of Israel were exiled. They never stopped hoping to return home, and expressed these yearnings in prayer and literature. At the end of the annual Passover meal, Jews all over the world repeat the vow "Next year in Jerusalem," and at Jewish weddings the groom recites "If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning" (Psalm 137).

The Jewish connection with the Land of Israel is not manifested in prayer alone. In fact, throughout history, there has always been a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.


In the late nineteenth century, as national movements took shape in Europe and as antisemitism on that continent grew, an Austrian Jewish journalist, Theodor Herzl, began to organize the national movement of the Jewish people - the Zionist movement. The goal of this movement was a political solution: an independent state for the Jewish people. The most natural place for this state was Zion, or the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel), the homeland of the Jewish people.

Herzl elaborated this vision in his book The Jewish State. He envisioned a developed, thriving country in which all inhabitants, Jews and non-Jews, would live in peace and tranquility. This vision and its fulfillment are Zionism.


Why is Israel a Jewish state?

The State of Israel is a Jewish state, first and foremost, in view of the right of the Jewish people to an independent state of their own, and by reason of the historic and biblical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel). There is no other land in which the Jewish people can lay claim to their own independent sovereign state.

Although for 2000 years, the Jewish people yearned and prayed for the day when they could reestablish their own national home, this right could be fulfilled only following the modern national reawakening of the Jewish people towards the end of the nineteenth century. This reawakening led to the establishment of the Zionist movement and received important initial recognition in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which stated that the British Government viewed "with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." That recognition was later officially endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922.

On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181 calling for the termination of the British Mandate in Palestine, and the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in that territory. The Arab countries rejected the UN decision and started a war, while the Jewish people celebrated this landmark resolution. On 14 May 1948, David Ben Gurion declared the "establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel." In this way, the Jewish people exercised their right to self-determination in their own land.

Israel was founded to provide a much-needed homeland for the Jewish people, who had been persecuted in other lands over the ages. The Declaration of Independence states explicitly that the "State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles." The Law of Return (enacted in 1950) implements this principle, establishing the right of every Jew to settle in Israel and providing a refuge for any Jew fleeing persecution. Therefore, every Jew is entitled to return to his or her historical homeland and be naturalized in it.

The Law of Return is not discriminatory. It does not prevent persons of non-Jewish origin from being naturalized in Israel; this possibility is available under other laws.

In accordance with its Declaration of Independence, the State of Israel was founded as a democratic state based upon the principles of the separation of powers, freedom, and complete equality before the law for all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, gender or nationality. These principles apply today.

There is a large Arab minority in the State of Israel constituting 19 per cent of its population. The Arab population of the State of Israel enjoys full civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, religion and worship. They vote in Israel's elections and Arab representatives are elected to Israel's parliament. Israeli Arabs serve as judges, mayors, and civil servants. In addition to Hebrew, Arabic is an official language of the state.




A related topic:



Quote: Is anti-Zionism different from antisemitism?


Israel, as a democracy, is receptive to fair and legitimate criticism. However, all too often Israel is singled out and held up to standards not applied to any other state. Although valid criticism of Israel has absolutely no connection to antisemitism, some of the unreasonable condemnation has its roots in antisemitic attitudes, often disguised as "anti-Zionism." Just as in the past Jews were the scapegoat for many problems, today there are attempts to turn Israel into an international pariah.

"Antisemitism" is the name given to the form of racism practiced against the Jewish people. Though the literal interpretation of antisemitism would appear to denote hostility to all Semitic peoples, this is a fallacy. The term was originally coined in Germany in 1879 to describe the European anti-Jewish campaigns of that era, and it soon came to define the persecution or discrimination against Jews throughout the ages.

Hatred of the Jewish people is an age-old phenomenon, traditionally associated with expressions of xenophobia and religious intolerance. Antisemitism has taken different forms and used various motifs throughout history. In modern times, it has been promoted by extreme nationalistic and even racist ideologies. Severe antisemitism exists in Arab countries today.


Antisemitism reached its peak in the Holocaust. Over 6 million Jews (one third of the world's Jewish population) were brutally and systematically murdered during World War II.

Modern antisemitism in Europe, after being repressed for decades, has erupted with renewed fury in recent years in a new form: "anti-Zionism," or hatred of the State of Israel.

Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people - an expression of their legitimate aspiration to self-determination and national independence. The Zionist movement was founded to provide an ancient people with a sovereign state of its own, in its ancestral homeland. Israel is the modern political embodiment of this age-old dream.

The goal of anti-Zionism is to undermine the legitimacy of Israel, thereby denying the Jewish people their place in the community of nations. Denigration of Zionism is therefore an attack on Israel's basic right to exist as a nation equal to all other nations, in violation of one of the fundamental principles of international law.

Just as antisemitism denies Jews their rights as individuals in society, anti-Zionism attacks the Jewish people as a nation, on the international level. Similar to the use of "the Jew" as a scapegoat for many a society's problems, Israel has been singled out for disproportionate and one-sided condemnation in the international arena.

Anti-Zionism is often manifested as attacks on Israel in the United Nations and other international forums. Over the years, many a meeting and event of the international community has been exploited as an opportunity to condemn Israel - no matter what the subject matter, no matter how tenuous the tie to the conflict in the Middle East.

Moreover, it is no coincidence that the recent censure of Israel in international forums and the media has been accompanied by a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents in many parts of the world.

As a nation dedicated to the principles of democracy, Israel believes that criticism, whether by other nations or our own people, is a powerful force for positive change. However, there is a clear distinction between legitimate calls for improvement and the attempt to delegitimize Israel by consistently singling it out and holding it up to standards not applied to other states. All this ignores the context in which Israel must strive to survive in the face of violent attacks against its citizens and, all too often, against its very existence.


Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: [No, the reason that yhe IAEA does nothing is because the head of it is Muslim.
And, Sudan is not enough, and who've done orderf in Yugoslavia?
The UN?
No, Nato.

Once again alexander taking another slanderous attack against ones religion which btw is against these forum rules. Irregardless the argument is pointless anyways, the IAEA's decisions are not solely made by one man and thus it really makes little difference if someone shares the same religion as the dominant religion in another country. And just a another thing to reming you, Muslims do not all think alike and they are not some organization seeking to take over the world. I have never met a muslim who was not adimantly opposed to what Osama bin Laden is doing or to terrorist attacks in Israel. Ive also met muslims who even agree with the two state solution in the middle east crisis.

As for the Sudan you and me are in total agreement we are not doing enough but my point still stands, what other country or organization is doing even close to what the UN is doing in the Sudan. Besides the trials for war crimes of some 500 individuals are beginning at the ICC.

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: So, answer this question, if the UN isn't Anti Israeli, why there was a decision the Zionism is Racism?

alright well would you care to provide some evidence of this?

[Chris29]

So Alexander if the UN is anti-Israeli then explain resolution 181 in which the UN called for the end of the British mandate in Palestine and the creation of two seperate states????

I seem to remember this resolution being celebrated by Jews and adamantly opposed by arab states

[uzi]

Chris29 wrote: Alexander The Great wrote: So, answer this question, if the UN isn't Anti Israeli, why there was a decision the Zionism is Racism?

alright well would you care to provide some evidence of this?


Israel's view of the UN's fair treatment of Israel:



Quote: Israel and the UN - An Uneasy Relationship

In the General Assembly and its committees, as well as in the specialized agencies of the UN, there exists a long-standing tradition of singling out Israel. The General Assembly devotes seven out of 179 items of its agenda to issues concerning Israel. No other nation or issue is accorded such scrutinizing treatment. Nineteen anti-Israel resolutions are adopted by the General Assembly annually.

The automatic majority enjoyed by the Arab-Moslem bloc enables this group to pass any anti-Israel resolution it chooses, no matter how one-sided it may be. This same automatic majority blocks the adoption of any resolution that has any hint of criticism against the Palestinians or any Arab state.

Politicization remains a serious problem in the specialized agencies. Anti-Israel resolutions are traditionally adopted in many agencies on issues, which have no relevance to the work or mandate of these organizations.

The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all the condemnations issued by the Commission, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria, Iran and Yemen are never criticized. The special rapporteur assigned by the commission to the territories was given a mandate very different from that of any other special rapporteur.

The "Special Committees" and "Palestinian Units" of the UN (The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division on Palestinian Rights, as well as the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories) spend more than five million dollars a year, essentially to spread viciously anti-Israel propaganda. These bodies are the focus of the worst anti-Israel activity under the aegis of the UN. They organize, inter alia, the annual "Palestine Day" events at the UN, as well as symposia and other events. In the last 55 years, since the establishment of the UN, there have been at least 80 conflicts between states in which at least that number of refugee situations have developed. Nevertheless, only the Palestinians have gotten the kind of attention they have received, while many other peoples have suffered and are still suffering.

There are increasingly frequent cases of blatantly anti-Semitic remarks by Arab representatives at UN forums. In 1991, Syrian representatives at the Commission on Human Rights accused Jews of using the blood of Christian children in their rituals. On 11 March 1997, the PLO representative in Geneva, Nabil Ramlani, used the same forum to accuse Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. In May 2000, the representative of Lebanon declared Zionism to be an "elitist racist movement". In addition, anti-Semitism as a phenomenon has long been ignored or deliberately omitted in resolutions, forums and events throughout the UN, even in commemorations of World War II. It was only on 24 November 1998, 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."

The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts.

While the Arab-Israeli peace process that was launched in Madrid in 1991 is structured on the basis of direct negotiations between the parties, the UN constantly undercuts this principle. The Oslo Agreements, as well, establish that differences between Israelis and Palestinians should be resolved bilaterally. Nonetheless, the UN General Assembly passes annual resolutions that seek to prejudge the outcome of negotiations by proposing specific solutions to issues like Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, settlements, and other issues meant to be resolved through bilateral talks. Ironically, it was the UN Security Council that proposed these bilateral negotiations in Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), but the UN General Assembly undermines these resolutions every year.

Prior to May 2000, Israel was the only UN Member State excluded from a UN regional grouping. This state of affairs stemmed primarily from a rejection by Arab states of Israel's membership in the Asian group. As a result, Israel was denied membership in a number of important UN bodies, including the Security Council in violation of the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter. Israel also could not be elected to the vast majority of bodies in the UN system, where voting is based on membership in a regional group. Thus, Israel was unable to serve as the President of the General Assembly, or as a member of any bureau in the GA and its main committees.

As of May 2000, Israel was accepted as a temporary member of the Western European and Other States Group (WEOG) in New York. This membership was officially extended in May 2004. This development helps to partially rectify an anomaly, which has affected no other nation in the world and marks an important step towards the full integration of Israel into the United Nations system. Israel has agreed to continue to seek membership in its natural grouping in the Asian Group that continues to deny it admission.

While Israel's admission into WEOG signified an important development, it remains excluded from the regional group system outside New York. Though Israel can be elected to a UN body that has seats allocated through WEOG in New York, it is prevented from participating in Western group meetings outside of New York, and from nominating candidates to positions in UN bodies where elections for those bodies are not organized by the New York regional group system.

This discriminatory exclusion violates the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter, and denies Israel the ability to play its role as a full and equal member throughout the UN system. For this discriminatory anomaly to be fully rectified, Israel hopes that in the future it will be included fully in the regional grouping system on an equal basis with all other states.




Prove these statements wrong.

http://www.israel-un.org/israel_un/uneasyrelation.htm

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/World+Conference+against+Racism-+Racial+Discrimina.htm

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/9/The%20Conclusion%20of%20the%20Durban%20Conference-%20Comments

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%20by%20Israeli%20leaders/2001/Press%20Conference%20with%20Foreign%20Minister%20Shimon%20Pere

If any of the links don't work go to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa and look for issues concerning the UN. There's a lot.

[Chris29]

Quote: In the General Assembly and its committees, as well as in the specialized agencies of the UN, there exists a long-standing tradition of singling out Israel. The General Assembly devotes seven out of 179 items of its agenda to issues concerning Israel. No other nation or issue is accorded such scrutinizing treatment. Nineteen anti-Israel resolutions are adopted by the General Assembly annually.


this is obvious, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has been the major conflict for the past few decades it is obvious that this will get the most attention.


Quote: The automatic majority enjoyed by the Arab-Moslem bloc enables this group to pass any anti-Israel resolution it chooses, no matter how one-sided it may be. This same automatic majority blocks the adoption of any resolution that has any hint of criticism against the Palestinians or any Arab state.

this simply is not true, there are simply not enough Arab-Muslim countries to make up a majority they require the support of other countries to pass a resolution.


Quote: Politicization remains a serious problem in the specialized agencies. Anti-Israel resolutions are traditionally adopted in many agencies on issues, which have no relevance to the work or mandate of these organizations.

With the exception of the Human Rights Commission I am not sure what organizations within the UN have done this?

Quote: The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all the condemnations issued by the Commission, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria, Iran and Yemen are never criticized. The special rapporteur assigned by the commission to the territories was given a mandate very different from that of any other special rapporteur.

:clap: :clap: I could not agree with you more on this one. The Human Rights Commission has been a disasterous failure and luckily Kofi Annan has been pushing for its abolishment.

Quote: The "Special Committees" and "Palestinian Units" of the UN (The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division on Palestinian Rights, as well as the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories) spend more than five million dollars a year, essentially to spread viciously anti-Israel propaganda. These bodies are the focus of the worst anti-Israel activity under the aegis of the UN. They organize, inter alia, the annual "Palestine Day" events at the UN, as well as symposia and other events. In the last 55 years, since the establishment of the UN, there have been at least 80 conflicts between states in which at least that number of refugee situations have developed. Nevertheless, only the Palestinians have gotten the kind of attention they have received, while many other peoples have suffered and are still suffering.


Well there are bodies that concern solely Palestine with regards to their right to self determination - something essential to the two state solution. These bodies have existed ever since November 10 1975 following Resolution 3376. As for the Palestinian Day well this article is misleading. The actual day is called the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. It is held on November 29 every year and here is the site showing what occured on this day International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People 2004. The closest thing to anti-Israeli that I could see was a documentary showing the impact that has occured as a result of the wall. The reason that the Palestinians are receiving this attention is not because of their suffering. As I mentioned above this is due to the continual crisis in this area while most refugee situations are relatively short in comparison.



Quote: There are increasingly frequent cases of blatantly anti-Semitic remarks by Arab representatives at UN forums. In 1991, Syrian representatives at the Commission on Human Rights accused Jews of using the blood of Christian children in their rituals. On 11 March 1997, the PLO representative in Geneva, Nabil Ramlani, used the same forum to accuse Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. In May 2000, the representative of Lebanon declared Zionism to be an "elitist racist movement". In addition, anti-Semitism as a phenomenon has long been ignored or deliberately omitted in resolutions, forums and events throughout the UN, even in commemorations of World War II. It was only on 24 November 1998, 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."

But this cannot be used as a source of blame towards the UN as a whole, yes these delegates are idiots and are not being proper diplomats but surely you cannot blame the UN for that. As for anti-semitism not being used in resolutions I believe there are many reasons for this. The first obvious one for me is that the word could stir up some pretty serious emotions and resolutions or international laws should not be based on emotion it takes away from the objectivity of it. The second could be in regards to the UN charter stating the sovereign equality of all member states. A resolution using the terms anti-semitism could demonstrate a certain bias towards the Israeli's and thus resolutions would often be worded differently.


Quote: The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts.


Well first off the UN can only hold an emergency meeting in the Security Council on issues that are a threat to the entire global community. Obviously a situation like Rwanda or Yugoslavia does not represent a serious threat to the entire global community. However the Israeli-Palestinian crisis certainly does. With tensions so high it is no surprise that emergency meetings would be called everytime a serious event occurs in the area.


Quote: While the Arab-Israeli peace process that was launched in Madrid in 1991 is structured on the basis of direct negotiations between the parties, the UN constantly undercuts this principle. The Oslo Agreements, as well, establish that differences between Israelis and Palestinians should be resolved bilaterally. Nonetheless, the UN General Assembly passes annual resolutions that seek to prejudge the outcome of negotiations by proposing specific solutions to issues like Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, settlements, and other issues meant to be resolved through bilateral talks. Ironically, it was the UN Security Council that proposed these bilateral negotiations in Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), but the UN General Assembly undermines these resolutions every year.

well and this could very well be true, after all I am not saying that the UN is perfect and certainly there are resolutions passed without the reminder of the general membership of previous resolutions. However this still does not show any anti-israeli bias in the UN rather a brain fart on the part of the general membership towards previous actions.


Quote: Prior to May 2000, Israel was the only UN Member State excluded from a UN regional grouping. This state of affairs stemmed primarily from a rejection by Arab states of Israel's membership in the Asian group. As a result, Israel was denied membership in a number of important UN bodies, including the Security Council in violation of the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter. Israel also could not be elected to the vast majority of bodies in the UN system, where voting is based on membership in a regional group. Thus, Israel was unable to serve as the President of the General Assembly, or as a member of any bureau in the GA and its main committees.

Well that statement is taking it a little extreme. After all the regional group that Israel would be allied with would be primarily with Arab-Muslim nations and lol I am pretty sure that would not be in Israel's best interests. Luckily the UN has finally solved this problem. But the statement that Israel could not be in the Security Council or president of the G.A. is taking it pretty far. You have to understand how these positions would arise. With the Security Council the General Assembly votes as a whole on individual member states to fill a non permanent seat. In all likelyhood Israel would not get a seat anyways due to the fact that they are entangled in this brutal conflict, it would simply only cause problems in the Security Council. As for the President the same situation applies, people are suggested and the G.A. votes on the people, and for the same reasons we would likely not see a president of the G.A. only because it would cause problems when the Israeli-Palestinian issue arises.

Quote: As of May 2000, Israel was accepted as a temporary member of the Western European and Other States Group (WEOG) in New York. This membership was officially extended in May 2004. This development helps to partially rectify an anomaly, which has affected no other nation in the world and marks an important step towards the full integration of Israel into the United Nations system. Israel has agreed to continue to seek membership in its natural grouping in the Asian Group that continues to deny it admission.

well theres obviously no complaints here


Quote: While Israel's admission into WEOG signified an important development, it remains excluded from the regional group system outside New York. Though Israel can be elected to a UN body that has seats allocated through WEOG in New York, it is prevented from participating in Western group meetings outside of New York, and from nominating candidates to positions in UN bodies where elections for those bodies are not organized by the New York regional group system.


And the reasoning for this is pretty simple, with the New York HQ there are alot of seats in each committee thus still allowing the WEOG to have representatives in all of the bodies, when you go to other offices such as Geneva or Vienna you find committees made up of a much smaller number of countries and thus the WEOG would require there own members to be on these committees rather than Israel. However the good news is that this regional grouping obviously has good ties with Israel and thus Israel's interests will likely be addressed at any committees.

Quote: This discriminatory exclusion violates the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter, and denies Israel the ability to play its role as a full and equal member throughout the UN system. For this discriminatory anomaly to be fully rectified, Israel hopes that in the future it will be included fully in the regional grouping system on an equal basis with all other states.

unfortunately there are some things the UN simpy cannot do, like change the political thoughts of many arab nations. Hopefully they will come to their sense but this is after all a representation of the bias of individual member states in the UN and not of the UN as a whole.

[Alexander The Great]

Chris29 wrote: So Alexander if the UN is anti-Israeli then explain resolution 181 in which the UN called for the end of the British mandate in Palestine and the creation of two seperate states????

I seem to remember this resolution being celebrated by Jews and adamantly opposed by arab states

The 1st and only decision for Israel in the UN.

UNטישמים

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: Chris29 wrote: So Alexander if the UN is anti-Israeli then explain resolution 181 in which the UN called for the end of the British mandate in Palestine and the creation of two seperate states????

I seem to remember this resolution being celebrated by Jews and adamantly opposed by arab states

The 1st and only decision for Israel in the UN.

UNטישמים

what does that mean??

[uzi]

Chris29 wrote: Alexander The Great wrote: Chris29 wrote: So Alexander if the UN is anti-Israeli then explain resolution 181 in which the UN called for the end of the British mandate in Palestine and the creation of two seperate states????

I seem to remember this resolution being celebrated by Jews and adamantly opposed by arab states

The 1st and only decision for Israel in the UN.

UNטישמים

what does that mean??

He's just playing with words: UNti-semites. Get it? U.N=anti-semites...

Anyway, you haven't refuted anything I've posted, you only tried to justify the way the U.N deals with Israel saying basically: it's not perfect.

That's exactly the problem, that the U.N is biased.

And you said that Arab countries alone don't have a majority, but as we've seen many times, they've often been able to carry with them enough non-Arab supporters to pass biased decisions against Israel.

I guess they're trying to achieve through the U.N what they were not able to achieve in several wars against Israel. That's o.k.
We don't expect the U.N to be perfect, just don't tell us that it treats Israel fairly. It certainly doesn't treat Israel like any other member state.

[Chris29]

uzi4ufriend wrote: He's just playing with words: UNti-semites. Get it? U.N=anti-semites...

Anyway, you haven't refuted anything I've posted, you only tried to justify the way the U.N deals with Israel saying basically: it's not perfect.

That's exactly the problem, that the U.N is biased.

And you said that Arab countries alone don't have a majority, but as we've seen many times, they've often been able to carry with them enough non-Arab supporters to pass biased decisions against Israel.

I guess they're trying to achieve through the U.N what they were not able to achieve in several wars against Israel. That's o.k.
We don't expect the U.N to be perfect, just don't tell us that it treats Israel fairly. It certainly doesn't treat Israel like any other member state.

well what I am saying is you can't blame the UN for the worlds problems, if the majorty of the world is in fact anti-semitic then yes there are going to be problems but that is not the fault of the UN. However I would still argue that Arab countries garner enough support to pass anti-israeli laws. Maybe it would be good for the discussion if you posted some examples? My first point in refute to that would be resolution 181 which essentially created the Israeli state. It would seem odd to me for the UN to be anti-Israeli or anti-zionist when it was the very organization that helped create the state.

but I wouldn't say I didn't refute anything you were saying. Yes it is obvious that arab countries have a strong anti-israeli bias however this cannot be translated into a violation of Article 1 Chapter 2 of the UN charter. As I pointed out is is quite obvious that most of the resolutions or statements will be regarding Israel (which by this they mean the Israel-Palestinian area) as it is the major conflict that has been affecting the world for decades. If that is translated into an anti-semitic bias by the entire UN then I am sorry this has happened. However at least from my point of view this is merely an attempt by the international community to try and garner peace in the area in a hope that this won't erupt into a global conflict.

[Alexander The Great]

Chris29 wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: He's just playing with words: UNti-semites. Get it? U.N=anti-semites...

Anyway, you haven't refuted anything I've posted, you only tried to justify the way the U.N deals with Israel saying basically: it's not perfect.

That's exactly the problem, that the U.N is biased.

And you said that Arab countries alone don't have a majority, but as we've seen many times, they've often been able to carry with them enough non-Arab supporters to pass biased decisions against Israel.

I guess they're trying to achieve through the U.N what they were not able to achieve in several wars against Israel. That's o.k.
We don't expect the U.N to be perfect, just don't tell us that it treats Israel fairly. It certainly doesn't treat Israel like any other member state.

well what I am saying is you can't blame the UN for the worlds problems, if the majorty of the world is in fact anti-semitic then yes there are going to be problems but that is not the fault of the UN. However I would still argue that Arab countries garner enough support to pass anti-israeli laws. Maybe it would be good for the discussion if you posted some examples? My first point in refute to that would be resolution 181 which essentially created the Israeli state. It would seem odd to me for the UN to be anti-Israeli or anti-zionist when it was the very organization that helped create the state.

but I wouldn't say I didn't refute anything you were saying. Yes it is obvious that arab countries have a strong anti-israeli bias however this cannot be translated into a violation of Article 1 Chapter 2 of the UN charter. As I pointed out is is quite obvious that most of the resolutions or statements will be regarding Israel (which by this they mean the Israel-Palestinian area) as it is the major conflict that has been affecting the world for decades. If that is translated into an anti-semitic bias by the entire UN then I am sorry this has happened. However at least from my point of view this is merely an attempt by the international community to try and garner peace in the area in a hope that this won't erupt into a global conflict.

They helped us, because the UN goes with the weaks.

Even when they're wrong, as in the Palestinian state, or in what the USA is doing in Iraq.
That's the explanation, understand it as you will.

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: Chris29 wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: He's just playing with words: UNti-semites. Get it? U.N=anti-semites...

Anyway, you haven't refuted anything I've posted, you only tried to justify the way the U.N deals with Israel saying basically: it's not perfect.

That's exactly the problem, that the U.N is biased.

And you said that Arab countries alone don't have a majority, but as we've seen many times, they've often been able to carry with them enough non-Arab supporters to pass biased decisions against Israel.

I guess they're trying to achieve through the U.N what they were not able to achieve in several wars against Israel. That's o.k.
We don't expect the U.N to be perfect, just don't tell us that it treats Israel fairly. It certainly doesn't treat Israel like any other member state.

well what I am saying is you can't blame the UN for the worlds problems, if the majorty of the world is in fact anti-semitic then yes there are going to be problems but that is not the fault of the UN. However I would still argue that Arab countries garner enough support to pass anti-israeli laws. Maybe it would be good for the discussion if you posted some examples? My first point in refute to that would be resolution 181 which essentially created the Israeli state. It would seem odd to me for the UN to be anti-Israeli or anti-zionist when it was the very organization that helped create the state.

but I wouldn't say I didn't refute anything you were saying. Yes it is obvious that arab countries have a strong anti-israeli bias however this cannot be translated into a violation of Article 1 Chapter 2 of the UN charter. As I pointed out is is quite obvious that most of the resolutions or statements will be regarding Israel (which by this they mean the Israel-Palestinian area) as it is the major conflict that has been affecting the world for decades. If that is translated into an anti-semitic bias by the entire UN then I am sorry this has happened. However at least from my point of view this is merely an attempt by the international community to try and garner peace in the area in a hope that this won't erupt into a global conflict.

They helped us, because the UN goes with the weaks.

Even when they're wrong, as in the Palestinian state, or in what the USA is doing in Iraq.
That's the explanation, understand it as you will.

Alright Alexander I really want to try and understand where you are coming from. What exactly is the UN doing regarding the Palestinian State that is wrong?

So are you saying that what is wrong with the UN is that they always go on the side of the weak??

[Alexander The Great]

Chris29 wrote: Alexander The Great wrote: Chris29 wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: He's just playing with words: UNti-semites. Get it? U.N=anti-semites...

Anyway, you haven't refuted anything I've posted, you only tried to justify the way the U.N deals with Israel saying basically: it's not perfect.

That's exactly the problem, that the U.N is biased.

And you said that Arab countries alone don't have a majority, but as we've seen many times, they've often been able to carry with them enough non-Arab supporters to pass biased decisions against Israel.

I guess they're trying to achieve through the U.N what they were not able to achieve in several wars against Israel. That's o.k.
We don't expect the U.N to be perfect, just don't tell us that it treats Israel fairly. It certainly doesn't treat Israel like any other member state.

well what I am saying is you can't blame the UN for the worlds problems, if the majorty of the world is in fact anti-semitic then yes there are going to be problems but that is not the fault of the UN. However I would still argue that Arab countries garner enough support to pass anti-israeli laws. Maybe it would be good for the discussion if you posted some examples? My first point in refute to that would be resolution 181 which essentially created the Israeli state. It would seem odd to me for the UN to be anti-Israeli or anti-zionist when it was the very organization that helped create the state.

but I wouldn't say I didn't refute anything you were saying. Yes it is obvious that arab countries have a strong anti-israeli bias however this cannot be translated into a violation of Article 1 Chapter 2 of the UN charter. As I pointed out is is quite obvious that most of the resolutions or statements will be regarding Israel (which by this they mean the Israel-Palestinian area) as it is the major conflict that has been affecting the world for decades. If that is translated into an anti-semitic bias by the entire UN then I am sorry this has happened. However at least from my point of view this is merely an attempt by the international community to try and garner peace in the area in a hope that this won't erupt into a global conflict.

They helped us, because the UN goes with the weaks.

Even when they're wrong, as in the Palestinian state, or in what the USA is doing in Iraq.
That's the explanation, understand it as you will.

Alright Alexander I really want to try and understand where you are coming from. What exactly is the UN doing regarding the Palestinian State that is wrong?

So are you saying that what is wrong with the UN is that they always go on the side of the weak??

Exactly.
Even in the case of the Palestinians, I'm not blind, I know they're weaker, but still, it doesn't make them right.
The UN takes the weak side, if the Muslim states don't pass a majority to it.

But still you've not answered me these question:

Why does the UN isn't exffective in stopping the Genocide in Sudan?

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: Chris29 wrote: Alexander The Great wrote: Chris29 wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: He's just playing with words: UNti-semites. Get it? U.N=anti-semites...

Anyway, you haven't refuted anything I've posted, you only tried to justify the way the U.N deals with Israel saying basically: it's not perfect.

That's exactly the problem, that the U.N is biased.

And you said that Arab countries alone don't have a majority, but as we've seen many times, they've often been able to carry with them enough non-Arab supporters to pass biased decisions against Israel.

I guess they're trying to achieve through the U.N what they were not able to achieve in several wars against Israel. That's o.k.
We don't expect the U.N to be perfect, just don't tell us that it treats Israel fairly. It certainly doesn't treat Israel like any other member state.

well what I am saying is you can't blame the UN for the worlds problems, if the majorty of the world is in fact anti-semitic then yes there are going to be problems but that is not the fault of the UN. However I would still argue that Arab countries garner enough support to pass anti-israeli laws. Maybe it would be good for the discussion if you posted some examples? My first point in refute to that would be resolution 181 which essentially created the Israeli state. It would seem odd to me for the UN to be anti-Israeli or anti-zionist when it was the very organization that helped create the state.

but I wouldn't say I didn't refute anything you were saying. Yes it is obvious that arab countries have a strong anti-israeli bias however this cannot be translated into a violation of Article 1 Chapter 2 of the UN charter. As I pointed out is is quite obvious that most of the resolutions or statements will be regarding Israel (which by this they mean the Israel-Palestinian area) as it is the major conflict that has been affecting the world for decades. If that is translated into an anti-semitic bias by the entire UN then I am sorry this has happened. However at least from my point of view this is merely an attempt by the international community to try and garner peace in the area in a hope that this won't erupt into a global conflict.

They helped us, because the UN goes with the weaks.

Even when they're wrong, as in the Palestinian state, or in what the USA is doing in Iraq.
That's the explanation, understand it as you will.

Alright Alexander I really want to try and understand where you are coming from. What exactly is the UN doing regarding the Palestinian State that is wrong?

So are you saying that what is wrong with the UN is that they always go on the side of the weak??

Exactly.
Even in the case of the Palestinians, I'm not blind, I know they're weaker, but still, it doesn't make them right.
The UN takes the weak side, if the Muslim states don't pass a majority to it.

But still you've not answered me these question:

Why does the UN isn't exffective in stopping the Genocide in Sudan?

well you have nothing to prove that the UN takes the weaker side even if it is wrong or at the very least you haven't presented it yet. Also Muslim states cannot pass a majority in anyway so that comment is totally invalid.

As for the Sudan I have answered this many many times so maybe you are just not noticing it. For the UN to take any military action on Sudan it must have the agreement of the Security Council without any vetos being cast. The problem is there is simply a lack of political will among the member states to take action as is the case in many situations. However they have managed to slow it down by providing food aid as well as help for refugees and a 10 000 peacekeepers force in the Darfur region. Hopefully the ICC will also be able to stop those leading the acts as well.

Is that what you were looking for? if not please ask because I can try and find some more concrete information if you want.

[Alexander The Great]

Quote: well you have nothing to prove that the UN takes the weaker side even if it is wrong or at the very least you haven't presented it yet. Also Muslim states cannot pass a majority in anyway so that comment is totally invalid.

As for the Sudan I have answered this many many times so maybe you are just not noticing it. For the UN to take any military action on Sudan it must have the agreement of the Security Council without any vetos being cast. The problem is there is simply a lack of political will among the member states to take action as is the case in many situations. However they have managed to slow it down by providing food aid as well as help for refugees and a 10 000 peacekeepers force in the Darfur region. Hopefully the ICC will also be able to stop those leading the acts as well.

Is that what you were looking for? if not please ask because I can try and find some more concrete information if you want.

It just shows me the UN is corrupted.
So, America better become world police on Sudan.

And if so, why do they support the Palestinians?

Except that by your idea they're right?

Aren't the Palestinians weaker? :roll:

[uzi]

Chris29 wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: He's just playing with words: UNti-semites. Get it? U.N=anti-semites...

Anyway, you haven't refuted anything I've posted, you only tried to justify the way the U.N deals with Israel saying basically: it's not perfect.

That's exactly the problem, that the U.N is biased.

And you said that Arab countries alone don't have a majority, but as we've seen many times, they've often been able to carry with them enough non-Arab supporters to pass biased decisions against Israel.

I guess they're trying to achieve through the U.N what they were not able to achieve in several wars against Israel. That's o.k.
We don't expect the U.N to be perfect, just don't tell us that it treats Israel fairly. It certainly doesn't treat Israel like any other member state.

well what I am saying is you can't blame the UN for the worlds problems, if the majorty of the world is in fact anti-semitic then yes there are going to be problems but that is not the fault of the UN. However I would still argue that Arab countries garner enough support to pass anti-israeli laws. Maybe it would be good for the discussion if you posted some examples? My first point in refute to that would be resolution 181 which essentially created the Israeli state. It would seem odd to me for the UN to be anti-Israeli or anti-zionist when it was the very organization that helped create the state.

but I wouldn't say I didn't refute anything you were saying. Yes it is obvious that arab countries have a strong anti-israeli bias however this cannot be translated into a violation of Article 1 Chapter 2 of the UN charter. As I pointed out is is quite obvious that most of the resolutions or statements will be regarding Israel (which by this they mean the Israel-Palestinian area) as it is the major conflict that has been affecting the world for decades. If that is translated into an anti-semitic bias by the entire UN then I am sorry this has happened. However at least from my point of view this is merely an attempt by the international community to try and garner peace in the area in a hope that this won't erupt into a global conflict.

Look the UN isn't a person, the fact that it was so nice and generous to recognize Israel's right to exist back in 1947 (just after WW2) doesn't mean that it is nice or even fair toward Israel now.

The fact that there are many resolutions about the Arab-Israeli conflict is one thing, but you will not see another conflict anywhere around the world (and there have been plenty!) or any situation where the UN will spend so much time condemning one side while almost ignoring the violations by the other side.

Quote: The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts. [edited in by uzi: how about Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet, and countless other conflicts...]


http://www.israel-un.org/israel_un/uneasyrelation.htm

Also see tenth special session

A look at Some Unbalanced U.N Resolutions

With only a few exceptions UN resolutions go down hill after Resolution 181

Anti-Semitism in the United Nations

If you think it's o.k to single out Israel while there have been so many situations around the world including genocide and wars where hundreds of thousands have died, then o.k. I guess I'm wasting my time.
It doesn't change the fact that the U.N is neglecting its duties (like maybe helping to stop the genocide in Rwanda, or Sudan, or the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, or countless other situations) while wasting so much time condemning Israel.

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: It just shows me the UN is corrupted.
So, America better become world police on Sudan.

And if so, why do they support the Palestinians?

Except that by your idea they're right?

Aren't the Palestinians weaker? :roll:

how does that show that the UN is corrupt??

How is the UN supporting the Palestinians???

p.s. the US currently isn't doing anything in the Sudan while the UN as I pointed out is doing everything short of official military action.

[Chris29]

Quote: [quote="uzi4ufriend"]Look the UN isn't a person, the fact that it was so nice and generous to recognize Israel's right to exist back in 1947 (just after WW2) doesn't mean that it is nice or even fair toward Israel now.

The fact that there are many resolutions about the Arab-Israeli conflict is one thing, but you will not see another conflict anywhere around the world (and there have been plenty!) or any situation where the UN will spend so much time condemning one side while almost ignoring the violations by the other side.

well I think the fact that most of the votes there were to the tune of 141-2 is pretty obvious that the UN is not anti-semitic. I have a hard time believing the my country Canada continually votes in an anti-semitic way. And yes there are other conflicts that dont get as much attention as the Middle East crisis but these are not conflicts that have the same potential as the Middle East crisis to escalate into a global conflict. The role of the UN is to ensure global peace and if criticizing Israel for any actions it takes that may lead to further conflict is necessary then so be it. Also the reason that the UN will condemn Israel's actions while not condemning those of the Palestinians is quite simple. Israel is an official member of the UN, Palestine is not. You first off cannot condemn a country that is not a member and second it is hard to criticize the actions taken by a state that doesnt exist. Not to mention that the actions by Israel are state enforced while those of the Palestinians are terrorists attacks by terrorist groups. I don't really think they care very much what the UN has to say about their actions.

Quote: Quote: The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts. [edited in by uzi: how about Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet, and countless other conflicts...]


http://www.israel-un.org/israel_un/uneasyrelation.htm

Also see tenth special session

A look at Some Unbalanced U.N Resolutions

With only a few exceptions UN resolutions go down hill after Resolution 181

Anti-Semitism in the United Nations

If you think it's o.k to single out Israel while there have been so many situations around the world including genocide and wars where hundreds of thousands have died, then o.k. I guess I'm wasting my time.
It doesn't change the fact that the U.N is neglecting its duties (like maybe helping to stop the genocide in Rwanda, or Sudan, or the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, or countless other situations) while wasting so much time condemning Israel.

Russia in Checnya and China in Tibet are totally different, like I said they do not have the potential to erupt into global conflict nor have they had the same number of lost lives.

As for the special sessions (of the Security Council not the General Assembly) these have been held because situations in the Israeli-Palestinian situation can erupt into global conflict, that is the only time in which a special emergency session will be called. As for Rwanda no session was held because the states already made it clear that they would veto the vote because they were tied up in ethiopia. Nevertheless the UN still went in there with everything they could short of an military convoy. As for Yugoslavia the conflict started during regular meetings and thus there was no need for any emergency meeting.

[uzi]

[quote="Chris29"] Quote: uzi4ufriend wrote: Look the UN isn't a person, the fact that it was so nice and generous to recognize Israel's right to exist back in 1947 (just after WW2) doesn't mean that it is nice or even fair toward Israel now.

The fact that there are many resolutions about the Arab-Israeli conflict is one thing, but you will not see another conflict anywhere around the world (and there have been plenty!) or any situation where the UN will spend so much time condemning one side while almost ignoring the violations by the other side.

well I think the fact that most of the votes there were to the tune of 141-2 is pretty obvious that the UN is not anti-semitic. I have a hard time believing the my country Canada continually votes in an anti-semitic way. And yes there are other conflicts that dont get as much attention as the Middle East crisis but these are not conflicts that have the same potential as the Middle East crisis to escalate into a global conflict. The role of the UN is to ensure global peace and if criticizing Israel for any actions it takes that may lead to further conflict is necessary then so be it. Also the reason that the UN will condemn Israel's actions while not condemning those of the Palestinians is quite simple. Israel is an official member of the UN, Palestine is not. You first off cannot condemn a country that is not a member and second it is hard to criticize the actions taken by a state that doesnt exist. Not to mention that the actions by Israel are state enforced while those of the Palestinians are terrorists attacks by terrorist groups. I don't really think they care very much what the UN has to say about their actions.

Quote: Quote: The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts. [edited in by uzi: how about Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet, and countless other conflicts...]


http://www.israel-un.org/israel_un/uneasyrelation.htm

Also see tenth special session

A look at Some Unbalanced U.N Resolutions

With only a few exceptions UN resolutions go down hill after Resolution 181

Anti-Semitism in the United Nations

If you think it's o.k to single out Israel while there have been so many situations around the world including genocide and wars where hundreds of thousands have died, then o.k. I guess I'm wasting my time.
It doesn't change the fact that the U.N is neglecting its duties (like maybe helping to stop the genocide in Rwanda, or Sudan, or the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, or countless other situations) while wasting so much time condemning Israel.

Russia in Checnya and China in Tibet are totally different, like I said they do not have the potential to erupt into global conflict nor have they had the same number of lost lives.



What about India and Pakistan? How many wars did they fight over how many decades?
How many people were killed?
And aren't they both nuclear powers now?



Quote: As for the special sessions (of the Security Council not the General Assembly) these have been held because situations in the Israeli-Palestinian situation can erupt into global conflict, that is the only time in which a special emergency session will be called. As for Rwanda no session was held because the states already made it clear that they would veto the vote because they were tied up in ethiopia. Nevertheless the UN still went in there with everything they could short of an military convoy. As for Yugoslavia the conflict started during regular meetings and thus there was no need for any emergency meeting.

I'm not saying that a special session is the solution to anything, in fact, I'm saying that it isn't the solution to anything and that it is only used as a platform to single out and condemn Israel. The U.N did what in Rwanda?
What did those Belgium (or French) peace-keepers do? Didn't they run away and then the U.N just did nothing while over a million people died.
Yugoslavia??? What the hell are you talking about???
The U.N waited so long that it was over by the time anyone went over there to see what was going on. And Kosovo??? Didn't the U.S and NATO go without the UN because it wasn't going to do anything???

Forget it the U.N is a joke, and thanks for reminding us all how Canada voted on some of those resolutions.

[Chris29]

uzi4ufriend wrote: What about India and Pakistan? How many wars did they fight over how many decades?
How many people were killed?
And aren't they both nuclear powers now?


Well their physical disputes have been sporadic and inconsistent with far less casualties then in the middle east. Plus Israel has nuclear weapons and there is always the threat of emergin nuclear weapons in the middle east.


Quote: I'm not saying that a special session is the solution to anything, in fact, I'm saying that it isn't the solution to anything and that it is only used as a platform to single out and condemn Israel.

so the UN just holds random special sessions in the middle of the night so that they can condemn Israel for no apparent reason. :roll: You still haven't been able to get this to your head these special sessions are dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian area and they occur because the situation posses a very very serious threat to international security unlike any other situation has.


Quote: The U.N did what in Rwanda?

Well the UN trie to go in at first but the US vetoed the act calling it genocide because they were currently in Somalia. The UN secretariat then worked very hard to convince the ICJ that the definition of genocide fits because although the Hutus and Tutsis are essentially the exact same people they recognize themselves as different. The UN had peacekeepers, aid, refugee help, etc. in the area. BTW what did any other organization or country do that even came close to that?!?!?

Quote: What did those Belgium (or French) peace-keepers do? Didn't they run away and then the U.N just did nothing while over a million people died.

they ran away from an individual conflict because they were severly outnumbered and would have been killed. Not to mention those are the acts of individual peacekeepers from one member state which shows nothing about the UN as a whole.

Quote: Yugoslavia??? What the hell are you talking about???
The U.N waited so long that it was over by the time anyone went over there to see what was going on. And Kosovo??? Didn't the U.S and NATO go without the UN because it wasn't going to do anything???

again its the same situation as with Rwanda, the veto powers didn't allow for any action, only more justification for getting those vetoes removed.

Quote: Forget it the U.N is a joke, and thanks for reminding us all how Canada voted on some of those resolutions.

actually with the exception of the US (which has obvious political reasons for voting the way it does) the entire world voted the same way Canada does. So it is either the entire world is anti-semitic and out to destroy Israel or Israel is taking actions that it probably shouldn't. HMMMMM I wonder which one it could be?